• If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here

Quickload

philsummers21 said:
In quickload you can kinda compare powders as well correct?
Click to expand...

Yes. It allows you to run hypothetical bullet/powder/case capacity combinations. I have found it to be very useful in deciding what bullet and powder to use. It can also be helpful in finding alternatives to chosen bullets or powder when your first choice is not available.

It is also useful in determining what chambering I may want in a rifle, by giving me a clear idea of the performance I can expect.

I have found it very useful in developing my own data for cartridges like 6.5x55 and 7x57 in modern rifles. Likewise, in cartridges like 6.5-284 and .264 Win Mag, which are poorly supported in published data sources.

Also, since I rarely seat my bullets at lengths that match the OAL's in published data, it is useful to be able to generate data that matches the seating depth I will use.

Generally speaking, I use QL to select chamberings and components, and to develop my own load data (I still use published data and careful load development to sanity check what I am doing.)
 
It's just plain fun to do "what ifs" as well
benchracer said:
Yes. It allows you to run hypothetical bullet/powder/case capacity combinations. I have found it to be very useful in deciding what bullet and powder to use. It can also be helpful in finding alternatives to chosen bullets or powder when your first choice is not available.

It is also useful in determining what chambering I may want in a rifle, by giving me a clear idea of the performance I can expect.

I have found it very useful in developing my own data for cartridges like 6.5x55 and 7x57 in modern rifles. Likewise, in cartridges like 6.5-284 and .264 Win Mag, which are poorly supported in published data sources.

Also, since I rarely seat my bullets at lengths that match the OAL's in published data, it is useful to be able to generate data that matches the seating depth I will use.

Generally speaking, I use QL to select chamberings and components, and to develop my own load data (I still use published data and careful load development to sanity check what I am doing.)
Click to expand...
 
Can any of you run this with CFE 223? Think I need to try a touch faster burning powder. As I was pressure testing I started blowing out a ton of smoke out of the barrel before I started seeing pressure signs.
 
philsummers21 said:
Can any of you run this with CFE 223? Think I need to try a touch faster burning powder. As I was pressure testing I started blowing out a ton of smoke out of the barrel before I started seeing pressure signs.
Click to expand...

This is what QL produces for your previously mentioned parameters with CFE223. Using OBT theory as I understand it, 37.5gr of CFE223 should be an accuracy node - or close. QuickLoad predicts 3500fps with a barrel time of 1.105ms at 54036psi. I'm using data for a 26" barrel and a 'node' is at 1.106ms. This is all theoretical at this point - especially to me. I'm just now trying to learn this software and integrate it and OBT theory into my own handloading. *WORK CAREFULLY* My own experience with this is that QL predicted and measured actual velocities are somewhat different. I'm trying to learn how to make them line up. Did I mention *WORK CAREFULLY* ?? :D


Cartridge : .22-250 Rem. (SAAMI)
Bullet : .224, 64, Berger M Var #22316
Useable Case Capaci: 43.339 grain H2O = 2.814 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.510 inch = 63.75 mm
Barrel Length : 26.0 inch = 660.4 mm
Powder : Hodgdon CFE223

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2.0% 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

-20.0 68 30.40 2888 1185 30080 8257 93.4 1.422
-18.0 70 31.16 2955 1241 32057 8489 94.5 1.387
-16.0 72 31.92 3022 1298 34160 8710 95.5 1.353
-14.0 73 32.68 3089 1356 36400 8920 96.4 1.320
-12.0 75 33.44 3155 1414 38783 9117 97.2 1.283
-10.0 77 34.20 3221 1474 41316 9301 97.9 1.247
-08.0 79 34.96 3286 1534 43978 9470 98.5 1.212
-06.0 80 35.72 3351 1595 46783 9624 99.0 1.178
-04.0 82 36.48 3415 1657 49758 9763 99.4 1.146
-02.0 84 37.24 3479 1720 52913 9884 99.7 1.115
+00.0 85 38.00 3542 1782 56261 9989 99.9 1.085 ! Near Maximum !
+02.0 87 38.76 3604 1846 59814 10076 100.0 1.056 ! Near Maximum !
+04.0 89 39.52 3665 1909 63587 10149 100.0 1.029 ! Near Maximum !
+06.0 90 40.28 3726 1973 67595 10219 100.0 1.002 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+08.0 92 41.04 3786 2037 71856 10286 100.0 0.976 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+10.0 94 41.80 3845 2101 76387 10351 100.0 0.951 !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 85 38.00 3675 1919 66752 9632 100.0 1.010 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 85 38.00 3347 1592 45862 10001 96.5 1.185
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

KSAv8r
QuickLoad
Replies
2
Views
944
KSAv8r
KSAv8r
A
QuickLOAD
Replies
0
Views
638
Adam Moore
A
C
quickload
Replies
0
Views
438
cspeerin
C
den
quickload ?
Replies
3
Views
875
den
den
freebird63
Quickload
Replies
8
Views
2K
freebird63
freebird63

Recent Posts

Top