I see a few here use "Quickload". I have seen "Load From a Disk" around for years.
Does anyone use any other software for estimating interior ballistics?
Has any one used both Quickload and LFD for comparison?
Any recomendations, experiences or observations?
Thanks

A few of us use AccuLoad and LoadTech (both from www.AEMent.com). The newest version Accuload 3 includes both programs.
Updates, when available, run about $10 to cover the cost of the blank disc and postage.
PM Hockypuck, he's one of the "muckty mucks" at AEM (and a nice guy to deal with).

There is no “magic†computer program (at this time) that can give you totally reliable reloading information.

The computer programs can give you some great ideas though.

I bought LFD and think it's a piece of garbage. The way in which "powder classes" are used is absurd if you look at the burn rate range of powders in a given class. Due to the variables involved I don't believe there is software available that can be accurate enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Zupspoon:
I bought LFD and think it's a piece of garbage. The way in which "powder classes" are used is absurd if you look at the burn rate range of powders in a given class. Due to the variables involved I don't believe there is software available that can be accurate enough.

Zupspoon,
That is why I expect it to be an estimate.
It is just a mathematical model. It can't correct for chamber or bore variations much less the component variations.

quote:

Originally posted by ireload2:

quote:

Originally posted by Zupspoon:
I bought LFD and think it's a piece of garbage. The way in which "powder classes" are used is absurd if you look at the burn rate range of powders in a given class. Due to the variables involved I don't believe there is software available that can be accurate enough.

Zupspoon,
That is why I expect it to be an estimate.
It is just a mathematical model. It can't correct for chamber or bore variations much less the component variations.

Ireload2,

True...although some models are much better than others. What I meant was that in my opinion, LFD is as useless as tits on a bull due to not being able to specify one distinct powder. If you look at the different powders included in a "powder class" and cross reference them to any credible published load data, you'll find that the estimated pressure and velocity can't even be close over such a wide range of burn rates. It's one of the few times in my life that I asked for a product refund. No surprise that I didn't get one. I did however get a lecture focused on 80% or greater load density...ad nauseum. The software has earned my coveted FPOS award that goes to products that either don't do what they're advertised to do, or don't do what they're advertised to do for very long.

What Zupspoon said.

I have LFD also and got a nice ballistics program for my money. Heck I had that with Q-ball.

Quick loAd is more bucks but will likely do what you want.

ALWAYS COMPARE CALCULATED DATA WITH KNOWN SOURCES

Quickload is worth the money it costs and usually very close to empiricall developed load. It is a great tool to play around with, especially whem evaluating new stuff like reduced loads with Blue Dot, N110 or similar.

The general agreement among shooters here is that it is quite reliable.