Is this common?
Have found at least 2 different questionable bullet length spec's listed in 2 different computer reloading programs,Quikload and LFAD (when I can get it to work).
Let me state here and now, NO OFFENSE meant, intended or implied to ANYONE or Company/Brand.
I have found at least .030"+ errors for stated bullet lengths or more for the 22 cal. 75gr Horn A MAx, 62gr Speer FMJ, so far.
I have checked the 3 mics, and all three reading are accurate to the measuring standards.
I checked the bullet lengths listed in the computer program, overall case length,seating depth, etc against the actual bullet on hand and my measured seating depths/lenghts etc, and thats when I found these problems.
Has anyone else run into these problems?
Have you checked everything carefully?
More later, out to the reloading bench to do some more checking and notetaking.
ps, I am very new to running a computer and I think? I am running these programs correctley,
but I have over 40yrs reloading 25+ calibers from 22 to 30 calibers,rifles and pistols, factory and wildcats cases.
This has me thinking and checking everything now!

I have yet to find any problems with my copy of Quickload and LFAD. LFAD wasn't what I thought it was and so was dissapointed in that. As far as Quickload, my copy has always been right on the money. oal is always done to the book anyway unless you have oal gauge. Which I have also. Then it's a matter of making sure the round fits in the magazine and that there's enough bearing surface on the bullet. You can change the oal in the program if you wish and see what differences that makes in the loads and it does make a difference. I have several calibers that I use it with and none have been off as far a oal. E-mail me with your questions and a little more detail on what you are doing and trying to accomplish.

I only have experience with an earlier version of LFAD. I was not happy with that program at all. On a few occasions the load turned out to be much heavier than the program predicted. Pressures and velocities were considerably different in my rifles than in cyberspace. Perhaps they have corrected this problem since then, but I think my money would be better spent in manuals, components, or towards a strain guage device.

Just keep in mind, that there are a number of variables that the programs have trouble taking into account. I.e. bore diameter, throat length, changes in burn rate etc. Although, I have heard from a number of sources that QuickLOAD is a far better program than LFAD.

Turok

Can you share with us which programs you used. It would be nice to know if we are using the "right" one.

i agree with hot core. Programs have 2 main elements: input data and calculations. Data is prone to mis-input and calculations are in error depending upon the detail and level of complexity, so do not expect either to be perfect.

So, given there are errors, what is the impact? Well, for data input, just change the numbers or use "as is" until it you need better accuracy. In your example, the length error will cause about a 1.8% error in velocity (assuming velcity goes as the square root of case capacity). Not to bad. Now compare your velocity with known, pusblished data. The number could be off much greater than due to just bullet length due to other intrinic factors (calculation technique, powder burn rate assumptions, etc.)

So, programs are a great way to do "what if" calculations, ie relative comparisons, but to get absolute accuracy, requires effort on the user part to calibrate the program for your application.

I have posted a number of such examples. Search under my user number.

steve