This question concerns .357 Mag - 296 powder - 125 Gr HP Sierra bullet.

Guys, I've been handloading .357 mag since the early 80's. I found W-296 powder to work well in a couple calibers (.357 & .44) and noticed Winchester Powder suggested one .357 mag load for their 296 powder with 125 grain HP bullet. That was 18.5 grains and it's accurate enough. They said back then to not deviate from that weight. So I go along blindly for many years with what they recommended and continued doing that oblivious to what my new manuals say (didn't look at .357 - used them for all the other calibers). Here's what I find in my manuals:

Sierra Edition V
18.6 to 21.1 (notes accuracy load as 20.7) my load 1/10th grain below minimum.

Hornady Ninth Edition
16.9 to 20.3 my load comfortably in the mid-range.

Lyman 49th Edition
None - no W-296 loads at all. What?

Hogdon website
21.0 to 22.0 Troubling to me.

I've been searching the internet and here and going to ask anyway.

What changed with W-296 powder and is there danger shooting my 18.5 grain loads? I understand 296 works best when filling the case - I get that. But I loaded "some" @ 18.5 and put away for a rainy day. What do you experienced guys think?

__________________
Webfarmer

I'd say part of it is better testing and part of it is about one particular bullet in one particular gun.I doubt the powder has changed at all.

When I first started back in the 1970's, the max load was close to 21.5 grains with a 125gr. bullet. It was later reduced to around 21.0, IIRC. My belief for the difference over the years is because of the switch from CUP to PSI and more accurate measuring of pressures by piezoelectric transducers. It used to be that many companies measured pressures the same way we do, mostly by guess and by gosh. I prefer the current method. It's safer.

With 296 a magnum primer is needed and a good crimp with this double base powder. The deterrent coatings make ball powders harder to ignite and with the wrong primer and a light crimp you can end up with a squib load and a bullet stuck in the barrel.

Once I some how did not give one of my .357 magnum cases a adequate crimp and I ended up with a bullet stuck just past the forcing cone. Bottom line a magnum primer and a good crimp makes sure you have a high start pressure and good ignition. And if you do not do this not all the powder will be ignited and you end up with a squib load.

Below is from the Winchester reloading data booklet.

*Note: 296 powder is considered to be one of the best powders for use in magnum handgun cartridges. Recommended for these loads are the use of a Winchester or Winchester magnum primer and a very heavy crimp (high bullet pull).

Failure to follow this procedure could result in poor ignition and/or squib loads under extreme circumstances, particularly in loads
where less than 90% of the available powder space is being used (low loading density).

Do not reduce powder charges with 296 powder. Any further reduction in powder charge or change in components can cause dangerous pressures.

Wow! Surprised you haven't checked any new manuals until now.

What changed?

SAAMI max pressure standard changed from 45K CUP to 35K PSI.

W296 & H110 are the same powder since ~2005.

Lyman #49 does list data for H110 & 125gr JHP.

The 1974 Speer #9 listed 19.0-21.0gr. W296

The 1978 Lyman #45 didn't list W296 for a 125gr JHP but other heavier weight bullets only listed one charge as the only listing too, like W-W did.

.

The 1978 W-W Reloading Manual (below) did only list one charge for the 125gr JHP, 18.5gr/W296, as you recalled.

But look at the pressure, only 32.5K CUP. How could they have come up with that receipe as a max charge ?!?

Really just another example of why you should ALWAYS check multiple sources for load guidance, irregardless.

I say if you've been shooting it for years, without issue, then shoot them up & load them higher next time.

Or go to another powder. Personally the restrictive load ranges of W296/H110 is one reason I rarely use it.

.

__________________
Waiting for the break of day

Yes, crazy I know. But I loaded a bunch back then and hardly ever shoot .357 anymore. The pistol craze got me (lol) so it's been 9mm and .45 ACP all these years. I recently pulled out my Dan Wesson 715 VH (what a sweet trigger) as it hadn't been shot in many years. Once the brass was tumbled, that's when I thought, wonder what's new and looked in my new manuals. That pic IS the booklet I used. Looks like it's time for ladder loads again. Thanks for the thoughtful reply!

__________________
Webfarmer

Yep, I'm well aware of the roll crimp and mag primer with 296 powder. It's the eye opener of loads higher than that old manual suggested. No squibs ever from this load though. Thanks!

__________________
Webfarmer

Old load manuals are great for reference and comparisons, but for actual data, use only the latest reputable information available. Composition of 296 may have changed slightly over the years, but so have pressure testing methods, for the better.

I've had good luck with 296 as far as accuracy and velocity. In the .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum, accuracy was always the equal of #2400 loads; velocity may have been slightly higher with 296, but I'd have to look at my old notes to be sure of this.

The big drawback to 296 loads was the increased muzzle blast and flash in comparison with #2400 and I stopped using it for that reason.

Win 296 and a 125 gr bullet doesn't make sense to me, but then 125 gr bullets in the .357 don't make sense to me in general.

Otherwise, my thinking about handloading data follows Rockquarry's pretty closely. I like having the new data at hand. If your powder supply is all older powder, that might be a little different - as is the case for me with my old supply of H4831 and my .300 Weatherby loads. Old powder and old load data. Still works like it always did.

If you want to see a pretty nasty sight, fire a full load of 296 from a 2" barrel revolver just after dusk at night. That 's what you call a ball of fire.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

When the conditions were just right, I've seen a mild fireball from a 6" Python on a sunny day using 296. Can't imagine firing such a load in the dark.

The Army loves using double base ball powders because it can be recycled to save money. Even solid rocket motor propellant can be converted to small arms powder.

So you can understand why lots of powder can vary and change over time. It is my understanding that the old Remington and Winchester powder plants are now owned by General Dynamics Weapons division. And the only thing that Olin Chemical makes today are fertilizer chemicals.

You might want to invest in Quickload software and check the percent of 296 powder burned with your 125 grain bullets. The only advantage of shooting 296 with a 125 grain bullet is scorching the target or starting forest fires.

A good 125 jacketed bullet stuffed full of 296 is a super good target load in a long barrel.

Reloading manuals are guides, not bibles. It is suggested to not go below minimum loads with H110/W296 & with good reason. They can get weird in cold weather, even having hang fires. If you have shot the 18.5gr load in diff temps & it works in your gun, then I wouldn't fret over it.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Yeah I have blown the acoustic ceiling stuff off the local range ceiling shooting full loads of W296 in a 357mag snub.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

There are a lot of posts about this cartridge and this powder, there drop in the maximum load for that powder in my Speer #12 from the #10. The hogden website is is somewhere between the two. The 296 loads with a 125 grain bullet make an impressive amount of muzzle blast out of my model 27 with a 5 inch barrel. I would think that this combo out of a rifle would work pretty well.

Back in the day, before we had all these newfangled bullets to choose from, there were mostly just hollow points. And back then, the self defense load heralded the 125 HP. I'm not so sure that is still valid today.

Yes, loaded "a few" for put away and they do shoot fine. But I agree with your "old powder and old load data still works" statement. Just don't want to find out I've been LUCKY all these years.

__________________
Webfarmer

Yes, they shot well in my 8" barrel. I now have the 4" on her and still pretty accurate to me anyway. Benched at 25 yards, but with no rest really, I shot some 2 - 2 1/4" groups. Velocity readings are way off though. I recorded an average of 1,140 FPS (at 10 feet) and that doesn't make sense to me comparing to the data out there.

__________________
Webfarmer

W296 and H110 are identical powders and always have been. Now that Hodgdon has distribution rights for Win powders they admit that and the data for both is identical from Hodgdon. If you don't see W296 in newer manuals use the H110 data.

As for your load, it's been safe since 1980 and falls in line with some published data so I see no reason not to use it.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

The unpleasant characteristics of 296 in a .357 or .44 magnum handgun may diminish or disappear altogether in a carbine or rifle. When I used to load for a couple of M1 carbines, 296 worked so well for both accuracy and velocity that I saw no point in trying another powder. Never saw a daylight fireball, either.

From your 4", possible. Revolvers are all over the place with vel readings. I have 5 diff 4" 357mags. With identical loads, the vel range is up to 150fps diff. That is quite a lot. Bore size, cyl gap, cyl throat size, all plays into the final vel readings.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

I'll just add that 18.5 of W296 with a Hornady 125 JHP gives me 1,274 fps in my 8" Python. With 300MP, same bullet same gun, 20.0 for 1,370, and 21.2 for 1,471.

I've been buying 296/H110 by the 8# for the last 15 years.Been using it in the 3 mags(.357/.41/.44).Never tried it under lightweights but I think it is a safe powder if you don't use low charges of it in which case ignition or rather lack of might create a hazard(stuck bullet).
But as far as high pressure is concerned,it is enough slow burning in these cases as to give high pressure warnings way before it gets critical.
While I think that 2400 is a little better suited in a .357 case,I would say that in the .41 and .44,you would have a tough job of finding a better suited one.
Qc

Really? That's encouraging for me believing my chronograph. I think I saw 1,800 fps for my load in some manuals. Thanks!

__________________
Webfarmer

Hmmm, seems to correlate to my 4" chrono readings. The mystery deepens.

__________________
Webfarmer

I have been loading 18.5grs of296, magnum primer and 125 gr jhp for the last 35 years. Never any problem with this load. If I were you, I would stick with that combo. Just my take on the subject

Back in 1977 when I started handloading H110 was a surplus powder sold by Hodgdon and W296 manufactured and sold by Olin/Winchester. Although load data for the two was for all intents and purposes identical, I do not believe they were exactly the same. As a matter of fact the two powders smelled noticeably different when you opened the container. It seems that I read somewhere that W296 was the next iteration of a non-canister propellant called "295". At any rate, while both H110 and W296 are identical now, I do not believe that this was always the case.

To me H110/W296 offers higher velocity and somewhat greater accuracy than 2400 and at lower pressures and subjective recoil. Both propellants (H110 and W296) produce very significant muzzle flash. This situation is exacerbated as barrels get short and bullets which are light for caliber such as 110 & 125 grain in .357 mag, 170 grain in .41 mag and 180 grain in .44 mag. are used. That said, I don't used reloads for SD, it's illegal for me to hunt in really low light situations and if I did; I have never taken return fire from any deer that I shot at. If the flash is a big concern, it can really be negated by the use of AA#9 which provides performance nearly as good as A2400 but with very low muzzle flash.

I just do not understand the rational for this practice. The data invariably varies from each source for a variety of reasons and I still haven't figured out what the tie breaker is in that situation in determining which data is correct. The practice of "averaging" the data makes little sense in my mind also-especially if there is a large disparity in the data. In my mind you are better off buying one or two manuals which you really trust and using that data with discretion than getting 4 or 5 manuals and being confused when the inevitable happens.

Bruce

I once tested a 21.5 grain charge with a 125 grain Hornady XTP. Used my model 620 to see how it performed and felt. Out of a 4 inch revolver I would have to report this experiment was a failure. Because the muzzle blast was beyond reasonable, guy in the next lane claimed it extended half the length of the 50 foot indoor range. From my standpoint the blast ring from the B/C gap totally obscured the target or the muzzle flash. Folks also thought it was too loud, this load was probably louder than a 500 Magnum.

What I have found by consulting several different manuals is that one manual will list an exceptionally high charge and one will list an exceptionally low charge. If you disregard them then the rest of the manuals will list charges somewhat in the middle.

What if your trusted manual is one that lists a charge far outside the norm? There is always problems like misprints or data that is just plain wrong. One of the old Speer manuals, number eight I believe, comes to mind.

Likely from a 10" closed bbl system like a TC or universal receiver. Revolvers are just all over the place. I ised to have a 2 3/4" ruger ss snub. I could get same vel as most of my 4" guns.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

ISince all the printed data is worked up in diff platforms, perfectly logical to avg data. Trust manial, how does one do that but load & test & you know as well as i, that every gun/platform will yield diff results. Why there are sich wide variations.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

With the propellant we're talking about, it isn't an issue. You can't put enough in a .357, .41 or .44 magnum case to cause a kaboom and after you fire one or two shots, you'll know that the charge is too high due to sticky extraction. With the relatively narrow band of charge weights involved with H110/W296, it's a non-issue if you start low and work up. If you skip that procedure, you're on your own regarding the results.

Bruce

The only misprint I'm aware of was in one of those Hodgdon handloading "annuals" where data for two rounds similar in name was transposed. That was a one time occurrence more than one or two years ago. The problem I seem to recall with a Speer loading manual (#8?) was in regard for some 7mm mag data which produced very low max charge velocities. The data proved to be correct for the test firearm used.

Averaging data makes zero sense in that you actually are not following the guidelines of ANY manual and are, in fact, developing your own data based on what a number of others have published. Now, if you were to do this based on your own testing and chronograph readings for your gun, that's one thing. Averaging data??? Whatever one feels works for them is ok but I can't recommend disregarding the data I have and averaging multiple sets of data, the results of which corresponds to nothing.

21.5 grs is a 🔥 thrower for sure. Thats a full 3 grains over what I regularly use. Wow

Yeah, I was trying for 1450 fps. Unfortunately there was so much flame and powder thrown out the muzzle I didn't get one single reading from my Shooting Chrony. Out of my 20 inch 1892 Winchester I would expect this load would produce something in the 2200-2400 fps range, so it's likely a great combination for a rifle. However I've found that my Winchester really shoots well with 140-180 grain bullets and since I have found that a 158 grain XTP loaded over 14.8 grains of H110 will shoot a bit under 1 MOA this particular recipe in the Hornady #8 has become my standard 357 Magnum Rifle load. I'll also note that even though the trend for Hornady's data is rather light I've actually found some of my most accurate loads using Hornady data. As for that rocket load, that was from Hodgdon's data and overall I've found that Hodgdon tends to try and achieve the highest possible velocity and in many cases those hotter loads have been a bit disappointing in accuracy.

Do you guys that shoot these light bullets in various .357 guns find any advantage to them in comparison with heavier bullets?

I've loaded the .357 for many revolvers since 1971. In the beginning, I used jacketed bullets as light as 110 grains, but don't really recall any of them shooting particularly well, though I'm sure they were fast. Made a lot of noise, too, but never really figured out what such loads were good for.

About 1976, I found the .357 far more useful, accurate, and more comfortable to shoot with a 160 -180 grain cast bullet. If one has an interest in long range handgun shooting (I don't), these heavy bullets will quickly catch up with the lightweights due to the superior ballistic coefficients of the heavier bullets.

The slight recoil increase brought about by the heavier bullets is often barely noticed. However, if a light bullet will outshoot a heavy bullet from an accuracy standpoint, I'm for the light bullet, too.

Things do change , powder manufacturing techniques change , bullet jacket material , core material etc. Go with the latest Seirra data since that's the bullet you're using. If you like the 18.5 grain load and it's doing what you want.....stick with it.
Gary

My reason for using the 125 HP bullet is a self defense load. It may very well be old technology as bullet performance has come a long way since I started handloading this caliber (1982?).

__________________
Webfarmer

Groo here
+! GW.
The bullets we get can have the crimp groove in different places
and as the 296/H110 works best with near 100% loadings,
the minimum/starting loads [90%] will be different.
For your newbies, the "best" SD loading for the 357mag was the 125gr sjhp[with a lot of lead exposed] and a near max load [1450fps from a 4in]
The nose of the bullet would blow off causing much damage starting
at or before the 1/2 inch mark.
The base [ now a WC of about 100gr] would drive deeper but slow down quickly.
Most shooters now are way too worried about flash.
With a little training you learn to look through it and use it like a quick
light burst to see other targets.[old school]

Sierra's manual hasn't been updated since 2003 which is why they don't have several newer cartridges or powders. Otherise it's a nice manual to own.

.

__________________
Waiting for the break of day

Have not reloaded for .357s much since I started shooting .41s and .44s but in those calibers I have found a very simple formula for H110/296 that sounds crazy but has worked in all the combinations tried.

As groo stated, the crimping groove for bullets of the same weight differ in location on the shank of the bullet. As such a max load with one bullet brand could be over pressure with another if the crimping groove is higher on the shank causing more of the bullet to be in the case.

With H110/296 I take a dowel just smaller than the diameter of the case and hold it next to the bullet to be seated and mark it at the crimping groove. Then fill the case with powder until when you rest the dowel on top of the change the mark on the dowel is even with the top of the case. Then measure the charge and compare it to published reloading data. It will usually be right at the top end.

What I have found by doing this is that all the airspace in the case is eliminated by having the bullet base sit right on top of the charge without compressing it. Chronograph results show the highest velocity with no pressure signs and lowest Standard Deviation. Also there is no unburned powder left behind.

In .41 Magnum this has worked with bullets from the 170 grain Sierra JHC to the 300 grain hardcast...

As an example in .41 Magnum take the 250 and 255 grain bullets from Cast Performance. They are both LBT designed bullets but totally different in design. The 250 has a longer shank/bearing surface and shorter nose compared to the 255. The 255 will take 22.0 grains of powder to the base of the bullet....the 250 only 20.0.

I only use H110/296 in topend loads....there are just much better powders for everything else....

Bob

Not to be too blunt but, what you "think" or "believe" means nothing in the face of facts.

I'm only going to make this post once and I'm done. Back when Olin was distributing Winchester powders they did not tell anyone they were selling the same powder as H110 under the W296 label made by St. Marks Powder. Now that Hodgdon is distributing Winchester powders they don't mind telling everyone the truth.

I wrote both the Hodgdon and Winchester sites and asked them about H110/W296 and the combined answer was they are identical and have always been identical. I then asked St. Marks Powder and they told me the powders are poured from the same exact spigot with different labels. (slightly paraphrasing since I don't remember the exact text)

Why in the world would both the powder distributor and powder manufacturer lie? It would be no big deal if the said they were similar and now the same. They have no reason to lie so I believe them over any one else or their feelings.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

Brand loyalty in short. If branding were not such a big deal they would drop one of the powders. Chevy/Ford, both are cars, do the same thing, some just think one does it better than the other.

Well, it took me a little time to run this down but here it is.

In 1962 Olin released and then discontinued a pistol propellant called W295P.

In 1962 Hodgdon began marketing a surplus propellant they named H110. The cans were actually marked noting the fact that the powder was in fact surplus. Around 1980, the stock of the surplus powder was exhausted and the subsequent H110 containers noted this by being labelled "newly manufactured".

In 1973, Olin reformulated W295P and marketed it under the new name W296.

In light of the above, in the late 1970's when I began using it surplus H110 was actually W295P while W296 was the new reformulated W295P. While they were very similar in burning characteristics, they were not the same powder.

So there are my facts ARCHANGELCD. Between 1962 and 1973 while H110 was being sold there was no W296. Therefore they could not have been the identical powder. As a matter of fact they did not become identical until the "newly manufactured" H110 was sold by Hodgdon around 1980 or so.

So hereth the lesson ends.



Bruce

Bruce M - did something similar occur with respect to W231 and HP38?

After reading BruceM's post I decided to check some of my old manuals. The WW first edition, circa 1974, lists 16.6 grains of WW296 with a 158gr JHP as max. Hodgdon #21 from the same era lists 14.5gr of H110 behind a 160gr JHP as max. That is definitely not simple lot to lot variation, but highly suggestive that you have two different powders. The first 125gr load I found used 21.0gr of WW296.

In the mid-1980's, the manuals showed loads that were only a tenth or two different between the Hodgdon and Winchester manuals. Now we have simple lot to lot variation. About this time, the max load of either powder was raised to 22gr. of WW296/H110 behind a 125gr. bullet. That would suggest that the burn rate was slower in the newly formulated powder sold by both companies.

These original loads were definitely hot. I found that the 16.8gr 296 load behind a 158gr bullet caused sticky ejection in my M28. I had to reduce the load by 0.5gr before ejection became easy. I have stayed with 16.3gr, but I would guess that I could go back to the 16.7gr currently listed as max without stickiness.

I don't know exactly what that situation is. What I can tell you is that St. Mark's Powder was formally Olin's smokeless powder operation which was moved to Florida from Olin's East Alton, Illinois complex. It is now owned and operated by General Dynamics. I do not believe that HP-38 was ever "surplus" powder. Rather HP-38 is a Winchester Ball Powder (W231) licensed to Hodgdon and sold by Hodgdon under the name HP-38.

Many Hodgdon propellants started as surplus such as BLC (2) and H4831 but some did not. BLC was a ball powder manufactured by Olin during WWII for use in loading .303 British rifle ammo here. When supplies of the original surplus powder were depleted, Oilin reformulated it and the new Hodgdon designation became BLC (2). When surplus H4831 was gone, Hodgdon had new supplies manufactured in Scotland. It was labelled as "Newly Manufactured" on their containers.

Bruce

Bruce - the reason I asked is that there used to be a Winchester 230 powder. Olin changed the deterrent coating on it and it became Winchester 231.

Now one story I heard was that back in the days before Hodgdon the folks at the Winchester ammunition plant would blend different lots of the Olin bulk powder to get the exact characteristics they needed for the ammunition they were loading. When they started selling cannister grade powder to reloaders they sold the same powder they had blended for the factory ammunition line.

The story coninues that Bruce Hodgdon offered to buy any overage from Winchester. Winchester did not want another company selling the same powder that they were selling. So they blended in more of the faster lots to make a similar but still different enough powder that the loading data would be different. Thus HP38 was born.

Still later Hodgdon had Olin (later St. Marks) provide them with the faster powder instead of buying all of it from Winchester.

With the change in distributorship in 2006 Hodgdon had St. Marks provide the HP38 powder (which after all is the same bulk powder as W231) and then packaged it with both the HP38 and W231 labels. This accounts for the same loading data for both powders.

I would imagine that Winchester considers what they do to powder after it arrives at the factory to be a trade secret so we will not be able to confirm that Winchester did blend lots of Olin or St. Marks powder to get what they needed for the production line. But, if true, it could account for the difference in loads that were published years ago.

It's a moot question today since all of the powder goes from St. Marks to hodgdon where it is packaged for us to use.

I don't have any inside information, just old loading manuals. Hodgdon #21 from 1970 does not list HP-38 but Winchester from the same era lists WW231.

Interestingly, Winchester lists both WW231 and WW230, with a warning that the powders are not interchangeable. The data is such that it is obvious that 231 is slower than WW230 by maybe as much as 5-7%.

The first manuals that I have that list both WW231 and HP-38 are Hodgdon #23 from 1977 and WW#3 from 1976. Using the 158gr LRN:

Hodgdon HP-38 3.7gr 14,600 CUP 834 FPS
WW231 4.3gr 15,500 CUP 865 FPS

This would indicate that WW231 and HP-38 have always been the same. The differences in charge weight, velocity, and pressure could easily be lot to lot differences or testing conditions, i.e., temperature, testing procedures, barrel manufacturer, etc.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Of course H110 and W296 could not be the same BEFORE W296 was on the market. What does that prove? Saying that was condescending.

One big point here, Winchester did not formulate W296 when they discontinued W295. The contracted St. Markes to sell them the powder being sold as H110 by Hodgdon but under the W296 label.

When W230 was discontinued Winchester started selling W231 which is also the identical powder as HP-38.

Instead of arguing a point where there is no facts to back it up why not ask both Hodgdon and St. Marks Powders? Like I said, I along with many others already asked them and they have no reason to lie.

Be careful when you mock someone by telling them you are giving them a lesson before you check with the source.

Just a note, besides the two above W540=HS-6, W571=HS-7, W760=H414 and WAP= Silhouette... All fact, not conjecture.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

This just seems so fitting and proper to the former responses.

Attached Images

IMG_0486.JPG (42.8 KB, 25 views)