Quick Load...

[LongRange]

Any of you guys using Quick Load?

A friend of mine hooked me up with a new/used computer and loaded quick load and quick target on it. It rained all day here so i played with quick load most of the day and at first was not real impressed(keep in mind im technically challenged)but after getting my info entered correctly and figuring out how to adjust the Ba values when making a powder table im pretty impressed but not 100% sold yet as ill need to go out and put the data to the test. If the data i got from quick load is moderately accurate then all i can say is WOW have i really been this off base for optimal powders and charges?
For you guys that have been running quick load for awhile what do you guys think of it? And any tips are apprecaiated.

[js223]

Have not worked with it but it looks interesting. I've heard that you need to calibrate the powders with your actual chronograph data.

[LongRange]

Have not worked with it but it looks interesting. I've heard that you need to calibrate the powders with your actual chronograph data.

Yes ive heard that as well...ive got 20 rounds loaded up with 2 different powders...10 with RL-22 and 10 with IMR7828...according to QL 5 of the RL-22 and 5 of the 7828 should be 2802fps and the other 5 of each powders should be 2853fps and 2849fps with temp set to 40deg which is the temp right now here....its windy as hell here right now but im not looking for groups just checking data from QL in the real world...im headed out now and will report back in a few hours.

[Rooster 50]

does it have a value for elevation. At 7500ft my real world results tend to vary quite a bit from the manuals

[LongRange]

does it have a value for elevation. At 7500ft my real world results tend to vary quite a bit from the manuals

im not sure about elevation im new to the program and not real tech savvy...im getting ready to text my buddy and have him call when he has a minute to go over a few things as the rounds i shot this morning are about a 130fps fast on the lower charges and about 100fps faster on the higher charges. i have a nosler brass review thread in the standardized cartridge section and wish id of cronied the hot rounds i shot last weekend because the speeds on the rounds i shot this morning with a lot less powder are pretty fast. ill let you know after i talk to my buddy.

[LongRange]

still havent really talked to my buddy...i text him what was going on and all he text back was adjust H20 weight to match crono velocities...so i did with one powder and now both powders match within 10FPS so ill load up some more on thursday and go shoot them over the crony and see how the loads match up...if its not snowing.

Rooster ill let you know about the elevation when i find out.

[LongRange]

Well after playing with the case capacity weight and rechecking my cases and a few text from my buddy i went to accurate shoot from a link my buddy sent me and did a little reading...theres a lot of fantasic info there on quick load and how to tweak the default numbers to make it more accurate with your crony data. By adjusting the Ba (burn rate)just a tiny bit ive got QL matching my crono data to with in 8fps....ill put it to the test again as soon as i can and post back on how close the numbers are.

[darkker]

Few things to remember with it...
It is simply one more tool, but it is only that. Unless you never actually took the time to measure your H2O capacity, "tweeking" that number is bad juju. Burning rates get changed by case volume (obviously), and the fact that you need to adjust it to match your results, means something is off.
In particular Hartmut struggles to accurately describe any of General Dynamics ball powders. They won't tell him shyte, Hodgy doesn't tell anyone shyte; so he would have to bomb test everything. But there is only so much money/time for that, so it would appear he doesn't have the full view of nominal lot variation understood.
Another thing to be aware of, is changes in powder over time. Let's use WC 846 for example. That powder as originally surplussed gave us Bl-c(2) & H335. Who used to make it, has changed. The original patent date was from @ 1939, they split it into 844 in 1969, but only on "as built"; the recipe wasn't changed. So, everything changes over time, slight tweeks here and there to formulas MAY, or may NOT make a difference in the end. How often he totally re-tests powders is another.

Unless you are looking for an idea if a new powder would work, a Pressure Trace is a better tool.

[LongRange]

Few things to remember with it...
It is simply one more tool, but it is only that. Unless you never actually took the time to measure your H2O capacity, "tweeking" that number is bad juju. Burning rates get changed by case volume (obviously), and the fact that you need to adjust it to match your results, means something is off.
In particular Hartmut struggles to accurately describe any of General Dynamics ball powders. They won't tell him shyte, Hodgy doesn't tell anyone shyte; so he would have to bomb test everything. But there is only so much money/time for that, so it would appear he doesn't have the full view of nominal lot variation understood.
Another thing to be aware of, is changes in powder over time. Let's use WC 846 for example. That powder as originally surplussed gave us Bl-c(2) & H335. Who used to make it, has changed. The original patent date was from @ 1939, they split it into 844 in 1969, but only on "as built"; the recipe wasn't changed. So, everything changes over time, slight tweeks here and there to formulas MAY, or may NOT make a difference in the end. How often he totally re-tests powders is another.

Unless you are looking for an idea if a new powder would work, a Pressure Trace is a better tool.

thanks darkker...and i do understand it is an INTERIOR ballistics program and that everything it puts out will need to be field tested. i have weighed all 150 nosler cases with H2O...everyone is with in .5g...52.9-53.4... so i just did and average of 53.2g...i did change case capacity from 52.9 to 53.4 in .1g increments and it only had about 5FPS difference...ive also triple checked all of my input data and it is all to spec.ive been doing a lot of research on the QL program and there is a ton of good info over on accurate shooter about QL and from what ive read when you have all your info input correctly and your getting +or- 50fps its most likely variations in powder lots and some are worse than others(RL-22)so the best way to compensate for this is to adjust the Ba value(within a reasonable amount)to match your actual velocities then shoot the new charge over a crony and recheck against QL and if it jives write that Ba value on the jug of powder as a reference.ive read about changing the weighing factor as well but that dont change anything much and according to guys on AS its not a good idea to change the WF number more than +or- 1. like i said im new to QL but learning fast and finding that the more i learn the more i like the program. ill go out and re-crony the new loads and post back with the results.

[LongRange]

does it have a value for elevation. At 7500ft my real world results tend to vary quite a bit from the manuals

yes it does have an elevation value...you input it when you do your set up...im not sure how to change it im working on that now,im sure its something simple.ive been reading through the PDF manual(like watching grass grow)and playing with settings.

[LongRange]

i went out this morning to check crony data against QL after making adjustments to the burn rate factor last week and its with in 9fps with the IMR7828 and was with in 22fps of the RL-22 load and with a little more adjusting its with in 5fps with the RL-22 load which i will test again. conditions were identical to last sunday with the exception of the wind,it was only blowing about 15mph this morning but it was over cast and 38deg.with 44.5g of RL-22 QL said 2858fps actual was 2866 to 2877(pretty nice ES here) and wasnt a great group but they were pretty tight horizontally but spread out vertically so seating depth should tighten that load up.
with 45.4g of IMR7828ssc QL said 2855 actual was 2849 to 2859(pretty nice ES here as well)also this wasnt a great group either but with a little adjusting it should be and QL is pretty close here so ill leave the Ba factor alone with the IMR7828.