41 Mag, LSWC, W296 Need Help

[leas327]

Hello everyone, I need a little help with this. I recently bought an 8lb. can of W296 off of a coworker at a good price. I also recently bought 500 215gr. Keith-style LSWC Bevel Base bullets from Missouri Bullet Company. I would like to make up some loads using these components but I have a few questions.

First on the Missouri web site they have a formula for caculating optimal Brinnell hardness.
BHN=Cup/1422x.9
The bullets are stated to be 18 BHN so doing the math I came up with a max Cup of 23,036.4

The second thing is when I got on Hodgdon's web site they don't list a load for my particular combination. They don't list any W296 loads for lead bullets. The closest starting loads off their site are
210gr. XTP w/ 19.8gr of 296 making 25,600 cup
and
220gr. Spr. JSP w/ 18.0gr of 296 making 23,000 cup

I know that you are not suppose to substitute data from one bullet to another. I have also heard that you can substitute jacket load data to lead bullets of the same weight. But then again I heard contrary opinions to that. I want to be safe and don't want to blow myself up and become and internet legend for all the wrong reasons (i.e. pics of the blown up 629 thread on this site). When it comes to reloading I always check hodgdon's site and reference that with a Hornady loading Manual and the Lee Manual. But only Hodgdon has 215 lswc info and it doesn't have much of that. The closest thing is the Hornady book has starting loads for the 210gr. xtp at 17.6gr. of 296 and a listed velocity of 1100fps. I know that 296 isn't suppose to be used for reduced loads so that sounds like a decent starting point. But that violates the substitution rule. The only other load I have made with the 215gr. lswc is with Titgroup and I followed Hodgdon's load data from the begining to the max and would like to make up something with a little more heat. That max was 5.5gr of Titegroup and it is suppose to make 1004fps at 17,400cup but I haven't personally chrono'd it. I would really like to work up a load with a little more heat than that using 296. But if I am better off not messing with it can anyone recommend a powder to use that is better suited?

 

[44forever]

I have seen loads as heavy as 22.0 grains of 296 under a 220 grain cast bullet for a listed velocity of just over 1400 fps. For heavy loads with cast bullets, I generally use 2400. 18.0 grains is a heavy load and gives about 1400 fps in my 6" model 57. For a good medium/light load with the 215 grain LSWC I would recommend Unique. 8.5 grains will give around 1000 to 1100 fps to duplicate the old factory midrange/law enforcement load.

One of the gun writters (Mel Tappen, I think) said that if you were consistently loading any caliber handgun to maximum or near maximum levels what you really needed was a larger caliber.

 

[handgunner356]

Having been on the line when a fellow shooters 57 decided to part company while shooting reduced lead loads I would be very cautious. I always understood that 296 should only be used in max loads and not reduced more than 5% in starting loads. I would be more inclined to go with WSF or Universal Clays with the lead and save the 296 for jacketed bullets.

 

[rkrcpa]

I would offer a caution about "traditional" Keith loads......the bullet offered by most commercial casters are not true "Keith" bullets and I'm not sure the loading data is interchangeable. The "Keith" bullet is most likely longer than the SWC that Missouri Bullet Company sells. I have both at home and can measure them later but I would be concerned about effective case capacity if one seats deeper than the other.

 

[OKFC05]

I have the old Winchester loading booklet, which shows 296 for lead bullets, EXCEPT there are no 296 .41 mag lead bullet loads listed.
I don't know why, since there are 296 lead loads for .357 and .44 mag.

Maybe they know something we don't??

I do know that 296 is a dangerous powder to do experiments with, and has been involved in several blown guns. It is my favorite powder for max magnum loads, but I don't experiment.

 

[Roadranger]

I'd save the WW296 for jacketed bullets and go with any of the usual powders for the cast bullets. If you use the WW296 with the full house loads as shown, you'll most likely get a lot of leading. I've been using TrailBoss simply because it fills the case up with no air space, resulting in very consitent loads. Eight or nine grains of Unique works very well without excessive recoil and your powders goes a lot farther. I had to have the cylinder replaced on one of my M57's when I was loading 10 gr of AA5 and a 220 cast bullet simply because I double charged one with 20 gr. of AA5. I knew something was wrong when I opened the cylinder and the primer fell out. Using TrailBoss makes double charging almost impossible. If your into cast bullets, the Lyman manual is the one to have. Bob

 

[Skip Sackett]

It's good to be cautious!

I understand your frustration. First, I have gone over this issue of lead and H110/W296 with a Hodgdon tech several times in just the last few weeks.

The reason they told me that the don't list any loads for magnum cartridges and lead bullets and the high end "magnum powders" is the fear of bullet bases melting.

The only reason that would be dangerous is subsequent rounds going down a nearly plugged barrel. I will tell you this, I have used these powders with lead in LONG barrels without the bases being melted. Lil' Gun, different story, H110/W296 has been OK.

The danger with low charges and H110/W296 is not detonation, something the Hodgdon tech that I spoke with yesterday said they don't even believe in, it's because of stuck bullets in the bore from squib loads. Running a bullet behind one that is stuck in the bore is a bad thing too!

I can also tell you what I have done with these powders and you can make your own decision. Remember, you are responsible for your own behavior!
I find a load for a jacketed bullet that is near the same weight as the lead bullet I have. I reduce the charge by 1gr and that is my starting load. I don't go less than that unless the weights compared are over 20gr different. If my bullet is 240gr and the nearest jacketed bullet weight to it is 200gr, then I may go 2gr, it all depends on what I am shooting it out of.

You cannot do this without a chronograph and here is why. You need to be able to see the consistency of the rounds. Not just the velocity, but the consistency. Case in point: Just the other day I was trying to be "safe" with a MILSURP powder called WC820. The lot I have is supposed to be loaded to H110/W296 data. I noticed that that was just a tad high and dropped the weight down 2gr and went to the range. My first round was 900fps the second was 650fps or so the next back to 900fps. I fired the bullets but went REAL SLOW. It was a short barrel and I felt confident that even a round that was only partially igniting would exit. Still, I didn't rush it.

Don't do as I've done if you don't feel comfortable doing so. Better safe than sorry.

What I would do is call Hodgdon. Ask the tech how to come up with a load for your combination. They will tell you the reason they don't recommend H110/W296 with lead bullets and ask about my method of determining a starting load. Let us know what they say!
Be convincing when you talk to them though. If they detect that you are a knothead, they may not be so willing to help! ( I wonder how I got away with it then! )


p.s. Oh, I forgot to mention that there are manuals that have recipes and lead bullets and those powders. The 2002 Hodgdon manual lists H110 (EXACT SAME AS W296) with a 245gr LSWC(Cast) bullet. The COL/OAL is 1.630 (which seems to be long for cartridge maybe indicating a Keith style bullet) and a minimum load of 18.5gr and maximum being 21.0gr. Velocity is supposed to be 1372fps and 1563fps respecively.

 

[lafayne]

I will agree with previous posts in not using W296 as a max or reduced load with cast bullets. I use W296 and Nosler JHP bullets in my Ruger BH Bisley .41's for near max loads. It is very accurate with this bullet.

I use Mt. Baldy, Montana and Oregon Trail bullets to shoot lead. They all shoot very well with Trail Boss, Unique and 2400. Heavy loads of 2400 do not lead in my revolvers. Cylinder throats are very snug in both of my Rugers and .410 bullets push through with some resistance.

I also find that my .41's shoot various loads much closer to the same POI than my .45's.

 

[GF1]

Good counsel here on 296. I've used it quite a bit, but increasingly dislike it. The two powders I'd recommend for the .41 are Unique (which is fine loaded down) and 2400.

I much prefer a stout load of 2400, std primers, w/ either jacketed or hard cast 210/215 gr bullets. I have three M57s, have loaded for this cartridge over 25 years, and say with some authority that this is definitely the best for me. As others have said, 296 is a little touchy, requires magnum primers and a really tough crimp. I find it recoils more (apparently) than 2400; I can't explain it technically, but it sure feels that way.

 

[shaggist]

RCBS lead bullet

The only info I can find for the 210gr SWC lead bullet is an RCBS one.

It says: Gun: S&W Model 57
Barrel: 6"
Cases: W-W
Primers: CCI 350
Powder: 296
Grains: 19.0 Muzzle Vel.-1187
21.0 -1302

This is from an old Loadbooks-One Book/One Caliber
Reloading Manual for the .41 Magnum

I haven't tried this, as I use H-110 for my heavy jacketed loads, and don't shoot lead at high velocities from my guns.

I would caution you to use caution with any data that you get from anywhere.

 

[leas327]

I plan to call Hodgdon today and ask them about my problem. I have a Chronograph and will be cautious if/when I decide to work up a load.

I would like to try 2400 as it seems very popular but my local store doesn't have it and I already have the 296.

I will keep everyone posted.

 

[Skip Sackett]

Smart feller!

The danger with H110/W296 with reduced loads isn't that it will blow up your gun. It is squib loads. Now, a bullet stuck in the barrel with another one chasing it WILL blow up your gun! Hence the warning not to reduce loads with those powders.

While you have the tech on the phone, ask him the reason for the warning.

 

[leas327]

I just got on Hodgdon's site to get their number and found that their office hours are mon.-thurs. Looks like I will have to wait till Monday to call. Oh well, at least it will give me a chance to go to the range and make a few more empty .41 mag cases.

 

[ncbengal]

From the Winchester data I see, 296 is indeed tricky to use because it is among the slower burning handgun propellants. Once ignited, the pressure build-up is affected by the weight of the bullet and crimp. Heavier bullets offer most resistance (think inertia) and are therefore best. Secure, uniform crimping is also critical for the same reason. Without this resistance in the first microseconds, you don't get proper pressure curve, and instead of a "bang" you get a "psssh".

 

[BruceM]

"First on the Missouri web site they have a formula for caculating optimal Brinnell hardness.
BHN=Cup/1422x.9
The bullets are stated to be 18 BHN so doing the math I came up with a max Cup of 23,036.4"

I have to say that I find posts of this type amazing. I really do think that you've successfully taken a mole hill and made a mountain out of it.

First of all, a bevel base Keith style SWC is a contradiction of terms because Keith style SWC's are flat base bullets with long noses, three equal width driving bands and a single deep square bottom grease groove.

Using the formula for calculating the "optimum" BHN has pretty much zero to do with developing load data. Essentially, you've got the tail wagging the dog here. Actually, a cast bullet which has a BHN of 18 or greater is suitable for all common handgun applications up to 1400 fps if properly sized. You don't need a laptop or pocket calculator to determine this. If the bullet is incorrectly sized, you'll have problems regardless of the design, alloy used or hardness. OK, this potential problem is dealt with without an arithmetic or algebra exercise.

H110/W296 are excellent choices for magnum handgun ammunition ( as opposed to ammunition which can be fired in a magnum handgun) but must be used with at least a 90% loading density. This is why maximum charges listed should be reduced by no more than 5%.

Start your load development by using the starting load for a 210-220 grain bullet. You will not blow up your gun with these two powders. You can literally fill the case with these two propellants to the point where you cannot seat the bullet correctly and crimp with the result being difficult case extraction.

With a true Keith style SWC in the 210-220 grain range such as Lyman's #410459, you'll find that 21.5 to 21.7 grains of H110 is a powerful and accurate load with good quality hard cast bullets. You WILL NOT get a lot of leading if your bullets are properly sized and lubricated. I do not recommend this load but I have used up to 22.5 grains, however accuracy started to fall off. Even at this charge weight, which is a little above listed maximums, case extraction was not sticky. Personally, when firing a new magnum load, I will fire a few, one in the cylinder at a time and check for sticky extraction and primer condition. You only need to fire a full cylinder of heavy loads which you cannot extract once to learn never to do that again.

The COAL will be the length of the finished round with the bullet seated to the required depth for proper crimping in a case of correct length. A dimension given in a loading manual is merely a guideline, not a mandate as long as the assembled round will function in your gun. You will need a very tight bullet pull plus a firm roll crimp. Just a heavy crimp doesn't get it done.

All data published in loading manuals, be they hardcopy or virtual, are guidelines and are reflections of the specific equipment and lots of components on hand when the testing was done. This information did not come from a burning bush inscribed on granite tablets. I think people lose sight of that and this leads to the "manual "A" say this-Manual "B" says that, who's correct?" type of questions. The answer is that both are right based on what they had at hand. That said, those using the data must consider the consequences of wandering off the ranch and be responsible for the results of that trip.

Keep it simple. Everything is not a project. Use a hard cast bullet of correct diameter to eliminate leading. Follow correct load development procedures. Remember slow burners such as H110/W296 and even 2400 require tight bullet pull for correct combustion. Seat the bullets to the depth necessary to properly crimp and check for function in your gun. You'll spend less time on the phone and more time loading & shooting.



Bruce

My experience and that of my fellow shooters is that when comparing loads of identical velocities developed with both H110/W296 and 2400, the H110/W296 loads have less perceived recoil. I could be mistaken but I think you'll find that the H110/W296 loads develop lower pressures at these velocities. Also, H110 doesn't leave all those hard little granules all over your gun which sneak into the worst places. This is not to say that 2400 won't deliver velocity with accuracy because it will-just that my experiences are notably different from yours.

 

[Skip Sackett]

I have to say that I find posts of this type amazing. I really do think that you've successfully taken a mole hill and made a mountain out of it.

If the bullet is incorrectly sized, you'll have problems regardless of the design, alloy used or hardness. OK, this potential problem is dealt with without an arithmetic or algebra exercise.


With a true Keith style SWC in the 210-220 grain range such as Lyman's #410459, you'll find that 21.5 to 21.7 grains of H110 is a powerful and accurate load with good quality hard cast bullets. You WILL NOT get a lot of leading if your bullets are properly sized and lubricated. I do not recommend this load but I have used up to 22.5 grains, however accuracy started to fall off. Even at this charge weight, which is a little above listed maximums, case extraction was not sticky. Personally, when firing a new magnum load, I will fire a few, one in the cylinder at a time and check for sticky extraction and primer condition. You only need to fire a full cylinder of heavy loads which you cannot extract once to learn never to do that again.

The COAL will be the length of the finished round with the bullet seated to the required depth for proper crimping in a case of correct length. A dimension given in a loading manual is merely a guideline, not a mandate as long as the assembled round will function in your gun. You will need a very tight bullet pull plus a firm roll crimp. Just a heavy crimp doesn't get it done.

All data published in loading manuals, be they hardcopy or virtual, are guidelines and are reflections of the specific equipment and lots of components on hand when the testing was done. This information did not come from a burning bush inscribed on granite tablets. I think people lose sight of that and this leads to the "manual "A" say this-Manual "B" says that, who's correct?" type of questions. The answer is that both are right based on what they had at hand. That said, those using the data must consider the consequences of wandering off the ranch and be responsible for the results of that trip.


Keep it simple. Everything is not a project. Use a hard cast bullet of correct diameter to eliminate leading. Follow correct load development procedures. Remember slow burners such as H110/W296 and even 2400 require tight bullet pull for correct combustion. Seat the bullets to the depth necessary to properly crimp and check for function in your gun. You'll spend less time on the phone and more time loading & shooting.



Bruce

Well Bruce,
Either you were up late or started early this morning. 3AM!

Did you have your coffee yet?

This post is chocked full of good advice. I have highlighted some. I must say I agree with the sizing issue and cast bullets. One thing that, and this is my experience, exacerbates leading in too small of a bullet is that of hardness. If a bullet is too small and too hard, I have gotten terrible leading. If it is too soft and too small, I may still get leading but it doesn't seem to be as bad. Remember, I know that softer bullets are supposed to be pushed less and that may be the difference.

I suppose it if was to try too soft of a bullet that was too small to magnum velocities it would be different, I don't do that though. The right sized bullets even with the wrong hardness can be used with good success.

If you want a "custom" cast bullet you might try tennesseevalleybullets.com. The owner of that is a member here, NKJ_nut. I know you can get different sizes and I think, if you really need it, different hardnesses. Could be wrong though.

I know this too, wheel weights + a little Linotype, for about 15-18BHN, can be driven to velocities of 1800fps without leading. Been there done that.

p.s. Bruce, got your coffee yet? Good info!

 

[BruceM]

I'm glad we finally agree on a bunch of things Smith Crazy.

With regard to bullet hardness, in my experience, you have to work at making a bullet too hard for handgun use. Bullets cast from straight monotype (BHN 28) will not lead the bore IF they are correctly sized and lubricated. That said, this alloy is unnecessarily hard and can be cut with wheelweights to get back to a hardness of 18-20 Brinnell. Ditto for bullets heated in an oven or water dropped. Once the bore is sealed, it's sealed and you won't get gas blowby. This isn't to say that you can't have gun issues where the chamber throat diameters are not compatible with the bore diameter but that's a subject for another thread. Leading in handguns is usually caused by too soft a bullet for the velocity attempted, bullets of the wrong diameter and incorrect/insufficient lube. Incidentally, bullets cast from an alloy of sufficient hardness can be "made" too soft by swaging them down to size in a sizer lubricator. This practice destroys the hard surface of the bullet which is relatively thin. Bullet sizing dies are used to maintain concentricity and the optimum condition is a bullet who's as-cast diameter is correct for your gun.

It is possible to make bullets too hard but that usually happens in rifles. The bullet can actually become too hard and brittle for the velocities encountered and the slug will sort of jump the rifling and become stripped if you will. That seems to be a non issue at common magnum handgun velocities however.



Bruce

P.S. I swore off coffee some time back but may have to relent on that vice in the near future-life is too short.

 

[leas327]

I called Hodgdon Today

The man on the tech line said that they don't list lead loads using 296 because they believe the back of the bullet will melt before it leaves the barrel and cause severe leading. He also said if I want to try it anyways to use the 220gr. jacketed start load and work up from there. He asked why I wanted to use 296 and what I was going to use the rounds for. I told him they have no specific purpose and that I wanted something a that makes more power/velocity than the Titegroup loads. I don't consider myself a magnum nut but l like to occasionally shoot some full house loads to feel that power. He recommended a the powder Autocomp and gave me a load using it. He said that it is a little slower than Titegroup and will make more velocity. He also said warned against downloading 296 because of the possibilty of squib loads like Skip said. I am still going to give it a go and see what happens. I will definatly take the advice I have been given and be cautious.

 

[Skip Sackett]

327,
Exactly. Those are the same reasons he/they have given me in the past. They don't believe in the "detonation theory" there. It's squib loads. I can tell you this, I've had a few with slower powders loaded down in longer barrel guns. Fortunately they all exited the barrel!

Now, there have been loads for years and years with H110/W296 and plain based cast bullets with no melted bases. There are other powders that I have had this happen with, Lil' Gun, WC820 are two of them.

Glad to be a help!