Hodgdon Reloading Data Center VS Hornady Reloading Handbook

[gsparesa]

My reloading brass (R-P) will come from my spent factory Remington ammunition. I have 500 cases of the R-P brass. The case in the left side of the picture is an example. All those cases were from factory loads. I'm not concerned at this moment about 125gr bullets and "throat erosion". I just have not read any research that specifically attributes this phenomenon to lighter bullets. I am however, concerned about pressure, heat and flame. I don't want a heavier dose of the notorious flame cutting action to rapidly erode my frame.

I have seen primer flattening happen with factory loads. If there is no gas leak around the primer then I guess I'm still good. I am concerned about giving the H110 powder sufficient time to burn in the cylinder before entering the barrel. The crimp is going to be my challenge. Colt saa suggested that I use a "good roll crimp". I will be using the Lee 4 piece die set. It is suppose to have a "factory crimp". Will the Lee crimp die give me a "roll crimp"? I'm guessing I need to crimp the case well into the cantilever without adding any distortions. Anyone have a pic with a "Good Roll Crimp"?

The M27 might be the brother to my M627-5 but it's probably a lot stronger. The M27 is tough carbon steel as oppose to the softer stainless steel on my 627-5. The M27 only holds 6 rounds, my 627-5 hold 8 rounds. Where did all the real-estate for the extra 2 round go too? Less meat between the cylinder bores has to equate to a weaker cylinder.

 

[PDL]

The Lee FCD is the fourth die in the set. It will give the appropriate crimp for the standard guns of a calliber. In other words roll for 'normally' revover rounds and taper for 'normally' auto rounds.
And that's cannalure(sp) btw. If you want a good example of the proper roll crimp, look at one of your factory rounds.

My point about the brass was that the recipies in either manual also specify brass. If you're using different brass, that can affect the pressure.

In any case it's good to check the data from a number of sources. A couple of good manuals, the vendors data. But you're gonna find variences the more you reload. Start sensible and work up as others have said.

Folks have been using H110 for a while. It just might be better for you to start with a more forgiving powder. 2400 works just fine an is easier to work with.
Not to be discouraging, but it might just be better to leave the H110 on the shelf for a bit.

Forgot to say welcome to the forum.

 

[Doug.38PR]

I just came across this same problem yesterday in .45 Long Colt. 200 gr. using Trailboss powder. Hodgdon loading data listed is lower than Hornandy Manuel. Hornandy is between 6.4 and 7.0. Hodgdon is 5.5 to 6.5

Cartridge Loads - Hodgdon Reloading Data Center - data.hodgdon.com

 

[Carnage_7]

If Hodgon makes the powder then I would use their data.

 

[hawgleg]

ES= Extreme Spread
SD= Standard Deviation

The one is a "minimum" and "maximum" relationship. Your rounds are going to be different velocities no matter what you shoot them out of. The smaller the ES the better. That means that you are going to have more consistent ammo.

Standard Deviation is how far a round is off of a "mean" for all the rounds shot, kinda. So, your average for 10 rounds is 1500fps and the next round is 1495fps and the twelfth is 1510fps the standard deviation would be: 7.63fps. And anything under 10 is considered wonderful. The ammo may or may not be accurate, this is not a measurement of that, just consistency.

You notice that I said in my previous post that I start off with the powder manufacturer's data. I may end up somewhere else entirely after that first session but I will know why I am going there.

i.e., pressure signs, velocity too high, velocity too low, inconsistent velocity, poor accuracy, leading, or whatever.

Like I said before, unless something else is drastically wrong, you are not going to blow up a gun with H110/W296 if it was meant to shoot the caliber you are loading for, especially a Smith. Your revolver is one of the strongest 357Magnums made. It's brother, the M28,M27, are some of the strongest ever made as they are 6 shot. More metal...........


As for shooting 38spl in your firearm, um, you want to do that UNLESS you are so good with the magnum that you can keep all of your shots in a playing card @ 25 yards. Personally, I would rather use the shorter cases, load them to +P 38spl levels and have a bunch of moon clips filled with them. Of course, I'm not going to have them stoked with a light bullet like you have! And they for sure won't be jacketed!

These ought to do the trick nicely though!

What are those bullets and what are your loads? That looks mean.

 

[dirty gary]

You're getting a lot of good advice, especially Skip's post. It's important to research a lot of available data before arriving at a game plan. Start mild and work up as you get comfortable - pay attention to any indications such as flat primers, hard-to extract cases, rounds that "sound" odd, etc. You will notice that not all sources agree on what should be the same data .

 

[riverrat38]

Skips ammo above shows a good example of a firm roll crimp! Its also a good example of why I don't think that I need hollow point ammo!

rat

 

[buck460XVR]

One reason I generally reference at least three published sources when working up a new load. Seldom do any of the manuals agree exactly on powder charges and the velocities they produce. (other than the Lee manual, which just copies from other manuals) Any published load SHOULD be safe to fire in any modern firearm. That's why those that publish manuals go to such lengths to develop and test their published loads. For me, I reference as many sources as possible and then throw out those that are excessively high or excessively low as compared to others. I'll start at an average starting load and work my way up from there and see what my firearm prefers. Hornady generally is on the conservative side and because they make bullets I believe are going for accuracy. Hodgdon and Lyman are generally on the hot side for the calibers I reload for and I believe they are going for max velocity. Because of it's tight throats, I cannot go much above Hodgdon starting loads in my .460. These loads are middle of the road in the Hornady manual. If I had only referenced the Hodgdon data I'd still be drivin' empties out with a dowel.

 

[auburn2]

I will tell you this, there is NO WAY POSSIBLE that H110/W296 is going to blow up your gun, NO WAY!

I don't believe that. If you stick a bullet due to lead fowling or a bullet lodges in the barrel and you fire another the gun will blow up, even with minimum .38 spl load.

 

[gsparesa]

I found an old thread on the Ruger forum that talked about the dilemma that I'm experiencing. The thread has entries from a retired gunsmith who goes by the name "lowegan". "lowegan" stated that there are two standards. One based on the older SAAMI 46K CUP (41,500 psi) standard and one based on the newer 1995 SAAMI 35,000 psi standard.

Read the old thread, " Hornady 7th Edition 357 Magnum Loads for H110", here.

"lowegan" suggested that the loading pressure data based on the CUP, like Hodgdon, is based on the older SAAMI standard. The new standard was adopted because some firearms could not handle the higher pressures. One thing I got from reading the old thread was to use the data published by the bullet manufactures, which is new data and probably better for my 627-5.

I visited the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufactures Institute's (SAAMI) WEB site. I found that both Hornady and Hodgdon are members. How ironic when I found that SAAMI was founded in 1926 at the request of the federal government and tasked with:

Creating and publishing industry standards for safety, interchangeability, reliability and quality
Coordinating technical data
Promoting safe and responsible firearms use

Good job SAAMI!

I'm ready to reload. I completed my first dummy round with a full crimp. I used Lee factory crimp with one full CW turn. What do you-all think? Anyone use QuickLOAD?

 

[buck460XVR]

I don't believe that. If you stick a bullet due to lead fowling or a bullet lodges in the barrel and you fire another the gun will blow up, even with minimum .38 spl load.

IMHO.....if you're loading .38 special with H110/W296, you deserve to blow your gun. I believe what Skip is implying is that because a proper charge of H110/W296 almost fills the case in .357, double charging is impossible.....and since a nearly full case is a safe load in any modern firearm, that it's impossible to put enough powder in a case and still seat the bullet to cause a kaboom. It does not mean you won't shoot the gun loose, it just means it won't blow up in your hand.

 

[gsparesa]

IMHO.....if you're loading .38 special with H110/W296, you deserve to blow your gun. I believe what Skip is implying is that because a proper charge of H110/W296 almost fills the case in .357, double charging is impossible.....and since a nearly full case is a safe load in any modern firearm, that it's impossible to put enough powder in a case and still seat the bullet to cause a kaboom. It does not mean you won't shoot the gun loose, it just means it won't blow up in your hand.

I never said I was reloading 38 specials. Where did you get that from? Dude, I'm loading 357 magnums.

 

[buck460XVR]

I never said I was reloading 38 specials. Where did you get that from? Dude, I'm loading 357 magnums.

Dude......if you read my post thoroughly, you'll see I quoted auburn2 and was referring to his comment on loading .38s. Sorry for the confusion, Dude.

 

[Skip Sackett]

What are those bullets and what are your loads? That looks mean.

Those are cast from a Modern Bond mould, here at home!
They are 160gr WC.

I have run these bullets from mild to wild and they perform well at all velocities.

When they hit, they hit with authority!

 

[Skip Sackett]

I don't believe that. If you stick a bullet due to lead fowling or a bullet lodges in the barrel and you fire another the gun will blow up, even with minimum .38 spl load.

Auburn,
That is exactly what I am saying in my post. Read it again, please. I address that exact point.

If your bullets exit the barrel, there is NO WAY you can blow up a 357Magnum with a full charge of H110/W296, NO WAY.


Especially a Smith. They are designed for full magnum charges. H110/W296 can give you flattened primers, sticky extraction and all of that, don't get me wrong, but your Smith 357Mag is designed to take those kinds of pressures. Now, if you give it a steady diet of those kinds or rounds OR try to shoot magnum "ish" loads in your 38spl, well, then all bets are off.

Go back and read the post, auburn. I try to put exactly what I mean and mean just what I say in every single post I post.

 

[Skip Sackett]

gsparesa,
Your crimp looks to be very stout. If you take a close look and see the flattened part of the case in the cannelure you will see what I mean.

Now, you may need that much, you may not. One thing I will tell you though, that is exactly how I crimp my 44Mag load when I use jacketed bullets.

Are your cases going to wear out prematurely? YEP! And along with that your crimp will also, keep bullets from jumping, cause your powder to get a good start at burning and cause your loads to be much more consistent across the chronograph.

All of those things will keep you from sticking a bullet and creating a situation where you can blow up your gun! (In regards to the previous posts in order to be clear! )

 

[WR Moore]

"lowegan" stated that there are two standards. One based on the older SAAMI 46K CUP (41,500 psi) standard and one based on the newer 1995 SAAMI 35,000 psi standard.

Read the old thread, " Hornady 7th Edition 357 Magnum Loads for H110", here.

"lowegan" suggested that the loading pressure data based on the CUP, like Hodgdon, is based on the older SAAMI standard. The new standard was adopted because some firearms could not handle the higher pressures.

OK, the thought that old firearms made before the currently used steel alloys were available, and calibrated eyeballs for heat treat temperature determination were replaced by calibrated instruments are somehow capable of handling more pressure than more modern devices is ......not logical, to be polite.

The piezo electric pressure system and any data changes are the result of the more sophisticated and accurate pressure information available using the new systems (The copper crusher apparently wasn't capturing peak pressures in some cases). There's also the established fact that CUP and piezo electric PSI have no consistant realtionship. X CUP is not X PSI and no conversion factors exist.

For cartridges that had safe pressure levels established with the CUP system, ammunition proved to be safe under the old system is used to calibrate the piezo electric equipment. If X CUP produces a lower PSI reading, and that seems to be the case with pistol calibers, that's the new standard. If you look at the pressures for centerfire rifle cartridges, you'll notice that the allowable pressures seem to have gone up rather than down.

BTW, the powder manufacturers usually, but not always, do their load development/pressure testing in test barrels in a universal receiver with dead minimum chambers to provide themselves a worst case scenario for high pressures. Primer condition as a pressure measurement isn't all that accurate.

 

[Skip Sackett]

The piezo electric pressure system and any data changes are the result of the more sophisticated and accurate pressure information available using the new systems (The copper crusher apparently wasn't capturing peak pressures in some cases). There's also the established fact that CUP and piezo electric PSI have no consistant realtionship. X CUP is not X PSI and no conversion factors exist.

Here is something else that to be quite polite about is, well, ignorant. Not stupid, just ignorant.

I have been tasked on more occasions than I can count to calibrate sophisticated electronic sensing devices. I will just simply say that to rely on them as the most accurate of measuring devices because you cannot see what is going on inside those little electronic chips is very ignorant.

It all depends on the calibrator, period. Whether it is temperature, pressure, length or what have you, a sensor's ability to accurately provide information is not "unquestionable". Personally, after 35 years of doing this kind of work, I can tell you, I would rather have something to test with that people didn't try to "guarantee" was set up correctly, as in a piece of copper that can be tested with a BHN probe and a microscope.

Not to mention, calibration techniques and standards. Where and how are these devices calibrated? Can you imagine storing a gas in a test tank at 60,000psi? What do you rely on to tell you what pressure is in that tank? An analog or dial gage? How wide is the needle? How accurate is that gage? +/- what psi or percent?

No, there is no doubt that today, heat treating is more uniform, nor that more metal is being treated because of the cost coming down (relatively) because of better methods of doing so.

I've been around this block more than once, let me tell you.

Case in point: I was working for a calibration firm. We had a client that wanted to see a certain "level" on their data collection PC because that was a "good number". The technician before me, the one that was tasked with calibrating everything at that site, made that "good number" appear over a VERY WIDE RANGE. Then, the site was handed over to me and within a week, the company I worked for was dismissed. WHY? Because I made their "good number" go away. I calibrated a "flow meter" just as it was supposed to be calibrated, in fact, all of the flow and pressure sensors were restored to their respective correct calibrations.

No more "good numbers" so to speak. And, it just isn't that hard to do simply by human error and not maliciously as in the case above.

In this instance, if I purchase a new Smith & Wesson M25 or M625 or M29 or M629 or M686 or whatever, I am going to rest assured that it will stand up to whatever data is out there. Whether it was derived via CUP methods or PSI.

That just seems to make better sense logically to me than any other conclusion.

 

[WR Moore]

Skip,

I certainly buy the concept that instruments have to be properly calibrated for the results to be valid. Perhaps I over simplified my explanation, but I have only a cursory knowledge of how copper crusher were calibrated and what they actually measure beyond some kind of pressure.

The piezo system [and the earlier Wheatstone Bridge system, when either/both are properly calibrated] do allow pressure/time graphs that provided some startling information for engineers, especially on peak pressures.

 

[Skip Sackett]

And to that I agree. They provide data over time. Whether it is correct or not, that is a WHOLE NUTTER story!