Load Building Software

[bootsnthejeep]

I've seen references to them here, but wondering specifically what people use for load building software and how they like them.

Getting frustrated trying to find 500 S&W data for anything other than a J-word slugs, that doesn't use a variety of powders that I don't own. Also curious why I don't see much load data for .357 MAX using 2400, one would think that would be an ideal powder. Again, just going on information I've seen.

I'm sure it would be cheaper in the long run to just buy a variety of manuals, but I'm intrigued by the idea of being able to tweak and modify, especially with different cast bullet seating depths and whatnot.

Thoughts?

Boots

[Rocky Raab]

I have both Load From A Disk and QuickLoad - and have tested several others. While they can sometimes be amazingly accurate, they can also be quite far off. I recently had two instances where the predicted results were off by 300 fps - and one program was 300 high while the other was 300 low for the SAME load.

I don't trust them. Any such program is based on guesses, approximations and arbitrary correction factors. Not comforting when I place my body parts next to tens of thousands of psi.

[mike in co]

i use quickload..it aint cheap but it is good.

you can add boolits, adjust case volume, adjust powder characterisitics to match your lot.

NECO IS THE SELLER

[maddog2020]

I have load from a disk and it sux, has no handgun loads

[bootsnthejeep]

I was reading the specs on LFAD, and was surprised by the lack of powders. I'm an Alliant fan, and the only powder they listed was 2400. Much as I love 2400, the majority of my loading mostly involves that and Unique, Blue Dot, and Bullseye. Can't be eliminating 3/4 of my most common goto powders.

How is Quickload for Alliant Junkies?

[Rocky Raab]

LFAD has no handgun loads because (as Wayne Blackwell clearly says) the equations do not carry over from rifle-sized cases to handgun-sized ones. That probably explains why no Alliant powders faster than 2400.

[cbrick]

I have to agree with Rocky 100%. I played with a couple of these programs a few years ago by comparing their loads with known safe loads with the same powders and bullet weights. A few times the program was off far enough to send shivers up and down my back. There is a huge amount of "tested and safe" load data in the printed manuals, I don't need a computer making wild a**ed "guesses" for me.

Rick

[AZ-Stew]

I have to agree with Rocky 100%. I played with a couple of these programs a few years ago by comparing their loads with known safe loads with the same powders and bullet weights. A few times the program was off far enough to send shivers up and down my back. There is a huge amount of "tested and safe" load data in the printed manuals, I don't need a computer making wild a**ed "guesses" for me.

Rick

+101

The computerized estimations are no substitute for pressure-tested published data.

Regards,

Stew