Quickload

[Pheroze]

I am curious about what this program can do. I checked it out online, but I am hoping someone can give real world experience. Does it only predict for known cartridges, or can it be used to develop loads for unknown ones, such as a 320gr 0.411 bullet in a 400 H&H for example.

Thanks

 

[Shootist43]

Send @Alchemist a PM. He can/will answer any and all of your questions re. Quickload software.

 

[Pheroze]

Thanks

 

[GuttormG]

can it be used to develop loads for unknown ones, such as a 320gr 0.411 bullet in a 400 H&H for example.

Yes, it can be used to make a guesstimate like that.
I have used it to give me a startingpoint for wildcats.
But very important to remember this is only a simulation, in three hands of someone thrusting computers blindly this is probably one lethal tool in the reloading business.

I would not buy it, spend the money on a bunch of reloading books instead. Knowing your case volume, max pressure and bullet weight you can do the same guessing by comparing loads for similar carteridges from several sources.

 

[lcq]

I am curious about what this program can do. I checked it out online, but I am hoping someone can give real world experience. Does it only predict for known cartridges, or can it be used to develop loads for unknown ones, such as a 320gr 0.411 bullet in a 400 H&H for example.

Thanks

I would say it is best for predicting trends and what powder could give the highest velocity and % unburned etc. It is remarkably accurate in predicting velocity vs barrel length

 

[dchamp]

I am curious about what this program can do. I checked it out online, but I am hoping someone can give real world experience. Does it only predict for known cartridges, or can it be used to develop loads for unknown ones, such as a 320gr 0.411 bullet in a 400 H&H for example.

Thanks

Yes and No. If you want a complete wildcat then no but they do have another program for designing cartridges that can be imported or you can alter a cartridge as say with a A.I. They also have a vast amount of cartridges listed, both current and obscure. Case in point QuickLoad lists your .400H&H and .411 bullets but no 320gr bullets. If the bullet you are interested in isn't in their library it is an easy matter to add one. All you need is some information from the manufacture or if you have the bullet it's just a matter of inputting some dimensions and adding a BC. It is a useful program especially when working with cartridges not usually found in most loading manuals. It is not perfect though but is a good modeling tool. As far as powder goes it is only as good as the information they have received from manufacturers.

I have used it for several years now mostly for the reason you are asking about and I have no regrets.

 

[Rafiki]

I'd like to resurrect this 5-year old thread. I've been a pretty avid user of QuickLoad for several years, largely out of necessity. My reloading interests are in obscure, obsolete and hard to get cartridges. If I can readily get what I need off the shelf I'll do that however that is frequently not the case hence the need to develop my own. There seems to be no shortage of people on AH that reload and I'm sure many use QuickLoad (or Gordon's for that matter) as part of their toolset. I believe there would be some value in a free exchange of personal experience with these tools.

As I said, most of my reload interests are in obsolete cartridges, more specifically transitioning a few that have at best very limited data from black powder to smokeless and using modern components. My experience thus far is that QuickLoad has been a valuable tool in my efforts. The hard part is the human factor of placing too much trust in its calculations and being too aggressive.

Obviously the results obtained by any software package is dependent of the input data. In order to get reasonable and safe results depends careful measurements of what is physically under your control. Of course there are many factors that are out of your control, plus the realization that the result given is just math and may (probably) not represent the real world. QuickLoad states that it tends to over estimate by 10% or so for large straight-walled cases; this is a good thing unless start mentally adjusting without working up loads.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Tagging along, I've been using it for several years and IMHO, it's invaluable for wildcats and obscure cartridges. I've had calculated loads that hit within 50 fps of actual chrono speeds. A PH in RSA asked me about a load for his 300WM where his only powder option was VV565. I worked up some loads and he's had good results on PG. Having said that, for the average book reloader, it's overkill.

 

[Rafiki]

Tagging along, I've been using it for several years and IMHO, it's invaluable for wildcats and obscure cartridges. I've had calculated loads that hit within 50 fps of actual chrono speeds.

I've never gotten that close but, just going on memory, probably 100fps. I've also never had a load where actual exceeded calculated which to me is a god thing.

 

[Rare Breed]

I'd like to resurrect this 5-year old thread. I've been a pretty avid user of QuickLoad for several years, largely out of necessity. My reloading interests are in obscure, obsolete and hard to get cartridges. If I can readily get what I need off the shelf I'll do that however that is frequently not the case hence the need to develop my own. There seems to be no shortage of people on AH that reload and I'm sure many use QuickLoad (or Gordon's for that matter) as part of their toolset. I believe there would be some value in a free exchange of personal experience with these tools.

As I said, most of my reload interests are in obsolete cartridges, more specifically transitioning a few that have at best very limited data from black powder to smokeless and using modern components. My experience thus far is that QuickLoad has been a valuable tool in my efforts. The hard part is the human factor of placing too much trust in its calculations and being too aggressive.

Obviously the results obtained by any software package is dependent of the input data. In order to get reasonable and safe results depends careful measurements of what is physically under your control. Of course there are many factors that are out of your control, plus the realization that the result given is just math and may (probably) not represent the real world. QuickLoad states that it tends to over estimate by 10% or so for large straight-walled cases; this is a good thing unless start mentally adjusting without working up loads.

I have used it for years now. Had a few problems with software but worked them out. I find it invaluable. I always know it is conservative which is good especially for pressure. I shoot both DR large bores down to 275 Rigby. For me the magic has not been wildcat calibers rather different powders for calibers which for my 470 enables me to find my desired FPS within PSI with the lowest grains of powder producing the lowest recoil

 

[Rafiki]

I have used it for years now. Had a few problems with software but worked them out. I find it invaluable. I always know it is conservative which is good especially for pressure. I shoot both DR large bores down to 275 Rigby. For me the magic has not been wildcat calibers rather different powders for calibers which for my 470 enables me to find my desired FPS within PSI with the lowest grains of powder producing the lowest recoil

I'm pretty much in the same realm. Have 5 or 6 cartridges that I mess with, mostly old rimmed stuff. What I'm working on now are some new loads for 500 Sharps 2 1/2" using Peregrine bullets. There is zero load data out there for this so I'm pretty much on the bleeding edge, try hard to avoid the bleeding part.

 

[Jefferry404]

I am a fan, been using QL for sometime for rifles and recently for hand guns. I like the detailed documentation with information regarding the simulation methods, helps me understand the results.
I find the closest cartridge (case capacity and bullet diameter) as starting point, use Hodgon online or Accurate powder load data with pressures. Find a powder I like (load density and OBT), adjust Ba and Weight Factor to get published data, load 3 rounds and measure velocity with LabRadar. Then adjust Ba to get measured velocity and adjust load for OBT.
For my Lott, I used AA2230 and made a new powder profile to adjust the powder density as I wanted the load to be nearly 100% (ball powder considerations).
For handguns, initial results not as good, which I attribute to the much smaller case capacity and hence small powder charge where 1gn of actual CC is much larger % of powder charge. And there is less “averaging” effect on the combustion dynamics. Like saying how does 1gn of powder burn vs 10gn vs 135gn in a 505 Gibbs. More to average
Reading thru the manual, turns out the program expects “fired case” capacity and I was using unsized, unfired capacity for my handguns. Small difference but again as a percentage…

 

[Hogpatrol]

I've found CCing the case helps with accuracy of the program.

 

[bowjijohn]

I use it

It is a very useful guide

Especially when bullet manufactures don't list the max and min load recommendation for the powders I either have, or can get hold of.

 

[mcd]

Lots of good replies on this one. As has been mentioned prior, it’s a tool built on fit curves, not verified test data with a given set of controlled components as you will see in reloading manuals. Having said that, when those components don’t exist for your particular scenario, QuickLoad can be helpful to piece a few things together to get a comfortable starting load and get a general idea of case fill. Top velocities are not readily apparent as most probably hope they are. It can be significantly under or over, either direction, hence why it’s always important to work up safely and not get overconfident in the QuickLoad software results. I’ve had times where pressure signs started only a couple grains over my starting load and others where I had to go quite a ways up, prior to seeing pressure. That’s why it’s always important to start low based on the information it’s providing.

In my opinion, it is hard to rely on it beyond that, but those two things are very helpful for establishing consistent and safe loads where data is unavailable. This makes the software worth it to me for certain scenarios and the majority of the reason I build my company’s bullet profiles and work with the QuickLoad team to have our bullets in their database for 100% of our line. We are way too small to be doing SAAMI pressure testing for our bullet lines as the cost in that, especially the up front, is immense.

I know some have used it for OBT with tweaking, one of those individuals posting above, but there are times where that will be difficult, and those times will be when the pressure curve from the explosion cycle doesn’t match the classic profile utilized in QuickLoad. No matter how it’s adjusted, when the curve profiles don’t match, it just won’t work. We have validated this through pressure testing ourselves, non-SAAMI. Again, still a great tool, and I have no doubt folks good at using it for OBT development are probably 90% or more successful after honing their skills with it, but you do really have to have a good feel for what needs to be changed, and that can be a bit of whack a mole if you don’t have the luxury of cheating by using pressure sensing equipment.

In summary, I really like QuickLoad and think it’s a wonderful tool when used correctly and within its limitations.

 

[Rafiki]

I find the closest cartridge (case capacity and bullet diameter) as starting point, use Hodgon online or Accurate powder load data with pressures. Find a powder I like (load density and OBT), adjust Ba and Weight Factor to get published data, load 3 rounds and measure velocity with LabRadar. Then adjust Ba to get measured velocity and adjust load for OBT.

I read about this method of adjusting Ba based on velocity, not sure it's a valid since there are so many variables that affect psi. I was interested enough to do as you and created another entry in the powder file, this was some time ago. Just for kicks I just tried it again using data from my last range session with the 500 Sharps 2 1/2". I used H335 (80gr) which has a Ba of .6300 according to the supplied QL powder file.

My highest actual velocity with the Peregrine VRG-2, .510dia, 575gr was 2024fps, not what I was looking for. QL estimated 2161fps @ 59,364psi. I adjusted Ba down to .5520 matching observed velocity (also LabRadar) which brought estimated pressure down to 45,308psi. Of course this is all hocus-pocus but either way well within the limits of a Ruger No 1 so not too concerning.

Just as an aside, I'd been in a private conversation with another AH member which resulted in me physically measuring the actual free space of this load and found .131". After adjusting the seating depth in QL to take this into account the pressure dropped to 49,475psi using QL's Ba number. This made me a happy camper even though it's all theoretical; there's danger in all this new found confidence. Maybe a combination of the two would be interesting in instilling even more over confidence.

And for the record I like QL quite a lot. It's indispensable for my projects. I can't say much for the interface though (I was a software engineer in my previous life).

 

[Jefferry404]

Granted, the actual peak pressure in anyone's rifle will not be the same as published data. But, adjusting Ba and WF to a published load with peak pressure (Hodgon, Accurate Powders, Asquare) at least QL matches that data point and probably a better starting point than "shooting" blindly with QL.
SInce QL developer is European, I found the Vihtavuori powders data match QL better out of the box.
But saying that, to emphasis the points above, when I match the maximum load peak pressure, the minimum load peak pressure is usually of by 10-20%!
Who knows...

 

[Rafiki]

The only time that I've had pressure issues (displayed on a spent case) where QL indicated a safe load was with 458 SOCOM. There was published load data that I had checked with QL. Kinda took me back a notch. Pressure signs were all over the case and recoil was substantial for the round. I thought I was being careful, I thought wrong. I think I was using Lil'gun but ,ay have been H110.

 

[Jefferry404]

The only time that I've had pressure issues (displayed on a spent case) where QL indicated a safe load was with 458 SOCOM. There was published load data that I had checked with QL. Kinda took me back a notch. Pressure signs were all over the case and recoil was substantial for the round. I thought I was being careful, I thought wrong. I think I was using Lil'gun but ,ay have been H110.

Actually, that is a better data point than when everything looks good. If you pm me the data, will see if wha I can see. H110 is a sensitive powder.

 

[Rafiki]

Actually, that is a better data point than when everything looks good. If you pm me the data, will see if wha I can see. H110 is a sensitive powder.

I'll have to look for it when I get back, that happened quite a while ago. I'm in the starting blocks for a diving trip to Bonaire, I'll look when I get back.