Quantcast

QuickLOAD/QuickTARGET Ballistic Prediction Software

Discussion in 'Handloading and Reloading' started by Reloadron, Oct 11, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Reloadron
    • Contributing Member

    Reloadron Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,686
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    I know several users here are using QuickLoad software and I have done some reading on the software. I did check out a few reviews including QuickLOAD Review at 6mm BR. I can appreciate that much ballistic information can be calculated using readily available formulas.

    What has me curious is how QuickLoad calculates chamber pressure? Short of instrumentating a barrel with a strain gauge or pizeo transducer and only using the user input how does it calculate chamber pressure? If chamber pressure can be calculated using a number of known data then why using the elaborate systems we use? Again, I can appreciate the numbers QuickLoad produces are subject to some error as chamber pressure has so many variables. I am just curious how accurate the software is?

    For example the Lyman 49th Edition (and others) list chamber pressures for a good many loads expressed in CUP or PSI. Keeping in mind the numbers were a result of test performed on a bench with their test barrel. The results for any given load will vary test barrel to test barrel. If I were to input the load data for a specific load into QuickLoad how close would the QuickLoad data be to the published Lyman data?

    So my question for those familiar with QuickLoad is how credible are the chamber pressure numbers and does anyone have a clue how those numbers are derived? I have no problem plopping down $150 or so for the software I am just real curious how it calculates chamber pressure.

    My questioning here is a result of another thread and I didn't want to drag the other thread off topic.

    Thanks
    Ron
     
  2. Potatohead

    Potatohead Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    5,374
    How much does it cost (QL)? I know not totally on topic, but it's more on topic than it would have been in the other thread hopefully..

    How would we know if the pressure readings are even right is what Im kind of wondering..
     
  3. Andrew Leigh

    Andrew Leigh Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,036
    Location:
    Johannesburg S.A.
    Engineers have been calculating pressure in pressure vessels for years why would this be any different? A cartridge is simply a pressure vessel?
     
  4. brickeyee

    brickeyee Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,135
    You need a multi-parameter burning model of the powder being used.
    After that it is standard time stepped engineering calculations for a pressure vessel with a variable size.
    If you further adjust the model based on a strain gauge you can get very accurate predicti0ns.
     
  5. Andrew Leigh

    Andrew Leigh Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,036
    Location:
    Johannesburg S.A.
    As a matter of interest I have just plugged in some load data for local powders. I know they use the Piezo strain gauge but they only only the speeds per load. For this given load the load tables predict 2 616fps and when simulated in QL, QL gives 2 602fps.
     
  6. Andrew Leigh

    Andrew Leigh Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,036
    Location:
    Johannesburg S.A.
    One thing I must mention is that a given powder reacts differently under different conditions according to QL. So the same powder in a 6.5mm case does NOT burn the same as in a .375 case. Powder also burns differently at different pressures so a full case reacts differently to an case with less powder.

    So when using Quickload one must take this into consideration. This is why we calibrate the burn rate which takes into consideration theses sometimes not so subtle differences. So when loading you have to establish a burn rate for a set of components at a specific speed.
     
  7. Offfhand

    Offfhand Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,810
    The engineering staff of the consulting firm I work for (part time) have made several comparisons of real pressures and QL and found that QL predictions for bottleneck rifle calibers are remarkably close and consistent. Often moreso than data provided by MSMD loading manuals.
     
  8. Berger.Fan222

    Berger.Fan222 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    548
    Location:
    TX
    QL is making a prediction: a theoretical estimate based on calculations.

    Such estimates will seldom be as accurate as measurements in instrumented barrels, but they are better than guesses.
     
  9. Potatohead

    Potatohead Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    5,374
    I guess you were referring to what I said..I'm just saying we ("we" as in your everyday handloader) dont really have a way to double check a pressure reading.

    I guess you may be saying it's probably not necessary to check since it's not that great of a mystery..?

    Anywho, I'm checking out of this thread, I'll just get in the way, one last thing though, how much does the software cost? Or is it like a free download (yea right) or what?
     
  10. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    $152.95 Read more here

    FWIW, The formulas used are much more accurate for bottleneck cartridges than for straight wall cartridges. The developer knows this and the program is weighted to err on the conservative side for straightwall cartridges.
     
  11. Potatohead

    Potatohead Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    5,374
    Thanks. Would've googled but wanted to be sure it was the one that everyone talks about and not a knockoff.
     
  12. 243winxb

    243winxb Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    10,986
    Location:
    Hopewell Big Woods
  13. ArchAngelCD

    ArchAngelCD Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    25,768
    Location:
    Northeast PA, USA
    You always seem to find the worst case scenario to put up as an example. Why so pessimistic? For every major problem caused by user error there are probably hundreds of successes.
     
  14. Crashbox
    • Contributing Member

    Crashbox Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    660
    Location:
    Lynden, Washington
    As JRH6856 said, the results QL produces for bottleneck cartridges are notably more accurate than the straight-walled ones. Bummer because most of my current arsenal utilizes straight-wall cartridges... nonetheless, QL is still usable for them.

    I do wish they provided powder profile updates for QL even if it costs money, a few powders I have aren't in the database...

    In my opinion, QuickLoad is just another tool to have for the reloader who enjoys such things. I have it and although I don't use it often, it was definitely worth the cost if only to satisfy the scientist in me.
     
  15. Reloadron
    • Contributing Member

    Reloadron Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,686
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Andrew, again many thanks for the email and data you were kind enough to send me. Informative and interesting stuff this Quick Load is.

    I have looked at the software on and off for just over a year or so. Obviously since it started being sold on 3.5" floppy disk it has been around awhile. I don't have a problem popping a buck and a half for decent software that does something. Being finally retired I have the time to do what I want to do and stuff like this has always fascinated me.

    I realize the chamber pressures won't be dead on, that is a given due to all the variables. Just wondering how close they get. Matter of fact as an example here is what I am getting at. The subject of Free Energy Recoil has come up numerous times in the forum. Frequently guys will give a link or two to any of a half dozen or more online calculators. Got me curious so I went to several online calculators and got several different answers to the same input data. So? Who is lying and who is telling the truth and how much does the difference matter? The reason different online calculators give different results is obvious, they don't all process the data input in the same way.

    Again, many thanks for those who have contributed so far. I appreciate your time.

    Ron
     
  16. Sunray

    Sunray Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2003
    Messages:
    11,573
    Location:
    London, Ont.
    "...how QuickLoad calculates chamber pressure?..." Programmer magic. Far too many variables for any computer program to cover 'em all. Not many programmers actually shoot either.
     
  17. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    And probably not many shooters know much about programming. Those that do both might have a leg up. ;)
     
  18. Reloadron
    • Contributing Member

    Reloadron Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,686
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    :) Yeah and that can make for difficult programming or a program that actually works.

    While I was never a programmer type my career kept me around plenty and I did write a few program routines, mostly for data acquisition of pressures, temperatures and flow rates. However, if I ever had to rely on my programming skills to eat I would have starved to death years ago or been found broke and urinating in gutters. :)

    What I really find interesting with chamber pressures isn't just the peak pressure but looking at the entire pressure curve and the area under the curve. Considering all the variables just gets interesting and now that I have the time I want to get more into it.

    This is why the interest in QuickLoad and other things like strain gauges. I would love to get into Charge Mode Conformal Ballistic Sensors but if I were to pop a few grand there are still guns out there I would like to have. :)

    Ron
     
  19. Andrew Leigh

    Andrew Leigh Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,036
    Location:
    Johannesburg S.A.
    No matter which QL thread I post on (numerous forums), people have difficulty in believing the output, yet will believe published load data without question, notwithstanding the fact that in QL you can tweak for all the parameters that published load data does not allow for. I have no issue with published load data and will at times still use this as a start point for QL.

    QL works, it correlates closely to standard load tables but allows you the ability to move loads up and down to meet specific barrel times, it allows you to simulate powders before buying them and wasting money, the same for bullets. It allows you to develop accurate loads with the minimal wastage of components.

    The other thing that QL does it that it teaches you about internal ballistics, the ability to alter criteria in real time allows one to real time effects, this added greatly to my understanding of what affects what and by how much.

    Is QL perfect, NO. Is QL better than conventional load tables, IMO significantly. Does QL add a new dimension to your loading, most definitely. Is QL worth the price, I suppose only the buyer can tell. The more calibres you load the more you can justify the expense.

    Download the demo, I think it has three calibres you can play with?
    http://www.neconos.com/details3.htm

    QL is in a league of its own, you can even design your own wildcat cartridges, calculate recoil for each load, print and save data, store specific rifle data, and numerous other features I have yet to explore. Here is a full review from 6mmBR.
    http://www.6mmbr.com/quickload.html

    @Sunray. The bloke that designed the program is a Mechanical Engineer and a bench rest shooter.

    A closing point. QL is not a miracle program where you plug in numbers and it spits out a magic load. You still need to take the normal care that you would with any reloading, building you load from low pressure. What QL does allow is for you to get there quicker and safer. Most QL users I know have not studied the comprehensive user guide and simply do NOT use QL correctly, I suspect that many of the naysayers on forums are no different. There is a specific process to be followed so if any here opt to buy QL then please follow the user guide.
     
  20. Potatohead

    Potatohead Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    5,374
    That shouldn't be that big of a surprise, IMO.

    You seem to be very sensitive about it, starting in post 3 in this thread.

    And Im not trying to pick a fight, I didn't realize it was a sore spot.
     
  21. Reloadron
    • Contributing Member

    Reloadron Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,686
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    I believe when it comes to QuickLoad the software itself is simply a tool the hand loader can use to their advantage or choose not to use.

    Andrew likes and uses QuickLoad and apparently is very familiar and comfortable using it. Simply put, it works for him. Granted, many of us were loading our ammunition long before a computer or software programs figured into the game but like any good tool it doesn't hurt to have. Some hand loaders thrive on stuff like QuickLoad and others want nothing to do with it.

    Me? I am just curious about the software and want to learn more about it. Get some opinions about it. That is what I had in mind when I started this thread.

    Ron
     
  22. Andrew Leigh

    Andrew Leigh Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,036
    Location:
    Johannesburg S.A.
    I suppose a disclaimer would be in order. I have no vested interest in the promotion or the sale of QL software, I am however a satisfied QL user.

    Potatohead, not sensitive, rather frustrated. I thought that I would lay my stall out early having sat on both sides of the fence.

    I have spent hours on the net trying to help people who have bought QL as a quick fix which it is not. These users tend to be the most critical of the product but fail to appreciate that if you do not have the basic foundations of working up you own loads safely, QL will be a little beyond you. QL for me is aimed at a reasonably seasoned hand loader as you need to have a fair deal of loading experience to maximise the use of the software.

    I started loading using Standard Load Tables and I had partial success, I then gravitated to Dan Newberry's OCW load development routine with more success and now the next stage of my loading development is QL. I would advocate each method to anyone based on your means, experience and ability.

    My background as a QL user actually comes from variable local powders (we have none to extremely limited US powders here). We have 12 powders available to us, all from one manufacturer. We have about 7/8 rifle cartridge powders to choose from of which many a hand loader here will tell you, can vary significantly in burn rate. Additionally we have severe limitations in the quantity of powder we may keep at any point in time so we hardly get used to a load and the batch is depleted. The next batch of powder could be significantly hotter or colder, my shooting friends and I find QL especially useful when seamlessly changing from batch to batch. 3 shots over the Chrony, recalibrate the burn rate for the new batch and you are good to go.

    I did not see you as picking a fight and yes, it is probably a sore point given my experiences here (S.A.).
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2014
  23. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    Anything that goes against the mainstream or challenges old, established ideas is going to meet resistance and criticism. We see it in every "Glock vs 1911" or "revolver vs. semi-auto" thread.

    With the powder shortage, I often find the only powders I can get are not listed in any manual for the cartridge I want to load. I use QL to give me any idea of how the available powders might work. Example: Hodgdon's data doesn't list W748 for 6.8SPC at all, but QL said it should be really good, and it has been. But I really need to get a chrony to make the best use of the program.
     
  24. gene so

    gene so Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2014
    Messages:
    4
    Hello,

    I hope you won't mind my "two cents worth' on the QL issue. I suggest you call Ed Dillon at NECO since he can provide you with stated facts concerning the pressure issue. He can give you the real info as opposed to conjecture.

    My work with QL has been satisfying in making the jump from projected computer data to real live usage with a rifle and chronograph. Maybe I was unique to using this program. I read all the reviews of it on the Internet and took notes and refer to them in adding exact specs to the QL formulations. I thoroughly read the 120 page documentation that comes with the software and highlighted items of particular interest to me. As result I saved the cost of the software program the very first time I used it. i was developing loads for a wildcat formed from shortened .308 brass. I started with 5 bullets and 7 powders and after QL applications ended up testing just three of the powders. I found a "sweet spot" rather quickly, tried many other combinations and returned to the original best load; saving a fair amount of time and money since I am pretty darn picky as to what I want shot in my rifles.

    The single thing I have a problem with in this program is this. Primer specifications. As you know, different primers have different burning rates.some hotter, some cooler and more even in shot to shot uniformity as to velocity. With the wildcat brass I form I can obtain both small and large primer sizes in cases. That can show obviously when chronographing. QL doesn't seem to differentiate on this issue and it is the single "nit picky" thing I would change in an otherwise really special time saving ballistics program.

    Thanks

    Gene So
     
  25. Potatohead

    Potatohead Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    5,374
    Fair enough, and understandable.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice