Load development ...





LongRange

Obsessed Member
Forum 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
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
results are not in because you did not run a seating test as i suggested you when out an shot the same seating depth and are now back to QL and saying the load wont shoot...i wish you lived closer because id show you that the 42.3g load will in fact shoot.
also you DO NOT need to shoot 5 shot groups in load development i DO NOT care what anyone says its a waste of barrel life ammo and time....the more rounds you shoot the more it becomes a test of the shooter not the equipment or ammo and 9 times outta 10 when a shot or two go outta the group the shooter will blame everything except the real problem.

that said your ESs are ridiculously high....do you know why they are that high? theres only a couple of things that will cause that(assuming your using a good chronograph)and it is simple to fix...this is where QL is not going to help you and also where ppl struggle and over think load development. this is also why most ppl should not do load development with virgin brass unless they know how to read the results and how to make the needed adjustments.

also keep in mind that your not going to go out everyday and shoot one hole groups...ive shot a 36 outta 40 at a match one day the the next day shot a 6 outta 40 then go out the next day to check things and shoot a 1 hole group.

again im not knocking you or QL or trying to be a dick but if you have to shoot 50+ rounds to find a load you might want to rethink the way you do your load development ESPECIALLY in such a popular cartridge like the 6.5CM...take a look at the scott satterlee load development sometime.
 

rw blakemore

Member
Forum Supporter
2019 Supporter
results are not in because you did not run a seating test as i suggested you when out an shot the same seating depth and are now back to QL and saying the load wont shoot...i wish you lived closer because id show you that the 42.3g load will in fact shoot.
also you DO NOT need to shoot 5 shot groups in load development i DO NOT care what anyone says its a waste of barrel life ammo and time....the more rounds you shoot the more it becomes a test of the shooter not the equipment or ammo and 9 times outta 10 when a shot or two go outta the group the shooter will blame everything except the real problem.

that said your ESs are ridiculously high....do you know why they are that high? theres only a couple of things that will cause that(assuming your using a good chronograph)and it is simple to fix...this is where QL is not going to help you and also where ppl struggle and over think load development. this is also why most ppl should not do load development with virgin brass unless they know how to read the results and how to make the needed adjustments.

also keep in mind that your not going to go out everyday and shoot one hole groups...ive shot a 36 outta 40 at a match one day the the next day shot a 6 outta 40 then go out the next day to check things and shoot a 1 hole group.

again im not knocking you or QL or trying to be a dick but if you have to shoot 50+ rounds to find a load you might want to rethink the way you do your load development ESPECIALLY in such a popular cartridge like the 6.5CM...take a look at the scott satterlee load development sometime.
Hello LongRange. Gwain and I got involved with QL and the discussion about half nodes. So, I thought I’d run a relative comparison of the two optimum loads indicated by QL and the 42.3 grain load taken from the ladder test before running the seating depth test. BTW, Gwain agrees with you that 42.3 grains will be a good load (ref. post #96). Next step is to run the 42.3 grain seating depth test. I’ll report back after I’ve done that. I’m going to use the same brass we just used, no annealing. Running low on new brass.

You observed that “…your ESs are ridiculously high....do you know why they are that high? theres only a couple of things that will cause that(assuming your using a good chronograph)and it is simple to fix …”.
I’m here to learn! Please let me know your thoughts on the cause and how to fix it.

Don’t worry about sounding as though you’re knocking me or QL when you say “ … if you have to shoot 50+ rounds to find a load you might want to rethink the way you do your load development …”. I’m thick skinned and can’t be insulted. As it stands I’ve fired 25 rounds for the ladder and will fire another 15 rounds for the seating depth test. That’s a total of 40 rounds fired for the ladder development effort thus far. If we try three different neck tensions - 3 shots each - we’ll be at 52 rounds fired total. That’s pretty much the same number of rounds fired for the QL driven process I use. Unless you get lucky or draw on previous data and experience, I don’t know how you can be confident that you have “the load” without running around 50 rounds.
Thanks again for your continuing support.
 

Gwain

New member
Great attitude. I had to run everything myself too, only way to learn and understand it all is to do it. Can you share your info for QL. Case volume of fired case in H2O, case length, round overall length etc. Also, what are you jumping these? I typically do testing with SMKs at .025 or .030. I would like to run a profile in QL and true based on what you posted from firing results
 

rw blakemore

Member
Forum Supporter
2019 Supporter
Great attitude. I had to run everything myself too, only way to learn and understand it all is to do it. Can you share your info for QL. Case volume of fired case in H2O, case length, round overall length etc. Also, what are you jumping these? I typically do testing with SMKs at .025 or .030. I would like to run a profile in QL and true based on what you posted from firing results
Hello Gwain.
I think the info you requested is shown in post #110. If that’s not what you’re after or you need additional info, let me know. Regarding your comment at the bottom of post #122, I think the problem is with the “charge variation” calc. I’ve never used that feature before. I used an average burn rate for the entire range of loads you requested. If not too time consuming, can you tell me how you use the “charge variation” feature?
 

Gwain

New member
That was new brass. Now you are using fired brass. Internal case dimensions are very different now. H2O volume of fired case. Case trim length. And overall cartridge length if you could please. 😁
 

rw blakemore

Member
Forum Supporter
2019 Supporter
Just revised my worksheet. Using the one time fired case volume decreases the QL BT by .1% to .2%. Any reason to be concerned about that?
 

Gwain

New member
Just revised my worksheet. Using the one time fired case volume decreases the QL BT by .1% to .2%. Any reason to be concerned about that?
It's a tool. Garbage in = Garbage out. Nothing to worry about. Why I don't use it until I can get a fired case and some velocity data. I do a 30 round seasoning of barrel. Shoot one clean for first ten, then 3 shot groups and clean. Then I do a couple 5 shot groups and that is my velocity baseline. Now I can really get started on load development. You have to find what works for you. I think it is also very different when you know a specific caliber. You know basic loads and have a solid expectation for velocity. It is different working from scratch with no experience
 

rw blakemore

Member
Forum Supporter
2019 Supporter
It's a tool. Garbage in = Garbage out. Nothing to worry about. Why I don't use it until I can get a fired case and some velocity data. I do a 30 round seasoning of barrel. Shoot one clean for first ten, then 3 shot groups and clean. Then I do a couple 5 shot groups and that is my velocity baseline. Now I can really get started on load development. You have to find what works for you. I think it is also very different when you know a specific caliber. You know basic loads and have a solid expectation for velocity. It is different working from scratch with no experience
Can you share your thoughts on using the "charge variation" feature in QL?
 

Gwain

New member
One more thing. Can you measure your barrel length please. Close the bolt, run a cleaning rod down the muzzle to the bolt face. Mark the rod at the muzzle and measure it. It makes a difference. My 28" barrel is actually 28.3" and my 25 is 25.25". Changes the OBT.
 

LongRange

Obsessed Member
Forum Supporter
i had a long post typed out but like Gwain said your learning on your own which is a good thing and finding what works for you...id still like to hear/see the results of the seating test with the 42.3g load if you pursue it.
 

rw blakemore

Member
Forum Supporter
2019 Supporter
That displays the outputs based on your inputs. I set it up for .1 grain increments so I see the OBTs for comparison.
I have it set up for the .1 grains increments you requested. How do you set it up to run the 41 to 43 grain range you requested and what powder burn rate do you input?
 

Gwain

New member
You just adjust the actual optimal load on the main table and then look. Best I have been able to do is 41.2-42.7 in a single table at .1 increments. I adjust the powder burn rate until I get all 3 charge weight velocities as close as possible to what the rifle is producing. Also, change your Weighting Factor to .48. I will share a conversion chart for that table by caliber. The creedmoor is a slight overbore though and is not .5 but .48. Again, this is a very sensitive system, garbage in is garbage out. The more accurate you can be with your data going in the better your data coming out is.
 

rw blakemore

Member
Forum Supporter
2019 Supporter
One more thing. Can you measure your barrel length please. Close the bolt, run a cleaning rod down the muzzle to the bolt face. Mark the rod at the muzzle and measure it. It makes a difference. My 28" barrel is actually 28.3" and my 25 is 25.25". Changes the OBT.
Barrel length is 24.03".
 

Gwain

New member
OK, here is what I have then based on what you provided. This is the input set up. Barrel length is still 24, not enough to make a difference. They are not exact, but it is a balance to get them all as close to actual as possible.

1549147008248.png

Here is the table for the lower nodes.

1549147114664.png

and the over lap for the higher loads.

1549147193829.png

The barrel times I have from the Calculator are 1.153, 1.228 and 1.280. The 40.9 grain load is 1.227 and 41,9 is the max charge weight according to this data and my new Hornady book list it at 41.5. Not sure if you are seeing signs of pressure at the higher nodes or not. It looks like the other node up high is 42.9. My friend was running 43 in his RPR at the International milk jug challenge last year. He was running Lapua brass and was getting some pretty good cratering, but he didn't care as it was shooting good and we were attempting to hit a milk jug at a mile, so he wanted the velocity. Again, this is just a tool. The load around 41 is what I used to run (41.1 at 2730) and it is very close to factory match ammo numbers. I would run the 40.9 load as a seating depth test and see what happens. I would also suggest to try RL16 if you want the velocity. H4350 is good powder but in my experience it hits the pressure wall faster than other powders. RL16 is a double based powder and will provide better velocity without pressure, but it runs dirty. It is always a compromise of sorts. Hope this helps.