Quickload and cast rifle projectiles/boolits.

[Uranophobic Unicorn]

Recently picked up Quickload; it's nothing short of magic, it seems. One thing is kinda bothering me, there isn't much of selection of projectiles. I suppose that's not much of an issue because you can enter your own projectile parameters pretty easily. But you can't really adjust how "hard" your bullet is.

Clearly shot start pressure is what I'm looking for here. They give a few "rules of thumb" in their little tool tip, but they don't give any advice for cast rifle projectiles. Default is 3626psi, and molycoated projectiles are about 2/3's as slippery. Molycoating is a bit before my time, but perhaps it's comparable to powder coating? Maybe?

With a tool this popular, surely someone's figured out a good rule of thumb here. Bistow this wisdom on me, o internet.

 

[edwardware]

I've finished a workup for .300 BO with cast bullets and VV N32c. . . and found the max charge to be a perfect prediction of what the primers looked like, and pressure curves seemed to match based on gas system function too. If you're staring as low as you should for a software model, I don't think the cast vs jacketed difference will get you in trouble.

 

[Uranophobic Unicorn]

I've finished a workup for .300 BO with cast bullets and VV N32c. . . and found the max charge to be a perfect prediction of what the primers looked like, and pressure curves seemed to match based on gas system function too. If you're staring as low as you should for a software model, I don't think the cast vs jacketed difference will get you in trouble.

I'm in the process of a weird work up for 300BO right now.

I could only find H110 and CFEBLK at my local suppliers, and its just my luck CFEBLK isn't in the QL database. So I'm stuck making assumptions off the closest thing I can, A1680. So that's no bueno.

Anywho, first ladder test I did, going off anecdotal internet advice, gave me pretty poor results as far as accuracy (I'm talking 3inch groups at 25yds). I did a little more research, and it turns out CFEBLK very much prefers higher density loads. I don't want to compress it, but I would like to have my target density around 95%. Projectiles are Gallant 217 grain cast boat tails. Knowing that A1680 is a very similar powder to CFEBLK, I think starting a full grain below the computed "target" and working up should be safe... should...



That COAL is waaaaaaaaaaaaay shorter than I had initially, and it's giving me spooky vibes. If I wasn't substituting a powder, I'd feel way more comfortable with it. So yeah, I'm gonna start at 8.4 and work up until I get to the target, or something starts going very wrong.

EDIT: Looks like that's too short for my projectile. Shortest I can go looks like 2.030. Hmmmm...

 

[Swampman]

What is the goal of your "Weird work up"?

Is this purely an accuracy issue, or are you trying to develop an accurate subsonic load that'll cycle a gas operated action?

I don't know anything about Quickload, but I do know that if I had ballpark data for a jacketed bullet showing 1035 fps at less than 30,000 psi, I sure wouldn't drop the charge weight if substituting a cast bullet.

I'd also seat the bullet as close to the lands as I could.

 

[Uranophobic Unicorn]

What is the goal of your "Weird work up"?

Is this purely an accuracy issue, or are you trying to develop an accurate subsonic load that'll cycle a gas operated action?

I don't know anything about Quickload, but I do know that if I had ballpark data for a jacketed bullet showing 1035 fps at less than 30,000 psi, I sure wouldn't drop the charge weight if substituting a cast bullet.

I'd also seat the bullet as close to the lands as I could.

Overall goal is to get these Gallant 217's around 2moa using CFEBLK and still being sub sonic, but I'd settle for 4moa. Getting these to cycle is trivial.

Goal of this little experiment is get these projectiles going 1000fps with a load density as close to 100% as possible without blowing something up. Allegedly CFEBLK gets pretty terrible standard deviations unless it has a high density.

The previous set of loads I made had a density of ~65-70%, and I got poor results. This leads me to believe my inaccuracy issues stem more from crazy velocities.

 

[Swampman]

Getting these to cycle is trivial.

Does that mean you haven't had problems getting them to cycle a semi, or that you're shooting them through a bolt or single shot?

'Cause if you don't need semi auto functioning, Clays or Red Dot will give you excellent accuracy and a much quieter report.

I've had really good results with powdercoated Lee 230 grain 5R bullets and 2400. The load gives excellent accuracy at 50 yards (just over .5 inch) if I ruthlessly cull my bullets to ensure all bases are perfect.

The 2400 loads seem considerably quieter and more accurate than the 1680 loads I've tried with the same bullet (both fired through my cheap Radical Firearms, pistol gassed 16" AR and ancient YHM Phantom can).

Other than failing to lock the bolt back on the last shot, the 2400 loads have been 100% reliable ever since I worked them down.