The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

ovenpaa wrote:I use it on a weekly basis and for theoretical work and it gives some useful information albeit the later versions are even more sanitised than the original.

Quick question if you don't mind,

If used as you have stated, i.e. for theoretical load development (which is what I want it for) is it worth the price?

I don't object to the price IF the data it produces is useful.

It depends on how often you are going to use it. If you are going to stop with a .308 with a 155 grain bullet then possibly not however if you need to know base data for a several rifles and are curious about subtle revisions and changes to load data or even significant steps to different powder bullet combinations then it is very handy. Thinking about it, my copy is probably used closer to 2-3 times per week and often for obscure stuff so I find it a lot quicker than searching for internet 'knowledge' Load manuals/reloading books are an alternative however by the time you have 4-5 books you have could have paid for QL which would give you access to many more combinations and infinite variations.

As an example a new rifle comes into the house and it is obscure, an American forum tells me to use 'xyz' powder which I cannot easily get so I load the cartridge in QL and the add the powders I do have or can easily get to see if I have anything suitable. As with manuals an understanding and some experience of reloading is equally important when using QL.

I would not be without it.... yes it is only for 'modelling' but you need to take the loads in official manuals with a small pinch of salt until proven in your own gun.

Its worth the money.

"albeit the later versions are even more sanitised than the original" Ovenpaa how so?

I have versions from 3.0 to 3.6 and on like for like comparisons V3.6 shows slightly higher pressures. My view is pressures are bumped so shooters load slightly lower to reduce risk to the shooter and author.

Just my opinion.

Sanitising is interesting. I have Speer reloading manuals 11 to 14 and to cite one example, picked at random, the top load for the 7x57 Mauser in the 11th., edition and using IMR 4831 and the 160 grain Grand Slam bullet is 49 grains giving an mv of 2616 fps.; in edition 14 the load is 48 grains with an mv of 2548 fps. What has happened over the years 1987, when 11 was published and 2007, when 14 was first published? Any ideas?

Litigation is my guess.

"Litigation" Actual, or just the threat. Do we know of any accidents when someonw was following the letter of the loads?

Fear of litigation is what I meant, I have a feeling the product has has some safety margins added to try and minimise the risk of catastrophic failures during reloading based on QL data. The product is full of warnings however people will and do disregard these and insist on running excessive pressures. F/TR is a very good example, an F/TR shooter with loads of less than 62k based on his QL data will be in a minority with many choosing to run significantly higher pressures bordering on insane levels.

I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of up to date bulet profiles for quick load to include newer bullets such as the 2156 155gr SMK? I have found some profiles online, but nothing seems to go past about 2008.