Are they the same? (or at least interchangeable) I have almost 9 pounds of WSF, and no revolver load data for it. I've been using Herco starting data, and working up slowly. I just wonder if Longshot would be closer. Or maybe HS-6 data minus about 15%.
I sent an email to Hodgdon's but they haven't replied. I wish they would just publish .357, .41, .32, and .44 Magnums (etc.) data for WSF.
If you enjoyed reading about "WSF and Hodgdon's Longshot" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
May 3, 2008, 08:09 PM
Nope, unless I am highly mistaken.
May 3, 2008, 08:29 PM
Hornady 6 shows WSF for the .44-40 and a few other handgun cartridges.
I'd have to suspect they found other powders suited them better in most applications.
There are a couple of listings in oddball cartridges that may be useful for something.
May 3, 2008, 09:43 PM
A couple of us on this forum have been trying out WSF in revolver cartridges--specifically, 38/357.
Then, low and behold, the Speer 14 manual showed up with WSF loads in 38 Special for three of their bullets--the 147-gr. FN hard cast, the swaged 158LSWC-HP, and the 125-gr. jacketed bullets.
The 125 shows a 5.3 gr. MAX charge for the 125 TMJFN (and the other jacketed bullets), with a DNR notice instead of a minimum. For the 158LSWC-HP shows a MAX of 4.3 gr., and 4.7 gr. for a +P load. (Those of us trying out this powder used noticably more than this, so I won't put those loads out for public knowledge yet.)
Most notable about the powder is its soft recoil, even at the +P pressures we were working with. It seems most similar to SR-4756 in burn rate--and note where it is on the Hodgdon Burn Rate chart (latest, and the one from Nov '07). Personally, I worked it up after studying the density numbers as well as the burn rate, and I worked off AA#5 data.
So, I'd recommend trying it, maybe working with the Speer 14 data as a starting point. My own guess is that Speer will continue development work with it, and I suggest you give them an e-mail inquiry. Hodgdon won't say anything except look at the published loads.
May 3, 2008, 09:57 PM
I agree that WSF is an excellent powder. It bumped AA #5 for my favorite 9MM powder for the reason jfh gave. Less recoil for nearly the same velocity with superb accuracy and very clean to boot. ( AA#5 will out do it in 9MM in Carbines)
May 3, 2008, 10:12 PM
Sierra and Speer have .32 H&R data as well.
May 4, 2008, 11:07 AM
I've been experimenting with WSF in my 38 Spl, 9mm's and .40's with great results. It burns clean and so far is very accurate. I just ordered another 8 lb cannister of it.
May 4, 2008, 11:18 AM
WSF is good in the 32 H&R, and 9/40-10mm/5 for both lead and jacketed.
Longshot is a reformulated HS7, lower charge weights, cleaner burn, less flash.
May 4, 2008, 11:19 AM
Well it's not for a Revolver,but I have loaded thousands of 9mm 124 grain WSF loads to Major Power Factor for USPSA Action Pistol Shooting.
Clean and accurate.
May 4, 2008, 01:38 PM
OH NO!! Not another powder I have to buy and try out! :banghead:
I've been avoiding buying another powder because I already own MANY but from what you guys are reporting I just might be buying another...
May 4, 2008, 07:36 PM
Don't sweat it ArchAngelCD. It's a good one, and you'll be glad you did.
May 4, 2008, 08:04 PM
Longshot is slower.
WSF is similar to, but not the same as:
May 4, 2008, 11:15 PM
WSF is similar to, but not the same as:
My chronograph says it's identical to Herco in the few loads where I've compared it, but that's a very small number of samples -- they could diverge drastically (and dangerously) at some point. WSF sure measures better than Herco, and it seems to burn cleaner.
My first almost 1000 foot-pound .45 Colt loads were loaded with WSF. They only took half as much powder as equivalent loads using 296. I had blisters from the checkered grips on my Ruger Bisley after shooting a half a box of 'em. (I've since figured out that I shoot 650 foot-pound loads a lot better and they are generally more fun)
May 6, 2008, 01:28 AM
Your Chrono says WSFs identical to Herco because according to the Burn Rate Chart on the Hodgdon site Herco is #29 and WSF is #30. With relative burn rates that close the pressures and velocities are bound to be close too.
On the other hand, Longshot is 12 powders down and slower. Longshot is listed as #42 and 2400 is #44 just for a reference.
May 7, 2008, 12:27 PM
zxcvbob--My limited experience with WSF mirrors yours. In the 9mm with 121 and 147 cast velocities are practically identical with identical loads of WSF and Herco. In the .38 spl it's the same with 158 and 173 cast. I think WSF is a great fine grained Herco.
May 7, 2008, 01:00 PM
I apparently have an updated burn rate chart, which I edited to include most of the popular powders mentioned in this thread.