296 for 357
- Thread starter Carrier
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
I'd start somewhere in the upper middle of the Hornady data and work upward - only load 5 or 10 of each load till I found a good one my gun likes then load a bunch from there. Use your chrono or get one if your playing at the upper end of data.
robert1804
Member
I would use the Hodgdon data if using ALL the components they show.
Since that's max load....
Back off about 10% to get a feel how your component combination is going to react. Don't go for top load right off the bat. If you approach the lower load ok then you are welcome to try the higher one.
Back off about 10% to get a feel how your component combination is going to react. Don't go for top load right off the bat. If you approach the lower load ok then you are welcome to try the higher one.
Last edited:
Well I think I'm going to go with the Hornady and make up some at 17, 18 and 19 grains and see how they are then go from there. Just odd that Hodgdons start load is .7 grains higher that Hornadys highest. Also will be using Federal GM200M primers.
I have been loading 21.6 grains of H110/296 behind the Winchester 125JHP since the late 70s or early 80s.
This load chronographs out at:
1315 FPS from my 3 1/2" model 27s
It hits 1600 from my 8" Pythons
It screams right at 2200 FPS from my 16" 1892 Lever action
15,000+ of these have gone down the barrels of my and my buddies 357s over the years. I stopped counting when I began buying projectiles several thousand at a time.
Always start low and work up. Even identical firearms and components can vary from time to time.
This load chronographs out at:
1315 FPS from my 3 1/2" model 27s
It hits 1600 from my 8" Pythons
It screams right at 2200 FPS from my 16" 1892 Lever action
15,000+ of these have gone down the barrels of my and my buddies 357s over the years. I stopped counting when I began buying projectiles several thousand at a time.
Always start low and work up. Even identical firearms and components can vary from time to time.
MichiganScott
Member
Did you by chance notice the difference in velocity? Hornady could well be telling you that driving their XTP much above 1500-1600 FPS would stress the bullet above the design envelope.
Just start low and work your way up. I tried 21.5 grains one time and the muzzle flash just about burned the hair off my arms. It was a blast to shoot them at dusk.
Just start low and work your way up. I tried 21.5 grains one time and the muzzle flash just about burned the hair off my arms. It was a blast to shoot them at dusk.
I'm not currently up to speed on 296 but I remember a whole bunch of cautions about backing off of top loads due to detonation and I'm sure this was on WW 296. I would do some more checking on this before doing any loading. 17 grains would be a substantial back-down from the max charge.
Added information-The 2003 Winchester reloading manual shows the maximum charge at 18.5 grains of 296 for a 125 grain jacketed bullet. It seems strange that Hodgden data would show 3.5 grains more than Winchester does.
Added information-The 2003 Winchester reloading manual shows the maximum charge at 18.5 grains of 296 for a 125 grain jacketed bullet. It seems strange that Hodgden data would show 3.5 grains more than Winchester does.
Last edited:
Dip the case into the powder, hammer a bullet on top. 296 runs best at max...lol!
But seriously, I ran into the same thing you are worried about a few years ago and worked up loads. Two guns loved 21.5 grains, another started to get sticky extraction at 20.5.
But seriously, I ran into the same thing you are worried about a few years ago and worked up loads. Two guns loved 21.5 grains, another started to get sticky extraction at 20.5.
Guess I'd find out just how strong a 686 is!!!
I think I will load some at 18, 19 and 20 then see how it is then work up to 21 or so. I'm fairly new to reloading and haven't done a lot but of what I have with other calibers this is the biggest difference between a powder oem and a bullet oem load data that I have seen.
cjwils
Member
I have a Winchester publication from 1982 in which they list the recipes to duplicate Winchester factory loads. For a 125 grain jacketed bullet, they list 18.5 grains of 296, with Winchester primers, which they say has pressure of 32,500 CUP. They say do not reduce that load. Again, this is a factory duplication load, not a stated maximum.
Last edited:
That's interesting. So maybe I should start out at 18.5 grains and go up from there? The only difference will be the Federal GM200M primers I will be using.
I have Winchester manuals from 1989 thru 2003 that all have the same data as cjwils - 18.5gr for the 125 JHP .
BUT... I also have a 2006 Winchester manual that magically states a new max load of 22.0 gr Win 296, (XTP, win case, WSPM @1.59" and 10" test bbl) with 1966 fps at 41400 CUP. Probably had a change of personnel in the lab.
BUT... I also have a 2006 Winchester manual that magically states a new max load of 22.0 gr Win 296, (XTP, win case, WSPM @1.59" and 10" test bbl) with 1966 fps at 41400 CUP. Probably had a change of personnel in the lab.
Snapping Twig
Member
FWIW, 296/110 is most efficient with heavier bullets.
Fat loads with light bullets can lead to forcing cone erosion and some top strap wear.
I use it, it's my go-to magnum powder, but I load 160 & 170 cast SWC in the 357.
I prefer 2400 overall for 357, but 296/110 works and gets highest velocity.
Fat loads with light bullets can lead to forcing cone erosion and some top strap wear.
I use it, it's my go-to magnum powder, but I load 160 & 170 cast SWC in the 357.
I prefer 2400 overall for 357, but 296/110 works and gets highest velocity.
I always go with the powder mfg. data when there's a question, but in this case they have a pretty tight min to max. Just as a check the Speer manual lists your bullet and charge to be 18.3 to 20.3, more in line with the mid to max Hornady load. So yeah, I would start in the middle of the Hornady data.
Speer also notes that a mag primer is needed with 296 as it's a ball powder, but you already knew that.
Speer also notes that a mag primer is needed with 296 as it's a ball powder, but you already knew that.
Last edited:
They manufacture the labels they put on the powder containers.
venomballistics
Member
MMmmkay ... we have two data sets that seem to argue.
first there is the powder manufacturers data that states 21 - 22 grains.
next we have the bullet manufacturers data that states 16.9 - 20.3.
per Hornady, we also have H110 whose data states 17.4 - 19.9.
It is widely known that H110 is the same powder as 296.
here is a way of dealing with these discrepancies.
you combine the data set into a wider range.
16.9 - 22
next, we flag the lesser maximum loads along the range.
16.9 ... 19.9 .... 20.3 ..... and 22
pay extra attention as you approach each of these flagged maximums on the way up.
each one was found in a lab with equipment you don't have.
Thus, one of them is probably the correct one.
first there is the powder manufacturers data that states 21 - 22 grains.
next we have the bullet manufacturers data that states 16.9 - 20.3.
per Hornady, we also have H110 whose data states 17.4 - 19.9.
It is widely known that H110 is the same powder as 296.
here is a way of dealing with these discrepancies.
you combine the data set into a wider range.
16.9 - 22
next, we flag the lesser maximum loads along the range.
16.9 ... 19.9 .... 20.3 ..... and 22
pay extra attention as you approach each of these flagged maximums on the way up.
each one was found in a lab with equipment you don't have.
Thus, one of them is probably the correct one.
Franky, I wouldn't use 296.
I'm a fan of H110 and 2400
I have never gone wrong with either propellant. Remember to used a standard pistol primer with 2400.
I run 17.5 grs of H110 behind the 125-grainer or 15 grs of 2400.
I'm a fan of H110 and 2400
I have never gone wrong with either propellant. Remember to used a standard pistol primer with 2400.
I run 17.5 grs of H110 behind the 125-grainer or 15 grs of 2400.
For a slow powder.......
For a slow powder that about fills the case, .7 grains isn't really much of a difference. Not like if you increased Alliant Bullseye or Hodgdon's Titegroup by .7 grains.
If you have a strong modern gun in good shape I'll bet that you can safely approach the higher number. When you get to 20 grains, start going up in like .2 grain increments. It'll be slow going but it will be worth it.
For a slow powder that about fills the case, .7 grains isn't really much of a difference. Not like if you increased Alliant Bullseye or Hodgdon's Titegroup by .7 grains.
If you have a strong modern gun in good shape I'll bet that you can safely approach the higher number. When you get to 20 grains, start going up in like .2 grain increments. It'll be slow going but it will be worth it.
Win296/H110
Win 296 and H110 are one of the few powders that the manufacturer admits to being the same powder. Chris Hodgdon says they keep it that way due to brand loyalty. The funny thing is though, that in the tables the load slightly differ, but that can be due to separate testing with different equipment on a different day.
I really like 2400 and you don't lose much velocity over H110/Win296 and in some bullet weights, 2400 actually achieves higher velocity. One of my books has 2400 up to 15.4 grains with a 140 grain jhp. They do smack your hand a bit on firing.
Win 296 and H110 are one of the few powders that the manufacturer admits to being the same powder. Chris Hodgdon says they keep it that way due to brand loyalty. The funny thing is though, that in the tables the load slightly differ, but that can be due to separate testing with different equipment on a different day.
I really like 2400 and you don't lose much velocity over H110/Win296 and in some bullet weights, 2400 actually achieves higher velocity. One of my books has 2400 up to 15.4 grains with a 140 grain jhp. They do smack your hand a bit on firing.
Detonation has never been reproduced.....
Detonation has never been reproduced in the lab and there is a theory that a squib round followed by another shot is to blame in these cases. I believe that the main problem with reducing the very slow powders is lousy burn and erratic performance. Some that have reduced them said it's not that much of a problem, but I think I'd just use a different powder.
Detonation has never been reproduced in the lab and there is a theory that a squib round followed by another shot is to blame in these cases. I believe that the main problem with reducing the very slow powders is lousy burn and erratic performance. Some that have reduced them said it's not that much of a problem, but I think I'd just use a different powder.
venomballistics
Member
add to that, H110 / 296 being perhaps the worst with consistency when reduced.
I keep it around for some of the special collection stuff, but opt for AA#9 or 2400 where I want some breathing room to go with the horsepower.
bbqncigars
Member
I run 21.0gr of 296 behind a 125XTP and 16.0 with 158XTP for 'fun' loads. The gun (Coonan Classic) prefers 7.6gr of Unique under a coated 158gr LRN. The latter load isn't as dramatic, but still cycles fine and is lots cheaper.
scooter123
Member
Nowadays 296 and H110 are the same, identical powder per Hodgdon. I also have bottles if each powder that carry the same, identical Lot number, which would confirm Hodgdon's statement that these powders are identical.
I've also loaded the 125 grain XTP with 21.5 grains of H110 and found that it was louder from my 4 inch model 620 than a 500 Magnum. It also shot a flame at least 20 feet downrange according to one witness. Finally the blast ring from the B/C gap was bright enough and large enough to completely obscure my target. And all I got for all that Drama was a lousy 1410 fps and some powder stains on the front of my chronograph. On the plus side if you want to see a 500 Magnum shooter jump this load will do it.
BTW, I've concluded that H110 is best used in loads for a Rifle where you have enough barrel length to fully utilize the energy produced by this slower powder. In my 1904 vintage 1892 that was rebarreled by Winchester in 357 Magnum my most accurate loads are are the 158 grain XTP with 14.8 grains of H110 and the 140 grain XTP with 17.5 grains of H110. Both will yield 1 MOA at 50 yards using a rear tang peep sight and the 158 grain clocks 1615 fps with the 140 grain cruising at 1875 fps.
I've also loaded the 125 grain XTP with 21.5 grains of H110 and found that it was louder from my 4 inch model 620 than a 500 Magnum. It also shot a flame at least 20 feet downrange according to one witness. Finally the blast ring from the B/C gap was bright enough and large enough to completely obscure my target. And all I got for all that Drama was a lousy 1410 fps and some powder stains on the front of my chronograph. On the plus side if you want to see a 500 Magnum shooter jump this load will do it.
BTW, I've concluded that H110 is best used in loads for a Rifle where you have enough barrel length to fully utilize the energy produced by this slower powder. In my 1904 vintage 1892 that was rebarreled by Winchester in 357 Magnum my most accurate loads are are the 158 grain XTP with 14.8 grains of H110 and the 140 grain XTP with 17.5 grains of H110. Both will yield 1 MOA at 50 yards using a rear tang peep sight and the 158 grain clocks 1615 fps with the 140 grain cruising at 1875 fps.
Several thoughts on the subject.
1. Commercial ammunition is not loaded with canister grade powders. The powder they use is made in large production lots to a wider general specification, and the actual load data is then developed in-house by a ballistician.
For example DuPont will make batches of colloidal ball powder, and these batches are then analyzed for their burn traits and then mixed to get the burn traits specified by the commercial customer, which are a bit broader than the specifications for canister grade powder.
As an example of this, the US military used WC846 for the .7.62mm M80 Ball cartridge. When the 5.56mm M193 round was in it's long and difficult development process, one end of this powder specification was used to load M193 ammunition. That end of the specification was eventually just re-designated as WC844, creating two narrower specifications that had previously been a single specification.
H335 is generally regarded as the canister equivalent of WC844, while BLC-2 is generally regarded as the canister equivalent of WC846. Now look at a hand loading powder burn rate chart and note how far apart H335 and BLC-2 are on that chart. The original WC846 specification covered that entire burn rate range.
Consequently, anytime you see someone quoting a specific charge weight for a military or commercial load, it's just a nominal charge weight, not an actual weight that will give you identical performance with a canister grade powder.
2. Canister grade powders sold for the hand loading market are held to much narrower specifications as the average hand loader does not have the pressure test equipment to develop their own load data within specific pressure limits.
3. However, there is still variation from lot to lot. Win 296 and H-110 is a particularly interesting example. Back in the day before Hodgon came out and said that Win 296 and H110 were the same powder, you'd see both powders in the same reloading manual with significantly different charges. For example consider Hornady's 100 gr .30 M1 Carbine load in their 2003 sixth edition loading manual: 13.3 gr of H-110 versus 14.1 gr of Win 296 as the starting load. That's a 6% difference in what is supposedly the same powder, using the same bullet, case, primer, barrel, test equipment and test protocol.
Given that H-110 and Win 296 were the same powder at that point in time, that difference represents variation from lot to lot for the same canister grade powder.
Now in the distant past, it's possible that H-110 and Win 296 were more distinct, perhaps different ends of the same general burn rate specification. In any case, it needs to serve as a warning that there is variation even in canister grade powders and the 6% difference here why you see published advice to always start at least 10% below a max load, or to use caution with a max load when developing a load.
4. It's logical to assume the powder manufacturer knows the most about the powder, but that's only part of the load. If you ask a ballistician they will point out that the "stickiness" in the bore of projectiles of the same weight and caliber will vary. That is due to variation in bearing surface, in jacket alloy, harness and thickness, in the hardness of the core alloy, and in minor dimensional differences in the diameter of different bullets.
The end result is that when you see a powder company data for "125 gr" bullets for a .357 magnum load, it has to reflect the very broad range of available 125 gr .357 bullets and either the data will be adjusted accordingly, or it will be made clear that the hand loader needs to approach the limits with caution. You'll see the same thing in bullet company manuals like Hornady, where they may list several 125 gr .357 Magnum bullets above the load data. The odds are they have developed the data based on the "stickiest" bullet for the sake of safety, so in addition to powder variation from lot to lot, you'll get variation from bullet type to bullet type.
5. I'm not a fan of colloidal ball powders in a revolver for anything other than maximum loads with heavy bullets.
There is a myth flying around that the powder is completely burned before it leaves the case, but that doesn't seem to hold up in actual practice when you find un burned powder residue even with longer barrel pistols. And, even if the residue is burnt, it's still flowing through the forcing cone in a very hot state along with hot gas. The combination of hot gasses and gritty residue from ball powder creates a great mechanism to erode the forcing cone in a revolver.
I've also noted with the .357 Magnum that ball powders also have a tendency to blow particles back at me, and those particles are obviously being blown through the cylinder gap and being bounded off the frame or forcing cone and/or being blown by the pressure coming through that gap to strike me in the face.
I don't get that with a powder like Unique, where I'll only lose around 100 fps even in a 6" barrel compared 2400 or Win 296. Even better, I can actually get about 100 fps more velocity in a 2 3/4" or 3" barrel in the .357 Mag with Unique than I can get with 2400 of Win 296. (Before someone mentions the general advice that slow powders produce more velocity in the .357 magnum regardless of barrel length, be advised I'm basing my observations on extensive personal load development with a chronograph. I tend to put a lot more faith in my observed results than in what I read on the internet, or on general "wisdom".)
6. Erosion is reported to be greater with bullets of 125 grs or less bullets than bullets in the 135-158 gr range. The theory here is that the shorter bullets leave the case before the bullet has actually engaged the forcing cone, allowing the hot gas to race around the bullet and pre-heat the forcing cone before the bullet arrives, thus creating more stress on the forcing cone when the bullet arrives.
I'm skeptical for three reasons.
First, in terms of thermodynamics the time available between gas arrival and bullet arrival at the forcing cone is so brief that there is no time for the hot gas to transfer enough heat to the forcing cone to make any difference.
Second, the only prohibition I've ever read from a revolver manufacturer on the subject has been S&Ws caution about using 110 gr bullets in it's titanium cylinder revolvers due to erosion concerns.
Third, the observed phenomenon of cracked and eroded forcing cones arose with the change in law enforcement training practices with the .357 Magnum. Prior to about 1970, pretty much every department using the .357 Magnum practiced with .38 Special ammunition and reserved .357 Magnum for duty use only. After some law suits accusing law enforcement agencies of under training police officers by using .38 Special rather than .357 Magnum duty loads, most departments switched to .357 Magnum for training. With a steady diet of .357 Magnum loads, revolvers like the Model 19 started having issue with cracked forcing cones. That wasn't a surprise as the Model 19 was designed to be shot primarily with .38 Special with .357 Magnum intended to be shot much less frequently - on a ratio of perhaps 1 in 100.
However at this same time, .357 Magnum 125 gr loads became the overwhelming favorites with law enforcement agencies and the 125 gr bullet thus got the blame when problems started to arise.
7. I do feel colloidal ball powders do have a valuable place in .357 Magnum loads, but I reserve them for maximum loads where no other powder will suffice, and I use them with the full understanding that a steady diet of those loads will shorten the life of my revolver.
Now for most folks it probably doesn't make much difference, as they don't put enough rounds down range for the reduced life to ever pose a problem. But if you're one of those people averaging 100-200 rounds or more a week, it's going to be an issue and you'd be better served by a different type of powder.
1. Commercial ammunition is not loaded with canister grade powders. The powder they use is made in large production lots to a wider general specification, and the actual load data is then developed in-house by a ballistician.
For example DuPont will make batches of colloidal ball powder, and these batches are then analyzed for their burn traits and then mixed to get the burn traits specified by the commercial customer, which are a bit broader than the specifications for canister grade powder.
As an example of this, the US military used WC846 for the .7.62mm M80 Ball cartridge. When the 5.56mm M193 round was in it's long and difficult development process, one end of this powder specification was used to load M193 ammunition. That end of the specification was eventually just re-designated as WC844, creating two narrower specifications that had previously been a single specification.
H335 is generally regarded as the canister equivalent of WC844, while BLC-2 is generally regarded as the canister equivalent of WC846. Now look at a hand loading powder burn rate chart and note how far apart H335 and BLC-2 are on that chart. The original WC846 specification covered that entire burn rate range.
Consequently, anytime you see someone quoting a specific charge weight for a military or commercial load, it's just a nominal charge weight, not an actual weight that will give you identical performance with a canister grade powder.
2. Canister grade powders sold for the hand loading market are held to much narrower specifications as the average hand loader does not have the pressure test equipment to develop their own load data within specific pressure limits.
3. However, there is still variation from lot to lot. Win 296 and H-110 is a particularly interesting example. Back in the day before Hodgon came out and said that Win 296 and H110 were the same powder, you'd see both powders in the same reloading manual with significantly different charges. For example consider Hornady's 100 gr .30 M1 Carbine load in their 2003 sixth edition loading manual: 13.3 gr of H-110 versus 14.1 gr of Win 296 as the starting load. That's a 6% difference in what is supposedly the same powder, using the same bullet, case, primer, barrel, test equipment and test protocol.
Given that H-110 and Win 296 were the same powder at that point in time, that difference represents variation from lot to lot for the same canister grade powder.
Now in the distant past, it's possible that H-110 and Win 296 were more distinct, perhaps different ends of the same general burn rate specification. In any case, it needs to serve as a warning that there is variation even in canister grade powders and the 6% difference here why you see published advice to always start at least 10% below a max load, or to use caution with a max load when developing a load.
4. It's logical to assume the powder manufacturer knows the most about the powder, but that's only part of the load. If you ask a ballistician they will point out that the "stickiness" in the bore of projectiles of the same weight and caliber will vary. That is due to variation in bearing surface, in jacket alloy, harness and thickness, in the hardness of the core alloy, and in minor dimensional differences in the diameter of different bullets.
The end result is that when you see a powder company data for "125 gr" bullets for a .357 magnum load, it has to reflect the very broad range of available 125 gr .357 bullets and either the data will be adjusted accordingly, or it will be made clear that the hand loader needs to approach the limits with caution. You'll see the same thing in bullet company manuals like Hornady, where they may list several 125 gr .357 Magnum bullets above the load data. The odds are they have developed the data based on the "stickiest" bullet for the sake of safety, so in addition to powder variation from lot to lot, you'll get variation from bullet type to bullet type.
5. I'm not a fan of colloidal ball powders in a revolver for anything other than maximum loads with heavy bullets.
There is a myth flying around that the powder is completely burned before it leaves the case, but that doesn't seem to hold up in actual practice when you find un burned powder residue even with longer barrel pistols. And, even if the residue is burnt, it's still flowing through the forcing cone in a very hot state along with hot gas. The combination of hot gasses and gritty residue from ball powder creates a great mechanism to erode the forcing cone in a revolver.
I've also noted with the .357 Magnum that ball powders also have a tendency to blow particles back at me, and those particles are obviously being blown through the cylinder gap and being bounded off the frame or forcing cone and/or being blown by the pressure coming through that gap to strike me in the face.
I don't get that with a powder like Unique, where I'll only lose around 100 fps even in a 6" barrel compared 2400 or Win 296. Even better, I can actually get about 100 fps more velocity in a 2 3/4" or 3" barrel in the .357 Mag with Unique than I can get with 2400 of Win 296. (Before someone mentions the general advice that slow powders produce more velocity in the .357 magnum regardless of barrel length, be advised I'm basing my observations on extensive personal load development with a chronograph. I tend to put a lot more faith in my observed results than in what I read on the internet, or on general "wisdom".)
6. Erosion is reported to be greater with bullets of 125 grs or less bullets than bullets in the 135-158 gr range. The theory here is that the shorter bullets leave the case before the bullet has actually engaged the forcing cone, allowing the hot gas to race around the bullet and pre-heat the forcing cone before the bullet arrives, thus creating more stress on the forcing cone when the bullet arrives.
I'm skeptical for three reasons.
First, in terms of thermodynamics the time available between gas arrival and bullet arrival at the forcing cone is so brief that there is no time for the hot gas to transfer enough heat to the forcing cone to make any difference.
Second, the only prohibition I've ever read from a revolver manufacturer on the subject has been S&Ws caution about using 110 gr bullets in it's titanium cylinder revolvers due to erosion concerns.
Third, the observed phenomenon of cracked and eroded forcing cones arose with the change in law enforcement training practices with the .357 Magnum. Prior to about 1970, pretty much every department using the .357 Magnum practiced with .38 Special ammunition and reserved .357 Magnum for duty use only. After some law suits accusing law enforcement agencies of under training police officers by using .38 Special rather than .357 Magnum duty loads, most departments switched to .357 Magnum for training. With a steady diet of .357 Magnum loads, revolvers like the Model 19 started having issue with cracked forcing cones. That wasn't a surprise as the Model 19 was designed to be shot primarily with .38 Special with .357 Magnum intended to be shot much less frequently - on a ratio of perhaps 1 in 100.
However at this same time, .357 Magnum 125 gr loads became the overwhelming favorites with law enforcement agencies and the 125 gr bullet thus got the blame when problems started to arise.
7. I do feel colloidal ball powders do have a valuable place in .357 Magnum loads, but I reserve them for maximum loads where no other powder will suffice, and I use them with the full understanding that a steady diet of those loads will shorten the life of my revolver.
Now for most folks it probably doesn't make much difference, as they don't put enough rounds down range for the reduced life to ever pose a problem. But if you're one of those people averaging 100-200 rounds or more a week, it's going to be an issue and you'd be better served by a different type of powder.
