I may sometime. I'm getting more and more into odd wildcats, and it will be more useful for that.
Where can I get Quickload?
- Thread starter Evan
- Start date
In my opinion, the value is not in the software, instead the value is in the thermodynamic model parameters obtained from fitting a vast number of powder burn rate curves determined experimentally in a manometric vessel by using simultaneous equations, and the associated model these parameters are implemented in to arrive at the interior ballistic result. In short, the value is everything but the software, and while I think it's a great value, everyone is welcome to their own opinion.
+1 here.
The interface is old alright. But, it's still worth the $150 to me for what it saves in load development costs.
Last edited:
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
$150 will buy you about 3 boxes of Berger bullets or maybe 5 lb of Hodgdon powder. To those of us that use it regularly, QuickLoad is worth so much more than that over time that it's not even worth trying to describe its value to someone that hasn't used it. My suggestion would be to try and find someone nearby that uses it and would be willing to let you come over and put the program through its paces so you can see what it can really do before you condemn it as a poor value. At least then you could base your opinion, good or bad, on actual experience with the program rather than an uninformed first impression from their website.
It's Windows. That's the way it is with a lot of Windows software.
I understand internal, external and terminal ballistics just fine. I just don't understand most Windows programs.
I admit that I missed the word "internal" in damonceali's request, and being aware of several external ballistics calculators for the Mac, I tried to help him.
I don't fuss with internal. Internal is whatever it is as a result of whatever's available, and I'm a straight up external guy. What matters to me is where the holes in the target are. I don't even care about the terminal results on the targets, none of my targets ever run a step after I shoot them.
Evan, I'd say that the reason Quickload is so out of date is that people accept it, and are still willing to pay for it. As long as there are johns, there will be hookers, and the hookers have no reason to change.
On the flip side, if it works, if it's easy to use, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But interfaces have made enormous advances in just the last year, and I can't see rewarding a company that doesn't keep up. For what it's worth, marine software (plotters, radar, communication) is even worse. They're somewhere back in the seventies. They haven't changed in forever. They all seem to have just discovered nested menus, which can make getting position coordinates during an emergency something out of Laurel & Hardy. They're starting to change, though, because a lot of young techies who got rich in tech and then bought a sloop were appalled by what was being offered for their electronics, and they actually did something about it.
Competition would either force Quickload to change or eliminate them, but I'm not aware of and have not seen anyone with the necessary background in physics and coding sitting down to write a competing program.
I understand internal, external and terminal ballistics just fine. I just don't understand most Windows programs.
I admit that I missed the word "internal" in damonceali's request, and being aware of several external ballistics calculators for the Mac, I tried to help him.
I don't fuss with internal. Internal is whatever it is as a result of whatever's available, and I'm a straight up external guy. What matters to me is where the holes in the target are. I don't even care about the terminal results on the targets, none of my targets ever run a step after I shoot them.
Evan, I'd say that the reason Quickload is so out of date is that people accept it, and are still willing to pay for it. As long as there are johns, there will be hookers, and the hookers have no reason to change.
On the flip side, if it works, if it's easy to use, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But interfaces have made enormous advances in just the last year, and I can't see rewarding a company that doesn't keep up. For what it's worth, marine software (plotters, radar, communication) is even worse. They're somewhere back in the seventies. They haven't changed in forever. They all seem to have just discovered nested menus, which can make getting position coordinates during an emergency something out of Laurel & Hardy. They're starting to change, though, because a lot of young techies who got rich in tech and then bought a sloop were appalled by what was being offered for their electronics, and they actually did something about it.
Competition would either force Quickload to change or eliminate them, but I'm not aware of and have not seen anyone with the necessary background in physics and coding sitting down to write a competing program.
Last edited:
You really want to know what’s going on when you touch off a newly-chambered round, get yourself a system called Pressure Trace.
Quickload’s a great product, can save you a bundle in time, powder and barrel
life waste. Pressure Trace’ll give you insights into just how much each little tweak you might do to any of several different aspects of your load preparation does to affect your shooting accuracy and consistency. I look at it as an instrument panel for the rifles I’ve added pressure sensors to.
Quickload’s a great product, can save you a bundle in time, powder and barrel
life waste. Pressure Trace’ll give you insights into just how much each little tweak you might do to any of several different aspects of your load preparation does to affect your shooting accuracy and consistency. I look at it as an instrument panel for the rifles I’ve added pressure sensors to.
dcali
Bullet Maker
funny thing: I googled quickload, and it took me to quickload.co.uk and prompted my question.
I don't think you understand what I'm asking for. I've got apps on my phone for ballistics and I use JBM on my computer. That's a whole different ball of wax than Quickload which is for internal ballistics; what happens inside the case. The most basic use is to derive loads with different powders than the one you are currently using.
After looking into this a little, I'm not sure I want to spend my money this way. neconos.com is in the same generation as Quickload: the 90s, and I don't appreciate the apparent neglect this product is treated with and then has a 150+ pricetag attached.I'll go buy some more powder and bullets and go shooting; I don't need to play on the computer.
The root of the program is very good. The user interface is 1995. It is continually updated, although I wonder how long they’ll be able to do that as Microsoft tools continue to advance.
It’s worth every bit of the $150 price. It basically replaces reloading manuals. It’s a shame they don’t put any effort into the software framework (CDs, really? There are computers that cannot read them at all without some sort of network drive). Or better yet, put it on the web and charge a subscription, or a one time fee with update fees much like they do now.
Don’t overlook it just because it’s clunky and you may have to buy a $15 USB CD drive just to install it. It’s worth the pain, unnecessary as it is.
If I were king, I’d strip out the features nobody uses and put it on the web. The core engine is not that complicated - it just requires a lot of specialized knowledge. It could be *so much better* and make more money, but that’s none of my business.
I’ve slowly been working on my own internal ballistics code, but it will never see the light of day outside of my own personal use. No way I’m taking that liability risk (and paying for the insurance). We are lucky to have quickload as it is.
dcali
Bullet Maker
Just curious, but how do you calibrate pressure trace? That would seem to be an important detail.
That sounds like a logic error.
It's replacing empirical results with theory that has never seen the actual equipment.
dcali
Bullet Maker
It's not. It's a recognition that neither source is perfect or all that precise. But QuickLOAD is in fact based on empirical data, much like exterior calculators are. That's why it works so well. More importantly, what's a reloading manual based on? A test rig? How long is the barrel? What's the freebore? Was it jammed? What do I do if I load them .100" either direction? And how do they recommend you avoid max pressure? At the end of the day, by looking at brass. Just because it was determined by experiment doesn't mean it's accurate. I guarantee I can calculate the time of flight of a bullet out to 1000 yards with more accuracy and precision than I can measure it with a stopwatch. In my experience, quickLOAD has been more reliable than reloading manuals at predicting max loads.
VA_XTC_Shooter
Silver $$ Contributor
Isn't Shooting Lab a Quickload alternative for internal ballistics?
https://www.shootingsoftware.com/ballistics.htm
https://www.shootingsoftware.com/ballistics.htm
There are several ways to run Windows binaries on Mac: Crossover Mac, VMWare Fusion, etc.
They are not quite the same. There are overlaps, but each has features the other does not.
That's interesting. What's your background?
VA_XTC_Shooter
Silver $$ Contributor
So if you had to pick one?
I already own Quickload. If I wanted to obtain pressure data on specific barrels, I would buy Shooting Lab, along with their Pressure Trace II system. Both have their place.
dcali
Bullet Maker
I'm just a guy who's been down in the rabbit hole for a while and seeing no sign of the bottom. A long time ago I was accused of being a mechanical engineer, which has been helpful.
dcali
Bullet Maker
Shooting lab's interior ballistics feature calculates stability and load density. It doesn't seem very useful. (Neither does the rest of the program, to be honest). QuickLOAD will also calculate load density, and there are a ton of free stability calculators online. RSI seems to take the point of view that internal ballistics calculations (like QuickLOAD) aren't any good. They're dead wrong, in my opinion.
QuickLOAD works by taking experimental propellant data and calculating internal ballistics. QuickLOAD is analogous to an external ballistic calculator, which takes experimental drag data and calculates a trajectory. Because the data is powder specific (or bullet specific in the case of external ballistics calculators), they're useful for predictions, but they won't tell you anything about what's happening specifically with your rifle.
Calculations and measurements go hand in hand. Ideally, you have the capability to do both, although we have found ways around the measurement part (reloading manuals which document testing, and reading "pressure signs"). Still, provided you can get an acceptable calibration round (no small task - how would you know what the pressure of a factory round is?), measuring your own rifle would be a great thing to be able to do. That's the one thing that keeps me from doing pressure testing - at the end of the day, there's no way of knowing how accurate it is. You can measure trends or relative pressures in your rifle, but nailing a true chamber pressure number that can be compared apples to apples is very difficult with a simple setup like the pressure trace.
I've thought about this more than once. I'm retired, I have lots of time, and can do what I want.
I've even approached our community college, and asked counselors there "if I want to study external ballistics, what courses should I take? What do I need to know?"
I got blank stares, and had to explain what external ballistics is. The closest answer I got was math and physics. There is no degree program or even a formal course of study for any type of ballistics, although internal seems to have attracted the most attention. It makes me wonder where ballistic "experts" come from-- they all seem to have come Here from There, and each instance of There is different. Ballistics seems to be a field that relies on experience rather than science, formal knowledge or formal training, and that's too bad.
dcali
Bullet Maker
I can tell you exactly what you need to know to understand external ballistics and even recreate a ballistics calculator:
-Physics
-Calculus
-Differential Equations
-Introductory fluid mechanics/aerodynamics
-Some sort of basic computer programming will be helpful along the way if not necessary.
That’s about it. It’s stuff that is covered in the first couple years of an engineering degree. You need a good understanding of those to interpret the ballistics texts, but it’s not a very broad set of knowledge that is required to gain a lot of understanding. I won’t lie - The math is burdensome. The rest isn’t so bad if you’ve got the interest to put in the work. I would think a community college would have all the courses you would need. Math and physics for sure, which is the bulk of it.
Once you have the foundation, reading up on ballistics specifically is no big deal.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.