borbal

On 12/9/2020 at 7:05 PM, Gandy said:

I’ve been using a free product called Gordon’s reloading tool as I didn’t want to pay for quick load again and have found it very good. 

In what way is GRT good? Easy to use....? Accurate....? Lots of variables you can play with....? Good support...?

This looks like a very competent internal/external ballistics package which does very much the same as QuickLOAD but at a third the price. It comes on a disc - like QuickLOAD - and also seems to be a Windoze only program. And they do ship to Europe.

Anybody...?

You could give my own humble effort a try...

http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/trajectory.htm

On 7/30/2020 at 8:37 PM, banus02 said:

good evening,i am a little concerned about the pressure readings,they seem a bit high, my theoretical load data is n165 powder at 46.5 grs 95gr nosler ballistic tip,usable case capacity of 51 h20 federal 243 case, over all length will be  2680". i need to make a muzzle energy of 1700 ft lbs to be deer legal.also the 46.5 gr powder weight is a lot higher than the vit load data.

Sorry for the late reply, just saw your message

You don't give a barrel length, but let us assume it is 23 inches, which is the barrel length in the online Vihtavuori reloading charts for the 243 Win cartridge. There we see that with 46 grains of N165 behind a 95 grain Berger "Classic Hunter", the muzzle velocity is 2918 ft/sec. The P-Max simulator predicts 2952 ft/sec, which is pretty fair agreement. P-Max predicts a pressure of 3350 bar, which is a very reasonable pressure... and the muzzle energy is 1839 ft-lbs, which is comfortably higher than your 1700 ft-lbs requirement.

You say you are "concerned about the pressure readings"..... Is that the signs of pressure in your rifle or the pressures that P-Max predicts?

Geoffrey Kolbe

Yup..... as soon as I can get some data on the powder. Vihtavuori are more forthcoming than most powder companies in that data on their powders is published on various pages around the place. But I have sent them a number of emails recently asking for more detailed information and they have not even bothered to reply. There are a few data on N555 they have published, like the energy and loading density, but I really need the kernel dimensions and the vivacity data as well. If you see any data on N555, give me a shout.

It might be worth investigating the throat of your chamber with a bore scope. I have seen "carbon rings" build up which are very difficult to remove and add quite a bit to he shot start pressure.You might think you clean your gun real good, but....

All's well that ends well...

45 minutes ago, VarmLR said:

Yes.  My actual velocities averaged 3224fps with a few higher than that 3244fps so 61fps under predicted but close.  Previous load data shows velocities at 3150fps with an SD of 5 and a low ES as well, so lower pressure (same cases).  Batch to batch variations in powder could easily account for the change.  Lesson learnt the hard way and one gas cut bolt face later.  Thankfully still useable!

Length of your barrel...? The Viht data was with a 620mm (25 inch) barrel.

The Vihtavuori manual does not give data for the Vmax, but it does for the 60 grain SP by Hornady. The COAL was 57.0mm which gives a  calculated usable case capacity of 27.5 grains of H2O. The maximum load in the manual was 23.1 grains of N130, which should leave the case about 96% full (with the bullet seated). The quoted MV was 3173 ft/sec. P-max predicts 3197 ft/sec. with a warm peak pressure of 62717 psi.

23.9 grains of N130 gives a loading density of 99%, so a full case, and an MV of 3305 ft/sec., but the P-Max pressure is now distinctly "red" at 70776 psi. 

It looks like P-Max agrees that reducing your load or increasing your case capacity would be a good move....

1 hour ago, VarmLR said:

I Shot this load for 5 years without any issues or any eviden pressure signs such as flattened primers or marks on the case heads and it's shot really well, but recently I've had two batches of Vhit where MVs seem to have jumped by over 100fps using this load so I'm backing way off and re-developing the load to another accuracy node a grain or more down the load ladder.

Are you using different cases as well? Sounds like you are pretty much filling the case and a slightly heavier case would make a lot of difference in peak pressure.

17 hours ago, Popsbengo said:

 

QL gives 53672 psi peak pressure and 2732fps Mv  99.97% combustion

P-Max gives 65241 psi peak pressure and 2680fps Mv  92% combustion

Any ideas please?

 

I have been scratching my head about this for some while, but I think I have found the answer. 

It is of note that as the loading density (ratio) approaches 100% (full case) the P-Max pressures climb higher and faster than the corresponding QL pressures. But I also noticed that the muzzle pressures are lower in P-Max than in QL. So, what does that indicate?

It indicates that P-Max is treating the powder as more 'digressive' that QL. What does that mean?

When the powder is ignited in the case, there is not much volume as the bullet has not started moving up the barrel yet. So, you do not want the powder to burn too fast or the pressures could become catastrophic. However, once the bullet has moved off down the barrel and the volume has increased and is increasing quickly, then you want the powder to burn faster to keep pushing the bullet up the barrel. So, you ideally want powders to start burning slow and then get faster (generating gas more quickly) as the bullet accelerates up the barrel and the volume is increasing quickly. This is called a 'progressive' powder where gas generation gets 'progressively' faster.

Powders that have seven or even nine perforations (holes through the length of the cylindrical kernel) are common in large calibre cannons and such powders are progressive. As the powder burns from the outside and from the inside of all the perforations, the area of the kernel increases and so the gas production increases as they burn. Ball powders are 'digressive', because the area of the ball kernel decreases as it burns. But ball powders are usually coated with deterrents on the outside so that ball powders can be made to act like neutral or even progressive powders as they burn.

Cylindrical powders with one perforation (most rifle powders) and flake powders are usually classed as 'neutral' powders. As they burn, the area remains constant and the gas production stays roughly constant as the powder burns. But this is actually only an approximation which is only true for cylinders of infinite length and flakes of infinite width and length. However, this is an approximation used in many powder burning models for simplicity - including, I suspect, QuickLOAD.

In actual fact, the kernels in most rifle powders are only slightly longer than they are wide, and so they are not 'neutral'. These powders also burn from the ends of the cylinder and this cannot be neglected in 'short' cylinder kernels like in rifle powders. These powders are actually somewhat 'digressive', and that is how they are treated in P-max.

The result is that in QL, where cylinder kernels with one perforation are assumed to be 'neutral', the peak pressures will be lower because the powder is not assumed to burn from the ends and so gas is not generated as quickly as the kernel starts burning. However, muzzle pressures will be higher because the burning area of the powder kernel stays bigger for longer - because the kernel is assumed not to be burning at the ends.

I have run P-Max with the burning of the kernel ends turned off, and the results then start to look more like QL results, with lower maximum pressures, higher muzzle pressures and the powder being 'all burnt' sooner.

Anyway, I leave you to decide which model treats the powder burning more correctly...

Geoffrey Kolbe

6 hours ago, VarmLR said:

Tried comparisons of actual loads fired today in 6.5 and .223 and the powder burn rate re-calibration seems to have worked as in each case actual velocities were within 30fps for two 223 loads and to 6.5 loads but oddly a lot further adrift with a lighter .223 bullet where PMax over-estimated velocities by over 100fps.   I'd call that a good result overall though so feel a lot happier about using this.  What was a "safe" load previously in 223 is not a "red" load at 61Kpsi which certainly correlated to my blown primers today!

Well, that is gratifying - thanks very much for that

Interesting that a load which had previously shown up as "green" (under 51,450 psi) is now "orange" at 61k psi. What load was that...?

Thanks again for your comments

Geoffrey

57 minutes ago, Popsbengo said:

Thanks Geoffrey.  With regard to bullet travel wouldn't overall length be more meaningful than case length as different 155 are quite different in length?

No. The distance which the base of the bullet travels is what is important. It is not until the base of the bullet exits the barrel that the gasses stop accelerating it. (Actually, the muzzle blast continues to accelerate the bullet slightly even when the bullet has been 'launched'). The P-Max simulator actually assumes that the bullet is seated into the case by a length of one bullet calibre, which is why when you look at the graphs for bullet travel vs pressure and velocity, the graph starts a little before the 2 inches (for a 308 Win)

N140 gives me excellent results so I'm unlikely to try N150 with 155gr.  I will however be developing a 185gr load with N150

You would get an extra 100 ft/sec or thereabouts....😉 and no pressure problems...

Geoffrey

38 minutes ago, Popsbengo said:

Hi Geoffrey

Firstly thanks for taking the time to develop this app, much appreciated.

I have run some calculations in Quick-Load and got very different results to your calculator;  my QL results reflect what I actually see ±20fps

Rifle 24" barrel

.308 155 Lap Scenar in Lapua brass.  43.5gr Viht N140.  I inputted my measured case volume with bullet inserted to my usual depth - this is 47.58gr water.

Why does it matter what the case length is if I have measured the case volume with bullet fitted?  Case length inputted is 2.005"

QL gives 53672 psi peak pressure and 2732fps Mv  99.97% combustion

P-Max gives 65241 psi peak pressure and 2680fps Mv  92% combustion

Any ideas please?

 

The P-Max simulator needs the case length so it knows the actual distance the bullet will travel. The muzzle velocity is actually a function of the actual distance the bullet travels, not the 'barrel length' per se. 

Comparing one simulator against another does not get us very far. Comparing P-Max against actual results is much more interesting.

Having said that, I note that the P-Max Mv is only 53 ft/sec. different that the QL result. Given that they are two completely different models and that gun-to-gun differences with the same load can easily be 100 ft/sec., I would call that a reasonable agreement. (Better than 2%)

As for pressures, I do not know the details of the QL model that Hartmut Broemel used. I think he got it from a book on ballistics put out by Rheinmetall in the 1970s, but that is in German so I cannot understand the model described in detail. The RS Chemie-Swiss reloading data does give pressures with its loads and generally the P-Max pressures would seem lower than they measure, but that is a very loose correlation of P-max pressures with quoted pressures and I suspect comparing the QL predicted pressures would be frustrating as well. P-Max pressures do seem very sensitive to loads approaching 100% loading density in a way that QL is not. For safety reasons, I would be more troubled if it was the other way around.

I have played around with Vihtavuouri powders for target rifle loads like yours and it would seem that N150 would be a better powder....? I know a number of shooters who use N150.

Thanks for your comments

Geoffrey

P-Max Internal Ballistics simulator is now back on line. The simulator has been improved slightly and as a result, all Vihtavuori and Chemi-Swiss powders have been re-calibrated.

I look forward to hearing how it works for you now

http://www.bbt.scot/ballistics/pressure.htm

Thanks

Geoffrey

Thanks very much for your comments. I think in retrospect,  a 'global warming' of the burning rates was a mistake.  I should have attended to the burning rates individually. I will remove the program temporarily while I review the burning rates. It should be back online in a couple of days.

Thanks for your patience. 

Geoffrey

Yes, I did slightly adjust the burning rates of all the powders listed. The reports I was getting back was that velocities were on the low side ranging from spot-on to about 100 ft/sec slow. Then I figured most handloaders actually load out to touch the lands whereas the data I had used to calibrate the powder models was from reloading manuals, where they load for a standard COAL and not to touch the lands, which would lower the pressures and the muzzle velocities.

The model assumes a shot start pressure which has to be reached before the bullet sets off down the barrel, which is equivalent to loading out to touch the lands, so I figured I would just increase the burning rates slightly to try and reproduce that scenario. I may have overdone it slightly😔

If you look at the bottom of the front page on the website, where you enter the data for the first time, you will see a version number for the simulator. If you click on that it will take to a listing of the dates and what was updated on the simulator.

Were you loading out to touch the lands?

Thanks.

Geoffrey

"Way off".... please quantify. How much 'way off'? What was your load and your cartridge?

Thanks

Geoffrey

Indeed, I have plans to include as many powders as possible! Unfortunately, powder companies are very reluctant to part with their closed-bomb data on their powders and most companies do not even bother to reply. I am planning on building my own closed-bomb so that I can do my own analysis of powders, but even so it will be a marathon rather than a sprint to expand the P-Max powder libraries.

Thanks for your interest!

Geoffrey

Good👍

What powder were you using?

1 hour ago, VarmLR said:

 Load development though always trumps modelled predictions which I treat as a good way of perhaps comparing powders and establishing starting loads.

Could not agree more.

Load development should be done on the range with your rifle, not on a keyboard in front of a computer screen

Thank for your comments VarmLR

It is very difficult to account for different primers. People complain about this for QuickLOAD as well. In real life, some primers are 'particle rich'  and spray a jet of incandescent particles into the powder column. The radiant heat from the particles ignites the powder, usually at the base first close to the primer. Some primers are 'gas rich' and the powder ignites as the primer gasses condense on the powder kernels and so heat up the kernels by conduction. Models like QuickLOAD, GRT or P-Max have no way of modelling for this as they assume the burning rate of the powder is proportional to pressure and temperature never gets a look-in during the simulation. The simulation is started by assuming an existing start pressure of 800 psi or so and it takes off from there, which of course is some point after the primer has done its work.

OK on the other information. Yes, the pressures that P-Max generates are higher for the maximum loads than the Vihtavuori manual shows. But it is invariably the case that the pressures indicated by P-Max are 'green' for starting loads and 'orange' or 'red' for maximum loads. I tried to tune the powder model for velocity agreement with the manual, not for pressure. I would be more troubled if P-Max underestimated the pressures as people might assume a load was safe if the indicated pressure was lower than it should be.

Generally, I am pretty happy if the velocities are within 100 ft/sec as variations in individual firearms will easily give a spread of 100 ft/sec for the same cartridge and I am not going to fight too hard to improve on that. However, other feedback I have had would suggest that in general there is a bias to underestimating velocities and if the feedback continues to suggest that, I will take a look at fixing that.

Thanks again for your comments

Geoffrey Kolbe

3 hours ago, Ronin said:

That’s a very useful update Geoffrey - thank you have to say I like the way the program works for me 

I am very pleased to hear that. How are you estimating "usable case capacity"?

The next update will be to enlarge (greatly) the table of cartridge usable case capacities so people can make a stab at the performance of different cartridges. 

Best wishes

Geoffrey

The Vihtavuori range of rifle powders have now been added.

http://www.bbt.scot/ballistics/pressure.htm

Enjoy...

.... or you can simply try it out at http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/trajectory.htm where range angle is a variable.....