Load development ...





Gwain

New member
Half nodes are shown at the top of the page. The half node I used , 1.165, was obtained by dividing the sum of nodes 4 and 5 and then dividing by 2. The half node value obtained from the calculator is not half way between nodes 4 and 5.

I trued the QL model. For node 5 (1.228) 40.9 grains 2720 fps. For node 4.5 (1.165) 42.7 grains 2830 fps. I'll run these and let you know how they work.

Use the calculator. Dividing the 2 is wrong.
 

Gwain

New member
no one take what im saying here wrong but once again here goes the over thinking with reloading the most over thought thing in the world...NASA puts men in space and dont think about it this much LOL!!!!

if you just like tweaking...doing load development...trying different combos then by all means continue...i personally do not....id rather be shooting out to distance gathering dopes and working on becoming a better/more consistent shooter.
ive played with QL in the past and it is a waste of MY time because it just adds another step to the reloading process and my goal has been to cut reloading times.

ive just proven that you can build an accurate load with a minimal amount of rounds and time compared to QL...if you want it slower or faster then run another load development with adjusted powder weights but the 42.3g load is money...i dont care what QL says most rifles have 3 speeds they like to shoot in and your most accurate/precise/consistent loads will be when the bullet exits the barrel at the highest point of the barrel whip.

if you are chasing loads with .1g increments in powder or seating depths of .005 increments or neck tension in .001 increments i can pretty much guarantee your load is not stable because we are talking about factory rifles with factory barrels...if we were talking about $10 and $15,000 dollar bench guns then sure they are capable of shooting those small changes....your factory rifle is not and neither are most shooters.
I agree. I only use QL any more to help dial in on ladder results. Frankly shooting .2 or .3 grain increments across 2 or so grains and finding the flat spot is the fastest way to find a node. My 6 I just shot yesterday has a nice half grain flat spot. QL says the low middle point at 39.7 is the OBT load. That is likely what I will load my seating depth test with, then done. The half nodes are typically the most accurate and get you the node closest to max. QL is only a tool. Shooting and listening to the rifle is the only true way to find what it likes.
 
Last edited:

rw blakemore

Member
Forum Supporter
2019 Supporter
no one take what im saying here wrong but once again here goes the over thinking with reloading the most over thought thing in the world...NASA puts men in space and dont think about it this much LOL!!!!

if you just like tweaking...doing load development...trying different combos then by all means continue...i personally do not....id rather be shooting out to distance gathering dopes and working on becoming a better/more consistent shooter.
ive played with QL in the past and it is a waste of MY time because it just adds another step to the reloading process and my goal has been to cut reloading times.

ive just proven that you can build an accurate load with a minimal amount of rounds and time compared to QL...if you want it slower or faster then run another load development with adjusted powder weights but the 42.3g load is money...i dont care what QL says most rifles have 3 speeds they like to shoot in and your most accurate/precise/consistent loads will be when the bullet exits the barrel at the highest point of the barrel whip.

if you are chasing loads with .1g increments in powder or seating depths of .005 increments or neck tension in .001 increments i can pretty much guarantee your load is not stable because we are talking about factory rifles with factory barrels...if we were talking about $10 and $15,000 dollar bench guns then sure they are capable of shooting those small changes....your factory rifle is not and neither are most shooters.
I get it, you really don't like QL do you? [only kidding] Still going to run 42.3 grains.
 

LongRange

Obsessed Member
Forum Supporter
LOL....no its not that i dont like QL i just dont like wasting time and FOR ME QL does just that...i can build a load faster and with less rounds than playing with a program that needs to be tweaked before you can get any accurate info out of it...like i say if you enjoy that part of reloading then by all means continue...if i could buy ammo that was as accurate/consistent as reloads i probably would not reload.
 

LongRange

Obsessed Member
Forum Supporter
I agree. I only use QL any more to help dial in on ladder results. Frankly shooting .2 or .3 grain increments across 2 or so grains and finding the flat spot is the fastest way to find a node. My 6 I just shot yesterday has a nice half grain flat spot. QL says the low middle point at 39.7 is the OBT load. That is likely what I will load my seating depth test with, then done. The half nodes are typically the most accurate and get you the node closest to max. QL is only a tool. Shooting and listening to the rifle is the only true way to find what it likes.
at 39.7g whats the velocity?
 

Gwain

New member
2950s range. I ordered some DTACs, I think these long 110s are too much for this 7.5 twist. They will shoot at that load, but seeing beginning pressure at 40.5. I have some 107s I will run as well. Still less than 50 down the tube.
 

LongRange

Obsessed Member
Forum Supporter
Yep that’s what I was telling you I shot them in a 7.5 and they would not shoot a few other ppl tried them as well with the same results one guy switched to a 7 and they shot pretty good.

I still think the DTACs are better bullets they are very load friendly and will shoot in a 7.5 or 8
 

rw blakemore

Member
Forum Supporter
2019 Supporter
Results are in.
Shot seven rounds each for the 41.2 grain and 43.0 grain loads obtained using QL and 42.3 grains, the best ladder result from the previous test. The QL worksheet and target are attached. The velocities are a little higher than anticipated and the groups a little larger. Maybe the new brass (used only a neck sizer die) affected the groups … maybe it was me.
This load development effort has been very interesting on two counts:
  • The “half node” load approach has merit. Thank you Gwain for sharing that with me. I have not previously used a “half node” for any loads I’ve developed using QL. I’m puzzled why the value of the so called “half node” obtained using the calculator is approximately 1% less than the value obtained by dividing the sum of nodes 4 and 5 by two. Let me know if there is anything I can read that explains this.
  • I tried the ladder approach a few times many years ago. I evidently used the wrong selection criterion since, as I discovered after I started using QL, the load selected was always somewhere in between nodes. Thank you Long-range for explaining how you select a load from the ladder test. The 42.3 grain load we selected falls in between the 5 and 4.5 nodes. It’s close to being a 4.75 node if there is such a thing. Remember, when we chose 42.3 grains an assumption was made about one of the 42.0 grain shots being a “flyer”. With that assumption we said that 42.0 grains was tight and that 42.6 grains was tight. Since 42.3 grains was also tight based on two shots, we went with it. In retrospect, maybe there was no “flyer” and a load nearer 41.1 grains might have been a better starting point. It seems risky to me to make load selections from a ladder when only three shots are fired for each load used in the ladder test.
So, I’m back to where we started. Both QL and ladder testing, when used alone, have pros and cons. However, when used together one can find a really good load in about 50 rounds fired and a couple of trips to a range. Sound good to me!
Let me know if you see anything that is suspect. And, as always, I would appreciate hearing any comments you care to offer.

RPR65CM QL v Ladder Results 1feb2019.jpg

RPR65CM QL v Ladder Target 1feb2019.jpg
 

Gwain

New member
Can you share your QL sheet with load, vel, and OBT data? To clarify, I am looking for load data 41-43 grains in .1 increments.
 
Last edited:

rw blakemore

Member
Forum Supporter
2019 Supporter
Can you share your QL sheet with load, vel, and OBT data? To clarify, I am looking for load data 41-43 grains in .1 increments.
If you're asking about the ladder test results, see posts 87 and 97. Load range is close to what you're after but the increments are .3 grains. If that's not what you're after let me know.
 

Gwain

New member
This is what I am looking for

Cartridge : 6.5 Creedmoor Hornady
Bullet : .264, 142, Sierra HPBT MatchK 1742 G7 Litz
Useable Case Capaci: 47.095 grain H2O = 3.058 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.851 inch = 72.42 mm
Barrel Length : 28.3 inch = 718.8 mm
Powder : Alliant Reloder-16 *C *T ?, Temperature: 68 °F

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 0.237% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms

-02.4 97 41.20 2834 2531 52183 8087 100.0 1.397
-02.1 98 41.30 2840 2542 52566 8095 100.0 1.392
-01.9 98 41.40 2846 2553 52953 8103 100.0 1.388
-01.7 98 41.50 2852 2564 53340 8111 100.0 1.383
-01.4 98 41.60 2858 2575 53733 8119 100.0 1.379 ! Near Maximum !
-01.2 99 41.70 2864 2586 54127 8127 100.0 1.375 ! Near Maximum !
-00.9 99 41.80 2870 2597 54521 8134 100.0 1.370 ! Near Maximum !
-00.7 99 41.90 2876 2608 54922 8142 100.0 1.366 ! Near Maximum !
-00.5 99 42.00 2882 2618 55329 8150 100.0 1.361 ! Near Maximum !
-00.2 100 42.10 2888 2629 55736 8158 100.0 1.357 ! Near Maximum !
+00.0 100 42.20 2894 2640 56146 8166 100.0 1.353 ! Near Maximum !
+00.2 100 42.30 2900 2651 56560 8173 100.0 1.349 ! Near Maximum !
+00.5 100 42.40 2906 2662 56975 8181 100.0 1.344 ! Near Maximum !
+00.7 101 42.50 2912 2673 57395 8189 100.0 1.340 ! Near Maximum !
+00.9 101 42.60 2918 2684 57818 8196 100.0 1.336 ! Near Maximum !
+01.2 101 42.70 2924 2695 58245 8204 100.0 1.332 ! Near Maximum !

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 100 42.20 2993 2825 67486 7811 100.0 1.263 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 100 42.20 2741 2369 46065 8412 97.9 1.472
 

rw blakemore

Member
Forum Supporter
2019 Supporter
This is what I am looking for

Cartridge : 6.5 Creedmoor Hornady
Bullet : .264, 142, Sierra HPBT MatchK 1742 G7 Litz
Useable Case Capaci: 47.095 grain H2O = 3.058 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.851 inch = 72.42 mm
Barrel Length : 28.3 inch = 718.8 mm
Powder : Alliant Reloder-16 *C *T ?, Temperature: 68 °F

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 0.237% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms

-02.4 97 41.20 2834 2531 52183 8087 100.0 1.397
-02.1 98 41.30 2840 2542 52566 8095 100.0 1.392
-01.9 98 41.40 2846 2553 52953 8103 100.0 1.388
-01.7 98 41.50 2852 2564 53340 8111 100.0 1.383
-01.4 98 41.60 2858 2575 53733 8119 100.0 1.379 ! Near Maximum !
-01.2 99 41.70 2864 2586 54127 8127 100.0 1.375 ! Near Maximum !
-00.9 99 41.80 2870 2597 54521 8134 100.0 1.370 ! Near Maximum !
-00.7 99 41.90 2876 2608 54922 8142 100.0 1.366 ! Near Maximum !
-00.5 99 42.00 2882 2618 55329 8150 100.0 1.361 ! Near Maximum !
-00.2 100 42.10 2888 2629 55736 8158 100.0 1.357 ! Near Maximum !
+00.0 100 42.20 2894 2640 56146 8166 100.0 1.353 ! Near Maximum !
+00.2 100 42.30 2900 2651 56560 8173 100.0 1.349 ! Near Maximum !
+00.5 100 42.40 2906 2662 56975 8181 100.0 1.344 ! Near Maximum !
+00.7 101 42.50 2912 2673 57395 8189 100.0 1.340 ! Near Maximum !
+00.9 101 42.60 2918 2684 57818 8196 100.0 1.336 ! Near Maximum !
+01.2 101 42.70 2924 2695 58245 8204 100.0 1.332 ! Near Maximum !

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 100 42.20 2993 2825 67486 7811 100.0 1.263 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 100 42.20 2741 2369 46065 8412 97.9 1.472[/QUOTE

I don't recognize this cartridge configuration. I'm using Lapua brass. Case capacity is 50 grns H2O. COAL 2.840 max. My barrel is 24". Have never used RL 16.

Cartridge : 6.5 Creedmoor Hornady

Bullet : .264, 142, Sierra HPBT MatchK 1742 G7 Litz

Useable Case Capaci: 47.095 grain H2O = 3.058 cm³

Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.851 inch = 72.42 mm

Barrel Length : 28.3 inch = 718.8 mm

Powder : Alliant Reloder-16 *C *T ?, Temperature: 68 °F
 

Gwain

New member
I want your QL sheet. That is mine for my rifle. I want yours for your rifle so I can see the entire thing and all the barrel times in .1 grain increments. This is in QL, it is one of the windows.
 

MCD

tired of wanna-bee's put up or shut up.
Agreed. 9mm and 223 Rem has always been a diminishing return. The factory stuff is cheap because the factories manufacture a billion rounds of this ammo every year. It’s what everybody shoots.

My area of interest is long range precision rifle (bolt and semi-auto) and designing /loading high-quality ammo for same. When I joined Nevada Shooters I was hopeful that I might have some discussions concerning this area of interest. Still looking for anyone that is like minded.
until the Democrats are in the majority for all the fear-mongering reasons... then reloading wins big...
 

Gwain

New member
So I am only seeing a match around 41 and 43. I match QL OBT to what the calculator shows. And for what it is worth I ran 41.1 in my factory 24" barrel for a long time, shot great, just not the velocity I was hoping for.

Half nodes
1549087400250.png

and the single digit nodes

1549087427644.png