Charlie88, based on your advice and Hodgdon data, I'm about to try 30gr of IMR4198 pushing a cast 405 which should travel at about 1300fps out of my Pedersoli carbine.
What it does show, even with a 26" barrel using H335 the burnt propellant is only 73.3% so the rest goes out the end of the barrel (fireball) with resulting high error rates. Powder should be within 90% or better burn rate to get consistent FPS, SD/ES numbers, all major factors in a accuracy.
That's all quite true. I have a friend that has QuickLoad and he runs stuff off for me.
I'm the opposite. I do the research and reading, loading and testing, developing loads so a wide variety of powders can be used with a particular bullet weight and style. I have recipes for almost every pistol powder in a given set of pressure ranges that produce very similar results with very similar bullets and mixed cases. I have probably a dozen variations of the old 2.5gr. Bullseye with a 148gr. LWC load - using Red Dot, AA No.5, IMR 700X, Titegroup, and recently added Ramshot Competition to the list. They all produce the same result: good solid hits on paper from a .38Spl revolver at 25 yards.Having ballistic software is something of a rabbit hole, at least for me. I can easily spend way too much time with it. It took my stubborn brain about a year to give up on many commonly accepted "norms" like trying to make a particular powder work for multiple calibers. It can of course be done, if the results are acceptable to the user.
If a lighter load is desired often a different powder is needed.
Having ballistic software is something of a rabbit hole, at least for me. I can easily spend way too much time with it.
My "recipe book" is for feeding the belly, not delighting the pallet of an epicurean.
That would explain my occasional fireball using 57 grn of H335 pushing a 300 grn Hornady HP.
Oh, I still use a computer, load books, software I wrote myself - it's what I do, mostly - but I look for terminal performance w/ Loads A-[...] @ Velocity X using Bullet Y w/ Powders A-[...]...etc.I lol'd over that!
Lots of folks love the process of developing with paper and pencil and I do too...to an extent... but I can shorten it considerably which is fine by me, especially for large consumables like 9MM. Heck it WAS the only way when I reloaded years ago, computers were not even mainstream then. But since I got back into it a few years now I find it very helpful and reassuring that I know what to expect.
Personal preference and to each their own. I'm not much on saying my way is the only way, plenty of others insist on doing that.
Sounds like I could do better with IMR4198 and it's higher burn rate. Using Hodgdon data, IMR4198 produces 23,500 CUP at recommended load for a 300 grn bullet. Lyman suggests 36 grn with a lower CUP of 17,000. I'll try that one and may even boost the powder to 40 grn.
Oh, I still use a computer, load books, software I wrote myself - it's what I do, mostly - but I look for terminal performance w/ Loads A-[...] @ Velocity X using Bullet Y w/ Powders A-[...]...etc.
What I'm saying is, if the only powder I can get is Titegroup - or AA No.5 or 700X or Red Dot or... - and I still want to shoot my Model 15-3 .38Spl with Speer 148gr. HBWC, I have loads already tested and written down for it which delivers the same performance as my preferred load, the infamous tried-and-true 2.5gr of Bullseye. I don't have to adjust my hold, the sights, or anything. And I don't have to do any last minute load development when supplies might be scarce for a powder I typically don't have.
I just bought two pounds of Win244/WinClean from Midsouth while the getting was good for .45ACP