I have eventually run out of H870 for my 264 winmag,and have turned to Retumbo.
I tried a load of 66.5gn of retumbo 130gn accubond 10 thou off lans, got 3050Fps with an ES of 8 Fps.
Hodgdon Manual says max load is 67.5gn Quickload says 71gn.
Cases do not show any sign of pressure, no sticky lift and the primers are not as flat as they were with H870.
Accuracy is unacceptable!

Question!
How reliable is Quickload!

regards
Griff

In my opinion there is not clear answer to this Griff, it appears to depend on too many factors outside the operators control.

I've been using quickload seriously for about a year now and in conjunction with a chronograph and assessing the brass it's useful as another tool in the armoury, but not to be relied upon 100%.

The biggest problem that I can see is that the burn rate of the sample of powder the makers of QL tested and the burn rate of the powder you may be using can be very different. See for yourself by clicking the "Incremental load" button and looking at the simulation of 10% burn rate variation right at the bottom.

It can be seen that + or - 10% can potentially have a very big effect on pressure, enough to explain the difference between the manual and QL value on account of the two presumably having used different lots of powder.

Apart from this I've found that the more information you provide for QL the more your chances of getting some useful data out of it.

Apologies if this is old hat but I measure the actual length of the bullet I'm using as QL occasionally has wrong values, I measure the water capacity of the fired cases and tweak the powder charge value to mirror the actual velocity that the load is giving me. That is to say that if 57.5 grains of H4350 under a 180 grains Hornady gives me avg. 2750 fps over the chronograph with pressure signs and hard extraction, yet QL reports and expected 2700 and no pressure issues I increase the charge manually in QL until the velocity matches and have a look at the pressure estimate. In this case it did indeed show the pressures would have been too high, by about 7Kpsi for half a grain btw, which makes sense considering the sticky extraction.

Interestingly the work up ( 55.5,56.0,56.5,57.0) loads agreed very well with the QL predicted velocities, QL failed to predict the pressure spike that occurred as maximum (57 grains for 2700fps and no pressure problems) was passed.

I have a load of data on various loads for the 30.06 with QL predictions analysed but to be honest it would be simpler to just summarize the lot by saying sometimes you get lucky and the model matches your powder and sometimes you don't; if the work up you've done so far is modelled closely by the QL predicted data then go with it, if it isn't don't.

PS, not knowing your case water capacity or precise OAL and assuming a 26" barrel I get 2925 fps expected for that load with low pressure, maximum load to 90% of SAAMI maximum pressure I also make to be around 71.5 grains for 3200fps but since your rifle appears to be shooting around 75 fps faster than the predicted value using my "guestimate" method I would take that figure as an offset and adjust the maximum powder charge down until QL showed me a value for velocity of 3200-75= ~3125 fps for cautions sake and cautiously work up to that. FWIW that gave me a charge of ~ 69.5.

Please bear in mind that this is all half-baked and crackpot theorising, I have no idea how close to the truth it all is but as you also have a chronograph and experience so I would be glad for your thoughts on it also.

Regards,

A

QL is a simulation tool, while the manual reflects actual results. IE Theory vs reality.

That's not to say that QL (and other math based simulators) have no usage, just that the numbers may not be completely accurate due to assumptions in some of the data and variables that aren't taken into account.

I've been using Quickload for a few years now, from my experience Quickload is very good. I always check my reloading manuals for a sanity check but Quickload has been pretty spot on for me so far. I develop my loads starting low, so far Quickload has been great.

Most manuals are overly conservative from what I've seen so in this particular example I would expect Quickload to be better. My $.02

I have to agree with the fact vs theory position. I've been using Powley's "computer" since the earliest "cardboard slipstick" and all the up todate computer software programs AND Load from a Disk.

They do give you good predictive loads but the software is ONLY a MATHAMATICAL PREDICTION... not real world and can produce faulty information.

I use the Powley online, the latest manuals and Load from a Disk.

I keep thinking about buying QL and would recommend it over Load from a Disk...QL has tons of information, most of which is way beyond the understanding of all but the most rabid reloader/experimenter...but probably won't.

There is lots of information online...this question has been asked many times, so do a search and you will get LOTS of information.

The bottom line is empirical(actual) data is much more useful than a bunch of calculations that can be questionable.

Luck

Thanks for your input.
I did a ladder test yesterday @200yds
started at 65gn and finished @70gn, although max with QL was 71.5gn,I thought better of pushing the boundaries.
One of the problems I have is the chrony is faulty and does not allways pick up a bullet.
65gn showed 2931fps and 70gn 3207fps,shots were all over the place with the whole group measuring 4.5",shots 5/6/7 showed best promise measuring 2.25" with velocity of 3161fps and no signs of pressure.
Will do some fine tuning today and post the results.

regards
Griff

There is no way I would trust QL to use in place of a manual. As an example, for my .270 WSM, a 150 gr. bullet and my 68 gr. charge orf Retumbo, I get about 3220 fps on the chrono. When I run this combo thru QL, it predicts something like 2800 or so fps. QL seems to be rather close in most other predictions I run thru it but not on this one. I dunno why either.
I would look at he powders listed in the manuals then run them thru QL if I wanted some ideas. Just my thoughts.
Bear in Fairbanks

Quickload, manuals, and chronographs are all useful tools for reloading. By checking each against the other, you can begin to get an idea of what is really going on. Quickload is very useful for generating idea's and starting points for new loads. Of course you need to check them in the real world. When in doubt, start a little lower, chronograph, and watch your pressure signs as you work up. Worst case starting lower will just give you a little more real world data to check against the predictions of the manuals and quickload. These will help YOU make better preditions for your guns in the future.

My personal experience with quick load have been very good. Since I can control more variables then I can with a manual, it often gets me closer then the manuals.

I use Quickload in conjunction with manuals. I have a collection of most of the hard bound manuals published in the last 20 years, and find QL does a good job helping fill in the details for me.

Once you fine tune your rifle (chrono, case capacity, etc) I've found it turns out very accurate predictions. It is very helpful in telling me where to look for less-popular powder loads to try, etc. I do not consider it relieves me of any responsibility for careful workups, but it does give great starting points.

One of the weaknesses of the manuals is that they are tested using the SAAMI minimum dimension chamber for the round. That's great if you have a rifle with that tight a chamber, but as an example, my 7mmRM has an 87g case capacity instead of the 82g expected. Once that's accounted for, the rifle's performance falls into place very nicely....

I believe both are useful, but QL is not without its limitations. Powders vary, temp varies, freebore is unaccounted for, etc. but it is still a tool I wouldn't want to do without....especially if I'm working with loads or calibers the manuals aren't caring much about.

Cheers,

Dan

quote:

Originally posted by Dan H:
I use Quickload in conjunction with manuals. I have a collection of most of the hard bound manuals published in the last 20 years, and find QL does a good job helping fill in the details for me.

Once you fine tune your rifle (chrono, case capacity, etc) I've found it turns out very accurate predictions. It is very helpful in telling me where to look for less-popular powder loads to try, etc. I do not consider it relieves me of any responsibility for careful workups, but it does give great starting points.

One of the weaknesses of the manuals is that they are tested using the SAAMI minimum dimension chamber for the round. That's great if you have a rifle with that tight a chamber, but as an example, my 7mmRM has an 87g case capacity instead of the 82g expected. Once that's accounted for, the rifle's performance falls into place very nicely....

I believe both are useful, but QL is not without its limitations. Powders vary, temp varies, freebore is unaccounted for, etc. but it is still a tool I wouldn't want to do without....especially if I'm working with loads or calibers the manuals aren't caring much about.

Cheers,

Dan

I've never used QL could you give some loading data for your 7mag? Because of the case capacity differents are you loading over/under what the manuals list?

I've always loaded using manuals and I've been pretty happy with them. I'm not looking to get into a contest with over just trying to learn something.

I'm a dinosaur when it comes to computers, so for the last 30+ years I've relied strictly on manuals and other published data from known sources. Nowdays you can get good, reliable info off the computer IF you know the source. I do study ALOT. It's worked for 19 rifle cartridges and 7 pistol cartridges. Multiple manuals and a chrono will provide you w/ all the info you need.

like most things, it depends

if you are willing to "do the work" to underestand ql v book v rifle, you can build your own baseline of what is safe and sane.

i find it an excellent tool, for several needs

I am a bit confused guys... I'm not trying to rude ....

Is 3050Fps with 1340gr bullets not a bit slow in the 264 Win Mag? The 6.5X55 gives 2900 fps with 130 gr bullets & H4350 or N160 or Re19.

Unless that particular powder is giving 0.25 inch groups or some such miracle, why not just go to a slow double based powder like N560 or Re25??

I understand that Ramshot also has great slow double based ball powders which are modern technology.

What I am trying to say is .... are the basic objectives sorted correctly first?

JMTBW