QuickLOAD way off from reality. Solutions?

[entoptics]

In an attempt to model "unusual" powders for caliber, so I could make some plinker loads with "trash" components I have, I've come to the conclusion that QuickLOAD is so far away from reality as to essentially be useless, if not outright dangerous. This isn't just one load/rifle, it's across the board for me.

QuickLOAD is universally suggesting far higher charges than I can run, as much as 8 grains! I tried adjusting the case capacity down to compensate, which resulted in completely nonsensical values for the 3 belted mags I modeled (264WM, 7RM, and 300WM), and was all over the map anyway (QL Cap column), so that's of no use as a fudge factor.

In an effort to get a handle on it, I modeled real world data from my verified loads. Here's a table of 15 different loads, from 3 different rifles, and 4 different powders. Real case capacity (H2O) and COAL were used in QL. The real world data was collected over a year or more, across different lots and types of powder/primers/bullets so I don't think it can be explained away by "lot to lot" variance, or "all rifles are different". There's a systematic bias in QL towards dangerously high charge weights in these magnum cases.

Powder	Bullet	Real Charge	QL Charge	∆ Charge	QL FPS	Real FPS	∆ FPS	QL H2O	Real H2O	∆ H2O	% Dif
264 Win Mag
IMR8133	145 BMB	65.5	71.1	5.6	2728	2998	270	73.9	86	12.1	9%
IMR8133	145 BMB	66.0	71.83	5.8	2751	3030	279	73.6	86	12.4	9%
IMR8133	145 BMB	66.5	71.95	5.5	2773	3036	263	74.4	86	11.6	8%
H1000	147 ELDM	62.8	70.25	7.5	2720	3047	327	73.9	86	12.1	12%
H1000	143 ELDX	62.6	70.85	8.2	2722	3090	368	70.1	86	15.9	13%
IMR4064	129 SST	52.5	55.55	3.1	2907	3031	124	77.9	86	8.1	6%
RL26	147 ELDM	62.5	68.12	5.6	2862	3080	218	74.4	86	11.6	9%
RL26	147 ELDM	62.0	67.72	5.7	2842	3074	232	74.1	86	11.9	9%
7mm Rem Mag
RL26	150 TTSX	66.6	70.5	3.9	2936	3110	174	78.2	86.2	8	6%
RL26	145 LRX	67.5	72.07	4.6	2987	3195	208	77.3	86.2	8.9	7%
IMR4064	162 BTHP	52.5	55.33	2.8	2762	2874	112	76.6	84.1	7.6	5%
H1000	175 ELDX	66.3	71.52	5.2	2724	2953	229	76.2	86.2	10	8%
IMR8133	175 ELDX	70.5	74.46	4.0	2799	2974	175	78.8	86.2	7.5	6%
300 Win Mag
H1000	208 ELDM	78.3	83	4.7	2710	2882	172	88.5	97.9	9.4	6%
RL26	208 ELDM	72.0	74.13	2.13	2636	2711	75	92.8	97.9	5.1	3%

Though the data is limited, where I can find identical bullet/powder combos, QL suggests SUBSTANTIALLY higher charges than the manuals (e.g. Hornady says 64 gr max for H1000 and 147 ELDM, QL is closer to 70 gr).

What's interesting though, is that my max pressures/velocities do seem to line up with what QL suggests, just at charge weights 5-10% lower than QL. In other words, when I start seeing pressure signs in the real world, it's at a velocity that lines up with where QL says max V/P should be happening.

Anyway, wondering how well QL is working for others, and if there's some kind of strategy for setting a "fudge factor" to get it to line up closer to reality. A model that's off in "blow off your face" territory, isn't much good to me...

 

[Mike D Texas]

QL works excellent for me. For example, I used a load with 264 WM, 74.5 grains RL33, 156 Berger, case capacity @ 80.2 grains, COAL @ 3.550. QL showed 3166fps, actual average across 20 shots was 3172.
My 257 WBY is very similar.
Not sure what happening with yours.

Are you running the latest version?

One thing in your chart that stands out to me is you list "real" case capacity at 86 grains. I have PPU 264 win mag brass and Peterson and ADG 7 mag brass necked down and the highest is the Peterson at 82.2 grains. One of our scales is off. After fireforming my 264 WM with the AI case shown below it is only 87.3 grains with the PPU brass. Also why does the QL capacity shown vary so much? My is constant unless I manually adjust it.

 

[WildRose]

In an attempt to model "unusual" powders for caliber, so I could make some plinker loads with "trash" components I have, I've come to the conclusion that QuickLOAD is so far away from reality as to essentially be useless, if not outright dangerous. This isn't just one load/rifle, it's across the board for me.

QuickLOAD is universally suggesting far higher charges than I can run, as much as 8 grains! I tried adjusting the case capacity down to compensate, which resulted in completely nonsensical values for the 3 belted mags I modeled (264WM, 7RM, and 300WM), and was all over the map anyway (QL Cap column), so that's of no use as a fudge factor.

In an effort to get a handle on it, I modeled real world data from my verified loads. Here's a table of 15 different loads, from 3 different rifles, and 4 different powders. Real case capacity (H2O) and COAL were used in QL. The real world data was collected over a year or more, across different lots and types of powder/primers/bullets so I don't think it can be explained away by "lot to lot" variance, or "all rifles are different". There's a systematic bias in QL towards dangerously high charge weights in these magnum cases.

Powder	Bullet	Real Charge	QL Charge	∆ Charge	QL FPS	Real FPS	∆ FPS	QL H2O	Real H2O	∆ H2O	% Dif
264 Win Mag
IMR8133	145 BMB	65.5	71.1	5.6	2728	2998	270	73.9	86	12.1	9%
IMR8133	145 BMB	66.0	71.83	5.8	2751	3030	279	73.6	86	12.4	9%
IMR8133	145 BMB	66.5	71.95	5.5	2773	3036	263	74.4	86	11.6	8%
H1000	147 ELDM	62.8	70.25	7.5	2720	3047	327	73.9	86	12.1	12%
H1000	143 ELDX	62.6	70.85	8.2	2722	3090	368	70.1	86	15.9	13%
IMR4064	129 SST	52.5	55.55	3.1	2907	3031	124	77.9	86	8.1	6%
RL26	147 ELDM	62.5	68.12	5.6	2862	3080	218	74.4	86	11.6	9%
RL26	147 ELDM	62.0	67.72	5.7	2842	3074	232	74.1	86	11.9	9%
7mm Rem Mag
RL26	150 TTSX	66.6	70.5	3.9	2936	3110	174	78.2	86.2	8	6%
RL26	145 LRX	67.5	72.07	4.6	2987	3195	208	77.3	86.2	8.9	7%
IMR4064	162 BTHP	52.5	55.33	2.8	2762	2874	112	76.6	84.1	7.6	5%
H1000	175 ELDX	66.3	71.52	5.2	2724	2953	229	76.2	86.2	10	8%
IMR8133	175 ELDX	70.5	74.46	4.0	2799	2974	175	78.8	86.2	7.5	6%
300 Win Mag
H1000	208 ELDM	78.3	83	4.7	2710	2882	172	88.5	97.9	9.4	6%
RL26	208 ELDM	72.0	74.13	2.13	2636	2711	75	92.8	97.9	5.1	3%

Though the data is limited, where I can find identical bullet/powder combos, QL suggests SUBSTANTIALLY higher charges than the manuals (e.g. Hornady says 64 gr max for H1000 and 147 ELDM, QL is closer to 70 gr).

What's interesting though, is that my max pressures/velocities do seem to line up with what QL suggests, just at charge weights 5-10% lower than QL. In other words, when I start seeing pressure signs in the real world, it's at a velocity that lines up with where QL says max V/P should be happening.

Anyway, wondering how well QL is working for others, and if there's some kind of strategy for setting a "fudge factor" to get it to line up closer to reality. A model that's off in "blow off your face" territory, isn't much good to me...

I've had guys that run QL run loads for me for years and I've never had a problem.

Yes, often they are higher than the books but the books are intentionally written with a large safety margin dictated by their liability lawyers.

I've used QL data to load for .260 Rem, 6.5LRM, 7mm STW, 300wm, 300RUM and for .375 Ruger particularly when I was interested in a particular powder and could not find load data for the round and bullet I was wanting to use. As of yet I have not found any of their recommended loads to give me signs I'm operating at dangerous pressures.

Caveat I'll usually start somewhere in the middle of their recommended loads and work up or down as needed to get the best accuracy and avoid pressure signs.

One of these days I'm just going to have to download it for myself I suppose but so far I haven't run out of friends willing to run them for me!

 

[entoptics]

Are you running the latest version?

One thing in your chart that stands out to me is you list "real" case capacity at 86 grains. I have PPU 264 win mag brass and Peterson and ADG 7 mag brass necked down and the highest is the Peterson at 82.2 grains. One of our scales is off. After fireforming my 264 WM with the AI case shown below it is only 87.3 grains with the PPU brass. Also why does the QL capacity shown vary so much? My is constant unless I manually adjust it

264WM brass is old Winchester, With three stout loads on them. Just now pulled one out of a box from recent range trip, and got 86.0 without being real finicky with meniscus. I'm pretty confident in the number.

The value in QL H2O is the value I had to manually input to get the real charge weight to spit out a real velocity in the modeling. So input my charge weight, then lower case capacity till QL spit out my real velocity.

That 264 WMAI is beautiful BTW.

Could you run a couple of my loads above and see if you get the same answer? You'd be within 0.040" for any 264WM or 7mm Rem at 3.33" COAL, and the 300WM loads are 3.65"

 

[jimbires]

what number are you using in the "weighting factor " ?

give these a try ;
264 win mag , .39
7 rem mag , .38


we would also need the COAL , BBL length ,

 

[Mrvmax]

I've been using QL for years and have had issues maybe one time over the years. If you are having that many issues, I suspect you are doing something incorrectly.

 

[biff's reloading]

Do you have another scale handy to double check your weight? I dont have any 7rm close to that. Some of my 338wm hold 86.
I doubt it's the issue, but it does sounds like you have a simple glitch somewhere. A high scale would drop low powder charges, which is opposite of what's happening so its probably not that, but something is up

 

[Zen Archery]

Just ran your Rem 7 Mag numbers and RL-26 isn't even a suggested powder. I then ran the 150gr, RL-26, 70.5Chg, and QL has pressured almost 64k. Your charge of 66.6gr is well within spec.

Check your nominal pressure and case capacity numbers.

 

[Earnhardt]

I've never had a problem with QL and calculations/outcomes.

From 6.5 Grendel, 300 RUM, all the way up to Smokeless Muzzle Loaders pushing bullets at ridiculous speeds

I will not design a load without QL...period.

 

[Earnhardt]

And oh ya...we need barrel length and COAL for your loads
Filling/L.R. ...or Fill ratio would also be great.
What is your Shot Start set at?

 

[Earnhardt]

I just ran your 300WM load with a 208 ELD-M and 78.3 grains of H1000 on a 26" barrel
it nearly matches what QL tells you it should be...

With a 3.752" COAL (bullet at the neck/shoulder junction)
For me QL came up with 2852 fps @ 54,925 psi at 102.6% fill ratio
QL's fps, is 30 fps less than what you're telling us...but we don't know your barrel length
30 fps is very close

And if you're saying that QL tells you to load 83 grains of H1000 with a 208 grain bullet...
that's 108.7% fill (impossible)
and it tells me output is 3031 fps @ 67,868 psi

either your COAL is off or your Shot Start is off

my Shot Start (Intitiation) Pressure: is set at the 3626 psi option

 

[Seabeeken]

QL and GRT are only predictions because every rifle is different. There are still many variables and powder burns differently in different cases. The powder model needs to be fined tuned for each rifle. Initial/start pressure is another point. Barnes for example needs a start pressure in the 6500 psi area and some Hammers are less than standard bullets. The only way to know for sure what a load is doing is to have a pressure trace system to measure pressure. Typical pressure signs are a bit dangerous since by the time they appear in the brass the load is somewhere in the 73,000 psi area. If you doubt me, try it, work up a load to pressure signs and then run the data in QL. I learned this while working with many wildcats

 

[tahoe1305]

Agree that it could be weighting factor. Which to your point is kinda a BS magical number.

I don't think QL is just a fire it up and throw some data in.

You have to validate the data with a few loads (tweaking things like weighting factor) and then the data it spits out is "more" accurate.

I've got it dialed for 6.5C and 7WSM. Albeit sometimes I don't make it all the way up to the max charge it forecasts without seeing pressure (within .5g or so). That said typically the velocity I see is exactly what it forecasts just a tad shy of the charge if that makes sense.

Other loads like 6.5G I haven't quite got nailed yet and the data doesn't match reality. So I don't use it for those.

Garbage in garbage out. Just a tool to cross check with tables and real world data.

 

[LaHunter]

I copied a post someone made of QL for 7mm rem mag / 160 grain Nosler AB bullets / RL26 powder. I used it as I guide to develop my load with this combo. It is very close to being exactly right on the money with my rifle as far as powder charge / velocities go.