Guns & Outdoors Forum

PFD45 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:49 am Shamelessly channeling Zorba:


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

Bigslug wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 2:32 am 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 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 2:45 am

Bigslug wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 2:32 am 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.

Bigslug wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 2:32 am 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 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 2:45 am

Bigslug wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 2:32 am 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.

Bigslug wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 1:34 pm

CPJ 2.0 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 2:45 am

Bigslug wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 2:32 am 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.

Wambli Ska wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 3:31 pm 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 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 8:13 pm

Wambli Ska wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 3:31 pm 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 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 9:13 pm

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?

GrapeApe wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 10:05 pm

shotgunshooter3 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 9:13 pm

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

Wambli Ska wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 9:24 pm 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?