QL Request Grendel 85 Hammer Hunter

[hunter24605]

I know what GRT says, but hoping someone can confirm with QL because the 85 hammer isn't in GRT, I used 85 Sierra for the Calc.
6.5 Grendel
20" barrel
36.0 H2O Cap (fired case)
CCI BR-4
85 Gr Hammer Hunter
2.250" OAL
Leverevolution

 

[flyingagg]

I know what GRT says, but hoping someone can confirm with QL because the 85 hammer isn't in GRT, I used 85 Sierra for the Calc.
6.5 Grendel
20" barrel
36.0 H2O Cap (fired case)
CCI BR-4
85 Gr Hammer Hunter
2.250" OAL
Leverevolution
View attachment 18900

@hunter24605 according to what a read over and over in LRH, it is difficult to model in QL even though the data might be there. I suggest you look at data from GLTaylor in LRH to guide you.

 

[hunter24605]

@hunter24605 according to what a read over and over in LRH, it is difficult to model in QL even though the data might be there. I suggest you look at data from GLTaylor in LRH to guide you.

The hammer hunter bullet isn't so bad, but the absolute hammer is really hard to get a prediction on. I downloaded the PDF file of data he put up on hammertime forum, and didn't see anything with Lever...Usually if you load a couple starting loads and then plug in the real world velocities from those, GRT will be pretty spot-on. That may be my best option.

 

[flyingagg]

The hammer hunter bullet isn't so bad, but the absolute hammer is really hard to get a prediction on. I downloaded the PDF file of data he put up on hammertime forum, and didn't see anything with Lever...Usually if you load a couple starting loads and then plug in the real world velocities from those, GRT will be pretty spot-on. That may be my best option.

Me version of QL does not have Hammers. I only update once a year since he insists on sending by CD, claimng EU rules whis is false.
How different would friction be if you modelled Barnes X, 85 grn

 

[hunter24605]

Me version of QL does not have Hammers. I only update once a year since he insists on sending by CD, claimng EU rules whis is false.
How different would friction be if you modelled Barnes X, 85 grn

Over on the hammer forum they recommend against using Barnes data, Barnes generate higher pressure than hammer

 

[flyingagg]

Over on the hammer forum they recommend against using Barnes data, Barnes generate higher pressure than hammer

Gotcha? Maybe lower the initial pressure.

 

[RL338]

The 404gr SH load I’m working on with the 460 Wby lines up well in QL after adjusting my parameters. The 90gr AH with the 257 Wby , I can’t make work in QL. Not even close.

 

[FOTIS]

I do not think Q/L works well with cartridges with freebore, including the rums.

 

[DrMike]

Well, here is the QL, but case fill for maximum fill is an impossibility.

Cartridge          : 6.5 Grendel  (SAAMI)
Bullet             : .264,  85, Hammer HH
Useable Case Capaci: 33.011 grain H2O = 2.143 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.250 inch = 57.15 mm
Barrel Length      : 24.0 inch = 609.6 mm
Powder             : Hodgdon LVR

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 1.0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step    Fill. Charge   Vel.  Energy   Pmax   Pmuz  Prop.Burnt B_Time
 %       %    Grains   fps   ft.lbs    psi    psi      %        ms

-10.0  106    32.40   2698    1374   34357   6154     81.0    1.237
-09.0  108    32.76   2734    1411   35701   6257     81.8    1.215
-08.0  109    33.12   2771    1449   37105   6359     82.6    1.195
-07.0  110    33.48   2808    1488   38572   6459     83.5    1.174
-06.0  111    33.84   2845    1528   40106   6558     84.3    1.154
-05.0  112    34.20   2882    1568   41710   6655     85.1    1.134
-04.0  114    34.56   2920    1609   43384   6750     85.8    1.114
-03.0  115    34.92   2958    1651   45151   6843     86.6    1.095  ! Near Maximum !
-02.0  116    35.28   2995    1693   46995   6934     87.3    1.076  ! Near Maximum !
-01.0  117    35.64   3033    1737   48928   7022     88.1    1.057  ! Near Maximum !
+00.0  118    36.00   3072    1781   50959   7109     88.8    1.039  ! Near Maximum !
+01.0  120    36.36   3110    1826   53090   7192     89.5    1.021  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+02.0  121    36.72   3149    1871   55331   7273     90.2    1.003  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+03.0  122    37.08   3188    1918   57689   7350     90.8    0.986  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+04.0  123    37.44   3227    1965   60171   7425     91.5    0.969  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+05.0  124    37.80   3266    2013   62787   7497     92.1    0.952  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ± 5% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 5% relative to nominal value:
+Ba    118    36.00   3184    1913   56268   7310     92.8    0.994  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 5% relative to nominal value:
-Ba    118    36.00   2948    1640   45982   6816     83.9    1.091  ! Near Maximum !

 

[hunter24605]

That’s what I was afraid I’d run into. This may be a perfect application for something faster like X-Terminator, which is available locally.