I have a 686 with the 8-3/8" barrel which I use for groundhogs on occasion. I've been using the same powder and bullet that I use for my short-barrelled house guns, and the velocities are about the same. I'd like a flatter-shooting, longer-range load for this application. I use H110 in my .44s, so I already have it on hand. Hence the question in the thread title. Any experience with such a load, along with pros and cons?

Thanks again, friends.
Andy

Yes. But I like 2400 a little better only because you can reduce te charge a little more than H100/W296 which only has a little leeway. (3%)

I have use the H110 with 125 XTP's

Cartridge: 357 Magnum Load Type: Pistol Starting Loads
Maximum Loads
Bullet Weight (Gr.) Manufacturer Powder Bullet Diam. C.O.L. Grs. Vel. (ft/s) Pressure Grs. Vel. (ft/s) Pressure 125 GR. HDY XTP Hodgdon H110 .357" 1.590" 21.0 1881 38,400 CUP 22.0 1966 41,400 CUP

Cartridge Loads - Hodgdon Reloading Data Center - data.hodgdon.com

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

My manuals show H110/WIN 296 as the same powder with identical loads.

I've forgotten exactly when I started using it for max vel 158gr .357 loads, but it was back in the 80's.

My only comment is that it really carries the mail when you shoot it, but has a warning attached against experimenting with reduced loads of it.

I use H110 in all my magnums, .32, .357, .41 and .44. It is my first choice when I want the highest velocities/most power.

As the previous posters stated, you can't adjust the powder levels very much which doesn't sound like a problem, but it is if you can't get the accuracy you want out of it.

Snowman,

Back in the early 80's, I was working as a police officer. I had bought a new 686 4" and began looking for a good load. I chose the 125 Gr. HP's and began experimenting with 2400 to begin with.

I fired the first six rounds, dumped the empties and reloaded. As soon as I closed the cylinder something did not feel right. An unburned granual of the 2400 had gotten beneath the ejector star. The cylinder would barely rotate. I then and there, ruled out 2400 with that particular gun.

I changed over to H110 and never looked back. I will not divulge here what the particular load I finally settled on was, but it was an excellent one. Clean burning, great performance.

Murphy2000

FWIW, the short length of a 125g bullet allows H110/W296 to not burn completely before the bullet jumps the gap. This leads to a little bit of sand blasting of the forcing cone and top strap from the unburned powder.

A longer bullet overcomes this to a greater degree.

I use H110/W296 with 125g bullets, but I know this going in. I prefer to use heavy bullets, so I don't load 125's very often these days. They make a right nice flash however. Any light jacketed bullet, moved at near max for your revolver using H110/W296 will produce some nice flash.

Try it with 180jhp's in your .44 sometime.

Impressive.

I'm along the lines of snapping twigs comments. I'd go up to 140grns or more or settle on another powder. You can only hang out near max with H-110/win-296.

Has anyone actually clocked those H110/W296 loads for some real world measurements? I have seen 1620 fps with my loads, but they aren't loaded with a ball powder.

If you want the highest velocity from a .357 Magnum round use H110/W296 with any bullet weight. You will be happy with H110 as long as you don't want to download the round. Like said above, use 2400 if you want to produce ammo in different pressure/velocity ranges. Using 2400 or AA#9 will produce ammo with almost as much velocity but H110/W296 is the king in the .357 Magnum.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

H110/W296 and 357 mag are great together, like peanutbutter and jelly.
I use it with 125 grain and 158 grain bullets when looking for full power loads.
Stick with published loads and it should work well for you.

It is a fine powder for 44 mag and 30 carbine also.

For full power loads,I use H110/W296 almost exclusively with magnum revolvers.The biggest reason people have problems with it is because they insist on trying to make it "versatile" by downloading.Some very reputable manuals show data with up to (and over) 15 % powder reductions but this is generally a bad idea.Hodgdon advises against reducing more than 3% while Speer says no more than 10%.This leads to a lot of myth and misinformation.

Generally it's best at max or near max loadings.It's excellent for this.I've used H110/W296 with 125 gr jhp in the 357 mag for years.Great load.I won't go over 22 grains and I won't go under 20 grains.

using 110/296 with 125 gr bullets makes a super load for the lever guns but too many rounds shot thru your revolver with this load will flame cut your top strap

I don't use the really slow powders like H110 and 2400 with light bullets (under 140gr) in the .357 mag. The 21 to 22 grains you need to use with such light bullets ensures quick flame cutting of your top strap and IMO is a huge waste of powder considering my normal goal in hand loading is to produce loads equivalent to factory from the Big 3. The 5 to 10% greater velocity you may generate with a hand load using H110 doesn't impress me much considering the accelerated wear from flame cutting, recoil and simply the extra cost in powder vrs a medium burn rate powder that gives me 1,450 fps + with 9 grains less.

With heavy bullets both H110 and W296 produce velocities with relatively low standard deviations but its been my experience that H110 or W296 doesn't give me a higher velocity than a smaller appropriate charge of 2400.

Generally I get more velocity from 2400 in hand guns than H110. H110 gives more muzzle flash and bark and may appear to produce a more powerful load but figures don't lie and the proof is in the testing. I haven't tried a load comparison in a rifle yet to see if H110 works better in longer barrels though.

Steve C, I agree with you completely.

I have never seen anything that a 1250 fps bullet would not kill that a 1400 fps one would. Above a certain point, all extra velocity does is flatten the long range trajectory, and slightly at that. If you can land a full-size bullet on target at 1000 fps, that bullet will accomplish all the cartridge was ever intended to do, and a 1250 fps load will do that at ranges that are much longer than I can reliably place it on target.

I shot some .38 Specials across the chrony a couple of years ago using 13.5 gr of 2400 with a 170 gr 358429 out of a 6" M28-2. The velocity was 1270 fps MV and the ME was 622 ft lbs.

If I switch to .357 brass with the same bullet, seated deep enough to chamber in the M28, 15.0 gr will deliver 1420 fps MV with 775 ft lbs ME.

Speer #13 agrees pretty closely with Steve C.'s post, but they probably convert to MV instead of instrumental velocity.

The noise, recoil and flash from H110/W296 loads are mainly the result of a lot of powder that isn't doing anywhere near what's claimed.

H110 works great with Hornady XTP's. The 125 gr. XTP works great but I have seen flattened primers which indicate excess pressure. My absolute favorite load is the 140gr. Hornady XTP on top of 19gr. H110. Try it, I think you'll like it.

As always, I appreciate the many who took the time to reply. I note that there is a significant difference of opinion among the posters, which of course isn't unusual among shooters/gun people.

Steve C., thanks for the effort at producing hard data to support your conclusions. If you'll note my initial post, I'll be using an 8-3/8" barrel for my load. I noticed that your data was obtained entirely from a 4" barrelled gun. Do you have any chronographed results from an 8-3/8? I would need that to make a valid judgment on this issue. You did mention a "5-10% increase" in velocity with the extra barrel length. Can you tell me how you arrived at that figure?

Several have commented that H110 produces a lot of flash with little or no increase in performance. Again I would ask what length barrel was being used to arrive at such a conclusion. I've been using it with an 8-3/8" .44 and haven't noticed any flash at all. And, I might add, it produces very impressive velocities in that particular gun.

For those who claim that there would be significant flame-cutting of the topstrap with the load I'm thinking of using, do you have personal experience with this? -any close-up photos, along with round counts, of guns which exhibit this problem from this specific load? I would like some solid evidence of this, since I've used similar loads for six years or so with my .357 house guns and have not had any evidence of accelerated flame-cutting or any other wear for that matter -and I've fired a good many rounds in that time.

Well, if you don't have the time to explore the matter any further, I certainly understand. I believe what I will do is load up some rounds with H110, take my chronograph to the range, and report results when they become available. Don't know for sure when that will be, but should be before too awful long.

Thanks again, friends.
Andy

Some longer barrel results but shot on different days. Note the Trooper load was only 14.5gr H110. The 6" Trooper shoots faster than my S&W 27 8-3/8", just the difference in those particular guns. For some reason the data is more erratic (higher standard deviation) in the longer barrels. Don't have any 2400 data in the longer barrels.

Snowman,

I've done load development for a lot of calibers for over 40 years.A lot of this was with magnum revolvers.Many powders,many bullets.I have no reason to question the chrono numbers from others and won't get into a debate such as "is vs ain't" with any.

In the early 70's,I tried a few pounds of H110 but returned to 2400 largely because of the influence of various gun rag scribes.I did not own a chrono in those days.

To insure that I won't be misunderstood,I still use 2400 and have a high opinion of it.But that does not address your actual question.

If one wants to make issue of "efficiency" by comparing "powder charge weight vs velocity",the issue will get increasingly more and more muddled.If one has the opinion that more velocity is not more effective,one is entitled to that opinion but that skews the issue even more.

Since I used 2400 so religiously for so long,I did a great deal of comparison between it and H110/W296 when I once again tried it in the mid 80's.By then.I had a chrono.

Some of the manuals have a peculiar tendency to load one powder "very hot" while another powder is used for rather mediocre levels which furthur muddies the waters by comparing apples vs oranges.Accurate conclusions are reached far better if one will compare apples with apples.

When one looks at "all" of the data from a collection of sources,there is one conclusion that consistantly stands out "when comparisons are made with each being loaded to it's full potential".The results,more often than not,show H110 leading the pack.My chrono observations concur with them.

There is a reason why the majority of my full power magnum revolver loads are usually concocted with H110 and it has nothing to do with the triviality of "more noise".When comparing with other powders,with each loaded to it's full potential,I have consistantly gotten more velocity with H110 and W296....period.

About flame cutting,etc:there is truth that the hotter loads with jacketed bullets produce more.However,I find much of the emphasis to be greatly exagerated.After "many" rounds,I have not seen any such wear to be particularly alarming.

Here's a picture of a Dan Wesson M715 top strap.



I bought the gun used, so I can't say exactly what was shot in it previous to my ownership. It should be noted that a DW is adjustable for barrel to cylinder gap and I'm running .002" right now.

For comparison, here's a M28-2 I bought new in 1972.



This gun has almost never had H110/W296 shot out of it, but it has had lots of 125 gr Sierra JHCs shot through it with SR4756.

Here's the same gun after 5 shots of H110 with a 125 gr bullet.



The cut is easy to see if you look at the edge of the top strap where it isn't a straight line anymore.

One last comparison, this time a M66-2 I bought used.



Since I don't normally use H110 in my guns, even though I have some, it hasn't had anything but SR4756, 2400 and Bullseye shot through it since I've had it.

When I say SR4756 loads, I'm talking max Speer #8 loads with 125 gr bullets that are clocking 1620 fps MV. The M28-2 began shooting SR4756 loads when it was new and the Sierra JHC shot out of it accounted for one deer in 1973.

As a result of being too inquisitive, I did shoot one cylinder full of H110 loads out of the M28-2. I'll see if I can get a picture of the flame cut now.

EDIT to add H110 picture.

.357, 110g HPXTP, 21.5g/H-110 1640fps avg.

.357, 125g HPXTP, 21g/H-110 1560fps avg.

.357 110g HPXTP 9.5g/Unique 1520fps avg

I noticed a snappier recoil with Unique

Also, I stayed below max (just) on the H-110 for this trip

Thanks for the data!

That's pretty much what I suspected, less velocity with a lot more powder.

A lot of folks think that big ball of flame is equal to high performance, but that's just a myth perpetrated by the data being published.

A gun magazine did a comparison of H110/W296 loads and those with faster burning powders. They fired them in a sealed pressure barrel, and then in revolvers of same bbl length with the cylinder gap. You lose a *lot* of gas and velocity due to the gap (the nice fireball you see), but it's the nature of the beast with revolvers. Your overall velocity will still be higher with H110/W296 as compared to most other powders.

A 125gr XTP over W296 is my all-time favorite load in 357. Velocities I have recorded match pretty well with the data posted above.

Also, H110 and W296 are the same powder in different packaging, as confirmed to me by a Hodgdon rep. He said he doesn't know why people publish different data with the two powders, but that they are and always have been the very same powder. I get my load data from the Hodgdon reloading center and have found it very reliable in my guns.

This is pistol data from the Hodgdon site.
That's 320 fps less than real life velocities with 21.0 gr. That's hardly what I call reliable data. Sorta like this inflated data.

It'll take close to 13.0 gr of SR 4756 to get a real life velocity like they posted.

If that's inflated to you then so be it. Common sense tells me that they use a long pressure barrel for most of their testing, which is fine since I don't need their velocity number anyway. I have a chronograph and my own guns for that. If you don't like their "inflated" data then don't use it.

And pray tell how you are going to use that chronograph to tell you anything? If you try to match their velocity, you're in big trouble. So, the best you can do is use their load and accept the velocity you get. If the velocity is that far off, who can tell if their pressure is that far off too?

In fact, here's some psi data that refutes their data and it's from the powder manufacturer, DuPont.



In case you have trouble reading it, 9.5 gr of SR4756 with a 158 gr lead bullet produces 36,800 psi (not CUP). You'll also notice the load they published is more than the current SAAMI allowable MAP of 35,000 psi. 18% less powder with 84% as much bullet just doesn't add up to 6000 psi less pressure.

For a better comparison, here's the current 158 gr LSWC data from Hodgdon.

Now we have 2/3 as much powder producing 130 fps less velocity with the same type bullet and doing it with 9000 psi less pressure. It just doesn't happen that way in real life, where 9.0 gr with a 158 gr LSWC will produce 1240 fps out of a 4" M66. After you add whatever you want to equate to a 6" barrel, it's still going to be much closer to DuPont's data than Hodgdon's data.