Beware QuickLoad

[BourbonTrail]

As someone who has tested interior and exterior ballistics professionally…all I am seeing is a market opportunity.

 

[Opposite Pole]

I tried Norma and possibly one other.

Normally, when you change to a different cartridge, QL will choose a default bullet to get things going. My version just indicated none available.

@Opposite Pole - I did not know you could enter a bullet manually. Learned something new.

When you choose the cartridge, QL DOES NOT load all available bullets. I’m not sure why but it doesn’t. In order to load all bullets from the database you first choose the cartridge and then you press on the icon with a projectile and binoculars on the top menu (7th from the left). It then asks you to confirm caliber, you click ok and it asks you which folder to search, “bullets” is the default one. This will load all available bullets for the caliber. No idea why it works that way. My version shows 14 .308 projectiles for 308Win as standard, loading it as described above shows tens if not hundreds. For 375 as standard it loads 7 projectiles, loaded as above tens or perhaps hundreds as well. I use version 3.9 with data pack from October 2020.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

@SaintPanzer

The M1910 Mannlicher is the

9.5×57mm Mannlicher–Schönauer, correct?​

9.5×57mm Mannlicher–Schönauer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

9.5×57mm Mannlicher–Schönauer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's listed in Quickload, but then the software indicates no bullets are available. When I tried to select a bullet anyway, it ended up in a Cluster and I had to use Task Manager to even close the program.

So it seems like Quickload is not your solution. I would try to find a forum dedicated to the Mannlicher rifles and see if anyone is still reloading for it. (And how they make their brass, etc.).

FWIW Quickload works well for me. Not magical and not always as close to actual as I wish - just another tool in the drawer. Especially for a powder that might not be listed in the manuals.

@shootist~
Woodleigh doesn't even list a 9.5.
How would 9.3mm go. They are .007" smaller.
.375 is .001 bigger so depending on the bore what you use..

 

[Hogpatrol]

Regarding the 9.5x57 MS, further research states original specs call for a .375 bullet. I'm having a hard time here seeing a problem with using any of the readily available .375 bullets in a suitable weight. Having said that, from this chair, a newbie should NOT be using Quickload. It's not the gospel on loading. For this cartridge, I'd go with loads listed in a loading manual, those from powder, bullet, reloading equipment companies or someone who has reloaded for the same rifle in that cartridge

 

[shootist~]

A Google search led to this series of posts about loading for the 9.5x57.
Headspace and potential case head separation would be something for only a very experienced reloader, IMO. Not a beginner.

Always consider that taking data from an internet discussion carries its on risks. Having said that, there appears to be some good information to be gleaned

 

[Hogpatrol]

I

As someone who has tested interior and exterior ballistics professionally…all I am seeing is a market opportunity.

It's useful for wildcats, my primary use. For SAAMI and CIP cartridges, standard manuals are generally sufficient.

 

[SaintPanzer]

All potentially good advice, but... Let's all be clear on a few things:

I'm shocked to learn that Woodleigh doesn't offer a 9,5. Actually, the CIP specs list G-1 as 9.55, so yeah, the .375s woodleigh lists (all of them) will fit. Let's just lose this nonsense on 9.3s

9.5X57 Mannlicher Schönauer. Also known as the .375 X 2 ½ inch Rimless Nitro Express.
.375 270 grain. Woodleigh makes them. Most probably, Doerfner is using Woodleighs on his loads...Others do. Hornady made a nice round nose, but they are focused on "other things" right now. Brenneke TOG in 270 grain. The bullet is not the problem.

Would love to look it up in a manual. It hasn't been listed in a manual for some time. Even if I find an old manual, powders have changed a bit over time, so that's only a guess. Similarly, on my 6.5, Woodleigh makes a nice round nose, and Hornady once did and you might find NOS. There's also the 156 grain Norma Alaska and Oryx, and the 160 grain load would be close enough to start testing... but only 9 powders to choose from.

Headspace and potential case separation? Do you mean "is my headspace correct?" It is. Do you mean old cases may separate? I have once fired cases, and of course there is Qual-Cart and others... so I'm good on brass for a while. eGun sometimes turns up some NOS RWS. We will get there.

Other internet sources are a "start", would like to compare them... from a manual would be nice, if I can find it listed in one.

Surely, there must be a grey area between "newbie" who always uses the manual and "haven't used software yet, but need to learn"?

I haven't played with QL... yet. My original understanding was that it could be used to develop wildcats, and I was hoping (having not fully dug into it yet) I could put in the CIP dimensions (https://bobp.cip-bobp.org/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page72.pdf), include max pressures, and perhaps enter a powder. Sounds like that won't work, so I need to find something that does. VV N165 or N170 should be ballpark, but where to start? I get... I mean I really understand the advice: "loads from a manual or loads from a powder company". That doesn't answer the question for older rounds that are no longer listed. "From a powder company" sounds correct, but again (I've said this before) They don't always know. I can probably get a million different recommendations for a 6.5 Creedmore, but the direct quote from VV when I asked was:

"I'm afraid we have no data for the 6.5x54MS that we've worked up in our lab. I did find one source that listed a charge of N160 with the Hornady 160 grain round nose, starting at 37.0 grains and reaching maximum at 40.0 grains. According to the chart, it should give a starting velocity of about 2,000 fps, working up to about 2,200 fps at the top load. As I said, this isn't data that we (Lapua or Vihtavuori) worked up ourselves, but it may be a good place to start. As for the selection of N160, it's ideally suited to this combination, and would have been the choice I made as well."

Because I couldn't get the Hornady 160 gr RN, but could get Woodleighs, I contacted them. They said: "It should be safe to substitute the Hornady load for our 160 gr. I have a
listing of 37.5 gr H4350 for 2100 fps, this powder is faster burning than
N160, so similar charges of N160 would be quite a safe starting load."

It was not safe. In addition to a bolt that was almost impossible to open, the primers were more than flattened, they dropped out of the case. In retrospect, 37 grains was probably too light, but who wants to increase the charge just to find out? I'm not saying either of those companies was wrong: they fully admitted they did not have solid data. Go ahead and tell me I was an idiot for trying VV when H4350 was a listed powder... at the time (and probably now) I can assure you no one had ANY H4350 on the shelf... which is why I wanted a load for the (appropriate) available powder.



Oh, the hell with it. Let's give up on lead free (I don't like it anyway) and I'll just keep doing special orders from Doerfner. I'll leave the "learning how to do this" for the professionals who want to look down on those trying to learn.

 

[shootist~]

So. People did a lititle research and tried to be helpful and you tell them to kiss ass. OK.

Saying you were a beginner appears to have been misleading, btw.

 

[SaintPanzer]

So. People did a lititle research and tried to be helpful and you tell them to kiss ass. OK.

Saying you were a beginner appears to have been misleading, btw.

I'm sorry you believe that. That's not what I meant at all.

What I meant was:

I asked the question: If QL is not dependable, what else can be used to generate a load for a cartridge type that is no longer listed in any available published load source?

Specifically, a previous poster gave up on QL, so I asked "what do you use instead?" I went on to specify that the two loads I was looking at were either not normally listed in manuals, or had limited powder availability. I also mentioned specific bullet and powder types that could not possibly be listed in old manuals, and asked if there was other software that might be useful.

One person answered the software question. Thank you Bob Nelson.

Ammoguide is good, but without a way to "check" (i.e. compare to other published loads), I'm a little loath to go blindly with it.

By my count, at least five people told me to use load manuals. I even asked a second time: "How old of a manual do I need to have to find this round listed?"

"Research" also said Woodleigh doesn't make a 9,5 bullet. Several people besides myself recognized that as entirely incorrect.

This led to more "use a load manual" and at least two "Newbies shouldn't try this." I'm not the one telling people to take off... I feel like I've been told to go back to the kiddie table, the adults are talking. That kind of rubbed me the wrong way.

I also strongly believe there is a world of difference between "NOOB" and "Beginner". You're a beginner until you become an expert, and I am not an expert. If I were, I wouldn't need to ask questions. I'm on that point on the experience/expertise curve where I realized there's an awful lot I don't know yet. If that moves me away from "beginner", OK, I'll accept the promotion but really think I need to yank the handle on the Dillon a few more times to get there. I still believe there is a world of difference between yanking out a bunch of loads from published data for .45ACP and developing something for a rifle that people really haven't been using since Hemingway and Ramar of the Jungle.

My original question remains: I have two old rifles. One has limited information listed in published manuals, and the powder is frequently not available, forcing me to use other powders. The other has no published loads information. Both are CIP approved rounds, with data relating to case size easily available on the CIP website. Not previously mentioned because I thought it was easily understood is bullet types (6.5mm = .264 and 9.5mm = .375) are readily available in various bullet weights.

What methods can I use to safely determine load while avoiding pressure peaks and other bad news?

 

[Opposite Pole]

I'm sorry you believe that. That's not what I meant at all.

What I meant was:

I asked the question: If QL is not dependable, what else can be used to generate a load for a cartridge type that is no longer listed in any available published load source?

Specifically, a previous poster gave up on QL, so I asked "what do you use instead?" I went on to specify that the two loads I was looking at were either not normally listed in manuals, or had limited powder availability. I also mentioned specific bullet and powder types that could not possibly be listed in old manuals, and asked if there was other software that might be useful.

One person answered the software question. Thank you Bob Nelson.

Ammoguide is good, but without a way to "check" (i.e. compare to other published loads), I'm a little loath to go blindly with it.

By my count, at least five people told me to use load manuals. I even asked a second time: "How old of a manual do I need to have to find this round listed?"

"Research" also said Woodleigh doesn't make a 9,5 bullet. Several people besides myself recognized that as entirely incorrect.

This led to more "use a load manual" and at least two "Newbies shouldn't try this." I'm not the one telling people to take off... I feel like I've been told to go back to the kiddie table, the adults are talking. That kind of rubbed me the wrong way.

I also strongly believe there is a world of difference between "NOOB" and "Beginner". You're a beginner until you become an expert, and I am not an expert. If I were, I wouldn't need to ask questions. I'm on that point on the experience/expertise curve where I realized there's an awful lot I don't know yet. If that moves me away from "beginner", OK, I'll accept the promotion but really think I need to yank the handle on the Dillon a few more times to get there. I still believe there is a world of difference between yanking out a bunch of loads from published data for .45ACP and developing something for a rifle that people really haven't been using since Hemingway and Ramar of the Jungle.

My original question remains: I have two old rifles. One has limited information listed in published manuals, and the powder is frequently not available, forcing me to use other powders. The other has no published loads information. Both are CIP approved rounds, with data relating to case size easily available on the CIP website. Not previously mentioned because I thought it was easily understood is bullet types (6.5mm = .264 and 9.5mm = .375) are readily available in various bullet weights.

What methods can I use to safely determine load while avoiding pressure peaks and other bad news?

From what I understand the OP gave up on QL as he was unable to launch it. What the exact problem he encountered is I don’t know as he never posted it. It might be an issue that can be solved.

QL can be used for your needs, and I believe it is the solution for you. If the projectile you want to use is not in a database you can measure it and input the details manually.

Since 9.5x57 and 375HH are not identical calibres, although they are very close, QL does not automatically pick up 375 projectiles for it but this does not mean you cannot overwrite it.

https://bobp.cip-bobp.org/uploads/tdcc/tab-iii/tabiiical-en-page27.pdf

https://bobp.cip-bobp.org/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page72.pdf

This is why QL only finds one projectile for it, but you can specify others. If the projectiles from 375 can be safely used in your rifle so much the better. You have ample choice.

QL does list the 9.5x57 chambering so it’s just a matter of picking the correct projectile and powder. I’m not sure why you seem to think you can’t use it? To satisfy my curiosity I just ran a simulation on the 270gr Woodleigh using RS52 powder (last powder I used in the software). With this powder you get a starting load of 2159fps and a safe max load (15% below CIP max pressure) of 2243fps with good load density (92-95%). This is out of a 24” barrel.

I would not say QL is not dependable but it is software and therefore there are limitations. I find that when I enter all relevant data including actual, measured case capacity the velocities given by QL closely match chronograph readings. However, in reloading there are many variables which the software cannot predict and as such it requires some caution. Do you crimp? If so how strong? How strong is your neck tension? Also, no two barrels are exactly the same. Projectiles may or may not exactly match the specs. Primers vary from batch to batch which is why competition shooters buy bulk from the same lot. A 10% lot to lot variation in powder burning rate is within the specs. This mean that two boxes of the same powder from either extreme can be 20% from one another and still be within the specifications! So if you’re using software to calculate absolute max and then dump said load in your rifle you might indeed be in for a surprise. QL does actually have the option of showing the +-10% nominal load pressure variations.

Use it in a safe and reasonable manner and it works well. Printed guides are not immune from the above issues either which is why they have conservative starting points. QL give a lot of options, you can slug your barrel and enter it’s exact dimensions. The more accurate the data you feed it the better the final result.

 

[Brian Rothhammer]

9.5X57 Mannlicher Schönauer. Also known as the .375 X 2 ½ inch Rimless Nitro Express.
.375 270 grain. Woodleigh makes them. ... Hornady made a nice round nose, but they are focused on "other things" right now.

Would love to look it up in a manual. It hasn't been listed in a manual for some time. Even if I find an old manual, powders have changed a bit over time, so that's only a guess.

Headspace and potential case separation?

The 9.5X57 Mannlicher Schoenauer is not the .375 2.5", it is the .375 2.25" Nitro Express Rimless.

Hogpatrol has provided you with the correct and accurate Eley diagram for the M1910 Mannlicher Schenauer cartridge. Build your loads to that precise profile.

The 9.5X57 - .375 2.25" Nitro Express Rimless takes a true .375 270 grain round nose projectile.

Woodleigh does offer a suitable, yet somewhat pricey, projectile.

The Hornady #3715 was a good fit and is almost exactly the profile shown in the Eley drawing, which is very important if you wish to feed more than two at a time. They have been out of production for over a decade. If you run across any Hornady #3715 at a decent price, buy them. Midway has offered 'factory second' .375 270 grain RN from time to time which I have purchased and they look, weigh, and measure exactly like the Hornady #3715. I suspect they are overruns from the Hornady cartridges of .375 Ruger. Problem is, the last few times I've seen them listed they cost as much or more than Woodleigh.

The 9.5 X 57 (DWM 531) was never common and will not likely be found in any digital 'reloading manual' or even in print as it has been virtually unknown to most shooters since the Second World War. Often an M1910 that was 'British Proofed' prewar will be stamped '.375 Ex. 270 Cordite 43 gr. Max' indicating a Cordite load of 43 grains.
In old ammunition catalogs that show factory spec's, there will often be a different powder charge shown for the 9.5X57 than the .375 Nitro Express Rimless 2.25" cartridge though they are otherwise identical.

When I obtained my M1910 Take Down in the late 1980s I did extensive (pre internet) research which included much discussion with 'old schoolers' and found IMR 4895 to be a near direct equivalent to the Cordite loads. I have loaded and fired many rounds with '35 Whelen brass run through an RCBS two die set and trimmed to length, Hornady 3715, with 42 grains of IMR4895 and have since found that several other shooters have come up with the very same 'recipe'.

The above load has worked in mine with excellent results, yours may vary.
As with any 'workup' to a reload charge, start with a few lighter loads, check result, creep up to the 42 grain if appropriate for your rifle.

Headspace is entirely reliant on the tiny shoulder of the 9.5X57, so you must be precise with shoulder location. Fireforming prior to first load of resized brass is a very good idea.
The Qual - Cart measures right, I haven't loaded any of those yet.

Another good idea, along with following that Eley drawing precisely, is to obtain at least one original round of prewar DWM 531 for comparison to your sized or new brass prior to loading. The DWM 531 will also show you exactly what bullet profile the 9.5X57 MS needs to feed flawlessly, as does the Eley diagram.

You will find, with all pre M1924 Mannlicher Schoenauers, that the shape of projectile and seating depth is critical if you want your cartridges to load and cycle properly. The M1924 and later models had a 'guide ring' added to the Schoenauer magazine that is not present in prior models which rely on correct profile of the entire cartridge in order to feed.
If your projectile doesn't have enough 'meat' at a point about 1/4 back from the tip and / or is short it will likely fall into a void between magazine rotor and housing which will cause it to jam if more than two cartridges are loaded. Too thick at that point or too long in OAL and they won't feed at all.
If you build your cartridges precisely as shown in the old Eley drawings they will load and feed like hot butter on polished glass. The above is also true of 6.5X54MS, 8X56MS and 9X56MS.

Reed's Custom of Oklahoma builds proper 9.5X57 at a decent price.

Read through this thread for more info: https://www.africahunting.com/threads/mannlicher-schönauer-prewar-m1900-m1903-m1905-m1908-m1910-m1924-m1925-or-high-velocity.47277/

Relevant images:

Note the 'void' into which that a short / narrow projectile will fall.

Eley Specifications 6.5X54 MS

I believe this one's a 9X56, but illustrates area where length / girth is critical

Pre M1924 MS Proprietary Cartridges, DWM Numbers

I have some of these Noslers for 'unleaded'. Profile should work, haven't loaded any yet or worked up powder load, seating depth for them.

 

[Brian Rothhammer]

Since 9.5x57 and 375HH are not identical calibres, although they are very close,

The 9.5X57 / .375 Nitro Express Rimless 2.25" is absolutely not the same, nor is it even close, to a .375 H&H. Do not load it like one.

 

[Brian Rothhammer]

...a rifle that people really haven't been using since Hemingway and Ramar of the Jungle.

I don't think 'Ramar' used a Mannlicher Schoenauer.
From images / videos I have seen the character carried a few different rifles, among which and often shown was a full stocked carbine (stutzen) with a bolt handle too far rearward to be an MS.

I believe he used one of these or similar:

Mauser stutzen

Ramar images:

 

[Opposite Pole]

The 9.5X57 / .375 Nitro Express Rimless 2.25" is absolutely not the same, nor is it even close, to a .375 H&H. Do not load it like one.

Never said it was.

 

[SaintPanzer]

The 9.5X57 Mannlicher Schoenauer is not the .375 2.5", it is the .375 2.25" Nitro Express Rimless.

You are absolutely right. I had to re-read yours several times to see exactly where I made my typo. 57mm is of course 2.25, 2.5 would be 63mm. I must have had my .30-06 on my brain.

The Eley drawings are good, and I have them. But the round is still listed by CIP, which was the link I posted.

Reed's is in Oklahoma, and not likely to be able to ship to where I am now, but there is a guy in Vienna who does... He's the number one source of the brass I have now.

I believe he uses the Woodleighs. I may have a lead on the Hornadys.

When loading Herr Schoenauer's magazine, cartridge overall length is very important. I once ordered rounds for the M1903, which looked good, but were crimped to the cannelure. They did not feed from the 2nd round onward. I compared them to some NOS RWS rounds, which fed perfectly. They were visibly shorter.

I had success feeding the Woodleigh Protected Point 6.5mm, when loaded to max COL. Feed, yes. Fire, no. The PP is long for weight, so I may have had too much projo in the case, but it might have been the selected powder did not adequately fill the case. Perhaps a slower powder. That rifle is about 10,000 miles from me right now, so that's a project that will have to wait.

Dies have been secured from CH4D. Headspace is known good, but I will acquire both a custom headspace gauge and a custom case gauge as soon as I can. Both Eley and CIP data will help with that. Powder, as always, is subject to availability.

Thanks.

 

[SaintPanzer]

I don't think 'Ramar' used a Mannlicher Schoenauer.
From images / videos I have seen the character carried a few different rifles, among which and often shown was a full stocked carbine (stutzen) with a bolt handle too far rearward to be an MS.

I believe he used one of these or similar:
View attachment 433968
Mauser stutzen

Ramar images:
View attachment 433969
View attachment 433970
View attachment 433971

View attachment 433972
View attachment 433973
View attachment 433974

I don't know. I thought this bolt handle looked to be both butterknife shaped and a bit far forward, now I'm not sure.

Surely though, you'll agree that he was everyone's Bwana?

 

[SaintPanzer]

QL does list the 9.5x57 chambering so it’s just a matter of picking the correct projectile and powder. I’m not sure why you seem to think you can’t use it? To satisfy my curiosity I just ran a simulation on the 270gr Woodleigh using RS52 powder (last powder I used in the software). With this powder you get a starting load of 2159fps and a safe max load (15% below CIP max pressure) of 2243fps with good load density (92-95%). This is out of a 24” barrel.

Thank you. The reason I thought perhaps it would not work was when another user said "I gave up on QL a long time ago. Could never get it to work properly in that the PSI was always orders of magnitude greater than what it actually was in recipes that I knew were safe and had actual PSI measurements." That's why I asked what to use instead. From your description, it will be helpful. I appreciate it.

 

[Rare Breed]

Shootest43 is an absolute rock star!!! Can’t thank him enough for taking the time on a Saturday morning to help me with my loads. So very appreciative and indicative of the people on this forum to help anyone in a time of need

 

[Sabattiboy]

My reloading experience started late 1970's and 1980's. Even then data between loading manuals was sketchy. A friend shot mega amounts of H4895 that was military surplus powder Hodgdon repackaged and sold. When it finally was all gone they sold a new mfg replication that was significantly faster burning and manuals warned of not using old H4895 manual data with it.
1980's the NRA published a handloading book that had article with a set of formulas to develop a starting load for an unknown cartridge. I used this to develop load data for a wildcat 375 off a 300 Win Mag case reshaped. If I remember correctly, the data was based on IMR 4350 being number 100 then the data would indicate using a powder above or below 100. Now there are probably double the number of powders available so what powder would fall in place of IMR 4350 today. If someone tried to use that system I wonder how it would work out. Having used it 1989 I might be able to do a comparison calculation and see how it came out. From what I've read I thought QuickLoad would be the way to go for something like this or the obsolete rounds this thread is about.
As a side note, I contacted Cutting Edge bullets and they sent me a sample to try in my home built 375. He offered to run a QL sheet if I would send him the specs off the case and barrel I used to develop my starting load. When comparing my final load and powder to his QL data it was close but also offered a bunch of powders that didn't exist then. I also found the density might have changed for some powders over 30 years so many things are not equal from manuals and powders over decades.
As always, operate on the side of caution.
Phillip Sharpe published a handloading book around 1953, my dad had one that I now have, that might have the cartridges listed you are working with. Some powders will be unavailable but some data will be.

 

[Brian Rothhammer]

I don't know. I thought this bolt handle looked to be both butterknife shaped and a bit far forward, now I'm not sure.

Surely though, you'll agree that he was everyone's Bwana?

It is difficult to be sure from images / videos available.

I'll have to admit I'm not very familiar with Ramar other than references to the old serial from various posts regarding the MS.

I'll have to watch some of the available copy on YouTube. Resolution isn't much, but I'm sure they'll be rather entertaining.

My mother was born to a Goodyear executive in Colombo, Ceylon in 1931 and when she was a girl was given a sun bear cub by the son of a local Raja.

Before they moved to Singapore the bear was passed to none other than Frank Buck so whenever the name of Buck was mentioned in Mom's presence she'd say, "He took my bear".

My favorite 'Bwana' was always ol' Grand Dad:

Image owned by Brian Rothhammer
John Forrest Easton with Buffalo, M1910 Take Down Model - Ceylon 1932