Has anybody used "Quickload" and/or "Load From a Disk"? I am considering buying one of them and am curious about the relative merits of each. Thanks!

-Mike

I own copies of both plus a copy of LoadTech.

LfaD is (was) a pill to use. My copy is now a year and a half old, so there's a chance they've improved this part of it. I doubt, though, they have improved the underlying algorithm, which appears to be based on the Powley computer. The estimates of fps seemed to be conservative, so I'd deem the program "safe."

LoadTech is very simple to use, but frankly I found the predictions to be appallingly bad at times. It will happily tell you that a .30-40 with 220 gn bullets will deliver the same fps as published loads for the .30-06. Oh, and it reports that its "confidence" in this prediction is high. A post I saw by a fellow who claimed to be an AEM employee indicated this program is based on curve fits of published data. This seems a valid approach -- I've tried some of this myself --, and I don't see why it's so far off. AEM offers free upgrades at times, so I think they are earnest. Why their database has so many "magic" powders in it puzzles me.

QuickLOAD is superb. It is based on a decent thermodynamic model of the combustion and expansion. It seems to always give a decent estimate of the fps possible from a combination of chamber size, barrel length, bullet weight, and limiting pressure. I don't find it to be so superb at predicting how much mass of such-and-such a powder is needed to get the performance predicted, though. It does seem to always indicate the correct burning speed needed, but the charge weight can be a bit off from those in published loadbooks. On the other hand, there is quite a variation in what you find in loadbooks. To QL's credit, the manual has a huge list of cavaets; this is absolutely necessary since the modeling of small arms is damn near impossible due to the large variations from gun to gun which affect the initial acceleration of the bullet (cleanliness, erosion, etc.). It is a blast to play with and a great learning tool, but no such software is 100% reliable.

Your money would be best spent on a strain gauge rig to actually measure what's happening.

Karl

About the same time last year when it was zero F out I bought another internal program. They are amusing and more fun than say a hunting program where you shoot some deer on the computer screen. Just don't take them seriously and check any result against two manuals. So if you have a few extra bucks to spend go ahead. It's good clean fun.

As mentioned above if you really want to get serious and complicate your life then pursue a strain gage. You must have a chronograph by now. If you don't then buy one before an internal program.

If money is tight download "Loadbase" at Steve's site and play with that. It's as good or better than any and it's free!

To stay on the right track call Jim at CED or perhaps Oehler and discuss advanced firearms testing if your up to high tech stuff.

I have Quickload and have been using it for about 2 1/2 years now. Most of the time I find it to be very good, but occasionally, it will give you loads that are way off and could even be dangerous. For example, I shoot a 6.5/284 1000 yard benchrest rifle. Published data for this new cartridge is fairly scarce at this time. Quickload recomended between 54.5 and 57.3 gr of H4831sc with a 142gr Sierra bullet. Actually something in the neighbor hood of 53 gr is absolute max. In defense of Quickload on this particular cartidge, when I put in 53.0gr, it predicts the velocity within 30fps of actual measured velocity.

So just beware and just like the Quickload warning say, don't use their predictions as asolute gospel when it comes to loading data. Alway verify them against other loading manualy of some other source that you trust.

Yes, as I said, QuickLOAD's ability to predict what happens with a particular powder is not always inspiring. It is better to use it to select an approx. burning speed. Some powders in its database have "magic" properties. IMR's 3031 seems to always be a winner in the predictions of QL. I believe this is a result of the simplified model of powder burning used in the program. 3031 has more deterrent than the other IMR powders, making it more progressive in burning. It appears that the burning curve for 3031 as stored in the program is too progressive, though.



I use the program with only 5 propellants stored in a truncated database. I don't believe any of these 5 as modeled is true to its actual powder. I just look for which burning speed might deliver what fps.



QL allows you to see trends. It does not tell you what will actually happen. Its fun to see what the effect will tend to be if you use, say, a paper patched .358 in a 9.3 mm cartridge: you can get more fps. But how much more you can truly get remains to be seen with actual tests.



Do not assume QL is a loadbook. It is not. It is a learning tool, no more.



If you're using a good bolt gun and don't mind loading to a bit below maximums, the old Powley computer combined with a chronograph will do as well as any of commercial programs.



One last thing: invest in a number of reputable loadbooks.



Karl