Has anyone used this software for reloading??How would it compare to Quicklaod??

I use LFD. haven't used Quickload though. LFD comes in handy when I wish to compare data, allmost any data. It lacks some european powders but apart from that it is quite usefull.
Recoil comparisons are available, rifle twist... Bullets lengths.....
For ballistics I use RCBS Load.

It's good

Niels

Niels, isn't that the one that doesn't allow you to choose your max pressure? And/or, it doesn't let you choose your powders, but rather gives you some choices from what it figures as good powders.
Even though it's about half as expensive as QL, I keep talking myself out of it; it doesn't seem near half as useful. If you never see yourself paying $175 or whatever for ballistics software, go for Load From a Disk.

I use it too. For my needs, it is perfect. I've not used QuickLoad either, but the guys that do seem to like it real well.

From what I've seen other folks post about QL, it is considerably more detailed in what it asks you to respond to prior to running it through it's Mathematical Model than LFAD.

I've learned to be skeptical of all kinds of software, so I look and see what it tells me, and it is often quite close to measured values, but I really just use it as a "Reference" and to do the old, "What if I change this to....?" questions.

By the way, it sure beats plotting Trajectories with a French Curve, which I did for many years.

No choices of powder, you put in caliber, case, bullet, barrel length and it calculates. It went a little wacky with loads for the 45-70 as I remember it!

There is another piece of software that I think does better on calculating loads,it is going for around 150 bucks, but for the life of me, I can NOT remember the name

I have them both, and I prefer Quickload over Load From A Disk.

However...

I don't use either to determine what my loads will be. I do that at the firing range. THEN I come home and punch in my numbers to see what each program "predicts".

What Ricciardelli said!!!

muck

I had an earlier version of LfaD; it wasn't very "user friendly" at that time. Its outputs suggested to me it relied on Powley's methods, but proabably later (and more reliable) versions than the ones used in the old Powley slide rules, or perhaps modifications they developed themselves. Powley's equations are semi-empirical; some very basic thermodynamics equations are bent to fit lab data. Free versions using Powley's earlier equations can be found here and there around the web.

QuickLoad goes at the problem at a more fundamental level, trying to mimic burning rates (based on lab data) along with crude estimates of bullet engraving and the various losses (heat to barrel, friction) etc. There has been software with more sophisticated calculations, but they are not readily available.

Neither is reliable. LfaD seemed to be decent at predicting safe charges (with "safe" defined as charges no higher than in load books), but QL will let you understand the "guts" better. If money isn't an issue, get it instead.

Has anyone ever tried the Accu-Load software? If so, how does it compare to LFD or QL?

Accu-Load uses the same technique as their Load-Tech, I believe. After becoming comfortable with QL, I tried their earlier CalcuLoader for grins. It was quite inexpensive, and when CL was withdrawn from the market, they sent a free upgrade to LT, which I thought was quite sporting. LT acts as if it's a "curve fit" to published load data. A fellow who once posted in these forums claimed to work at AEM and hinted this was the case. I gave up on the software when it told me I could safely load a .30-40 up to factory .30-06 ballistics with the 220 gn bullets. I think there's merit in their approach, but you must watch for "magic" powders in their database. If the predicted performance is too good to be true, it is.

I just browsed over by LfaD's site and read through their claims. They clearly state they use a version of Powley's method, which is not a bad way to go.