|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Member |
borealis, sounds like quite the ordeal. I do alot of bear shooting where I live but generally done with a long gun. I do have 3 Smiths that are .44 mags.-assuming if I ever have to use them it would be either getting to my rifle and or to use with in tight parameters. Tite parameters meaning within 10 yds-never had to yet.
My loads are with the 250 Keith and or the 325's both hard cast. Have shot many other bullet weights but now choose to use these two. My wife is now practicing with the 250's and seemingly getting along alright but...Unique and 10 grains with a mag primer will be better than a sharp stick or the poke in the eye type affair. Shooting heavy hardcast in my past Casulls and the .45LC Rugers I have had great results in bullets not being pulled-thanks to the Redding Profile crimp die. Now that particular die is being used in my Smiths. Lately, the Smiths have been loaded and fired more than in the many past yrs., must be getting abit more older. Appreciate the Smiths more. Good luck on your Load development and confidence. Bears are unpredictable and if shot all h%%$ can break loose quickly by the poorly placed shot in close quarters. best regards, |
|||
|
Member |
chandalar jack,
I definitely appreciate the concerns you voice. We are very much agreed on the preference for a long arm. Without a doubt, I would choose my marlin 1895S in any situation putting me up against a large, angry ball of fur or hide. But this whole exercise is about equipping myself for those occasions when a long arm cannot be used - and yes, probably in uncomfortably close quarters. As mentioned earlier in the thread, I've crept through thickets during hunts here in Alaska where you couldn't have swung even a short rifle or shotgun reliably. Fishing and hiking also present problems with carrying a long arm. The Mountain Gun is the most likely weapon to never get left behind and always be quick at hand if needed. Better to have some chance than none at all. But getting back to the task at hand, I made another trip to the range with my last 2 batches of this load. One load was at 19.6g of H110 and the other at 19.7g H110. This was to verify safe pressures on the 19.7g load and to check the accuracy of the 19.6g load. My crimp has been holding well, but I crimped even more aggressively this time. In both loads, the crimp held well through the 6th round in the cylinder. The accuracy was not as good on the 19.6g H110 load as it is on the 19.7g load. There were absolutely no signs of over pressure with either batch. For this reason, I'm going to bump the load up to 19.8g of H110 and see if the accuracy and pressures are still good. The velocity should be around 1100fps in this range, but this hasn't been verified with a chronograph yet. As an additional tweak on the 19.7g load, I'm going to move the COL to 1.594 (or so) and give that a try. I'll post the results of that next week. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Keep a sharp eye on the ejector center pin, those 300gners in the Smiths tend to mushroom the end causing some difficulty in opening the cylinder but it's an easy fix.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Ultima Ratio,
I will keep an eye on that. Thanks for the heads-up! |
|||
|
|
Member |
No real progress this week on this load. It was pouring rain on my intended range days, so I hope to get some range time this coming weekend.
I hope to test batches at 19.8g and 19.9g of the H110 at that time. If the pressures at these loads are still acceptable, then I may move on to 20.0g, providing that I'm still seeing accuracy on par with the 19.7g load. I may get a chance to try these over a chronograph this coming weekend. Something tells me that the 1100 fps. mark lies somewhere between 19.7g and 20.0g. We'll see. It would be nice to achieve a good field-carry load with the Mountain Gun and the 300g WFNGCs. So far, the gun, the components and the shooter are holding up pretty well. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Reminder: For those that are following this thread - Use the data in this thread at your own risk! These loads are very likely beyond SAAMI Maximum Average Pressures.
Having said that, I am re-evaluating these loads. One of the main reasons for this re-evaluation is that I just purchased the Lyman "49th Reloading Handbook" after my last range trip. The Lyman book shows Max loading for a 300g Linotype bullet (#429650) using H110 and magnum primers at 18.5g of H110. This Max load is at 37,900 CUP and shows fps at 1036. The same bullet with W296 is at maximum at 19.0g of W296 with pressures listed at 38,300 CUP. I found the listed SAAMI maximum average pressures for the .44 magnum listed at 36,000. Even knowing that Hodgdon just told me over the phone that H110 and W296 are now the same powder, my load still seems way over the top according to the data. I should also note that Lyman's COL for these bullets is at 1.700. All the Lyman loads used in their data were fired through a Universal Receiver with a 4 inch barrel. On the positive side, the Mountain Gun has held up quite nicely all the way through 19.9g of H110 with CCI 350 magnum primers and a 300g WFNGC CP bullet set at 1.592 COL. The gun is still tight and very careful inspection yields no sign of excessive wear or cracking. Then again I'm not a gunsmith. There have been NO visible signs of overpressure with the fired cartridges, even through 19.9g of H110. There have also been NO problems with difficult extraction. However , I am reminded of another photo in my "ABC's of Reloading" book. The photo shows three fired .44 magnum cases. One fired with pressures measured at 31,800 CUP, another fired with pressures at 39,000 CUP and yet another fired with pressures measured at 47,700 CUP. There is no notable difference in the 3 cases, as the caption states. Two of those loads are obviously beyond over-pressure. The good news is that I finally will be able to make use of a borrowed Chronograph in the next couple of weeks. While I do like the accuracy of the load I produced at 19.7g of H110, I intend to back up and test velocities around 19.0g. I may test beyond that, but only if I don't see velocities rising too quickly. I certainly have no desire to exceed the 19.7g load again. I can settle for a load around 1040 fps if need be - as long as it is accurate. Otherwise it is time to look at a different bullet/powder combo. |
|||
|
Member |
This is getting interesting, because I have been loading the Speer 300gr Uni-Cor SP over 22.5 gr of W296, which is the max load in the Speer #13 manual. It is also the max load for H110 for the same bullet. I'm wondering if Lyman is recommending less powder because you are using a Linotype bullet. Speer #13 is calling Max pressure 44,000 CUP for this caliber. As I mentioned to you before, I am watching your work closely because I want to change to a hard cast in my MG instead of a plated soft nose. Keep up the good work. Join the NRA |
|||
|
|
Member |
myanof,
The linotype bullet used in Lyman's data is different from the 300g WFNGC and seats with a different COL. As for differences between Lyman's data and Speer's data, I cannot answer with authority. I can only take it as a needed caution, since I'm treading on (for me) unexplored ground. One thing that has occurred to me is that Hornady's and Hodgdon's data was compiled using non-"magnum" primers such as the WLP primers. It is certain that the CCI 350 primers will elevate pressures. Perhaps it may be worth backing up some and trying this load with WLP primers, allowing the pressures to build a little slower. The only reason that I did not try this earlier is because I wanted to avoid having a lot of unburned powder when cycling these loads through a shorter, 4-inch barrel. True enough, this hasn't been a problem, but perhaps that is one of the trade-offs. Anyways, I'll see what the chronograph says before I go the route or using the WLPs. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Thanks, and keep up the good work. All of us MG shooters are watching closely.
Join the NRA |
|||
|
|
Member |
Finally, I found a sufficiently sunny day for going to the range and running some sample loads over a borrowed chronograph. I'll admit that I'm a little surprised by the results.
But first, another tedious caution for those paying any attention to this thread... Use the data in this thread at your own risk! These loads are very likely beyond SAAMI Maximum Average Pressures. The loads shown here use the following components and were fired through a S&W 629-6 Mountain Gun : .44 Remington Magnum 300g WFNGC (.430) - Cast Performance H110 (1st load - 18.5g, 2nd load - 19.0g, 3rd load - 19.7g) CCI 350 Magnum primers Federal Cases (once fired) OAL: 1.593 w/heavy roll crimp ...and a little bit of prayer since its been tough finding published data for this load. The weather for the shooting session was sunny and around 60 degrees (F) with a light wind from the SW. I say this because higher temps would probably jack up pressures in these loads to scarier levels. So here are the results. 18.5g H110 1123 fps. 1133 fps. (high) 1111 fps. 1114 fps. 1103 fps. (low) average: 1116 fps. average energy ft-lbs: 829.6 19.0g H110 1162 fps. (high) 1109 fps. (low) 1135 fps. 1154 fps. 1130 fps. average: 1138 fps. average energy ft-lbs: 862.6 19.7g H110 *most accurate load 1192 fps. 1153 fps. (low) 1211 fps. 1217 fps. (high) 1202 fps. average: 1195 fps. average energy ft-lbs: 951 My control group used the factory loaded 44 Rem Mag, Federal Vital-Shok 300g CastCore. These 5 factory-produced rounds yielded the following results: 1151 fps. (low) 1161 fps. 1165 fps. 1169 fps. 1179 fps. (high) average: 1165 fps. average energy ft-lbs: 904 The differences between the highs and the lows for the 18.5g H110 load (30) and the Federal Vital-Shok 300g CastCore loads (28) are much better than the other two loads, but the 19.7g H110 load was still the most accurate load in my gun. I still like the 19.7g H110 load best for accuracy. The recoil is also very manageable. But I admit that I'm a little concerned that this verges into dangerous pressures. It is tempting to keep it as the carry load. But I did notice that 19.0g H110 load also shows promise with its accuracy, so an accurate and safer carry load may exist between 19.0g H110 and 19.5g H110. At this point, it is all fine tuning and finding my comfort zone. For any other Mountain Gun owners viewing this thread, please be cautious and work up slowly from a decent starting load. Every gun is different. Your gun may have problems at lower pressures than those my gun has endured. I would point people to Lyman's load for a 300g Linotype bullet as a model. Their starting load for using H110 is at 17.7g of H110. Their max load is at 18.5g of H110. Enough running with scissors for today  If I settle on a specific load or if anything else important comes up related to this load then I'll post it. Have a great weekend! |
|||
|
Member |
Why don't you try some WLP primers? They're not magnum specific and should lower the pressure some, that way you can take the edge off your max load.
I have used WLP exclusively for 20+ years in my magnums w/o any unburned powder or ignition problems. It's said that non magnum primer with W296/H110 can produce a more consistent ignition pulse for greater accuracy and lower pressures. "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms .....disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." Cesare Beccaria (1735-1794) Italian nobleman, criminologist, and penal reformer |
|||
|
|
Member |
Snapping Twig,
I will be doing so. I already use them extensively for loading .45 ACP, .44 Special and for many of my target loads for the .44 magnum. They are my favorite general use pistol primer. The only reason I used the CCI 350 primers for this load was because I wanted to avoid having too much unburned powder from such a short barreled gun. You mention that you have not experienced the unburned powder problem with the WLPs. Have you developed any similar heavy-bullet loads for a .44 magnum with a 4-inch or shorter barrel? If so, how well did the WLPs do in conjunction with the H110? Any caveats? |
|||
|
|
Member |
Years back I found that Lyman #429244 casts out at 265g using WW. I tried a few different loadings of H110 and settled on 22g.
I shoot this out of several 44's, including a 3", 6", 6.5" and 7.5". Across the board it works very well and it's accurate with no unburned powder. I realize a 300g round is a bit different than a 265g round, but if anything the burn will be more efficient with the heavier bullet. Let us know where your research takes you. Best of luck. "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms .....disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." Cesare Beccaria (1735-1794) Italian nobleman, criminologist, and penal reformer |
|||
|
|
Member |
I've been a little slow getting back to this, since I have been concentrating my attention on building a decent .45-70 load for my 1895S. This had to be done prior to my hunt at the end of this month, so it has been my focus. I'll be starting back to work on the 300g WFNGC load soon - this time using the WLP primers. Hopefully, the pressures will be more acceptable and if Snapping Twig's wisdom holds true, there shouldn't be any issues with unburned powder. I'll post as the load progresses.
|
|||
|
Member |
borealis your doing real good on your load developement. When I posted my H110 Chrono'd loads they were shot out of a Ruger SBH 4 5/8ths .44 Mag
I am following what your doing because my loads now are for a 629 6", with my chrono down right now, it is very difficult to work my loads up with the 305-gr WFNGC bullet that I use. I should have the chrono problem fixed here in about a week or two. This message has been edited. Last edited by: J_B, J_B |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | smith-wessonforum | ||
| Servlet | eve2da035 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Eve" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
© smith-wessonforum 2008