Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Loading Software

Please share your experience with the reloading / ballistic software you use.
I have both RCBS.Load and Load from a Disk.
My computer skills are OK and I nave been reloading for years but I am far from an expert or professional.
The RCBS.Load has better graphing capabilities for trajectory which I find excellent, but other than that I find it very difficult to use. It also does not handle light and small projectiles like the 17 cal I shoot. If the wind speed is over 3mph the chart goes wacky. Excellent Point blank range calculation and graphing. I have never been able to master most of the features of the software especially the 'Construct User Load Data' or the save your own work feature which I wanted the most. It also has a very poor selection of powder and bullet information for the cost (IMO). Additional reloading manuals can be added for a hefty cost even if you already own the hard copy. The user manuals are thorough but very technical and difficult to understand.
Load from a disk is my favorite except for graphing and charting which is terrible. I usually do my work on LFAD and then reload it into RCBS.Load for graphing and printing. At least I can save my work with LFAD.
What do you use and would you buy it again?

Of the dozen or more ballistics programs that I've used over since about 1982 (including the two cited above), my two favorites � by a wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide margin � are Hartmut Br�mel's QuickLOAD and Ken Oehler's Ballistics Explorer. With these two, I need no other. I use 'em often, in research and study for both load-development and writing.

I'll second Ken's vote for the QuickLoad package, which includes QuickTARGET, the part you seem more interested in at the moment. I just ran on it the 17 cal example you mentioned, at 15 mph, with no hiccups. Actually, despite having owned it for about 5 years, I never realized until now it could make plots. I find the tables more informative. The only reason I can see to make a plot is to compare two trajectories, and I don't believe QT will overlay two runs for you. I see it does offer to store the tabulated data in spreadsheet format, and once there you could do so. Regardless, QT does everything I've ever wanted to do with trajectories, and I see now it will also compute BC for you given downrange velocity (chronograph) data you input, which I might play with in the future.

A fellow who goes by the initials JBM has several free on-line calculators, and one of these should do some very thorough calculations for you. Although it won't matter at shorter ranges, JBM's calculator will use drag curves different than the ones commonly assumed. Unfortunately, it's not easy to come by the drag coefficients needed for these alternate drag curves.

Before too long, I'll have a free, basic trajectory calculator on my site, but it won't be able to do plots. Some thoughts on the internal ballistics portions of some of the available software packages are here.

Vince,
I use RCBS Load and like it quite a bit. It did require quite a bit of use to feel comfortable with some of the features.
I just plugged in the numbers for the 20-gr Hornady V-Max at 2950 fps. I was using 2,000 ft elev. And a 3� target circle. I used a 300 yard range with the zero at 100 yards and a 100 yard sight in distance. I plugged in a 14 mph cross wind and everything looks good.
What figures were you using? I�ll try them out.
I graph my loads by fps per grain of powder and compare different powders and look for a break over point on the chart as velocity increases. This seems like a very good feature to me and I find it pretty easy to use.
The external ballistics generator as you said is great.
I don�t have any problem saving my data but I generally use a spread sheet as I am more comfortable with excel and I am able to make up a graph quickly right from my spread sheet.
I am certain you already know this but: Greg Mushial wrote RCBS Load and you can update your program through his web site and ask him questions on operating the program. I needed LOTS of help when I started with the program � version 2 from a floppy and he pointed me in the right direction.
I now use Target Tool for all my group measurements and store all of my targets in RCBS Load. A very nice feature.
Contact Greg at:

http://www.gmdr.com/

I reviewed a bunch of them a few years ago. Most of them no longer available. I had a love/hate thing with that early version of RCBS Load, too, although I gave it an overall high mark in comparison to some others. (They still use my quote, I note!)

Today, I use Load From a Disk and Oehler's Ballistic Explorer. I'd love to try QuickLoad, because it does a few things LFD won't. Maybe I'll rub elbows with those folks at SHOT...

Rocky, are there any other programs available besides RCBS Load that scan targets and measure groups?

Oh geez. Yes, now that you mention it. I had one some time back that did just that by using a scanner. But that was two hard-drive crashes ago, and I doubt I still have a backup for it anywhere. But now that you've tinkled my little brain bell, I'll go a-lookin' fer it!

The Target Tool function � target scanner, is one of three functions that is really good about RCBS Load.
The other two are the Cartridge Designer and the external ballistics generator.
If I did not have about all of the older reloading manuals for reference they would be a plus too. Having acess to the wildcat reloading books from Speer is a pretty good thing.

Do any of the loading programs support Mac?

Ahh, but the question should be, does MAC support any loading programs?

As it is the product of severely liberal, limp-wristed, Birkenstock-wearing, kumbaya-chanting, lisping wusses - I'd guess not.

RockyRaab....
Are you insulting me or just my choice of computer? You certainly weren't answering my question. Or have PC's joined McMillan as the official, real deal, here on the Campfire. I hadn't heard.

Will any of the reloading programs run on a Mac? Thanks.

EG,

I have not found any that do natively however I do run a virtual windows (Vista) machine on my laptop using Parallels and any windows apps should run just fine that way. I use it for Visio and Project that do not have Mac equivalents.

Allen

No,no. Not insulting you at all, or your choice. I said the MAC is the product of, etc. Meaning that the left-coasters who design the machine and most of its software are hardly likely to create "gun stuff" software.

So, as far as I know, there isn't any. Hope that's clear now.

Thank, Pugs.
My machine is one of the Intell/duo-core variety, so I could load Windows to run ballistics software. For now,though, I'll do without. The vast majority of hackers and virus designers prefer PC's, so I try to avoid Windows. Just my humble opinion.

I use several reloading programs and I am more than happy to give my opinion�

RCBS.Load
This is more of Load Tracker than a load Simulator. The thing I like the best is it�s graph ability. If you put the expected or proven velocity and corresponding powder charge, it will graph it for you. Then if you �track� the graph with your mouse it will give you the pelosity at any point along the graph.
Also you can purchase and install �online versions of many popular Load manuals.

Load from a Disk
This is a Load simulator and will give you the �projected� velocity and pressure for given bullet Manufacture, and weight.
On the down side it is fairly limited with the selection of powders� and will �preselect� the list of powders you can use.
More on the down side� It is blind to Primers and brass configurations

QuickLoad
This is a Load simulator and will give you the �projected� velocity and pressure for given bullet Manufacture, and weight.
I like this a little better than Load From A Disk, it has a much wider selection of Powders to choose from and will not offer a subset of acceptable powders.
In my view it suffers from the same problems of Primer and Case �blindness�.


All and all I like Load Manuals better

Load manuals at least report loads that were actually fired. Software uses a set of presumed algorithms that model some but not all aspects of internal ballistics, and then use those rather broadly constructed algorithms to "predict" likely outcomes of velocity and pressure.

If all that seems a bit "iffy" - it is.

Still, it can be entertaining to "testfire" hypothetical wildcat cartridges, or to generate Start-level combinations for loads not found in the books. But I wouldn't bet my eyesight on any software program's predictions. Useful, yes. Definitive, no.

Related to my WTOD threads, this is an algorithm:

global warming is human caused
global warming is human caused
global warming is human caused

A test rifle is one rifle � just one � whether it's yours or the one that was used to produce the load data in a certain manual. The algorithms have been derived from carefully measured data obtained from thousands of rifles and millions of rounds. There's no way to tell in advance where the data from one rifle will fall on the bell curve that formed the basis for the algorithms. Only a shooting test can tell you this kind of data.

The algorithms explain the body or bulk of the bell, not the flange or "toe" at either side, where the data from a single very unusual test rifle may happen to fall � very unusually slow or very unusually fast. The algorithms can predict with amazing accuracy (within surprisingly narrow tolerances), but the final word or "bottom line" is of course always the individual rifle (which is far more likely to be typical than atypical � and very unlikely to be wildly atypical).

If QuickLOAD's algorithms predict a muzzle velocity of, say, 3,050 ft/sec, your rifle is very unlikely to give you velocities of 2,500 or 3,500 ft/sec with that load. Most of the chronographed loads that I've run through QuickLOAD have agreed within fifty ft/sec, and some have even agreed within ten ft/sec. One QuickLOAD result repeated the chronographed average for that load exactly (of course, I don't consider this to be the norm for QuickLOAD).

I've never gotten agreement as close as these with any manual.

Or an Al Gore ism, thaid with a lithp.

Puns aside (as reluctant as I am to make that shove) reloading software is indeed amazingly good, given the vagaries of all the variables involved. I was discussing just that on the phone with another poster just a few hours ago, and we agreed that it's darn near a miracle that a rifle can shoot even two shots within hailing distance of each other, given the thousands of conflicting and complicating things that happen during each and every shot.


(wow, the writer in me wans to spend time improving THAT run-on sentence. But not now.)