Where can I get Quickload?

[Steve Blair]

Most ballisticians seem to be physicists.

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.

And, read Bob McCoy's book, "Modern Exterior Ballistics". Back in 1985, Bob sent me the BASIC code (on greenbar!) to his ballistic solver for G1 and G7 projectiles. I typed and debugged all of it by hand. Until slicker commercial offerings became available, I used that for years. God bless Robert L. McCoy.

 

[mikecr]

One attribute that set's QuickLoad apart from all others (aside from being THE ONLY predictive internal ballistics software available, and allowing every avenue of calibration) is it's functioning for 'what ifs'.
Very powerful,, especially for those engaged in wildcat design/advanced reloading.

 

[Evan]

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.

If you'd like to start into it, there is one great textbook I know of (and own): Modern Exterior Ballistics by McCoy. This isn't light reading though.

EDIT: Steve Blair beat me to it!

 

[dcali]

The best book to start with is Bryan Litz’s book. It’s the only decent one out there that doesn’t drown you in math. McCoy is HEAVY reading even if you have a strong mathematical background. A lot of knowledge is assumed.

 

[Jammer Six]

If I had any respect for Litz I'd consider it.

I've never seen an attempt to cover a complex subject "for the rest of us" that does so. If shortcuts worked, the long road would quickly become overgrown and forgotten.

If I do decide to go there, I'll take the long road.

 

[Evan]

Litz writes for the common man. McCoy was writing a textbook; a real study of the math and science. If you're wanting practical application: Litz. If you want to know how it all works: McCoy.

 

[dcali]

Bryan’s book is very good. My only complaint is that in my opinion it’s too focused on drag, but that’s to be expected from a book on long range ballistics. You won’t find a better introduction for laymen. Most people will find 95% of McCoy’s book utterly impenetrable. It’s very dense high level math throughout.

There is another textbook that is slightly less dense than McCoy’s by Carlucci. I prefer McCoy, but Carlucci covers internal and terminal ballistics as well at an introductory level. He references McCoy heavily. (McCoy in turn heavily references an excellent older text by McShane, Kelley, and Reno. It’s great, but the most difficult of the three to read, as some of the nomenclature is an older style.)

Another fascinating book that *is* accessible to laymen is Mann’s “A bullets flight”. It’s old (1909 if I recall correctly), and not entirely correct. But it’s great in that Mann, although not a trained engineer, was a very thorough experimenter and documented all manner of things related to shooting. Well worth a read.

 

[Jammer Six]

I don't suppose any of you guys are sailors, and could tell me how McCoy compares to Bowditch.

 

[Steve Blair]

Another fascinating book that *is* accessible to laymen is Mann’s “A bullets flight”. It’s old (1909 if I recall correctly), and not entirely correct. But it’s great in that Mann, although not a trained engineer, was a very thorough experimenter and documented all manner of things related to shooting. Well worth a read.

Important to note that Dr. Franklin W. Mann's "The Bullet's Flight From Powder To Target", while it contains some anachronisms, is the result of extensive, methodical experimentation and observations. My edition has many margin notes by Harry Pope, one of the greatest pre-WW2 barrel makers and also a very keen observer. I think this edition is still available and is preferred to the plain edition.

 

[dcali]

Important to note that Dr. Franklin W. Mann's "The Bullet's Flight From Powder To Target", while it contains some anachronisms, is the result of extensive, methodical experimentation and observations. My edition has many margin notes by Harry Pope, one of the greatest pre-WW2 barrel makers and also a very keen observer. I think this edition is still available and is preferred to the plain edition.

That’s really interesting. I had no idea that was available. I’ll have to find a copy.

 

[Ned Ludd]

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.

Unfortunately, this particular rabbit hole does not have a bottom.

 

[Flouncer]

Try it youll like it. Sure its old tech but it works. With them being the only game in town i suspect itll stay that way. Truthfully youre the only boycotter ive ever heard of.

Not piling on Dusty but I looked at that cartoon site a few years back, and the price and declined. It's an insult to some us that expect even mediocrity. It's like a CADD program I refused to pay $500 for. It's the same DOS stuff just slapped into Windows with no development. I truly hope something better comes along for us and for CADD users. If you really need it then it appears to be of tremendous value.

 

[charlieyankeesierra]

Who's going to take the time to create an experimental database of burning functions for all the common powders and refine a thermodynamic model it feeds into?

 

[Ned Ludd]

Seems odd that people are "insulted" that don't even own the program and haven't ever used it. Must be an entitlement thing. Your loss.

 

[dcali]

Not buying the most sophisticated load development tool on the market because the interface is out of date is short sighted in the extreme. And trust me, I get the angst. I was a software guy for 10 years - QuickLOAD is an abomination on the user interface front, as is the NECO website that sells it. But I'd pay double what they ask for it. The value is in what it does, not how it looks.

By the way, CAD programs have changed a bit over the years. They're both good and free these days. They even make them for Macs.

 

[Flouncer]

Seems odd that people are "insulted" that don't even own the program and haven't ever used it. Must be an entitlement thing. Your loss.

I haven't used it but a friendly shooter here did a run for me. NECO will NEVER know how much sales $$ they lost because they are lazy or indifferent. And I have a Creedmoor so I have perfection in any load !!

 

[Evan]

Seems odd that people are "insulted" that don't even own the program and haven't ever used it. Must be an entitlement thing. Your loss.

Best analogy I can come up with is walking into a dealership with a run down showroom and reruns of Friends playing on an old tube TV, and they're selling a brand new 1995 Honda Accourd for 20 grand. Not gonna buy it.

 

[Straightshooter1]

Best analogy I can come up with is walking into a dealership with a run down showroom and reruns of Friends playing on an old tube TV, and they're selling a brand new 1995 Honda Accourd for 20 grand. Not gonna buy it.

On the other hand. . .

If it's a like new 1966 Chevelle SS for 20 grand . . .???

 

[Jammer Six]

Truthfully youre the only boycotter ive ever heard of.

The number you've heard of just doubled.

 

[charlieyankeesierra]

Maybe the boycotters will share what they use instead.

Keep in mind that the program has been continually updated, but not superficially. New powders have been added over time. My understanding is that to add a new powder requires measurements in a calorimetry lab. Be sure to add to the cost of a software developer that gets the program interface just right: the cost of creating and maintaining such a calorimetry lab (or at least the critical instrument), the time and costs associated with making ongoing calorimetric measurements on new powders as they appear (and all the existing powders if you're going to start from scratch) and the cost of re-developing a thermodynamic internal ballistics model.