Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Quickload

  1. #1

    Quickload

    Having read other people's reviews on Quickload I decided that I would give it a go. I justified it on the basis of 1/2 tub powder and 100 heads would cost the same and it it could save me that and time I would give it a go.
    Load data for my rifle and once fired brass and barrel showed a charge of 39.4 and then 41.3 grains of h4895 with my tipped match kings as acureacy nodes using the optimal barrel time theory. Takes a bit of work to get all measurements exact to enter it into Quickload for reliable results.
    Must say I was a bit dubious as but gave it a go, loaded a round at intervals to check for pressure. Here are the results. 3 shot groups at 39.4, 41.3 and above loads 100 yard .308. Not bad for a factory .308 tikka 20" barrel rifle.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by rwade545 View Post
    Having read other people's reviews on Quickload I decided that I would give it a go. I justified it on the basis of 1/2 tub powder and 100 heads would cost the same and it it could save me that and time I would give it a go.
    Load data for my rifle and once fired brass and barrel showed a charge of 39.4 and then 41.3 grains of h4895 with my tipped match kings as acureacy nodes using the optimal barrel time theory. Takes a bit of work to get all measurements exact to enter it into Quickload for reliable results.
    Must say I was a bit dubious as but gave it a go, loaded a round at intervals to check for pressure. Here are the results. 3 shot groups at 39.4, 41.3 and above loads 100 yard .308. Not bad for a factory .308 tikka 20" barrel rifle.
    And a quick internet search would have revealed that Federal's Gold Match 168grain load is 41.5 grains of H4895 and a Match King. ~Muir

  3. #3
    Heads
    (The Unspeakable In Pursuit Of The Uneatable.) " If I can help, I will help!." Former S.A.C.S. member!

  4. #4
    41.5g with a 168grain match, not the 175 grain tipped matchking which had a longer bearing surface and different profile to the match kings and they are loaded to Sami spec 2.800 col not 2.900 like I have. So 2 very different bullets. At 2.80 from memory it was about 41 grains.
    The federal gold 175 appear to be reloaded with re-15 or imr 4064 which was not what I was using.
    was just showing it as an example of what can be achieved with the software in my experience for those that might be considering it.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by rwade545 View Post
    41.5g with a 168grain match, not the 175 grain tipped matchking which had a longer bearing surface and different profile to the match kings and they are loaded to Sami spec 2.800 col not 2.900 like I have. So 2 very different bullets. At 2.80 from memory it was about 41 grains.
    The federal gold 175 appear to be reloaded with re-15 or imr 4064 which was not what I was using.
    was just showing it as an example of what can be achieved with the software in my experience for those that might be considering it.
    And I was just poking fun at a computer modeling program for internal ballistics at a time when so much actual, physically obtained objective data is available from the manufacturers of the powder in question. It's all well and good, but your result is one example. There are many instances where Quick Load has fallen short of being the Oracle that some people think it is. If I want a load, I go to the manufacturer. What Quick load is good for is when you are in a completely unexplored territory involving a radical wildcat. Like the old Powley Computer, it can give you starting options.

    Where I got the idea you were talking 168 grain bullets is beyond me. Sorry. FWIW, US government specifies 4064 for the 175 grain match loads. ~Muir

  6. #6
    I agree there is a lot of data for .308 out there, these are a relitively new bullet head so not as much. Also short barrel so wanting fast powders.
    With my .22-250 and 52 grain a max I also have 3 shot touching groups using the data.
    I always work up to it and load a few .2 to .4 grain each side to find most accurate.
    For those of us who can only get to the range once a month it saved me a lot of time.
    Mall the best

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by finnbear270 View Post
    Heads
    People who don't know the difference between a Royal Navy toilet & a bullet
    Blaser K95 Luxus Kipplaufbüchse .25-06Rem. Zeiss 8x56, 110gn Nosler Accubond = Game Over!

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by rwade545 View Post
    I agree there is a lot of data for .308 out there, these are a relitively new bullet head so not as much. Also short barrel so wanting fast powders.
    With my .22-250 and 52 grain a max I also have 3 shot touching groups using the data.
    I always work up to it and load a few .2 to .4 grain each side to find most accurate.
    For those of us who can only get to the range once a month it saved me a lot of time.
    Mall the best
    And I have plenty of rifles that get three shots and more touching without ever having consulted Quickload. Even Quickload's instructions say to consult factory data before using theirs....~Muir

  9. #9
    Muir thats great for yourself. I have used this to show that in MY experience and MY opinion it was worth while. Shows that it can be a worth while exercise and I got good results. Yes it costs to start but I feel over a few calibre it has saved me in money any time.

    Yes i I consult factory data but Hodgdon say 40-42.7 grain for the hollow point ( different billet) and Sierra don't give for h4895 so technically no data and would be guessing. Along with the time, powder and heads to ladder test and information is at factory col.
    I could have loaded in small increases and hoped it was consistent. The fact that I was most accurate at load that was most accurate on data helps me to have confidence that it probably is with out too much load development.

    You ou load and develop you loads how you want, I will load mine how I want to.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by rwade545 View Post
    Muir thats great for yourself. I have used this to show that in MY experience and MY opinion it was worth while. Shows that it can be a worth while exercise and I got good results. Yes it costs to start but I feel over a few calibre it has saved me in money any time.

    Yes i I consult factory data but Hodgdon say 40-42.7 grain for the hollow point ( different billet) and Sierra don't give for h4895 so technically no data and would be guessing. Along with the time, powder and heads to ladder test and information is at factory col.
    I could have loaded in small increases and hoped it was consistent. The fact that I was most accurate at load that was most accurate on data helps me to have confidence that it probably is with out too much load development.

    You ou load and develop you loads how you want, I will load mine how I want to.
    Don't get so testy. You are free to load whatever way you want using whatever data you choose from which ever source you find. I'm glad it works for you but that still won't keep me from making the intellectual argument that seeking data from a computer modeling unit is neither as fast, nor as reliable, as getting it from the maker who spends an extensive amount of time testing, and retesting, the specific product.
    For what it's worth: Same bullet weight, Same composition? Use the starting charge weight you do have data for whether it be Sierra, Hornady, Speer or whatever. Some loading manuals don't even list makes: just bullet weights. And when they do list a bullet weight, it is usually for informational purposes unless the composition warrants different data. Do you really think that a powder maker lists a (say) Hornady 168 grain AMAX with their data knowing that people who shoot Sierra Match King 168's will go elsewhere for propellant? They wouldn't stay in business long. ~Muir

Similar Threads

  1. Quickload
    By finnbear270 in forum Ammunition, Reloading & Ballistics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 26-08-2014, 19:35
  2. Anyone got quickload ??
    By 223 in forum Ammunition, Reloading & Ballistics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-05-2013, 08:56
  3. QuickLoad
    By 247sniper in forum Ammunition, Reloading & Ballistics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 30-09-2012, 20:04
  4. Quickload
    By RichardP in forum Ammunition, Reloading & Ballistics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 25-06-2012, 06:34

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •