Quickload Data

Y

Yosemite Steve

New member
I am wondering how reliable Quick Load has been for those who have used it much.

I am trying to work up some IMR 4350 for a 30-06. The maximum loads are all higher than what Quick Load tells me. I am finding that it's within about 50 fps with this powder so far. It seems like the IMR 4350 is more sensitive to pressure spikes like seating depth and case volume.
 
Quickload has been VERY accurate for me. The program is dependent upon the user inputting the correct data and then it is calculating performance based on the numbers YOU provide.

Read the manual that comes with it and do as instructed and you will find QL to be very worthwhile.
 
Ditto what he said.

I usually get within about 25 fps over my chrono.

Case volume is an important input.
 
I think that my seating depth is what is throwing the numbers off. Maybe I will go back to some of the numbers I got from experimenting with various seating depths to adjust.
 
Seating depth certainly can be a cause of elevated pressure when loading near the top end of a particular load. Get back off the lands some and work up to max again and see if your results aren't more like what you are expecting.

There was a recent thread where this was talked about quite extensively and many have found accuracy with relatively long "jumps" to the lands so don't think you have to be right on 'em to get good accuracy.

Remember that there are many very accurate factory loads and they are all jumping to the lands for the most part.

For some context, my Sako 308 has a .200" jump with my favorite bullet if seated to max SAAMI COAL and that rifle comes with a 5 shot MOA guaranty from Sako and I never needed it since the rifle will shoot MOA all day long.

That .200 isn't a typo just to be clear. (far longer than the .010-.030 typically recommended)
 
Follow your manual religiously. QuickLoad is not a manual. Mind you, 50 fps is nothing. You can get that much variation with a change of environment.
 
QL has been very close with most (fairly normal) bottleneck cartridges that I've tested.
With .30-30 and 6x45mm, in particular, QL's predicted velocities have been dead-on. The statement applies across the board, but I've had one specific load for each of those where QL's predictions for each powder charge increment were within 5 fps of each 5-shot string's average.

It has also been fairly close with popular handgun cartridges. Often within 20 fps for popular powders.


But, it doesn't really know what to do when a person starts drawing too far outside the lines.
.458 SOCOM, for example, is pretty much always off by at least 20%. QL will greatly overestimate the powder charge necessary to reach max pressure, while simultaneously underestimating the achievable velocity. (Meaning it's spitting out a max load that's actually 20% or more over the real-world max charge, while suggesting a velocity that's actually slower than the real-world max velocity.)

Some people have been able to fudge case capacity (faking it as lower capacity) and tweak the variables enough to get powder charges to be within 5% or so for a single powder, within a narrow weight range of similar bullets. But, change powders or go from a 300 gr HP to a 405 gr RN, and one must start the process over. ...And velocity predictions are always wrong. I don't know anyone that has gotten QL to correctly predict velocities for .458 SOCOM.

.444 Marlin isn't much different. QL is much closer than with .458 SOCOM, but the predictions are usually still off the mark enough that an experienced reloader can see the prediction as bad, at first glance.


But, as others have said: When used within its capabilities ('normal' bottleneck cartridges), the only real fault is usually bad user input or a bad parameter in the database that the user didn't notice.
Garbage in. Garbage out.
When you select a bullet, check the dimensions, seating depth, etc. Some of the entries in the QL libraries are wrong.
 
Ive had some test using Quickload, and found that it is pretty decent, it pushes the max boundaries and then some.
And its helped me utilize non popular powders for a couple different cartrudges.
Yosemite steve, IMR 4350 and 3006 have a loving relationship, depending on the weight and bullet profile your using, I use it for 150's and 165's in two different bullet makers bullets.
What you may try, just to get different results is RL19....
 
A very very good question. It's a tool--nothing more, and it makes it clear that you should not use it to develop loads to predict their maximum load pressures and load it--when in reality I'm guessing that's exactly what most people use it for.:D:eek:

With case designs, bullets and powders that have been "out in the wild" long enough--it tends to be very close. However, powder performance can change over time--as does bullet designs/specifications--so approach everything with caution. What will really cook your noggin is when QL throws a red alert for an over-pressure load--which comes straight out of the manufacturer's load book or manual. Happens more often than you might think. :D
 
Getting back to your original question--it's hard to answer without knowing what your charge and bullet weight is--but at a gut level I would say since both the powder and cartridge have been standardized for a very long time--my inclination would be to say QL probably is spot on--if all you're parameters are entered correctly.
 
I look at the red alert, then back it down to the max listed for the cartridge. From there i drop it another 4000 psi for my max load testing. I like a little safety margin.

Alliant RL16 is suppossedly doing really well with 06. Check out Alliants sight.
 
Well, with my new bolt face turned to give me the correct headspace I will work up the IMR 4350 again. When I do I will try three different case lots with volume differences to test and observe their effects as well. All of this is giving me a better grasp of variables, tolerances and degree of effect.
 
So Lyman is giving me 165 grain bullet starting load of Unique at 6.5 grains for the 10mm. I know my Glock shoots em faster so I went with the Lyman load data because it has smaller charges. It says 1012 fps. Quickload says 864 fps. I entered all of my bullet data, case dimensions, barrel data... what am I missing here?
 
I've been reloading 10mm for years and have found it to be one of QL's "problem child" cartridges. I've found discrepancies between it's predictions (usually much higher) and that of published data from manufacturers. I push them hot though. I seem to recall reading somewhere that you have to be careful to not underfill the 10mm case--but I could be confusing that with another pistol cartridge.
 
Last edited:
I have underfilled once. I used 155 grain bullets and a 5.6 grain charge of unique (thinking the bullets were 180 grain). They fired alright but would not chamber a new round. I have fired the 155 grain bullets with 7.0 grains of unique with no problems. I think 6.5 is safe for 165 grain bullets. The discrepancy with Lyman is HUGE though. I will say I am not a big fan of the Lyman manual though. I was wanting to make some plinking loads or they would be much hotter. They are TMJ flat points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top