296 Loads For .38/.44 Heavy Duty Part II

[keithpip]

A previous post of mine asked about using 296 powder to duplicate the original.38/.44 Heavy Duty ammo of days gone by. There were many responses but DWalts comments made sense. Why not conduct a test and see what happens. I assembled 5 different loads of six rounds each using 296 powder in mixed .38 special cases, 158 gr. SWC lead bullets (cast by me and lubed with liquid Alox) and Winchester standard small pistol primers. My objective was to test each load first for safety (signs of excessive pressure) and to see if any other ignition problems surfaced (squid loads, hangfires etc.) Another consideration was the efficiency of the load; that is does the powder burn completely or will it leave unburned powder in the bore. I decided to err on the side of caution and fire the first two rounds from my 4” Smith Model 28 and the remaining four rounds in my prewar 5” Heave Duty. The loads: 9.6, 10.8, 11.5, 11.8 and 12.1. The first and last loads (9.6 and 12.1) were taken from old Sierra and Speer manuals. At least I had published load data to fall back on. Summary of test results: my notes I made for each load out on the range were practically identical for each load whether shot from the M28 or the HD. None of these loads were unsafe in any way. I don’t own a chronograph so I wasn’t able to test for velocity. All I could do was make a subjective judgment of each load by comparing each to my “gold standard” HD load of 12.0 gr. 2400. The 9.6 gr. load shot like a standard.38 special +P load. The 12.1 gr. load felt very close but not quite up to my gold standard 2400 load. Throughout all testing there were absolutely no signs of high pressure. All cases extracted easily, no blown or flattened primers etc. The only problem was that 296 left a lot of unburned powder in the bore and some in the chambers. I forgot to bring a cleaning rod and patches with me to swab the bore between loads so I’m not sure the unburned powder decreased as I worked my way up up 12.1. Conclusion: Can 296 be used for .38/.44 HD loads? Absolutely. Is it the best powder in these somewhat reduced loads? No. Is it the most efficient powder to use in this range (9.6-12.1)? Probably not. I think more can be gotten from 296 by pushing it a little further. I’ll come back with another set of loads to report on. I want to emphasize that these were MY loads with my revolvers fired under my test conditions. I bear no responsibility for your loads and guns fired under your test conditions.

 

[venomballistics]

sounds about right.
This particular burn rate is a twisted mistress.
Most of the powders in this range play like this. They need to be pushed. and as delicious as they may seem in other roles like reduced cast lead rifle loads, they do not play nice here either.
2400 and AA#9 are two of the few exceptions. There may be others as new powders emerge ... no idea what ramshot enforcer is like. but it may be worth investigation.

 

[glenwolde]

If you are so inclined, try the same test but with magnum primers.

 

[STORMINORMAN]

Or, give either Longshot or CFE-Pistol a try...

Cheers!

 

[6string]

Something you either didn’t mention, or didn’t account for, was loading density.
The critical characteristic with 296 is loading density. It seems to burn most efficiently at about 95 to 100% capacity, or very slightly compressed. (Of course, I am referring to loading capacity of a given case less the volume occupied by the bullet itself!!)
This can be tricky. Many bullets, even those of identical weights, may seat to differing depth in the case. Lyman molds, for example, made over the course of several years, all bearing the identical mold number often exhibit many variations.
Another factor is the case itself. Mixing different headstamps, or even different lots of the same headstamp, can be problematic.

There is another important detail when working with 296. You want a fairly high bullet “pull”. That is, the resistance of the bullet to movement within the case once seated. A high bullet “pull”, along with a high loading density of the powder relative to case capacity, improves burning efficiency and helps minimize unburned powder. Contributing factors include: bullet diameter vs. the I.D. of the mouth of a sized case, brass hardness, and bullet hardness. (Again, you can see two more reasons why sticking with one lot/headstamp of brass is best!)
For cast bullets, I tend to favor softer alloys. But, this is one case where a harder cast bullet is desirable. The reason is, you do not want to distort the bullet when seating. A higher bullet “pull” increases that risk. So, a balance must be found.
This may be a good application for using a gas check bullet design.
Also, the exact dimensions of your specific die set will be a huge factor in acheiving the desired result.

Possibly more work with this in mind may help you achieve all your intended goals.
PS: Keep in mind that since I do not know what brass or specific bullet you are using, it cannot be said here with certainty what charge weight of 296 you'd end up with that satisfy the criteria mentioned. The load range will very likely exceed .38 Special SAAMI specs, even at a +P level. Best bet is to assemble a load that works as described here, then weighing the charge to see if it seems like it is safe.

 

[stansdds]

H-110/W-296 is a very slow burning pistol powder. It does need to fill or nearly fill the available space within the case once the bullet is seated. It is simply not a good choice for anything but full power magnum loads in calibers 357 Magnum or larger.

 

[gwpercle]

Thanks for an Awesome Range Report !

Pushing the 296 ... " a little further " may be just the ticket to cleaning up the unburned powder ( just a bit more pressure ) ...
How is the accuracy ... let us know if 296 is more accurate than 2400 .
I like to shoot this type , 38/44 HD loads , in my 357 magnum ... but data is hard to come by ... Thanks Again !
Gary

 

[Skeet 028]

I've always been a bit of an experimenter. LLoading 296 in the 38 I just decided wasn't worth it. I used a lot of 296 in the 357 41 and 44s...and 410 shotshells. In Md where I lived in high humidity I had a slight problem with clumping...esp in progressive machines(mostly shotshell but 550 too) getting some over and under charges...and I know some will scoff at the (old wive's) tale of detonation...I had a beautiful Python that fired one round and blew the topstrap off...not me. But I got the unfired 3 rounds that were left in the 1/2 cylinder) weighed 2 and both had about 6 gr of 296 in them .Under 1/2 a load. I no longer use 296 to load any mag handgun rounds. I still use it in 410..but don't load many of 'em. I only have about 10 pounds left. Then...I may be a Wimp