Herc 2400 V.S. Alliant 2400

[canoe on the yukon]

Tim,

We're in complete agreement.The endless tirade of H110/W296 bashing is not only shallow,but infantile.

 

[Skip Sackett]

Canoe,
The "endless tirade"? I have to admit I haven't seen that here. I remember a thread not too long ago where forum member nitesite posted some pictures of flash from several loads through his revolvers. Some were short barreled and some weren't. If I remember correctly there were other folks that posted in those threads too and they showed some really bright flash pictures from loads with H110/W296.

I know that there are folks, and I used to be one of them, that shied away from H110/W296 from short barrels. I just don't like muzzle flash. Then I started developing loads for my carbine rifles in both 44Mag and 357Mag. I found H110/W296 to be wonderful in those applications. Am I going to use it to load self defense ammo for my 1 7/8" snubby? No. Why? Muzzle flash and extreme amounts at that.

Saying that doesn't mean it is worse than xxx powder, it's just given as information to those that would use it to load such. 2400, SR4756 and a ton of other powders will produce flash as well. Recognizing it's full attributes isn't meant as a slam, just information.

If someone would say that it doesn't produce some spectacular flashes, light shows, or even flame thrower effects, they have either read too many magazines, stayed on an Internet forum too much or just plain hasn't shot as much as claimed.

End of the story, H110/W296 will produce a bunch of flash and especially if shot in short barreled revolvers. This information has been written about for decades. Slower powders produce greater velocity even in shorter barrels AND they also produce greater muzzle flash.

To ignore this knowledge is not only infantile but is downright ignorant.
(And no, I'm not referring to any comments you have made.)

 

[Fla_Sun]

??? What are you two guys talking about? I haven't noticed any H110 bashing on this thread, just some good comments as what not to do with it. Light crimps, low charges, standard primers, etc. Not everyone knows the nature of H110/W296. It is best to earn from others mistakes. One of my favorite loads has H110 with a heavy hard cast bullet. Definitely not a "wimp" load! And I must have missed the "flame thrower" comments in this thread. I thought Blue Dot had that title. Whats with the sensitivity? Never mind I don't want to know, end of looking at this thread for me.

 

[canoe on the yukon]

Skip,

My comment was not a personal dig at you.It was a general observation.If you claim that there has not been a lot of bashing of this powder on the site,you're not being genuine.Only a couple of digs on this thread but on the forum in particular,it's been obvious.

Yes,W296 produces muzzle flash.I have not said that it doesn't.If you don't want to use it then don't use it....period.

My biggest gripe is for those who are constantly criticizing it for not being appropriate for downloading.If you want to download....choose another powder....period.The petty digs are often accompanied by volumes of mis-information which doesn't help.

If your comments about a lack of experience were aimed at me,perhaps you might re-think that.I doubt if you'd want your background compared to mine.

About your gun rag and internet comments....those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

[Skip Sackett]

Canoe,
NONE, let me say that again, NONE of my comments about magazines or Internet were aimed at you.

Not throwing stones at all.

I whole-heartedly agree with your assessments of H110/W296. Folks have mentioned that you cannot reduce loads with that powder but, I have never felt it is bashing. Just me though. Folks have mentioned it and I acknowledge that. Never been a complaint of mine though. It's designed for a purpose, use it in those parameters and it works superbly.

As a matter of fact, concerning H110/W296, I am going to be loading some 357Mag loads with it very shortly to use hunting for my wife's Marlin 1894.

I have the highest regards for your experience and as a matter of fact, have rethought using H110/W296 partly because of your comments. *See added comments at the bottom of post.

Notice in the image I posted from the Speer #8 that H110 is not mentioned as a short barreled powder. 2400 is AND it is mentioned in the heading that major flash was reported using it.

No bashing here about the flash aspect either. It is just something to consider for the reloader. That is my only point.

Sorry for ruffling your feathers! Not intended.

Just to set the record straight, I usually post chronograph results weekly from some load that I have developed/concocted!
(Small disclaimer: Since we have been in the middle of a snow storm it has fallen to once every two or three weeks! )

* Another BIG factor in deciding on H110/W296 had nothing to do with dissatisfaction with another powder. I had a 40 minute phone conversation with John Linebaugh about the 45 Colt (Ruger only loads) and the 44Mag in a carbine. He made mention of the fact the he greatly prefers H110/W296 in all of his handgun loads because of the slower "push" type of recoil. Now, I'm no brain surgeon as many of you forum members have noticed when studying my sentence structure, but I am smart enough to recognize an expert and when to take subtle suggestions as they are given! I have been loading some really strong stuff in the 45Colt lately and running it through my Puma rifle as well as my new Ruger Blackhawk 45 caliber convertible. So, to give credit where credit is due, I felt remiss not mentioning Mr. Linebaugh's name when speaking about a new use for H110/W296.

 

[flat top]

If muzzle flash bothers some of you folks, may I suggest that you try shooting on bright sunny days...it works wonders!!!

 

[Skip Sackett]

You mean like this one shot in broad daylite?

The original poster of the picture stated that it was shot from a 22Jet with H110 in an 8 3/8" barrel and he had no need to wait until dark!

 

[canoe on the yukon]

Skip,

I did not mean to seem hostile.Perhaps it came across that way but it was unintended on my part.

The flash issue was not something I brought up.It is obviously more important to some than others.Recoil is obviously very important to some (it must be-it's constantly talked about).Within limits,I simply ignore it.

Your post was addressed to me personally and so I took your remarks to be directed at me.I don't want to get into a flaming match with anyone on the forum.Actually,I usually enjoy your posts.

It was not even particualarly you that I thought about when I made my comments.It was a generalization.The whining and belly-aching from those who want target loads and therefore condemn this powder ad nauseum because it's not suited for that are the one's I was referring to.Such was getting evident in this thread but not nearly as strongly as on some of the threads.It's a subject of great annoyance to someone who uses it properly and gets the predictable excellent results.

My comments were not aimed at anyone directly.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

The jet is famous for fireballs, regardless of what powder is being used, if they are at least appropriate for the round. That picture sure looks like an indoor range to me. There are what looks like fluorescent lights overhead.

My .475 uses fairly large charges of H-110, and I have never had a fireball from it. I use it in my .45 Colt Redhawk, and Blackhawk, and even in my M-25's with no trouble as far as excessive flash, and not in my .44's or .41 either. I get just as big a lightshow from 2400 as I do H-110, which is to say, not much.

All powders flash as I said in my last post. You can take video and crop pictures from the moment of ignition, but most of the time the flash is too short lived to be detectable in real time. We have watched this on numerous hunting programs on TV lately. Mostly from big double rifles over in Africa. We don't see the flash when the scene is being played in real time, but when they play back the shot in slow motion, the flash is quite noticable.




The smaller the caliber, the more it seems to show up when using this powder from what I have observed.

 

[Skip Sackett]

Skip,

Actually,I usually enjoy your posts.

Well, that comment is better than some I've heard!

I'm right there with powder selection too. If you want target rounds, use a powder that is geared to that venue/genre.

If you want magnum loads, get one that is geared to that type of performance as well.

There is an overabundance of powders to choose from. Find one that will work in your application.

That is why I don't use H110/W296 for my PPC load in the 44Mag. I shoot a 200gr LRNFP over a load of Bullseye for that.

They all have their purposes, I have found that they all will perform as designed when used in their respective proper criteria.

Have a good evening folks!

 

[canoe on the yukon]

About flash...perhaps I'm just too numb to notice.My favorite load for the 357 snubby uses W296 behind the 125gr JHP.In the 44 magnum,it's W296 as well,regardless of the barrel length.

There have been comments about how "in the early days" H110 didn't seem to be all that great.It was a sort of new kid on the block and was treated somewhat timidly by some of the loading manuals.When comparing H110 with 2400 during the early 70's,some of the manuals gave loads that were VERY HIGH with 2400 while H110 was treated with more moderation.In such examples,the 2400 loads would've produced far more pressure than the H110 loads presented.Things have to be taken in their perspective.

Since then,things have changed and it's now loaded to it's potential.One can cherry pick and find instances of something being slightly better for one bullet weight or another but when looked at across the board,The ballistic labs make no secret of the fact that it is excellent stuff for it's intended purpose.

 

[Paul5388]

For some reason, I can't keep up with a once daily notification, so I usually get in on the tail end of things.

The chemical composition of a particular powder gives it certain characteristics. While there are deterrents that can be used to offset some of those characteristics, the older powders are usually lacking in that technology. H110/W296 is old enough to be lacking and it seems to exhibit its fair share of the flash and maybe then some.

The flash is largely due to the nitroglycerin it, and 2400 and Unique and others, contains. If you're going to change the flash, you're going to have to use a deterrent or get rid of the nitroglycerin.

Someone said something about misuse/abuse of H110/W296 and in my opinion, that would have to include lighting off a 125 gr .357 Mag bullet with a bunch of H110 behind it. Once that happens everyone wants to cry and whine about flame cutting, forcing cone cracking and their K frames giving up the ghost before its time. Of course, if you turn back a couple of pages from what Skip posted, it's easy to see using H110 with a 125 gr bullet, or even a 158 gr cast bullet, is an exercise in futility (it isn't even listed for the 110 gr bullet).

After I posted this, I saw where the claim for less pressure is being made for H110 with a 125 gr .357 Mag. Lyman 49th Edition says 22.0 gr compressed with a Hornady #35710 produces 1506 fps at 42,600 cup. Using 17.7 gr of 2400 with the same bullet produces 1478 fps at 40,600 cup. It appears H110's potential is still less than what I clock with a 125 gr bullet which is what Speer #8 says right before your eyes.

 

[canoe on the yukon]

Paul,

The Speer #8 just happens to be one of the earlier manuals I was referring to.The data for 2400 was red hot while H110 was loaded beneath it's potential.

As far as H110 being folly behind the 125 gr JHP in the 357 mag,you're welcome to your opinion.Some will share your opinion and some will not.For an example,Mike at Hodgdon will not.I have personally gotten excellent velocity and consistancy with it and have done so for years.

You obviously don't like the powder and so I'd suggest you don't use it but there is a very large volume of collective ballistic lab data that speaks very highly of it.

Again...If you don't like it,don't use it.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

Paul-

I believe you to be a gentleman, and I know you are a very knowlegable handloader, but I am always puzzled when people on this site constantly harp on safety (not that I have seen you do it you, but there are those that do), but continue to referrence the Speer #8, when the #9 and #10 specifically say that the data presented in the #8 manual were worked up using visual indicators, while the latter two both used either the CUP, or PSI method to determine pressures. That is clearly an indication that the later data is not to be dismissed in favor of the earlier manual to me. If safety is paramount, and we all believe it is (I think), then I don't understand the desire to keep using the #8 as a source of info, when clearly the newer manuals are safer in their listed data due to the much more accurate pressure testing methods.

BTW, I have the #8 and enjoy cross referrencing it with others, but realize that it is no longer the best source to go to, as far as safe data is concerned with some loads.

Also, I find in Hodgdon #26 the following-
Max load of 2400 under a 125 JHP=16 grains @38,600 CUP= velocity of 1472 FPS

Max load of H-110 under a 125 JHP=19 grains @34,200 CUP= velocity of 1822 FPS

It appears that depending on the source, we can arrive at all sorts of different results.

As I said before, I use both powders a lot, and will continue to do so.

 

[flat top]

SC; That is a nice shot, but that is all it is....a nice shot. That lady in the photo does not look like she is at all distracted by the muzzle flash. Probably the flash from the camera was more bothersome to her than the muzzle flash. She looks very intent on hitting what she is shooting at!!!! I think that muzzle flash is a moot point anyway...happens in milliseconds, and is not noticable by shooters under most shooting conditions, who keep their eyes on the sights and the target. I have actually seen on TV that some folks are now saying that a photographic image can actually discern "beings" from other dimensions.....(yeah right)....so, there is no telling that the speed of the shutter would detect things that are not "as detectable" by the human eye.

 

[Paul5388]

but continue to referrence the Speer #8, when the #9 and #10 specifically say that the data presented in the #8 manual were worked up using visual indicators, while the latter two both used either the CUP, or PSI method to determine pressures.

I think most of the references in Speer #9 and Speer #10 were debunked in the infamous thread on THE LOAD.

This page from Speer #5 should convince you of the existence and use of pressure equipment by Speer, long before #8 came out.

Concerning muzzle flash, here's a comment from another forum.

Try these: muzzle flashes.

I, too, like muzzle flash. All those in the album above were generated with my guns, except the few of the 12ga "Dragon's Breath" cartridge--my best friend used his duty 870 for those.

My favorite powder for muzzle flash is H110 (or 296). At this time, both powders are the same. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, I believe there were minor differences between them, but both were produced by the same manufacturer and sold by different firms. Back before the change, H110 produced a yellowish flash and WW296 produced a bluish one; H110 made a recoil like a very firm push and WW296 was more like being hit with a hammer; and WW296 gave warnings about not using light loads (and H110 did not). Both vendors now claim that both powders are the same now, and I think that they have just agreed to sell 296 under both names (both now give a warning about using light loads). There was so little difference in load data that it really did not make a lot of sense to have different formulations, I guess. I liked the old H110 better, but I can live with it.

flashguy

Here's the whole thread, if you care to read it. THREAD

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

Thanks for the links Paul.

I agree with Rocky Raab on the issue of powwder burning after leaving the barrel. The article I mentioned above by Barsness does a god job of explaining what really happens when a round is fired.

As far as pressure equipment goes in the older Speer manuals, the #9 & #10 don't say that they had no pressure equipment, just that they used the visual method for checking their loads. I believe they must have had pressure guns for at least a few rounds way back even before the #8 as is evidenced by the statement in your picture above. Still, the majority of the cartidges listed in manuals prior to the #9 were in fact worked up by using the visual inspection method, and without knowing exactly which used a real pressure gun, it seems that if safety is a major concern, the wise choice is to use a manual in which the loads were worked up for most all of the loads by pressure gun testing.

As far as the pictures in the link showing flash, they are all taken in low light, to no light conditions, whether indoor or outdoor. Any powder will show flash under those conditions. I regularly see muzzle flash from my slug gun when firing at dawn or dusk. I just don'r worry about it. I think way too much is made out of muzzle flash. It is a factor involved with burning powder, and you can either try to find a load that gives minimum flash ( and most likely not the best performance) for a given round/load combination, or ignore it and have fun shooting.
I'll stand by what I said before- I just haven't had any issues with flash from H-110 under normal daytime shooting conditions in the caliber/gun combos I have used it in.

Thanks again for the links.

 

[Paul5388]

I think one of the problems with the statements in Speer #9 and #10 stem from a failure to consider the section those statements are made in. I believe you'll find they are in the rifle section, not the handgun section and yet they are usually understood as a blanket statement.

The page I posted from Speer #5 demonstrates the fallacy of a blanket statement.

Another fact that seems to be little known is Phil Sharpe's use of pressure data in Complete Guide to Handloading dating back to 1937.

The only real issue on muzzle flash, as far as I'm concerned, is possible use of a load in a defense situation in low light. There is a reason for deterrents and defense or military applications provide that reason.

 

[flat top]

Paul5388; I read that thread...thanks! I have a large supply of 844 powder which is a military bulk. It is near identical to H335, but, the muzzle flash is MUCH less than the H335. I know, because I have used both in Benchrest matches that were held at night. The fella that mentioned that little tid bit about military powders, is very knowledable....I know so, because I know him, and, if anybody has had experience with military powders, it is him. One comment made in that thread was that we "can" produce dramatic muzzle blast effects by tailoring ammunition to do so, and this is true. I imagine that if somebody is after the maximum effect, it can be achieved. I am not...I load for accuracy and performance and putting on a "good show", although it looks cool, is not my goal. I would imagine, that a case full of a slow burning powder, a light bullet, and no crimp, would really set off the fireworks, but, if we took that same load and put it behind a heavy bullet and a tight crimp, that the flash would be diminshed. I am sorry here, but, the muzzle flash issue is still a moot point in my book. When I shoot, I watch the sights and the target...not what is coming out of the end of the barrel, and truthfully the muzzle flash issue has just never concerned me when shooting, or interested me. Anyway, a good thread and some mighty nice photos!

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

The only real issue on muzzle flash, as far as I'm concerned, is possible use of a load in a defense situation in low light. There is a reason for deterrents and defense or military applications provide that reason.

I agree with you on that 100%

I think one of the problems with the statements in Speer #9 and #10 stem from a failure to consider the section those statements are made in. I believe you'll find they are in the rifle section, not the handgun section and yet they are usually understood as a blanket statement.

While I believe that they surely must have had a few pressure guns for the most popular rounds, and some that were still fairly new and considered very powerful at the time like the .44 magnum, I read the above quotes to mean that the majority of the data printed prior to #9 was worked up using the visual inspection method mentioned at the beginning of the rifle sections of these manuals.

Again, I would agree with this, except on page 332 of the #8, under the sub-title heading of how to use the data it says the following-
"The loading data printed on the following pages were all tested in the Speer ballistic Labratory using standard handguns. The loads shown are safe in these particular test guns."

In the #9 manual on page 346 it says under the exact same sub-title/section the followuing-
" The loading data printed on the following pages were all tested in the Speer Ballistic Labratory using standard handguns and pressure barrels made to industry standards. (Italics and bold type added by me) Maximum pressure powder charges were first determined in the pressure gun, then the same load and the lighter loads were fired in the handguns for velocity, accuracy, and function."