W-296 - what changed?

[fredj338]

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.

From your 4", possible. Revolvers are all over the place with vel readings. I have 5 diff 4" 357mags. With identical loads, the vel range is up to 150fps diff. That is quite a lot. Bore size, cyl gap, cyl throat size, all plays into the final vel readings.

 

[Goblin]

I'll just add that 18.5 of W296 with a Hornady 125 JHP gives me 1,274 fps in my 8" Python. With 300MP, same bullet same gun, 20.0 for 1,370, and 21.2 for 1,471.

 

[Qc Pistolero]

I've been buying 296/H110 by the 8# for the last 15 years.Been using it in the 3 mags(.357/.41/.44).Never tried it under lightweights but I think it is a safe powder if you don't use low charges of it in which case ignition or rather lack of might create a hazard(stuck bullet).
But as far as high pressure is concerned,it is enough slow burning in these cases as to give high pressure warnings way before it gets critical.
While I think that 2400 is a little better suited in a .357 case,I would say that in the .41 and .44,you would have a tough job of finding a better suited one.
Qc

 

[webfarmer]

From your 4", possible. Revolvers are all over the place with vel readings. I have 5 diff 4" 357mags. With identical loads, the vel range is up to 150fps diff. That is quite a lot. Bore size, cyl gap, cyl throat size, all plays into the final vel readings.

Really? That's encouraging for me believing my chronograph. I think I saw 1,800 fps for my load in some manuals. Thanks!

 

[webfarmer]

I'll just add that 18.5 of W296 with a Hornady 125 JHP gives me 1,274 fps in my 8" Python. With 300MP, same bullet same gun, 20.0 for 1,370, and 21.2 for 1,471.

Hmmm, seems to correlate to my 4" chrono readings. The mystery deepens.

 

[shotguntom]

I have been loading 18.5grs of296, magnum primer and 125 gr jhp for the last 35 years. Never any problem with this load. If I were you, I would stick with that combo. Just my take on the subject

 

[BruceM]

W296 and H110 are identical powders and always have been.

Back in 1977 when I started handloading H110 was a surplus powder sold by Hodgdon and W296 manufactured and sold by Olin/Winchester. Although load data for the two was for all intents and purposes identical, I do not believe they were exactly the same. As a matter of fact the two powders smelled noticeably different when you opened the container. It seems that I read somewhere that W296 was the next iteration of a non-canister propellant called "295". At any rate, while both H110 and W296 are identical now, I do not believe that this was always the case.

To me H110/W296 offers higher velocity and somewhat greater accuracy than 2400 and at lower pressures and subjective recoil. Both propellants (H110 and W296) produce very significant muzzle flash. This situation is exacerbated as barrels get short and bullets which are light for caliber such as 110 & 125 grain in .357 mag, 170 grain in .41 mag and 180 grain in .44 mag. are used. That said, I don't used reloads for SD, it's illegal for me to hunt in really low light situations and if I did; I have never taken return fire from any deer that I shot at. If the flash is a big concern, it can really be negated by the use of AA#9 which provides performance nearly as good as A2400 but with very low muzzle flash.

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

I just do not understand the rational for this practice. The data invariably varies from each source for a variety of reasons and I still haven't figured out what the tie breaker is in that situation in determining which data is correct. The practice of "averaging" the data makes little sense in my mind also-especially if there is a large disparity in the data. In my mind you are better off buying one or two manuals which you really trust and using that data with discretion than getting 4 or 5 manuals and being confused when the inevitable happens.

Bruce

 

[scooter123]

I once tested a 21.5 grain charge with a 125 grain Hornady XTP. Used my model 620 to see how it performed and felt. Out of a 4 inch revolver I would have to report this experiment was a failure. Because the muzzle blast was beyond reasonable, guy in the next lane claimed it extended half the length of the 50 foot indoor range. From my standpoint the blast ring from the B/C gap totally obscured the target or the muzzle flash. Folks also thought it was too loud, this load was probably louder than a 500 Magnum.

 

[MichiganScott]

I just do not understand the rational for this practice. The data invariably varies from each each source for a variety of reasons and I still haven't figured out what the tie breaker is in that situation in determining which data is correct. The practice of "averaging" the data makes little sense in my mind also-especially if there is a large disparity in the data. In my mind you are better off buying one or two manuals which you really trust and using that data with discretion than getting 4 or 5 manuals and being confused when the inevitable happens.

Bruce

What I have found by consulting several different manuals is that one manual will list an exceptionally high charge and one will list an exceptionally low charge. If you disregard them then the rest of the manuals will list charges somewhat in the middle.

What if your trusted manual is one that lists a charge far outside the norm? There is always problems like misprints or data that is just plain wrong. One of the old Speer manuals, number eight I believe, comes to mind.

 

[fredj338]

Really? That's encouraging for me believing my chronograph. I think I saw 1,800 fps for my load in some manuals. Thanks!

Likely from a 10" closed bbl system like a TC or universal receiver. Revolvers are just all over the place. I ised to have a 2 3/4" ruger ss snub. I could get same vel as most of my 4" guns.

 

[fredj338]

I

I just do not understand the rational for this practice. The data invariably varies from each each source for a variety of reasons and I still haven't figured out what the tie breaker is in that situation in determining which data is correct. The practice of "averaging" the data makes little sense in my mind also-especially if there is a large disparity in the data. In my mind you are better off buying one or two manuals which you really trust and using that data with discretion than getting 4 or 5 manuals and being confused when the inevitable happens.

Bruce

Since all the printed data is worked up in diff platforms, perfectly logical to avg data. Trust manial, how does one do that but load & test & you know as well as i, that every gun/platform will yield diff results. Why there are sich wide variations.

 

[BruceM]

What if your trusted manual is one that lists a charge far outside the norm?

With the propellant we're talking about, it isn't an issue. You can't put enough in a .357, .41 or .44 magnum case to cause a kaboom and after you fire one or two shots, you'll know that the charge is too high due to sticky extraction. With the relatively narrow band of charge weights involved with H110/W296, it's a non-issue if you start low and work up. If you skip that procedure, you're on your own regarding the results.

Bruce

The only misprint I'm aware of was in one of those Hodgdon handloading "annuals" where data for two rounds similar in name was transposed. That was a one time occurrence more than one or two years ago. The problem I seem to recall with a Speer loading manual (#8?) was in regard for some 7mm mag data which produced very low max charge velocities. The data proved to be correct for the test firearm used.

Averaging data makes zero sense in that you actually are not following the guidelines of ANY manual and are, in fact, developing your own data based on what a number of others have published. Now, if you were to do this based on your own testing and chronograph readings for your gun, that's one thing. Averaging data??? Whatever one feels works for them is ok but I can't recommend disregarding the data I have and averaging multiple sets of data, the results of which corresponds to nothing.

 

[shotguntom]

I once tested a 21.5 grain charge with a 125 grain Hornady XTP. Used my model 620 to see how it performed and felt. Out of a 4 inch revolver I would have to report this experiment was a failure. Because the muzzle blast was beyond reasonable, guy in the next lane claimed it extended half the length of the 50 foot indoor range. From my standpoint the blast ring from the B/C gap totally obscured the target or the muzzle flash. Folks also thought it was too loud, this load was probably louder than a 500 Magnum.

21.5 grs is a thrower for sure. Thats a full 3 grains over what I regularly use. Wow

 

[scooter123]

21.5 grs is a thrower for sure. Thats a full 3 grains over what I regularly use. Wow

Yeah, I was trying for 1450 fps. Unfortunately there was so much flame and powder thrown out the muzzle I didn't get one single reading from my Shooting Chrony. Out of my 20 inch 1892 Winchester I would expect this load would produce something in the 2200-2400 fps range, so it's likely a great combination for a rifle. However I've found that my Winchester really shoots well with 140-180 grain bullets and since I have found that a 158 grain XTP loaded over 14.8 grains of H110 will shoot a bit under 1 MOA this particular recipe in the Hornady #8 has become my standard 357 Magnum Rifle load. I'll also note that even though the trend for Hornady's data is rather light I've actually found some of my most accurate loads using Hornady data. As for that rocket load, that was from Hodgdon's data and overall I've found that Hodgdon tends to try and achieve the highest possible velocity and in many cases those hotter loads have been a bit disappointing in accuracy.

 

[rockquarry]

Do you guys that shoot these light bullets in various .357 guns find any advantage to them in comparison with heavier bullets?

I've loaded the .357 for many revolvers since 1971. In the beginning, I used jacketed bullets as light as 110 grains, but don't really recall any of them shooting particularly well, though I'm sure they were fast. Made a lot of noise, too, but never really figured out what such loads were good for.

About 1976, I found the .357 far more useful, accurate, and more comfortable to shoot with a 160 -180 grain cast bullet. If one has an interest in long range handgun shooting (I don't), these heavy bullets will quickly catch up with the lightweights due to the superior ballistic coefficients of the heavier bullets.

The slight recoil increase brought about by the heavier bullets is often barely noticed. However, if a light bullet will outshoot a heavy bullet from an accuracy standpoint, I'm for the light bullet, too.

 

[gwpercle]

Things do change , powder manufacturing techniques change , bullet jacket material , core material etc. Go with the latest Seirra data since that's the bullet you're using. If you like the 18.5 grain load and it's doing what you want.....stick with it.
Gary

 

[webfarmer]

Do you guys that shoot these light bullets in various .357 guns find any advantage to them in comparison with heavier bullets?

I've loaded the .357 for many revolvers since 1971. In the beginning, I used jacketed bullets as light as 110 grains, but don't really recall any of them shooting particularly well, though I'm sure they were fast. Made a lot of noise, too, but never really figured out what such loads were good for.

About 1976, I found the .357 far more useful, accurate, and more comfortable to shoot with a 160 -180 grain cast bullet. If one has an interest in long range handgun shooting (I don't), these heavy bullets will quickly catch up with the lightweights due to the superior ballistic coefficients of the heavier bullets.

The slight recoil increase brought about by the heavier bullets is often barely noticed. However, if a light bullet will outshoot a heavy bullet from an accuracy standpoint, I'm for the light bullet, too.

My reason for using the 125 HP bullet is a self defense load. It may very well be old technology as bullet performance has come a long way since I started handloading this caliber (1982?).

 

[Groo01]

Things do change , powder manufacturing techniques change , bullet jacket material , core material etc. Go with the latest Seirra data since that's the bullet you're using. If you like the 18.5 grain load and it's doing what you want.....stick with it.
Gary

Groo here
+! GW.
The bullets we get can have the crimp groove in different places
and as the 296/H110 works best with near 100% loadings,
the minimum/starting loads [90%] will be different.
For your newbies, the "best" SD loading for the 357mag was the 125gr sjhp[with a lot of lead exposed] and a near max load [1450fps from a 4in]
The nose of the bullet would blow off causing much damage starting
at or before the 1/2 inch mark.
The base [ now a WC of about 100gr] would drive deeper but slow down quickly.
Most shooters now are way too worried about flash.
With a little training you learn to look through it and use it like a quick
light burst to see other targets.[old school]

 

[BLUEDOT37]

Go with the latest Seirra data since that's the bullet you're using.

Sierra's manual hasn't been updated since 2003 which is why they don't have several newer cartridges or powders. Otherise it's a nice manual to own.

.

 

[SuperMan]

Have not reloaded for .357s much since I started shooting .41s and .44s but in those calibers I have found a very simple formula for H110/296 that sounds crazy but has worked in all the combinations tried.

As groo stated, the crimping groove for bullets of the same weight differ in location on the shank of the bullet. As such a max load with one bullet brand could be over pressure with another if the crimping groove is higher on the shank causing more of the bullet to be in the case.

With H110/296 I take a dowel just smaller than the diameter of the case and hold it next to the bullet to be seated and mark it at the crimping groove. Then fill the case with powder until when you rest the dowel on top of the change the mark on the dowel is even with the top of the case. Then measure the charge and compare it to published reloading data. It will usually be right at the top end.

What I have found by doing this is that all the airspace in the case is eliminated by having the bullet base sit right on top of the charge without compressing it. Chronograph results show the highest velocity with no pressure signs and lowest Standard Deviation. Also there is no unburned powder left behind.

In .41 Magnum this has worked with bullets from the 170 grain Sierra JHC to the 300 grain hardcast...

As an example in .41 Magnum take the 250 and 255 grain bullets from Cast Performance. They are both LBT designed bullets but totally different in design. The 250 has a longer shank/bearing surface and shorter nose compared to the 255. The 255 will take 22.0 grains of powder to the base of the bullet....the 250 only 20.0.

I only use H110/296 in topend loads....there are just much better powders for everything else....

Bob