Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  

Home | Load data | Articles | Ballistic Calc | Energy Calc
General Discussion
 Handloads.Com Forum : General Discussion
Subject Topic: internal ballistics software? Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Atavist
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: August 04 2017
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 167
Online Status: Offline
Posted: September 06 2017 at 5:10pm | IP Logged Quote Atavist

Anybody here ever play with internal ballistics software? Just curious. Aside from reloading for economics I do it a lot as a sort of play time... pretty limited in what I'm willing to try out outside published data... having internal ballistics software could open up a whole new playground... or is it not that sexy?

thanks for your input.
Back to Top View Atavist's Profile Search for other posts by Atavist Visit Atavist's Homepage
 
safari100
Senior Member




Joined: August 08 2012
Location: ri
Posts: 539
Online Status: Offline
Posted: September 06 2017 at 8:57pm | IP Logged Quote safari100

I just stay safe and load by the books of published data. I don't like things going boom in my hands. But that is just me.

__________________
As long as there is lead in the air there is hope>
Back to Top View safari100's Profile Search for other posts by safari100
 
Atavist
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: August 04 2017
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 167
Online Status: Offline
Posted: September 06 2017 at 9:46pm | IP Logged Quote Atavist

I with you on keeping it safe. Not looking
to blow anything up. But what has always
bothered me is that some very similar rounds
dont have load data for different powders.
For instance while 30-06 shares a lot of
powders with .270W there are a lot of powders
spec'd for 30-06 with no mention of 270w...
send an email to powder company and get a
form letter response about how some powders
aren't suited for some cartridges.. same deal
with more varied cartridges.. varget is great
for 30-06 and 45-70 but flip over to 4000MR
and there is 30-06 data but nada for 45-70
light loads of sabots... I guess it's just a
matter of wanting full disclosure... I want
all the data, don't just tell me it's "not
suited" tell me why in very specific terms.
Back to Top View Atavist's Profile Search for other posts by Atavist Visit Atavist's Homepage
 
Kosh75287
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: December 13 2005
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 458
Online Status: Offline
Posted: September 07 2017 at 11:39am | IP Logged Quote Kosh75287

There's a relationship between the ratio of case capacity/ bore diameter for a cartridge, and the burning rate of the propellant(s) that work best with it. Generally, the higher the ratio for the cartridge of interest, the slower-burning are the powders suited for it.

For .30-06, there's probably VOLUMES of load data for powders with burn-rates in the IMR-3031 to IMR-4320 range, but only a few or none with, say, H4831 or Hybrid100V. The .25-06, which has approximately the same capacity as its parent cartridge but a smaller bore, will work better with H4831 or H100V, and will only be hazardous with powders like IMR-3031 and faster.

There's also some relationship between projectile weight and best burn rate. Generally, lighter projectiles will work best with faster powders, heavier projectiles will work best with slower-burning powders.

I don't like things going boom in my hands. But that is just me.

I don't think ANYone likes that, nor do I accept the premise that it is the sure result of deviating from reloading manual data. Sometimes, excursions outside what's printed in a manual are not fraught with danger. I don't see the .44 Special 7.5/Unique/245L load listed in many reloading manuals, yet it is among the classics of loads for this caliber. It's not a load I'd want to shoot in a Charter Arms Bulldog, but it worked well in my Taurus M431, and a friend's S&W M624. There are other examples, though none come to mind at the moment.

The main thing is, if you venture outside published data for a particular cartridge, fully understand what you seek to gain, and know why you believe that such an excursion is safe in your case.

Edited by Kosh75287 on September 07 2017 at 11:59am
Back to Top View Kosh75287's Profile Search for other posts by Kosh75287
 
Paul B.
Senior Member




Joined: March 12 2002
Posts: 2365
Online Status: Offline
Posted: September 07 2017 at 1:10pm | IP Logged Quote Paul B.

Most "modern" cartridges are already just about loaded to their safe
limit with a few exceptions. I'm thinking of the .280 Rem. and .35
Whelen as two examples, neither of which are loaded to their full
potential. Thank you (NOT!) Remington for loading those to for use in
pump and semi-auto guns. You screwed the pooch on those two. As
you also make those pump and semi-auto rifles in .270 Win., what
were you thinking?
Some cartridges from and earlier time period are also kept at lower
pressure levels, the .257 Bob, 7x57 Mauser and 6.5x55 easily come to
mind. The lawyers and bean counters are just doing their usual CYA
game. Any one of those cartridges can easily be loaded to the same
pressure level as the .270 Win. and used in a modern rifle. I've never
done anything with the 6.5x55 or very much with the .257 Bob but I
have done some extensive work with the 7x57. I can very easily
duplicate 7-08 Rem. velocities in two different 7x57 rifles. Rifle #3 is a
horse of a different color, a custom built on an FN Mauser action with
very tight tolerances in the chamber and barrel. In fact, that's the big
problem with that cartridge. The original specs call for a long throat so
the gun can use the 175 gr. round nose bullet. I believe most factory
made gun followed that rule but there are many custom guns out
where the gunsmith either thought a shorter throat or one not of SAAMI
specs asked for by the person commissioning the rifle. Kind of makes
coming up with a practical all guns can use as maximum for a loading
manual almost impossible. I have, using a powder I won't specify have
pushed the 150 gr. Nosler ABLR to a hair over 2900 FPS. That's 100
and change FPS faster than the 150 gr. Remington Corelokt in the .280
Rem. Barrel for the 7x57 =22" and 24" for the .280 Rem. I've shot that
same bullet from the .280 Rem. at 3010 FPS. In both cases, no pun
intended, there were no signs of pressure. None whatsoever. Primers
pockets stayed tight, case head and pressure ring measurements
stayed within limits. Powder for the .280 was IMR 7828ssc for the
record. To be honest while I got the speed, in both cartridges accuracy
was not good. In fact I have so far been unable to get that ABLR bullet
to shoot worth spit in four different rifles. One, a Winchester M70 FWT
usually shoots just about anything under and inch and sometimes way
under. (.50 to .75 on average) The Ruger #1A is good for one inch
groups with most loads. The custom Mauser is the real star running .50
to .60" with Winchester 145 gr. Power Point ammo. However, it shows
higher pressures even with factory ammo. I ran a test loading the 175
gr. Hornady round nose bullet to duplicate the original 1893 7x57
specs and shot five rounds through each rifle. The Ruger #1A and M70
FWT were close with 2300 FPS and change but the Mauser ran the
same load to 2450 FPS. I kind of want to use that Mauser for an
upcoming elk hunt but crap keeps getting into the way.
Paul B.
Back to Top View Paul B.'s Profile Search for other posts by Paul B.
 
safari100
Senior Member




Joined: August 08 2012
Location: ri
Posts: 539
Online Status: Offline
Posted: September 07 2017 at 8:59pm | IP Logged Quote safari100

Well Kosh, I guess you put me in my place. I will continue to load to published data.

__________________
As long as there is lead in the air there is hope>
Back to Top View safari100's Profile Search for other posts by safari100
 
Old Ranger
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: April 11 2010
Location: East Texas
Posts: 3100
Online Status: Online
Posted: September 08 2017 at 11:15am | IP Logged Quote Old Ranger

In response to the original question....

There is a program called "Quick Loads" (might be all one word) that some folks have used. It's reputed to be a good and accurate system of determining "APPROXIMATE pressure" for a given load if it includes ALL the correct component data. I have not used it as I am not a computer geek. Rather, I shoot computers.

So. Those who have this program, love it and have studied and created reasonable, and safe loads. Be advised, this is not a substitute for common sense. Simply because a computer says the load is within parameters of a safe load does not mean it is! A right thinking person, armed with current published data, and a damn healthy respect for what they're doing can use it as a tool to examine the "plotted" load relationships. A tool, not gospel....

Heard its expensive too.

__________________
"I ain't doin' nuthin' I can't do from a horse."

Monte Walsh
Back to Top View Old Ranger's Profile Search for other posts by Old Ranger
 
Kosh75287
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: December 13 2005
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 458
Online Status: Offline
Posted: September 08 2017 at 10:59pm | IP Logged Quote Kosh75287

Quote:
Well Kosh, I guess you put me in my place.

Yah, THAT was my mission...


Quote:
I will continue to load to published data.

I had no illusion you'd do otherwise...
Back to Top View Kosh75287's Profile Search for other posts by Kosh75287
 

Home | Load data | Articles | Ballistic Calc | Energy Calc

If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login
If you are not already registered you must first register

  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum

Powered by Web Wiz Forums version
Copyright ©2001-2008 Web Wiz Guide

This page was generated in 0.1094 seconds.