jbrown13
Member
I recently purchased a copy of QuickLOAD and in trying to learn how to use the program I've discovered some anomalies in the auto-pistol cartridges. I have taken the time to run 9 different powder and bullet combos in QL for 9mm, 40S&W and 45ACP and compare that output with the data published by the powder manufacturers, including their published COAL. The results I got were surprising to me in that I got data from QL that varied all over the place, that is some combos agreed pretty close to the published data and some data indicated that even the minimum published loads were overpressure. I tried to pick bullets that were in the QL bullet files so as to not have to create my own bullet data, and the only one that might be different is the 9mm, 147 HDY XTP. The QL program bullet file indicated it was a boat-tailed bullet, but the published data did not. These outputs are shown in the attached PDF file.
I posted this on another forum and got a lot of response, but not any that I could really say I felt comfortable with as far relying on QL for accurate data in these auto-pistol cartridges, especially 9mm. I did use the QL default values for case length and case volume as that was the easiest thing to do. Increasing the case volume based on real measurement of spent cases may increase the volume some, but it is going to lower the pressure in all the examples and the variations will still exist. The responses mostly indicated that I should measure the actual capacity of the spent cases to up the volume and input "false" COALs to allow for the expansion of the cartridge volume during detonation to make the data in QL match the published data. If I did this across the range I would still have the wide variations. If I did this for each powder/bullet combo I would have a list of "fudge factors" as long as my arm, and not have a lot of confidence in any of them. So I'm still confused as to how to use QL as a tool that produces accurate results that I'm confident in.
I'll admit I'm not the sharpest thorn on the rosebush, so maybe I'm not understanding the responses I got on the other forum. Hopefully someone here may have an explanation that will light my bulb.
I posted this on another forum and got a lot of response, but not any that I could really say I felt comfortable with as far relying on QL for accurate data in these auto-pistol cartridges, especially 9mm. I did use the QL default values for case length and case volume as that was the easiest thing to do. Increasing the case volume based on real measurement of spent cases may increase the volume some, but it is going to lower the pressure in all the examples and the variations will still exist. The responses mostly indicated that I should measure the actual capacity of the spent cases to up the volume and input "false" COALs to allow for the expansion of the cartridge volume during detonation to make the data in QL match the published data. If I did this across the range I would still have the wide variations. If I did this for each powder/bullet combo I would have a list of "fudge factors" as long as my arm, and not have a lot of confidence in any of them. So I'm still confused as to how to use QL as a tool that produces accurate results that I'm confident in.
I'll admit I'm not the sharpest thorn on the rosebush, so maybe I'm not understanding the responses I got on the other forum. Hopefully someone here may have an explanation that will light my bulb.