anyone use quickload?

[mapper]

Just wondering if anyone used it and what their thoughts were about it.
While it won't take the place of a manual or load inffo from powder mfg's it would steer in the right direction and offer some insights on good choices for component selection.

http://www.6mmbr.com/quickload.html

[Johnny]

I have never used it but I will tell you that if you are using serria bullets they have a toll free number byou can all an get help from a ballistics eng.

[mapper]

Johnny,
Thanks for the reply
I have the sierra book, and use their bullets, it is a good format. I have never called them, but the number is on the first page of the book. I like that they give velocities and best accuracy and hunting loads.

Mainly wondered if quickload would give good data based on seating depths, and diffrences in powder mfg.
So i other words if I have a load that is in lc brass, varget powder, sierra 77 mk, seated with .100 jump or .020 jump, known velocity, what would be very similar if I changed to reloder 15..

Those kinds of questions. Yes I know I can load some up and shoot them to see what they will do, but if I have a little forecast of what may be better, I would concentrate on that.

[Airgator0470]

Johnny,
Thanks for the reply
I have the sierra book, and use their bullets, it is a good format. I have never called them, but the number is on the first page of the book. I like that they give velocities and best accuracy and hunting loads.

Mainly wondered if quickload would give good data based on seating depths, and diffrences in powder mfg.
So i other words if I have a load that is in lc brass, varget powder, sierra 77 mk, seated with .100 jump or .020 jump, known velocity, what would be very similar if I changed to reloder 15..

Those kinds of questions. Yes I know I can load some up and shoot them to see what they will do, but if I have a little forecast of what may be better, I would concentrate on that.

Too many variables... you will have to go hands on with a practical application to get the answer IMO. I think it's best at estimating velocity... but I don't know, never used it, just hear people referring to it for start load data with different powders.

ADDED- it mentions bullet seating depth estimates are "crude", in other words... a rough guess.

[Rumbler]

Too many variables... you will have to go hands on with a practical application to get the answer IMO. I think it's best at estimating velocity... but I don't know, never used it, just hear people referring to it for start load data with different powders.

ADDED- it mentions bullet seating depth estimates are "crude", in other words... a rough guess.

I apologize. This is a topic twist but in my opinion a fascinating one, and that reminded me I wanted to point it out.

300 BLK
20.2gr H110
110gr Barns TTX (.30 caliber)

Called Barnes because the data I could find did not specifically mention that bullet, it was for the TAC-X. Barnes said to use the TAC-X data. Specifically including the COAL.

Tried that. didn't work ~at all~. The "top" of the boat tail was dead level with the top of the case. Nothing to get a crimp on, not enough full diameter bullet in the case to even try and kid myself it *might* not need a crimp.


So, I did a little measurin.

I was keenly aware that the powder charge was right at where the case neck starts at the top of the taper from the case body. I don't like compressed loads. It has been my experience that pressure goes UP exponentially and even a few flakes of powder can make a noticeable difference in pressure and thus velocity.

So I did a little measuring of exactly how much room there was between very carefully measured powder charges and the top of the case. I considered this my absolute rock bottom - bottom line for bullet seating depth.

I made three rounds seating at the top edge of the bottom driving band on the bullet.

I made three more rounds seating the bullets at the top edge of the middle driving band. Which by the way measured EXACTLY at my bottom line bullet seating depth.

I crimped all six rounds the same, and took off over to the range.


The longer coal cartridges had 250-300 FPS more velocity than the shorter coal cartridges.

As a side note; the longer COAL velocity put me dead nuts on the projected velocity; 2450 FPS. So given that I was so happy I kinda forgot about the shorter COAL actually losing velocity. Until Bob reminded me about coal being a 'rough guess'.

Strange stuff indeed . . . .