I had a partial case head separation using a 1.8oz buffer

[LRRPF52]

Page 4, post 71. You guys and your hate for quickload and immediate dismissiveness is a bit unfounded if you know how to use the tools appropriately. We all know where "in the curve" we should see the gas port. Regardless of what any number software says, it's relative position is the clue since peak pressure is already known. We are keyboard theorists and can never determine with absolute certainty the case of failure, but we can use ALL of the tools available to get to the same conclusion faster with lack of additional evidence. In cases for load development, I have recently experienced both published load, quickload, and verified from others load involving TAC. If I fif not have my magnetospeed attached, I would have happily shot everything instead of stopping to say wtf. This was for .223 remington, where software and published loads should be most refined.

I dont trust the software with absolute certainty as I know these cases exist, but to say it's useless is simply not true. It has its uses (especially quicktarget) when applied appropriately.

I don’t have any emotions about QuickLoad. I just recognize that the developer(s) never had 6.5 Grendel pressure trace data with a test breech, and that their generated peak and subsequent down-barrel pressure levels are starting with peak pressured that are 9,000-13,000psi different from actual calibrated test breeches with this cartridge.

So not only are the chamber pressure models invalid and not useful, but the predicted port pressure values are way off too.

If you took available test breech data and programmed it into QL for 6.5 Grendel, as well as down-barrel piezoelectric measurements, and generated a nice data set that way, then QL/6.5 Grendel would be very useful for this cartridge. Whatever modeling they have in the program is basically useless though and invalid, especially as a diagnostic tool in this situation.