Quick load versus Gortons

[Retired shooter]

Good morning all

From you experienced gentlemen, those that use both Gortons, and Q/L. . What are your thoughts, is one any better than the other, has anything jumped out at you to make a major change in thinking, or processing load development.

I have started using Q/L and while I like being able to change all the numbers and data, the specifics coming out of it ( pressure) , are shown to be in the higher range ,for a gas gun. Lower grain loads ( all brands of powder) in Q/L than any of my current load books. Still trying to educate myself with Q/L. , however what I have seen of Gortons to me is a little more complicated.

Is it worth the extra effort for maybe more, or better information. Wont call myself computer stupid but still learning new stuff every day. It's a wasted day if nothing new is learned.!

Thank you to all.!

 

[Dimner]

I have been using QL for a few years now. I started using GRT for the past month or so.

I wish I could combine both for the best software.

GRT is much easier to input data and search for components, cartridges etc. It's easier to adjust the Ba in GRT and see results. It's a little more intuitive to save loads and I like being able to have the tabs for different loads. I also like to be able to add my actual range data right into the measurements tab of a load.

QL however, is like working with Windows 98. the GUI is clunky and not as friendly.

Where I think QL shines is it's 'engine' for lack of a better term. The estimates I get from QL are usually about 5% higher than what I see at the range. I'm okay with that.

GRT however has been pretty bad at underestimating my loads. Now, I have only used it with 7x57 and 30-06, but it was underestimating loads at 10%+ meaning that when I loaded up a group of loads increasing by weight. The first two loads were already at max pressure (based on brass signs and velocity measurements). That means I had to pull the 4 remaining sets of charge weights. It was like this for both 7x57 and 30-06.

I also like the QL powder chooser tool better. The one where it runs estimations on what powder will be the most efficient for you.

The biggest reason to use GRT in my opinion is the fact that you do not need a CD-Rom to use it. At least, I have not found a way to get it on my newer computers that do not have a CD drive.

All in all, I'm sure any reloader will do fine if they stick with one or the other.

 

[ASD9055]

There are a couple of real good experts on here, and I hope they chime in

 

[dcali]

I'm honestly worried about QuickLOAD's future. With Windows 12 coming out and their stubborn refusal to use modern software, it's only a matter of time before it stops working. That said, it does work well today. I've not use Gordons because it's also kind of a shitshow (but much less of one than QuickLOAD) and I already have QuickLOAD.

 

[dcali]

The biggest reason to use GRT in my opinion is the fact that you do not need a CD-Rom to use it. At least, I have not found a way to get it on my newer computers that do not have a CD drive.

You can buy a cheap drive on amazon that will plug into a USB port if you want to go that route. Clumsy, and mind blowing that they still do this in the 21st century, but it is what it is.

 

[Murray Brook]

I find that they both have their good points and not so good ones, only GRT is free. A big plus IMO.

 

[MSS]

There‘s a short snippet at the bottom of the site stating the owner Gordon passed away. I can’t confirm or deny this though.

“I just wanted to reach out and let you know that my husband Gordon passed away on January 19th 2022.

Until further notice, this site stays online. Please note that Patreon contributions have been paused.

Initially, no additional submissions should be made to the GRTLab, or Translations, as no one has access to service the data.
Therefore, it will be impossible to update Powder Models, Calibers, and Bullet to the GRT database as an official release until the possibilities of continuing Gordon's fine work are explored.


Take care!
Chrissi”

 

[Dgd6mm]

I've had Quickload since '09, I'm good. I guess GRT is there for now if I want to use it.

 

[Retired shooter]

I have been using QL for a few years now. I started using GRT for the past month or so.

I wish I could combine both for the best software.

GRT is much easier to input data and search for components, cartridges etc. It's easier to adjust the Ba in GRT and see results. It's a little more intuitive to save loads and I like being able to have the tabs for different loads. I also like to be able to add my actual range data right into the measurements tab of a load.

QL however, is like working with Windows 98. the GUI is clunky and not as friendly.

Where I think QL shines is it's 'engine' for lack of a better term. The estimates I get from QL are usually about 5% higher than what I see at the range. I'm okay with that.

GRT however has been pretty bad at underestimating my loads. Now, I have only used it with 7x57 and 30-06, but it was underestimating loads at 10%+ meaning that when I loaded up a group of loads increasing by weight. The first two loads were already at max pressure (based on brass signs and velocity measurements). That means I had to pull the 4 remaining sets of charge weights. It was like this for both 7x57 and 30-06.

I also like the QL powder chooser tool better. The one where it runs estimations on what powder will be the most efficient for you.

The biggest reason to use GRT in my opinion is the fact that you do not need a CD-Rom to use it. At least, I have not found a way to get it on my newer computers that do not have a CD drive.

All in all, I'm sure any reloader will do fine if they stick with one or the other.

External Drive from Amazon. Not expensive and just plug it in. Worked on my newer computers. I almost need the Computers for Dummies manual.

Thank you.

 

[Retired shooter]

Thank you to all who replied. Thank you MSS. OR I believe Chrissi. Post # 7 above.

Hopefully someone will be able to continue the many many hours of work that has gone into the program to get it where it is. Thank you for the updated information.

Best wishes.

 

[Fast14riot]

Gordon did pass away, his developers are still running it and extended the license indefinitely. I like the cartridge designer feature of GRT, and I have found the OBT nodes a little off from QL. My loads are usually close enough to GRT predictions for me to feel confident, but I always measure case volume as some of the standard case volumes in GRT are pretty far off from my measured volume.

 

[jepp2]

is one any better than the other, has anything jumped out at you to make a major change in thinking, or processing load development.

I have used QL for every load I worked on for the past 10+ years. Every load. While I haven't used every feature, I used what I needed. I always felt the adjust for nodes using Chris Long's work was awkward and inaccurate. But I was confident I could develop better loads than any load manual could provide. A typical year I make 50 trips to the range to shoot each year.

Out of curiosity, I downloaded GRT and started playing with it. At this point I am much quicker at adding a new bullet in QL than GRT, but that is probably because I have added over a hundred in QL and only a couple in GRT. I find the OBT feature in GRT gets me on nodes much quicker and more accurately. I now have about 6 months experience using GRT and have not launched QL in that time period. Since it took me through hunting season and some other absences from shooting, I haven't developed as many loads as during the next half of the year. I MUCH prefer GRT over QL.

For someone starting out, I believe GRT is easier for them to learn how to use than QL.

 

[Retired shooter]

What has me befuddled is Q/L is telling me I am at or near pressure limits , while I am not anywhere near max load of powder charge, per the newest load books published. I am still 1.5 / 2.0 grains on the safe side per load books. Still have all 10 fingers at this old age would like to keep them a little longer.

Any of you RSGs (real smart guys) care to share some wisdom.?
Thank you.

 

[C_Ackley]

I am still 1.5 / 2.0 grains on the safe side per load books. Still have all 10 fingers at this old age would like to keep them a little longer.

I am not bright, you may ignore me.
With that said, I found that I have to actually measure my fired cases for particular cartridges to get correct case capacity. Then measure my bullets too for seating depth, gets me cmuch closer to what the book says is safe.
I'm sure someone smarter and more familiar than I plays with the powder settings, but I leave those alone.

 

[Retired shooter]

I am not bright, you may ignore me.
With that said, I found that I have to actually measure my fired cases for particular cartridges to get correct case capacity. Then measure my bullets too for seating depth, gets me cmuch closer to what the book says is safe.
I'm sure someone smarter and more familiar than I plays with the powder settings, but I leave those alone.

Yip been down that road trying to water weigh( excuse me H2O ) determine fired case capacity. Imput bullet length, case length, Case base to ogive, yadda, yada.
Seems like more information creates more questions. Where does it stop?

 

[jelenko]

Yip been down that road trying to water weigh( excuse me H2O ) determine fired case capacity. Imput bullet length, case length, Case base to ogive, yadda, yada.
Seems like more information creates more questions. Where does it stop?

Small changes in case volume make significant changes in the pressure for a given powder charge.
Same with seating depth just not quite as much.

If the case volume and bullet length you use in Q/L or GRT is not what your load actually has, it will make the predictions be incorrect - perhaps a lot.

From my experience with GRT and measuring case volumes of different brass and from measuring the actual length of the bullets I'm using, there's no question you have to do it if you want anything useful out of GRT.

 

[Dimner]

I agree with the others, if you are not measuring your actual bullet weight and length, as well as your case capacity for each chamber you are shooting, you may as well skip using QL or GRT. I wouldnt bother estimating pressure with out those measurements. The target can tell you just as much about how your load is doing as the software.

Also, I am of the strong opinion that without a chronograph, you are not utilizing the software to its fullest. When you add a chrono, you can then loop back that data in the software and tweak the burning rate. That let's you get very accurate estimates for velocity, which the mean your pressure estimates should be more accurate.

I totally get that for some people all the little measurements and readings is way too much. I'm just an ocd guy who likes as much data as possible.

Oh also.... I may be the odd man out. But I don't really use the software for OBT nodes. Sure, I take a glance at the numbers that come up, but I'm more of a "stable node" reloader. Meaning the charge weight that has the most flexibility on either side of the charge weight in regards to horizontal POI.

 

[Straightshooter1]

What has me befuddled is Q/L is telling me I am at or near pressure limits , while I am not anywhere near max load of powder charge, per the newest load books published. I am still 1.5 / 2.0 grains on the safe side per load books. Still have all 10 fingers at this old age would like to keep them a little longer.

Any of you RSGs (real smart guys) care to share some wisdom.?
Thank you.

The burn rate of your powder needs to be calibrated and that's done by changing the burn rate until your the Muzzle Velocity matches, and at the temperature the velocities were measured in. Using the default Ba number just never works for me. And it also helps to start with the correct Weighting Factor (see attached pic below). That Weighting Factor isn't fixed just as the burn rate isn't and you can make adjustment (usually the last thing I do) there to get more consistent results between various loads.

 

[Beiruty]

In my experience, GRT is 99.3% accurate in predicting my MV using my input data, that is without tuning the powder model to observed MV from Labradar. After calibrating and matching expected vs actual MV, accuracy of predicting MV jumps to 99.7%
The auto-tune feature of the GRT is good enough for accurate powder model.

 

[dcali]

I've never needed to tweak anything with QucikLOAD. I have only used it on what I shoot, though, which is only a handful of chamberings. It's important to realize that dialing quickload into match everything exactly is unrealistic, and may not even be helpful. It's a pretty simple program, and it largely ignores the ignition phase, for example. (Barrel time begins at 10% of max pressure if memory serves - one of many approximations).

The more you venture into fudge factor territory the more likely you are to get weird results. What I mean by that is changing variables to deviate from reality to make the end results better. For example, adding an inch to the barrel length to get the MV up. A little is ok, but it's easy to get caught up tweaking numbers and wind up with a model that doesn't work very well at all except in the one case you're trying to match. And you already know that case because you've shot it.