An interesting problem,  ShootinPeter has a Ruger77 with an 18" barrel.
His question was could he make it shoot 'legal' ammunition for the UK?
(Actually only concerned regarding England)

The Law as it stands for shooting Deer in the UK;
"England and Wales

For Muntjac and Chinese Water deer only-           a rifle with a minimum calibre of not less than .220 inches           and muzzle energy of not less than 1000 foot pounds and a           bullet weight of not less than 50 grains may be used.
For all deer of               any species - a minimum calibre of .240 and           minimum muzzle energy of 1,700 foot pounds is the legal           requirement.


Northern Ireland

For Muntjac and Chinese Water deer only-           a rifle with a minimum calibre of not less than .220 inches           and muzzle energy of not less than 1000 foot pounds and a           bullet weight of not less than 50 grains may be used.
For all deer of any             species - a minimum calibre of .236 inches, a minimum           bullet weight of 100 grains and minimum muzzle energy of 1,700           foot pounds is the legal requirement.


Scotland

For roe deer, where the bullet must weigh           at least 50 grains AND have a minimum muzzle velocity of 2,450           feet per second AND a minimum muzzle energy of 1,000 foot           pounds may be used.
              For all deer of any species - the bullet           must weigh at least 100 grains AND have a minimum muzzle           velocity of 2,450 feet per second AND a minimum muzzle energy           of 1,750 foot pounds."

Number crunching to follow (enter stage left)....

So in response to the 'challenge', j0e and I have been 'crunching numbers' in QuickLOAD, looking for a 'solution' to the problem. Let me state the problem clearly:

Come up with a load - bullet and powder - that will launch a .243 projectile from an 18" barrel chambered in .243 Winchester, at a muzzle velocity sufficient to generate at least 1700 ft-lbs of energy and keep the maximum estimated pressure "reasonable".

Of course one needs to define "reasonable". However, the reason I put "reasonable" in quotes is because there is no exact figure above which we don't want to go except the SAAMI/CIP max of 60,191 PSI. Still, we all decided, (Peter, j0e, and I), that 55,000 PSI "ish" was the not-to-exceed figure at least until there was a clear need to exceed it.

The initial bullet weight under consideration was 100 grains. One must get a 100-grain bullet going 2767 f/s to generate 1700 ft-lbs of muzzle energy. We looked at heavier bullets - 115-grainers - but they have gyroscopic stability problems in 10-twist barrels. (The twist rate of Peter's barrel.)  Some of the lighter weight bullets are not readily available in the UK. (Or England for that matter. ).

We wrestled a bit with the 100-grain bullets, finding one that worked ON PAPER - the Hornady Round Nose #2455 - but apparently Hornady doesn't still make that bullet. The longer 100-grain bullets were all mostly boat-tails of one sort or another, and that used up too much case capacity. We moved down to 95 grains.

At 95 grains we could use a boat-tail and still have enough case capacity, and there were plenty 95-grain .243 bullets still being manufactured and sold in GB. The one that seems to "work" on paper is the Nosler Ballistic Silvertip (AK Combined Technology Ballistic Silvertip). Using that bullet with the "standard" Cartridge Overall Length of 2.71"and a charge of 42.0 grains of Reloder-17, a muzzle velocity of 2847 f/s can be achieved from an 18" barrel, which in turn generates a muzzle energy of 1707 ft-lbs with an associated estimated max chamber pressure of 54,184 PSI. 99.9% of the powder is burnt in the barrel before the bullet exits. That's significant and important, (quieter ad less flash), in a short barrel.

In the context of Optimal Barrel Timing (OBT) theory, the timing of the above load is -3% down from the "on-node" value (node 6). From 0 to -3% is where I find most barrels to shoot best with respect to OBT theory. Increasing the charge to get to the on-node timing requires 42.7 grains which produces an estimated max chamber pressure of over 57k PSI. That is outside our comfort zone. Still, somewhere between -3% and 0, a precise load should be found.

All of the above needs to be qualified by saying that the numbers are ALL based on "standard" figures for bullets, powders, pressures, etc. In PRACTICE, the above charges might be "cooler" or "hotter". We don't have chamber dimension specs, and the best data comes out of QuickLOAD only when the best (most complete) data goes in. A good chrono (like the MAgnetospeed , would go a long way to determining the "fitness" of the above paper-whipping.

Paul

Thanks for your assistance Paul!
You should have seen the advise glibly bandied about on the UK forum - from selling the rifle to AI the chamber....  Incredible!

I may be cynical, BUT, is there any reason to expect the burerats to accept such information without a long drawn out process involving "official" testing labs and certified results, of course, from another burerat?

I raised your point before we started the exercise, Don, and J0e and I discussed it. I just put it a bit differently:

QuoteIs anybody REALLY going to LEGALLY care about a few ft-lbs here or there?

J0e's response was that while he has never heard of anyone actually being accosted and harassed about this law, one is always open to such harassment if such a law is "on the books". THAT is absolutely true. It was j0e's opinion that should such an unlikely event occur, having performed the due diligence (workups like this in QL and chrono data records) a priori to being charged would at least reduce the headache if not eliminate it.

I should also note that j0e informs me that in the UK they have the means, (remember the Brits have gov't sanctioned PROOF HOUSES), to conduct such 'examinations'. The thought is that if the person being confronted by the police about the conformation of their hunting arms and loads to the law, has the data in hand to show that they have actually tested them themselves, the plods would not waste the money to redo it. Of course, as always, the aggressiveness of the "investigation" depends on how badly "they" want a piece of you.

The police "over there" are not much different than "over here" I don't think. First, there are the laws. ALL of us gun owners know the silliness of many firearms laws, however, "the law is the law". After that comes "good" cops and "bad" cops. If one runs afoul of a bad cop, one can only do what one can to stem the stupidity. From what I understand from multiple sources, the cops in charge of firearms law enforcement run the gamut from "idiots on a mission" to "reasonable people". Pretty much the same as it is here. We just have different laws.

Paul

What he said ^^^

One thing that is slightly different is that plod have their own forensic laboratories with all their own loading gear chrono's etc. etc. probably would not ask proof house(s) to test.

It would appear that barrel length is actually 18.5", certainly helps the cause!

Excellent reading, Quickload sure is "interesting", I have had a lot of fun with it. Of course I was fortunate to have some one "show me the ropes". I will not mention any names to protect the innocent.
  I recently developed a load for my sons .243, theoretically the bullet is moving 2789fps and producing 1727ft-lbs of energy, with a pressure of 54,652psi. of course this is from a 20" barrel. amazing what an inch and a half will do. may be a challenge to stay under 55,000psi with the 18.5. BUT, I am sure the right guys are on the job.
  I am hoping to get some rifles on the chronograph this weekend to see exactly what they are doing since temps are more conducive to hunting season now.  God Bless.

It will be interesting to see your results, David.

"Amazing what an inch and a half will do." Ain't it the troof. Equally amazing how insignificant an inch and a half can be sometimes as well.

When one starts to deal with half-inch increments in bbl length, it's time to get precise measurements of case capacities and chamber lengths. To put it differently, the difference between the real values of chamber length and case capacity from the "standard" values can easily swamp the effect of changing the barrel length by half an inch.

While the extra half an inch certainly helps, probably it's biggest  effect will be on the relationship between timing and pressure

Paul

Pressing on...

QuoteSuggested I copy my latest check results here.
So, without more ado...

     Quote:
                                                 Weight dry after full length resize with spent primer inserted.

Weight wet - fill with raised meniscus then seep off with kit towel until no meniscus.

Dry case outside to soak any spilt drops of water.

Note: (9.999) = weight in oz, otherwise grams.

..........Dry      ...............Wet ...........Make
1     11.49(0.405)   14.95(0.527)   PPU WIN
2     11.56(0.408)   14.99(0.529)   PPU WIN
3     11.51(0.406)   14.96(0.528)   PPU WIN
4     11.57(0.408)   15.02(0.530)   PPU WIN
5     11.56(0.408)   14.98(0.528)   PPU WIN
 ===
     6     10.65(0.376)   14.16(0.499)   WINCHESTER WIN
     7     10.58(0.373)   14.15(0.499)   WINCHESTER WIN
      8     10.55(0.372)   14.14(0.499)   WINCHESTER WIN
     9     10.67(0.376)   14.24(0.502)   WINCHESTER WIN
10   10.70(0.377)   14.23(0.502)   WINCHESTER WIN

( Note: Whatever I try I cannot format the above table correctly)

There appears to be a greater volume variation in the WINCHESTER results in the order of 2% but 1.1% in the PPU cases.

Is this signifcant? - In a word - Yes. I'll illustrate the level of significance with some QuickLOAD output.

Also the volumes in the WINCHESTER cases is greater by 0.112cc - how much does this affect fps? Again, I will show with some QL output.                    

Peter - Formatting tables with the THL editor is VERY frustrating. How you did it is how most of us do it. One alternative is to format in say "Word" or "Excel", take a "picture" of it with a "screenshot", and post the image. Lots of hassle, so mostly I just do it with "dots" and "spaces".

From your table I get the following case volumes in grains:
      53.39
52.92
53.23
53.23
52.77      
      The average for the PPU brass is 53.11 grains , and the standard deviation is 0.25 grains.

54.16
55.09
55.39
55.09
54.47
The average for the Winchester brass is 54.84 grains, with a standard deviation of 0.51 grains.

These two KINDS of brass WILL give you different average muzzle velocities, and THEORETICALLY, groups shot with the PPU brass will be half the size of groups shot with the Winchester brass. HOWEVER, let me again emphasize the word THEORETICAL. The above statements would very likely be true IF AND ONLY IF the number of shots fired (the sample size) were on the order of 120. With smaller sample sizes, it is possible to see the differences, but it is also possible that other factors will over-ride the variance within and between these cases. The smaller the sample size, the less likely that the statistical differences will be EASILY discernible.

All of that said, let's move on to some more practical, but still 'theoretical' number crunching. I will treat the PPU and Winchester brass separately, and I would advise that you load the two with charges appropriate to their respective LARGEST case capacities. In other words, NOT putting the same charge in both case types.

Hokay... With all of that out of the way, here are the QL outputs.

First is the AVERAGE PPU case volume of 53.11 grains.

42.0 grains of RL-17 yields an estimated chamber pressure of 53,034 PSI, with an associated MV of 2847 f/s and 1719 ft-lb of muzzle energy. Exit timing is 1.038 ms which is 3% down from node 6.

Now, using the lowest case volume of the PPU cases - 52.77 grains - and keeping the 42.0  grains of RL-17, we get the following:
Max Pressure - 53,713 PSI
Muzzle Velocity - 2857 f/s
Muzzle Energy - 1722 ft-lbs
Exit Time - 1.031 ms

Using the largest case volume of the PPU cases - 53.39 grains - with all else the same:
Max Pressure - 52,467 PSI
Muzzle Velocity - 2839 f/s
Muzzle Energy - 1700 ft-lbs
Exit Time - 1.044 ms

Using the AVERAGE Winchester case volume of 54.84 grains, with all else the same:
Max Pressure - 49,789 PSI
Muzzle Velocity - 2797 f/s
Muzzle Energy - 1650 ft-lbs
Exit Time - 1.076 ms

Now the smallest Winchester volume - 54.16 grains, and all else the same:
Max Pressure - 51,005 PSI
Muzzle Velocity - 2816 f/s
Muzzle Energy - 1673 ft-lbs
Exit Time - 1.061 ms

And finally, the largest Winchester volume - 55.39 grains, and all else the same:
Max Pressure - 48,851 PSI
Muzzle Velocity - 2782 f/s
Muzzle Energy - 1632 ft-lbs
Exit Time - 1.087 ms

As you can see, case capacity makes a significant difference. None of the Winchester cases would achieve your goal of 1700 ft-lb of muzzle energy WITH A CHARGE OF 42 GRAINS OF RL-17. (That does NOT mean that they wouldn't be a good case choice. I'll come back to this.) All three of the PPU cases meet the 1700 ft-lb criterion with a charge of 42 grains of RL-17. Furthermore, there is a variation in MV of 60 f/s. That's non-trivial. I'll show some trajectory tables later to illustrate what these differences in MV mean down-range.

While at first blush one might consider the PPU cases "better" choices, these numbers only apply to the 42.0 grain charge. Let me show you what happens when we adjust the charge to the AVERAGE case capacity of the Winchester case.

With a case capacity of 54.84 grains and the charge increased to 42.65 grains and all else kept the same:
Max Pressure - 52,202 PSI
Muzzle Velocity - 2839 f/s
Muzzle Energy - 1700 ft-lbs
Exit Time - 1.055 ms

For proper comparison, let's adjust the charge from 42.0 grains for the AVERAGE PPU case volume to where it also yields exactly the desired 1700 ft-lb of ME. That charge is 41.88 grains.
Max Pressure - 52,548 PSI
Muzzle Velocity - 2839 f/s
Muzzle Energy - 1700 ft-lbs
Exit Time - 1.043 ms

Here's what to take note of:
While muzzle velocity is identical for the two cases, the case with the larger capacity has a lower pressure - by 346 PSI. Not significant, but noteworthy that larger cases provide equal MVs at lower pressures.

Also note the difference in timing. Lower pressure means slower burning which means longer exit times. Remember that the point of exit timing is not to be on some theoretical node, but to be where the RIFLE "wants" to be. SO... while the 1.043 ms exit timing of the PPU case MIGHT be on a THEORETICAL node, you might find when SHOOTING the rifle that it "likes" - makes smaller groups - with the Winchester cases. There is no way to know this without shooting the rifle. HOWEVER.... you can mitigate ALL of the variation in case capacities by determining the capacity of every case, and make up a load specifically for each case. For benchrest shooters and those obsessed with precision, this is probably a realistic endeavor. For hunters that DON'T MIX CASE MANUFACTURERS, this is probably unnecessary. I'm a borderline case. :D

Let's look at what these differences in muzzle velocities mean in trajectory.

I'll revert to ONE CHARGE for both case types; take the high, average, and low case volume MVs with that single charge; and calculate trajectories for each case type.

I will take a charge that gets the largest Winchester case capacity (55.39 grains) up to the minimum ME of 1700 ft-lbs. That charge is 42.89 grains of RL-17.
Max Pressure - 52,093 PSI
Muzzle Velocity - 2839 f/s
Muzzle Energy - 1700 ft-lbs
Exit Time - 1.055 ms

Now, I'll take the AVERAGE and the smallest Winchester case capacity and the PPU largest, average, and smallest case capacities and recalculate MVs for each of them.

Average Winchester case (54.84 grains) with charge of 42.89 grains of RL-17:
Max Pressure - 53,123 PSI
Muzzle Velocity - 2854 f/s
Muzzle Energy - 1718 ft-lbs
Exit Time - 1.044 ms

"Small" Winchester case (54.16 grains) with all else the same:
Max Pressure - 54,458 PSI
Muzzle Velocity - 2874 f/s
Muzzle Energy - 1742 ft-lbs
Exit Time - 1.000 ms

Now the largest PPU (53.39 grains) case and all else equal:
Max Pressure - 56,068 PSI
Muzzle Velocity - 2897 f/s
Muzzle Energy - 1770 ft-lbs
Exit Time - 1.013 ms

The AVERAGE PPU case (53.11 grains), and all else the same:
Max Pressure - 56,679 PSI
Muzzle Velocity - 2905 f/s
Muzzle Energy - 1780 ft-lbs
Exit Time - 1.007 ms

And the smallest PPU case (52.77 grains) and all else the same:
Max Pressure - 57,443 PSI
Muzzle Velocity - 2916 f/s
Muzzle Energy - 1793 ft-lbs
Exit Time - 1.000 ms

Interesting, eh? Notice that the differences in MV from highest to lowest is 77 f/s. That would certainly screw with one's group size. Also not that the max pressure in the smaller cases is "getting up there". These are the reasons why you don't mix brass manufacturers in a given "load".

Let's look at trajectories:

In the same order as above - Winchester largest case to PPU smallest case. Each will be have sight in distance set for 1" high max height above line of sight, and run out to 300 yd. By comparing differences at common ranges, you can see how group size would vary at that specific range within a case manufacturer, and between case manufacturers.

The Winchester "large" capacity case:


The Winchester AVERAGE capacity case:


The Winchester "small" capacity case:


The PPU "large" capacity case:


THe PPU "AVERAGE" capacity case:


The PPU "small" capacity case:



So let me give you some reference points: Taking the Winchester cases, if you compare the 200 yd differences in elevation, the figure is 0.2". That means that if you were holding the rifle PERFECTLY steady, the difference in MV ALONE would mean a difference of 0.2" in point of impact at 200 yd. My point is NOT to suggest that 0.2" difference in impact at 200 yd is a 'big' deal. I am simply saying that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to produce groups smaller than that SOLELY due to differences in case capacities. Of course all of the other factors would add to the "error".

So... Here's the bottom line for a self-described "newby" reloader: Don't mix brass types UNLESS you are willing to measure the case capacity of each case and make a load up for each case OR you make a separate load based on the AVERAGE case capacity of a give case manufacture.

In your situation where you NEED to achieve a specific minimum ME, a charge of 42.0 grains of RL-17 will give you the desired ME of 1700 ft-lb in the PPU case with the LARGEST capacity. All the other cases will produce higher MVs, MEs, and chamber pressures, but you will never (theoretically) be below 1700 ft-lbs/2839 f/s with that load in PPU cases.

For the Winchester cases, the load is 42.89 grains of RL-17. Again, all of the other Winchester cases will give higher MVs, MEs, and chamber pressures, but you will never be below 1700 ft-lbs/2939 f/s in any of the other Winchester cases.

LET ME POINT SOMETHING OUT: You only weighed 5 cases of each type. THERE MAY BE CASES WITH HIGHER AND LOWER CAPACITIES IN YOUR TOTAL BATCH.

You don't need to "worry" about that difference in capacity, but you should be aware that all of the above 'pencil-whipping' was for a specific set of data from 5 each cases. "Variation has a direct impact on precision." The significance of which is usually best determined at the target butts.

I can imagine that you might have some questions. Have at it... :D

Paul

Je.e.e.e.s.usss, Paul!
You do put a LOT of work in on (hopefully not just my) behalf.
IMPRESSED

I need to sit down for an hour (which I don't have right now) and (re)study carefully.

However there are some obvoius points to absorb.

First don't mix manufacturers' cases  else we need to recalculate.

That means at least for the present I'm using PPU brass, I have 100+, since I only have 20 WINCHESTER cases. - I bought what were offered on a UK forum as 50 WIN cases which is/was strictly true except 30 are FC (Federal) brass which gets BAD press for reloading.

Do I now need to measure all the PPU brass for volume?
... and dispose of the resultant outcasts?
The pressure on the smallest case with 57.8 grains seems to be getting squeaky @ 57K+ psi.
Another option is to buy 100(+) new cases from a reputable manufacturer, say LAPUA? and recalculate with them?

Secondly. I note the impact energy drops significantly between 100 vs. 200 yards on either case of ca. delta 220 ft.lbs.
Popping a deer at 200 yds with my 243 is unlikely but possible.  How significant is 220 ft.lbs to kill shot or not?
I remember reading somewhere about Scottish regulations regarding minimum impact energy but a quick search doesn't find it.
However I found this, "http://www.chuckhawks.com/bad_deer_cartridges.htm" where it states, "Required impact velocity: as per bullet  manufacturer; typically at least 1500 fps for conventional soft point  rifle bullets.....
Minimum remaining kinetic energy at impact: 800 ft. lbs."
Does this make sense or just someone's opinion?
 I read on ther forums that Ackley proposes higher values.


Thirdly, trajectory.  A lesson here for me to appreciate.
Difference across the board appears to be ca. 7.5" drop betwee 100 & 200 yds.
WOW!
My background was with military 7.62 L1A1 and I don't recall ever being aware of that trajectory and we shot regularly at up to 500 yds - the L1A1 wasn't much use at over 500 yds.
I also shot target 303 at up to 600 yds where at that distance drop was significant. And windage. And light. And trigger action. And breathing. And.....

Next, to throw another spanner in the works, no mention has been made of overall bullet length?
Actually what I do mean is how far is the 95 gr Nosler inserted into the case?

I did some checks over the weekend using blank cases as I have some reloads that will not chamber. I assumed it was overall bullet length.
One neck sized but not factory crimped and one loose, i.e. could move bullet in case with finger pressure.
The 'loose' case I pulled out the bullet to it's absolute extent and loaded it five times then measured the overall length. Average was 69mm ( 2.72"). So it wasn't overall length was the issue especially as the neck sized case at 66.6mm(2.62") loaded without effort.
Perhaps this should be in a new topic?

So does QL assume factory crimp?
Does QL assume a specific chamber capacity after powder and bullet loaded?

Is there a viable alternative to RL-17?
I enquired of my local RFD of powder and bullet supply. (RFD? Registered Firearms Dealer).
Bullets no problem. RL-17, available only randomly.

I want to make a point here.
I am not particularly interested in the legality of MV or ME.
I have assumed that a LOT of research has gone into what the minimum MV & ME figures should be based on a clean kill.
This is why I feel I should meet the legal criteria.
Sorry, bit off topic now but refers to j0e's first post here.

P.S. Can we have a spell checker, please? My typing becomes ever more dilsetiK.

There are a number of free spul chekr programs available, just search for one, should find plenty out there.
There may even be one for G.B. version of the language!

;<)

That would get somewhat tedious if we have to write the message externally then spell check it then paste it into a post here?

Unless you know of a way to spell check a post written on this board?

First thing is, all your questions are "good" ones. You'll find my answers occasionally at odds with "common knowledge" (which isn't). We choose where we are comfortable 'settling' in the context of what information we incorporate into our way of doing things.

My answers to your specific questions below are in yellow.


First don't mix manufacturers' cases  else we need to recalculate.

That means at least for the present I'm using PPU brass, I have 100+, since I only have 20 WINCHESTER cases. - I bought what were offered on a UK forum as 50 WIN cases which is/was strictly true except 30 are FC (Federal) brass which gets BAD press for reloading.
I don't know who bad-mouths FC brass, but there really isn't any legitimate reason that I know of. Consider the differences in the case capacities of your PPU and Winchester brass. Look at how different the results are in terms of pressure and MV which in turn significantly impact point of impact. Now consider that the variability of the Winchester brass is TWICE that of the PPU brass. If someone develops loads with "Brand X" brass, and then is forced to use FC brass because they can't get the brass they developed the loads with, AND they don't understand the importance of case capacity and how much it varies, they will bad-mouth the FC brass because their "pet loads" don't shoot as well in the FC brass.

I'm not trying to talk you into using FC brass. Here's what I AM trying to "talk you into": A cartridge case's PRIMARY purpose is to HOLD THE POWDER behind the projectile until it is ignited. The "combustion chamber" created by the brass and the rifle's chamber have a significant impact on internal ballistics, some of which effects external and terminal ballistics. If the capacity between individual cases is uniform, the manufacturer is immaterial.

Do I now need to measure all the PPU brass for volume? That's your call, but I would say "No, unless you are willing to put the effort to it, AND you REALLY want the absolute best precision possible from your rifle.

... and dispose of the resultant outcasts?
A definite "No" to that. What you want to get to is 'similar' case capacities. If you measured the capacity of all of your PPU cases, you would then group them into batches of similar capacity and make loads for each group. I would suggest grouping them such that there was a 0.1 grain difference in load. In other words, the cases with the smallest capacity would get the smallest charge. The next batch of cases would be grouped based on a change in charge of 0.1 grain, that resulted in the exact same muzzle velocity and pressure as the first group. Then the next group and so on. If the 5 cases you measured are a representative sample of the whole "population" of PPU cases you have, then you would only have about 3 different batches.

That's a lot of work on the "front end", and I have done such a thing to illustrate the significance of case capacity, and the insignificance of manufacturer. However, that front-end labor isn't the 'problem'. The problem is keeping those cases together with their "cohort". I have not come up with a satisfactory way to mark cases so that I can 1) know their capacity throughout their useful life, and 2) keep "batches" together. Personally, I refuse to go to all the trouble to measure every case every time I need to reload.

There is a solution to this problem. Measure A LOT of cases and group them into batches of 20 (or 10 or whatever number you like). Then those cases are kept together for their useful lives. Truly, this is what we all should do every time we buy a new bag/box of 50 or a 100 cases. Were I a benchrest shooter, you can bet your britches I would do just that. It isn't necessary for the hunter that hunts big game and constrains his/her shots to 300 yd and less.
The pressure on the smallest case with 57.8 grains seems to be getting squeaky @ 57K+ psi. WITH A SPECIFIC CHARGE.
Another option is to buy 100(+) new cases from a reputable manufacturer, say LAPUA? and recalculate with them?
There are reasons to "like" cases from specific manufacturers. Some brass is "softer" than others, and some of us like "soft" brass. Another reason is "accuracy". I won't get into detail on that specific subject at this time, but the reason a particular manufacturer's cases are considered "accurate" is because their capacities have low variability. Lapua brass is too rich for my blood, BUT, I believe that their reputation for being "accurate" is due to fastidious manufacturing processes, AND good quality control. All of which REDUCE THE VARIABILITY in capacity between cases.

Secondly. I note the impact energy drops significantly between 100 vs. 200 yards on either case of ca. delta 220 ft.lbs.
Popping a deer at 200 yds with my 243 is unlikely but possible.  How significant is 220 ft.lbs to kill shot or not?
The issue isn't the 220 ft-lbs delta, but the actual delivered energy. In the US, "experts" (ptooey) have decided that 1000 ft-lb is "right" (not the minimum), for white-tailed deer. It is certainly true that 1000 ft-lb delivered to the animal is completely sufficient for clean kills. However, I have killed caribou ("dead right there"), with a .17 Remington at ranges where the delivered energy was only about 450 ft-lb. There is no doubt that 500 ft-lb would 'take care of' a roe. (And I have actually shot a roe deer.) At 200 yd, your 95-grain bullet still has over 1000 ft-lb of energy. That's PLENTY for roe. In fact, the 780 it has at 300 is PLENTY for roe.
I remember reading somewhere about Scottish regulations regarding minimum impact energy but a quick search doesn't find it.
However I found this, "http://www.chuckhawks.com/bad_deer_cartridges.htm" where it states, "Required impact velocity: as per bullet  manufacturer; typically at least 1500 fps for conventional soft point  rifle bullets.....
Minimum remaining kinetic energy at impact: 800 ft. lbs."
Does this make sense or just someone's opinion?
 I read on ther forums that Ackley proposes higher values.
Let me address a couple of issues here. I think the 800 ft-lb for the roe is equivalent to the 1000 ft-lb for white-tail deer. It is a reasonable 'benchmark' to use when evaluating terminal performance. IT IS NOT THE "LAW". (Unless it is the legal law.) It's like the speed limit signs for cornering. If the sign say you need to take the corner at 45 kph, then you can bet your life that it is ABSOLUTELY safe to take that corner at 45 kph. It is also true that in dry conditions, you can take the corner at 65 kph. As it is also true that delivered energies below 800 ft-lbs will CERTAINLY and humanely take a roe deer.

Thirdly, trajectory.  A lesson here for me to appreciate.
Difference across the board appears to be ca. 7.5" drop betwee 100 & 200 yds.
WOW!
My background was with military 7.62 L1A1 and I don't recall ever being aware of that trajectory and we shot regularly at up to 500 yds - the L1A1 wasn't much use at over 500 yds.
I also shot target 303 at up to 600 yds where at that distance drop was significant. And windage. And light. And trigger action. And breathing. And.....
Take note that I set a "standard" of "dead on" at 100 yd. I did that to facilitate the analysis. Comparing apples to apples, if you will. You will note on the trajectory tables that the maximum height above the line of sight is only about 0.1". That "dead on" distance - 100 yd - is a long way from "ideal" for that bullet at that muzzle velocity. For decades, I went with the "common knowledge" of 3" high at 100 yd. Without going into detail about why I changed, I now sight my rifles in at 1" high at 100 yd. If you were to sight your rifle in at 1" high at 100 yd, you would find the the drop between 100 and 200 yd to be 2.9". That's much more useful.

Next, to throw another spanner in the works, no mention has been made of overall bullet length?
Actually what I do mean is how far is the 95 gr Nosler inserted into the case?
This is another CRITICAL component of precision handloads. Alain and I didn't want to swamp you with everything all at once, so we parsed the demands for data. The final piece of the precision reloading puzzle is chamber length. There are several reasonable ways to measure it. However, if you are planning to get even mildly 'serious' about reloading, you should buy a Hornady Lock-n-Load "Chamber-all". It is a tool I would not be without, BUT... precision data is important to me. As reloading tools go, the cost is fairly low - about $35 I think these days.

Cartridge Overall Length (COAL) has serious impact on both pressure and timing. It is my opinion that COAL is the second most important characteristic of a handload, only after charge. The really good news is that once you measure the chamber length, (from bolt face to lands), for a given rifle, you never have to measure it again.

I did some checks over the weekend using blank cases as I have some reloads that will not chamber. I assumed it was overall bullet length.
One neck sized but not factory crimped and one loose, i.e. could move bullet in case with finger pressure.
The 'loose' case I pulled out the bullet to it's absolute extent and loaded it five times then measured the overall length. Average was 69mm ( 2.72"). So it wasn't overall length was the issue especially as the neck sized case at 66.6mm(2.62") loaded without effort.
Perhaps this should be in a new topic?
Perhaps. However, neck-only resizing WILL lead to cases that won't feed at some point, and the hotter the loads, the sooner that point will come. The method you used with the loose bullet is reasonable, and we should use that measurement of 2.72". However, keep in mind that what you measured was NOT chamber length. The "nose" of the bullet extended some unknown distance into the bore. If you measure the chamber length independent of bullet then for all future calculations, you only need to know the length of the bullet where it's diameter is equal to the land diameter.

So does QL assume factory crimp? No. QL makes no accounting for a crimp.
Does QL assume a specific chamber capacity after powder and bullet loaded?
QL calculates the capacity with the bullet loaded. It knows the bullet dimensions and subtracts the volume of the bullet that is INSIDE the case from the "case full" capacity. It also knows the "bulk density" of each powder and uses that specific value depending on the powder used.

Is there a viable alternative to RL-17?
Yes. But not too many due to the pressure ceiling. I'll post the list of powders QL rates.
I enquired of my local RFD of powder and bullet supply. (RFD? Registered Firearms Dealer).
Bullets no problem. RL-17, available only randomly.
I haven't been able to buy powder OF ANY SORT for almost a year.

I want to make a point here.
I am not particularly interested in the legality of MV or ME.
I have assumed that a LOT of research has gone into what the minimum MV & ME figures should be based on a clean kill.
I am sad to say that your assumption is completely false. Please believe me when I tell you that there has been NO research into that. Actually, what I should say is that in spite of A LOT of research - much of it by the military - there has NEVER been ANY consensus. The 1000 ft-lb for white-tail is just a number that the hunting community can generally agree on as a "good" reference. These numbers you have to deal with are VERY "conservative" figures, established so that a "bad" shot will most likely still render a "clean" kill. As an American, my cultural background dictates that I pretty much distrust ALL government-based regulations. Even so, there are WAY too many factors associated with "clean kill" to be able to reduce it to MV, ME, bullet weight, caliber, impact energy or velocity. In Alaska, we have only one such regulation, and it is restricted to a specific animal and hunt - lottery bison. The hunter must use no less than a .30 caliber, and a bullet that will deliver 2000 ft-lbs to 100 yd. While I don't particularly agree that the standard is either necessary or useful, I don't balk at it because if I ever got drawn, I would be using a .51 caliber bullet that delivers 2000 ft-lb to 300 yd.

My intent is NOT to talk you out of complying with the standard you are confronted with. My only interest is in dispelling the myth that ANY research has actually lead to the establishment of that standard.

This is why I feel I should meet the legal criteria.
Sorry, bit off topic now but refers to j0e's first post here.

P.S. Can we have a spell checker, please? My typing becomes ever more dilsetiK.

THL has a spell checker. Mis-spelled words SHOULD have a red underline, and if you "right-click" on the word, the correct spelling should be shown in a list of possibles.

Paul

Quickie. Late for me and I have no Internet at home and still an hour's work.
British Telecom are promising 2MB in rural areas by 2015 for ALL users in rural areas.
Like that's going to happen.

Paul, a lot of early morning common sense. Good to read at any time of the day.
I will try and find time when I get into work at 07:00 to absorb.

I had to smile at the thought of you using a Barrett M82 on Buffalo
OK, you said .51 but with your impact energy it can't be far away.

So I spell bardadrba and no red line (unless it's a real word?)
Now I'll never to able to perform magic tricks or protect myself from infection.

Peter