New Quickload user

S

Stats Shooter

New member
So I bit the bullet (shameless pun intended), and bought Quickload. I have a couple questions for you Quickload users.

First, how close to chronograph velocities do y'all find Quickload to be? I know powder lot variation can add some velocity difference as well as brass, primers, etc but if it gets you within 1-2% of predicted velocity/pressure then I would call it good.

The next question, is the external ballistic program pretty accurate? I'm mainly interested in the internal ballistics but if the external portion is accurate I consider that a bonus.
 
First question, it depends. I load several dozen calibers, and some track pretty well, others not so much. However, on a relative basis, it's very good. If QL says powder X will generate more velocity with lower MAP than powder Y, it will. Useful for choosing powder. Also great for obsolete calibers for which published load data does not exist. It's certainly close enough to start load development at a reasonable place.

Sorry, I haven't used the external ballistics. Probably should start taking advantage of that myself.
 
What you put in to QL determines what you get out.
And, no, I don't mean that as a sarcastic remark.

Things like case capacity and bullet dimensions, left at a default setting, can produce predictions that differ notably from the real world, because the default setting didn't match what you're actually using. Plus, there are some errors in the QL databases, that cause issues.
Make sure that everything QL is using for your predictions is accurate for the components and firearm that you're using. (Don't forget to change that 16.25" barrel length to 24", for example. ;))


As for my experience...
Like ligonierbill, my answer is: It depends.
For most cartridges, it's close enough to be worthwhile (and likely within powder burn rate variation tolerances).
For some - especially really funky stuff - it may be off by quite a bit.

Some basic examples:
With most of my 6x45mm loads, QL is within 20-30 fps of real world performance.
The same goes for .30 WCF out of multiple barrel lengths (16.25" to 22"). It's usually within 50 fps or better.
And many other bottle-neck cartridges fit the "50 fps or better" category.

But, start drawing outside the lines with funky bullets, brass jackets, or using straight-walled cartridges, and things get funky.
With .475 Tremor, for example, predictions are much like the parent cartridge (.458 SOCOM) ... very optimistic and downright dangerous to use without reducing charges. When I run predictions for .475 Tremor (or .458 SOCOM, when I still had one), I take the data that QL spits out, and reduce by as much as 25% for starting loads. Max loads are usually 4-5 grains optimistic, in a cartridge that generally uses only 28-32 grains of powder. :rolleyes:
And the velocities? Ha! Total waste of time. Fuggettabouddit. They can be as much as 300-400 fps high (with the extra 4-5 gr powder predicted).
The program does its best, but the formulas were never meant to handle cartridges like that.

.444 Marlin is in a similar pickle, abeit because of the straight-taper design. Predicted charge weights are usually a bit optimistic, and velocities really can't be trusted at all. (In any barrel length -- I have 19s, 20s, and 22s.)
.444 Marlin is one of those cartridges where I might run some stuff through QL if I'm "coloring outside the lines" yet again; but I generally just use experience, published load data, and gut instinct to put new stuff together.

For all of my "coloring outside the lines" loads, bullets, cartridges, what have you, I have tried tweaking the QL variables. In some cases, I have gotten very good results for a load, or maybe two. But I have never gotten it to remain consistent with things like .444 Marlin, across a broad range of loads.



External ballistics?
I have it.
Honestly... I've never used it. ...Not even for giggles and, "I wonder if it even works...."
 
Last edited:
I would say the predictions track pretty well with chronograph measurements, especially when I have taken care to use the actual seating depth and case trim length along with the powder, grains of propellant, and primer in QuickLoad.

As you will find with QuickLoad, if you haven't noticed it already, a few thousandths change in seating depth or case trim length will change the predicted muzzle velocity. The two are compensating, but if you have both entries deviating in the same direction the variance will be larger. I am very careful to use the actual seating depth I am using and the actual trim length I am using instead of just using the QuickLoad defaults. That provides a pretty dependable muzzle velocity.

My buddy and I both use Oehler 35P chronographs and we have found very close relationships between the predicted velocity and the measured velocity. How far from the muzzle the chronograph is placed also changes the measured chronograph velocity, so you have to recognize that when you do any comparison. I generally mount my 35P further away from the muzzle than my buddy does so we don't compare our results directly without some adjustment to the measurements to accommodate differences in displacement from the muzzle.
 
One of the first things to do is READ the manual,
several times,
as you will pick up on things you missed the first several times,
reading thru it.

Here is a site that will provide very good info,
http://www.6mmbr.com/Quickload.html

Pay attention to the 6 power points listed and follow the advise given.
Reread the manual again. :D

Also read this info, on how to make QL work, with the chronograph,
http://www.the-long-family.com/Tuning QL to achieve best results.pdf

After a little hands on, I think you'll find QL well worth the funds spent for it,
as you don't have to buy powder @ bullets etc,
You can pull up down whatever and test before buying, checking the BE of a powder for bullet/bbl lengths can provide lots of useful info for better loads etc.

Tia,
Don
 
Got quick load today.

This is a very small sample size (2). But so far I'm impressed. My .300 win mag data with my chronograph was within 10 fps of Quickload! My .223 load was within 21 fps.

Those were the only two I have tried so far but that is pretty darn good if you ask me.
 
I have also been very impressed with Quickload. It is very useful for load development and I have found it to be mostly very close on velocities with a few exceptions.
 
The 6mmBR article mentions the default case capacity for for 6 mm BR was roughly a grain of water low. I've found that to be true for most cartridges. I think it is intended to cause those who use the defaults rather than studying the program to err on the low side of powder charge chosen. Generally, though, it's a good article.

The QuickTARGET program makes iterative approximations that are as good as most general purpose ballistics programs. The QuickTARGET Unlimited 3-DOF software is one of the best exterior ballistics programs I have ever used, though it takes a little getting used to. It has you enter the conditions under which you zeroed your weapon in great detail, and the conditions under which you are shooting today in a second window and its output table gives you the needed sight corrections for all ranges you set it to include. Additionally, it has auxiliary calculators for BRL and other standard drag function conversions (so you can interchange, say, G1 and G7 BC's), extreme range and other factors. It estimates gyroscopic stability factor from your velocity and twist rate. It has a huge library of bullet-specific drag functions (Lapua bullets, especially, as Lapua has published Doppler RADAR determined drag functions for all of their bullets) you can use instead of the standard drag functions if you want even more accurate information. I use the thing all the time. The only thing even more precise is Hornady's 4 DOF program which is the only one I am aware of that calculates vertical displacement from zero with wind drift. It is available free online, but it doesn't generate all the information QuickTARGET Unlimited does and doesn't have as great a library of bullets at this time. QuickLOAD's author, Hartmut Broemel, has suggested he might make a 4 DOF version, but that does require estimating bullet center of gravity and center of pressure and moments of inertia for each bullets, which is possible to get wrong when the bullet isn't really homogeneously dense. This is a limitation with Hornady's 4 DOF program. It's also a limitation in all the gyroscopic stability estimator's I've seen.
 
Mississippi, I read your post on 225gr ELD-M and since your velocity is close to QL what is the pressure?
Click to expand...

QL says:

59200 PSI at 2900 fps
61000 psi at 2939 fps
62195 psi at 2958 fps
63595 psi at 2975 fps
65614 psi at 3005 fps

SAAMI MAP for the .300wm is 64k psi. So far I have found the best accuracy between 2850 to 2925 fps. Which is the 59k-60k pressure range

Friday, I shot 3x 5 shot groups using exactly 79 gr H1000, the chroney was averaging 2910, ES 15 fps..Best group was 0.31" center to center. Worst group was 0.61" center to center.
Pressure on that load is about 59500 psi.

But please do not use this load in your rifles!!!! I have an OAL of 3.6280...SAAMI is 3.340. The extra space in my cartridge makes a massive difference. The max when seating to SAAMI is 78,237 PSI at 79 gr H1000!!!!! DO NOT DO IT!
 
Guys

FWIW,
I just finished some more testing in my 284 SP Pistol, 18" bbl length,
using the RL-26 powder and 140 gr Nosler Partition bullets.

My previous hunting load was running 2850+ fps with decent accuracy,
of less than 2" at 300 yds zero, with the RL-17 powder.

I wanted to find the safe top end load for RL-26 powder with 140 N Part,
and still get decent hunting accuracy at normal hunting ranges < 500 yds etc.

I tested the RL-26 powder with 140 Part up to the max in my SP pistol,
here are the results, stopping at 62.5grs.

Be aware that this load is the MAX in my pistol,
with very lite bolt lift and no marks on the brass etc, use at your own risk.

1st Test,
Loaded overall length of 3.050", throat length of 2.480",
Bullets seated to the base of the neck,
Approximately .010" of bullet jump,
Standard 284 case length of 2.170", custom reamer spec's,
Win 120 standard primers.

Temp was 56*,
Wind at 12 O'clock from the North, at 10-15 mph.

5 shots each test,
Win neck sized brass,
Case capacity of 67.9 grs H2o,
All cases weighed within 1/10th gr,

Average Vel = 3143 fps,
High = 3155 fps,
Low = 3124 fps
SD = 12.2

Test #2,
same spec's as above,
Average Vel = 3167 fps,
High = 3189 fps,
Low = 3156 fps,
SD = 14.9

Accuracy was 1.125" at 300 yds for both tests, which I am tickled pink with.
This powder is a lot better than the RL-17, I started with in the 18" bbl.

I thought that the readings were false, as this was a new Magneto V-3 chrono being tested,
so I went home and got my Oelher 33 chrono, reloaded the just fired brass,
and returned to the range and shot the loads again.

Shooting thru both chrono's produced a 3-5 fps difference, between the 2 chrono's, with the above RL- 26 loads etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can anyone with QL, v3.9,
run the same spec's as given above,
and provide the results from your end.

The results from my QL shows this info,
62.5 grs of RL-26/140gr Nosler shows 2809 fps @ 51007 psi,
@ 56* temp, and weighing factor set at 0.50,
A 364 fps difference from the QL predictions and chrono test results. :eek:

I know from past use of QL,
the fps results are generally slower than chrono results etc,
but there has never been this much difference tested before.

Tia,
Don
 
And I've had high results, too.

I got the same estimate in 3.9 that you got. To get to your velocity took some fiddling. My first thought is that your start pressure is probably low. The partition jacket is thicker than some. Add to this that you are close enough to the lands to see pressure approach what actual contact with the lands might be expected to bring, especially with that more gradually sloped ogive taper, so I raised start pressure to about what would be expected with a standard shape and bullet jacket thickness in contact with the lands; 10,800 psi. That took peak pressure up in the 62 kpsi range. But I still had to raise the powder burning rate factor to 0.3880 to get your velocity from it. When I do those things, the peak pressure rises to about 85 kpsi, which is above the proof range and should start you seeing leaky primer pockets and the like, but I gather none of that is occurring, so I don't believe the pressure number.

I know Alliant has changed suppliers for some of their powders in the past, and also that specs often get tweaked a bit after a new product comes out. I am wondering if QuickLOAD's model is from an early lot and if maybe the energy content of the powder has changed. If I raise that to 4268 kJ/kg and keep the higher starting pressure, I get your velocity with less than 76 kpsi, and that's the bottom end of the proof range and a possible for some rifles if the chamber is tight. It would be interesting to put a strain gauge on your gun and get a pressure curve shape to compare to the simulation by QL.
 
Nick
Thank you, your info proves that my QL 3.9 has not developed a bug, etc :D

Now the rest of the story (Best Paul Harvey impersonation),

I found out the problem finally, after rechecking all the QL info several times,
I had an 18" bbl originally, then changed to a 21" bbl,
as I had QL previously set up for the 18" etc, then changed to the RL-26 powder, and got the info posted that was 2809 fps etc.

When I changed the bbl length to 21", changed the BA rate to 3710, and then changed the weighing factor to 0.35,
(as the 284 case is overbore), the fps matched to with in 3 fps, and the PSI dropped to 59306 psi.

I had very lite bolt lift resistance and no ejector marks on the brass etc,
so I now feel very confident with the results, are within the ball park etc.

Thank you for your effort,

Tia,
Don
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top