You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Quick Load powder profiles
- Thread starter Brutus
- Start date
You have to wait for Hartmut to test them in his lab and publish an update. I tried getting the information from Hodgdon one time, but the tech sounded incredulous. It turns out to cost them nearly 50K to have a lab fully characterize a powder, so they don't do it. They only keep track of burn rate, which the powder maker tests to adjust a new lot's burn rates by blending with held back lots of the same powder that were either faster or slower, as needed, to set the new lot within ±3% of the nominal burn rate for the type. This is necessary for powder sold to handloaders because handloaders use load data recipes rather than pressure guns to determine peak load values.
What Hartmut does in his lab is take a sample of a new powder and measured solid and bulk densities and then burn a fixed weight of the sample in a closed vivacity bomb to get a pressure vs. time curve. Dynamic vivacity is then the rate of increase (the slope of the curve) divided by the peak pressure at the end of the burn. He uses the resulting vivacity at a number of points on the curve and the final pressure reached to get the stored energy and progressivity information about the powder. Where the corners of the curve are and their slopes and total elapsed time let him deduce the other characteristics. I think deducing so many characteristics from one curve is the main innovation Herr Broemel program contributes to powder technology. Hodgon could do that if they wanted to, but they don't have a reason to spend the money, as the information would only be of interest to QuickLOAD users, AFAICT, and why should Hodgdon undertake to support the program for no return on the investment?
If Hodgdon or the other powder distributors did that, though, we'd get a better historical average. Hartmut is normally testing j a limited number of lot samples. He told me by email that the reason you don't see the IMR SR series of powders in QuickLOAD is that they have changed too much over time for him to consider the data reliable. Changes of sources and specs will do that at times.
What Hartmut does in his lab is take a sample of a new powder and measured solid and bulk densities and then burn a fixed weight of the sample in a closed vivacity bomb to get a pressure vs. time curve. Dynamic vivacity is then the rate of increase (the slope of the curve) divided by the peak pressure at the end of the burn. He uses the resulting vivacity at a number of points on the curve and the final pressure reached to get the stored energy and progressivity information about the powder. Where the corners of the curve are and their slopes and total elapsed time let him deduce the other characteristics. I think deducing so many characteristics from one curve is the main innovation Herr Broemel program contributes to powder technology. Hodgon could do that if they wanted to, but they don't have a reason to spend the money, as the information would only be of interest to QuickLOAD users, AFAICT, and why should Hodgdon undertake to support the program for no return on the investment?
If Hodgdon or the other powder distributors did that, though, we'd get a better historical average. Hartmut is normally testing j a limited number of lot samples. He told me by email that the reason you don't see the IMR SR series of powders in QuickLOAD is that they have changed too much over time for him to consider the data reliable. Changes of sources and specs will do that at times.
All this is nice, but as another has already posted, there is no real description of exactly what you get in the latest update.
Like what powders have been added since last time.
Or refinement of data for powders already in the database.
So, does anyone know if CFE Pistol or Winchester Auto-Comp is in the September 2015 update????
Like what powders have been added since last time.
Or refinement of data for powders already in the database.
So, does anyone know if CFE Pistol or Winchester Auto-Comp is in the September 2015 update????
Nope. They are not included. Maybe next year. The readme.txt file includes a change list, and the last U.S. powder change was the addition of Alliant AR-Comp added on 01JAN2012. There were some Swiss powders added in 2013 and 2014.
3.9 will run on Windows XP through 10, though 10 required me to run the included (on the QL install disk) re-registration routines for three critical library files and I also had to look for where 10 had put the QL language files to get the button labels to show and to be able to install the updated QuickDESIGN program in 10 afterward. I expect that readme.txt file is included in the free demo download. If someone has installed that, please comment. I'm not going to try to install it over my working install.
3.9 will run on Windows XP through 10, though 10 required me to run the included (on the QL install disk) re-registration routines for three critical library files and I also had to look for where 10 had put the QL language files to get the button labels to show and to be able to install the updated QuickDESIGN program in 10 afterward. I expect that readme.txt file is included in the free demo download. If someone has installed that, please comment. I'm not going to try to install it over my working install.
When I called to update QL I gave my name.
There was a long pause and the guy asked, "Not THE Clark Magnuson?"
The next year I called, gave my name.
There was a long pause and the guy asked, "Not YOU again?"
I have been using and promoting Quickload since at least 2000
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!searchin/rec.guns/$20rec.guns$20clark$20magnuson$20quickload/rec.guns/m6hihXtnyM0/oR0IUA4YDYUJ
There was a long pause and the guy asked, "Not THE Clark Magnuson?"
The next year I called, gave my name.
There was a long pause and the guy asked, "Not YOU again?"
I have been using and promoting Quickload since at least 2000
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!searchin/rec.guns/$20rec.guns$20clark$20magnuson$20quickload/rec.guns/m6hihXtnyM0/oR0IUA4YDYUJ
Yeah. Ed always remembers who I am, even when I haven't bought something for a couple or three years. I started buying from them when Rodger Johnston was still alive and had a couple of good conversations with him. After he passed away, Mrs. Johnston ran the business for a number of years, and she and I had a running joke that my name was Not Eric. Apparently she knew someone named Eric whom she said sounded just like me on the phone, and the first couple of times I called she asked "is this Eric?" So I got in the habit, as soon as she picked up the phone, of announcing, "this is Not Eric", and she knew who I was from that.
I can't remember the name.
Was Rodger Johnston the one that came up with moly impingement?
The guy at Neco said he had passed on.
My wife and son are software engineers so I can be a software idiot. The only software I have ever bought is Quickload. I think in ~1999 or 2000 they let anyone download a free sample that would only do a couple cartridges. 7.62x25mm Tokarev was one of them.
In 1988 I started designing power supplies with spreadsheets. The computer seems like a natural for designing, trying it in the lab, and learning how to better model. So QL was an easy fit for me for handloading. Just as much computer interaction as I could handle. Nice and user friendly.
I sure have liked using QL rather than flipping pages of load books. Eventually what new reamers I buy are based on "what if" games playing QL.
I have a 250 Krag Ackley reamer and dies I want to try in 2016. QL has been and will be a part of that.
Was Rodger Johnston the one that came up with moly impingement?
The guy at Neco said he had passed on.
My wife and son are software engineers so I can be a software idiot. The only software I have ever bought is Quickload. I think in ~1999 or 2000 they let anyone download a free sample that would only do a couple cartridges. 7.62x25mm Tokarev was one of them.
In 1988 I started designing power supplies with spreadsheets. The computer seems like a natural for designing, trying it in the lab, and learning how to better model. So QL was an easy fit for me for handloading. Just as much computer interaction as I could handle. Nice and user friendly.
I sure have liked using QL rather than flipping pages of load books. Eventually what new reamers I buy are based on "what if" games playing QL.
I have a 250 Krag Ackley reamer and dies I want to try in 2016. QL has been and will be a part of that.
Roger designed and patented moly plating by impingement and the NECO case gauge. Yes, he passed away awhile back, unfortunately. Nice guy, and generous with information.
I was an early adopter of QuickLOAD, too, obviously. I pretty much use it to run all sorts of scenarios, then use Hodgdon or other measured pressure load data as a reality-check, then the Pressure Trace instrument for the ultimate reality check on pressure.
I used to have a power supply program on my old TI-99 with its little magnetic programming cards. Nowadays you can go online at TI/National and use their switching supply design software directly with their chips. Just supply the input and required output and it pops right up. Leaps and bounds.
I was an early adopter of QuickLOAD, too, obviously. I pretty much use it to run all sorts of scenarios, then use Hodgdon or other measured pressure load data as a reality-check, then the Pressure Trace instrument for the ultimate reality check on pressure.
I used to have a power supply program on my old TI-99 with its little magnetic programming cards. Nowadays you can go online at TI/National and use their switching supply design software directly with their chips. Just supply the input and required output and it pops right up. Leaps and bounds.
Nick, I did not know you were a power supply guy.
I missed the TI-99.
The wife wrote a program in basic for me in 1985 that would plot phase and gain of common error amplifier configurations.
But in 1988 some company plunked a 486 in front of me and wanted electrical and temperature stress calculations on 3,000 components in a radar warming power supply, by using Lotus 123. Later that changed to Excel.
My fingers went to home row on the keyboard for the first time since 1969 high school typing class.
It has been a continuous stream of typing for me, right up to this post.
I post 10 times a day on gun forums.
I use Quickload 1 time per day.
I buy reloading components, gun parts, or tools once a week.
I buy a gun once a month.
I go shooting at the range 6 times per year.
I go hunting once a year.
Quickload really fills a niche in my life.
I would pay many times what it costs if I had to.
I missed the TI-99.
The wife wrote a program in basic for me in 1985 that would plot phase and gain of common error amplifier configurations.
But in 1988 some company plunked a 486 in front of me and wanted electrical and temperature stress calculations on 3,000 components in a radar warming power supply, by using Lotus 123. Later that changed to Excel.
My fingers went to home row on the keyboard for the first time since 1969 high school typing class.
It has been a continuous stream of typing for me, right up to this post.
I post 10 times a day on gun forums.
I use Quickload 1 time per day.
I buy reloading components, gun parts, or tools once a week.
I buy a gun once a month.
I go shooting at the range 6 times per year.
I go hunting once a year.
Quickload really fills a niche in my life.
I would pay many times what it costs if I had to.
FWIW, I have poked around a WHOLE HEAP in QL the past three weeks and found this:
By charge weight and only in 9mm 115-gr (two bullets) and .40 S&W 165 & 180-gr Gold Dots, Herco's QL charge weight predictions most closely match the velocities reported by others for the same charges with AutoComp "in the wild".
This is also allowing for barrel length.
I have modified a powder profile a bit to more closely match my own AutoComp velocities with MY case capacities and seating depths and barrel length. That profile and the default Herco profile have been within 0.1 gr charge weight of each other when generating propellant tables for reported velocities using AutoComp charges.
But until there is an "official" powder profile for AutoComp, I am neither going to share that modified powder profile, nor will I try anything more than 90% of estimated max pressure in anything.
The IPSC people over on brianenos.com forums are reporting some awesome velocities with AutoComp and BE-86 in their 9mms and .38 Supers--both loaded long enough to keep pressures usually barely within SAAMI spec according to my calculations. IF the pressure estimates turn out to be accurate... YMMV of course.
By charge weight and only in 9mm 115-gr (two bullets) and .40 S&W 165 & 180-gr Gold Dots, Herco's QL charge weight predictions most closely match the velocities reported by others for the same charges with AutoComp "in the wild".
This is also allowing for barrel length.
I have modified a powder profile a bit to more closely match my own AutoComp velocities with MY case capacities and seating depths and barrel length. That profile and the default Herco profile have been within 0.1 gr charge weight of each other when generating propellant tables for reported velocities using AutoComp charges.
But until there is an "official" powder profile for AutoComp, I am neither going to share that modified powder profile, nor will I try anything more than 90% of estimated max pressure in anything.
The IPSC people over on brianenos.com forums are reporting some awesome velocities with AutoComp and BE-86 in their 9mms and .38 Supers--both loaded long enough to keep pressures usually barely within SAAMI spec according to my calculations. IF the pressure estimates turn out to be accurate... YMMV of course.
I judge my QL operating results like I did a Valhalla power factor analyzer in the 1980s. You know it is working right, when it gives the right answer.
How do I know when me + QL = right answer?
1) The chrono should match the the predicted velocity
2) If the case head is the weak link, the pressure of the threshold of extractor groove expansion should be the same across cartridges; e.g. 22-250 to 35 Whelen with large Boxer primer pockets are the Mauser case head. This threshold I have found to be between 73kpsi and 78kpsi in QL when velocity matches. In 2005 I got Scott Sweet to calculate Von Misses yield pressures for 65.3 ksi C26000 H06 brass on Mauser case head primer pockets shows yield at 76,577 psi. VM for belted magnums at 79,597 psi. VM predicts 86,427 psi for the 223 case head. Rimmed cases and 6mmBR cases primer pockets are not the weak link, so no feedback information on QL there.
How do I adjust QL?
Enter correct data for OAL, bullet length, barrel length, powder identity, powder charge, bullet weight, boat tail dimensions, friction proofed[moly] or not, and then....
1) Typically there is a ~~~2,000 psi Shot Start (initiation) Pressure.
This is the pressure to start the bullet moving.
If the bullet is jammed into the lands, add a couple more thousand psi to get the velocity and pressure to match actual results.
2) If the powder does not match, finegal the powder charge.
..a) I have an 8 pound jug of H4350 that QL will predict nicely, if I tell QL that I used 4% less powder than I did.
..b) the QL library for Varget is right on the money for predicting Varget.
..c) the QL library for IMR4895 is right on the money for predicting IMR-4166
..d) the QL library for Power Pistol is right on the money for SAAMI level loads in 380
3) the QL library for Power Pistol in double loads in 9mm thinks there is over 1,000,000 psi and 2,000 fps, and yet the primer is not even piercing. In this case, give up. QL is not worth spit for atomic loads in straight wall cases. Give up.
What does it all mean?
If I have an old version of Quickload, but a new bullet or new powder, I can fiddle with it until I start getting the right answer. Of all the powder variables, I can just alter the powder charge.
How do I know when me + QL = right answer?
1) The chrono should match the the predicted velocity
2) If the case head is the weak link, the pressure of the threshold of extractor groove expansion should be the same across cartridges; e.g. 22-250 to 35 Whelen with large Boxer primer pockets are the Mauser case head. This threshold I have found to be between 73kpsi and 78kpsi in QL when velocity matches. In 2005 I got Scott Sweet to calculate Von Misses yield pressures for 65.3 ksi C26000 H06 brass on Mauser case head primer pockets shows yield at 76,577 psi. VM for belted magnums at 79,597 psi. VM predicts 86,427 psi for the 223 case head. Rimmed cases and 6mmBR cases primer pockets are not the weak link, so no feedback information on QL there.
How do I adjust QL?
Enter correct data for OAL, bullet length, barrel length, powder identity, powder charge, bullet weight, boat tail dimensions, friction proofed[moly] or not, and then....
1) Typically there is a ~~~2,000 psi Shot Start (initiation) Pressure.
This is the pressure to start the bullet moving.
If the bullet is jammed into the lands, add a couple more thousand psi to get the velocity and pressure to match actual results.
2) If the powder does not match, finegal the powder charge.
..a) I have an 8 pound jug of H4350 that QL will predict nicely, if I tell QL that I used 4% less powder than I did.
..b) the QL library for Varget is right on the money for predicting Varget.
..c) the QL library for IMR4895 is right on the money for predicting IMR-4166
..d) the QL library for Power Pistol is right on the money for SAAMI level loads in 380
3) the QL library for Power Pistol in double loads in 9mm thinks there is over 1,000,000 psi and 2,000 fps, and yet the primer is not even piercing. In this case, give up. QL is not worth spit for atomic loads in straight wall cases. Give up.
What does it all mean?
If I have an old version of Quickload, but a new bullet or new powder, I can fiddle with it until I start getting the right answer. Of all the powder variables, I can just alter the powder charge.
Clark posteth [in part]:
3) the QL library for Power Pistol in double loads in 9mm thinks there is over 1,000,000 psi and 2,000 fps, and yet the primer is not even piercing. In this case, give up. QL is not worth spit for atomic loads in straight wall cases. Give up.
***
Wayell, didja RTFI?
Read the fabulous instructions?
Seriously, I betcha did but it's so long ago your own experimentation with inputs made you forget. I discovered this gem while I was poking around the Readme file several days ago...QL is one of the few things I use that I didn't read the whole manual from end-to-end first.*
____
Charges, where pressure curves are predominantly under 15000 psi or 1000 bars,
do not correspond well with QuickLOAD interior ballistic computations. This
is because at pressures under 1000 bars, smokeless powder combustion rate is
not linear but is strongly exponentially progressive (as a function of
pressure). The current version of QuickLOAD cannot properly handle this
exponential dependence. Owing to this restriction, calculated velocity and
pressure will often be higher than is actually produced by the resulting load.
As with the above noted cylindrical and small case problem, this error has
not been noted to result in any unsafe QuickLOAD calculation.
Example cartridges: .45-70 Government, 9.3x72R, old Nitro Express, original
blackpowder designs, etc.
____
While looking for that, I also found this in the User's Guide:
The burning course of some fewer propellants (pistol- or shotgun types) who burn extremely regressively is simulated only roughly. Some few (very long, straight wall) cartridges show a higher calculated efficiency than in reality. It is assumed that here the ignition process of the charge closest to the projectile is somewhat delayed or sometimes non-existent.
[p. 98]
___
Soooo....I might be able to safely conclude that you have found another limit or "edge" to the usefulness of QL's math...in short straight (mostly-straight) pistol cartridges with newer powders at higher charges.
__
All this is why I first took it with a grain of salt 15 or so years ago when some GunZine writer put out that oft-repeated thing about some un-named 9mm load being capable of jumping from 30k or so pressure to something else like double that pressure if the bullet were seated only .030 or something else deeper.** Then when I learned about QL, and ran into the article (or quoted citation to it) several years later, I then suspected that the principle was true but the alarming pressure number might have been out there beyond the reliable results area of the mathematical curve. Sorta like IPSC "Power Factor" or foot-lbs energy or both fall apart when applied to a very heavy object like a bowling ball.
Some math-type things fall apart when applied too far from the area of their general usage.
*My son's RCBS ChargeMaster manual was like 80% a waste of time. And as far as the nitty-gritty details, I got more useful information on reprogramming that thing from the guys over at Snipers Hide.
**Sorry to be so indefinite, but it HAS been a long time and I can remember only the general outlines of the writings. OFD, ya know.
3) the QL library for Power Pistol in double loads in 9mm thinks there is over 1,000,000 psi and 2,000 fps, and yet the primer is not even piercing. In this case, give up. QL is not worth spit for atomic loads in straight wall cases. Give up.
***
Wayell, didja RTFI?
Read the fabulous instructions?
Seriously, I betcha did but it's so long ago your own experimentation with inputs made you forget. I discovered this gem while I was poking around the Readme file several days ago...QL is one of the few things I use that I didn't read the whole manual from end-to-end first.*
____
Charges, where pressure curves are predominantly under 15000 psi or 1000 bars,
do not correspond well with QuickLOAD interior ballistic computations. This
is because at pressures under 1000 bars, smokeless powder combustion rate is
not linear but is strongly exponentially progressive (as a function of
pressure). The current version of QuickLOAD cannot properly handle this
exponential dependence. Owing to this restriction, calculated velocity and
pressure will often be higher than is actually produced by the resulting load.
As with the above noted cylindrical and small case problem, this error has
not been noted to result in any unsafe QuickLOAD calculation.
Example cartridges: .45-70 Government, 9.3x72R, old Nitro Express, original
blackpowder designs, etc.
____
While looking for that, I also found this in the User's Guide:
The burning course of some fewer propellants (pistol- or shotgun types) who burn extremely regressively is simulated only roughly. Some few (very long, straight wall) cartridges show a higher calculated efficiency than in reality. It is assumed that here the ignition process of the charge closest to the projectile is somewhat delayed or sometimes non-existent.
[p. 98]
___
Soooo....I might be able to safely conclude that you have found another limit or "edge" to the usefulness of QL's math...in short straight (mostly-straight) pistol cartridges with newer powders at higher charges.
__
All this is why I first took it with a grain of salt 15 or so years ago when some GunZine writer put out that oft-repeated thing about some un-named 9mm load being capable of jumping from 30k or so pressure to something else like double that pressure if the bullet were seated only .030 or something else deeper.** Then when I learned about QL, and ran into the article (or quoted citation to it) several years later, I then suspected that the principle was true but the alarming pressure number might have been out there beyond the reliable results area of the mathematical curve. Sorta like IPSC "Power Factor" or foot-lbs energy or both fall apart when applied to a very heavy object like a bowling ball.
Some math-type things fall apart when applied too far from the area of their general usage.
*My son's RCBS ChargeMaster manual was like 80% a waste of time. And as far as the nitty-gritty details, I got more useful information on reprogramming that thing from the guys over at Snipers Hide.
**Sorry to be so indefinite, but it HAS been a long time and I can remember only the general outlines of the writings. OFD, ya know.