Quickload is something I don't fully understand but at this stage of my life it's not that important to me. I'm not an electronic or physics minded person  but from what little I do understand about Quickload it's much like the MECHANICS of a sewing machine or cam operated Swiss screw machine. It's all about motion & timing.. If everything is adjusted right it will work. If not adjusted right you get garbage. The parts of a sewing machine ALL have to work together. Same thing with a screw machine. Both are rather simple but marvels of ingenuity. With firearm accuracy it bears  a similarity but has to do with barrel whip or vibration & bullet exit time from the muzzle. I can relate to mechanics but not so much with physics even if they do have parallels. I may be wrong but it seems to me most any bullet can be consistent if the right  powder & load can  be found.  .......Paul H

Your analogy is pretty good, Paul, and offers an opportunity for me to point out something about "science".

QuickLOAD is a computer program that implements a mathematical model that describes a specific phenomenon - shooting a bullet out of a modern rifle. Too many scientists, (actually they are not TRUE Scientists, but rather priests of the religion of science), like to point to the infallibility of scientific "fact". They are, like most priests, con artists. As such they lean heavily on a FEW Truths (like the law of gravity, the motion of the planets, the laws of chemistry, etc.), to weave their CONS.

A sewing machine addresses a specific task: AUTOMATICALLY joining two pieces of fabric. HOWEVER, it is the skill of the tailor/seamstress that determines the quality of the PRODUCT that the machine produces. You cannot throw fabric at a sewing machine and expect a three-piece suit to magically appear. Even when the tailor/seamstress is highly skilled and experienced, they understand that each PIECE of fabric (not "type") has its own characteristic that must be accomodated. It is their skill and experience that allows them to adjust to the vagaries of each piece of fabric (LIKE EVERYTHING IN LIFE).

Computer models only get us "close", and that is ONLY true if the model is 1) VERY good, and 2) is used PROPERLY. The reason so many people believe that computer models "MODEL" a given phenomenon EXACTLY is because the priests of science have LIED about the capabilities of computer models TO MAKE THEIR PRIESTHOOD APPEAR MORE POWERFUL.

I have been at the business of computer modeling for my entire professional career. I have seen arrogant scientist claim that they are going to model "this" or "that" LIFE PROCESS. WITHOUT EXCEPTION, ONLY ONE of the following two outcomes have I seen:
1) They tuck tail and slink away from the project after decades of time and BILLIONS of dollars spent, or
2) The model is so complex that it is completely meaningless. In order to not get garbage out, the input is sufficiently complicated that by the time all the variables are filled in, YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER! Making the model meaningless. Think about our "weather" models. Except for very general application, they are useless. They can save neither time nor money NOR LIVES.

Too often, we look at ENGINEERING 'things' (like sewing machines) that WORK, and EXTEND the technology that developed that SPECIFIC TOOL to "What Man Can Do". Computer Numerically Controlled lathes and mills would be a good example. "Look what "science" can do!". And THEN we ascribe that ability to ALL our "machine-making" efforts. THAT IS WRONG. And the people do that are con-men, charlatans, voodoo priests, and snake-oil salesmen.

Mathematical models, implemented on computers, are only useful IF they can save us time and/or money. QuickLOAD is a good enough model that, if implemented correctly, can save time and money.

I should close by saying "Science, TRUE Science is not only not 'bad', it is the revelation of The Creator - TRUTH. The PRIESTS of science, just like the priests of EVERY religion, are responsible for corrupting the TRUTH."

The sermon for October 12th, 2018,
Paul

I guess I didn't explain my train of thought properly. Maybe it wasn't very clear. I'm somewhat familiar with computer controlled milling machines & lathes. I like them but for general work I prefer manual mills & lathes. I like programming them. I know they'll do their part if you program them right & don't put in the wrong tool. Been there, done that. Makes a 3,000 dollar part into scrap iron. ......Obviously Quickload will get you close. From there it's up to you to fine tune. It may be tweaking the powder charge a bit or adjusting the bullet seating depth in or out or both. I can relate to it's purpose & what it does but can't get it in  my head just how it works. It isn't all that important to me but I'm curious. My mind just doesn't grasp electronics. I'm a mechanical nut but computers just won't register in my brain. I can't even grasp how computerized sewing machines work but understand mechanical machines fully. Quickload is fascinating but above my comprehension. Mechanical sewing machines & automatic screw machines are all about timing moving mechanical parts & synchronizing them regardless of their speed. .......Paul H

Well Paul, I think I was the one that wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting that anything you wrote was 'off'. On the contrary. I thought your analogy was 'spot on'. I just have a hobby horse (corrupt science) that I am prone to climb up on with very little provocation.

Programming CNC machinery yields GREAT (and repeatable) stuff. But it's a VERY specific task. "Modeling" biological systems, or even VERY complex systems like firearms internal ballistics, is VERY difficult to do. The author of QL has done a commendable job, AND he cautions people to "do the work" and not rely on "the math". You can't ask for much more than that. Nevertheless, QL is an "estimator" that gets you close, it's NOT a "producer" like a CNC lathe that produces a finished product.

I've learned a lot about internal ballistics since I bought QL some years back. What I have learned is not new mathematical techniques. Rather I have learned where the variability lies in the system, and how big those variances are. Most importantly, I have learned where manufacturers of bullets and powders "blow smoke".

If I had more time before I left for Colorado, I would attach one of my pressure sensors to my 7x300, and check the REAL pressures instead of guessing at the max pressure based on MV. I just don't have the time to do that. Maybe when I come back I'll hook up my pressure gear. Of course, by then, the only reason to do that would be to 'get numbers'. The precision (and MV) of the load will already be known.

Paul

For those wondering about the "hammer effect" at 300 yd and my comments about the 115-grain HP, have a look here http://thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16867&page=6, and specifically post number 55.

Paul

It's been raining steady for the past two days, but tomorrow it's supposed to "not rain". If that turns out to be correct, I'll get these preliminary 140 and 160 grain loads tested.

Paul

Looking forward to the action & results. .......Paul H

Some days you eat the bear. Some days the bear eats you.

Today, I ate the bear. :D

It was a very hectic day, BUT...
1) I got the winter tires put on the Toyota,
2) I shot the 7x300 to test the 140 and 160 grain Accubonds,
3) Tested the "tire silencer", AND
4) Made it to my wife's concert.

All before 3:30 PM!

Here's the range report on the 140s.
To briefly recapitulate the salient points:
1) The rifle shoots the 115-grain HP bullet VERY precisely, but it runs out of 'gas' much beyond 300 yd,
2) I thought I might be confronted with a shot between 300 and 350 yards on my upcoming deer hunt in Colorado.
3) I decided to try Nosler's Accubond bullet in 140 and 160-grain weights.
4) I had to change powders to use the Accubonds. (Actually, I didn't HAVE to change powders, but I wanted to because QuickLOAD suggested that Retumbo would give higher velocities at lower pressures than H4831.)
5) I 'calibrated' QL based on the timing of the 115-grain bullet's timing, AND adjusting the burning rate of Retumbo so that QL's predicted MV was close to the observed MV.
6) I loaded 5 each of the 140s and 160s.

The plan was to shoot three shots for group without the MagnetoSpeed chronograph bayonet attached, then shoot the last two shots with the chronograph attached to the muzzle of the rifle. I followed that plan. There was no need to 'zero' the rifle, as it was zero'd with the 115, and "hitting the bullseye" wasn't important. Group size (and MV) was all I was interested in.

Here are the first three shots of the 140-grain Accubond:


Point of Aim on both 140s and 160s was the lower left corner of the solid black square seen in the right-hand side of the picture.

You can bet your sweet bippy that I was VERY pleased with those three shots! AND the first one out of a "cold barrel"! No "first shot syndrome" with this rifle. Never has been one.

Here's the picture of the group with the final two shots, after I strapped on the MagnetoSpeed.


Isn't that interesting! Confirms my concerns (and Jamie.270's) about the bayonet affecting point of impact! That's really too bad. I assume that on a bull barrel the effect wouldn't be so dramatic.

But... back to the "good stuff"! The velocities for the two rounds were: 3113 and 3111 f/s. THAT ain't too shabby either, even if it is only two shots! QL predicted MV for that charge was 3093 f/s. A difference of about 20 f/s, with the observed being higher.

It is difficult to express how pleased I was with those numbers and that group. By the way, the group size was 0.87" which translates to 0.89 MoA. You can rest assured that I'll "take" that!

I'll spare you the gory details and cut right to the 'chase scene':


As you can see, this was not nearly so 'inspiring'! I didn't bother shooting the last two shots at the target (but I did get the MVs). Predicted MV was 3017, actual MVs were 3010, and 3043 f/s. A spread of 33 f/s but about 'on' wrt the predicted.

Here's what I think explains the discrepancy between the 140s and the 160s: If you recall, I "calibrated" the burning rate of the powder using the muzzle velocity readings from various charges behind A 140 GRAIN BULLET. With increased experience, what I have begun to see is different "calibration" requirements for different WEIGHTS when the weights are "significantly" different. Which begs the question: "What is a "significant" weight difference?" I wish I could tell you. However, I think when you change bullet DESIGNS as well as weights, I think the exacerbation increases. HOWEVER, it must be acknowledged that while the group size of the 160 was not 'comparable' to either the 115 or the 140, the PREDICTED MV WAS ESSENTIALLY "on". Therefore, the timing SHOULD have also been "on". This will warrant further investigation.

Given the impending departure for Colorado, I am not going to fool with trying to get the 160s to shoot straight. (Although, I have some optimism about achieving that goal without TOO much effort. Just not enough time before the hunt.) I AM going to load up 20 rounds of 140 Accubonds with the above charge of Retumbo. If I get the chance to shoot both the 115 and the 140 before I leave, I'll how they compare in point of impact. The rifle was most certainly sighted in for the 115-grain bullet. Therefore, it is appropriate to assume that the above group represents how far off the POA of the 115, that the 140 would be. Maybe, shooting them at the same time will reveal something I can "do" to make both of them hit the same POA. Or near enough.

The next "win" was the "tire silencer". For that story go here: http://www.thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19964&highlight=tires

Again, I'll cut to the chase: The whole system had not yet been tested. Today, Roy came by to help, and we got all the tires stuffed with fiberglass wool insulation, and the whole shebang lined up so I could shoot through them. IT WORKED GREAT! I actually shot without ear protection! There was still the sharp 'crack', but the 'boom' WAS GONE! Even Roy was impressed, and he had been dragging his feet over using the thing because he was skeptical about its efficacy. He's a believer now!

Finally, when we drove over to his place to set up, this was right in the firing lane:




We literally had to throw rocks at her to get her to leave.

So... All in all, even with the poor performance of the 160s, it was a grand day, and I achieved the goal of getting (at least one) of the "new" bullets, with the "new" powder, to shoot straight enough to take on a long-distance-from-home hunt. And... did it with a total of only 11 rounds being fired! I'd call that "good".

Paul

PS - Here's a picture of how the 7x300 shoots the 115-grain bullet. http://thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18477

Paul

By the way...

Here's the external ballistic table for the 140 at 3112 f/s.


I should also point out, that this the "low" node. Estimated max pressure for this load that produces the average MV of 3112 f/s is 50,622 PSI. That leaves considerable pressure 'headroom' to go to the next fastest node. That estimated MV is 3312. Exactly 300 f/s faster. I don't know if I want to try to get there or not.

Here is the external ballistic table for the 140 doing 3312 f/s:


Paul

lucky moose

Very lucky moose.

Paul

Lucky moose indeed. I could almost taste the gravy.   ......Paul H

Wow. Pull off a fairly amazing (to me only, clearly) feat of reloading, and the only interest is in the pictures of the moose in the shooting lane.

I suppose, this is a HUNTING site, after all.

Paul

When all of this is said and done Paul , I have , at your disposal,  a tack driver of a Tikka T3 lite in .308 that you are more than welcome to shoot.  It`s my go to gun for deer.  This might also eliminate the hassle of gun transportation on the airlines with subsequent damage.  You also have the `pick of the litter` of anything in my arsenal.

  Looking forward to your arrival.

 JaDub

As sakorick would say, "I'm leanin' forward in the foxhole".

I sincerely appreciate the offer JaDub, but I'm fine with the 7x300. Maybe Pat and I will stop by the range as we head home from the airport. We've done that before, but I'm pretty comfortable with the 115 out of the 7x300, and I'm very pleased with the 140 Accubonds. I just don't have the 140s "on target". To do that, I'd have to take the 115s "off target". I'm disinclined to fixing what ain't broke. THAT SAID, if I "feel the need", I'll use "whatever works". A Tikka .308 tack driver would beat the dickens out of a .30-06. :D

Paul