Gordens reloading tool vs Quickload

[scasa]

I've started looking at doing some load development with my 7.62x25 Tok rifle. I was able to get some ideas from an old post here and reached out to Ramshot customer service and they were kind enough to send some load data for 7.62x25 in an AR platform, 16 inch barrel. using AA#9 . Including bullets from 85gr up to 200 gr.
I downloaded Gordons reloading tool which is similar to quickload except FREE. Took me a while to get it figured out but was able to mock up a couple of loads today as a way of cross checking the data I had. Looks to be a promising asset .
Has anyone else tried it ? Thoughts . It's a little harder to get the hang of than quickload but like I said It's FREE

 

[Adam in WI]

I think it's neat to play around with, but the propellant selection is very limited at the moment. I'm still half tempted to buy quickload.

 

[Kratos]

GRC is the future. QuickLoad barely even installs and I don’t know how much longer it will last.

 

[Gappmast]

GRC is the future. QuickLoad barely even installs and I don’t know how much longer it will last.

I love quickload but sadly have to agree with Kratos. I wish quickload would get a major overhaul.

 

[scasa]

yea I have quickload cant get it to work anymore

 

[PhilKeil]

I have no problems using quick load on a brand new windows 10 machine.

 

[Dgd6mm]

My Quickload has always ran perfectly since I received it.

 

[vonb]

I've been playing with GRT for about a month now and it's been enlightening to review the information provided. It has all of the powders I use. However, it is a community based tool which relies on the API to have users submit their verified data with chrono info as well as fired case water volume. If users will provide their info, I believe it will help to provide much more accurate results.

 

[Kratos]

I've been playing with GRT for about a month now and it's been enlightening to review the information provided. It has all of the powders I use. However, it is a community based tool which relies on the API to have users submit their verified data with chrono info as well as fired case water volume. If users will provide their info, I believe it will help to provide much more accurate results.

This is one of the things I find promising about it. There have been many reports where QuickLoad gave results that were way off and the company just said they only go by their own lab data. Crowdsourcing could ultimately make GRT more robust.

 

[Frans]

I've got 3 guns shooting brilliantly at the moment.
2 hunting Rifles and one LR/Target rifle

All loads were developed using a variation of the OCW method, and tuning Seating depth later on.
I initially used GRT (because it's free) just to determine max loads for each rifle and ammo combination.

Once I got all of em stacking 5 shots into bugholes @ a 100 I went back to GRT and calibrated every thing so that my GRT charge and actual charge deliver the same velocities for all 3. And what do you know... 2 of em shoot exactly on the halfnodes (Hunting Rifles) and the target rifle shoots on a full node. (OBT)

So for interest sake I went over to QL on a computer at my part time job and performed exactly the same calculations and calibrations... I couldn't get the 2 hunting Rifles even close to something promising but the Target rifle gave very similar results as GRT.

Who do you believe now?

I think one should choose which one you prefer and stick with it.. Both are great and QL has proven itself over the years, its not the alfa and omega but sure helps a lot. Nothing beats Physically shooting and seeing for yourself. Must agree with the user-friendlyness of GRT

 

[scasa]

Today I put together an old win XP computer from parts and what do you know quickload works again. I'm trying to look at loads where no data exists. The people that have the loads aren't turning loose of them so I'm kinda on my own.
It's just not fun shooting factory 7.62x25 tok ammo. although its fast it's not very accurate. Like 4 inch groups at 50 yds, I've got it to about an inch at 50 yds with 110 gr sierra hollow points. I can't get to the lands with a V max so thats out. I need a longer bullet which means heaver for which there is very limited data, mostly incomplete. I'm going to check what ramshot sent me on the two programs and see what I come up with.They have no lab tested data.

 

[PhilKeil]

This is one of the things I find promising about it. There have been many reports where QuickLoad gave results that were way off and the company just said they only go by their own lab data. Crowdsourcing could ultimately make GRT more robust.

Or make it full of errors. I don't use GRT but could you trust crowdsource coding/data provision? Can you really depend on what others input to be correct? Who is to say whoever measures a case did not have a off batch or bullets different from spec. With QL there is only 2 sources the company and yourself. You can make all of the changes mentioned in QL. I do so on a regular basis.

I work in biomedical research and the garbage coming in never ceases to amaze me. You can hardly ever get 2 exactly the same medical opinions. It is flat scary. Why training, so many ways to skin a cat, and sites flat out don't care and submit crap. Not to mention it is all about money.

1 other thing comes to mind as i think about this.

When i had only 1 reloading manual you trust it.
Then when you get a second and start comparing and see different load data for the same components and you begin to think which is right. then get 3 and so on. They are all just references not empirical resources.
Same here if you have QL only, then you will trust it. Now add in GRT then as has been mentioned which is right. Throw in the books and it gets more complicated. Now add in any Jo blow sending data to be included even worse.

 

[Kratos]

Or make it full of errors. I don't use GRT but could you trust crowdsource coding/data provision? Can you really depend on what others input to be correct? Who is to say whoever measures a case did not have a off batch or bullets different from spec. With QL there is only 2 sources the company and yourself. You can make all of the changes mentioned in QL. I do so on a regular basis.

I work in biomedical research and the garbage coming in never ceases to amaze me. You can hardly ever get 2 exactly the same medical opinions. It is flat scary. Why training, so many ways to skin a cat, and sites flat out don't care and submit crap. Not to mention it is all about money.

1 other thing comes to mind as i think about this.

When i had only 1 reloading manual you trust it.
Then when you get a second and start comparing and see different load data for the same components and you begin to think which is right. then get 3 and so on. They are all just references not empirical resources.
Same here if you have QL only, then you will trust it. Now add in GRT then as has been mentioned which is right. Throw in the books and it gets more complicated. Now add in any Jo blow sending data to be included even worse.

It depends on participation and curation. All your concerns are valid, but then look at how well Wikipedia works (on average).

 

[Siko12]

I like quickload - I've used it to develop loads for .460 Rowland and they were pretty much spot on. I probably only use 50% of what the software can do, but I think it's worth the price. It's also come in handy loading up 500 S&W with some oddball bullets I've accumulated.

I figure the price was a lot less than a pistol, so being able to double and triple check loadings is well worth the purchase price. If you'd like to see some sample data, I'd be happy to run a simulation.

 

[dogdude]

.460 Rowland, thought I was the only guy with one

 

[vonb]

Or make it full of errors. I don't use GRT but could you trust crowdsource coding/data provision? Can you really depend on what others input to be correct? Who is to say whoever measures a case did not have a off batch or bullets different from spec. With QL there is only 2 sources the company and yourself. You can make all of the changes mentioned in QL. I do so on a regular basis.

I work in biomedical research and the garbage coming in never ceases to amaze me. You can hardly ever get 2 exactly the same medical opinions. It is flat scary. Why training, so many ways to skin a cat, and sites flat out don't care and submit crap. Not to mention it is all about money.

1 other thing comes to mind as i think about this.

When i had only 1 reloading manual you trust it.
Then when you get a second and start comparing and see different load data for the same components and you begin to think which is right. then get 3 and so on. They are all just references not empirical resources.
Same here if you have QL only, then you will trust it. Now add in GRT then as has been mentioned which is right. Throw in the books and it gets more complicated. Now add in any Jo blow sending data to be included even worse.

I believe that there is merit in your statement. However, I also believe that the approach can yield a better solution. Linux didn't fail and look at the number of contributors since the 90s. I would think Gordon would have to perform some level of deviation checks when receiving data. I find myself comparing OBT recommendations to charges ranges in manuals just to be safe. Some factory chambers utilize more powder than a manual's max charge to see max SAAMI PSI. That is where I've found GRT useful. In the end, it's not the end all, be all solution. It is another data point in which to reference. I find that worth a lot.

 

[jackson1]

Have a Powley computer and can't remember the last time I used it. I guess if you have a wildcat or new unlisted cartridge there might be some value. Have a number of manuals and more often than not I can find published data. For my 6BRA, I got data from my smith. Start low and work up. Somebody said that.

 

[Fast14riot]

Bringing this thread back up.

I've been using GRT for nearly 2 years now, the original version I had only had a handful of powders listed, mostly European made varieties. The latest version which I just upgraded to, the custom powder profiles I built are now standard and match the sourced data neatly.

I'm still learning to use all its features, but so far finding safe working loads for powders that do not have data listed is nice, like the Shooters World powders.

If we could get a thread going with people who are regular users of GRT to help out those of us learning it still, that will only make it better for everyone.

 

[Dgd6mm]

Never heard of GRT.

 

[Lone Hunter]

Gordon’s Reloading Tool (GRT). Here’s another thread on it here

Gordon's Reloading Tool vs. Quickload?

I have found a new tool in the quest to better understand load development and refine handloads. It is called Gordons Reloading Tool and is similar to Quickload in that it can provide pressure information, OBT nodes and is free. I've spent the last couple days measuring case lengths and finding...

forum.accurateshooter.com