Quickload

rwade545

Well-Known Member
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. :)
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
Emailed Sierra about 30 cal TMK left phone number, about 20 minutes later they called back and told me for the 30s just to sub TMK with SMK data. 6.5 TMK use starting load for 140 can't sub data. Didn't ask about others.
 
Emailed Sierra about 30 cal TMK left phone number, about 20 minutes later they called back and told me for the 30s just to sub TMK with SMK data. 6.5 TMK use starting load for 140 can't sub data. Didn't ask about others.

I contacted Viht (as I use their powders) to ask advice for the 223 TMKs and am waiting for the outcome as they are due to update their load data tables and have run a FB thing asking for feedback on what reloading data would be welcomed. I mentioned the seating depth variances when comparing MK data to TMK data to them.

I was wary of using the same loads/seating data for TMKs as for the MKs principally as the seating depths are greater for the longer TMK bullets which will affect pressures. Someone kindly ran a QL model for me and suggested that the loads developed for my rifle were "dangerous" on pressure, but after ladder testing I got no pressure signs. I did, however, drop the loads by almost a grain to the next accuracy node found as my testing was in cooler conditions and didn't account for changes between powder batches for burn rates. In my rifle, the TMKs gave the most accurate (repeatable) groups I've ever shot (sub 0.2 inch with some at just 0.13 inches) when seated surprisingly far back. Coincidentally, this corresponded to the Viht OAL for the MK bullets. From what I've learnt so far, and FWIW, I would always back off the loads a little from what is recommended for the MKs when using the TMKs until there's more data available.
 
Don't know about 223s didn't ask this was for 30cal. I just don't understand why people don't consult the company that made the bullet.
 
Last edited:
muir, Have you had a bad experience with Quickload? have you used it?Manufactured give a range,It is there to account for multiple variables and have inbuilt user error.
i get pressure signs at 40.5grain of h4895 with Berger otm 175 in virgin brass, but can easily shoot 42.5 with the Sierra tmk. And if using fire formed brass can use 41.5 grain with the Berger with no pressure, this is above the reccomended of 41grains. so as I have said I have used this to tailor a load to myself which for myself With a narrower set of parameters.

i have found it faster then emailing manufactured for reference ranges, different load books have different data. Same bullet weight can be very different bullets- different length and therefore bearing surfaces, changing friction coefficients and not to mention slight changes in composition affection friction too! A soft jacket target bullet will be different to a think jacket big game round and very different to an all copper bullet. People report the tmk shoot at a significantly higher velocity compared to the smk- they are longer, compress volume and therefore load space more and therefore change ballistics with higher pressures. Sierra say that they have not changed the reccomended data as they expect people to start as a low load and build it up safely.

i am using the what I have available to help myself develop loads. My intellectual argument is that data provided is not specific as you have pointed out and is there to account for multiple variables. I am using a computer program to help make a load and understand my components- much like yourself who is using computer searches and information available to yourself.

Anyway as I keep saying -This is MY OPINION, not telling people to go out and buy it, not telling people to use my data not saying I work as an explosion tech, not that I am a reloading/ bullet design expert. It has helped myself to understand ballistics, how changes can affect pressures and reasons why people may say things.

I am happy with how it has worked for myself and will continue to use it to help myself tailor a load to my needs.

 
Last edited:
Don't know about 223s didn't ask this was for 30cal. I just don't understand why people don't consult the company that made the bullet.

Because the people that make the powder didn't agree in this case, and nor did Quickload which was the point and I believe it was explained in detail why this might be the case ;). The OP raised QL as being useful in such circumstances, which it is. Mind, it does seem to be a "ball-park" type model and cannot, for example, account for different barrels where some for the same given length and twist may give rise to higher pressures for other reasons (also resulting in different pressures than modelled) and it's not always that close on velocities. Had some QL predictions provided for some 155g 30 cal MKs last week and QL predicted velocities which were 100fps greater than what I was getting (checked on chrony). It does seem to err on the side of caution but this is perhaps a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Did you stop to think Sierra omitted that powder because they saw a problem with it.


But they have not omitted that powder. They simply do not have the data for that TMK in the 5th edition load data. Going back to a previous point, recommending the same load data as for the equivalent weight MKs I think is not a wise suggestion at the same COAL due to the deeper seating of the TMK. It might be fine at your load, it might not. As all data is just a guide, working your own loads up is the only way to be sure anyway.
 
Last edited:
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

Give it up Muir, that's far too sensible to follow.

rwade545,I would suggest your grouping has as much to do with the rifle and your eyesight as QL. Those groups are achievable with factory bullets out of the Tikka.
Re-reading your opening paragraph, how much time did you save using QL? No criticism intended we all do it the way we see fit and hope to pass the good bits on to those who might need it...

Reloading is positively addictive, we all use different toys, some spend more time and money than others. Depends on how many rounds and calibers you choose to shoot.
I only load for two calibers, Sierra and Hodgdon, being my choice. I use a Lee SSP, hand load my primers and follow the manufacturer's advice.
At the end of the day we mostly achieve the same result,starting on the safe side and working it till we get it to our satisfaction. Nothing better than seeing your own endeavors hit the target with good groups or DRT with no suffering. john
 
No critism taken,
measuring case volume, barrel length etc took me 15-20 min to do and recheck a few times and few minutes on Quickload and then cross checking with a reloading manually to make sure I was close to factory ranges. Most accurate were at Quickload predicted which was all I was trying to show. will shoot them more to see if grouping hold at longer ranges.

saved me range time and helped me find a node. Range I have access to is 100yard so can not do a ladder test.
can only make it to the range once a month due to work family etc. I have done targets loading .2-.3 across the range and then smaller imcreases at what were the best groups to try and tune it- but that is a few range trips so a few months for myself. QL helps my concentrate around certain loads.

With factory ammo in my rifles I get just under Moa as advertised, ppu shoots about 2-3 inch groups tho, both thier 178 and 145grain fmj :( but is ok in my .22-250.

Very satisfying when when you start getting tight groupings and the results you wanted.
 
Back
Top