I am getting ready to reload some magnums ( .357/.44 ) and I am at a loss for reliable data. The short loads for both are easy as most data on W231/HP-38 is very consistent.

Where things get really crazy are the magnum loads that Hodgdon recommends for W296 for example:


125 GR. HDY XTP Winchester 296 .357" 1.590" 21.0 1881 38,400 CUP 22.0 1966 41,400 CUP

what? 1966 fps? This has to be rifle data, but no it's pistol. Double tap only loads theirs to 1750 and it's the hottest I have seen. Federal does 1450 and Rem does 1250 for the approximate load. My cheap spiral bound reloading manual has data by Hornady that is more realistic. I was just wondering if I should believe anything on the Hodgdon web site.

Thanks,

dale

hornady reloading manuals are top notch in my book. I would certainly adhere to their standards and definitely take their word over something on ANY website. If you work your way up on the hornady table with no obvious signs of over-pressure, you could kick it up a little, but i would never start there. Better safe then sorry... or hurt... or a broken gun!

P.S. 1966 FPS seems absurd.

That velocity probably came from a 10inch non -vented pressure barrel. Multiple data sources are preferred but my favourite source is Lyman-pressure figures and barrel lengths are provided.

My 7th edition Hornady manual lists a top load of 20.3 grains of 296 with the 125 grain XTP for 1500 ft/s out of an 8" Python barrel. No pressures are given.

I want to use Hodgdon powders, I hear good things about IMR 4227 for the big boy ( fotee fo ) and SR 7625 for the three-fitty-seven. They both seem like nice mild powders compared to the H110/296/N110 hyper velocity flame cut your gun in two powders. I am shooting a 686 and a 629 and from what I hear they both last a lot longer and shoot a lot better with low to med loads.

So can I expect the Hornady book to contain good loads for Hodgdon powder?

Thanks,

dale

IMR4227 and 2400 loads are shown for both calibers, as are H4227, and H110.

Hodgdon's data is based on abnormally long barrel lengths.

For instance, their .357 data was measured from a 10" test barrel.

Hmm, I've clocked a 125 gr Golden Saber at 1620 fps out of a 6" Security Six, but I wasn't using H110/W296 to do it. I also got 1575 fps using the old Sierra 125 gr JHC out of a 6" M28-2. I used the same load for both bullets, which I have been using since 1972 when the M28 was new.

1620 seems more than reasonable, any ideas what kind of powder doubletap is using to get 1750 from a 6" barrel? I just want to get something in the 1200-1400 range with a powder that won't cause premature aging of my 686. The 629 seems a little easier to load since the range for some reason is a lot smaller. If I stick with 240gr bullets in .44 just about any slower burning powder will get me 1250.

Is there a really huge difference between W296/H110 and IMR 4227? I hear that cutting is a lot less of a concern with the 4227 powders. Is this a ball vs extruded powder issue? The burn rate of 4227 is just about mid way between W231 and W296.

I have a lot to learn about powders and reloading, but why is W231/HP-38 just so uniformly accepted as a good target/low power load?

Remington R357M1 factory 125s chrono 1660-fps out of my 6" Security Six but I cannot imagine anything going 300-fps faster.

Hey Dale, I think you just picked-up the best reloading lesson you can learn. Something didn't sound right, way too much velocity, let's talk to our reloading buddies, maybe 1-800 a manufacturer, etc. The experience of your reloading friends is invaluable.

The pressure of over 40,000 definitely sounds like rifle to me, or maybe Freedom Arms Single actions, but not a Smith revolver. Most Smith's seem to be in the 10,000 to 25,000 psi range. I notice the pressure is CUP, but it still sounds way high for a Smith.

__________________
beaver

I use one method for developing loads and only one. It hasn't always been this way, I had a KB first, then adopted it.

I use manufacturer's data to load any new load with, period.

After I have some data on my own, from my firearms, I go on to manuals, and from various suppliers.

It really doesn't matter what Hodgdon got out of their equipment, you aren't going to be using their's, you are going to be using YOUR'S!

Their pressure data is what to look for. Not only are they using longer than normal barrels but worst case scenario things as well. Tight chamber, rifling and yada yada. Their pressure may be way up there because of those things.

I doubt you will see their pressure but always start low and work your way up.

Do you have a chronograph? If not, use their minimum load and don't experiment. A simple tool like this is a must for those that hand-load and experiment. I wouldn't be without one.

I don't pay much attention to the velocity figures listed in reloading manuals because the conditions under which they were developed varies widely. The listed velocity doesn't really matter as long as a load is accurate, powerful enough to accomplish the task at hand, and is safe to shoot.

Once you buy a chronograph and test a variety of loads in a variety of guns, one thing becomes obvious: the velocity given in a manual is correct only for that exact barrel.

I have two S&W revolvers tht look identical, but one is consistently 30fps faster with identical mid-range loads. And I've seldom found a gun that will match a SAAMI-minimum dimension test barrel.

The Hodgdon loading data are excellent. The starting load you quoted is what I have loaded for that bullet. However, the velocity I measured out of an 8" 686 barrel was over 150fps slower.

As an aside, 296 is a relatively slow burning powder and produces less heat and grief at the cylinder gap than several faster powders. Frankly, internal ballistics are incredibly complicated, and intuition is often wrong.

I use 296 most of the time in the 8" 686, and the gun is still tight, accurate, and undamaged after 15years of shooting many thousands of magnum rounds. However, I mostly shoot 158gr bullets because of the superior ballistics at longer range compared to a 125gr. The 125gr starts faster but slows down quickly.

While 296 produces true magnum velocities, it is not suitable for reduced loads.
2400, lilgun, etc are often used by magnum loaders who want to run their magnums at reduced throttle. You will get visible strap cutting with any magnum loads, but it goes just so far and stops, unless you are going beyond limits.

Welcome to the wonderful world of reloading!

BIG +1 to that.

Hodgdon online data has always been reliable for me, but any data is liable to have mistakes. When I'm working up loads I use multiple sources, including advice from the more experienced guys that hang out here, for my load data. Then I write it all down on one sheet of paper and throw out data that doesn't seem to fit. Whatever is left- I start towards the low end and work my way up- looking at chrono data and watching for pressure signs.

__________________
Andy

Take your time and work up slowly. I have a rifle that I followed Hodgdon's data for about 15 years ago. The max load used to be 37 grains, but now they say max is 41 grains. I called them to check before using the new numbers. They said they re-shot everything and the current data is the best. I increased my load from 37 to 39 grains and got stiff bolt opening. Pressures seemed high, but velocities were below factory loads. There is no way I could add another 2 grains in my rifle.

Check several manufacturer's listings and work your way up. Max published loads should be safe in any sound firearm, but that isn't always the case.

There are NO shortcuts in reloading. Always start low and work up carefully while watching for preasure signs or annomallies. If you change any of the components on an established load, start low and work up carefully. If you change guns, start low and ... If you change OAL, start low and ...

Any time you are working with preasures measured in thousands of pounds per inch, there is no substitute for caution.

As has already been recommended, check multiple sources and be very leary of data outside the pattern. Reloading can be very interesting and fun but SAFETY FIRST. After all, we don't have so many shooters that we can afford to loose any unnecessarily.

__________________
Big bang, much smash'em.

According to Hodgdons latest printed data, that I have anyway, that data was obtained with a 10" barrel.

Lyman 49 lists the same load, 125 gr. XTP with 22.0 grains of H110, with a velocity of 1506 fps at 42,600 CUP. They used a universal reciever with a 4" barrel.

I have always gone by the premise that loading manuals are reports as to what a Mfg. has achived on a particular day under certain conditions. I do not use them as a recipie book. Your results will never be the same as their's. They have a different cook, and different kitchen.

I thought Hodgdon data was bad. Give this sheet a gander and tell me who wants to get 2006fps out of a 110gr. which you are not really supposed to use in a .357 magnum anyway. A paltry 1772fps out of a 125gr though.

http://www.lapua.com/fileadmin/user_....357Magnum.jpg

This is from Vihtavouri and I have heard nothing but good things about N110, but why would I use a powder from a company that publishes stuff like this?

dalewelch- the answer was listed earlier. they used a 7in. non vented bbl.
i have found their powders do about what they say besides being clean burning. this was under their test conditions in their laboratory. you don't have their equipment,therefore you won't get their results. doubt seriously if that data is flawed. it was just done under very controlled conditions with optimum equipment. ymmv

The main reason I am confused is all the other reloading manuals points towards much lower velocities, much lower starting loads and a huge range.

For 125gr HP-XTP and W296

Hornady says start at 16.9 and go to a max of 20.3

Hodgdon says start at 21.0 and go to a max of 22.0

This is the case with most of their loads, a 1 gr difference. That doesn't allow for much room to play.

I think it's bad that other companies do a better job on data than the manufacturer.

Dale, The instructions regarding 296/110 have changed. Large reductions from maximum ARE NOT recommended for these powders. There is a belief that reducing loads with 296/110 may cause a secondary pressure excursion capable of causing firearm damage. That is why Hodgdon shows only top level loads.

So who's put 22gr of W296/H110 behind a 125gr JHP and pulled the trigger?

I'd love to hear stories of anyone using the max load from Hodgdon tables and living to tell about it.

dale

Can't say that I can address all your concerns/frustrations, but in regard to your last question, I misread some of Hodgdon's data and went 1 full grain over max. with H110 on a .44 magnum load, and I'm still here and my gun suffered no harm. Only sign of high pressure was some pretty flat primers(but they were Federals with their soft cups). Was my most accurate load, also.

(But no, I'm not going to do that again.)

Andy

"Dale, The instructions regarding 296/110 have changed. Large reductions from maximum ARE NOT recommended for these powders."

To my knowledge, they've never been recommended and I've been using W296 since the late 1970's. Winchester's printed data at the time specifically stated that the charges listed were maximum and to be used exactly as listed.



Bruce

"110gr not supposed to be used in 357Mag" ????????????????????????????


Dale,
If you click on the left most drop down area on the Hodgdon data website you will see that there is a selection for "Rifle" data as well as pistol.

Select "rifle" and then look for 357Mag. You will find that the load you are looking at in pistol doesn't have a rifle equivalent. There is one for H110, which is the EXACT same powder as W296. Notice what they claim for velocity of that load, well over 2200fps.

Did you miss the question or did I miss your answer about having a chronograph? Do you have one?

My first question was mainly who to believe. Hodgdon or Hornady when it comes to the exact same power. The second question was about using these max loads and the results.

I think I get it now, Hodgdon wants to be the bad boy on the block so they show the MAX loads under lab conditions to make their stuff look the best ( fastest ). Lapua seems to market N-110 the same way.

All I want is good medium mag, clean, lower pressure rounds to use in my 686/6" and 629/6.5". I really like these guns and I want to treat them right.

I am convinced I just need more reading. I have the Hornady and Lyman manuals on the way. Speer and Sierra are next.

Thanks to everyone for all the advice.

dale

Dale,
Do you have a chronograph?

For a "medium Mag" H110 is the wrong powder. As for Hodgdon wanting to be the 'bad boy"---No. You are looking at one powder in one cartridge. Hodgdon is a good data source-the loads are tested. Hodgdon is a poor source of velocity datain some cartridges-IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR TEST BARREL HAS LITTLE CORRELLATION WITH THE AVERAGE REVOLVER (on the other hand it probably is quite representative for the guy shooting a 10 inch TC Contender). If you compare data sources you will find some very different max loads as well as some that are virtually identical. Every lab is using different components. Throw a bullet that is .001 larger in diameter into a case that has thicker case walls and head with a hotter primer and a powder lot that was on the fast side of tolerances and you will get very different results in the same pressure barrel. Build two identical loads and you may get different results from different pressure barrels. Too many of us want to read data as absolutes so that we can infer absolute linear or logarythmic effects from proportional changes. It doesn't work that way. There are rules of thumb and trends and many loaders can predict quite accurately the effects of changing a load. Basic empirical data does allow a computer program such as Quickload to predict velocities and pressure with REASONABLE accuracy....But in the realm of small arms balistics reasonable accuracy has a wide lattitude. When you look at load data you need to realize that X bullet in Y case with Q primer and R grains of pick your powder yielding 32.4k psi is just an average of readings from actual testing. A very uniform load may have only varied up and down a couple of thousand psi.......which still equates to many percentage points. Some people get very frightened by all of this......you shouldn't be. This is how it all works. We pick a suitable powder and bullet for our purpose find a load that is within the bounds acceptable pressures and try it , when accuracy and performance meet our criteria without any evidence of excessive pressure or unreliability we have a good load. The margin of saftey is quite large.......and wise loaders stay out of the margin and within the designed parameters of normal operation.

I have.....It's the words "don't reduce" that are causing the confusion on your part.W296/H110 should not be reduced "a lot".It will be inefficient if done so because of "TOO LITTLE PRESSURE".....NOT too much pressure.....Too little is what causes squibb loads.

There are widely differing loads in manuals because of different methods of pressure testing as well as being very conservative on the part of some of the testers plus different equipment,guns,etc.

W296 and H110 need high pressure as well as good loading density to perform well.It is not versatile.It's not meant to be.

I know of no powder which is the subject of as much mis-information as this powder.Sierra and Hornady give data that performs well enough for their criteria.Hodgdon says 3%,Speer says 10% and Winchester says none at all.Do you suppose that the people at Sierra and Hodgdon are losing sleep at night?

Many people have used their data and "lived to tell about it". They are not in the business of killing us little ones who use their data. How long do you think they would last in a sue crazy world with killer data?

As for Hodgdon wanting to be known as the bad boy of reloading data, that really is funny. I find much of their data a bit weak if anything.

FWIW you can easily deduct 200 to 300 fps from their velocity figures for a revolver, maybe more, depending on the bbl. length of your revolver. That would put you in the 1600 to 1700 fps range which is very believable, with a lightweight .357 bullet especially since you can go close to there with a 158 gr. bullet from a long barreled revolver. At least you can with a lead bullet. I have no use for a 125 gr bullet in this caliber but if I did I would not hesitate to use their data.

Bottom line I believe their data is safe to work with. I do not put a lot of faith in velocity figures though except for the ones that come off of my chronograph. Which BTW; Dale do you have a chronograph?

__________________
too TOO young!!

Message for "Smith Crazy". So what you are telling us is to use the data from Powder manufacturers as a starting point, NOT the data from Bullet manufacturers. Is this correct??

__________________
beaver

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. That doesn't mean you have to stay with that data, just start with it. Almost all of the powder manufacturer's data will have a bullet weight close to what you are trying to load. Remember, it's a recipe so OAL and other factors are critical too.

Usually, the powder manufacturer's data will have a lower starting point than most manuals. Not always, but usually for standard handgun loads.

One thing you have got to have as a reloader/handloader, a chronograph. If you are loading anyone's load and relying on their velocity data you are being silly. Sure, the high end of their load will be faster than the low end of it but you could be WAY off in velocity.

Case in point: SR4756 and 158gr LSWC in 357Mag. Hodgdon says 6.5gr will give you 1214fps, not in any one of my firearms, not one. In fact, it didn't even give me 1000fps! It took a bunch more powder to get to that velocity. The load that I got from a bullet manufacturer's manual did get me the velocity I wanted, 1280fps. That being said, the pressure for the manufacturer's load developed 27.6K/psi and the SAAMI standard for the 357Mag is 35K/psi. I figured I had some "wiggle" room there too.

I have been loading 21.6 grains of H110 over a CCI-550 primer with Winchester's 125 JHP since the late Seventies.

This load chronographs out at 1315 FPS from my 2 1/2" model 66. It hits 1600 from my 8" Python and screams right at 2200 FPS from my 16" 1892 Lever action.

I find that the Lee Manual is a great reference when looking for a new load. They list information from several sources. Also if your so inclined, you can subscribe to Loaddata.com . They list data from a lot of sources.

RKrodle,
Welcome aboard and Semper Fi!

Yes, the Lee manuals are a great place to get data. The main reason is they collect data from the powder manufacturers and their tests as well. That is a good thing in my book. I like being able to go to one source to get all of that information. If I am loading some "old Skip standards" and want a little variation, I almost always check the Lee!

Great inexpensive equipment to get started in reloading and casting too. Entry level for the most part but some have used nothing else but and have had long enjoyable hours reloading using it.

Again, welcome aboard!

Smith Crazy,
Semper Fi and thanks for the welcome. I've actually been a member for quite a while just never post much. My reloading assortment is just that, an assortment. I use a little of all brands, I started with Lee and expanded from there. If you haven't yet check it out yet loaddata.com has tons of loads. They collect them like Lee does plus from Handloader Mag.