Handloading websites

[Pond, James Pond]

I see references to things like Quickload (if that is the name) and I seem to recall another too but what the name might be escapes me.

I also think some of them are subscription sites.

I might be tempted to sub-up as my component combinations never seem to be listed and my start and max loads always end up being a mixture of educated guess-work and prayer...

Can you recommend me some?

And in doing so could you tell me if there is much data for Vihtavuori and H&N bullets too as they are my most common bits, but not the only ones.

[WIL TERRY]

WHICH reloading manuals do you own, Sir ?

[Pond, James Pond]

Right now I have the Lyman 49th, a thin and somewhat old VihtaVuori manual which has the calibers I need, just not masses of bullet choices. I have a scanned VihtaVuori manual similar to the one above, but more detailed: 3rd edition. There are a few differences between the two VV manuals.

Aside from that I rely on the Lapua website for data and, of course, TFL!!

[pgdion]

Most of my info has come from searches here and on TheHighRoad (thehighroad.org) and I've also used www.gunloads.com (I like their printable targets).

I usually create a spread sheet and tally up powders to see what is the consensus on best powder for a given cartridge and I also record the minimum load I see, the maximum I see and then (more important) the lower end and the upper end of the common loadings. That usually gives me a really good starting point from which I can pick the best first loads to try. After that, I use the same spreadsheet to enter in my own results.

- phil

[GJSchulze]

Quickload is a software product that goes for about US $150. Given parameters of the gun, bullet, and case it will calculate the pressure curve for any powder as well as velocity and recoil, among other things.

[Pond, James Pond]

Quickload sounds like an investment worth considering.

Has anyone used it? Is it a reliable resource?

[GJSchulze]

I have it and like it, but my use is limited to 9mm and tweaking my loads. The muzzle velocity was pretty close to the ones I chrono'd. It should be good for finding other powders you might want to try. Some people will say you shouldn't use it in place of a load manual, but given the differences in data between manuals for the same round, I would say you're safe if you use it to find minimum loads to start at. It's very detailed; you can even input case volume by weighing the water the case will hold. It has a data for a lot of bullets and powders and will let you enter your own data for bullets and cases.

Details and ordering here:
http://www.neconos.com/details3.htm

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

[Sevens]

Quickload is an extremely power piece of software that does ridiculous math equations and simulations. Frankly, I think it is absolutely amazing.

However, I haven't found it in me to justify the cost. Part of that is because it is (admittedly) not quite as good with straight-wall handguns rounds and it seems to be far more on-target with bottle neck rifle rounds, and I'm like 98% in to handgun stuff.

However, no matter WHAT you do at your bench, Quickload is simply not a published source of load data. It's a software simulator. Without referencing actual, confirmed TEST DATA (which is was what published load data is...), you are taking a genuine risk by using numbers spit out by Quickload to build handloads. In fact, it's far more likely that you will have botched one of the (NUMEROUS!) data entry points that helped Quickload to create the result that it spits at you. So unless you can double-check what Quickload says, using it as a source for building loads is not a very good idea.

My first source for checking the sanity of some handload I wish to build is to dig through my log and see if I've built it before, or built something with the same powder and bullet weight. So I check and see if I'd done it and what my results were.

My next source is published load data from the company that distributes and markets the powder. For me, that's going to be Alliant, Hodgdon or Western Powders (Accurate.) Those are the only three powder companies I use. I see what they offer online first... Hodgdon is *BY FAR* the best in this regard, Alliant is craptastic but at least it's quick, and Accurate's online load data is merely a .pdf of their printed guide.

My second source is printed booklets from the same folks, but with these... I can go back years. In some cases... I can go back [u]many[/y] years. I have some of these going back to the late 1980s.

My third source are third-party load manuals such as the Lyman 48 & 49, the Nosler 6, the Speer#11. Those last two aren't much help. The Nosler is spiffy for rifle and lousy for handgun. The Speer#11 is wildly out-dated.

[GJSchulze]

Part of that is because it is (admittedly) not quite as good with straight-wall handguns rounds

This is the second time I've heard this. Do you have a reference for this?

Also, if it is so powerful and such a good simulator, why isn't it accurate enough to trust for loads? Or would you say that for any give powder, if it matches your chronometer, then for that powder (only) it's safe to trust.

The data it uses for powder to calculate pressures (and therefore for everything else) must come from test data, probably from the manufacturer unless the guy tested each one himself. Given how much published load data varies, if you use the load that produces a power factor of 125 perhaps it could be safe. They both take a test of a powder performed with a single set of physical parameters and then apply it to all cases. At least QL lets you customize the physical parameters to your own brass, bullet, and gun. Having said that, I'd want to look at one published load data for a sanity check.

[Sevens]

Also, if it is so powerful and such a good simulator, why isn't it accurate enough to trust for loads?

My argument is that there are -SO MANY- data entry points, it's literally giving the ham-fisted operator many, many, MANY chances to screw himself over backwards when the operator enters something in error. And it's still a piece of software that makes a bunch of calculations, it simply cannot replace published data.

Published data isn't some entities "ideas" of what you should try...
Instead, it the result of testing in a laboratory environment.

It's a mindblowing tool and I think it's amazing that someone could write such software. But it's not published load data, so I personally won't skip or alter that step in my process.

These are simply my thoughts on the subject.

[Pond, James Pond]

But it's not published load data, so I personally won't skip or alter that step in my process.

I'd agree with that and I would still strive to find data somewhere to support my available components for at least an idea of min-max charges and OAL consistency.

However, those are again only an idea, and not published data for my components.

This will soon be my situation again: I will get my 100 330gr Hunters Supply hard casts, my S&B or Starline brass, Fiocchi standard LP primers and N110: no one's going to have that exact combination on here, regrettably!!

The same happened with my 275gr bullet loads. Luckily a member suggested a target load that was almost spot-on my velocity requirements so it saved a bit of time and materials, but for that first shot, I'm always shooting through scrunched-up eyes, anticipating some cataclysm!

In the case of the 330s, I'm already guessing at a start load of about 17.5/18gr N110 but I have found 330gr data nowhere!! Annoying...