QuickLoads

[JRLesan]

Would like to know if QuickLoads has an existing category for the 450SMC before I plunk down the cost for the program. I have always retrieved my loads from a published manual but the 450 is odd enough that I can no longer find RELIABLE starting load data. I would like to develop a load for a PCC a little hotter than standard +P. Anyone out there have the software that would not mind looking it up???

[earlmck]

My QL version 3.6 (on older version) does have your 450SMC listed.

[JRLesan]

Thank you, Earl. I'll now proceed with acquisition.

[uscra112]

Even if it's not in the default database, you can create a custom entry easily enough.

[Multra]

Have you looked at Gordons reloading tool? It's free and updated frequently. You can create custom profiles or even import QL data.

[uscra112]

Link?

[RoyEllis]

Link?

http://www.grtools.de/

Easy to find with a quick search......

[uscra112]

Who's doing the testing to establish powder performance parameters? I didn't see it if it's there. That's a lot of lab work that QL does themselves.

[megasupermagnum]

Is there any reason 45 super data doesn't work with 45 SMC?

I have quick loads, and I think it is huge waste of my money. Apparently it is reasonably useful in large bottle neck cartridges. You know, cartridges you can get reliable pressure signs from anyway. I've found QL to suck with straight wall cartridges. Sometimes it's close enough, and sometimes it is so far out in left field, I can't believe people trust this for actual starting points. I think a huge problem with the program is that lacks a good selection of bullets. I mean, they list a bazzilion cartridges, but you only get one or two reasonable bullets for a caliber. There's only one 230 grain 45 caliber pistol bullet, and it is some odd discontinued bullet. There isn't even a 45 caliber FMJ bullet.

You can edit all the parameters, but how are you supposed to know what you are doing? There is some kind of friction multiplier unique to every bullet. It all adds up to being a disaster in a cartridge such as this, where .050" seating depth can make a huge difference. They also list maybe half of the powders available today, and that might be generous.

To answer your question, yes they list 450 SMC. QL makes such a big deal when you buy it, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to sell it or not. I'd gladly sell you mine.

[uscra112]

How many kinds of commercial bullets are there? Ten thousand? Twenty? Don't get in a tizzy because the exact one you want isn't there. Defining a bullet takes about two minutes. Add it to the database and you have it forever. I'm using it for obsolete cartridges, so I have to define a bullet almost every time. A couple or three times I've had to define the case, too, That takes a little longer since I have to do the water-capacity test.

There is no "friction multiplier" parameter for bullets. There is a "shot start" parameter which is an approximation of the pressure needed to engrave the bullet in its' initial travel. I use an arbitrary low number because I'm shooting plain cast bullets. If I were using jacketed, and i wasn't using a bullet from their database, I'd pick a similar one and use the number from that.

QL is a modelling software. It isn't intended to predict a maximum load for any cartridge with precision, because no mathematical model can. Especially true of hot ones. They make this pretty clear before you buy it.

If that's what you expect, yes, you should stop using it. Get yourself a pressure-measuring rig and a test barrel and action, or beg for data from the manufacturers.

So far it has never let me down but once - their case volume for the long obsolete black-powder 40-65 round was taken from a balloon-head case, and we were using modern solid head cases. Every other time the model has agreed quite well with the Chrony.

[Multra]

Who's doing the testing to establish powder performance parameters? I didn't see it if it's there. That's a lot of lab work that QL does themselves.

They get the data from powder manufacturers.

[uscra112]

And as they themselves admit, some mfgrs. won't supply it, so they have a workaround that (hopefully) provides an approximation.

Free is always worth what you pay for it.

[popper]

GRT will allow importing cases into it from QL. I use GRT for 300BO, almost straight wall and seems to be accurate.

[megasupermagnum]

How many kinds of commercial bullets are there? Ten thousand? Twenty? Don't get in a tizzy because the exact one you want isn't there. Defining a bullet takes about two minutes. Add it to the database and you have it forever. I'm using it for obsolete cartridges, so I have to define a bullet almost every time. A couple or three times I've had to define the case, too, That takes a little longer since I have to do the water-capacity test.

There is no "friction multiplier" parameter for bullets. There is a "shot start" parameter which is an approximation of the pressure needed to engrave the bullet in its' initial travel. I use an arbitrary low number because I'm shooting plain cast bullets. If I were using jacketed, and i wasn't using a bullet from their database, I'd pick a similar one and use the number from that.

QL is a modelling software. It isn't intended to predict a maximum load for any cartridge with precision, because no mathematical model can. Especially true of hot ones. They make this pretty clear before you buy it.

If that's what you expect, yes, you should stop using it. Get yourself a pressure-measuring rig and a test barrel and action, or beg for data from the manufacturers.

So far it has never let me down but once - their case volume for the long obsolete black-powder 40-65 round was taken from a balloon-head case, and we were using modern solid head cases. Every other time the model has agreed quite well with the Chrony.

Quick loads has 183 bullets listed between all calibers, and the great majority are 22 and 30 caliber rifles. They have four bullets that would be suitable in most 45 caliber handguns, and one 300 gr for strong 45 caliber handguns. Here's the thing, they don't have any standard for caliber bullets. 45 caliber, they do list a 260 grain, which I suppose would work in 45 colt. The only 230 grain they list is an odd cup point target bullet. They don't have anything close in 44 caliber to a 240-250 grain bullet. They list a single 41 caliber bullet, and it is 220 grains, not the standard 210 grain. While I admit there is an acceptable range of 38 bullet, they do not have a single 32 caliber bullet. They list at least five different 32 caliber cartridges, but not a single bullet!

There most certainly is a a friction modifier input. That is what all those bullets listed have. You can change the dimensions to match your own bullet, but unless you know what your friction multiplier is, you are shooting in the dark. Here is an example if we take a 357 magnum, which is about the only caliber I can do a side by side comparison. I'll use a 180 grain Hornady CI-SIL verses the 180 grain Nosler Partition, both seated to the same shank seating depth of .400", which gives a vastly different COAL. Both also with 16 grains H110, with a 6" barrel.

Hornady (1.549" OAL)- 34,556 psi and 1388 fps
Nosler (1.698" OAL)- 40,140 psi and 1377 fps

Now the real test is if I take that Nosler bullet, and change the bullet length to match the Hornady, which is 0.659". So now every bullet dimension will be exactly the same as the Hornady, except what QL has for a friction modifier.

Nosler modified to Hornady dimensions (1.549" OAL)- 40,160 psi and 1377 fps.

Seriously, Quickloads is a waste of money unless they update it with 4 times as many bullets as they have now, and about double their current powder selection. They have all kinds of obsolete powder, but nothing new. There is no American Select, which has been out for something like 20-25 years. They don't even list 300-MP. You can hand me a couple reloading manuals, and I can give you a starting point for data at least as accurately as Quickloads can.

Like I said, sometimes QL is reasonably close, and sometimes it is WAY off when it should not be. Bluedot is horrible in QL. I do own pressure testing equipment, and it is worth every penny.

[JRLesan]

First off, 450SMC cases are intended for small rifle primers whereas 45+P and 45 Super use large pistol or (possibly) small pistol. That fact will change pressure levels. Secondly, I'm trying to develop a load for either an 8'' bbl or a 16" bbl; hopefully one load for both but not a deal breaker if I can't. Lastly, I only have a certain selection of suitable powders at hand (unfortunately no Power Pistol left which would be way up toward the top of my choices). I swage (or can swage) my own .452's as I have a goodly supply of pistol jackets.

I don't have a clue where to start except blindly which is why I was hoping QL might be the answer I was looking for. If one reads the advertising hype, it would seem the program makes suggestions on the best powder choices for a particular cartridge but perhaps not... In my situation, would QL be helpful or worthless for a starting point?

[megasupermagnum]

List what powders you would like to use, and the exact dimensions of the bullet you would like to use, and I can run it in the program. Then you can decide what you would like to do. I'll list one below. About the only bullets they list that would be suitable or this would be the 230 gr Sierra FPJ, which is a shallow HP, almost a cup point, truncated cone flat nose jacketed bullet. It is similar to the Hornady HAP. They also list a 260 gr Freedom Arms spfn, which I can only assume is a jacketed soft nose bullet. I just noticed another powder they don't list is IMR 800x. That should be a good choice for this cartridge. They don't list 700x either.

450 SMC
230 gr Sirra FPJ
1.250" OAL
0.280" shank depth

It looks like Herco would be a good choice. QL predicts with the above parameters, 7.8 gr Herco will produce 25,776 psi and 1,136 fps from an 8" barrel. There is an option to bring up a table of incremental powder charges.

[uscra112]

Maybe you'd be so kind as to point me to where this "friction modifier" parameter is entered, because I sure can't find it. Is this something they've added since V.3.6?

BTW even my old Version 3.6 has over 2000 bullets listed. Click on the file\xxxxx just above the bullet selection bar and choose your manufacturer.

[Krag 1901]

GRT is developed in Germany and I down loaded it today, the Linux Mint version. Sr=till looking for the way to install it though. They list a way to load all the supporting files but not how to load the program. I can't even find the program file in the archive?

Popper., I think you use the Linux vesion, don't you? Any hints as to how to load the program?

[uscra112]

Aaaah, Linux. Don't let me get started !!!

[megasupermagnum]

Maybe you'd be so kind as to point me to where this "friction modifier" parameter is entered, because I sure can't find it. Is this something they've added since V.3.6?

BTW even my old Version 3.6 has over 2000 bullets listed. Click on the file\xxxxx just above the bullet selection bar and choose your manufacturer.

:shock: Wow, you just opened up a whole new world to me. Even NECO, who I bought Quickloads from was no help. Yes, thank you. Now I can find thousands of bullets, even cast bullets.

I have V3.9, and there is a check mark box called friction-proofed. You check that, and you can enter the friction multiplier.

[uscra112]

:shock: Wow, you just opened up a whole new world to me. Even NECO, who I bought Quickloads from was no help. Yes, thank you. Now I can find thousands of bullets, even cast bullets.

I have V3.9, and there is a check mark box called friction-proofed. You check that, and you can enter the friction multiplier.

Oh, for pity's sake! That's for, and ONLY for, moly-coated bullets. Has no relevance to anything else.

[megasupermagnum]

Oh, for pity's sake! That's for, and ONLY for, moly-coated bullets. Has no relevance to anything else.

You better tell NECO that.

[uscra112]

I think they already know it. Read the popup that appears when you click the box. "For use with friction-proofed bullets"

[megasupermagnum]

Mine says "For use with friction-proofed bullets. Enter a value between 0.4 and 1. Shot-Start pressure will be reduced by this multiplier. For Moly-coating or equivalent process select a value of 0.66."

Where does it say a friction-proofed bullet is only a moly coated bullet? If so, why does it say to enter 0.66 for molly coated bullets?

[uscra112]

Right. For use with friction proofed bullets. This allows users who are altering standard factory bullets by tumbling in moly disulfide powder or some such to compensate for the reduced engraving force the coating provides. Lower engraving force slows the pressure rise, changing both peak pressure and specific impulse, (i.e. muzzle velocity).

Absent the coating, the value in the database for the selected bullet is applied, and shouldn't be altered, unless you think you know more than they do. They apparently either tested each bullet to get a value, or have some algorithm for it. Pick a few bullets of varying construction and watch the default "shot start" value change.

Any gate,, if you are using a bullet from their database, leave that value alone, unless you are moly-coating.

Occurs to me to wonder whether powder-coating has any effect on shot start pressure.

Also has occurred to me that the distance off the lands that a jacketed bullet is loaded to might have some effect, but I can't imagine how to quantify it, other than to note that jamming the bullet into the lands the way we do with cast bullets is known to raise pressure drastically. I no longer load metal patched bullets except for my .22 Hornets and 2R Lovells, so it's of little interest to me.

[megasupermagnum]

It doesn't make sense to mess with now that you have shown me there is a huge database of bullets. Before I only had access to 183 bullets, and when I asked NECO how to adjust for custom bullets, they told me to adjust the friction multiplier so that the velocity was pretty close to the velocities I was really getting.

The thing that really scares me about this program, is that more often than not, the velocity is way off from what I get in the real world. Bluedot powder is the worst. Even when using their 10% lot to lot variation, it is still not quite there. I've adjusted the burn rate factor slightly, which works.

My hope when I bought QL, was not that I could use it for load data, but that it would give me a general estimate on pressure, and maybe a starting load on some uncommon bullet weights or calibers. I'm simply not convinced this program is even as accurate as a couple reloading manuals, and intuition.

[uscra112]

There are so many things they cannot know, like temperature of the ammo, moisture content of the powder, bullet jump in the case of metal patched bullets, exact case capacity, (,223/5.56 brass is all over the map), und-und-und. I once found some variation from my .22 Hornet models depending on whether the cases I was using were FL sized or not. (Old rifle had a rather large chamber.) In that tiny case it actually made a difference, just as .010" change in seating depth would.

I can't count the times when I've neglected to re-re-re-verify my inputs, (fat-fingering a 9 instead of a 0 when entering seating depth is my most common flub), and gotten "interesting" results.

Even if you do have pressure-measuring equipment, will it correlate? Don't answer until you can convince me that your pressure rig is calibrated exactly the same as theirs.

Just how DO you calibrate those things, anyway? Is there a NIST/DIN protocol? I've read that in the copper crusher era, no two labs would get the same results from the same ammo. So,, how accurate are reloading manuals, really? Will they correlate to your real world? Or mine? See paragraph 1 above. Is their data fudged to keep lawyers at bay? (Does Quickload fudge to keep lawyers at bay?)

I think, after years of using it, that the greatest single value to me has been to recognize how the pressure/time curves vary from powder to powder, all other factors being equal. For fun, set up a model for the .25-20 and enter 9.5 grains of H110. Look at the curve. Then switch to Lil'Gun. Look again. Lower peak pressure but higher velocity, due to the "fat tail" that Lil'Gun exhibits. (How do they do that?) It made it very obvious that "Whisper" loads actually generate very high peak pressure, despite launching the bullet at subsonic velocity with low muzzle blast. It taught me why you have to be so careful not to overload Trail Boss.

Yeah, I wish it had 300MP too, since I've used a little of it in one of my old crocks. SDs weren't very good, so I dropped it for the .25-21. Some guys say it works better in the bigger cartridges.

[perotter]

Even if you do have pressure-measuring equipment, will it correlate? Don't answer until you can convince me that your pressure rig is calibrated exactly the same as theirs.

Just how DO you calibrate those things, anyway? Is there a NIST/DIN protocol? I've read that in the copper crusher era, no two labs would get the same results from the same ammo. So,, how accurate are reloading manuals, really? Will they correlate to your real world? Or mine? See paragraph 1 above. Is their data fudged to keep lawyers at bay? (Does Quickload fudge to keep lawyers at bay?)

...

IMO. Given all the variables that can happen between various pressure testing equipment setups, I'd say that one should only expect getting a guideline and not "hard and fast rules". To be used to cut a bit of time out of the whole process. My opinion is subject to change with more knowledge.

They are supposed to be calibrated to a SAAMI spec/standard. If that was done or not, is a question.

PS. FWIW. I don't chase max fps except in .357 rounds for carbines when used as truck guns. I know for others part of the hobby is to go for max fps and that is ok.

[perotter]

And as they themselves admit, some mfgrs. won't supply it, so they have a workaround that (hopefully) provides an approximation.

Free is always worth what you pay for it.

The Continental Europeans have a different idea about software. They think of doing it more with the thought of 'for the greater good' than the thought of 'how much money can I make'.

With my 39 years in professional software writing and use, I've yet to see free or inexpensive German software not be better than US software. To much 'good enough' and/or has to 'get sold now' in the US.

Also, the GTR software ties directly to chronographs and pressure testing equipment. So the users of the equipment and desire can create powder profiles. They can share them or not. Does QL have this feature? If not, than GTR is the clear winner in which is better hands down.

[popper]

I use GRT with win7, sorry. In the nightly updates, GRT notes there are problems under Mint. With Mint you have to have the correct repository to pull from, else you don't get all the code needed. Do an update and see if you can get it work.

[uscra112]

QL is also German, is it not?

[megasupermagnum]

There are so many things they cannot know, like temperature of the ammo, moisture content of the powder, bullet jump in the case of metal patched bullets, exact case capacity, (,223/5.56 brass is all over the map), und-und-und. I once found some variation from my .22 Hornet models depending on whether the cases I was using were FL sized or not. (Old rifle had a rather large chamber.) In that tiny case it actually made a difference, just as .010" change in seating depth would.

I can't count the times when I've neglected to re-re-re-verify my inputs, (fat-fingering a 9 instead of a 0 when entering seating depth is my most common flub), and gotten "interesting" results.

Even if you do have pressure-measuring equipment, will it correlate? Don't answer until you can convince me that your pressure rig is calibrated exactly the same as theirs.

Just how DO you calibrate those things, anyway? Is there a NIST/DIN protocol? I've read that in the copper crusher era, no two labs would get the same results from the same ammo. So,, how accurate are reloading manuals, really? Will they correlate to your real world? Or mine? See paragraph 1 above. Is their data fudged to keep lawyers at bay? (Does Quickload fudge to keep lawyers at bay?)

I think, after years of using it, that the greatest single value to me has been to recognize how the pressure/time curves vary from powder to powder, all other factors being equal. For fun, set up a model for the .25-20 and enter 9.5 grains of H110. Look at the curve. Then switch to Lil'Gun. Look again. Lower peak pressure but higher velocity, due to the "fat tail" that Lil'Gun exhibits. (How do they do that?) It made it very obvious that "Whisper" loads actually generate very high peak pressure, despite launching the bullet at subsonic velocity with low muzzle blast. It taught me why you have to be so careful not to overload Trail Boss.

Yeah, I wish it had 300MP too, since I've used a little of it in one of my old crocks. SDs weren't very good, so I dropped it for the .25-21. Some guys say it works better in the bigger cartridges.

I look at pressure and velocity as separate issues. In Quickload's case, I can't get velocities to match reliably. Now to be clear, it is usually ballpark, but as I said, I can take two reloading manuals, and I can estimate an approximate velocity for you, and it didn't cost me anything except the manuals. I do not trust that QL is more accurate than I am.

In the case of pressure testing equipment, you bring up valid points. Of course all factors do matter. My equipment is used on real guns, not test barrels, which makes a difference. I have only used it for shotguns so far, as reloading for metallic cartridges without data simply isn't that hard. Shotguns on the other hand are extremely difficult to find data for anything besides the most basic trap or field loads. There is no way to guess on what a shotgun will do.

In my case of the Pressure Trace 2 system, it is set up by your gun's parameters. This gets you real close. For fine tuning, I have loads I have sent to Tom Armbrust, as my standard for each gauge. I can then go into the program, and adjust the correction by how far it is off. So in theory, the pressures I get, should corelate to if Tom Armbrust was using his test barrel, within reason. I'm not looking to make a loading manual, I'm just trying to make safe loads that exceed the lusterless reloading manuals that exist today.