Anyone using Quickload?

[Rick]

So, as I wander a bit into the world of wildcats and newer powders, I am wondering about how useful the Quickload software is to fill in where reloading manuals show nothing. Any user comments?

Any illustrative examples? Test situation: trying out newer Ramshot powders in some of my rifles after success with Ramshot powders in the .358 Winchester. So, I have a 30/06 Ackley Improved I want to load Ramshot's Big Game powder in with the Barnes 168gr TTSX. Water capacity of the case is 71.5 grains. Ramshot says the best they can do is advise me to use data they developed for the original TSX bullet: max load is 58.0/Big Game, 59,500 psi, 2,975 fps with a cartridge loaded length of 3.300 and a barrel length of 24". Then they point out that, of course, the TTSX has a different ogive, bearing surface, etc in comparison to the original bullet they did their load development on.

So, anyone with Quickload, can you tell me if Quickload shows significantly more or less for maximum charge weight/maximum pressure using the above specifics? If different, what does it crank out?

Not interested in pursuing maximum velocities out of every single rifle - I always have a bigger caliber sitting in wait in the gun safes. But if Quickload can narrow down the wandering in the wilderness in examples like this, I think it will quickly pay for itself in time and powder saved slowly working up with unusual calibers/less common powders.

Thanks!

 

[Boomer]

What you are asking for is gun specific data from a general mathematical formula. The AI chambers are even more individualistic then are standard SAMMI chambers, so while the Quick Load program can be used to compare a new load with a proven one, it is dangerous in my opinion to use it in place of the tried and true method of carefully working up a load. The worst thing you can do is fixate on a velocity figure based on Quick Load's projection, and disregard what your rifle and brass is trying to tell you.

 

[Pathfinder]

QL seems to have a different idea of case capacity. Your mileage may vary but here is a table that came out. I would just work up the load

Cartridge : .30-06 Ack Imp
Bullet : .308, 168, Barnes 'TTSX'BT 30878
Useable Case Capaci: 59.619 grain H2O = 3.871 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.332 inch = 84.63 mm
Barrel Length : 24.0 inch = 609.6 mm
Powder : Ramshot BigGame
Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 1.142% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !
Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms
-11.4 91 51.38 2714 2747 47331 8759 98.9 1.251
-10.3 92 52.04 2746 2813 49142 8843 99.1 1.231
-09.1 93 52.70 2778 2879 51019 8923 99.4 1.210 ! Near Maximum !
-08.0 94 53.36 2810 2945 52961 8998 99.5 1.190 ! Near Maximum !
-06.9 95 54.03 2842 3012 54969 9068 99.7 1.170 ! Near Maximum !
-05.7 96 54.69 2873 3080 57051 9132 99.8 1.151 ! Near Maximum !
-04.6 98 55.35 2905 3148 59215 9191 99.9 1.133 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
-03.4 99 56.01 2936 3216 61464 9245 100.0 1.114 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
-02.3 100 56.68 2967 3285 63802 9293 100.0 1.096 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
-01.1 101 57.34 2998 3354 66234 9336 100.0 1.079 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+00.0 102 58.00 3029 3423 68763 9378 100.0 1.061 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+01.1 103 58.66 3060 3493 71395 9420 100.0 1.045 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+02.3 105 59.32 3091 3563 74136 9460 100.0 1.028 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+03.4 106 59.99 3121 3634 76989 9499 100.0 1.012 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+04.6 107 60.65 3151 3705 79962 9537 100.0 0.996 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+05.7 108 61.31 3182 3776 83061 9574 100.0 0.980 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 102 58.00 3128 3649 81854 9016 100.0 0.993 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 102 58.00 2880 3094 55920 9626 98.1 1.154 ! Near Maximum !

 

[Rick]

What you are asking for is gun specific data from a general mathematical formula.

Which of course, really wouldn't be any different from expecting that reloading manuals developed using pressure test barrels and whatnot supply test results which is then used for a universe of specific guns in the same caliber. Not to mention all the other variables like the differences in lots of powder, lots of brass, chambers cut with a new reamer/new equipment versus chambers cut with chambers/equipment near the end of their service life, etc.

Frankly, I don't see any difference. I'm willing to bet that somewhere the makers of Quickload advise you to work up loads, just like publishers of reloading manuals do.

The AI chambers are even more individualistic then are standard SAMMI chambers, so while the Quick Load program can be used to compare a new load with a proven one, it is dangerous in my opinion to use it in place of the tried and true method of carefully working up a load. The worst thing you can do is fixate on a velocity figure based on Quick Load's projection, and disregard what your rifle and brass is trying to tell you.

Perhaps I haven't been clear enough.

I am not fixating on a velocity figure, nor am I looking for max velocity achievable - I think I already mentioned that there is usually a bigger bore/bigger caliber in one of my gun safes if I feel the need.

What I am curious about is the useability of Quickload for calibers like this. And, as you know that AI chambers are individualistic, you no doubt also know that even something as common as a .308 can be individualistic as well, should a gunsmith choose to cut a tight chamber for example. It is all very well to say forget about something like Quickload and just look at what the rifle and brass is trying to tell you, but ballisticians from several bullet companies have told me the same things over the years: a tight chamber will not show pressure signs on fired brass as quickly as a "normal" or loose chamber. In other words, you can blithely sail off into the world of loads over CIP/SAAMI specs if you're just paying attention to what the rifle and brass are telling you.

Another example related to my original post: I'm in the process of building a 40-65 Maynard on a bubba'd Lee Enfield. Where do I find load data for that cartridge chambered on an action with Lee Enfield working pressures? I can't find a source for that and I think it is a fair guess to say you don't know of one either. Quickload just might be handy to help out here, yes?

To sum up, I'm not asking this question with a view to using Quickload to replace published reloading data and visual inspections of fired brass, ease of bolt lift, etc. I'm curious about its viability as an additional tool in the reloading cabinet. An additional safety factor if you will, instead of a means to somehow or other discover a few extra fps of velocity. Just because guys like Ackley, Nonte, Gibbs, Mashburn, etc didn't have these kinds of tools when they were experimenting and developing doesn't mean I won't consider using them now that they're available. And speaking of AI chambers, I bet ol' Ackley would have been one of the first to jump all over a tool like this.

 

[Boomer]

One thing I discovered using Quickload is that the farther you move away from standard bullet weights for a given cartridge, the less reliable the data becomes. Its like the parameters of the program were designed around a 150 gr bullet loaded with 4895 in the .308, and any similar combination from .243 to .375 seems to be bang on. But choose to use non SAMMI dimensions, or a powder that might be considered outside the normal burning rate for a given combination of components, and the data is less reliable.

As another tool in the handloader's tool box, Quickload is useful and valuable, it does not however replace published data from reliable sources, which at least provides a reasonable starting point to work up from. I strongly advise that with respect to any projection you get from Quickload in an answer to a "What if?" question, see if it holds up to scrutiny against your previous observations and to any published data you might have access to.

As for the .40-65 data you're after 20 grs of IMR 4198 behind a 300 gr cast bullet might be a good place to start, and no I didn't tweak it on Quickload.

 

[Rick]

QL seems to have a different idea of case capacity.

My understanding is that is not an uncommon occurrence with Quickload. I think I've read that reported elsewhere on the Web while doing some searches on Quickload. Am I correct that you can adjust the gross water capacity of the cartridge with what you actually get with your cases, instead of just using the default Quickload value?

I assume most of us know that a lot of things influence case capacity. My AI brass has 71.5 grains. Other results from the web have guys getting 72.5 grains with cases of unknown make. What does Quickload say case capacity for this chambering is?

And did you use the default water capacity or the one I provided?

Your mileage may vary but here is a table that came out. I would just work up the load

Cartridge : .30-06 Ack Imp
Bullet : .308, 168, Barnes 'TTSX'BT 30878
Useable Case Capaci: 59.619 grain H2O = 3.871 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.332 inch = 84.63 mm
Barrel Length : 24.0 inch = 609.6 mm
Powder : Ramshot BigGame
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms
-05.7 96 54.69 2873 3080 57051 9132 99.8 1.151 ! Near Maximum !
-04.6 98 55.35 2905 3148 59215 9191 99.9 1.133 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 102 58.00 3128 3649 81854 9016 100.0 0.993 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 102 58.00 2880 3094 55920 9626 98.1 1.154 ! Near Maximum !

So I trimmed most out of the original table you provided. Just for a reference point, here's max charge weight data provided by manufacturers:

Ramshot in the AI with the original TSX bullet:
Powder Bullet INFO Start Load Max Load COL(ca) %LD
Big Game 165 BAR TSX 53.0/2,700 58.0/2,975 59,500 3.300 98

I can't copy/paste the data Barnes supplied, but it was for the standard 30/06, again with the original TSX bullet. They indicated a max load of unknown pressure, loaded .1" shorter, load density of 98%, as 55.5 grains of Big Game giving 2869 fps. So Barnes max load data in the standard '06 exceeds the max load data Quickload gives you for the Quickload AI chambering. And meanwhile, Ramshot gives load data that significantly exceeds Quickload predictions.

Hmmmm... so what does that bottom line in the table, referring to "burning rate decreased..." indicate? Is that Quickload's fudge factor to deal with variables in burn rates? I think I may recall somewhere someone writing something to the effect that Quickload's modelling was +/- 10%, and that increased to some degree with straightwalled cases. Memory is foggy on that, however.

Which then leads to another thought: Barnes says the grooves they put in the TTSX bullets, among other things, reduce bearing surface, in turn reducing pressures and ultimately muzzle velocity slightly. Assuming they are truthfully reporting their findings, is there anything in Quickload's modelling that takes into consideration the bearing surface of each bullet in their data tables?

Thanks for taking the time to post up that table, Pathfinder. Provides some insight to add to the internet research.

 

[mmilne]

Personally, I use it as a validation tool against load data from other sources such as powder/projectile manufacturers to determine if I'm in the ball park or not.

In cases where I was looking for velocity as well as accuracy where there was not already a wealth of "published" data (i.e. Berger 90 VLD in .223), I also used it for what-if analysis to determine if buying a pound of powder X would be worth my time/money or not.

I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head in saying that given the large number of variations in things like chamber dimensions, lot to lot burn rates, etc that Quickload cannot replace published load data, and examining physical evidence such as bolt lift, case stretch, primer pocket expansion will always remain the true tale of the tape to ensure your safety.

It could be a useful tool to find ballpark load development data for uncommon calibers or powders where no published data exists. I have version 3.6, there are many different "Maynards" listed such as .38-50, .40-60, .40-60 & .40-70, but I don't see a listing for .40-65. I'm not sure if any of what is in there might be of use, but my version does not list .40-65 Maynard as something it has data for.

I certainly see Quickload as a very useful tool, but it is an additional tool and does not replace any existing tool or safety practice.

The text below is taken from the "About Quickload" popup page. It's there as a legal disclaimer, but 100 % true..

Ballistic programs such as QuickLoad cannot predict EXACT internal ballistic results. Therefore one CANNOT use this software as a substitute for information gleaned from a reloading manual along with standard handload development and practices.

 

[Pathfinder]

I was able to change the Maximum Case capacity, overflow to 71.5 (before I had used system default (cant remember what it was)

the datatable output refers to the max "usable" capacity when using that seating lenght and subtracts the bullet (I see this now, I hadnt' paid attention before you pointed it out).

see this updated table.

artridge : .30-06 Ack Imp
Bullet : .308, 168, Barnes 'TTSX'BT 30878
Useable Case Capaci: 60.515 grain H2O = 3.929 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.300 inch = 83.82 mm
Barrel Length : 24.0 inch = 609.6 mm
Powder : Ramshot BigGame
Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 1.142% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !
Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms
-11.4 89 51.38 2698 2716 46086 8764 98.8 1.269
-10.3 90 52.04 2730 2780 47829 8851 99.0 1.248
-09.1 91 52.70 2762 2845 49629 8934 99.3 1.227
-08.0 93 53.36 2794 2911 51489 9011 99.5 1.207 ! Near Maximum !
-06.9 94 54.03 2825 2977 53412 9084 99.6 1.187 ! Near Maximum !
-05.7 95 54.69 2856 3044 55403 9151 99.8 1.168 ! Near Maximum !
-04.6 96 55.35 2888 3111 57470 9214 99.9 1.149 ! Near Maximum !
-03.4 97 56.01 2919 3178 59617 9270 100.0 1.131 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
-02.3 98 56.68 2950 3246 61847 9322 100.0 1.113 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
-01.1 100 57.34 2981 3314 64164 9368 100.0 1.095 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+00.0 101 58.00 3011 3382 66571 9412 100.0 1.078 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+01.1 102 58.66 3042 3451 69074 9454 100.0 1.061 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+02.3 103 59.32 3072 3520 71676 9496 100.0 1.044 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+03.4 104 59.99 3102 3590 74383 9537 100.0 1.028 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+04.6 105 60.65 3132 3660 77200 9577 100.0 1.012 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+05.7 106 61.31 3162 3730 80132 9616 100.0 0.996 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 101 58.00 3111 3609 79190 9048 100.0 1.008 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 101 58.00 2861 3053 54181 9634 97.9 1.172 ! Near Maximum !



as for the burn rate factor im really not sure, havent' really looked into that one. I havent' used this for a long time.