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]

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.

[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.

[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.