asd9055
Well-Known Member
Like every software in the world, garbage in, garbage out. Not everyone who reloads should use it. Not everyone who shoots should reload
Quick Load
- Thread starter frostop
- Start date
Good for you.
That's not QickLOAD's problem. Garbage in, garbage out.
If you don't know how to use computers and software, don't blame computers and software.
Well I went to school for computer programming and I would have to agree with the Rep.
It depends on the computer program.
If you have a good program for the powder, you should get reasonable real world results.
Or they could be really off. Which is why reloaders are ALWAYS suppose to use caution (*) and work up.
Computer programs can generate bunk results. 2 examples :
1) trying to prove "climate change" to push the New Green Scam
2) In early 2000 when that British guy claimed there were going to be 600,000 deaths in the UK alone from the Wuhan virus. Most of the world locked down for "a few weeks to slow the spread "on his "advice" alone.
(*) and never have more than one powder on the bench at the same time. Especially not H100 & H1000!
Stevenstl86
Well-Known Member
Does GRT work on iPhones? Also tried to download the software on a laptop. Just files on files that go nowhere
asd9055
Well-Known Member
@Seabeeken
As far as I know there is a Linux and a Windows version. You can dowload here. https://www.grtools.de/doku.php?id=download
There are several youtube and other help videos on the web. I highly suggest watching a few of them
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
I was pointing out how versatile QL is.
That NOTHING actually stops effective use of it. We only need to understand what it's doing.
Believe me, I'm Pro-QL
Last edited:
MagnumManiac
Well-Known Member
Garbage out is all I ever saw…
If you want start loads, powder burn rate recommendation, use QL.
If you want real data, by pressure testing equipment, not ONCE did QL predict accurately when I was testing against it with the Pressure Trace II. It was always way off max pressure and velocity, and yes, before you ask if I knew how to use it, yes I did, and sitting there fudging burn rates, and other factors to get the 2 systems even CLOSE was a nightmare.
Pressure Trace gives ACTUAL numbers with your barrel and load characteristics, not a prediction that can be way off from the get-go.
Take what QL says as max pressure with a very LARGE grain of salt…
Cheers.
If you want start loads, powder burn rate recommendation, use QL.
If you want real data, by pressure testing equipment, not ONCE did QL predict accurately when I was testing against it with the Pressure Trace II. It was always way off max pressure and velocity, and yes, before you ask if I knew how to use it, yes I did, and sitting there fudging burn rates, and other factors to get the 2 systems even CLOSE was a nightmare.
Pressure Trace gives ACTUAL numbers with your barrel and load characteristics, not a prediction that can be way off from the get-go.
Take what QL says as max pressure with a very LARGE grain of salt…
Cheers.
It amazes me how different people get different results with software. I use QL, QD and PR2 an they all seem in harmony for me.
Perhaps it's attention to detail on a digital level. I've been around and programming computers since 1966.
I will use "known loads" to verify QL parameters for input are correct/reasonable. Enter the "known load" from 2 or more sources. Now that I can get to my paper books it's easy.
If the numbers don't come out comparable in QL to the know load, I got something wrong somewhere.
This is how I prevent garbage in which begets garbage out.
Perhaps it's attention to detail on a digital level. I've been around and programming computers since 1966.
I will use "known loads" to verify QL parameters for input are correct/reasonable. Enter the "known load" from 2 or more sources. Now that I can get to my paper books it's easy.
If the numbers don't come out comparable in QL to the know load, I got something wrong somewhere.
This is how I prevent garbage in which begets garbage out.
MagnumManiac
Well-Known Member
Well, this is not how I was using the software.
I was using it to help choose correct powders for developing wildcats based on several parent cartidges.
Measuring all known parameters as set out by QL still garnered erroneous results, which several would have been catastrophic had I actually followed what the garbage out said.
Hangfires were extremely common when using QL start loads in my 338-416 Rigby Improved. I switched to the Nosler program and discovered QL was way, way off max pressure predictions, in fact, those loads were around 15% of what a start load should have been.
Now, I am no program whiz, but that was enough for me to give it away, no amount of tweaking could come close to actual measured pressures, which were far lower than what QL was predicting and I had zero reference to compare with other than Nosler's QuichDesign program.
So, using it to compare to tested data is fine, but when you want to develop unique cartridge parameters, it is virtually useless…
Cheers.
Take a step back bro, and answer this question... :)
What percentage of shooters on these forums have Quickloads/GRT, versus Pressure Trace? Or what is the ratio?
100:1, probably...right? Or more?
1000:1?
We all know Pressure Trace is more "accurate", but for those of us who want "Ball Park" estimates, on what powders we can, and cannot use, in our loads....Quickloads and GRT is the clear winner.
I probably am a "program whiz" based on my life.
QL was always very close to PT2 for me.
Doesn't mean the program and data in QL is wrong or bad if it's just you. ;) Perhaps it is good you quit using it.
asd9055
Well-Known Member
The first time I brought up QL on this forum I was attacked severly. So, I decided to offer limited comments and save my QL discussions for another forum where it is widely accepted and used for its intended purpose.
Like many others, I have spent part of my career trying to "break" a simulator, and another part using it. Back then, you had FORTRAN for Engineering/Scientific and COBOL for business applications, and everything run on a mianframe with punch cards and tape. In my field, simulators offer "One" possible solution out of thousands of possibilities, but we have learned over the years to calibrate, repeat until simulation represents a possible reality.
QL/GRT are no different. They offer one possible solution for the data the user entered. The Idea is to calibrate, repeat untill you are close enough. Reloading data manuals are NO different. They give you a solution for a given application. I use Lyman and Nosler manuals. The both give you a "most accurate" load in each caliber/bullet selection. But that was for the conditions that applied at testing. Barrel, primer, lot of bullet, lot of powder, etc. It does not mean that load will be the most accurate in your rifle, but it could be something to keep in mind.
I use QL/GRT in conjuction with Loading manuals and nothing beats the actual loading and testing. I cannot afford to have pressure trace equipement, I am an amateur shooter, amateur hunter and amateur reloader. But I use software in all parts of my life to make things easier. Why not reloader.
Many people have posted in a few forums that some companies that post load data, are actuall posting QL data. I have no first hand knowledge, so I follow the basic rule. Start low and work up before you jump into a recommend load, from a book or a software.
Cheers
Like many others, I have spent part of my career trying to "break" a simulator, and another part using it. Back then, you had FORTRAN for Engineering/Scientific and COBOL for business applications, and everything run on a mianframe with punch cards and tape. In my field, simulators offer "One" possible solution out of thousands of possibilities, but we have learned over the years to calibrate, repeat until simulation represents a possible reality.
QL/GRT are no different. They offer one possible solution for the data the user entered. The Idea is to calibrate, repeat untill you are close enough. Reloading data manuals are NO different. They give you a solution for a given application. I use Lyman and Nosler manuals. The both give you a "most accurate" load in each caliber/bullet selection. But that was for the conditions that applied at testing. Barrel, primer, lot of bullet, lot of powder, etc. It does not mean that load will be the most accurate in your rifle, but it could be something to keep in mind.
I use QL/GRT in conjuction with Loading manuals and nothing beats the actual loading and testing. I cannot afford to have pressure trace equipement, I am an amateur shooter, amateur hunter and amateur reloader. But I use software in all parts of my life to make things easier. Why not reloader.
Many people have posted in a few forums that some companies that post load data, are actuall posting QL data. I have no first hand knowledge, so I follow the basic rule. Start low and work up before you jump into a recommend load, from a book or a software.
Cheers
