Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
375 RUM guys
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
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
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="benchracer" data-source="post: 964794" data-attributes="member: 22069"><p>I am just getting started with using it, but so far, I have found QL to be in the ballpark. Typically, its estimates are within + or - 50fps or so. </p><p> </p><p>For instance, I was recently working with RL-17 and 300 SGK's in my H&H. My accuracy load came in at 80.0 grains. Accounting for barrel length, COAL, and measured case capacity, QL predicted a velocity of 2755 on the edge of pressure limits. </p><p> </p><p>My actual 10 shot average came in at 2780 in 90*+ weather, so I would consider the QL estimate to be fairly close. I got sticky bolt lift from a few of those shots at that temp. I had shot the same load a few days earlier in 75* weather with no pressure signs, so I would say that QL is correct about that load being right on the edge of pressure limits.</p><p> </p><p>On the same day, I shot a few test rounds loaded with RL-22 and 350 SMK's. QL predicted that combo would top out at 2549. I actually got between 2600 and 2648 with no pressure signs and smooth extraction. I only shot a couple of rounds at each powder charge, though, because I was only trying to establish MIN and MAX at that point. I need to shoot some more rounds to be confident of my numbers. If the initial numbers hold true, it looks like I will see best accuracy around 2570 or so, based on the VERY consistent velocities I was seeing at that level.</p><p> </p><p>So, I had one set of loads that came in right on the money and one set of loads that looks to be about 100fps faster than predicted. Not a large set of data to go on, but I would consider QL to be ballpark accurate in terms of MV. </p><p> </p><p>Where I have found it to be most useful is with powder selection. These days, I mostly find myself using bullets and COAL's that are not covered in published data. Having QL has been very helpful in gauging which powders will give me the best performance using non-standard bullets and non-SAAMI lengths. </p><p> </p><p>So far, the trend has been that the optimum powders for the way I am loading are much slower than those recommended in the manuals. Before I acquired a Magnetospeed and QL, I did a lot of stumbling around in the dark when it came to trying to figure out what would work with some of the combinations that I wanted to try. With much better estimating tools, I find myself able to be more efficient in my testing and I am not wasting my money buying powders that won't yield the results I am after. It doesn't take long for tools like that to pay for themselves.</p><p> </p><p>BTW, all the above loads were chronoed using a Magnetospeed, which I am also just learning how to fly.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="benchracer, post: 964794, member: 22069"] I am just getting started with using it, but so far, I have found QL to be in the ballpark. Typically, its estimates are within + or - 50fps or so. For instance, I was recently working with RL-17 and 300 SGK's in my H&H. My accuracy load came in at 80.0 grains. Accounting for barrel length, COAL, and measured case capacity, QL predicted a velocity of 2755 on the edge of pressure limits. My actual 10 shot average came in at 2780 in 90*+ weather, so I would consider the QL estimate to be fairly close. I got sticky bolt lift from a few of those shots at that temp. I had shot the same load a few days earlier in 75* weather with no pressure signs, so I would say that QL is correct about that load being right on the edge of pressure limits. On the same day, I shot a few test rounds loaded with RL-22 and 350 SMK's. QL predicted that combo would top out at 2549. I actually got between 2600 and 2648 with no pressure signs and smooth extraction. I only shot a couple of rounds at each powder charge, though, because I was only trying to establish MIN and MAX at that point. I need to shoot some more rounds to be confident of my numbers. If the initial numbers hold true, it looks like I will see best accuracy around 2570 or so, based on the VERY consistent velocities I was seeing at that level. So, I had one set of loads that came in right on the money and one set of loads that looks to be about 100fps faster than predicted. Not a large set of data to go on, but I would consider QL to be ballpark accurate in terms of MV. Where I have found it to be most useful is with powder selection. These days, I mostly find myself using bullets and COAL's that are not covered in published data. Having QL has been very helpful in gauging which powders will give me the best performance using non-standard bullets and non-SAAMI lengths. So far, the trend has been that the optimum powders for the way I am loading are much slower than those recommended in the manuals. Before I acquired a Magnetospeed and QL, I did a lot of stumbling around in the dark when it came to trying to figure out what would work with some of the combinations that I wanted to try. With much better estimating tools, I find myself able to be more efficient in my testing and I am not wasting my money buying powders that won't yield the results I am after. It doesn't take long for tools like that to pay for themselves. BTW, all the above loads were chronoed using a Magnetospeed, which I am also just learning how to fly. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
375 RUM guys
Top