With QL, if you just "look at the answers" without doing the work required to provide good information for your answers, could be heading into very dangerous territory.
Last edited:
The World of Cartridges and Compromises........
- Thread starter c-fbmi
- Start date
With QL, if you just "look at the answers" without doing the work required to provide good information for your answers, could be heading into very dangerous territory.
Ok Gate I get what you are saying however, I disagree with your conclusions. Computers are nothing more than tools, they do not create intelligence or knowledge. As with any tool there are other tools that will do the same job and end up with the same finished product. Just like you said, a house can most certainly be built with a hammer and were for 100s of years, do air and airless tools build better houses.........no, they may be quicker but the end result is in no way superior. Would I criticize a builder for using a hammer instead of airless tools.......nope, not me. If this is his preferred method then by all means have at it, if he is not trying to make a living at it and has the time, then he will no doubt end up with the same product at the conclusion of it all. As far as the grade 4 student rejecting a calculator..........well hell they didn't exist when I was in grade 4, but I can tell you I'm still just about as proficient on a slide rule as most are with a calculator.
I have looked at Quickload and found that it holds no surprizes or great knowledge that I don't already possess, seriously, so it is not a tool I choose to use, as the tools I have used for 45 years have given me the same results.
Were I a factory and tasked with coming up with reasonably accurate, safe loads for 100s of different cartridges and bullet weights, that would function in the thousands of different rifles available and already in the hands of shooters, at the least possible cost in components and man hours, then I'm quite certain that I would find this tool invaluable and indispensable.
My whole point is not that the computer program is worthless, it obviously is not, but more so that it is not "the end all, be all" tool when it comes to putting together accurate loads. Is it a time saving device? Quite likely, but then I'm not doing this to make a living where time saving can be critical to be competitive in a market place. Computers do not make accurate loads, men and women do and have been doing so for more than 100 years.........long before computers were ever invented. The methodology hasn't changed one bit......you take a brass case put a primer in it to light the powder you put in after and then you seat a bullet last.........Computers haven't changed this process one bit, nor have they changed who's brass case you use or who's primer or the type and amount of powder or the type and weight of bullet. All they can do is mix up all the possible combinations and give an educated guess as to which will work best within a given pressure limit. My contention is that my educated guess is just as valid as the computer program's after 45 years of loading for almost every conceivable capacity case from the hornet to the 50 BMG.
I have looked at Quickload and found that it holds no surprizes or great knowledge that I don't already possess, seriously, so it is not a tool I choose to use, as the tools I have used for 45 years have given me the same results.
Were I a factory and tasked with coming up with reasonably accurate, safe loads for 100s of different cartridges and bullet weights, that would function in the thousands of different rifles available and already in the hands of shooters, at the least possible cost in components and man hours, then I'm quite certain that I would find this tool invaluable and indispensable.
My whole point is not that the computer program is worthless, it obviously is not, but more so that it is not "the end all, be all" tool when it comes to putting together accurate loads. Is it a time saving device? Quite likely, but then I'm not doing this to make a living where time saving can be critical to be competitive in a market place. Computers do not make accurate loads, men and women do and have been doing so for more than 100 years.........long before computers were ever invented. The methodology hasn't changed one bit......you take a brass case put a primer in it to light the powder you put in after and then you seat a bullet last.........Computers haven't changed this process one bit, nor have they changed who's brass case you use or who's primer or the type and amount of powder or the type and weight of bullet. All they can do is mix up all the possible combinations and give an educated guess as to which will work best within a given pressure limit. My contention is that my educated guess is just as valid as the computer program's after 45 years of loading for almost every conceivable capacity case from the hornet to the 50 BMG.
Very true, just as using a calculator with out learning the basics of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.......is the answer reasonable.
Ok, got some questions:
How do you find a barrel node?
What is a barrel node?
How do you ascertain an optimum powder burn?
How do you compare powder burn at different pressures, given the same powder?
You have done every mechanical technique that you know and you still have a large ES, what do you do?
How do differentiate a ammunition issue from a platform issue or a shooter issue?
These combinations of ills have mystified many shooters for years.
- Location
- Southern Vancouver Island
Oops! Got outta context. Easy to do.
Last edited:
nowarningshot
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
While i am hoping these questions are straight up, i dont know.
I am really hoping that you have come to the point of asking questions, the sign of a open mind. There are a lot of loaders on this forum that have bunkers of powder with more in one individual powder than i have in all powders....and i have a bunch of powder.
Not saying that QL or any other tool is not useful, but many years of loading and experience gained trumps all. Now if we can just go back to arguing about the 378 wea....instead of this unzip and strut show.
[
These combinations of ills have mystified many shooters for years.[/QUOTE]
Maybe some shooters, like yourself...........but not all shooters, I assure you !!!
I have neither the time, patience, nor typing skills to answer your questions..........suffice it to say that I have dozens of loads for dozens of rifles that shoot sub moa and even some at sub 1/2 moa and perhaps hundreds in my lifetime to date. Therefore I obviously am not mystified and know exactly how to deal with every question/issue you have raised. And I have managed it all, without the aid of a computer. My expectations are also realistic when it comes to sporter weight barreled rifles, not all will shoot that mystifying sub moa, it's just the nature of the beast, and no computer can make it so.....sorry. I have never been a benchrest shooter so I have never actually chased the Nth degree in accuracy, but I know several that are and have and not one ever relied on a computer program, to the best of my knowledge.
You know BCBRAD, I just posted a very rational and reasonable post, saying that your computer program is quite likely a valuable asset in some circumstances and I'm sure it is of great assistance to you, who chooses to use this tool. I personally do not choose to use this tool as the methodology and tools I have used thus far, have not left me wanting for knowledge, or greater accuracy, neither have I been mystified. But you are still not happy and continue to be adversarial, insisting that I must defend my methodology to you and somehow admit that your computer program is superior. I have allowed that your system works for you, whether I agree with it or not, now please show me the same respect and we will close out this off topic discussion.
These combinations of ills have mystified many shooters for years.[/QUOTE]
Maybe some shooters, like yourself...........but not all shooters, I assure you !!!
I have neither the time, patience, nor typing skills to answer your questions..........suffice it to say that I have dozens of loads for dozens of rifles that shoot sub moa and even some at sub 1/2 moa and perhaps hundreds in my lifetime to date. Therefore I obviously am not mystified and know exactly how to deal with every question/issue you have raised. And I have managed it all, without the aid of a computer. My expectations are also realistic when it comes to sporter weight barreled rifles, not all will shoot that mystifying sub moa, it's just the nature of the beast, and no computer can make it so.....sorry. I have never been a benchrest shooter so I have never actually chased the Nth degree in accuracy, but I know several that are and have and not one ever relied on a computer program, to the best of my knowledge.
You know BCBRAD, I just posted a very rational and reasonable post, saying that your computer program is quite likely a valuable asset in some circumstances and I'm sure it is of great assistance to you, who chooses to use this tool. I personally do not choose to use this tool as the methodology and tools I have used thus far, have not left me wanting for knowledge, or greater accuracy, neither have I been mystified. But you are still not happy and continue to be adversarial, insisting that I must defend my methodology to you and somehow admit that your computer program is superior. I have allowed that your system works for you, whether I agree with it or not, now please show me the same respect and we will close out this off topic discussion.
Sounds good, sometimes these discussions become heated, as both participants are passionate about the hobby.
Spirited debate usually comes with gains in knowledge on both sides and that's what it's all about in my opinion.
Shoot straight shoot often.
Spirited debate usually comes with gains in knowledge on both sides and that's what it's all about in my opinion.
Shoot straight shoot often.
