AI in handload development

[Jefferry404]

Well, I use it a bit for physics stuff associated with internal ballistics, etc. Had problems as I dialogued with changing units, etc. tried to optimize QL for known load data (have my own method that works well) and it tried, gave me much info about QL internals but was a dismal failure to match QL to the load.
But it is good for technical insights and a direction for further research.
What I do not like is the positive feedback and compliments! Seems design to keep me engaged.
When I yell at it that is was horribly wrong, comes back, “Oh, good observation, you are right”
or for my barrel designs, “ truly masterful designs”
Lastly, it never seems to know when it is wrong! 100% confidence.
So, like any tool or software (too old to say apps!) need to pay attention.

 

[F. Vaccaro]

You know, hours and hours are spent by those developing loading manuals. Velocity testing, pressure testing, powder bullet compatibility testing, putting together a manual.
AI

 

[Newboomer]

You know, hours and hours are spent by those developing loading manuals. Velocity testing, pressure testing, powder bullet compatibility testing, putting together a manual.
AI

Much more accurate and reliable than something computer generated.

 

[Datchew]

You know, hours and hours are spent by those developing loading manuals. Velocity testing, pressure testing, powder bullet compatibility testing, putting together a manual.
AI

Agreed but you're missing the point.
The manuals are the developed empirical data. You can spend hours reading and studying.

The AI is just a tool to compile and parse a great deal of that data and get you closer to the end result faster.
It's not a replacement. It's cliff notes. But cliff notes that you must use while keeping a healthy dose of skepticism in place.

 

[F. Vaccaro]

Agreed but you're missing the point.
The manuals are the developed empirical data. You can spend hours reading and studying.

The AI is just a tool to compile and parse a great deal of that data and get you closer to the end result faster.
It's not a replacement. It's cliff notes. But cliff notes that you must use while keeping a healthy dose of skepticism in place.

If you are cautious and check AI data against a reputable manual I can agree. If your going solely on AI you could be in trouble, it can be inaccurate.
For load development, one should check data obtained on forums, friends, & other sources, against a reputable loading manual.

 

[Newboomer]

If you are cautious and check AI data against a reputable manual I can agree. If your going solely on AI you could be in trouble, it can be inaccurate.
For load development, one should check data obtained on forums, friends, & other sources, against a reputable loading manual.

Preferably 2 or 3 manuals. They may vary according to components (brass, primer, powder, projectile, etc).

 

[AZDAVE]

Guess I am confirming my age in that AI to me in the realm or firearms and reloading means "Ackley Improved"

 

[AJ Peacock]

I use AI to give me basic cross reference information, then I verify the answer. Certainly you will notice erroneous information from time to time (especially if you are an expert in the topic). Here is an example of something that I just asked Gemini AI, and a very good response.

Question:
I'm looking for the single powder I can use to reload the following cartridges 7mm Remington Magnum, 300wsm, 338 Remington Ultra Magnum and 375 H&H magnum.

Answer:

Finding a single powder to reload this exact mix of cartridges is a classic handloading puzzle. You are trying to bridge the gap between a highly overbore, massive-capacity case like the .338 RUM (which thrives on extremely slow-burning propellants) and a traditional, moderate-pressure big-bore like the .375 H&H Magnum (which prefers medium to medium-slow powders).

While no single powder will deliver absolute peak performance or top velocity in all four, you can successfully use a versatile, medium-slow magnum powder to safely feed them all.

Here are the top three single-powder options that can pull off this cross-over:

---

1. IMR 4350 / Hodgdon H4350​

If your priority is making sure the .375 H&H and .300 WSM perform at their best, a 4350-burn-rate powder is your best bet.

• 7mm Rem Mag & .300 WSM: It is an excellent, highly accurate choice, particularly with light-to-medium bullet weights.
• .375 H&H: It is a staple powder for this cartridge, providing excellent case-fill and velocities with standard 270gr and 300gr bullets.
• .338 RUM: This is the compromise point. It is technically on the fast side for the massive RUM case, meaning you will leave some velocity on the table compared to slower powders, but published safe data exists.

2. Hodgdon H4831 (or H4831SC)​

H4831 sits right in the sweet spot if you want to favor the true magnums while still keeping the .375 H&H functional.

• 7mm Rem Mag & .300 WSM: This is a legendary, top-tier choice for both of these cartridges across almost all bullet weights.
• .338 RUM: It provides a much better expansion ratio and velocity profile for the large RUM case than the 4350s.
• .375 H&H: It is a bit slow for light bullets, but if you look at heavy-for-caliber bullets (like 300gr or heavier round-nose options), H4831 works beautifully and fills the case nicely.

3. Alliant Reloder 22 (RL-22)​

RL-22 is one of the most widely used magnum powders in existence because of its versatility across high-volume cases.

• 7mm Rem Mag, .300 WSM, & .338 RUM: It will deliver fantastic velocity and excellent accuracy across all three of these modern magnums.
• .375 H&H: Just like H4831, it requires heavy bullets (300gr+) to generate enough pressure for a clean, efficient burn, but it has plenty of verified, safe historical loading data.

---

A Quick Handloading Note: Because these cartridges have vastly different internal case geometries, always double-check the specific manufacturer's load data (such as the Hodgdon Reloading Data Center) for the exact bullet weight you choose, as starting and maximum charges will vary wildly between them.

Which bullet weights are you planning to shoot most often out of these rifles? If you are leaning toward heavy or light bullets for a specific caliber, that can help narrow down which of these three compromises makes the most sense.


AJ

 

[Datchew]

@AJ Peacock
This is the way.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Hi all,

For my blaser r8, I've been developing a load for cape buffalo using 270 grain TSX and initially, RL-15.
However, they stopped selling the powder halfway through my trials.

I switched to varget and have some favorable groups just under 3/4" at 100m with a vx6-hd 1-6x.
At this point, as the safari date is rushing toward me and it's starting to get too hot in Texas for trials, I'm going to try to increase my development speed by augmenting with some of these new AI tools.

Thought you might enjoy the link below of how quickly the AI can accumulate, compile, cross-reference, and extrapolate information.

Grok AI analysis

@Datchew
If you are already getting under 3/4" loads in hot weather and they are safe in your rifle then I wouldn't over think it. I would just call it done out the rifle away, grab a cold beer , put my feet up and relax and wait for my hunt.
No use stressing. Real intelligence is better than AI in my book as it is proven not hypothetical.
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Appreciate that. I have a thread on the load dev for the 375 and that advice aligns with others.
I started with RL-15 and had H4350 (I use this for 762 NATO clone) as a candidate after varget.

If I can get just under 0.75" with varget, I'm quite certain that's accurate enough for a large beast such as a cape buff. Just need to verify a new container of powder and check the chronograph for sufficient velocity.

At a high level view, it's not a thread about using AI to replace empirical testing, but to highlight the augmentation capabilities.

@Datchew
Believe or not hogdon CFE223 is another good powder for the 375. Also great in the 308…
H4350 is to slow for the 08 in my opinion.
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

If you want to understand AI, start asking any of them questions about a topic on which you have expert knowledge. You will find errors. Then realize that every expert could ask similar questions related to their fields. You, not being an expert in those fields, won't see the errors, you'll assume it is accurate, completely forgetting that it was inaccurate on your subject.

There is an official name for this: the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.

For asking specific questions about things like "give me a powershell cmdlet to extract X, Y, and Z properties of an Active Directory computer object," it's the bees knees. Or "which are the required arguments for Python's N-class object's method Z, and which are optional; and does the Z method expect decimal, float, or integer input?." Again, you'll get a perfect answer. Beyond that, it's about as useful an an encyclopedia.

@sgt_zim
You just managed to confuse the shit out of me.
I was lost after do you want to understand AI.
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

You know, hours and hours are spent by those developing loading manuals. Velocity testing, pressure testing, powder bullet compatibility testing, putting together a manual.
AI

@F. Vaccaro
I prefer to use real intelligence. Mightn't be as fast as AI but to me it's more reliable. Loading manuals have been done using real world intelligence and actual real world data.
Bob