QuickLoad questions/opinions

[Whynot]

For those of you that use it- what do you think? Is it worth it... or one of those things that is interesting but you still have to go through the regular process?

What got me thinking about it was I have a 1-8 bdc (its helped me remember why I hate bdc reticles) that am trying to match a bullet/velocity/environmental inputs so it lines up. I figured out that I need a 69 SMK going 2850 to 2875 and it's good.... but hit pressure on 2 powders before reaching that. I am getting close with some Shooters World Tactical- but was curious if the program could have simplified things without the headache?

[charlie b]

I have not but have thought about it. Also thought about getting the Pressure Trace system.

As for .223 and 69gn SMK, I never shot any over a chronograph. The 77SMKs were at 2850fps with 23.5gn Varget, (22" barrel). I loaded 25.5gn Varget, 2.280oal with the 69gn SMKs. I estimated the vel based on drop over distance and it came in around 3000fps. No pressure signs.

[CFJunkie]

If you are not a volume reloader with a number of rifles, it might not be worth the price.

But if you are a precision reloader who is trying to achieve a particular velocity and/or want to maintain a specific jump by adjusting seating depth, I would highly recommend it.
It is easy to use after you get some experience with it and if you are a student of reloading you will learn a lot about the relationships between seating depth, trim length, powder charge and chamber pressure and the effect of temperatue (if you are using temperature sensitive powders).
Reading the manual is a necessity if you want to get the most out of the tool.
And it helps if you are technically oriented and understand the value of simulations. Those who don't will damn the tool because it is a simulation and 'can't be valid'.
After lots of use, I know from my results that it works extremely well. They even give you the range of results for the variations in powders, but I have never found that those potential variations have actually changed the predicted results. Not that such variations can't occur, but I have found that the variations are very rare.

I have loaded over 60,000 rounds using QuickLOAD over the last 11 years for 6 different calibers and 11 different rifles with a wide variety of powders and bullets.
I have exceeded PMax with only about 4 loads during that time, and they were loaded slightly above PMax knowingly to get to a particular velocity.

I swear by QuickLOAD, but I load for Exit-Time and it really helps because it provides the necessary data to allow me to match my loads to achieve the specific exit-time for each barrel. I know no other tool that would allow me to gain that information.

QuickLOAD has a very robust list of powders and bullets and lets you tune for barrel length, trim length and seating depth and allows adjustment for temperature when using temperature sensitive powders.
I think I have found the powder I wanted to use all but twice in 11 years, primarily because the powder I wanted to use was just introduced and they hadn't tested it to be able to calibrate their tables.
Fortunately, I was able to get an update to the powder and bullet tables sometime after each powder's introduction.

[Whynot]

I have not but have thought about it. Also thought about getting the Pressure Trace system.

As for .223 and 69gn SMK, I never shot any over a chronograph. The 77SMKs were at 2850fps with 23.5gn Varget, (22" barrel). I loaded 25.5gn Varget, 2.280oal with the 69gn SMKs. I estimated the vel based on drop over distance and it came in around 3000fps. No pressure signs.

I should have mentioned it's a 16" barrel-- Haven't tried Varget- but probably wont either because it's still difficult/expensive locally (more than the others) and the stock on hand is needed for other cartridges. But it would probably get me there.

[Whynot]

If you are not a volume reloader with a number of rifles, it might not be worth the price.

But if you are a precision reloader who is trying to achieve a particular velocity and/or want to maintain a specific jump by adjusting seating depth, I would highly recommend it.
It is easy to use after you get some experience with it and if you are a student of reloading you will learn a lot about the relationships between seating depth, trim length, powder charge and chamber pressure and the effect of temperatue (if you are using temperature sensitive powders).
Reading the manual is a necessity if you want to get the most out of the tool.
And it helps if you are technically oriented and understand the value of simulations. Those who don't will damn the tool because it is a simulation and 'can't be valid'.
After lots of use, I know from my results that it works extremely well. They even give you the range of results for the variations in powders, but I have never found that those potential variations have actually changed the predicted results. Not that such variations can't occur, but I have found that the variations are very rare.

I have loaded over 60,000 rounds using QuickLOAD over the last 11 years for 6 different calibers and 11 different rifles with a wide variety of powders and bullets.
I have exceeded PMax with only about 4 loads during that time, and they were loaded slightly above PMax knowingly to get to a particular velocity.

I swear by QuickLOAD, but I load for Exit-Time and it really helps because it provides the necessary data to allow me to match my loads to achieve the specific exit-time for each barrel. I know no other tool that would allow me to gain that information.

QuickLOAD has a very robust list of powders and bullets and lets you tune for barrel length, trim length and seating depth and allows adjustment for temperature when using temperature sensitive powders.
I think I have found the powder I wanted to use all but twice in 11 years, primarily because the powder I wanted to use was just introduced and they hadn't tested it to be able to calibrate their tables.
Fortunately, I was able to get an update to the powder and bullet tables sometime after each powder's introduction.

Thanks for the info.... it does sound like it may be more in-depth than I'm after (but if it wasn't then the results couldn't be as accurate). I don't half-a$$ my reloading- but don't geek out on it either- and once I find something that works to a set standard then am done with it- and don't keep looking for something that could potential be better. Probably not worth it in my situation.

[charlie b]

I should have mentioned it's a 16" barrel-- Haven't tried Varget- but probably wont either because it's still difficult/expensive locally (more than the others) and the stock on hand is needed for other cartridges. But it would probably get me there.

16" may be difficult.

Sierra has AR loads but for a 20" barrel. Only two powders got the 69SMK up to 2850fps, Varget and AA2520. Hodgdon does not list any loads that come close using a 15" barrel, as in a max of around 2600fps.

[CFJunkie]

Remember that a short barrel will sacrifice some muzzle velocity because the bullet won't be accelerating as long as it would in a longer barrel.
Trying to match velocity achieved with a longer barrel might push the chamber pressure on a 16-inch barrel over Pmax.
What comfortably yields a 2850 fps muzzle velocity in a 24-inch barrel might easily be at or over Pmax with a 16-inch barrel, depending upon the powder, especially with heavier bullets.

I have a 1-8 twist .223 AR that easily goes over Pmax with 77 gr bullets achieving a muzzle velocity that results in relatively low pressure in my 26-inch barrel bolt action .223.

[charlie b]

FWIW, that BDC reticle might have been made for 55gn bullets.

Another reason why I dislike BDC reticles.

[PhilC]

For those of you that use it- what do you think? Is it worth it...
Yes. Thanks to CF's comments and detailed posts I bought the program. Learning curve does exist, but once you start working with it you soon realize the value.

[Whynot]

FWIW, that BDC reticle might have been made for 55gn bullets.

Another reason why I dislike BDC reticles.

In the user guide it says that the reticle was designed around the 62 grain steel core bullet- problem with that is I've never found them to be a very accurate bullet. It must have the same bc as the 69 smk though- because when you put it in the calculator they have the same holds. Obviously with a bdc you are not doing target/precision shooting- just close holds for larger targets....

Not sure why they went with needing that much velocity because it is made for guns that generally don't run 20" barrels. Also very aware of barrel length/velocity relationship- and may not be able to safely get there. That's what kind of brought up my original question..... Was wondering if I could work backwards and enter the components and needed velocity and then the program would spit out the powders that could safely achieve it (and then work up to that in my barrel).

[svthuh]

Have you checked out "Gordons Reloading Tool"? I would suggest checking it out, its a fully featured QuickLoad alternative that is also free. It might not have ALL the functionality of QL, though I dont know what in particular may be different, but it will give you much the same info and can really get you into the weeds of it all.

[Seabeeken]

GRT is a more modern format/UI. It uses a 2 step powder model compared to QL single step powder model. I have both and much prefer GRT over QL. GRT will be revamped in 2025 with new features and upgrades. The downside is since Gordon's passing it has been somewhat idle and is lacking of some powders but this will change in 2025. Both QL and GRT are great for wildcats and I use them both extensively. They are however NOT meant to replace published tested load data. There is a continuation team in place working on upgrading and improving GRT. Best of all, GRT is free and QL is not

[Bleeb]

I use GRT for load development. It hasn't been updated for 7mm PRC though. The Optimal Barrel Timing tools in GRT, which are based on one's actual load results, are fairly good, and will get one on the right track when exploring new powders, projectiles, etc. No tool, however, is as accurate as your loads in your gun.

[charlie b]

Thanks for this thread. It 'pushed' to finally download GRT and have been playing with it for a few days. It is surprisingly close to my actual fired data. The cases where it is not are with powders that are not fully calibrated or are my reduced cast bullet loads.

As someone who worked on an internal ballistics program several decades ago I found it pretty complete. We were working with a 'conversion' of the program the Army used for cannons. Basics were the same but all the coatings and single/double based powders are a bit difficult to model.

I'd encourage anyone interested in this kind of stuff to try it. As long as you keep in mind it is only an approximation and should not be used alone. At least verify things with a chronograph to keep yourself out of trouble.

[Seabeeken]

2025 will bring the new GRT NexGen with many new features. They are working on it now. I think you will be pleased.

[nksmfamjp]

I use it. It is accurate enough to be useful. As far as I see it, I can spend $200 on manuals or buy Quickload. You are buying a mathematical model that is reasonably accurate. Like a manual, it cannot tell you exactly what load to use for best loads. It can tell you what powders give what fill % and velocity for a given pressure. So it is a pretty good powder selector. It can tell you if a load is low, med or high pressure. You still have to test and work up to safe max load, or best load.

In industrial terms, $155 is an amazing price for a usable analysis model. I would guess they have a $50000 version for ammo makers to use!

[CFJunkie]

After using QuickLOAD for years, I know that it is more than just a manual.
By the way, Berger uses QuickLOAD to create their manual data.
I don't have to work up a load for every bullet or powder like you would have to do with a manual.
QuickLOAD lets you enter seating depth, trim length, barrel length, twist rate, temperature, brass volume, and powder load and provide muzzle velocity, pressure, & exit time. It is much more than a powder selector.
Manuals can't do that.
I use QuickLOAD for every load that I set up and know what the load will do when I load it.
Then I can use its ballistic calculator to determine that load's performance down range.

[charlie b]

For all intents and purposes QL and GRT are the $50,000 tools. The Army invested all the money in the models back around WWII and then modified them as computers became available. They were 'fine tuned' in the 70's and 80's. QL and GRT have built off that work. Their real contribution has been refining the powder data since that was an area the Army really didn't invest much.

When I visited Watervliet back in the early 80's (for a project on cannon barrels) I was shown the extensive modeling they used to design the barrels. When I contacted the small arms folks they didn't use anything. If they needed to test a barrel/gun/ammunition they simply fired it. Keep in mind that they would develop only a couple loads per decade. After that it was mostly lot testing.

But, if you went to the Army Marksmanship Unit you'll probably find a few folks using QL or GRT to help fine tune the competition loads that they use (when permitted).

[charlie b]

For those who have the GRT, how can I change the "Optimum bullet exit time" calculation to use a different variety of steel?

[CFJunkie]

charlie b,

I'm not familiar with GRT so I can't answer, but I'm not sure it could calculate the "Optimum" unless you can enter the type of steel & barrel length and if you have a muzzle brake or suppressor, the length of either and the type of steel.

The exit time is based on steel reflection velocity, as you know, and the length of the barrel.
For example 416R Stainless has a reflection velocity of 20014 fps
Savage 0.3% carbon steel has a reflection of 19,107 fps.
Chrome allow steel (4140 and 4150) have a reflection velocity of 19,969 fps.

But my understanding is that "Optimum exit time" is intended to balance the reflection of the whole barrel / muzzle brake assembly to optimize harmonics and account for the added time for the reflection to travel through the brake or suppressor as well before it begins to return. The rub is that you need to consider the type of steel in the muzzle brake or suppressor for n-1 of the reflections being calculated. (For the last reflection, the exit from the rifled barrel is all you calculate because the brake or suppressor has no rifling and the bullet is flying free when it leave the rifling.

For example, my Savage .308s with 24 inch barrels, one with and one without a 4150 muzzle brake, have Optimum exit times of 1.363 and 1.256 msec. respectively for the 12th reflection.
I use those exit times for my reloading and the results show a slight improvement in accuracy when I am within +/- 0.005 sec of each calculated Optimum.

For my 308s and 6.5mm CMS, the 12 reflection is needed to keep under Pmax.

For my .223, I can load for the 10th reflection with up to 73 gr bullets and just stay under Pmax. But 69 and 73 gr bullets at the 10th reflection wear the brass primer pockets quicker.
For 77 gr bullets, I have to stick with the 12th reflection.