quickload
- Thread starter hardpan
- Start date
Yes, there is one called "Load From a Disk". I have it, I never use it, I don't like it. It list everything in CUP not PSI. I is very, very limited as to what powders you can use, and it basically sucks.
You can purchase it here if you like.
http://www.loadammo.com/
You can purchase it here if you like.
http://www.loadammo.com/
RiverRider
Handloader
- Dec 9, 2008
- 1,427
- 59
I am another who has used LFaD. It is as Steve says. THe way it wors is you plun in a barrel length, select the case, select the bullet, and then select the powder. You can then view graphical representations of Charge vs. Pressure (the one I am most interested in) and other kinds of results. I agree with Steve---the powder options are extremely limited. I emailed the guy who produced it about this, and he gave me an answer that left me unsatisfied. I don't recommend the program unless you know you'll never be able to spend $150 on a truly useful program.
I will spring for Quickload one of these days. It is obviously a far more capable program.
I will spring for Quickload one of these days. It is obviously a far more capable program.
- Oct 30, 2004
- 24,139
- 2,734
Like Steve says load from a disk.
Quickload is indeed expensive but it pays dividends saving me from burning excess powders/bullets/primers on hypothetical loads.
Quickload is indeed expensive but it pays dividends saving me from burning excess powders/bullets/primers on hypothetical loads.
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 37,039
- 5,350
Since QuickLoad gives updates as new powders/cartridges/bullets are available, it is not as if you are making an ongoing expenditure. The purchase of the latest loading manual (Nosler, Barnes, Speer, Hornady, Sierra, Lyman, Lee, etc.) can easily add up to more than QuickLoad, and you will want to update them frequently in any case. This being the case, QL may, in fact, be the least expensive option.
RiverRider
Handloader
- Dec 9, 2008
- 1,427
- 59
I like the idea of being able to command a 63,000 psi load for .280 Remington without having to go through all the same old BS and arguing that it really is okay and that my rifle is not going to deposit itself all over the county with pieces of me attached.
- Oct 30, 2004
- 24,139
- 2,734
RiverRider":sll47rtf said:
Bingo!
Why limit the 257 Bob to a SAAMI 51488 psi?
If you're using a Rem 700 and modern brass then what does the 308 Winchester have over the 257 BOB? Nothing but the 308 can be loaded at 65000 psi.
RiverRider
Handloader
- Dec 9, 2008
- 1,427
- 59
POP, the only thing I'd say about that is that the Bob is based on the 57mm Mauser case, not the .308 case. Maybe the 57mm cases are constructed just as heavily as .308-based cases (I suspect they are), but I don't personally know that to be a fact. I'd not hesitate, however, to load a .257 Roberts to the highest pressures published for any caliber based on the 7 x 57. With a little more reliable and verifiable info, I might push right on up to the 60,000 psi range...but I'd be very cautious to make sure I know what's what!
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 37,039
- 5,350
Clearly, Mr. Broemel has provided a valuable tool for the handloader to use. If the program is used wisely, and the loader acts with a measure of discretion, it is a real bonus in developing loads. If all an individual needs is an occasional load, or if they are content to load for one, or a few, rifles for limited purpose, then the cost of the program may not be justified. However, if one is a rifle crank and enjoys experimenting with new loads, this is a fantastic tool which is not at all overpriced. A cheap scope costs more than QL.
- Oct 30, 2004
- 24,139
- 2,734
RiverRider":273ap9j0 said:
I have thought about things like that but if you were making brass cases why go out of your way just to make weaker brass.
Same thing with the 280 and 30-06. They are loaded to lower pressures than say the 25-06 rem (65K+) because of the older weaker autoloaders I guess.
RiverRider
Handloader
- Dec 9, 2008
- 1,427
- 59
You got me there, POP. But you've thought it through, and that's what's important I guess.
- Oct 30, 2004
- 24,139
- 2,734
Oh, all of this is academic....just for fun kind of thing. If I ever offer any data to anyone who requested out of SAAMI spec data I ensure I highlight the pressure listing and state it loudly.
RiverRider
Handloader
- Dec 9, 2008
- 1,427
- 59
Yes, that is the right thing to do and I for one DO appreciate it. I am ultimately responsible for my own safety. I wish the whole world could understand this...it's not a concept, it's not an ideal---it's a physical law!
- Thread starter
- #14
I think that the short answer is that QL is the best, and relatively without comparable competition. With the economy, i'll work with the manuals for now, and get it later... If and when I get a steady check again. Right now, I have joined a friend that started a high tech business. Hopefully, this down time is about over, but i remain pretty skeptical given our current direction. (I could have posted that last note in the politics section) ...
Thanks again for the help,
HP
Thanks again for the help,
HP
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 37,039
- 5,350
Hardpan,
I wish you luck on securing a steady paycheque. When you are able, you will not regret having QL on your computer. The main thing is to read the documentation that is provided, and then use the program.
I wish you luck on securing a steady paycheque. When you are able, you will not regret having QL on your computer. The main thing is to read the documentation that is provided, and then use the program.
DrMike":d5fsri8i said:
True, but remember QL is only an educated guess, as are the manuals. When using QL it is best to double check it's findings with other data sources if at all possible.
I use QL and I would be lots without it. That said, I have found it to be very accurate in most cases and sometimes not so accurate. Like the manual says, it is not a substitute for actual tested data.
- Oct 30, 2004
- 24,139
- 2,734
steve4102":1qlftfeb said:
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 37,039
- 5,350
Steve,
You are correct. No one should take data generated by QL as gospel. The user is still responsible to use caution, working up each load in accordance with standard precautions and observing all safety rules. The same caution applies with loading data in a load guide, with the one caveat that in most instances the data was pressure-tested in the work up by the company. This does not imply that the hand loader can ignore safety and deflect responsibility for his/her own actions in working up a load.
Having said that, I appreciate QL for the way in which it permits testing recipes against a standard before actually sitting down at the bench. There have been a few times that I found it to generate data what was not workable, and other times that it was a pleasant surprise at how accurate the data has proved to be.
You are correct. No one should take data generated by QL as gospel. The user is still responsible to use caution, working up each load in accordance with standard precautions and observing all safety rules. The same caution applies with loading data in a load guide, with the one caveat that in most instances the data was pressure-tested in the work up by the company. This does not imply that the hand loader can ignore safety and deflect responsibility for his/her own actions in working up a load.
Having said that, I appreciate QL for the way in which it permits testing recipes against a standard before actually sitting down at the bench. There have been a few times that I found it to generate data what was not workable, and other times that it was a pleasant surprise at how accurate the data has proved to be.
elkeater2
Handloader
- Jan 5, 2009
- 760
- 78
RiverRider":2ld3nclx said:
I don't think there's a bit of web design difference between any of of the 7x57, .257 Bob, 30-06, 25-06, etc. from the last 20 -30 years. I was making 7x57 cases from 30-06 45 years ago. The 7x57 has a lot of potential, and if they " + P " it, it keeps up with 7mm-08 pretty well.
Elkeater2
