who to believe on reloading data?

[perrazi]

dalewelch- the answer was listed earlier. they used a 7in. non vented bbl.
i have found their powders do about what they say besides being clean burning. this was under their test conditions in their laboratory. you don't have their equipment,therefore you won't get their results. doubt seriously if that data is flawed. it was just done under very controlled conditions with optimum equipment. ymmv

 

[dalewelch]

The main reason I am confused is all the other reloading manuals points towards much lower velocities, much lower starting loads and a huge range.

For 125gr HP-XTP and W296

Hornady says start at 16.9 and go to a max of 20.3

Hodgdon says start at 21.0 and go to a max of 22.0

This is the case with most of their loads, a 1 gr difference. That doesn't allow for much room to play.

I think it's bad that other companies do a better job on data than the manufacturer.

 

[Treeman]

Dale, The instructions regarding 296/110 have changed. Large reductions from maximum ARE NOT recommended for these powders. There is a belief that reducing loads with 296/110 may cause a secondary pressure excursion capable of causing firearm damage. That is why Hodgdon shows only top level loads.

 

[dalewelch]

So who's put 22gr of W296/H110 behind a 125gr JHP and pulled the trigger?

I'd love to hear stories of anyone using the max load from Hodgdon tables and living to tell about it.

dale

 

[snowman]

Can't say that I can address all your concerns/frustrations, but in regard to your last question, I misread some of Hodgdon's data and went 1 full grain over max. with H110 on a .44 magnum load, and I'm still here and my gun suffered no harm. Only sign of high pressure was some pretty flat primers(but they were Federals with their soft cups). Was my most accurate load, also.

(But no, I'm not going to do that again.)

Andy

 

[BruceM]

"Dale, The instructions regarding 296/110 have changed. Large reductions from maximum ARE NOT recommended for these powders."

To my knowledge, they've never been recommended and I've been using W296 since the late 1970's. Winchester's printed data at the time specifically stated that the charges listed were maximum and to be used exactly as listed.



Bruce

 

[Skip Sackett]

You have some different ideas, Dale!

"110gr not supposed to be used in 357Mag" ????????????????????????????


Dale,
If you click on the left most drop down area on the Hodgdon data website you will see that there is a selection for "Rifle" data as well as pistol.

Select "rifle" and then look for 357Mag. You will find that the load you are looking at in pistol doesn't have a rifle equivalent. There is one for H110, which is the EXACT same powder as W296. Notice what they claim for velocity of that load, well over 2200fps.

Did you miss the question or did I miss your answer about having a chronograph? Do you have one?

 

[dalewelch]

My first question was mainly who to believe. Hodgdon or Hornady when it comes to the exact same power. The second question was about using these max loads and the results.

I think I get it now, Hodgdon wants to be the bad boy on the block so they show the MAX loads under lab conditions to make their stuff look the best ( fastest ). Lapua seems to market N-110 the same way.

All I want is good medium mag, clean, lower pressure rounds to use in my 686/6" and 629/6.5". I really like these guns and I want to treat them right.

I am convinced I just need more reading. I have the Hornady and Lyman manuals on the way. Speer and Sierra are next.

Thanks to everyone for all the advice.

dale

 

[Skip Sackett]

Answer my question, dude!

My first question was mainly who to believe. Hodgdon or Hornady when it comes to the exact same power. The second question was about using these max loads and the results.

I think I get it now, Hodgdon wants to be the bad boy on the block so they show the MAX loads under lab conditions to make their stuff look the best ( fastest ). Lapua seems to market N-110 the same way.

All I want is good medium mag, clean, lower pressure rounds to use in my 686/6" and 629/6.5". I really like these guns and I want to treat them right.

I am convinced I just need more reading. I have the Hornady and Lyman manuals on the way. Speer and Sierra are next.

Thanks to everyone for all the advice.

dale

Dale,
Do you have a chronograph?

 

[Treeman]

For a "medium Mag" H110 is the wrong powder. As for Hodgdon wanting to be the 'bad boy"---No. You are looking at one powder in one cartridge. Hodgdon is a good data source-the loads are tested. Hodgdon is a poor source of velocity datain some cartridges-IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR TEST BARREL HAS LITTLE CORRELLATION WITH THE AVERAGE REVOLVER (on the other hand it probably is quite representative for the guy shooting a 10 inch TC Contender). If you compare data sources you will find some very different max loads as well as some that are virtually identical. Every lab is using different components. Throw a bullet that is .001 larger in diameter into a case that has thicker case walls and head with a hotter primer and a powder lot that was on the fast side of tolerances and you will get very different results in the same pressure barrel. Build two identical loads and you may get different results from different pressure barrels. Too many of us want to read data as absolutes so that we can infer absolute linear or logarythmic effects from proportional changes. It doesn't work that way. There are rules of thumb and trends and many loaders can predict quite accurately the effects of changing a load. Basic empirical data does allow a computer program such as Quickload to predict velocities and pressure with REASONABLE accuracy....But in the realm of small arms balistics reasonable accuracy has a wide lattitude. When you look at load data you need to realize that X bullet in Y case with Q primer and R grains of pick your powder yielding 32.4k psi is just an average of readings from actual testing. A very uniform load may have only varied up and down a couple of thousand psi.......which still equates to many percentage points. Some people get very frightened by all of this......you shouldn't be. This is how it all works. We pick a suitable powder and bullet for our purpose find a load that is within the bounds acceptable pressures and try it , when accuracy and performance meet our criteria without any evidence of excessive pressure or unreliability we have a good load. The margin of saftey is quite large.......and wise loaders stay out of the margin and within the designed parameters of normal operation.

 

[canoe on the yukon]

So who's put 22gr of W296/H110 behind a 125gr JHP and pulled the trigger?

I'd love to hear stories of anyone using the max load from Hodgdon tables and living to tell about it.

dale

I have.....It's the words "don't reduce" that are causing the confusion on your part.W296/H110 should not be reduced "a lot".It will be inefficient if done so because of "TOO LITTLE PRESSURE".....NOT too much pressure.....Too little is what causes squibb loads.

There are widely differing loads in manuals because of different methods of pressure testing as well as being very conservative on the part of some of the testers plus different equipment,guns,etc.

W296 and H110 need high pressure as well as good loading density to perform well.It is not versatile.It's not meant to be.

I know of no powder which is the subject of as much mis-information as this powder.Sierra and Hornady give data that performs well enough for their criteria.Hodgdon says 3%,Speer says 10% and Winchester says none at all.Do you suppose that the people at Sierra and Hodgdon are losing sleep at night?

 

[NKJ nut]

Many people have used their data and "lived to tell about it". They are not in the business of killing us little ones who use their data. How long do you think they would last in a sue crazy world with killer data?

As for Hodgdon wanting to be known as the bad boy of reloading data, that really is funny. I find much of their data a bit weak if anything.

FWIW you can easily deduct 200 to 300 fps from their velocity figures for a revolver, maybe more, depending on the bbl. length of your revolver. That would put you in the 1600 to 1700 fps range which is very believable, with a lightweight .357 bullet especially since you can go close to there with a 158 gr. bullet from a long barreled revolver. At least you can with a lead bullet. I have no use for a 125 gr bullet in this caliber but if I did I would not hesitate to use their data.

Bottom line I believe their data is safe to work with. I do not put a lot of faith in velocity figures though except for the ones that come off of my chronograph. Which BTW; Dale do you have a chronograph?

 

[Beaver]

Message for "Smith Crazy". So what you are telling us is to use the data from Powder manufacturers as a starting point, NOT the data from Bullet manufacturers. Is this correct??

 

[Skip Sackett]

Must not have been to clear before, my bad.

Message for "Smith Crazy". So what you are telling us is to use the data from Powder manufacturers as a starting point, NOT the data from Bullet manufacturers. Is this correct??

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. That doesn't mean you have to stay with that data, just start with it. Almost all of the powder manufacturer's data will have a bullet weight close to what you are trying to load. Remember, it's a recipe so OAL and other factors are critical too.

Usually, the powder manufacturer's data will have a lower starting point than most manuals. Not always, but usually for standard handgun loads.

One thing you have got to have as a reloader/handloader, a chronograph. If you are loading anyone's load and relying on their velocity data you are being silly. Sure, the high end of their load will be faster than the low end of it but you could be WAY off in velocity.

Case in point: SR4756 and 158gr LSWC in 357Mag. Hodgdon says 6.5gr will give you 1214fps, not in any one of my firearms, not one. In fact, it didn't even give me 1000fps! It took a bunch more powder to get to that velocity. The load that I got from a bullet manufacturer's manual did get me the velocity I wanted, 1280fps. That being said, the pressure for the manufacturer's load developed 27.6K/psi and the SAAMI standard for the 357Mag is 35K/psi. I figured I had some "wiggle" room there too.

 

[colt_saa]

Just for your reference.......

I have been loading 21.6 grains of H110 over a CCI-550 primer with Winchester's 125 JHP since the late Seventies.

This load chronographs out at 1315 FPS from my 2 1/2" model 66. It hits 1600 from my 8" Python and screams right at 2200 FPS from my 16" 1892 Lever action.

 

[RKrodle]

I find that the Lee Manual is a great reference when looking for a new load. They list information from several sources. Also if your so inclined, you can subscribe to Loaddata.com . They list data from a lot of sources.

 

[Skip Sackett]

RKrodle,
Welcome aboard and Semper Fi!

Yes, the Lee manuals are a great place to get data. The main reason is they collect data from the powder manufacturers and their tests as well. That is a good thing in my book. I like being able to go to one source to get all of that information. If I am loading some "old Skip standards" and want a little variation, I almost always check the Lee!

Great inexpensive equipment to get started in reloading and casting too. Entry level for the most part but some have used nothing else but and have had long enjoyable hours reloading using it.

Again, welcome aboard!

 

[RKrodle]

Smith Crazy,
Semper Fi and thanks for the welcome. I've actually been a member for quite a while just never post much. My reloading assortment is just that, an assortment. I use a little of all brands, I started with Lee and expanded from there. If you haven't yet check it out yet loaddata.com has tons of loads. They collect them like Lee does plus from Handloader Mag.