WOO HOO! Found some 630 powder last night
- Thread starter walnutred
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
6 who?
630 powder huh?
Well, I guess I'll just have to ask. What manual did you get the data out of Red?
I have seen a lot of data for that powder in a certain manual with a stagecoach on the front.
Just wondering!
630 powder huh?
Well, I guess I'll just have to ask. What manual did you get the data out of Red?
I have seen a lot of data for that powder in a certain manual with a stagecoach on the front.
Just wondering!
That data is in the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook, I think mine is a 1980's edition.. Their test revolver for the 32 S&W long is a 4' S&W J frame, of which I happen to have a couple. Just to be safe though I e-mailed Lyman to see if they still felt their data for 630 was valid in regards to the 32 S&W long.
I've always loaded the 32 Long warmish in J frames, OK some would consider my loads hot. I've never pushed the 115gn fp that fast though is a 32 S&W Long. That is approaching 32 Mag and 32 WCF velocity when talking pistols.
By the way, I never got around to testing that Widners surplus CPP powder and ended up selling to a guy at work. He was complaining about not being able to find primers and powder for loading 9x19 with 115gn FMJ bullets. I sold him the keg of powder and a brick of small pistol primer, he seems to really like it in 9x19.
I've always loaded the 32 Long warmish in J frames, OK some would consider my loads hot. I've never pushed the 115gn fp that fast though is a 32 S&W Long. That is approaching 32 Mag and 32 WCF velocity when talking pistols.
By the way, I never got around to testing that Widners surplus CPP powder and ended up selling to a guy at work. He was complaining about not being able to find primers and powder for loading 9x19 with 115gn FMJ bullets. I sold him the keg of powder and a brick of small pistol primer, he seems to really like it in 9x19.
Here's Lymans response to my question about their load data for this powder.
"That load data is very outdated and the powder at this vintage would be
considered unstable. we would not recommend using that load."
"That load data is very outdated and the powder at this vintage would be
considered unstable. we would not recommend using that load."
dennis40x
US Veteran
I used W-630 and liked it. I believe it's been out of production now for twenty-five to thirty years. My how fast time flies it seems like yesterday. I liked and used Alcan AL-7 powder also another powder long gone.
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
Magic printing ink!
It is absolutely amazing to me how this works. You make a powder, test loads, publish those loads as safe for all mankind, let a few years go by, put something else in print and VIOLA, THE OLD DATA IS USELESS AND UNSAFE!
Amazing! Maybe I could get some of that super ink to re-write some of the things I did when I was much younger.
(There is something that can erase that completely, but it isn't ink, it's blood! Halelujah!)
What mankind comes up with never ceases to under-whelm me!
It is absolutely amazing to me how this works. You make a powder, test loads, publish those loads as safe for all mankind, let a few years go by, put something else in print and VIOLA, THE OLD DATA IS USELESS AND UNSAFE!
Amazing! Maybe I could get some of that super ink to re-write some of the things I did when I was much younger.
(There is something that can erase that completely, but it isn't ink, it's blood! Halelujah!)
What mankind comes up with never ceases to under-whelm me!
Oh, I'll probably still try some of those loads, I'll just approach max with caution. As usual. I aslo called Hodgdon to see if there was a direct replacement for 630 like there is a direct replacement for 540. When I told their tech support person what load data I was looking at he seemed shocked. He felt the published load had to be over 40,000 PSI. I'm both surprised and skeptical. How could Lyman get that kind of pressure in a 32 Long without noticing anything unusual? I don't think I've ever heard of a 32 J frame coming apart.
Alk8944
US Veteran
Perhaps you are not familiar with the evolution of the slowest of the Winchester pistol powders, or else you wouldn't be so anxious to load this.
First in the series was 630. After several years and many reports of blown up revolvers with no logical explanation, generally with loads significantly below what was listed as maximum, Winchester pulled the stuff off the market.
Somewhat later they introduced a replacement called 630P. After several years and many reports of blown up revolvers with no logical explanation, generally with loads significantly below what was listed as maximum, Winchester pulled the stuff off the market. Is this starting to sound familiar?
Finally, after supposedly doing additional development work, Winchester introduced another new ("New"???) powder called 296. After several years and many reports of blown up revolvers with no logical explanation, generally with loads significantly below what was listed as maximum...... (Starting to get the picture?).
They finally did some extensive experimentation trying to determine what was causing guns to blow up when less than maximum loads of 296 were used. I hope you are familiar with the many, many articles in the magazines and denials by both Winchester and Hodgdon (H-110, identical to 296 and manufactured by St. Marks also) that this was even happening, they did finally determine that there were very real, although still not fully understood, situations where a reduced load could and did destroy a revolver in a very obvious over-pressure event.
After three attempts to market what were, at least 3 very similar if not identical powders, under three different names, they finally determined that these should not be downloaded (more than 3% Winchester & 5% Hodgdon) or pressure spikes, pressure excursions, or any of several descriptive phrases which were used, could occur without any logical reason. Basically, factory data was supposed to be used as is, hence the Winchester warning to load EXACTLY as listed.
Are 630, 630P and 296/H-110 the same powder? They are, at least, very similar and from the same manufacturer. Has there been the same experience of reloaders with guns being blown up under unexplainable circumstances by all three? Absolutely YES. Is there factory established maximum data for 630? NO.
I know you are going to load it, and you might not have any problem. I wish you luck. Either that or it still makes good fertilizer just like it did 35 or so years ago when it was discontinued due to the problems which were caused by it.
First in the series was 630. After several years and many reports of blown up revolvers with no logical explanation, generally with loads significantly below what was listed as maximum, Winchester pulled the stuff off the market.
Somewhat later they introduced a replacement called 630P. After several years and many reports of blown up revolvers with no logical explanation, generally with loads significantly below what was listed as maximum, Winchester pulled the stuff off the market. Is this starting to sound familiar?
Finally, after supposedly doing additional development work, Winchester introduced another new ("New"???) powder called 296. After several years and many reports of blown up revolvers with no logical explanation, generally with loads significantly below what was listed as maximum...... (Starting to get the picture?).
They finally did some extensive experimentation trying to determine what was causing guns to blow up when less than maximum loads of 296 were used. I hope you are familiar with the many, many articles in the magazines and denials by both Winchester and Hodgdon (H-110, identical to 296 and manufactured by St. Marks also) that this was even happening, they did finally determine that there were very real, although still not fully understood, situations where a reduced load could and did destroy a revolver in a very obvious over-pressure event.
After three attempts to market what were, at least 3 very similar if not identical powders, under three different names, they finally determined that these should not be downloaded (more than 3% Winchester & 5% Hodgdon) or pressure spikes, pressure excursions, or any of several descriptive phrases which were used, could occur without any logical reason. Basically, factory data was supposed to be used as is, hence the Winchester warning to load EXACTLY as listed.
Are 630, 630P and 296/H-110 the same powder? They are, at least, very similar and from the same manufacturer. Has there been the same experience of reloaders with guns being blown up under unexplainable circumstances by all three? Absolutely YES. Is there factory established maximum data for 630? NO.
I know you are going to load it, and you might not have any problem. I wish you luck. Either that or it still makes good fertilizer just like it did 35 or so years ago when it was discontinued due to the problems which were caused by it.
Last edited:
630 was an excellent powder and when it was discontinued, it left a hole in the WW line that was never completely filled. I would not hesitate a second to load and shoot that powder if it was in an original factory sealed can!
I have a pound of 630 from the late 70s if anyone's interested. It was recommended to me for the 30 M1 Carbine, but the suggested load would not cycle the action in about half the Carbines I had at the time. There's been maybe 200 grains taken out of the can. Been stored with the cap tight in a cool, dry, locked cabinet. Located in PA.
noah_zark(at)windstream.net
Noah
noah_zark(at)windstream.net
Noah
38-44HD45
Absent Comrade
I used to load 630P in .357 mag., before H110/296 came out. I seem to recall having loaded up a pound or two of 630 before 630P came out. I found 630P to have a brittleness that 296 does not display. I found that, near maximum charges, a very small increase in charge weight would spike pressures alarmingly, flattening and piercing primers, etc. I suspect that that characteristic was the source of the "mysterious" blown revolvers mentioned by another poster, above. BTW, I believe, but am not certain, that H110/296 is significantly slower than 630 or 630P. I know I loaded lighter charges of 630P than of 296, but by how much, I do not recall. I'll have to go back and look at one of my old Speer manuals to refresh my memory.
I just checked a burn rate chart, and I was right. 630 and 630P were both significantly faster than 296. Faster than 2400, even.
I just checked a burn rate chart, and I was right. 630 and 630P were both significantly faster than 296. Faster than 2400, even.
Last edited:
Ww 630
I have used 630 in 38 Special, 357 and 44 Special in some instances using data that I obtained from Paco Kelly. Never had a problem and still occasionally use, what little I have left, in 38-44 level loads.
BTW, when the first 38 Special Winchester-Western Hi Speed 158 LHP came out in the early-70's before the +P designation was used they contained a charge of powder that looked like 630, in an appropriate grain weight that was about right for the velocities produced. When the designation was changed to +P the powder changed to a flake type, that looked somewhat like Unique, but a little darker in color.
The old W-W "free" loading manuals of the time listed loads of 630 for several handgun calibers.
I have used 630 in 38 Special, 357 and 44 Special in some instances using data that I obtained from Paco Kelly. Never had a problem and still occasionally use, what little I have left, in 38-44 level loads.
BTW, when the first 38 Special Winchester-Western Hi Speed 158 LHP came out in the early-70's before the +P designation was used they contained a charge of powder that looked like 630, in an appropriate grain weight that was about right for the velocities produced. When the designation was changed to +P the powder changed to a flake type, that looked somewhat like Unique, but a little darker in color.
The old W-W "free" loading manuals of the time listed loads of 630 for several handgun calibers.
Similar threads
- Locked
