Download our Android App!
Sage's Android App
Download our Apple App!
Sage's Apple App

Donate to Sages

      
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 89 of 89

Thread: QuickLOAD users

  1. #81

    Title
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    33
    Jay Andrew, i am ready for some knowledge bombs to be dropped on me! A friend of mine and i were discussing 10.5 in .223 guns the other day. I postulated that a faster burning powder may give better velocity results than standard xm193 in a short barrel. Any way you could run some numbers for 55gr hornady soft points or the 53 vmax. Oal 2.250, thanks for your weekly updates i am looking forward to the single shot action.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


  2. #82

    Title
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    22
    Does anyone have access to quick load? I have a 300 prc I wanna load for. I have the following:

    Seekins 26” barrel.
    ADG brass
    Wlrm primers
    RL26 powder.

    200 grain accubonds
    200 grain partitions
    220 grain eld-x

    Thanks.

    Bob


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


  3. #83
    Jay Andrew's Avatar
    Title
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by themazmanmechanic View Post
    Jay Andrew, i am ready for some knowledge bombs to be dropped on me! A friend of mine and i were discussing 10.5 in .223 guns the other day. I postulated that a faster burning powder may give better velocity results than standard xm193 in a short barrel. Any way you could run some numbers for 55gr hornady soft points or the 53 vmax. Oal 2.250, thanks for your weekly updates i am looking forward to the single shot action.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Sorry I missed your post on this thread. I will run the numbers for you tomorrow, hope all is well!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


  4. #84
    Jay Andrew's Avatar
    Title
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by bob3663 View Post
    Does anyone have access to quick load? I have a 300 prc I wanna load for. I have the following:

    Seekins 26” barrel.
    ADG brass
    Wlrm primers
    RL26 powder.

    200 grain accubonds
    200 grain partitions
    220 grain eld-x

    Thanks.

    Bob


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I’m still alive, albeit a little slow in the response. I’m busy, busy, busy. If you comment on the thread and do not see my reply in a few hours please send me an email at jay@theballisticassistant.com.

    I appreciate the support and love the questions! I’ll run this load. As a side note, QuickLOAD doesn’t model primers, it only uses the minimum “spark” to ignite the powder.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


  5. #85
    Jay Andrew's Avatar
    Title
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by themazmanmechanic View Post
    Jay Andrew, i am ready for some knowledge bombs to be dropped on me! A friend of mine and i were discussing 10.5 in .223 guns the other day. I postulated that a faster burning powder may give better velocity results than standard xm193 in a short barrel. Any way you could run some numbers for 55gr hornady soft points or the 53 vmax. Oal 2.250, thanks for your weekly updates i am looking forward to the single shot action.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Again, sorry for the long delay here. This is a good question and I have wondered something along similar lines. So I ran a few numbers in QuickLOAD. Here's the short of it, the optimal powder for a given load, is still the best powder regardless of barrel length. At least, in this example. (One could take this to extremes and compare a 2in barrel to a 30in barrel and there may be a difference).

    One of the ways we can measure this is to look at the Velocity per Grain of powder. This gives use a simple but quick measure of the best powder for the load. The higher the number the better. While the efficiency goes up with the longer barrel, the powders maintain the same relative performance.

    FPS per Grain.png
    As we can see, the optimal powders for this load are the faster burning powders, not the slower burning CFE 223 and the AR Comp which like heavier bullets. They yield more "Bang for the Buck". Pun intended. If you are curious to see how much velocity you are sacrificing with a 10.5in barrel over a 20in barrel. That chart has been included below.

    Velocity Verses Barrel Length.png

    Also interesting to note is the muzzle pressures for all of the powders are pretty similar at both 10.5in an 20in barrel lengths.

    Muzzle Pressure vs Barrel Length.png

    Anyway, I hope this helps to scratch that curiosity.


  6. #86
    Jay Andrew's Avatar
    Title
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Andrew View Post
    I’m still alive, albeit a little slow in the response. I’m busy, busy, busy. If you comment on the thread and do not see my reply in a few hours please send me an email at jay@theballisticassistant.com.

    I appreciate the support and love the questions! I’ll run this load. As a side note, QuickLOAD doesn’t model primers, it only uses the minimum “spark” to ignite the powder.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I need a bit more information before I can run this load. Mainly, your intended Cartridge Overall Length (COAL).

    Thanks,

    Jay


  7. #87
    BradyT88's Avatar
    Title
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Andrew View Post
    Again, sorry for the long delay here. This is a good question and I have wondered something along similar lines. So I ran a few numbers in QuickLOAD. Here's the short of it, the optimal powder for a given load, is still the best powder regardless of barrel length. At least, in this example. (One could take this to extremes and compare a 2in barrel to a 30in barrel and there may be a difference).

    One of the ways we can measure this is to look at the Velocity per Grain of powder. This gives use a simple but quick measure of the best powder for the load. The higher the number the better. While the efficiency goes up with the longer barrel, the powders maintain the same relative performance.

    FPS per Grain.png
    As we can see, the optimal powders for this load are the faster burning powders, not the slower burning CFE 223 and the AR Comp which like heavier bullets. They yield more "Bang for the Buck". Pun intended. If you are curious to see how much velocity you are sacrificing with a 10.5in barrel over a 20in barrel. That chart has been included below.

    Velocity Verses Barrel Length.png

    Also interesting to note is the muzzle pressures for all of the powders are pretty similar at both 10.5in an 20in barrel lengths.

    Muzzle Pressure vs Barrel Length.png

    Anyway, I hope this helps to scratch that curiosity.
    If I understood this right, the barrel length has no effect on the powder choice. This surprises me. For some reason I have been under the impression that faster burning powder would be better for a shorter barrel.

    Though as I think about it, I think I coupled the faster powder with a heavier bullet. Does that possibly hold true? Would a heavier bullet be a better choice in a 10.5" barrel than a lighter one? Though I guess "better" is subjective. Let's say the difference in muzzle velocity loss compared to a longer barrel. Would a 90gr bullet have less losses (by percentage or whatever seems to accurately compare the two) in a 10.5" than a 50gr when compared to a 16" barrel?

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


  8. #88
    Jay Andrew's Avatar
    Title
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    168

    QuickLOAD users

    Well “No effect” is not quite right. We do know that powder choice can have an affect on accuracy.

    I was actually a bit surprised too, I expected that longer barrel lengths would actually favor slower burning powders. In thinking about it I have a working theory: the energy content of a slower burning powder and a faster burning powder is about the same. It is how the energy is released. It can all be released quickly or slowly, and what burn speed does is tailor the energy release to impart as much energy to the bullet as possible within a given service pressure. It just so happens most of the energy is imparted in the first few inches of travel, and adding barrel length increases efficiency but only builds a bit on what was imparted on the bullet as it immediately left the chamber. Again, that’s my working theory, I don’t have a fancy graph to support that (yet).

    EDIT: As I continue to think about this, one of the measures of performance is area under the curve (Pressure over time or P/T). This is something you would see when testing using Piezoelectric inducers and test equipment. Frankly it was not something we looked at when we did load development, it is data generated but it is not particularly useful as your two primary measures of performance are pressure and velocity, you are not typically worried about the P/T curve unless you see something try odd, such as a double peak (I have seen them, and some cartridges just do it). The majority of the area is centered around the highest pressure and is best compared to as a pulse. While progressive or regressive burning powders can change the shape of this curve they are still similar. Once this pulse is over the majority of the energy has been transferred to the projectile, and the residual gas expansion and burning powder transfers a bit more so long as they are sufficient to overcome barrel friction. Again, this more or less supports my original theory that the bulk of the energy transfer happens at within the first few milliseconds and probably two inches of bullet travel when pressures are the highest. This would hold true regardless of bullet weight and barrel length.

    Once we start mixing different bullet weights and barrel lengths we complicate matters a bit. Im curious on this as well, I need to see if there’s a way I can do a comparison and I’ll present the results here.

    Last edited by Jay Andrew; 01-26-2021 at 05:58 AM.

  9. #89

    Title
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    33
    JayAndrew, thank you for your response! It is thorough and professional as always. I did not email you because i do get your weekly newsletter. You continue to be a busy man. The results surprised me as well.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •