What has been your experience with Quickload on load density and velocity?

I have some cartridges that I load for where Quickload is spot on, either both load density and fps, or one of the two.

However, some loads it's way off on velocity and load density - most notable 375 H&H and 300 Weatherby.

Have other folks seen this?

Density - pretty good.
Velocity - varied depending on powder.

I look closely at the pressures Quickload predicts. When I get a higher velocity for a load than Quickload predicts then the pressure must also be higher than what Quickload is showing. That worries me. So, I don't use any Quickload that gets even close to max pressure.

I don't load any straight wall from QL.

What I have found is for bottle necks I vary more by powder. So if I take say a load for RL22 in my 280 and adjust the burn rate to match velocity, case capacity and barrel length it is then darn close for other cartridges as well.

I NEVER take any max at face value regardless of source

I have never used QL for straight or somewhat straight walled cartridges. Nor have I used it for Overbore cartridges either. QL is not a reloading manual, it's just an idea guide. It gives possible starting points, not factual loading information.

I use the books and my own loads I work up, but check against QL. What I find interesting is on Barnes and the 375 H&H it predicts velocities and pressures much higher than any books show or that I get at the range. I'm talking about 150 fps differences.

To get accurate data from Quickload you need a chronograph and then change the burn rate in Quickload until the two velocities match.

Meaning each load in Quickload must be tuned with a chronograph to get a accurate output.

I didn't know you could change the burning rates. Thanks for that tip. I'll try doing just what you said to see what that does.

QuickLoad is totally way off with .375 H&H and Reloader 17 powder. It is a little bit closer with same powder and 8x57JS.

With 460 Rowland and Vihtavuori N105 it is spot on so accurately, that I can't believe it. In the same caliber, it is a little bit off with Accurate #7.

With .500 S&W magnum, H110 and Woodleigh bullets, it shows much higher velocity than actually chronographed.

Jiri

QL is only as good as the last batch of powder tested!
That's why there is so few IMR powders, way to much variasion from LOT to LOT.
Annd thats why it's military "surplus" or not quite within spec for the forces specifications.

I purchased Quickload software a couple of weeks ago to help me develop a .38-55 high velocity at max pressure or above load for a double rifle I just built. My goal is to develop a .38-55 McPherson case load that will duplicate the old Holland & Holland circa 1899 Flanged Nitro Express 2 1/2" case load, which produces about 40,000 psi with a 270g bullet at just under 2,000 fps velocity. The little over pressure with the .38-55 loading is not an issue for me as the double rifle barrels are 1 inch plus diameter at the breech and are made of 4140 alloy steel. Bore/Groove of this rifle is .367/377" with 6 lands and grooves.

Here is what my experience has been on using QL to predict the velocity of two different burning rate propellants both from Alliant using CCI Large Rifle Primers----- Re-7 and AR-Comp.

Quick load shows that using Re-7 and a 255g .377" diameter flat nose Hawk bullet I should see 1950 fps at max pressure, and I am seeing (w/ chronograph) 1948 fps. Using QL to predict what velocity and pressure I could expect with same bullets and cases using AR-Comp, it predicted a 2,000 fps velocity load that would have 6,000 psi less than the Re-7 loading above. The actual velocity of this predicted load was 300 fps less than the QL prediction; and all the other QL predicted loads (5) with the AR-Comp propellant I have subsequently checked consistently showed 300 fps less velocity . I thought that maybe the AR-Comp propellant is not suitable for straight wall cases, but now after reading these posts above I have other thoughts.

I have tested loads in this new double rifle that QL predicts the chamber pressure as being in the low to mid 40,000 psi range, however I can not see over pressure indicators of the fired primers that leads me to somewhat question the prediction by QL of the pressure generated by any of these loads. I am going to contact the Alliant folks and see what they say about using AR-Comp in straight wall cases--they may say that the propellant is too slow for these cases. Alliant says that the Re-7 is suitable for small caliber bottle neck center fire as well as straight wall .45-70 cases, and they seem correct.

I purchased some Winchester large rifle primers and I am going to test a few of the same loads with the AR-Comp and RE-7 to see if there is any difference in velocity with the Winchester primers.

Note:
This DR weights 9 lbs with scope and recoil with the higher QL predicted pressure loads is not much more than the lower pressure loads. During the regulation of this DR, I have also shot Buffalo Bore Heavy .38-55 in this rifle which are rated at max load 38,000 CUP AT 1,950fps velocity; and from the recoil perspective they feel identical to my Re-7 load with 1,950 fps above. QL predicted 34,000 psi max load with this Re-7 load, which is about the same as 38,000CUP from what I can determine.

Just though all of you would like to hear this story fresh off the shooting range.

Be curious to see if you tweak the burn rate to match your results if that powder would then predict better for load changes.

Works for me for bottle necks but little experience with straight walls.

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:
Be curious to see if you tweak the burn rate to match your results if that powder would then predict better for load changes.

Works for me for bottle necks but little experience with straight walls.

Paul;

Will you explain the science behind changing the burn rate at will within the program's data base? It seems counter intuitive to change the propellant's (AR-Comp) burn rate without evidence that the burn rate within QL's data base is corrupted or entered incorrectly. Is there data out there in the WWW that can indicate if the burn rate is right/wrong in QL? I have no experience in this subject and that is the reason for my questions.

Steve

I shoot a 35 Whelen AI which has a fired case capacity of 74.3 grains of water to the top of the neck. In my 14" twist, 24" barrel I get 2585 fps from 250 Nosler Partition over 61 grains of Alliant PP 2000-MR with WLR primers loaded to 3.34". Can anyone tell me the pressure I'm likely getting? Primers are not flat and I measure .0015" to .0018" case head expansion. Thanks!

quote:

Paul;Will you explain the science behind changing the burn rate at will within the program's data base

You aren't changing the data base, simply tweaking it each time.


Take RL powders for example they are know to have a difference in burn rate from lott to lott. QL just has one burn rate in the database.

Choose the powder in question and click on the icon just left of the powder name. Then Make minor adjustments to the Burning Rate Factor until the velocity results calculated matches your actual. I then record that new burn rate. Each time I then use that powder I override the Rate Factor. Each time you then leave that powder QL will default back to the database.

I've found that on my wildcats built on the same case the tweak works for my wildcat series. I've also seen it work well for 06 based cases.

It "might" allow you to get a better prediction for your loads and powder. If not you didn't lose anything.

QL will always default back to it's loaded database so you aren't messing up your program

quote:

Alliant PP 2000-MR

Not in my QL database Sorry

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:

quote:

Paul;Will you explain the science behind changing the burn rate at will within the program's data base

You aren't changing the data base, simply tweaking it each time.


Take RL powders for example they are know to have a difference in burn rate from lott to lott. QL just has one burn rate in the database.

Choose the powder in question and click on the icon just left of the powder name. Then Make minor adjustments to the Burning Rate Factor until the velocity results calculated matches your actual. I then record that new burn rate. Each time I then use that powder I override the Rate Factor. Each time you then leave that powder QL will default back to the database.

I've found that on my wildcats built on the same case the tweak works for my wildcat series. I've also seen it work well for 06 based cases.

It "might" allow you to get a better prediction for your loads and powder. If not you didn't lose anything.

QL will always default back to it's loaded database so you aren't messing up your program

Paul;

Thanks for the explanation and I will give it a try.

Also, I sent a note to Alliant describing the 15% AR-Comp velocity reduction and asked them if AR-Comp is unsuitable for straight wall cartridges. I will let you know their response.

Steve

quote:

Choose the powder in question and click on the icon just left of the powder name. Then Make minor adjustments to the Burning Rate Factor until the velocity results calculated matches your actual. I then record that new burn rate. Each time I then use that powder I override the Rate Factor. Each time you then leave that powder QL will default back to the database.

Paul;

I have version 3.9 of QL which must be different version than yours. However I determined that I could only change burn rate of an active file through the sub menu by choosing changing propellant data. I did this and found a burn rate that equated the velocities that were 15% less using the programs default burning rate. I am going to load a cartridge to the amount of propellant to see what it gives in velocity. (It is however a 111.2% compressed propellant load). After I post this message, I am going to change the bullet style in the active file of QL to a round tip that has less 25% less seating depth and see what the program predicts with that bullet, and I may load a cartridge or two in that configuration to check velocity as well.

Steve

Steve,
I'm running 3.6 with updated data. So they must have changed the program between the two versions

It is impossible for the computer program Quickload to cover all the variables in components and firearms and give accurate output data. This is why you tweak the burn rate to calibrate Quickload to your rifle.

Quickload's output data are just computer generated guesses. And the same reason why loading data varies between loading manuals.

Excel has been my best friend so far - plotting loads grains vs velocity. Darn accurate. Just lots more work.

I have been using and updating my QuickLoad program for years. I always pay special attention to pressure. For me safe pressure is my goal. Velocity a distant 3rd after accuracy!
I have loaded .257 Roberts, 257AI, 257 Whby 6.5X55, 308 Win., 300 Apex, 300 Whby, 8MM Mauser,375 H&H, 450/400 3 Inch NE, & 404 Jeffery.

I am so glad to read this discussion,
changing the burn rate to match recorded velocities makes complete sense,I have personally experienced great variations in speed with different R15 lots,
I have questions regarding this,how far should the chronograph be placed from the muzzle? & how much speed should be adjusted for this?what about temperature change when you are shooting?is there any way to plug this into the burn rate?
Thanks.

I have different question:

Now it is the first time I reload for revolver, 7.5" 500 S&W Performance Center one. What bullet length to set in quickload? (and how much to virtually shorten the barrel to simulate the cylinder to barrel gap)?

For example:

Reloading manual for 10" barrel, 400gr Woodleigh bullet and 40gr of H110 => 1720 fps

I measured: 1457 fps

...........................
Manual, 35gr => 1515
I measured: 1227

So what barrel length to set and how to adjust burning rate?

Jiri

I don't think it's a good idea to change powder burn rates to fit your QL data. Burn rates are derived from experimental factory data, and should be a measureable known or given constant.

(I know there are lot-to-lot burn-rate variations, but the specific variation you're working with cannot be known to you, unless you want to do the burn-rate experiments yourself. It’s best to use the factory “average” data expected with that powder.)

If QL is off, first I make certain that OAL, actual case capacity, powder temperature, and shot initiation pressure are all set properly.

But if things are still off and you want to adjust QL, I suggest modestly changing the so-called "weighting factor"(WF).

The "WF" is a somewhat nebulous fudge factor designed into QL to make the actual data fit the program.

QL automatically assigns a "WF" value for each cartridge.

The “WF” is a variable used by QL to consider the amount of unburned powder and powder gases that travel down the barrel with the bullet.

QL suggests 0.5 for the “usual” bottle-necked case, 0.33 for “overbore” cases, and 0.75 for "straight-walled" cases.

In practice, the "WF" is usually set at 0.5 for the majority of high-powered rifle cartridges.

But I don't see how this can be, since it's a measure of the "bottle-necked" (i.e., overbore or underbore) nature of the case design.

Case design varies considerably, and I find it hard to believe a 308 has a bottle-necked nature deserving a “WF” of 0.50 and a 30-378 Weatherby Mag has a “WF” bottle-necked nature of 0.52, implying the latter is more straight-walled. This is insane.

Also, the "WF" should vary with the fast vs slow-burning powders, more unburnt slow-burning powder will be going down the barrel with bullet than with a faster burning powder. QL does not account for this.

Actually, “WF” if a fudge factor designed into QL to make the data fit the observations. Their explanation for it seems artificial and convenient to me, but who knows.

QL is nothing more than an ESTIMATOR!! Be careful using QL. Adjusting "this and that" to suit you, may result in a false sense of security and thinking you're safe when you're not.

When you do this, it's akin to dry-labbing...that is, the act of supplying fictional yet plausible results in lieu of letting QL give an independent assessment of what you're doing.

I pay much closer attention to PSI signs in the case. I use QL to give me an estimate on how much chamber presure is needed to generate a certain velocity, given that all adjuctable parameters are set properly, or better said, as nearly as properly as you think you know. I then correlate this estimated PSI with PSI signs the case is showing.

Adjusting the Powder Burn rate Factor and the Bullet Weight to Help Match
QL to Range Chronograph Data:


http://www.the-long-family.com...20best%20results.pdf

Calibrate QuickLoad to match your range measured velocity data by changing the burning rate factor (Ba) and the bullet weight

http://www.the-long-family.com...%20barrel%20time.htm

Bill73,
Try switching to Norma 203B. Just another batch of the powder that Norma sells and accurate sells as RL-15.
More consistent results with 203B.
Hope all is well up your way.

Rusty,
All is well,cannot wait to see the guys again,thanks for the tip.

I am interested in Load Density as that's usually where I find my best accuracy..

I place quickload and book minimum and book max as a starting point to working up a load, that's about it for me..I work up up every rifle and its load to full max. document that and back off about a grain or two in some cases, and not in others..

As Ive said before I want to know my rifle, it strengths and weaknesses...Its max load and its best accuracy load..

Reloading books, internet info, and Quickload is nothingmore than a starting part to the introduction of me and a keeping rifle..

Now I tried QL vs real world data with 500 S&W revolver, two bullets and three different powders:

Bullet: Ares 406 hard cast polymer coated bullet:

25gr VV N105, predicted: 432 m/s, chronographed: 429 m/s - 3 m/s or 10 fps difference

25.5gr VV N105, predicted 439 m/s, chronographed: 435 m/s

36gr H110, predicted 455 m/s, chronographed 475
37gr H110, predicted 469 m/s, chronographed 473

---------------------------------------------
Bullet: Woodleigh 400gr

40gr H110, predicted 463 m/s, chronographed 433 m/s - 30 m/s or ~ 98 fps difference

38gr VV N110, predicted 493 m/s, chronographed 459 m/s - 34 m/s or ~ 111 fps difference

Why it is really accurate for one bullet and really inaccurate for another one?

What is the reason for lower fps with more H110 powder?

Jiri

i use QL to quick at pressure and suitable powders for cases. it doesn't work well for straight walled cases, others its really good.

i use a chrony to test vels --

QL is only a mathematical tool, guys, it doesn't know the real world - never trust it for nearing max pressure loads, never think its going to invent amazing powder combos that beat everything else

and i NEVER tweak powder specs, EVER, in QL, unless i change the powder name... as if you get it wrong, the wrong way, you could wind up with a pressure excursion ... steel rain, skin penetrations, bleeding, death...