Help me break the code on QuickLoad

[SaintPanzer]

Yes, I'm still learning. I'm trying to figure out QuickLoad because if I can get it to work/match what I'm seeing in load manuals for rounds that I can easily find, I can use it to develop loads for rounds that are difficult to find (i.e. 6.5X54MS) or impossible to find (95.X57MS).

Playing with it today, I easily confused myself.

The load I"m starting with is your everyday 30-06. Loads abound.. Matching them... not so much.

To complicate things: I'm using VV N160 powder. My reason for this is it was in stock (which is not easy these days), there is published data, and that powder is also recommended for the 6.5 and 9.5.

The bullet chosen is the RWS 168 grain Scorion. I had thought I'd seen published data for this bullet/powder combination, but now cannot find it.

I do have published loads for three other 168 gr bullets with N160. Barnes TSX, Berger Hunter Classic, and Hornady A-Max.

Putting the published data in QL, I see similar velocities, but the max recommended loads are shown as "dangerous (above Pmax) in QL.

The minimum charge for the A-Max was dangerously high.

I checked my Hornady manual for N160 data... loads were not far off from the VV loads, but QL still said dangerously high.

So what's up with that?

Also, I know I shouldn't go below the minimum load. For my bullet/powder combo with the RWS bullets, I can use QL to calculate a "max load" where pressure touches 85% Pmax (i.e. the graph goes from yellow to cyan). But how do I select a minimum load? Is it based on case fill ratio? Something else?

I'd like to figure this out without damaging a rifle, and in a way that will easily transfer to my MS loads. Any advice is very much appreciated!

 

[shootist~]

When you are switching bullets be sure you also adjust the COL to match that bullet in a manual. Or even better, change the default COL to what actually works for your rifle.

Max H2O case volume can also change things.

Just taking an educated guess that you might need to update or revise some of the inputs, but in general QL "mostly" seems to be on the conservative side.

A reliable chronograph is the other thing that gives you important info.

 

[crs]

SP
I do not have or use Quick Load, BUT my only experience with it produced results that were so far off as to be totally useless. I have used Vihta Vuori N133 powder for a several years and found the VV load manuals to be accurate and educational. I also have a pressure testing system that has proven reliable for a few years and produced results that matched the results of a couple of proven and trusted users of N133.

I am presently loading, shooting, and testing loads for 45-70 and 45-90 cartridges in two separate rifles. The bullets are North Fork 350 SS at velocities of from 1800 to 2400 fps from 26 inch barrels.
A friend with Quick load offered to run my loads through Quick Load for me to help forecast the results.

Quick Load forecast peak chamber pressures 10,000+ psi above my calculated peak pressure which was in line with previous tested loads and the VV load manual 45-70 loads.

At this point, I suspect that the Quick Load data for N133 is wrong because it does not match the pressure traces of N133. That comes as no surprise as most sources with whom I have communicated cannot or just have not measured and observed the N133 pressure traces which show peak chamber pressures of 12,000 psi lower peaks than most other powders.

I tried to post this as a PM, but the site software said it was too big.

Shootist,
+1 on the chronograph. Been using one for many years.

 

[K E Johnson]

I am extremely interested in what others have to say on their experience with Quick Load.
I purchased it in large part, because I traded labor for my mentor’s model 71 Winchester and model 92 Winchester in 32 WCF.
To me, the shot start pressure seems to be the biggest unknown variable.
Correct me if I am wrong, please!
I have checked the water capacity of the cases.
I chronographed a couple loads that were a couple hundred feet under what was projected. I know there are slow barrels, but……
I put in Von Gruff’s 404 Jeffery load and my favorite .375 H&H load and they show over pressure. Hard to pin down what is amiss.
Thanks in advance!

 

[shootist~]

My 9.3x62 load development with various powders was a good 100 fps or so below QL projections. But between watching for pressure signs and trusting my actual chronograph readings I settled on what I think is safe load(s) at a V I can live with.

This with a powder that had almost no published data with that Caliber. (RL-17).
Others on AH reporting good results with the same powder (in the same Caliber) was a huge influence as well.

QL has been a good bit closer to actual, (velocity wise), with some other more common calibers and powder combinations.

 

[crs]

"with some other more common calibers and powder combinations."

Important observation.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Assume you are entering barrel length, cartridge length, case length, bullet length and all the other required data inputs. Variables like headspace, bore tightness or looseness and action type can have an effect on pressure.

 

[SaintPanzer]

Thank you gentlemen, we will get there.

Yes on the chronograph. Still need to make rounds to use it.
Powder charge first, find the nodes, play with bullet seating. COL is within spec.

Yes, I've entered barrel length. Cartridge length and case length are in the database. Bullet dimensions are also in the database. Bolt action in all cases, I should slug bores, but all rifles have shot factory loads well.

Just can't figure out why I got "odd" data for the A-Max, and wondering what a "safe" starting load looks like.

 

[benchracer]

Thank you gentlemen, we will get there.

Yes on the chronograph. Still need to make rounds to use it.
Powder charge first, find the nodes, play with bullet seating. COL is within spec.

Yes, I've entered barrel length. Cartridge length and case length are in the database. Bullet dimensions are also in the database. Bolt action in all cases, I should slug bores, but all rifles have shot factory loads well.

Just can't figure out why I got "odd" data for the A-Max, and wondering what a "safe" starting load looks like.

As others have mentioned, you need to measure the water capacity of fired cases and enter that data.

Moving on...

QL is a GIGO (Garbage In/Garbage Out) tool. If the output data is bad, it is because there is a problem with the input data.

For the data to be useful, it MUST be baselined to YOUR rifle and components. That is to say, determine a safe starting load with the components you plan to use and fire a starting load across your chronograph. Compare your KNOWN powder charge and KNOWN velocity to the QL prediction and adjust accordingly.

QL includes a user manual on the program disk that is VERY detailed and sophisticated. It should at least be given a cursory read before using the program.

QL is a powerful tool for experienced handloaders, but it only does the math. As with any tool, the user still has to do the thinking and measuring. QL is NOT a reloading manual on a disk. It is a sophisticated calculator that requires accurate input in order to supply accurate output. If you keep that in mind and use your head, you will do just fine.

 

[benchracer]

Yes, I'm still learning. I'm trying to figure out QuickLoad because if I can get it to work/match what I'm seeing in load manuals for rounds that I can easily find, I can use it to develop loads for rounds that are difficult to find (i.e. 6.5X54MS) or impossible to find (95.X57MS).

Playing with it today, I easily confused myself.

The load I"m starting with is your everyday 30-06. Loads abound.. Matching them... not so much.

To complicate things: I'm using VV N160 powder. My reason for this is it was in stock (which is not easy these days), there is published data, and that powder is also recommended for the 6.5 and 9.5.

The bullet chosen is the RWS 168 grain Scorion. I had thought I'd seen published data for this bullet/powder combination, but now cannot find it.

I do have published loads for three other 168 gr bullets with N160. Barnes TSX, Berger Hunter Classic, and Hornady A-Max.

Putting the published data in QL, I see similar velocities, but the max recommended loads are shown as "dangerous (above Pmax) in QL.

The minimum charge for the A-Max was dangerously high.

I checked my Hornady manual for N160 data... loads were not far off from the VV loads, but QL still said dangerously high.

So what's up with that?

Also, I know I shouldn't go below the minimum load. For my bullet/powder combo with the RWS bullets, I can use QL to calculate a "max load" where pressure touches 85% Pmax (i.e. the graph goes from yellow to cyan). But how do I select a minimum load? Is it based on case fill ratio? Something else?

I'd like to figure this out without damaging a rifle, and in a way that will easily transfer to my MS loads. Any advice is very much appreciated!

As I see it, you are struggling with two basic problems:

1. Flawed logic stemming from misunderstanding of what QL is and how it works.
2. Possible gaps in Reloading Fundamentals.

With or without QL, selecting a starting load with the components you intend to use is among the first few steps in reloading for a given cartridge. This requires research and application of good judgement. QL is not an appropriate (or even safe) tool for doing this. If you don't know how to select a safe starting load, you don't yet know enough to be reloading your own ammunition. If you DO know how to do this, then do so normally.

Use of QL does not alter Reloading Fundamentals or the basic steps to load development. Those steps will be the same, with or without QL. You still need published data to use QL safely and effectively.

Once you have chosen a safe starting load, the next step is to test your starting load with a chronograph to establish a baseline velocity with a known powder charge. With baseline velocity data in hand, you can then compare that to QL predictions to determine the max powder charge at the max pressure set by you in QL. There are also adjustments you can make within QL to reconcile the predicted data to measured actual results. Those adjustments are covered in the QL user's guide that is included in the software.

Reloading Fundamentals in cautiously approaching the max predicted powder charge in QL will still apply in the same way they would apply if you were working with published data. Once you have produced adjusted data in QL, proceed normally with load development.

 

[SaintPanzer]

Thank you to those that provided thoughtful and relevant answers. I’m trying to learn how this software works so that I can use it to help in other areas. I will admit that some of the answers surprised me. I feel like I said I was going on a plains game hunt, and I was looking for recommendations between a .375 H&H and a Rigby .416, and was told that if I didn’t know that the .375 was the minimum legal calibre for Buffalo, then I had no business hunting at all, but perhaps I’m being over-sensitive, and the condescension was not intended.

I brought up the older rounds because there exists very limited load data for them. That is to say, I do have the common sense to seek out published loads, and I understand that QL is not a substitute. I also understand that I am now in a place that requires lead free bullets on federal lands, that no one expected that in either 1903 or 1910, and that load data is limited or non-existent for lead free bullets in these older rounds. I have contacted VV, and they do not have tested loads for those rounds, but made some recommendations, including the fact that N160 is probably the correct powder to use, but that is a different story, and I’m getting ahead of myself. Let us focus on one at a time, so we do not get off topic. I can circle back to the Mannlichers later. After all, their short barrels are starting to make me wonder if I don’t want a faster powder after all.

Yes, QL comes with a manual, and I have read it. I’ve also searched for specific words within the manual. I did not find answers to my questions, so thought I would try here.

All things being equal, we will change only one variable at a time. That is to say, I am using CIP data for the 7.62X63mm round. The case remains the same (so assume water capacity of the case does not change), COAL is 3.225 (within specs for the case, and seating the bullet at a depth that is neither too deep nor barely hanging on to the neck of the case, and within specs. I did notice that the published data listed slightly different lengths for the rounds, but that did not make a significant change in the QL results. CIP lists a max pressure of 58,740 PSI. The rifle is a Mannlicher Classic II, with a 22 inch barrel.

The only variable I will change is the projectile. This will force a change in powder charge, based on published loads, so I guess you would say that’s two variables, but one is dependent on the other, so I’m really only controlling one.

Using my VV reloading manual (published information), I see that there are three bullets that weigh 168 grains.

The first bullet listed is the Barnes TSX. VV recommends a minimum charge of 50.2 grains for a muzzle velocity of 2444 fps, and a max load of 56,3 grains, for a velocity of 2733 fps. For the min load, QL says 2515 fps, and a Pmax of 42,393 psi. For the max, we see a velocity of 2823 fps, and Pmax of 61,790. QL warns that this is above max pressure, but we agreed they may be conservative. Velocity looks high, but as has been mentioned, chronometer. My Labradar will get a workout. Not 100% the same, but reasonable expectations.

Moving on to the Berger Classic Hunter, we see a min charge of 54,5, for a velocity of 2641, and a max of 58.6, for a velocity of 2854, QL reports 2705 fps, with a Pmax of 52,888 (getting scary, but not terrible, and 2907, with a dangerous Pmax of 67873. Still, that’s listed as a max load, so stop before that if you have pressure signs. That is a published load, however.

Where things go strange is with that Hornady A-Max. Again, these are VV published loads. Min 56,3 for 2628 fps, and a max of 60.8 for 2815 fps. The manual notes that is a compressed load. QL tells me the minimum starting load will develop 2803 fps, and a dangerous 59,762 fps, and points out it is a 2.6% compressed load. VV states this is a starting load. If I did go to the max load, that’s over 3,000 fps, an extremely dangerous 78,985 psi, and an almost 11% compressed load! Something is not right there.

So, on a whim, I pulled down my Hornady manual, which lists loads for all 165 and 168 grain Hornady bullets on one page. Starting load there is 50.4 grains at 2400 fps, and a max of 58.0 at 2800 fps. So maybe a typo with the VV data? But QL computes that min will give 2500 fps (at least the pressure is a safe 41,750psi, and only 95% case capacity) and the max at almost 2900 fps and 66,341 psi. That’s only a 5.7 compressed load.

So serious disagreements between the Hornady manual and the VV manual for the same bullet. Which to trust, the powder or the bullet manufacturer? QL puts both in question… but the QL says use a load “not below the recommended starting load”. That’s right out of the QL manual. Problem is, the Hornady starting load is below the VV starting load…. So which to trust? As Ron Swanson once said: “So my question is: “What the hell?”

That really caught my eye, because the Scorion bullet is most like the A-Max. I will contact VV, both on this bullet and the Hornady discrepancy, but you can see my concerns. My published load data is flat out wrong according to QL. And that’s why I thought I’d ask. As I said, I'm trying to learn the software.

 

[crs]

As per Rudyard Kipling, maybe it is time for some wine?

BTW, which edition of the VV Reloading Manual are you using? I think have them all and the most recent that I have is the 4th edition.

 

[shootist~]

@SaintPanzer

Re: 7.62x63 - I assume you are entering this in QL as the 30-06 Springfield? That's what I'm looking at in both my Hornday manual and in QL. My QL is based on SAAMI (not CIP) - and I Assume that both our Hornady manuals also lean toward using SAAMI for max pressures.

Looking at the 168 grain A-Max and the QL (30-06/SAAMI) data and my Hornady manual (30-06) and VV N-160 I do not see much of a difference.

My (and your) Hornady Manuals agree on the minimum load being 54.0 grains for 2,400 FPS for all the Hornady bullets in the 165 - 168 grain class. (We know of course that they will test differently in different barrels and even between different bullets, most likely.)

Using my QL (SAAMI) I get 54.0 grains of VV N160 and the 168 A-Max @ COL 3.225", (H2O Overflow Volume 69.4 Gr = my Lapua Brass?) = 2,447 fps at a modest 40,218 psi (note MAX SAAMI pressure for the 30-06 is 60,000 psi).

Per the Internet on CIP Vs SAAMI:
The reason CIP differs from SAAMI is very simple...the data is taken at very different points on the case. CIP measures pressure at the case mouth (or thereabouts) and SAAMI take their measurement in the middle of the case. This the ONLY reason there is a difference in the numbers.Aug 27, 2020

I would always have more faith in data from the Hornady manual - especially when using their bullets. But I always try to cross reference with another manual and similar bullet - which you have done.

If it were me, (with the A-Max) I would start about a grain above the Hornady manual's minimum number (VV is much higher); load just two or three, and see what the LabRadar tells you.

My QL:
Cartridge : .30-06 Spring. (SAAMI)
Bullet : .308, 168, Hornady A-MAX 30502
Useable Case Capaci: 59.696 grain H2O = 3.876 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.225 inch = 81.92 mm
Barrel Length : 22.4 inch = 569.0 mm
Powder : Vihtavuori N160 *C

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2.0% 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

-20.0 82 43.20 1942 1407 22064 6146 74.3 1.677
-18.0 84 44.28 1990 1478 23411 6389 75.7 1.636
-16.0 86 45.36 2039 1552 24844 6632 77.2 1.596
-14.0 88 46.44 2089 1628 26368 6875 78.6 1.557
-12.0 90 47.52 2139 1707 27990 7118 79.9 1.519
-10.0 92 48.60 2189 1788 29716 7359 81.3 1.481
-08.0 94 49.68 2240 1872 31554 7598 82.6 1.445
-06.0 96 50.76 2291 1959 33513 7834 83.9 1.409
-04.0 98 51.84 2343 2048 35604 8067 85.1 1.374
-02.0 100 52.92 2395 2140 37833 8295 86.4 1.338
+00.0 102 54.00 2447 2234 40218 8520 87.5 1.300
+02.0 104 55.08 2500 2331 42765 8738 88.7 1.263
+04.0 106 56.16 2553 2431 45492 8951 89.8 1.228
+06.0 108 57.24 2606 2534 48415 9156 90.9 1.193
+08.0 111 58.32 2660 2639 51549 9354 91.9 1.160 ! Near Maximum !
+10.0 113 59.40 2714 2747 54914 9543 92.8 1.128 ! 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 102 54.00 2601 2523 48000 8986 94.4 1.201
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 102 54.00 2267 1917 33267 7735 78.1 1.413

 

[shootist~]

Just to clarify - the H2O overflow volume in my above post (@ 69.4 grains) is my actual measurement using a fired Lapua 30-06 case.

Barrel length used was 22.4", which is my Tikka's number. (I started with a saved file and input the 168 Gr A-Max and your COL and VV N-160 powder.)

FWIW, my 30-06 Tikka's load for the 180 Grain A-Frame @ 2,854 fps runs ~51 fps faster than the QL projection. Powder is H-4350.

 

[benchracer]

Thank you to those that provided thoughtful and relevant answers. I’m trying to learn how this software works so that I can use it to help in other areas. I will admit that some of the answers surprised me. I feel like I said I was going on a plains game hunt, and I was looking for recommendations between a .375 H&H and a Rigby .416, and was told that if I didn’t know that the .375 was the minimum legal calibre for Buffalo, then I had no business hunting at all, but perhaps I’m being over-sensitive, and the condescension was not intended.

I brought up the older rounds because there exists very limited load data for them. That is to say, I do have the common sense to seek out published loads, and I understand that QL is not a substitute. I also understand that I am now in a place that requires lead free bullets on federal lands, that no one expected that in either 1903 or 1910, and that load data is limited or non-existent for lead free bullets in these older rounds. I have contacted VV, and they do not have tested loads for those rounds, but made some recommendations, including the fact that N160 is probably the correct powder to use, but that is a different story, and I’m getting ahead of myself. Let us focus on one at a time, so we do not get off topic. I can circle back to the Mannlichers later. After all, their short barrels are starting to make me wonder if I don’t want a faster powder after all.

Yes, QL comes with a manual, and I have read it. I’ve also searched for specific words within the manual. I did not find answers to my questions, so thought I would try here.

All things being equal, we will change only one variable at a time. That is to say, I am using CIP data for the 7.62X63mm round. The case remains the same (so assume water capacity of the case does not change), COAL is 3.225 (within specs for the case, and seating the bullet at a depth that is neither too deep nor barely hanging on to the neck of the case, and within specs. I did notice that the published data listed slightly different lengths for the rounds, but that did not make a significant change in the QL results. CIP lists a max pressure of 58,740 PSI. The rifle is a Mannlicher Classic II, with a 22 inch barrel.

The only variable I will change is the projectile. This will force a change in powder charge, based on published loads, so I guess you would say that’s two variables, but one is dependent on the other, so I’m really only controlling one.

Using my VV reloading manual (published information), I see that there are three bullets that weigh 168 grains.

The first bullet listed is the Barnes TSX. VV recommends a minimum charge of 50.2 grains for a muzzle velocity of 2444 fps, and a max load of 56,3 grains, for a velocity of 2733 fps. For the min load, QL says 2515 fps, and a Pmax of 42,393 psi. For the max, we see a velocity of 2823 fps, and Pmax of 61,790. QL warns that this is above max pressure, but we agreed they may be conservative. Velocity looks high, but as has been mentioned, chronometer. My Labradar will get a workout. Not 100% the same, but reasonable expectations.

Moving on to the Berger Classic Hunter, we see a min charge of 54,5, for a velocity of 2641, and a max of 58.6, for a velocity of 2854, QL reports 2705 fps, with a Pmax of 52,888 (getting scary, but not terrible, and 2907, with a dangerous Pmax of 67873. Still, that’s listed as a max load, so stop before that if you have pressure signs. That is a published load, however.

Where things go strange is with that Hornady A-Max. Again, these are VV published loads. Min 56,3 for 2628 fps, and a max of 60.8 for 2815 fps. The manual notes that is a compressed load. QL tells me the minimum starting load will develop 2803 fps, and a dangerous 59,762 fps, and points out it is a 2.6% compressed load. VV states this is a starting load. If I did go to the max load, that’s over 3,000 fps, an extremely dangerous 78,985 psi, and an almost 11% compressed load! Something is not right there.

So, on a whim, I pulled down my Hornady manual, which lists loads for all 165 and 168 grain Hornady bullets on one page. Starting load there is 50.4 grains at 2400 fps, and a max of 58.0 at 2800 fps. So maybe a typo with the VV data? But QL computes that min will give 2500 fps (at least the pressure is a safe 41,750psi, and only 95% case capacity) and the max at almost 2900 fps and 66,341 psi. That’s only a 5.7 compressed load.

So serious disagreements between the Hornady manual and the VV manual for the same bullet. Which to trust, the powder or the bullet manufacturer? QL puts both in question… but the QL says use a load “not below the recommended starting load”. That’s right out of the QL manual. Problem is, the Hornady starting load is below the VV starting load…. So which to trust? As Ron Swanson once said: “So my question is: “What the hell?”

That really caught my eye, because the Scorion bullet is most like the A-Max. I will contact VV, both on this bullet and the Hornady discrepancy, but you can see my concerns. My published load data is flat out wrong according to QL. And that’s why I thought I’d ask. As I said, I'm trying to learn the software.

1. If I am identifying your rifle correctly, it is a modern Steyr action and fully capable of handling modern pressures.

2. The RWS Scorion is a basic HPBT match bullet.

3. VV online data lists three similar bullets with VV 160: 167 Lapua Scenar, 168 Berger Classic Hunter, and 168 Hornady AMAX. Starting loads are 55.5 grains, 54.5 grains, and 56.3 grains respectively.

4. With the above three bullets, VV data gives you a charge range for a starting load somewhere between 54.5 and 56.3 grains. Anything in that range will be a safe place to start. QL predictions are not relevant or useful at this point in the process. Choose a starting powder charge in between 54.5 and 56.3 grains of VV N160 and chrono several rounds to obtain a baseline average velocity.

5. Once you have established a baseline velocity with your components, in your rifle, adjust QL inputs until predicted values match your actual values. You will then have valid load data to work from.

For reference, VV load data I am quoting is here:

https://www.vihtavuori.com/reloading-data/rifle-reloading/?cartridge=27

You can do a very rough sanity check of your planned starting load. Fill a case fired in your rifle to the neck/shoulder junction with the powder you intend to use (VV N160). Pour that powder charge out and weigh it on your scale. Reduce that figure by 10%. That should put you in the general vicinity of the published starting loads.

Here is another safe means to decide where to start:

http://www.ocwreloading.com/about.html

 

[Rare Breed]

@SaintPanzer

Re: 7.62x63 - I assume you are entering this in QL as the 30-06 Springfield? That's what I'm looking at in both my Hornday manual and in QL. My QL is based on SAAMI (not CIP) - and I Assume that both our Hornady manuals also lean toward using SAAMI for max pressures.

Looking at the 168 grain A-Max and the QL (30-06/SAAMI) data and my Hornady manual (30-06) and VV N-160 I do not see much of a difference.

My (and your) Hornady Manuals agree on the minimum load being 54.0 grains for 2,400 FPS for all the Hornady bullets in the 165 - 168 grain class. (We know of course that they will test differently in different barrels and even between different bullets, most likely.)

Using my QL (SAAMI) I get 54.0 grains of VV N160 and the 168 A-Max @ COL 3.225", (H2O Overflow Volume 69.4 Gr = my Lapua Brass?) = 2,447 fps at a modest 40,218 psi (note MAX SAAMI pressure for the 30-06 is 60,000 psi).

Per the Internet on CIP Vs SAAMI:
The reason CIP differs from SAAMI is very simple...the data is taken at very different points on the case. CIP measures pressure at the case mouth (or thereabouts) and SAAMI take their measurement in the middle of the case. This the ONLY reason there is a difference in the numbers.Aug 27, 2020

I would always have more faith in data from the Hornady manual - especially when using their bullets. But I always try to cross reference with another manual and similar bullet - which you have done.

If it were me, (with the A-Max) I would start about a grain above the Hornady manual's minimum number (VV is much higher); load just two or three, and see what the LabRadar tells you.

My QL:
Cartridge : .30-06 Spring. (SAAMI)
Bullet : .308, 168, Hornady A-MAX 30502
Useable Case Capaci: 59.696 grain H2O = 3.876 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.225 inch = 81.92 mm
Barrel Length : 22.4 inch = 569.0 mm
Powder : Vihtavuori N160 *C

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2.0% 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

-20.0 82 43.20 1942 1407 22064 6146 74.3 1.677
-18.0 84 44.28 1990 1478 23411 6389 75.7 1.636
-16.0 86 45.36 2039 1552 24844 6632 77.2 1.596
-14.0 88 46.44 2089 1628 26368 6875 78.6 1.557
-12.0 90 47.52 2139 1707 27990 7118 79.9 1.519
-10.0 92 48.60 2189 1788 29716 7359 81.3 1.481
-08.0 94 49.68 2240 1872 31554 7598 82.6 1.445
-06.0 96 50.76 2291 1959 33513 7834 83.9 1.409
-04.0 98 51.84 2343 2048 35604 8067 85.1 1.374
-02.0 100 52.92 2395 2140 37833 8295 86.4 1.338
+00.0 102 54.00 2447 2234 40218 8520 87.5 1.300
+02.0 104 55.08 2500 2331 42765 8738 88.7 1.263
+04.0 106 56.16 2553 2431 45492 8951 89.8 1.228
+06.0 108 57.24 2606 2534 48415 9156 90.9 1.193
+08.0 111 58.32 2660 2639 51549 9354 91.9 1.160 ! Near Maximum !
+10.0 113 59.40 2714 2747 54914 9543 92.8 1.128 ! 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 102 54.00 2601 2523 48000 8986 94.4 1.201
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 102 54.00 2267 1917 33267 7735 78.1 1.413

I bought and use QL. I too had problems with it at first but now feel confident with it. Yes it is conservative but let’s be honest we are handling things that go boom. At the end of the day how do my shots group on my rifles? Very good with what QL tells me and I know I am safe. Just my two cents

 

[shootist~]

Well crap, now I'm confused. I picked up 54.0 grains of VV N160 (which worked fine in QL and is close enough to the VV manual), but Saint P read off 50.4 as the starting load per Hornady. Looking again, 50.4 is what they actually show.

 

[Brian Rothhammer]

I can use it to develop loads for rounds that are difficult to find (i.e. 6.5X54MS) or impossible to find (95.X57MS)....

...To complicate things: I'm using VV N160 powder. My reason for this is it was in stock (which is not easy these days), there is published data, and that powder is also recommended for the 6.5 and 9.5. ...

...I'd like to figure this out without damaging a rifle, and in a way that will easily transfer to my MS loads. Any advice is very much appreciated!

I have loaded 9.5X57 with 42 grains of IMR4895 pushing the 270 grain RN and had excellent results.

I 'developed' that load over 40 years ago by seeking to replicate the original recommended load of "Cordite 43 grs. MAX.' and, over more recent decades of internet use, have become aware of several other M1910 shooters who do the same. I've never owned a chronograph, just observed that the load shoots and behaves well. My M1910 is a Take Down Model, 60cm barrel. Use round nosed projectiles seated at proper 'factory' depth for effortless feeding through the Schoenauer magazine.

Notice that the 1930s DWM chart above lists Rottweil Smokeless Rifle Leaf Powder #2 for the 6.5X54 and #5 for the 9.5X57. Whether that is a direct interchange for today's Rottweil R 902 and R 905 I do not know.

I have likely shared some or all of these with you in the past but here, in no particular order, are several old reference and catalog images relevant to the 9.5X57 and a few of 6.5X54.

DWM:

No idea what 'powder' is used here, but 52.5 grains in a 9.5X57?

 

[Shootist43]

I've been using QuickLoad for about 5 years now. For the most part I'm happy with it. Attached is a QL simulation of Von Gruff's 404 Jeffery load. Note that he used a 400 Gr. Woodleigh bullet. When he "gave" me his load he told me to expect 2300 FPS. I fired three loads over a chronograph and got 2300, 2309 and 2306 FPS. Not bad in my opinion. However, my loads used a 400 Gr. Swift A Frame. As you can see there are no pressure concerns with Von Gruff's load.

 

[K E Johnson]

Thank you @Shootist43!!!!!
I had seen the powder listed but apparently not the Woodleigh Bullet although that makes perfect sense.
400 grain Swift A Frame turns it in to overload. Swift doesn’t list the H4350 in their manual.
Shot start pressure is the difference. Swift is 5076 psi vs 3626 psi for the Woodleigh.
That clears up one mystery for me. Make me feel a little better.