AMMO!!

[peterthefish]

If I had only posted 150 times on an Internet Forum, I would show a bit of deference to someone with over 4,000 posts.



That being said (written), maybe both of you should try going outside and enjoying the nice weather we're having. I mean that, in the most positive way I can muster. It's just an Internet Forum, after all.

I afford deference to quality of content, not quantity.

Posted from here:



Mobile devices are wonderful things.

 

[shil]

Fellas, fellas! If the gentleman stayed within the guidelines of the published data he was using, all should be well. His powder charge is right out of the range published in Hornady #7 (boy, do I need to update! Hornady's up to #9!). The only question I would have is his primer choice. The recipe calls for WSPM. Let us strive not to demoralize someone new to the reloading fold. ArchAngel was trying to be helpful, stressing safety, which cannot be OVER-stressed. 296/H110 can be unforgiving at times.

 

[Hillbilly77]

Fellas, fellas! If the gentleman stayed within the guidelines of the published data he was using, all should be well. His powder charge is right out of the range published in Hornady #7 (boy, do I need to update! Hornady's up to #9!). The only question I would have is his primer choice. The recipe calls for WSPM.

Got it.

The 9th edition manual is what came in my kit.

 

[Rule3]

Any Popcorn left??

 

[Badquaker]

The best advice I can give the OP, and something I should do more of, is to keep prolific notes. This is a long term hobby, and no one remembers everything.

 

[shil]

Got it.

The 9th edition manual is what came in my kit.

Thank you for your reply, Hillbilly. Your loads look great. I suppose I'll have to get a Hornady #9 manual as well. It's always a plus to have the latest data. Incidentally, I'm age 64, have been loading for over 30 years, have made some mistakes (annoyances, not catastrophes, thankfully!), and am still learning. I think you will get a great deal of satisfaction from handloading, not to mention saving 50% or more on ammo after you amortize the cost of your equipment. You will find many experienced handloaders in this forum who will be willing to advise you and have your safety at heart.
Shoot straight and stay safe!

 

[dmar]

Says the person hiding behind a fake name? Using language a good bit more foul than I did?

Your advice implied that Hornady's load data, with a starting load more than 10% below max, was therefore wrong.

That's an assumption that's flat out wrong - I'm pointing that out. Sorry if I was a bit too snarky for your taste, but what I wrote is accurate. If you don't like that, them ignore it. You're free to live in your veil of ignorance.

I'm sure you're a great guy and everything, but IMO your response did come across pretty rude, and you may want to consider owning it, and offering a real apology... Or, not...

Archangel spends a lot of time and effort giving good advice around here. With all due respect, if you didn't agree with this piece of advice, there's a way of saying things, especially on this forum. We generally value good manners, and decorum around here.

Everything I've ever read about 296 warns of the potential for pressure spikes when loading too light, and that you are safer nearer to max load. I know this seems counter-intuitive, and not what you'd do with other powders. That Hornady recipe does seem like a large variance from min to max for 296. I would think Hornady knows what they are doing, too, but it is out of line from what I've seen other places. Just saying, and YMMV. I won't give my load, but I've never had an issue with my higher 296 loads.

Hillbilly, that's some great looking ammo; congrats and enjoy!

 

[peterthefish]

I'm sure you're a great guy and everything, but IMO your response did come across pretty rude, and you may want to consider owning it, and offering a real apology... Or, not...



Archangel spends a lot of time and effort giving good advice around here. With all due respect, if you didn't agree with this piece of advice, there's a way of saying things, especially on this forum. We generally value good manners, and decorum around here.



Everything I've ever read about 296 warns of the potential for pressure spikes when loading too light, and that you are safer nearer to max load. I know this seems counter-intuitive, and not what you'd do with other powders. That Hornady recipe does seem like a large variance from min to max for 296. I would think Hornady knows what they are doing, too, but it is out of line from what I've seen other places. Just saying, and YMMV. I won't give my load, but I've never had an issue with my higher 296 loads.



Hillbilly, that's some great looking ammo; congrats and enjoy!

I would have considered an apology but for the "who do you think you are" chest thumping. Following that I call it even.

Hodgdon itself has disclaimed an issue of pressure spikes from low loads of 296, warning instead that the issue is potential poor ignition and squibs. Advice likely given because they cannot be assured loaders will use magnum primers - I.e. Catering to the lowest common denominator. Yet another reason to pay attention the published data.

 

[snowman]

Hillbilly,

Congratulations on getting started successfully. Let me add just a friendly note re: the controversy on the charge weight(and restate a few points of previous posters). Some of the following may not be absolutely accurate, and more expert folks likely will come along and correct me if it isn't.

I've been using H110(same as W296 with a different label) for some years now. It is true that Hodgdon Powder Co.(who sells H110/W296) cautions against reducing charge weights more than 3%(apparently this is a general rule). The reasoning, I believe, is the same as that used for requiring magnum primers with this powder: it doesn't ignite as easily as other powders, which apparently can result in only partial ignition if the charge doesn't fill the case. The magnum primer's more intense flame helps alleviate this possible problem, as does a charge which has no room to move within the case.

[NOTE: A possible parallel with which you would be familiar would be a cylinder in a diesel losing enough compression to fail to ignite the injected fuel.]

You should be OK using your magnum primers, as was indicated by your test firings the other night.

You can actually help our pool of knowledge here as you fire these. Be alert as you fire for any inconsistency in recoil, noise, or point of impact. If you think you detect a particularly anemic round as you touch it off, you might unload and check for unburnt powder or an unusually dirty chamber throat, or etc. Then let us know if anything like this happened. Then increase the charge to Hodgdon's recommendation and report any difference. I'm sure there are a number of us here who would be interested in such information.

By the way, W296/H110 has one of the slowest, if not the slowest burn rate among pistol powders, which means it has a more gradual pressure curve, which in turn makes it unlikely to create excessive pressures at maximum listed charge weights. One of the most expert loaders here once said that one could not get enough of this powder in a case to break a gun. That is likely true. One time as I was developing a load my eyes somehow looked at the wrong line in the loading data, and I overloaded half a dozen .44 magnum cases by one full grain. They didn't extract as readily as they should have(the only way I realized my error), but caused no harm.

That last paragraph is in NO way intended to encourage "hotrodding" ammunition. It is merely included to alleviate any anxiety which might arise from following Hodgdon's recommendation of using a near-maximum charge with this powder.

Again, congratulations, and let us know from time to time how things are going. Maybe provide some pictures of targets from differing loads or whatever.

Best wishes,
Andy