Quickloads ?? Is it worth the $$

I can't say it like Darkker, but there are some crazy-wild selections in QL. Things that could get you in a mess.
So the golden rules of reloading still and always apply.

It is also true that every prediction employed should to be validated, with parameter tweaking into calibration.
 
Last edited:
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.
Good summary. The biggest advance to QL or GRT is if the powder makers would contribute data. Also, GRT does have a team providing/updating data and working on GRT 2.0. I am part of the testing team and it should be out ~ Dec/Jan
 
I can't say it like Darkker, but there are some crazy-wild selections in QL. Things that could get you in a mess.
So the golden rules of reloading still and always apply.

It is also true that every prediction employed should to be validated, with parameter tweaking into calibration.
A few years ago, I was set to purchase one and I received a similar advice to yours about QL and GRT. So, I abandoned the idea.
 
No matter the source of reloading info, powders vary by lot.
At least with QL you can calibrate your local powder lot, per the charge and resultant MV, and then predictions can be relied on -with that powder. Assume a bit of error with everything else and work up smartly.
 
Good summary. The biggest advance to QL or GRT is if the powder makers would contribute data. Also, GRT does have a team providing/updating data and working on GRT 2.0. I am part of the testing team and it should be out ~ Dec/Jan
When I asked why Grand was not included in the latest QL below is what I got.

IMG_2137.jpeg
 
When I asked why Grand was not included in the latest QL below is what I got.

View attachment 612671
Yeah, Some companies use it and some avoid it. I always wondered why some reloading manuals/online data say something to the effect of " Load data was generated using software ..."
I have the same experience has many here have....using it mostly for wildcats or new powders that seem like a odd choice for a given cartridge...like RL26 in a 6.5Creedmoor...would not have been my first choice.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, Some companies use it and some avoid it. I always wondered why some reloading manuals/online data say something to the effect of " Generating load data using software..."
I have the same experience has many here have....using it mostly for wildcats or new powders that seem like a odd choice for a given cartridge...like RL26 in a 6.5Creedmoor...would not have been my first choice.
I think this a fairly new stance, as in new this year, at least for Hodgdon.
 
Last edited:
I'v had some QL data that was incorrect and I have also found some Hodgdon data that was incorrect (I wish I could remember, I think Ql was 10mm and Hodgdon was 460 S&W). I'm not sending rockets into space, I am using QL along with load data in manuals and on line to verify my loads. I like at least two sources to verify my loads.
 
Top