Show me how you use QuickLoad

[jlow]

I brought this software a few weeks ago so not looking for data but interested in how this software can be useful for reloading.

I understand that you can input caliber, bullet, case volume, ambient temperature, and powder to predict MV and see how close you are to max, but other than this, what else do you use it for?

 

[stool]

ok tool///
but works better with a chronograph and good records...
measure the volume of your brass
weigh your bullets
measure the length of your bullets...

you can add this to the lists

 

[jlow]

Done all those.

Question is other than what I mentioned what else can the program be use for?

 

[bigedp51]

jlow, you should have node this. :

http://www.the-long-family.com/optimal%20barrel%20time.htm

http://forum.accurateshooter.com/index.php?topic=3796920.0

http://forum.snipershide.com/range-report-exterior-ballistics/61999-quickload-accuracy-prediction.html

http://www.6mmbr.com/Quickload.html

And how to reload for a short barreled .44 magnum.

The green line below is 95% powder burnt and the purple line is 100% of powder burnt.

How case capacity can effect pressure, 30.4 grains H2O, Lake City brass

Default case capacity setting of 28.80 grains H2O

Many people shoot mixed .223/5.56 brass and the 25 grain load of H335 will work in all cartridge cases without going over pressure.

 

[SDDasher]

Although QL allows me to get to a "desired" node quicker, I am now leaning towards a tuner more after the long discussion on here about how effective they work to fine tune a load once the node is discovered.
The one piece of advice about QL I have found is that you "must" have accurate info on everything that is personal to your rifle and brass and bullets. A miniscule difference can make a wide variance in results on the other end. As some one said on here garbage in = garbage out.

 

[jlow]

Thanks guys! Great links and advice! Keep the good info coming.

 

[jlow]

So here is a question. As suggested by a number of the links, it is important to try to adjust QL to fit your actual observations. I have measured my MV for a number of loads and compared that in QL after inputting things like barrel length, temperature, powder, caliber, bullet, brass volume, OAL, cartridge length and the numbers don’t match up (average of ~30 fps for 5 different loads).

I understand one way to adjust QL to fit is to change the default “Ba” value. I have done this but what I am finding is although I can change the “Ba” to match a specific load, the others still do not fit and the further the difference in actual load weight, the further the deviation i.e. the slope of the line appears to be different.

Has anyone run across this and if so, what is the proper way to further adjust QL so that I don’t have the above problem?

 

[stool]

powder varies from lot to lot, results will vary by bbl...
what i look at is in the powder section : kJ/kg
energy per g...
i log the number that brings the est velocity to the actual velocity, and i'll average over time with similar loads.
since i am a believer in pressure affecting burn, i look only at top in loads stuff in the red band between the top orange and low yellow.
i log those kJ/kg numbers by lot and use them when working up loads.

 

[Nomad47]

I find that weighting factor, bullet weight and shot start pressure need a little "tuning".

Chris Long states he adjusts bullet weight to account for differences in barrel friction. The same goes for shot start pressure. So even though I have a 105 grain bullet, I might use 103.5 or 106.5 grains as a weight to get QL to "calibrate".

There is quite a bit of bearing surface difference between the 105 AMax and the 105 Hybrid yet QL makes no adjustment for the difference.
Something I have not figured out is why I have to bump up Ba, bullet weight, and/or shot start pressure to get my numbers to jive when I switch from the AMax to the Hybrid. Since the Hybrid has a shorter bearing surface, I would expect the opposite to be true.

 

[jlow]

I’ve tried changing the “Ba”, “Heat of Explosion”, “bullet weight”, and also “temperature”. In each instance, I was able to match predicted MV to actual MV for a single point but then all the other powder weight departs in exactly the same way as changing just “Ba”. Basically I have not found a factor which when changed will affect the slope of the line which describes changes in powder weight to MV.

Not seated to the lands and so I did not change “shot start pressure”.

Confused....

 

[stool]

it is not hard science..it is 'about" correct..as in close but not like math where 2 and 2 equals 4,,,,,,

 

[Laurie]

What's the QuickLOAD 'error' factor of the chronograph saying a load is 30 fps 'out' on a prediction of say 2,800?

My calculator says 1.07%. I think that's pretty (in fact, amazingly!) good for a relatively simple and user-friendly bit of PC software.

Then ... how sure are you that your chronograph is accurate to plus or minus 1 or even 2 percent? I watched the results of two popular and widely used light-unit chronographs placed end to end on Thursday. There was ~80 fps differences in readings on MVs that averaged 3,050 fps if you split the difference betweeen their findings.

Moreover, when people start talking about 'errors' of say 30-50 fps between QuickLOAD and their chronograph results, how far ahead of the muzzle were the skyscreens (assuming it wasn't a muzzle-mounted MagnetoSpeed in use)? Was a correction made for the loss of velocity between the muzzle and chronograph? (That's what the professionals do to get true readings.)

 

[jlow]

Yes, 1.07% is very good but from what I hear it is actually better… I just need to make the proper adjustment.

I use a Ohler 35p and it is as you know pretty accurate. The fact is not so much the slight error but the fact that the slopes of the two lines are convergent and not parallel. I don’t really want to get into a debate about quality of chrono but what you say is reasonable but I trust my Ohler. Don’t think I would loose 30 fps in 10 feet but if you can proof I am wrong I would listen.

I think it is OK if you are happy with that degree of error, I would like to think it is better and frankly would like to hear from folks that have a lot of experience with the software about this specific issue. It might be a fool’s errand but that is just me. LOL!

The truth is I never really expected it to be perfect out of the box. However, I would really like to be able to adjust it/tweak it so that it is much closer to what I see on the range, that way it would be much more useful/easier to us when using it to predict charges for a accuracy node - that is what I am trying to do here. Not complaining but learning how to fine tune and there is a huge difference between the two.

 

[Laurie]

I hear what you're saying, but there is an old saying that 'Perfect is the enemy of good!' I've used QL now on maybe 20 cartridges plus for around 10 years and have had results that vary from nearly spot on to (very occasionally) being very far out.

As far as I'm concerned it's an invaluable tool for looking for starting points, suggestions on efficient combinations and suchlike and load development on the range is there to do the follow-up job. That's what the professionals do in their loads and pressure / MV data as provided in loading manuals. Before QuickLOAD they used the 'Powley Computer' a slide-rule type device. But they only regard QL as providing starting points to begin experimentation with - and they're using universal receivers allied to industry spec (SAAMI or CIP dimensioned) barrels.

Given the differences in pressures / MVs that one gets sometimes between two barrels with identical specs chambered for the same cartridge and put onto the same rifle, I simply cannot see how an internal ballistics program can be expected to produce predictions to sub 1% accuracy. A friend who is arguably the UK's premier gunsmith and rifle-builder for F-Class rifles brought a customer's 7mm Boo Boo F/O rifle to the range a few years back. He'd rebarrelled it with the same make and specification barrel - not a cheap one either, but top of the line US made custom cut-rifled job - chambered it with the same reamer. The customer was unhappy - the new barrel 'wouldn't shoot'! Range testing the rifle soon sorted it out and restored its former small group size, simply by reducing the guy's powder charges. As everything was identical, he'd assumed that pressures and velocities would also be identical to his previous load - they weren't! Pressures had gone through the roof and loads needed a considerable reduction followed by fine-tuning. I hear similar stories all the time. There are too many variables in smallarms to make really accurate pressure / MV predictions. A contact who is a former experimental physicist and is now a retired precision barrelmaker / ballistics expert once told me that large calibre weapons - ie artillery - can have their ballistics predicted very accurately at the design stage nowadays thanks to computers, but that rifle calibres 'involve too many non-linear effects and interactions' to take on-range testing and experimentation out of the process.

 

[jlow]

Like I said, I never expected it to be perfect, but I do want to know how to tweak it to get it better. You may have worked with it for 10 years but I have only worked with it for a few days and I am sure you would agree with me that it is far too soon to “give up”.

The fact is I know from personal experience that working with software is how you learn to understand more about its strength and weakness, and that is the key to success. So help me understand how to do the tweak instead of telling me I am asking too much of it.... ;D