What are the facts on reduced H110 loads

1sailor · Apr 23, 2015

I have some reloading info from Winchester stating that W296 (same as H110) should not be reduced from their published loads as pressure increases dramatically. I have read this in numerous places regarding both W296 and H110. On the other hand I have seen published reloading data from other sources (including Hodgdon) that is below the Winchester recommended minimums and the pressure is in fact lower. Of course internet chatter is all over the place. Does anyone have a definitive answer to this. Will pressures drop as expected or go up as warned.

JBnTx · Apr 23, 2015

Can you post that info from Winchester?
Hodgdon says the exact opposite?

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation on this subject.
A lot of internet "experts" give out dire warnings about reduced H-110 loadings but rarely explain why.

I've stuck several bullets, and had ignition problems, but I have never experienced higher pressures.

I don't even understand how higher pressures could be possible with reduced loads.

rsrocket1 · Apr 23, 2015

H110/W296 are supposed to be used at full power. That's because they are slow burning powders that don't efficiently until they get up in pressure. That doesn't happen until they are loaded close to the max. capacity of their cartridges. Even at that point they are typically only 70% consumed when the bullet leaves the barrel compared to a faster powder like Unique which is usually aroun 95% or Red Dot which is consumed 100% within the first 1-2 inches of the bullet leaving the case mouth.

When the powder can't generate enough pressure quick enough, the velocities vary all over the place and could even produce a dangerous situation if the bullet was unseated by the primer and driven partly into the rifling. At best you have wildly different recoiling loads with lots of unburned powder and sooty cases.

1sailor · Apr 23, 2015

I don't have any way of getting it onto the computer but to quote from the page "Do not reduce powder charges with 296. These loads must be used exactly as shown. A reduction in powder charge or change of compnents can cause dangerous pressures". The minimum safe load shown for a 158gr JHP is 16.6gr with a pressure of 35,900 CUP. Hodgdon shows a minimum charge of 15gr. with a pressure of 28,600 CUP. According to Hodgdon the pressure is markedly lower with the lower charge.

JBnTx · Apr 23, 2015

rsrocket1 said:
When the powder can't generate enough pressure quick enough, the velocities vary all over the place and could even produce a dangerous situation if the bullet was unseated by the primer and driven partly into the rifling. At best you have wildly different recoiling loads with lots of unburned powder and sooty cases.

Very true, but will a reduced load of H-110 produce dangerous pressures? That's the question.

Everyone understands the danger of sticking a bullet in the bore and then firing another round behind it.

Nemo288 · Apr 23, 2015

"Conventional Wisdom" is that you should not load 110/296 less than 10% below maximum or less than 90% of case capacity.
This has never been formalized to my knowledge and is a consensus developed over the years.
Read enough loading manuals and you will get the idea

Heck, I have even seen some recipes using it in the 44 Special, something I myself would not attempt.
Plenty better powders.
Like the above, I have stuck a bullet but never seen over pressure I could detect.
I am moving away from using this powder completely in fact.
4227 will do most everything 296 will if you are willing to give up a few fps and do it with more grace.

This bullet went half-way into the forcing cone of my Redhawk and stopped.
It was a full load of W296 with a WLP primer.
Still not sure what happened as the rest of the box worked fine.
Luckily I figured it out before dropping the hammer again.
Bad mojo.
Still get the sweats thinking about what could have been.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Winchester advice was published early on and a lot more independent
testing has been done since then by Hodgdon and the bullet makers.
In fact W296 is an improved version of W295 which was even MORE finicky to the point it was withdrawn from the market.
I feel the original wording has a good portion of butt covering behind it.

===
Nemo

klausinak · Apr 23, 2015

My thoughts:

1. You're trying to get "FACTS" from the internet???

2. H110/Win296 is pretty much designed as a full pressure powder. As others have stated, if you want less, use something else.

3. I do agree w/Nemo above in that I think there was quite a bit of CYA in the warning.

-Klaus

venomballistics · Apr 23, 2015

Mmmkay ... what your observations overlook are other component changes.
different bullets, hit red line at different charges.
as a result, the charge range differs as well.

When playing with this particular powder, it is good to have a chrono handy.
on it's low side, H110/296 is flakier than a leper colony, exhibiting fairly wild shot to shot variation.
if your load is a random number generator, up the charge till it is consistent.

there are better powders to use for "almost but not quite" magnum loads.
4227, 2400, blue dot, lilgun, MP300, AA#9 are all more suitable if you cannot tame H110 enough

1sailor · Apr 23, 2015

I'm not trying to get reduced loads using H110. I do have other powders for that purpose. I'm just trying to make heads or tails out of conflicting information. I am aware that changing components can cause wildly varying results. it is primarily their warning about pressures increasing with charge reduction that got my interest.

Rule3 · Apr 23, 2015

The magic reduction number is not 10% but 3%!

As mentioned you can find many data sources that exceed that difference by a lot! Even Hodgdon data has examples (just look for them) The look at say a Hornady manual and you will find much more discrepancies.

I think what they are trying to say and no one can get a definite answer is:

The loads they have tested and are posted should be used as they are and do not reduce them anymore, They are near full capacity loads so it's hard to add much more powder so you have little chance of going to high and blowing something up,

I just loaded and shot some 357 mag with 158 gr XTP HP today. Look at the data in Hornady and then look at the Hodgdon data. There is a big difference. Same damn bullet!.

I shot them in a Marlin carbine and used SR primers not SPMAG primers. I tested them side by side and the chrono data was almost exactly the same.

jepp2 · Apr 23, 2015

I "used" to load a lot of H110/295 in 357, 41 and 44 mag. Probably because it was the magnum powder. Results were Ok, but the limits on range of powder loading was more liberal than current guidance.

Then I loaded some 32 H&R Mag loads using H110 from Pet Loads. It was years before I shot them. I questioned if the loads weren't too light for the powder. So I shot the higher loading first. I wasn't using the Chrony, but from the report you could tell pressures were all over the place. So I shot the first of the lower loading. Squib in the barrel, powder never lit off.

Since then I found that 2400 suits my needs much better. A better range of loadings available, and just more to my liking. I also find H110 tends to etch the outside of the brass.
So use H110/W296 much less often now.

OKFC05 · Apr 23, 2015

Well, way back when the first reports of problems came out, nobody in the industry was sure it was a problem, because usually a reduced load just made for a crappy cartridge. Then pros ran more tests and started seeing isolated blowups.
The best explanation I heard from the internal ballistics experts had to do with internal pressure waves that travel through the combustion in all cartridges, but don't always have the same effect. Take a powder that needs pressure and encouragement to burn properly, combine that with varying reflections of internal pressure waves, and you wind up with a statistics problem not unlike the "super waves" that appear and disappear in the ocean (there was doubt for years that they were real, too), and while it rarely happens, it is possible the erratic burning of a light load will catch a pressure wave reflection just right to produce a pressure spike that is too much for the gun.
Considering how cruddy a light load of 296 is anyway, it is doubly undesirable due to the rare, but possible, danger of a pressure spike.
Internal ballistics do not operate in the ordered linear world of our common experience, but in the complex, pressure wave, 2nd order partial differential world of internal combustion.
An analogy is when you get a too lean mixture in a gasoline engine, it can "knock" which is a sudden detonation of the mixture producing a high pressure wave that can knock a hole in a piston. Too much pressure resulting from not enough fuel.

MichiganScott · Apr 23, 2015

rsrocket1 said:
When the powder can't generate enough pressure quick enough, the velocities vary all over the place and could even produce a dangerous situation if the bullet was unseated by the primer and driven partly into the rifling.

JBnTx said:
Very true, but will a reduced load of H-110 produce dangerous pressures? That's the question.

Everyone understands the danger of sticking a bullet in the bore and then firing another round behind it.

rsrocket1 gave the correct answer. A reduced charge of WW296 or H-110 may cause dangerous pressures, but only because the bullet may be driven into the rifling by the primer without the powder being fully ignited. The pressure then skyrockets because you now have an obstruction.

Remember that smokeless powder is progressive burning. As pressure increases, you get better combustion. As you get better combustion, pressure increases. As pressure increases, you get better combustion, and on and on until you get spontaneous disassembly of your favorite handgun.

One of the reloading component companies noticed this same phenomenon when working up loads for a 6.5x55 and 160gr bullets using slow powders. They noticed sudden pressure excursion past normal proof levels. After much experimentation, they found that it could actually be repeated under laboratory conditions if everything fell in place.

rwsmith · Apr 23, 2015

HUH?

1sailor said:
I have some reloading info from Winchester stating that W296 (same as H110) should not be reduced from their published loads as pressure increases dramatically.

I don't know where that nonsense came from, but the only problem with reduced 296/110 loads is incomplete burning or maybe erratic ignition. If you want to reduce loads, get some 2400 powder that is almost as potent as 296/110, but can be reduced with out problem except for some powder residue that gets on the gun. Most any powder doesn't burn well at reduced loadings.

PS I agree with the 'stuck bullets' causing high pressures. Rather than saying 'reduced loads will cause high pressures' the Speer book states that if you reduce the load to the point where a bullet gets stuck in the barrel, the next shot will have 'high pressure' and damage or destroy the gun, if not your hand.

I think anybody that reloads should be able to tell the difference between those two statements. The law says that everybody is stupid so don't reduce the loads at all with 296/110.

rsrocket1 · Apr 23, 2015

Very well stated Scott.
What has been rumored incorrectly (I believe) as "detonation" and also called "secondary explosion effect", or SEE is most likely just that. The primary "explosion" is the primer driving the bullet into the rifling, the secondary "explosion" is simply the powder finally coming up to pressure in a delayed fashion and getting obstructed by the partially engraved bullet. This most often occurs in rifles with slower powders and I sort of believe it when some old coot claims that he can make it happen reliably. I don't want to try it on any of my guns thank you.

Anyway, that's the likely reason for "extremely high pressure" warnings with H110/W296. The best thing to do is to simply load it to recommended charges and use smaller charges of fast pistol/shotgun powder for lighter loads. Who wants a mixture of good and bloopy shots anyhow, much less risking the potential of an overpressure shot that can stress or break your gun?

Don't even tempt fate.

Nemo288 · Apr 23, 2015

" It was years before I shot them."

This is another aspect of 296 that is not desirable.
I have dismantled some 44 magnum loads assembled 20 years ago
and the powder had congealed into a solid mass.
I had to dig it out with a small crochet hook I have around the bench.
This is not going to burn the same way as normal powder
I am going thru my boxes now and unloading anything with 296 more than a couple of years old.
I sure am not going to touch any of these loads off in a gun.
This may have contributed to my stuck bullet above but I have none of those left to inspect.

I have fired 444 loads made with IMR4198 stick powder from the same era and it has lost 50 fps but they are consistent as ever.
Single base powder does decay chemically (eventually) and ball powder sticks to itself especially in compressed loads.
What's a boy to do?! Go shooting more often!!

===
Nemo

alwslate · Apr 23, 2015

I tried loading 296 down a couple of grs in the 357 mag with cast
bullets and it didn't work out well at all. Low velocity overall plus
large variations in velocity. Obviously the powder was not burning
efficiently. Lesson learned.

scooter123 · Apr 24, 2015

IMO a light charge won't cause an "increase in pressure". However some powders can be pressure sensitive in regards to ignition and H110 may be one of those powders. I say may because one of my favorite loads for my 1892 Winchester features 14.8 grains of H110 under a 158 grain Hornady XTP. Per Hodgdon's load data that powder charge is a below their 15.0 grain minimum charge. Per Hornady's data that load is a high mid range charge and Hornady's suggested starting charge is 12.7 grains.

So, who's minimum should we consider the real minimum? I'll be darned if I know. Personally I load for the point of best accuracy. Which is how I arrived at that 14.8 grain charge for my Winchester. When I finally got around to chronographing the load the extreme spread in velocity for 5 rounds tested was 9 fps and the average velocity was 1615 fps from a 20 inch barrel.

Having used H110 in both handgun and rifle loads IMO H110 is best used in Rifle loads. BTW, if you don't have a 357 Magnum rifle you really need to correct that, because the 357 Magnum in a rifle is both accurate and very very easy on the shoulder. The problem with H110 in a handgun is the muzzle flash and that BAHOOM report. IMO it will cause problems with gas cutting on the top strap and when conditions are wrong the muzzle flash could start a grass fire. In a rifle you lose all that drama seen with it's use in a rifle and it works very well. Note, my preferred powder for Handgun loads is Accurate #9 for the 158 grain loads and my testing shows I'm only "giving up" about 50 fps.

fredj338 · Apr 24, 2015

JBnTx said:
Can you post that info from Winchester?
Hodgdon says the exact opposite?

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation on this subject.
A lot of internet "experts" give out dire warnings about reduced H-110 loadings but rarely explain why.

I've stuck several bullets, and had ignition problems, but I have never experienced higher pressures.

I don't even understand how higher pressures could be possible with reduced loads.

I agree. I have never seean over pressure event, but have had hang fires, not good. So I woud stick to the lading manuas 5-10 reduction as max. One reason I have moved back to 2400 as my magnum powder. It has a bit broader load range.

1sailor · Apr 24, 2015

Thanks to everyone for their responses. My usual powder is TiteGroup (lets not get started on this) which has worked very well for me in mid and upper midrange loads. I just picked up some H110 and was merely curious as to why reducing the charge would increase the pressure.

What are the facts on reduced H110 loads

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Attachments

US Veteran

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads