QuickLoad Epiphany (Lesson Learned)

[rustyinbend]

I've been whining a bit because I invested in QuickLoad software a few months back, and my actual velocities weren't anywhere near what they were supposed to be based upon QL's calculations. So in an effort to figure out the "real deal" ... I went back to a load I had good velocity on (338-LM w/ Lapua brass, Berger 250's, and MagPro powder) ... and reverse-engineered the software to fill in all the blanks with extreme accuracy.
- Seating Depth
- Bullet Length
- Bullet Diameter
- Cartridge Length
- Case Length
- Barrel Length
- Case Capacity in H2O
... blah blah blah ...
If it could be measured and updated, I measured it and updated it. What I learned really surprised me. The final calculations for a 10 round ladder in 0.2gr increments with velocity measured on my LabRadar ... was a maximum of 7 ft/sec differential between QL and Measured, with most of them under 5 ft/sec.

There was nothing wrong with QuickLoad. The problem was "ME" ... I was lazy and just accepted all the default values. Lesson Learned !!!

 

[spife7980]

 

[EMorr]

I really like Quickload and think it is a great tool but I take all of the data it gives me with a grain of salt.

For example I use it a lot for 30-06 and one load I have uses Reloader 17 and 208 grain A-Max bullets. In this case Quickload gives me a velocity 70FPS lower than what I'm getting in the real world, it predicts a pressure of about 3k under max and I assume that is pretty accurate.

In another load for the same rifle I am using Reloader 17 and 186 grain Peregrine Rangemaster bullets. In this case Quickload gives me a velocity that is within 5FPS of the real world results but predicts a pressure that is 13k over max. Now I may not be an expert at reading pressure signs but when the primers are not flattened, there is no brass flow and the bolt lift is as smooth as butter and the case slides out like it has astro glide on it, I feel like I'm operating at a safe chamber pressure.

Granted I don't have the latest update of Quickload so that may be a factor but I have adjusted all of the parameters you list above to be as accurate as possible.

I think its awesome that you are getting data that closely matches what you are seeing in the real world, and while most of the reloaders on this site probably don't need to hear this, but I'll say it anyway. I think it is very important to remember that it is just a simulation.

Okay now that I've completed my rant I'm going to eat a cookie and take a nap.

 

[Hawk in WY]

The burn rate between the lot of powder you are using and the lot used by Quickload can vary by as much as 10%.

I measure COAL and case capacity and then I run a few rounds over a chronograph to adjust the burn rate to my lot of powder.

Works well from there.

I am a fan but the user manual is unusable.

 

[buggz]

I think I'd like to try QuickLoad.
I am currently playing with GRT, Gordon's Reloading Tool.
I am mostly just doing "what ifs", checking different powders, etc., against the cartridges I have.
Hoping to soon to get full in action with the reloads.

 

[orkan]

Gordons tool being free… puts it a long margin ahead of quickload these days.

 

[Hunt]

I agree with Orkan. The fact that GRT has continual updates, use crowd sourcing to understand burn rates puts it at a great tool. Gordon also mentions that measurements are key to getting good data. One thing I have noticed with GRT is that if you save a load profile and open it in a new update some time later, the published velocities will be different than the old update. It's somewhat of a moving target.

 

[Dogtown]

GRT is also built on modern Windows OS / C++ technology while QL is still in full blown 1998 Windows legacy mode, just getting minor bug fixes and data updates. But it's a great tool that works well as long as you don't feed it garbage, so some of us still use it. Like my PLRF-15C and FFS: sure it's old discontinued tech, but it still works.

 

[Holliday]

Yea QL takes some tweaking. It is just another tool and results in the field trump what it outputs. After filling in all the details there always is a tweak to the burn rate, to get things to line up.

Things like case fill and powder burned seem to be spot on for me.

 

[Hawk in WY]

I am a QuickLOAD user. I just did a comparison between QuickLOAD and Gordon's Reloading Tool. GRT has come a long way since I first looked at it. It is now a close competitor to QuickLOAD.

What I found interesting is the results are not close at all. The powder I checked has almost exactly the same burning rate factor/combustion coefficient, but significantly different barrel time/bullet lead time at 10% pmax because of very different pro- or degressive/prog./deg. coefficient. I don't know what that means, but the difference is significant. QuickLOAD points to 77 gr. GRT points to 74.3 gr for optimal barrel time. GRT is predicting 77 gr. is significantly overpressure which has actually been my experience with QuickLOAD predictions the past year or so. I'm wondering if QuickLOAD's measurement of one lot of powder is missing powder lot to lot changes which GRT is picking up through their velocity feedback method.

Has anyone else found QuickLOAD pointing to loads that are overpressure in the real world recently?

 

[rustyinbend]

Great discussion. My key point was that once I provided accurate inputs to QuickLoad ... I got very accurate outputs. Didn't even know the Gordon Reloading Tool existed ... I'll take a look at it.