W-296 - what changed?

[webfarmer]

This question concerns .357 Mag - 296 powder - 125 Gr HP Sierra bullet.

Guys, I've been handloading .357 mag since the early 80's. I found W-296 powder to work well in a couple calibers (.357 & .44) and noticed Winchester Powder suggested one .357 mag load for their 296 powder with 125 grain HP bullet. That was 18.5 grains and it's accurate enough. They said back then to not deviate from that weight. So I go along blindly for many years with what they recommended and continued doing that oblivious to what my new manuals say (didn't look at .357 - used them for all the other calibers). Here's what I find in my manuals:

Sierra Edition V
18.6 to 21.1 (notes accuracy load as 20.7) my load 1/10th grain below minimum.

Hornady Ninth Edition
16.9 to 20.3 my load comfortably in the mid-range.

Lyman 49th Edition
None - no W-296 loads at all. What?

Hogdon website
21.0 to 22.0 Troubling to me.

I've been searching the internet and here and going to ask anyway.

What changed with W-296 powder and is there danger shooting my 18.5 grain loads? I understand 296 works best when filling the case - I get that. But I loaded "some" @ 18.5 and put away for a rainy day. What do you experienced guys think?

 

[arjay]

I'd say part of it is better testing and part of it is about one particular bullet in one particular gun.I doubt the powder has changed at all.

 

[MichiganScott]

When I first started back in the 1970's, the max load was close to 21.5 grains with a 125gr. bullet. It was later reduced to around 21.0, IIRC. My belief for the difference over the years is because of the switch from CUP to PSI and more accurate measuring of pressures by piezoelectric transducers. It used to be that many companies measured pressures the same way we do, mostly by guess and by gosh. I prefer the current method. It's safer.

 

[bigedp51]

With 296 a magnum primer is needed and a good crimp with this double base powder. The deterrent coatings make ball powders harder to ignite and with the wrong primer and a light crimp you can end up with a squib load and a bullet stuck in the barrel.

Once I some how did not give one of my .357 magnum cases a adequate crimp and I ended up with a bullet stuck just past the forcing cone. Bottom line a magnum primer and a good crimp makes sure you have a high start pressure and good ignition. And if you do not do this not all the powder will be ignited and you end up with a squib load.

Below is from the Winchester reloading data booklet.

*Note: 296 powder is considered to be one of the best powders for use in magnum handgun cartridges. Recommended for these loads are the use of a Winchester or Winchester magnum primer and a very heavy crimp (high bullet pull).

Failure to follow this procedure could result in poor ignition and/or squib loads under extreme circumstances, particularly in loads
where less than 90% of the available powder space is being used (low loading density).

Do not reduce powder charges with 296 powder. Any further reduction in powder charge or change in components can cause dangerous pressures.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

This question concerns .357 Mag - 296 powder - 125 Gr HP Sierra bullet.

80's... Winchester Powder suggested one .357 mag load for their 296 powder with 125 grain HP bullet. That was 18.5 grains

Lyman 49th Edition
None - no W-296 loads at all. What?

What changed with W-296 powder and is there danger shooting my 18.5 grain loads?

Wow! Surprised you haven't checked any new manuals until now.

What changed?

SAAMI max pressure standard changed from 45K CUP to 35K PSI.

W296 & H110 are the same powder since ~2005.

Lyman #49 does list data for H110 & 125gr JHP.

The 1974 Speer #9 listed 19.0-21.0gr. W296

The 1978 Lyman #45 didn't list W296 for a 125gr JHP but other heavier weight bullets only listed one charge as the only listing too, like W-W did.

.

The 1978 W-W Reloading Manual (below) did only list one charge for the 125gr JHP, 18.5gr/W296, as you recalled.

But look at the pressure, only 32.5K CUP. How could they have come up with that receipe as a max charge ?!?

Really just another example of why you should ALWAYS check multiple sources for load guidance, irregardless.

I say if you've been shooting it for years, without issue, then shoot them up & load them higher next time.

Or go to another powder. Personally the restrictive load ranges of W296/H110 is one reason I rarely use it.

.

 

[webfarmer]

Wow! Surprised you haven't checked any new manuals until now.


.

Yes, crazy I know. But I loaded a bunch back then and hardly ever shoot .357 anymore. The pistol craze got me (lol) so it's been 9mm and .45 ACP all these years. I recently pulled out my Dan Wesson 715 VH (what a sweet trigger) as it hadn't been shot in many years. Once the brass was tumbled, that's when I thought, wonder what's new and looked in my new manuals. That pic IS the booklet I used. Looks like it's time for ladder loads again. Thanks for the thoughtful reply!

 

[webfarmer]

With 296 a magnum primer is needed and a good crimp with this double base powder. The deterrent coatings make ball powders harder to ignite and with the wrong primer and a light crimp you can end up with a squib load and a bullet stuck in the barrel.

Once I some how did not give one of my .357 magnum cases a adequate crimp and I ended up with a bullet stuck just past the forcing cone. Bottom line a magnum primer and a good crimp makes sure you have a high start pressure and good ignition. And if you do not do this not all the powder will be ignited and you end up with a squib load.

Below is from the Winchester reloading data booklet.

*Note: 296 powder is considered to be one of the best powders for use in magnum handgun cartridges. Recommended for these loads are the use of a Winchester or Winchester magnum primer and a very heavy crimp (high bullet pull).

Failure to follow this procedure could result in poor ignition and/or squib loads under extreme circumstances, particularly in loads
where less than 90% of the available powder space is being used (low loading density).

Do not reduce powder charges with 296 powder. Any further reduction in powder charge or change in components can cause dangerous pressures.

Yep, I'm well aware of the roll crimp and mag primer with 296 powder. It's the eye opener of loads higher than that old manual suggested. No squibs ever from this load though. Thanks!

 

[rockquarry]

Old load manuals are great for reference and comparisons, but for actual data, use only the latest reputable information available. Composition of 296 may have changed slightly over the years, but so have pressure testing methods, for the better.

I've had good luck with 296 as far as accuracy and velocity. In the .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum, accuracy was always the equal of #2400 loads; velocity may have been slightly higher with 296, but I'd have to look at my old notes to be sure of this.

The big drawback to 296 loads was the increased muzzle blast and flash in comparison with #2400 and I stopped using it for that reason.

 

[M29since14]

Win 296 and a 125 gr bullet doesn't make sense to me, but then 125 gr bullets in the .357 don't make sense to me in general.

Otherwise, my thinking about handloading data follows Rockquarry's pretty closely. I like having the new data at hand. If your powder supply is all older powder, that might be a little different - as is the case for me with my old supply of H4831 and my .300 Weatherby loads. Old powder and old load data. Still works like it always did.

 

[H Richard]

If you want to see a pretty nasty sight, fire a full load of 296 from a 2" barrel revolver just after dusk at night. That 's what you call a ball of fire.

 

[rockquarry]

When the conditions were just right, I've seen a mild fireball from a 6" Python on a sunny day using 296. Can't imagine firing such a load in the dark.

 

[bigedp51]

The Army loves using double base ball powders because it can be recycled to save money. Even solid rocket motor propellant can be converted to small arms powder.

So you can understand why lots of powder can vary and change over time. It is my understanding that the old Remington and Winchester powder plants are now owned by General Dynamics Weapons division. And the only thing that Olin Chemical makes today are fertilizer chemicals.

You might want to invest in Quickload software and check the percent of 296 powder burned with your 125 grain bullets. The only advantage of shooting 296 with a 125 grain bullet is scorching the target or starting forest fires.

 

[4barrel]

A good 125 jacketed bullet stuffed full of 296 is a super good target load in a long barrel.

 

[fredj338]

Reloading manuals are guides, not bibles. It is suggested to not go below minimum loads with H110/W296 & with good reason. They can get weird in cold weather, even having hang fires. If you have shot the 18.5gr load in diff temps & it works in your gun, then I wouldn't fret over it.

 

[fredj338]

If you want to see a pretty nasty sight, fire a full load of 296 from a 2" barrel revolver just after dusk at night. That 's what you call a ball of fire.

Yeah I have blown the acoustic ceiling stuff off the local range ceiling shooting full loads of W296 in a 357mag snub.

 

[Troystat]

There are a lot of posts about this cartridge and this powder, there drop in the maximum load for that powder in my Speer #12 from the #10. The hogden website is is somewhere between the two. The 296 loads with a 125 grain bullet make an impressive amount of muzzle blast out of my model 27 with a 5 inch barrel. I would think that this combo out of a rifle would work pretty well.

 

[webfarmer]

Win 296 and a 125 gr bullet doesn't make sense to me, but then 125 gr bullets in the .357 don't make sense to me in general.

Otherwise, my thinking about handloading data follows Rockquarry's pretty closely. I like having the new data at hand. If your powder supply is all older powder, that might be a little different - as is the case for me with my old supply of H4831 and my .300 Weatherby loads. Old powder and old load data. Still works like it always did.

Back in the day, before we had all these newfangled bullets to choose from, there were mostly just hollow points. And back then, the self defense load heralded the 125 HP. I'm not so sure that is still valid today.

Yes, loaded "a few" for put away and they do shoot fine. But I agree with your "old powder and old load data still works" statement. Just don't want to find out I've been LUCKY all these years.

 

[webfarmer]

A good 125 jacketed bullet stuffed full of 296 is a super good target load in a long barrel.

Yes, they shot well in my 8" barrel. I now have the 4" on her and still pretty accurate to me anyway. Benched at 25 yards, but with no rest really, I shot some 2 - 2 1/4" groups. Velocity readings are way off though. I recorded an average of 1,140 FPS (at 10 feet) and that doesn't make sense to me comparing to the data out there.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Lyman 49th Edition
None - no W-296 loads at all. What?

W296 and H110 are identical powders and always have been. Now that Hodgdon has distribution rights for Win powders they admit that and the data for both is identical from Hodgdon. If you don't see W296 in newer manuals use the H110 data.

As for your load, it's been safe since 1980 and falls in line with some published data so I see no reason not to use it.

 

[rockquarry]

The unpleasant characteristics of 296 in a .357 or .44 magnum handgun may diminish or disappear altogether in a carbine or rifle. When I used to load for a couple of M1 carbines, 296 worked so well for both accuracy and velocity that I saw no point in trying another powder. Never saw a daylight fireball, either.