On a related topic, reloaders…

[Wambli Ska]

I keep looking for internal ballistics load development software but apparently every one of those is allergic to Apple and I’m not about to disturb my perfect constructed and tuned household ecosystem with a Windows computer.

But out of sheer curiosity while looking, I just bumped into GRT. Has anyone here used it and/or have any experience with it?

[PFD45]

Shamelessly channeling Zorba:

european-abacus-counting-frame-calculating-tool-with-wooden-beads-sliding-on-wires-used-in-pre-and-in-elementary-schools-2B7JKPP.jpg (118.97 KiB) Viewed 2955 times

[Elk Creek]

Shamelessly channeling Zorba:


european-abacus-counting-frame-calculating-tool-with-wooden-beads-sliding-on-wires-used-in-pre-and-in-elementary-schools-2B7JKPP.jpg

Bwhahahahahahahah

[mitdr774]

I tried playing with GRT to compare it to Quick Load and find it frustrating to use on my computer. It could just be that I need to find a good video to educate me on it though. I found Quick Load much easier to figure out without an online tutorial.

[Bigslug]

Load development software? Seriously, I think a lot of folks these days couldn't have sex without a computer controlled biomonitor in the condom providing feedback on 97 variables to their smart watch.

[CPJ 2.0]

Load development software? Seriously, I think a lot of folks these days couldn't have sex without a computer controlled biomonitor in the condom providing feedback on 97 variables to their smart watch.

Without it, there’s four of us who I would have potentially blown our face off developing the .430 SJS.
So there is some use for it.
Like pushing boundaries. Not everyone wants a **** 30-06.

[Freezer]

Yes it would have been more fun!

[Wambli Ska]

Load development software? Seriously, I think a lot of folks these days couldn't have sex without a computer controlled biomonitor in the condom providing feedback on 97 variables to their smart watch.

Without it, there’s four of us who I would have potentially blown our face off developing the .430 SJS.
So there is some use for it.
Like pushing boundaries. Not everyone wants a **** 30-06.

This. I like Winchester “dash” cartridges and the guns chambered for them BUT, if you find ANY loads in books they are meant for 1800s vintage guns and the new replicas can do much better so I’m off the reservation in some of my ideas of stuff I’d like to put together. If I can just go to a book and find it, I’m all good but chances are for those I already have a great commercial off the shelf option and enough of the same lot to last me a lifetime

[CPJ 2.0]

Load development software? Seriously, I think a lot of folks these days couldn't have sex without a computer controlled biomonitor in the condom providing feedback on 97 variables to their smart watch.

Or, what if some retard wanted to run cast bullets in a rifle with no load data available?
The kind of retard who would spend time and money buying pin gauges to get the throat size down to a thin blonde one or a thick black Mediterranean one when you could just run copper.

Different kinks and all that rot.

[mitdr774]

I had to use Quick Load for my .458x1.8 as no load data exists. I used it to figure out 6.5x55 loads that ran at more modern pressures that are not a concern in a M98, compared to load data developed around a M96 and it's safety limitations. I use it to find powder combinations not listed in load manuals, and to double check some load manual claims. I will be using it to figure out load options for a 6mm-06, and a .430x1.8. although I assume the .430x1.8 is close enough to the .430 SJS that I'm sure if I asked nicely enough I could get some help. The reamer for that one has been in my dad's possession since well before I heard about the .430 SJS.

Load development software has many uses from checking published data to finding a start point with a wildcat cartridge. Not all published data is actually safe sometimes.

[Bigslug]

Load development software? Seriously, I think a lot of folks these days couldn't have sex without a computer controlled biomonitor in the condom providing feedback on 97 variables to their smart watch.

Without it, there’s four of us who I would have potentially blown our face off developing the .430 SJS.
So there is some use for it.
Like pushing boundaries. Not everyone wants a **** 30-06.

Wildcats. . .I've done them, and largely gotten over them years ago. I didn't just wake up and decide ".30-06 handles most things" - I looked at my copy of Cartridges of the World and realized that MILLIONS of man-hours have been spent on mental masturbation creating thousands of cartridges that all largely do exactly the same thing. The snowflakes that strive to be different and unique are typically neither.

As for the current problem at hand, it ain't that hard. Wambli's trying to figure out loading for a .45-60.

If we were still in the era of balloon head cases and black powder - this is effectively a shortened .45-70 case with - adjusting for changes in bullet weight of course - 15% less case capacity. The modern brass has a little less room, but the modern smokeless data accounts for this.

He's got an 1876 design, but made of modern steels. It's better than an original, but it still lacks the engineering advances of the later guns cooked up by Marlin or Browning. You should undoubtedly be able to abuse it more than a Trapdoor, but it still ain't an 1886 or 1895.

HAPPY COINCIDENCE! We have .45-70 load data in three levels - for the comparatively weak Trapdoor; for the stouter Marlin 1895's and Browning/Winchester 1886''s. The top end data Ruger No.1 and Siamese Mauser conversions obviously doesn't bear consideration here.

We also have a lot of published load data that gives pressure information for a given load that will give a clear indication of which fuels will push the limits sooner. I expect you can find the proof load pressure specs for both SAAMI and CIP for the common rounds if you dig hard enough.

Also a lot of those handy burn rate charts available to get a feel for what might be appropriate when your options are limited.

So, in a nutshell, I'm gonna look at Trapdoor .45-70 starting loads with the more broad spectrum powders (4198, Varget), knock them down by about 15% to account for the shorter case with further adjustment for a different bullet weight if applicable, and see what the chronograph has to say.

Obscure bottlenecks? Maybe a little trickier, but with a copy of COTW and Wikipedia, you can start finding rounds with similar length, shape, and bore diameter. A little more research into "Does my particular type of firearm have any inherent weaknesses that would make me want to adjust course?" with a conservative start, and you should have all the info you need to successfully NOT make a pipe bomb.

I flunked first year algebra not once, but twice, and have to do a lot of simple arithmetic on my fingers - yet I still have all ten of them and both eyeballs despite having used this approach numerous times. The hard math has already been done for us - you just have to dig a little sometimes to find it. Seriously, we don't need to get the HAL 9000 involved.

[CPJ 2.0]

Load development software? Seriously, I think a lot of folks these days couldn't have sex without a computer controlled biomonitor in the condom providing feedback on 97 variables to their smart watch.

Without it, there’s four of us who I would have potentially blown our face off developing the .430 SJS.
So there is some use for it.
Like pushing boundaries. Not everyone wants a **** 30-06.

Wildcats. . .I've done them, and largely gotten over them years ago. I didn't just wake up and decide ".30-06 handles most things" - I looked at my copy of Cartridges of the World and realized that MILLIONS of man-hours have been spent on mental masturbation creating thousands of cartridges that all largely do exactly the same thing. The snowflakes that strive to be different and unique are typically neither.

As for the current problem at hand, it ain't that hard. Wambli's trying to figure out loading for a .45-60.

If we were still in the era of balloon head cases and black powder - this is effectively a shortened .45-70 case with - adjusting for changes in bullet weight of course - 15% less case capacity. The modern brass has a little less room, but the modern smokeless data accounts for this.

He's got an 1876 design, but made of modern steels. It's better than an original, but it still lacks the engineering advances of the later guns cooked up by Marlin or Browning. You should undoubtedly be able to abuse it more than a Trapdoor, but it still ain't an 1886 or 1895.

HAPPY COINCIDENCE! We have .45-70 load data in three levels - for the comparatively weak Trapdoor; for the stouter Marlin 1895's and Browning/Winchester 1886''s. The top end data Ruger No.1 and Siamese Mauser conversions obviously doesn't bear consideration here.

We also have a lot of published load data that gives pressure information for a given load that will give a clear indication of which fuels will push the limits sooner. I expect you can find the proof load pressure specs for both SAAMI and CIP for the common rounds if you dig hard enough.

Also a lot of those handy burn rate charts available to get a feel for what might be appropriate when your options are limited.

So, in a nutshell, I'm gonna look at Trapdoor .45-70 starting loads with the more broad spectrum powders (4198, Varget), knock them down by about 15% to account for the shorter case with further adjustment for a different bullet weight if applicable, and see what the chronograph has to say.

Obscure bottlenecks? Maybe a little trickier, but with a copy of COTW and Wikipedia, you can start finding rounds with similar length, shape, and bore diameter. A little more research into "Does my particular type of firearm have any inherent weaknesses that would make me want to adjust course?" with a conservative start, and you should have all the info you need to successfully NOT make a pipe bomb.

I flunked first year algebra not once, but twice, and have to do a lot of simple arithmetic on my fingers - yet I still have all ten of them and both eyeballs despite having used this approach numerous times. The hard math has already been done for us - you just have to dig a little sometimes to find it. Seriously, we don't need to get the HAL 9000 involved.

Or…you could enter the data, hit go, and be done.

[Wambli Ska]

It was software that made the .257 Scooter possible. AND for this thread 45-60 is NOT the only consideration. I have a bunch of other cartridges/guns that I’d like to explore beyond the “normal” like my Savage 25-20 bolt action.

[CPJ 2.0]

It was software that made the .257 Scooter possible. AND for this thread 45-60 is NOT the only consideration. I have a bunch of other cartridges/guns that I’d like to explore beyond the “normal” like my Savage 25-20 bolt action.

There’s also the aspect of being able to predict what each powder will do without the need to actually buy it. Weed out the non hackers before buying.

[shotgunshooter3]

It was software that made the .257 Scooter possible. AND for this thread 45-60 is NOT the only consideration. I have a bunch of other cartridges/guns that I’d like to explore beyond the “normal” like my Savage 25-20 bolt action.

There’s also the aspect of being able to predict what each powder will do without the need to actually buy it. Weed out the non hackers before buying.

This has my attention for budget and time reasons. As a mild derailment, will the same programs have some prediction capabilities for standard vs magnum primers?

[mitdr774]

Using my 6.5-06 as an example I found that book loads with a 142gr ABLR topped out around 2800 fps (If I recall correctly) while Quick Load developed loads top out above 3050 fps. I can go higher, but I start getting close passing my comfort zone. Quick Load also allowed me to try powders not in the book. Hornady 129gr InterLock load data runs out of steam in their load data at around 3000 fps, while my settled on Quick Load was 3150 fps with much better grouping than the book max load. I could go faster, but the groups were starting to open up again. At least in my rifle, the book data is only slightly better than a 6.5 CM.

Before deciding to put together a 6mm-06 I ran it through Quick Load. The numbers look favorable with a 90gr CX bullet, so I ordered a barrel to swap onto a Zastava M70 .30-06. If the predicted velocity works out I will be surprised and happy. It should make a good antelope rifle.

As CPJ pointed out, it allows checking powder potential before using. Im not going to burn up components I have or buy a new powder if i can use software to let me know its not with the cost and effort.

Quick Load does not have any correction for primer type.

[GrapeApe]

This has my attention for budget and time reasons. As a mild derailment, will the same programs have some prediction capabilities for standard vs magnum primers?

QuickLoad doesn't list "standard" or "magnum", since a "standard" brand "a" primer might be hotter or milder than a "standard" brand "b" one.

However, it DOES list "Shot Start (Initiation) Pressure" where you can change it for hotter or milder primers (hotter = higher pressure, milder = lower)

shot start.jpg (10.49 KiB) Viewed 2702 times

[shotgunshooter3]

This has my attention for budget and time reasons. As a mild derailment, will the same programs have some prediction capabilities for standard vs magnum primers?

QuickLoad doesn't list "standard" or "magnum", since a "standard" brand "a" primer might be hotter or milder than a "standard" brand "b" one.

However, it DOES list "Shot Start (Initiation) Pressure" where you can change it for hotter or milder primers (hotter = higher pressure, milder = lower)

shot start.jpg

Got it, thanks!

[Castle]

I keep looking for internal ballistics load development software but apparently every one of those is allergic to Apple and I’m not about to disturb my perfect constructed and tuned household ecosystem with a Windows computer.

But out of sheer curiosity while looking, I just bumped into GRT. Has anyone here used it and/or have any experience with it?

I don't believe this alternative has been mentioned yet, but you could possibly just run QL on your Mac. You'll have to check for compatibility but it wouldn't take that long.

https://onmac.net/run-windows-programs-on-a-mac/

Just an idea

[Justsomedude]

Coming from someone that's absolutely brand new to reloading...
It's nit difficult to just start way low and work up. Chronograph amd looking for pressure signs is pretty easy to manage. I only stuck one round working up sub loads for my 223. I even made sub loads for my 225 Win. And I haven't found any load data for clays or unique but that's what I'm using.