Gordons vs QuickLoad

[kelbro]

I have been using QL for quite some time and it's a pretty good tool.

I've recently heard about Gordon's Reloading Tool and downloaded a copy.

Looks like another good tool.

Anybody that has used or is currently using both, which do you prefer and why?

Is one missing something that the other has?

I'm thinking about the old adage, 'A man with two watches never really knows what time it is'

 

[RustyInBend]

I've actually gotten and used both, and I've proven to myself that neither one is necessary ... IMHO. There is a ton of free data out there on sites like Hodgdon, Berger, Sierra and elsewhere that provide plenty of information to plan first tests and ladders for new loads, that for me anyway, have actually all been more accurate than either tool. But that's just me ... YMMV.

 

[mdram]

theres even a third i just heard about today
quickload pro - no relation to the other quickload
its web based at a yearly fee, something like $35 iirc

 

[Krogen]

I use both. I use them as guidelines only. Interesting, yes, but either one can get you into trouble if you take them as gospel. Just like engineering simulation tools, if you believe them without a skeptical eye, bad things can happen. Verification (i.e. testing) is a major part of design. Loading manuals, of course, are the product of that testing. It's interesting to use Quickload and Gordon's Reloading Tool in comparison to loadbook data and my results. Unfortunately, I can only measure velocity.

I prefer Quickload only because I'm more familiar with its quirky user interface. Gordon's Reloading Tool is an "eye chart" so I tend to miss things with it.

 

[Fast14riot]

I don't have QL, but have been using GRT for several years. It's invaluable for wild cat cartridges and pretty good for finding the potential OBT for a load combo. But just like any prediction software, garbe in = garbage out.

 

[kelbro]

Thanks. It was a little surprising that the first load that I entered into GRT this morning hit the EXACT velocity that I had measured!

Models and simulations are interesting and I like the idea of them predicting things like OBT. All cool things to think about but don't always show up on the target.

 

[jelenko]

I use GRT to find potential accuracy nodes. To do this, GRT needs a sample [I use 7-8] of the velocities at a given powder charge [along with case capacity, case length, COAL and bullet length] to calibrate to the powder lot and rifle/pistol you are using. I use a mid range load to develop that data.

Almost always the accuracy node is within +/- .2gr from the one GRT predicted - once GRT was calibrated.

I've also used GRT to identify which powders should work best with a given chamber, barrel length and bullet.

 

[ggshoots]

I started developing a couple of wildcats a few years ago so learned GRT. I knew the parameters and case design and dimensions I wanted and built around it. The information on GRT fell right in line with what my predictions were but also put me onto a powder I hadn't considered, It is now my favorite. I cant verify pressure but My velocity is great, I finally trimmed at 12-14 loads on all brass just because a few started to get long. I have had no loss of brass or primer pockets so I would say I really like GRT. Problem is it is complicated enough if you dont use it all the time it is hard to remember how to use it but I am a computer hack! lol

 

[Martin52]

The velocity sample mentioned in #7 is essential if you're using SRP brass - and I find GRT is very close for LRP.

 

[charlie b]

Gordon's has helped me a lot. The problem I have with book data is case volume. I am frequently loading long, much longer than the book data. That means more case volume. With smaller cases the percentage difference is significant.

Using Gordon's (or QL) the actual OAL is used so the load can be adjusted to take advantage of that extra volume.

And, yes, tweaking with actual shooting data is a key factor.

 

[William Vogel]

Between barrel length and COAL, I find reloading manuals to be informative but unreliable for any of my stuff. I have GRT and Quickload for comparison and information purposes also and between everything I have the ability to estimate pretty good starts and close beginnings of pressure. GRT’s prediction for optimal load is never right for me and I input every datapoint I have. Doesn’t matter. Saves me some money on components and I can play with it anytime I want.