Could someone run me quickload data?

[Army-medic]

I’d appreciate if someone could run the following through quick load for me:

6.5 creedmoor

Lapua 139 gr scenar 6.5mm

Powder: Viht n160

Powder charge 41.6 gr

Brass : lapua 6.5 creedmoor small primer

Primers: CCI small rifle

COAL : 2.855 inches (10 thou off lands) -also wondering what difference there would be between 2.865( at the lands) and 2.845 (20 thou off lands)

Many thanks if you are able to assist. I wish the software was on available on Mac- we dont have windows.

[loiner1965]

pm me your mobile number

[loiner1965]

if it was a 24 inch barrel.....
2.845 = 2491 fps
2.855 = 2487 fps
2.865 = 2483 fps

[Army-medic]

I’ve replied to PMs.

Many thanks

[loiner1965]

replied back

[Army-medic]

Very helpful. Thank-you very much.

[223AI]

At 2.825 and 42.2 I'm getting 2670 from a 1:8 24" barrel, lap brass, fed 205m - max load, work up

[Army-medic]

I was getting higher velocities than quickload predicted. Average of 2690 fps.

[Randy Bohannon]

Unsurprising, given Quickload's limitations.

It is probably due to the burn rate of the batch of powder you have differing from that used to create the powder data file, the inability of QL to model freebore or any of the many other factors QL doesn't model.

This is why despite having the program, using it and liking it very much for some applications ( mainly those "what if" type scenarios that would be very expensive to try blind) a chronograph, at about the same cost as QL, is a much better investment for more reloaders.

Having said that, velocity is a function of pressure and time and so when you top out on velocity compared to reputable lab data you have probably topped out on pressure too. This can be masked by the excellent Lapua small primer brass which handles pressure far in excess of SAAMI or CIP specs very well.

What where you trying to find out, out of interest?

[severnsider]

Unsurprising, given Quickload's limitations.

It is probably due to the burn rate of the batch of powder you have differing from that used to create the powder data file, the inability of QL to model freebore or any of the many other factors QL doesn't model.

This is why despite having the program, using it and liking it very much for some applications ( mainly those "what if" type scenarios that would be very expensive to try blind) a chronograph, at about the same cost as QL, is a much better investment for more reloaders.

Having said that, velocity is a function of pressure and time and so when you top out on velocity compared to reputable lab data you have probably topped out on pressure too. This can be masked by the excellent Lapua small primer brass which handles pressure far in excess of SAAMI or CIP specs very well.

Interesting - I was about to post a question regarding the possible uses of Quickload (and limitations) following what I thought was a rather surprising result with a couple of .223 loads. For a number of years I've been using 23.8 gr N133 behind either 52gr SMK or A-Max, COL 2.244". It gives me very good results, is not a compressed load but the primers are somewhat flattened after firing.

Just tried 25.5gr N140 behind 55gr V-Max, COL 2.244" per VV load data, and was surprised to find that the powder filled the case to the extent that it was probably 100% or even a little compressed, even after carefully shaking the stuff down. I was thus expecting to see signs of pressure, but no..... the primers had retained their shape, and the round turned out to be very accurate.

My question was thus going to be whether it would be worth me buying Quickload to get an indication of whether the case was overfilled and whether there might be pressure issues with some of the combinations that I have been using? I've yet to put the N140 round over the chrono but will do so this weekend and compare to the N133 rounds.

It's a SAKO 85, 1:12", 20" heavy barrel. Is Quickload worth having for occasional checks on loads which are well within the powder and projectile manufacturers' limits?

[Randy Bohannon]

Interesting - I was about to post a question regarding the possible uses of Quickload (and limitations) following what I thought was a rather surprising result with a couple of .223 loads. For a number of years I've been using 23.8 gr N133 behind either 52gr SMK or A-Max, COL 2.244". It gives me very good results, is not a compressed load but the primers are somewhat flattened after firing.

Just tried 25.5gr N140 behind 55gr V-Max, COL 2.244" per VV load data, and was surprised to find that the powder filled the case to the extent that it was probably 100% or even a little compressed, even after carefully shaking the stuff down. I was thus expecting to see signs of pressure, but no..... the primers had retained their shape, and the round turned out to be very accurate.

My question was thus going to be whether it would be worth me buying Quickload to get an indication of whether the case was overfilled and whether there might be pressure issues with some of the combinations that I have been using? I've yet to put the N140 round over the chrono but will do so this weekend and compare to the N133 rounds.

It's a SAKO 85, 1:12", 20" heavy barrel. Is Quickload worth having for occasional checks on loads which are well within the powder and projectile manufacturers' limits?

A quick question of my own first, have you measured the velocity the first load?

[severnsider]

A quick question of my own first, have you measured the velocity the first load?

Yes, the N133 load gives me 3100/3150fps.

[loiner1965]

quickload is a guide and field testing by working up is a must.......its like a good book.... interesting to read but not real life

[Army-medic]

Unsurprising, given Quickload's limitations.

It is probably due to the burn rate of the batch of powder you have differing from that used to create the powder data file, the inability of QL to model freebore or any of the many other factors QL doesn't model.

This is why despite having the program, using it and liking it very much for some applications ( mainly those "what if" type scenarios that would be very expensive to try blind) a chronograph, at about the same cost as QL, is a much better investment for more reloaders.

Having said that, velocity is a function of pressure and time and so when you top out on velocity compared to reputable lab data you have probably topped out on pressure too. This can be masked by the excellent Lapua small primer brass which handles pressure far in excess of SAAMI or CIP specs very well.

What where you trying to find out, out of interest?

I wanted to know about the pressure, burn and fill %. I suspect that I may find a better load which is a little more than the stated max. A little bit of theoretical backing will help me decide if it is worth trying (gradually, watching for pressure signs etc).

I’m starting to think that despite Vihtavouri suggesting n160 as a suitable powder that maybe it isnt a good choice.

[severnsider]

quickload is a guide and field testing by working up is a must.......its like a good book.... interesting to read but not real life

Yes, understood. I suppose I was just interested in whether QL would indicate (given the circumstances that I described) whether pressures were being exceeded thereby confirming (perhaps!) my actual observations. Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way round but it would be handy to know whether QL was likely to predict the outcomes that I have observed in practice.