Quickload?

[Treebone]

I have been reloading for 35 years, 12 for Pistol and 23 for rifle and have never needed Quickload, i have a copy and have played around with it but i prefer actual data rather then computer modelled data.

TB.

[sarge4318]

Not worth it at all.

Just post your info and the mugs that bought it will crunch your date in their Quickload and give you the answer.


But this will limit the funds the publishers have available for development of updates and new products.

[Ka-Boom!]

Not worth it at all.

Just post your info and the mugs that bought it will crunch your date in their Quickload and give you the answer.


But this will limit the funds the publishers have available for development of updates and new products.

What’s with the shitty attitude?
That’s twice you’ve called people with Quickload ‘mugs’ for helping others out.

To the OP:
Yes I have found Quickload really useful.

[sarge4318]

What’s with the shitty attitude?
That’s twice you’ve called people with Quickload ‘mugs’ for helping others out.

To the OP:
Yes I have found Quickload really useful.

You have bought Quickload and supported the company, their development of the product and possibly helped fund upgrades/updates and new products. Very commendable.

Those that haven't bought it want to benefit from the development without contributing to the cost and in the process making it more expensive for the likes of you who have done the right thing by buying it.

[Rickee]

You have bought Quickload and supported the company, their development of the product and possibly helped fund upgrades/updates and new products. Very commendable.

Those that haven't bought it want to benefit from the development without contributing to the cost and in the process making it more expensive for the likes of you who have done the right thing by buying it.

On that basis you could say the same thing goes for all software.
I use it to give me a line in the sand when changing components. No more, no less.

[Army-medic]

You have bought Quickload and supported the company, their development of the product and possibly helped fund upgrades/updates and new products. Very commendable.

Those that haven't bought it want to benefit from the development without contributing to the cost and in the process making it more expensive for the likes of you who have done the right thing by buying it.

As previously mentioned; not everybody has a windows operating system which means we can’t buy it if we
Wanted to. I would buy a copy tomorrow but not a PC/Laptop just to use quickload.

I guess any ‘free’ advice or assistance is mug-worthy 🙄...

[Parabuteo]

I have had the odd bit of input from people with it, but as usual end up doing tests as much as if I had not go the info.

Sadly it cant tell you the individual variations and quirks of your setup which puts me very firmly in the "Test shoot and record" camp, and the same goes for electronic targets. I have seen too many people left washed up because they tested and established zeros on ETs that were not correctly calibrated.

I can see it having a use for fast establishment of an arbitrary safe start loads, but then you can get that from the powder manufacturers data and apply a bit of common sense/experience. I can see it being usefull IF you were developing loads from scratch for a lot of different rifles but even then. Its what people want I guess.

A recent example was a colleague banging on about a certain manufacturer not having info for a 155 but they had it for a 168. I just pointed out that if he used the 168 data with the lighter bullet he should have as good a safe start as any, which is what I did, and cracked load testing with 3 different bullets in an hour or so. OK, I was fixed for COAL as the rifle was mag fed, silly velocities were not a requirement, and sub 1 MOA was perfectly good enough for the application. I was shooting with a 4x scope mag rested anyway so sub 1MOA is perfectly good enough.

Like most things, its what you are happy with but personally, holes in paper win out for me

[223AI]

I have had the odd bit of input from people with it, but as usual end up doing tests as much as if I had not go the info.

Sadly it cant tell you the individual variations and quirks of your setup which puts me very firmly in the "Test shoot and record" camp, and the same goes for electronic targets. I have seen too many people left washed up because they tested and established zeros on ETs that were not correctly calibrated.

I can see it having a use for fast establishment of an arbitrary safe start loads, but then you can get that from the powder manufacturers data and apply a bit of common sense/experience. I can see it being usefull IF you were developing loads from scratch for a lot of different rifles but even then. Its what people want I guess.

A recent example was a colleague banging on about a certain manufacturer not having info for a 155 but they had it for a 168. I just pointed out that if he used the 168 data with the lighter bullet he should have as good a safe start as any, which is what I did, and cracked load testing with 3 different bullets in an hour or so. OK, I was fixed for COAL as the rifle was mag fed, silly velocities were not a requirement, and sub 1 MOA was perfectly good enough for the application. I was shooting with a 4x scope mag rested anyway so sub 1MOA is perfectly good enough.

Like most things, its what you are happy with but personally, holes in paper win out for me

It does come in very handy for cartridges that don't have any or a great deal of load data for such as my .223 AI or my 25-45 sharps, to inform both best powders and safe start loads. (Thanks Guesty for all your help on both of those)

[Parabuteo]

What’s with the shitty attitude?
That’s twice you’ve called people with Quickload ‘mugs’ for helping others out.

To the OP:
Yes I have found Quickload really useful.

Yep, nothing wrong with that, not for me but why not help a colleague