Available powder listed in Quickload Vs GRT

[Justice1327]

I regularly use GRT for planning out powders to try in cartridges especially if they're new to me cartridges.
I noticed that GRT doesn't have a high amount of confirmed loads for H1000 compared to Vhit 565-570.

How does Quickload compare? How do they obtain the data on the powders to know they are test worthy?

Thinking about giving QL a try since GRT's support is on hold due to Gordon's passing.

 

[Justice1327]

Anything?

 

[Veteran]

I'd try QL. They have every powder that I see is commercially available
except for not having Win Staball HD, which is a new powder but disappointed their spring update did not include it. Otherwise certainly no gripes. Quite extensive library. Has hammer bullets too.

 

[Zen Archery]

GRT has an open Discord that answers all your GRT questions.

QL reverse engineered powders.

My understanding, neither company were granted powder data direct from powder companies.

I used QL for years but GRT has more options and less tuning.

GRT does not have as many powders (go to Discord it explains why). But the ones they do have are finely tuned.

I've added a lot of my own powders but have not open sourced shares them.

 

[Justice1327]

Thank you, very familiar w/GRT and Discord. It is a lot of help.
Just trying to understand how QL compiles their data for powders and if they have a similar sliding scale on how accurate they believe their data is.

 

[Seabeeken]

I know the european powder makers are more forthcoming in sharing their information than others here in north america and Australia

 

[Justice1327]

Just found this attachment. I will see what GRT days about thee powders. This might help with the lack of reliable testing w/ H1000 in GRT.

 

[Seabeeken]

Keep in mind that GRT is using a 2 step powder model and QL uses a one step powder model.