Posted: 6/18/2015 5:00:32 AM EDT
|
It appears to be away of experimenting with theoretical loads.
Anyone use it ? 
|
|
I use it often. Especially, when a new LR or hunting bullet comes to market. It's also great to establish a starting point for component switches when things are scarce but it does not account for different primers.
The current version is about 1.5 years old. That is past the usual yearly update. Therefore, newer bullet data must be entered into the database by hand. |
|
I use Quickload extensively. Accuracy using the software requires some fine tuning. Check accurate shooter.com but the just of it is powder burn rates and case capacity need to be adjusted to match loads.
For normal .223 loads and common powders it's plenty accurate. One interesting thing to look at is the optimal barrel time theory. Basically once you determine a good load you can switch components and simulate the barrel time in Quickload to get you closest to a good load with those components. Works very well in my experience. |
|
I still try to stay within published data since I have only had it for about 6 months now, but I like that it takes some of the mystery out of selecting a powder. You can put in the cartridge specs and it spits out a list of all the powders that might work - with pressures, velocities, percent fill, percent of powder burned bullet exit and barrel time.
popnfresh, I'm sure there would be a lot of interest if you would post a little more about how you tune your QL data. |
|
I've had QL for about a year, and use it occasionally for directional answers to questions not resolved from available published load data.
I have been spectacularly unsuccessful in tuning QL to correspond reasonably close to (eg) 3 actual velocity measurements for the same components using different powder weights. But I don't have Popnfresh's experience, data, nor most likely his patience either lol. |
|
Quoted:
I still try to stay within published data since I have only had it for about 6 months now, but I like that it takes some of the mystery out of selecting a powder. You can put in the cartridge specs and it spits out a list of all the powders that might work - with pressures, velocities, percent fill, percent of powder burned bullet exit and barrel time. popnfresh, I'm sure there would be a lot of interest if you would post a little more about how you tune your QL data. The main reasons I use QL is because I like to experiment. I want to use the same powder for my 55gr,77gr and 90gr .223 loads as I do for my 168gr, 175gr, 185gr, 210gr, and 230gr .308 loads, good luck finding load data for those combos. The main thing with using QL, just like ballistic calcs, if you input garbage it will output garbage. Another thing with it is if you don't have previous data of know loads with the same powder it is going to be less accurate as you wont be able to alter burn rates. You need to input all of your actual measurements, bullet length(I seat a few bullets, scribe them at the mouth, pull them and confirm or alter "Shank seating Depth" and "Seating Depth" and/or "Tail"dims ), bullet weight, case length, MEASURED CASE CAPACITY(don't guess or use some chart) I don't have my log books with me but from what I have on my laptop. Just putting actual correct measurements, volumes etc. and correcting powder temp, QL velocties compared to actual are as follows: 45gr a2230 1.5% low(7.5&18"bbls) 55gr a2230 6.5%low 185gr a2230 2%low 55gr W748 1.0%high 77gr W748 2.5%high 90gr W748 2.5%high 175grW748 5%high 210grW748 4.5%high 230gr W748 4%high With the .308 and W748 I am going to bump those burn rates down when working with new loads. QL lists it at 0.5650 if I change it to 0.5120 then all of loads match within 10-15fps With the burn rate corrected to match the measured muzzle velocities the chamber pressures match very close with the pressure readings I get from my PressureTraceII on my .308. With the .224 cal I alter the 0.5650 down to 0.5350 to match for the heavier bullets. Now being a computer model I consider plus or minus a couple % to be pretty good considering the other variables that cannot be accounted for, 5% not so good IMO. If I am starting new with no previous data. I will correct all knowns including powder temp. Then for a high pressure rifle round I pick a charge weight 6-10k psi below max pressure load 2 rounds then 2 more at each 1/2gr increment to about 6-10k psi over max pressure. Then fire these recording velocities and watching for pressure signs. (at this point I have my PSI max and an idea of MVs so I can go on to develop my load as usual ) I will then put all the charge weight/MV data collected back into QL. I will then adjust burn rates to get MVs to match charge weights and record these numbers. I compare all of them, look for a change in burn rate over the charges weights or maybe it stayed the same. I don't put too much faith in the numbers yet because they are so few. As I go with this powder I will collect more data on it and better be able to predict what it will do in other loads. I use one ball powder for pistol and one ball powder for rifle. In the last couple years for rifle I have converted to W748 from 2230 due to availability. I have gone through 32lbs of W748 in that time and I collect MV data every weekend in all conditions so I have a great deal of info to work with from my loads. If you have 10 different rifles, a few loads for each, several different powders then this all would be an epic task. My .40 and 10mm loads I have had for 10-15 years so I have not played with QL and those much. Seems like I ran the numbers and QL was within 3% Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Thanks for that post, PnF :) I measured my own mv, powder charge weight (of course), case capacity, COL, and case length . . . adjusted burn rates . . . but it never occurred to me to watch bullet length data. Also, I can't remember whether my tuning resulted in at least consistently wrong predictions, or if I was just too intolerant of relatively small percentage errors..
Long way of saying you've given me some reason to try again lol. |
|
Quoted:
Thanks for that post, PnF :) I measured my own mv, powder charge weight (of course), case capacity, COL, and case length . . . adjusted burn rates . . . but it never occurred to me to watch bullet length data. Also, I can't remember whether my tuning resulted in at least consistently wrong predictions, or if I was just too intolerant of relatively small percentage errors.. Long way of saying you've given me some reason to try again lol. The bullet info is generally very close, the mistakes come in due to meplat inconsistencies, as we all know you can't expect OALs to be the same measured at the meplat. Also my QL is very old so for newer bullets say Berger Hybrids I have to pick a similar bullet and alter it to match the Hybrid specs. And keep in mind powder temp alters burn rates, especially with the ball powders I use. |
|
Quoted:
The bullet info is generally very close, the mistakes come in due to meplat inconsistencies, as we all know you can't expect OALs to be the same measured at the meplat. Also my QL is very old so for newer bullets say Berger Hybrids I have to pick a similar bullet and alter it to match the Hybrid specs. You can add new bullets to your bullet file. The exact bullet length isn't really an issue. I use the values from the table that Berger puts out. The bullet base and shank seating depth are more important to get right. |
|
Quoted:
You can add new bullets to your bullet file. The exact bullet length isn't really an issue. I use the values from the table that Berger puts out. The bullet base and shank seating depth are more important to get right. Quoted:
Quoted:
The bullet info is generally very close, the mistakes come in due to meplat inconsistencies, as we all know you can't expect OALs to be the same measured at the meplat. Also my QL is very old so for newer bullets say Berger Hybrids I have to pick a similar bullet and alter it to match the Hybrid specs. You can add new bullets to your bullet file. The exact bullet length isn't really an issue. I use the values from the table that Berger puts out. The bullet base and shank seating depth are more important to get right. Yep, that is why I look pointed out to actually measure it rather the going by oal. |
|
Ok, I bought the software and I am currently learning how to use it.
I had some issues concerning interpretation of pressure curves and the like and I found this book quite helpfuk 
http://www.amazon.com/Rifle-Accuracy-Facts/dp/B004TINR5E/ref=sr_1_2/180-4580840-7408551?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439140859&sr=1-2&keywords=rifle+accuracy+facts The author uses an engineering approach to determine the qualities and the interaction required for accuracy in a rifle.
|