Circa 2000, I began playing with software which claim to help you find suitable loads for any cartridge. The prices vary from free to about $160, and as with many things in life, I found you get what you pay for. My observations on these software are presented here. Most of the software I compared to velocities and pressures reported in modern load books.
In the 1940s, H. P. Manning of the Frankford Arsenal developed a set of empirical equations and curves to predict the performance of small arms. I've yet to try these but plan to offer a calculator on this site in time. The Defense Technical Information Center has a scan of a 1979 report by Sidney Goldstein titled "Interior Ballistics Modeling Applied to Small Arms Systems" which includes Manning's equations.
Circa 1960, Homer Powley (who also had worked at Frankford Arsenal) helped introduce a slide rule which allowed the handloader to predict charges and velocities. Over the years, he improved his equations, and offered more complicated formulas. One set of these formulas was published by William Davis in the NRA's 1981 book on handloading, and these equations in turn have been made into software for PC users. One free implementation is found on this site; it runs in standard browsers, requires no download, and includes a separate page of notes covering its limitations.
Other software versions have been produced. John M Knight in England offered a free Win32 executable, called WinLoad, which I found worked as expected (and included a calculator for bullet stabiliy, WinGyro). His web site was defunct after 2008, but (in 2022) a copy can be found on this site. There have also been versions for Excel and BASIC.
The published Powley equations are intended for the higher pressure rifle cartridges. It attempts to predict conservative charges of IMR powder for strong, modern rifles. It does not attempt to predict charges for low pressure cartridges, nor for reduced loads. It tries to select the powder which for a nearly full case will produce a pressure of about 45,000 CUP, which is about 8000 CUP below what most modern rifles are rated. This slightly reduced pressure provides some margin for error and should also result in excellent barrel life.
In predicting charges, the equations can pick a powder too fast, possibly resulting in pressures too high for comfort. The equations in the older slide rules were even more prone to do so. For a strong modern rifle with good gas handling, you probably won't get hurt using the Powley Computer, but you must learn its limitations by comparing its predictions to the pressure tested loads from loadbooks.
One can learn about the trends in internal ballstics using a Powley Computer. The effects on velocity of barrel length and case capacity are well predicted. The effects of pressure on velocity are not so well predicted. To do so, you must use the Pressure Computer "in reverse," so to speak. The Pressure Computer attempts to correlate chronographed velocity to peak pressure, but only with limited success. The pressure estimates are generally decent, but there are classes of cartridges for which it misses badly.
For the price (free), it's still a useful tool.
At this site, one can try both a smokeless and a black powder simulator, for free.
I haven't used the smokeless version much, but the author is frank about the limitations of simulators. He estimates errors for velocity will usually be within 3% (or 100 fps) but those for pressure can be over 20%. He has also stated the program "is 'tuned' to work best at good working pressures (40 to 50 ksi), when the powder fills the case and when the powder is all-burnt before projectile launch," which are the same conditions assumed by the Powley Computer.
For a 30-40-220 I shoot with IMR 4895, the predicted velocity was within 4%, and if the simulator's charge is adjusted to match the velocity seen, the pressure was close to what Lyman found in the lab. In other words, the relationship between peak pressure and velocity is correctly predicted. However, Lyman's data shows 4064 to work about the same as 4895, but it wasn't so in the simulator. For a 357 Magnum carbine using N-110, the fps was within 5%, and this was much closer than QuickLOAD.
It's velocity predictions were within 5% of load book data for the difficult case of a rifle powder in a low pressure, pistol length cartridge, namely Reloder 7 in the 44-40 rifle. Here, a fair amount of the powder doesn't burn before the bullet exits. The predictions weren't as close for IMR 4227 in a 357 Magnum carbine.
It does not attempt to model powders faster than N-110, IMR 4227, etc, and so many pistol cartridges can not be predicted using it.
Although it hasn't been available for long (since 2020), this is very promising software. As a simulator, it offers several of the advantages of the commercial software QuickLOAD.
The BP simulator's predictions for velocity are useful over a wider range of cartridges than the empirical relation proposed by the late Don Miller. Miller's equation I found fair for typical cartridges but gives estimates much too high for the "express" cartridges. This is not surprising since Miller wouldn't have had as much data for such cartridges.
This is the most versatile software currently available to the handloader. While it's also the most expensive, I can recommend it. It is written in Germany and offered in the US by NECO. (Also offered is a separate design tool for cartridge cases, QuickDESIGN, which I have not tried.) As of 2022, its Win32 implementation is a bit dated and can be hard to read, but it does work.
QuickLOAD is a simulator, not a fairly simple equation fitted to lab data. It tries to combine a mathematical description of the burning characteristics of each powder with a representation of the heat losses to the barrel, etc., and in this way mathematically predict the gas pressure and the velocity of the bullet at every fraction of a millimeter down the barrel.
The software comes with a printed manual which includes a concise introduction to the field of internal ballistics. Included are descriptions of the mathematical representations used for the physical processes which happen inside a gun. To the credit of it's authors, the manual spells out all the shortcomings of the program and how these affect its ability to estimate cartridge performance.
Unlike Powley's equations and Load From A Disk, QuickLOAD will predict charges for pistol powders, and it doesn't do too bad a job. The results are not, however, as good as with rifle cartridges.
QL's strong point is correlating rated pressure to velocity, even if it can't predict which powder will do so. Used as directed, it seems to be able to always get you within 50 fps of what is possible in pressure barrel tests. For pistols, I've seen over 100 fps errors, but it's often better than that.
QL's charge estimations seem to always be low, but that is in the safe direction. (I should note it's charge predictions are really no worse than the other software I've tried.) Related to this is what appears to be a fudge factor on pressure. The manual recommends pressures always be set to 1/8 below that of the cartridge's rating. For instance, if the cartridge is rated at 64 ksi, you should run the calculations at 56 ksi. Done so, the fps predicted is generally quite close to factory ratings. A possible explanation is that cartridges make full pressure (and velocity) only in factory test barrel of minimum dimensions. However, some load book data includes pressures and velocities from the pressure barrels, and QL predicts these pressures and velocities go together.
QL can give the handloader an insight into internal ballistics. Being a simulator, it will give you plots of pressure, velocity, etc. as the bullet moves down the barrel. You can see the effects on pressure rise rates when changing powders. You can fiddle with powder characteristics to see how this affects powder speed. The bullet engraving input is simplistic, but you will see changes in the pressure curves due to it.
The program allows for rather extreme inputs. I tried simulating a "bomb calorimeter" test by "firing" a low load density charge under a 200 pound 30 caliber bullet. The bullet, of course, doesn't move much, so you can see the pressure rise rates for a closed chamber, and powder burn rates are sometimes measured in this way. By measuring the slope of the pressure curves, I could get numbers not far from those reported for the IMR powders, by Davis in the NRA manual.
Using the empirical relations prepared by Don Miller, QL also makes velocity estimates for black powder cartridges.
QL is not a substitute for pressure tested load book data. In the 06/2004 issue of Handloader, John Barsness reports finding QL predictions of pressure for a given charge can be off 10 ksi, when fired in a piezo set up. I find one can use QL to do a good job of both estimating cartridge potential and selecting which class (or "speed") of powders to use to obtain that potential. However, it is not accurate enough to distinguish between two similar powders from different makers, and of course it can't know about all the possible lot variations. It also is clueless about primer effects, which in extreme circumstances can double pressures.
QuickLOAD comes with QuickTARGET, an external ballistics program to predict the trajectory of the bullet in flight. I find QuickTARGET flexible and easy to use. QL also will plot a rifle's free recoil, which includes an estimate of the force on scope mounts.
This software was also developed in Germany on principles similar to QuickLOAD. Sadly, the original author died in early 2022, but it appears some development has occurred since then. I have not taken the time to try this software.
For home computers, this was one of the first commerical products in this field (perhaps the very first) and was from W. Square Enterprises. (Their web site appears to have shut down in 2014.)
The software is derived from Powley's work, with proprietary extensions. Like Powley, it is meant to predict charges for rifle cartridges nearly filled with powder. It does not try to predict the performance of greatly reduced rifle loads or of handgun loads. Unlike the original Powley Computer, it will predict performance with powders other than those from IMR, and it will predict charges and velocity at most pressures. The software also includes dimensions "for 1100 cartridges" and hundreds of commercial bullets.
As compared to load book values, the predictions were generally conservative. I don't recall being given a load that a load book showed would be dangerous. A few hot loads, yes, but the variation was not much greater than can be found among different loadbooks.
I last used this software in about 2001. That version (3.0.3A) could be a bit frustrating to use, with inputs clumsily spread over several somewhat confusing screens, and I ended up discarding my copy. Many new releases were made after that time.
This was AEM Enterprise's successor to their CalcuLoader, which was a relatively inexpensive program I purchased in about 2002. As a testament to their customer support, I received the newly released LoadTech unsolicited, and for no charge, about one year later; my version (1.0) was dated 10/19/03. (They appear to have left business in 2008.)
CalcuLoader was clearly not a basic Powley derivative, and I don't know how it worked internally. My old notes indicate the rate of change of velocity with charge was quite different than Powley suggested, and the rate of change of pressure with charge was higher and varied among powders, as is found in lab data. It was simple to use but tended to crash. It's charge and velocity estimates weren't too bad. In addition to being very inexpensive, it took little disk space. In its list of case capacities, the values seemed to be always higher than from other sources.
LoadTech superseded it and "is an entirely new product." While they claimed it "renders CalcuLoader obsolete," its velocity predictions were beyond optimistic, at times corresponding to proof load speeds when tasked with predicting loads for low and medium pressure cartridges.
In late 2003, Ed Reynolds of AEM posted comments on the internals of LoadTech on a shooter's forum.
... we have generated a powder model based on the information available from the powder manufacturers, bullet makers, etc. From that we have developed formulas that are "best fit" for a specific powder over the entire range of available data... If the charge or velocity reliability is 98%, then our formulas have come within 98% of the published values provided by ALL of the published data that we have available.
If true, then they have made a statistical fit of published load book data to some basic model of internal ballistics. I've done some work along those lines myself and have had some good results.
I don't know what went wrong with that first release of LoadTech, but in 2007 I received word from a recent purchaser of AEM's software that showed the problems I noticed had been fixed. In 2013, I finally decided to update my copy but found AEM out of business. I was able to contact Mr. Reynolds, and he kindly gave me a free upgrade to the last copy of their AccuLoad program, of which LoadTech is only one of many useful modules. In my very limited testing, I found it to produce conservative velocity estimates and reasonable charge predictions for medium pressure cartridges measured in CUP. It was also conservative for high pressure cartridges measured in psi. However, for a larger, high pressure cartridge measured in CUP, it produced charge and fps predictions a bit high, but not dangerously so, especially were one watching fps with a chronograph.
On the whole, AccuLoad was a good effort, and I hope Mr. Reynolds will make his work available again.
On Steve Faber's site, he offered free versions of two different internal ballistics simulators. His Fabrique Scientific sold a basic strain gauge pressure measuring system but folded in 2013. Afterwards, one could still find his comments on internal ballsitics on his personal site (which languished after 2010), and the Web Archive has copies.
One he called CABM, which is based on an analytic solution attributed to a fellow named Coppock, as found in Corner's Theory of the Internal Ballistics of Guns. It is an older, DOS program, and it ran with some hiccups on my PC under WinXP. I recall its predictions were in the ball park.
He also wrote NABM, which appears to have been the most detailed simulator offered to the handloader. My PC running XP had trouble rendering the beta release offered for Windows. In an earlier version of his web site, he had some comments on the internals to NABM, but I've lost part of my notes on this and so must recall some details from memory. NABM was a proper simulator, like QuickLOAD, but its representation of internal ballistics was more detailed. The powder burning is simulated as individual grains of powder, and to a limited extent you can even design your own grain shapes. In this regard, NABM was similar to CABM. However, the burning rate equation was more flexible, and there were also fudge factors to allow one to tweak the model for different lots of powder and the effects of deterrent coatings. (QuickLOAD represents powder burning in bulk, which does account for the effect of deterrent coatings.) NABM also computes an estimate of bullet engraving forces. (QL's bullet engraving is quite crude in comparison.) I doubt primer effects were modeled, for these are difficult to quantify.
While its mathematical representation of the internal ballistics parameters was more comprehensive, I'm not aware Faber had tweaked NABM to the point it outperformed QuickLOAD. Again, NABM is no longer supported, for Faber prefered to use a strain gauge. Too bad, since mathematical models can give insights the "real world" can mask.
The internal ballistics of small arms are nearly impossible to predict. Small changes in bullet construction will change how readily the bullet enters the bore. The more difficult it is to engrave the bullet, the higher the pressure grows. The greater the pressure gets to be, the faster the powder begins to burn. Pressures can and do rise unexpectedly fast. Another big factor is the primer, for it determines the initial rate of pressure rise, and thus how fast the burning accelerates. Powder lots sometimes vary greatly in burning "speed" as well.
Because the variability of bullet engraving, primer ignition, and powder lots are difficult to quantify, all commercial internal ballistics software simply ignores these effects. (QuickLOAD tries to deal with some of them, but it simply cannot do so with accuracy.) Such software can help you select a powder, but it cannot tell you how much of it to use nor which primer to use. It also can't tell you what fps you can reliably expect to get at a given pressure. For safety's sake, always end load development at a chronographed fps below what the software predicts. Take at least 5% off your expecated fps.
The only time you can reasonably expect to reach a certain velocity is if you're using all the same components listed in a load that was tested in a pressure barrel. That means not only the same powder, but also the same primer, the same case, and the same make and model of bullet. Even then, there is no guarantee you'll be getting the same pressure found under test.
10/2013 - 03/2023