New powder data table testing

I've never used any of the software solutions, but would QuickLoad help? I know Hornady has an app, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is subscription based and basically only repeats what is in their manual. I've actually got a free trial I haven't used. It comes with Hornady's 11th.

There is also GRTools, but it is European and mainly has their powders.

It would be prudent for the manufacturers to test each batch of propellant made. Also if something comes to light about a problem with something like certain propellants and light bullets in 38 SPL loads then data needs to be changed. There seemed to be a lot of data changes when the industry changed from copper crusher testing to electronic sensors but lately most data changes I have seen are additions of new propellants and cartridges while dropping lesser loaded ones to save time compiling data. YMMV

It's obvious some manual providers are better than others, and I think they are trying to update the data as they go... when new bullets or powders are introduced, for example, but they don't generally go over all of the data... the 230grn .45ACP bullet data, for example... they don't redo the whole table, they just amend the data. I'll admit, it can be frustrating...

As far as cast bullet data, some manuals, like Lyman and Lee, include at least generic data for a lot of cartridges.

I would love it if one of the manuals, like Speer, would endeavor to redo ALL of their data... current powders in PSI, with currently manufactured bullets, fired in test barrels. I would imagine, however, the cost of that would be pretty significant, however.

Charlie98 said:

It's obvious some manual providers are better than others, and I think they are trying to update the data as they go... when new bullets or powders are introduced, for example, but they don't generally go over all of the data... the 230grn .45ACP bullet data, for example... they don't redo the whole table, they just amend the data. I'll admit, it can be frustrating...

As far as cast bullet data, some manuals, like Lyman and Lee, include at least generic data for a lot of cartridges.

I would love it if one of the manuals, like Speer, would endeavor to redo ALL of their data... current powders in PSI, with currently manufactured bullets, fired in test barrels. I would imagine, however, the cost of that would be pretty significant, however.

Click to expand...

If they donated the components and the test equipment, I could see my way clear to retire and do the testing for them. I've always wanted to do volunteer work.

I'm sure powder manufacturers have extensive testing, many tests , of each lot produced. Powders are not simple kitty litter type products and reloaders expect/rely on consistency. I have read that powder manufacturers hold a 4% variation factor, max, for lot to lot powder performance. Testing for a reloading manual is not a " let's try this..." type undertaking an each load is tested many times on expensive equipment so just testing for one new powder is quite a long, expensive process...

Winchester reloading data is available on the Hodgdon reloading website. I rarely look at manuals anymore. I use the hodgdon website or vihtavouri app. Alliant’s website is pathetic so I’ll use print for the time when I need to look something up, but I have most the BE and Unique recipes that I use memorized

I like the availability and layout of hodgdon's data, but it rarely ends up being anything like real world results, especially CFE223. I get that there's variations between lots, guns, equipment and techniques, but I can match up pretty well with hornady data or sierra, that's just strange.

I played with GRT after someone here posted about it. I noticed that their powder profile for CFE223 is way off. Sure enough, they built the powder profile based on hodgdon's load data, matches up almost exactly. Funny thing is, if you go by their data, simulations suggest the powder is not suited for 223 Remington with barrels shorter than around 24 inches. Frankly, i think is not too far from the truth, but it isn't nearly as bad as the data suggests, compared to real world results. It's a shame pressure testing is so far out of reach for the average handloader