I wasn’t able to find 2400 which is my go-to powder for my .38 special Heavy Duty reloads. I settled on 296 which I found at Midway but then immediately had doubts after reading that 296 really isn’t suitable for the .38 special. I remembered that I had two old reloading manuals that my brother had given me. I was surprised to find .38 special loads in both using 296. In the Sierra 2nd edition they list 11.6 and 12.1 gr. 296 with 158 gr. bullets. The 12.1 is listed as a max load. The Speer #10 manual lists 10.7 and 9.8 gr. of 296. The 10.7 is designated as a +P load. I was wondering if anyone has any experience with these loads or any advice using 296 in the .38 special. I want to emphasize that I’m using 296 to develop loads for my Heavy Duty only. I’m trying to duplicate the same performance I’ve gotten from 2400. Thanks in advance.

I think 296 requires pressures very near magnum loads of 35,000 PSI for the .357. .38/.44 .38 SPL loads are way below that. But I suppose you could load .38 brass to that level if you dare.

296 and H110 are the same powder. Hodgdon doesn't list H110 for 38 Special even in +P loads but does list it for 357 Magnum. The older reloading manuals seem somewhat less conservative than current ones which may explain the use of 296 for 38 Special. Since you're loading for an HD using the older published 296 loads shouldn't be a problem.

That said, I use Titegroup and HP38 for 38 Special even in my HDs.

296/H110 works great in the 22 Jet though and the 300 Blackout too.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

If the OP could describe the desired performance using 158gr bullets he was getting using 2400 it would perhaps make commenting a bit easier...?

Cheers!

__________________
Sit Reloader Sentiret

"I was wondering if anyone has any experience with these loads or any advice using 296 in the .38 special. I want to emphasize that I’m using 296 to develop loads for my Heavy Duty only. I’m trying to duplicate the same performance I’ve gotten from 2400."

As a match director for IDPA, I answered this question about 20 yrs , "Legal but not advisable." After a person tried this and other questioned loads, I can say from observation that it will NOT give you the same performance as 2400. I use 296 for .410 shotgun and .357 full loads for hunting. Reduced loads with 296 leave me with the impression of playing on the ragged edge for no advantage, and the chrono of such loads is not reassuring to me.

__________________
Science plus Art

What I was attempting to do with 2400 was to duplicate the original factory .38/.44 ammo. I believe I did this with help from the information on this forum. I started with 10.2 gr. 2400 and my cast 158 gr. LSW bullets. I eventually worked up to 12.0 gr. 2400 with no problems whatsoever. I stopped there.

296 is a good powder for some calibers . There are other powders available that are better for what you are trying to do. Try something else or go to a couple gun shows till you find some 2400 and buy what you may need. I see 2400 regularly and have 3 or 4 of the old square metal cans from long ago. sealed even.

Why don' you try loading 296 about like 2400? I'd bet it would work OK. Just load a few rounds in the 12 grains range as a test.

For what it's worth, I've tried using 2400 at the levels mentioned in .38 special 158 LSWC for a 38/44. Too much unburnt powder for my liking. Stings my cheek at the shooting bench. Bullseye and Unique do better for me.

Which chronographed at (WHAT?) fps...

Cheers!

P.S. If it is up around 1150fps it is doubtful 296/H110 would be a prime candidate in 38 Special brass: there are other powders that might be more applicable, CFE-Pistol & possibly Longshot come to mind.

__________________
Sit Reloader Sentiret

Couldnt agree more with this
I could run it in quickload for theoretical performance but thats not a suitable powder for 38 in general.
Perhaps loaded hot (above 38+p pressures) with a very heavy crimp and magnum primer but I presume there would still be lots of unburnt powder.
If you do run this powder make sure you mark it very clearly that its for use in a 357 chambered gun.

__________________
Romans5:8

The way to find out how good or how bad 296 is, load some test rounds with the 296. I would do a program of loading at least ten rounds each at 10, 10.5, 11, 11.5, and 12 grains and fire for effect. It would best if you have a chronograph so you know what is happening. The original .38-44 loads produced a MV in the mid-1100s. That was probably from a 6" barrel. Note that all original rounds used metal capped bullets with a lead bearing surface to the rifling, not jacketed. 150 and 160 grain bullets were typical. I believe the best bullets to duplicate the original ballistics should be 158 grain lead SWCs. I would also suggest using either SR or SPM primers.

296 does not perform well at less than magnum pressure levels. Original 38/44 velocities were only about 1150 fps with a 158 gr lead bullet out of a 6 & 1/2" barrel. Easy to achieve with medium burn rate powders like Longshot and Power Pistol.

I do not think H110/W-296 would be a good choice for 38/44 HD. I know that since the panicdemic, 2400 has been nearly impossible to find, but H110/W-296 has an even slower burning rate than 2400 and 2400 is about the slowest burning powder one would want to use for 38/44 HD loads.

__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA

W296 may be dangerous in a 38 Special. I would not try it. Too slow.

__________________
S&WHF #946
S&WCA #3824

Would you care to explain why you believe it is dangerous?

I have shot a lot of W296 in 357 Magnum. Unlike 2400 the loading manuals state for W296 "Reduced loads are not recommended".

There is no data for 38 Special because that would be unsafe.

__________________
S&WHF #946
S&WCA #3824

I would think Unique would make a good substitute for 2400 in that caliber.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

I agree, but there are lots of powders on the market that would work for that load. W296 is not one of them.

__________________
S&WHF #946
S&WCA #3824

For what the OP wants I would go with Unique Powder. JMHO

I ran the numbers for you in QL.
Again it does not look optimal.
I didnt have your exact projectile and OAL so I went with Rainier 158 lead and an OAL of 1.55.
You will be at a hair under 75% case volume and 62% powder burn.
H110 and 296 do not like to be reduced much. You are likely to have erratic ignition which includes creepy hangfires or possibly failure to ignite. (Been there)

Thats a beautiful gun btw. I wouldnt want to shoot anything near max loads in it

__________________
Romans5:8

296 in the .38 spl probably isn't dangerous but Winchester said it should not be reduced or compressed. So why even bother with it for .38 spl loads?

accurate arms #9 or lil gun might be a bit more appropriate.

__________________
it just needs more voltage

My Sierra manual shows 158 grain loads using 296. I haven't used it that way, I prefer HP38 or Unique. There's a good number of other powders that would most likely be a better choice than 296.
Best wishes.

__________________
Lynnie, Professional Pest

The OPs question was can 296 be used to make .38-44 loads and has anyone used it. Everyone has danced around the question to something else. The answer is yes, 296 can be used for such loads. Is it the best propellant? Maybe, but probably not. Depends on your expectations. The only way to find that out is to test.

Some things on gun forums never change....

I agree it's on the slow side for your use. It had me thinking though. Back when cast bullets ruled, some, like the .358 158 grain SWC bullet designed for the .38 spl / >357 mag were available with two crimping groves, some designs allowed a bullet to be crimped deeper that standard, and some shallower, increasing case powder volume capacity. Allowed more powder without increasing pressure. Never tried loading .38's that way myself.

Larry

Lots of naysayers here.
But has anyone actually tried it?
I am a fan of the 12 grain 2400 load. But this thread has made me curious. I have a couple pounds of h110 on hand.

H110 in a .38 special case…officially on my to-do list.

In case no one remembers, many Heavy Duty models were bored out for .357 Magnum...with no ill effects. Anyone want to bet if there is a difference between the cylinders used in the Heavy Duty, Outdoorsman and .357...especially if they are Post WWII...

We are also not talking about .38 Special or even +P...we are talking .38-44/.38 Special HIGH SPEED loads for guns built for it. The original loads were 158s at 1115 fps, 150s at 1150 fps and 125s at 1350 fps from a 5" barrel. The new HIGH SPEED loads from Buffalo Bore and Underwood run bullets in this area or even a little more and run 27.5k psi vs 20k psi for +P.

If H110/296 is all one has to work with it will work. I would do as Dewalt suggested and work up slowly. With H110 I have always found that when you seat a bullet right on top of the powder charge you get the safest highest velocities, best accuracy and lowest velocity spread.

Bob