Quickloads ?? Is it worth the $$

Like title says is the program worth the money? I always have crazy ideas on loads I want to try but not the capital to build every gun. Are the predictions fairly realistic using the data it provides?

It's worth the coin if you load non-standard cartridges or use bullets without published load data. With a few exceptions, QL estimates of max pressure have been pretty accurate. Speed estimates are generally on the low side. I always look for at least one corroborating data source. Obviously, that is not always possible in which case I start lower than I normally would so as not to blow my face off.

Really depends what outcome you are looking for.
If it's only velocity/pressure outcome on standard cases using oddball powder, then maybe, but not what I bought mine for.
If you just want to put in 'what if's?', then it just might be what you need. It works well for start loads on wildcats with most powders, but take the outcome on max pressure as dubious.
I bought mine, and Pressure Trace II at the same time because I was delving into serious cartridge invention, wildcats on extremely altered parent cases where extrapolation wasn't even in the mix.
However, even with accurate measurements of capacity and other factors, QL never matched the actual numbers the Pressure Trace or Oheller 35P showed. It was considerably different across the board, which is understandable with a PREDICTION program.
I sold mine after not being able to match real world numbers with predicted numbers without changing burn rates, velocity inputs etc etc.

Cheers.

i use it in many ways. i check against published data, custom loads, powder that's not listed in certain cartridges w/certain types of bullets and for powder brands that only publish data w/ their own powder. i use it as i've not yet got the hang of gordon's (grt).

yes, if you are experienced and safe.

i do a lot of experimental loads. quickload gives me a baseline to start and expand. better than just guessing.

imagine a 375 taylor load using 3031with 205 grain bullet and 20" barrel 3050fps.i did that load with intuition and it worked. i would rather have used quickload.

just did a sim for that load and QL guessed 3030 fps. i just guessed

Just get GRT, it's free.

Gordon Reloading Tool is free.. Give it a try if you like then pay for QL.
I actually like GRT more than QL.

I was an early adopter of QL I don't know how **** long ago, and always loved it.
To be good with it there are things to learn and calibrated data(like powder files) to test for & store as you go along.
Before long you can predict well, adjusting and accounting for all kinds of things that manuals cannot.

That said, I wouldn't buy it for general reloading.
It's way more useful for advanced stuff, like wildcat development.

Example:
I had a lot of IMR4350 which was a bit slower burning than manual loads, Reloader's Nest loads, and QL, implied.
This, as consistently measured and seen with several cartridges. Despite this, the powder always worked great for me, giving me better case fill. So I had a custom powder file for this, stored in QL.

Later I decided to build a gun centered on 140gr 26 cal bullets, and I wanted to use that lot of powder (which I had a bunch of).
I run 'what-ifs' as MM mentioned earlier, and tweaked for highest efficiency case capacity with that powder.
Once I had that, I went to cartridge design software and found that closest baseline was 260AI, but with 'weighting factor' in QL it looked like I could gain efficiency with an improved WSSM case. That's what I went with.

I picked up a bunch of WSSM cases, measured them, filled out a reamer print, ordered a couple barrels, and the rest of my gun was just waiting for this. When the build was complete, testing showed that I was within 5fps MV of predicted.
This was truly amazing to me given that at the very least, some barrels are faster/slower than others. I guess not in my case, as I'm on my 3rd barrel with no changes yet.

Anyway, without QL, the whole notion would have been no more than a pile of guesses.
It has extended my capabilities.

I always run my loads through QL and the manuals. I think its worth it.

Here's what no QL fan will ever tell you, none of them have ever actually measured pressure.
So when they tell you "it works and it's really close" what they mean is they dialed with burning rates and start pressures(which is ridiculous and always zero) until they got the chronograph to match the prediction. Then the their hands up and proclaimed a victory in the name of logical fallacies....

Groupe SNPE powders, QL is rather close to reality. Legacy Thales powders before the arsenal was torn down and the process completely changed, not terrible.
General Dynamics(especially the progressive powders) and several Rhinemetal powders it's flat dangerously wrong.

So "is it worth it"? Depends on what you think you know, Vs what do you really want to know?
If you think "Alliant" or "Winchester" have actually made powder in the last several decades. Then no, QL isn't worth it and you will lead yourself down a path of false information and won't actually learn anything.
If you think the "brand that's true" doesn't flip flop suppliers, like your teenage daughter changes outfits; then it isn't worth it.
The GRT fans are in the same boat. Gordon died several years ago, and took the source code with him. Those of us who measure pressure and were contributing to his calculator, all stopped sending data in because they can't change anything.


Now on the flipper.
If you're one of the few QL users who doesn't pretend it's the Oracle of Delphi, then as you know it's a great tool. You can get an idea or a direction for something, that you can them go out and actually measure the pressure on.

Like Mrvmax, I always run my loads through QL.

In my hunting rifles, I shoot mostly machined-copper bullets for which there's no published load data. I shoot a few lower-pressure loads first, then use that data to tune Quickload (mainly bullet start / engraving pressure which is bullet-specific) before I start marching up the pressure ladder. My experience is that tuned that way, QuickLoad predicts pretty accurately when I'll start to see ejector marks on case heads.

I also developed a semi-wildcat using Quickload. Everything worked out pretty much as predicted.

I use QL pretty much in lieu of any paper manuals. What I look for is what velocity is available @ max predicted pressure. Then I begin working towards that velocity w/my chrono.

With Alliant powders in particular I start WELL below the max charges as it's seems I don't usually get to predicted max velocity and I max out WELL below max powder charge prediction.

Ramshot and H powders seem to be fairly accurate @ defaults and get more so as you're able to modify data for your individual chamber dimension.