In Quick Load Varget numbers right on, CFE223 and VV550 way off....WHY????

[Aflac]

So I ran some numbers through quick load and compared them to actual numbers from the chronograph. and its very strange. My varget numbers match within a 0.24% average difference, which is really close and makes me happy....however if all i do is change to CFE223 so i know all my other parameters are correct it jumps up to a 8.11% difference, and if I go in and adjust the burn rate in quick load it takes a 22% increase to get the numbers to match...which is a little ridiculous. As for my VV N550 that one is truly strange, it starts off at 3.5% difference and in less than a grain increase jumps up to 9% difference. Can anyone give me any ideas or suggestions? I included all my data below.

VV N550 Measured Predicted Max Min Diff Measured to Predicted
45.1 2,752 2502 2772 2737 9.07%
44.9 2,639 2490 2656 2629 5.63%
44.7 2,579 2478 2604 2554 3.91%
44.5 2,558 2466 2564 2554 3.59%
44.3 2,544 2454 2564 2530 3.55%
5.15%
Varget Measured Predicted Max Min
43.6 2,590 2591 2604 2578 -0.06%
43.4 2,568 2580 2578 2559 -0.49%
43.2 2,558 2568 2569 2544 -0.40%
43 2,555 2557 2564 2549 -0.07%
42.8 2,541 2545 2559 2506 -0.17%
-0.24%
CFE 223 Measured Predicted Max Min
41.6 2,598 2405 2635 2569 7.42%
41.8 2,612 2416 2624 2599 7.49%
42 2,627 2428 2645 2614 7.57%
42.2 2,647 2440 2661 2619 7.80%
42.4 2,671 2451 2688 2645 8.22%
43.8 2,788 2532 2789 2783 9.17%
44 2,780 2543 2783 2772 8.53%
44.2 2,779 2555 2801 2754 8.06%
44.4 2,805 2566 2830 2789 8.53%
44.6 2,811 2578 2824 2801 8.29%
8.11%

Edit: sorry for the formatting in the data...it looks all pretty in the edit window but when i submit it then it looks like horrible wall of numbers.

 

[JGorski]

Is this for a 308? What bullet?

 

[1SMALLJOHNSON]

Quickload (not you) takes into account several assumptions. Those assumptions are incorrect for the other propellants in your analysis. Your example proves why loaders should NEVER trust a computer model to provide them with reliable reloading data. Sure, it's fun to mess around with the numbers, and try to make the model match your actual results. I get that, and I think it's great that you're having fun with your software.

You need to bounce your data off of some dependable published reload data. Everyone in the industry gets a "reality check" before publishing their own data to the public. You should too. Check out what others have shot.

 

[Aflac]

Is this for a 308? What bullet?

Yes, this is 175 308. Oddly the cfe223 numbers for my 5.56 are pretty close. I have data for 180gr 308 but I have not run the analysis on that yet.

 

[Boogie]

One thing you can look at is temperature at time of testing. QL defaults to 70 degrees for all of it's calculations. While Varget is one of the "Extreme" powders and is temp insensitive CFE223 is not. If the temp was higher or lower or you had your ammo sitting in the sun,when you tested the CFE try changing the temp in QL.