[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Salavee

"None so blind as those who will not see".I'll try One more time Elk-thats all !

Your average Chronograph readings have already taken in to consideration all the various discrepancies in that particular chamber, throat,barrel etc. and that particular load and that particular rifle, on that particular day (temp) I hope that's clear enough. Now, adjust the powder burn rate in QL to match those results. Document that particlar adjusted burn rate. Forever more,QL will produce excellent proximities to that velocity and pressure. If thats what you call fudging numbers, well, do it your way. I don't really care.

Do you not read the articles at the links that you post? The word "fudge" is taken directly from that article, when the author explains that the powder burn rate is not always the issue, and that adjusting it, doesn't always produce accurate results.

Sometimes changing just the burn rate is not enough to get QL to accurately match the measured data. In this case, it has been observed that this is likely due to a very tight (or loose) barrel, heavy fouling, or even different land configurations. In otherwords, bullet friction is a large variable, and if it is abnormally high (or low), thepowder burn characteristics will differ greatly from the nominal predictions used in QL. The best way to compensate for these variations is to slightly (and this means only a grain or two for a 100 grain bullet) “fudge” the bullet weight value in QL, usually n combination with the powder burn rate, until the QL predictions match the measured data of the charge range in question