Heavy 357 Mag Cast & Full Case H110/W296 loads

Status
Not open for further replies.
MEHavey

MEHavey

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
5,032
Location
virginia
CROSS FROM ANOTHER FORUM:
Warning -- OverMax Loads discussed

Working w/ the BearTooth 185 FNGC bullet in a modern`92Winchester.
OALs run 1.570" w/ heavy roll crimp in all instances.
Powders already run: 2400, Lil'Gun, V-N110
Cases are Starline: 27.0gr H2O

Now looking at H110/W296....

Most all "Published Manual" loads for W296/H110 & 185gr bullets (lead or jacketed) top out at 13.5-14.0grains.
This is at odds w/ the majority of high-performance internet loads from experienced shooters hitting 16.0gr & higher.
Further, the "296 rule of thumb" discussed at length by very respected TFL members is that a 100% full case of
W296/H110 (i.e., up to bullet base) can be considered a safe Max.

With the StarlineCase/185gr Beartooth combination that "100%" is a measured 16.7gr H110

I'd appreciate re-discussion of experiences here on the 357Mag/Heavy Cast possibilities using W296/H110 ...before I start up the ladder.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Other readers might be interested in this thread:

http://www.shootersforum.com/handloading-procedures-practices/61387-357-magnum-180-grain-loads.html

Again, I note the warning of over-book load discussion -- not recommendation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Taking the issue further, conventional wisdom says you do not want to underload/leave a large case volume vacant w/ H110/W296. In fact many sources will instruct that load density should approach 100% for proper ignition/burn, and significant reductions from that are at the shooter's risk.

Well, the 100% load density (to base of bullet/actually measured) for the 185 BearTooth FNGC seated to crimp groove/1.570" is 16.7gr. Reducing that to the 13.5-14.0gr found in most loading manuals means I'd be running only 80-84% load density -- definitely not in accord w/ guidance for this powder.

So if anyone's got informed ideas on how to bridge the rather large gap between blindly following the "Manual" -- and complying w/ equally hard guidance to avoid underloading this powder, I'd sure appreciate it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Many thanks in advance to those who would consider this seriously

___________________________________________________________
Hopkins: Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that
was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything.
Rhode Island says yea!
Stephen Hopkins (7 March 1707 – 13 July 1785)
1776
 
H-110 needs at least 80% case filled to be anywhere near consistently burned powder .

If this does`nt happen with a starting load I go back to the books !
 
Agreed. H110 and W292 will produce dangerous pressure spikes if "reduced" loads are attempted.

Notice I said "reduced" loads, not "starting" loads.

Big difference.
 
I tried a week or so ago to get a discussion going about the wild swings in published data concerning H110 and Hodgdon's dire warning about the narrow load range of this powder, and that max loads should not be reduced by more than 3%...

All that in spite of the wide (>10%) ranges of min to max loads on Hodgdon's own data pages for certain bullets/calibers...
 
Agreed. H110 and W292 will produce dangerous pressure spikes if not loaded to capacity in the case.
Click to expand...

Where exactly are you getting this?

The warnings I have seen suggest that low load density will lead to exactly the opposite, potentially sticking a bullet in the barrel due to insufficient pressure...

ADDING FROM HODGDON'S OWN WARNING:

Reduce H110 and Winchester 296 loads 3% and work up from there. H110 and Winchester 296 if reduced too much will cause inconsistent ignition. In some cases it will lodge a bullet in the barrel, causing a hazardous situation (Barrel Obstruction). This may cause severe personal injury or death to users or bystanders. DO NOT REDUCE H110 LOADS BY MORE THAN 3%.
 
Salmoneye said:
Where exactly are you getting this?

The warnings I have seen suggest that low load density will lead to exactly the opposite, potentially sticking a bullet in the barrel due to insufficient pressure...

ADDING FROM HODGDON'S OWN WARNING:

Reduce H110 and Winchester 296 loads 3% and work up from there. H110 and Winchester 296 if reduced too much will cause inconsistent ignition. In some cases it will lodge a bullet in the barrel, causing a hazardous situation (Barrel Obstruction). This may cause severe personal injury or death to users or bystanders. DO NOT REDUCE H110 LOADS BY MORE THAN 3%.
Click to expand...
something I read years ago, and cannot remember the source. It dealt specifically with W296.

Someone else said it on one of the other threads here within the last couple weeks or so.
 
I followed my manual and used the charges it told me to use and I was fine. I had no squibs or other issues. My cases were almost full. At least 80-90% full. I was using 125 Gr bullets at the time in .357 Mag cases.

Personally, I would go with my manual that was made for reloading than relying on someones information on the internet. Just because his gun handled it just fine doesn't mean your gun will. Then you also have to remember that most of the data in your books are with the test equipment they used.
 
I also follow 'my' manual...I have used H110 loads given in the Hornady 4th edition since the early 90's...These loads do not even come up to some 'starting' loads on the Hodgdon site...

Here's a post I made a while back on the subject:

The 'old' Hodgdon published data listed 14.5gr H110 as Max load for 158gr JSP (right on the front of the can, and I will gladly supply a pic if anyone wants it)...Millions of rounds went downrange with that and/or 3% 'lighter' loads (as per their dire warnings)...

Current Minimum on the Hodgdon website for that bullet is 15gr H110, with a Maximum of 16.7gr...

The current Hornady 8th Edition lists 12.7gr Min with a Max of 15.6gr, for a spread of 4 full grains from Hornady Minimum to Hodgdon Maximum...

I hear people all the time on the net saying "Stick to published' recipes"...Ok, then...Whose recipes do we stick to, or does our education, experience, and rational thought come into play at some point?

I do not believe that Hornady, nor Hodgdon, are losing any sleep over their recommended loads being too low or too high..
 
Salmoneye said:
I do not believe that Hornady, nor Hodgdon, are losing any sleep over their recommended loads being too low or too high..
Click to expand...

I believe they sleep well knowing their loads are safe in all modern firearms. I believe that is their intention as opposed to finding the safe absolute max load for every gun. I for one tend to stick with published loads because they generally do all I want from any particular caliber. I do not try to make my .357 lever into a 30/30, instead, if standard .357 rifle velocities and power aren't enough, then I use a .44 rifle or maybe even the 30/30 or .32 Special. Same for the .32 Special. Instead of trying to make it a 30-06, I just grab the M-1917 instead of the winnie. I also tend to believe that those folks in the white coats in the powder company laboratories conducting pressure tests to verify safe loads, tend to know more about what's safe in my guns then some so called "high-performance internet loads from experienced shooters". I also don't think the solution for avoiding unsafely under-loading H110/W296 is to grossly overload it well past powder manufacturer's recommendations.
 
I for one tend to stick with published loads because they generally do all I want from any particular caliber.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree...To a point...But, as I asked in my C&P, WHOSE published data do we go by when there is such a wide swing as in the example I cited(4 full grains for >25% difference from Hornady Min, to Hodgdon Max)?

I also don't think the solution for avoiding unsafely under-loading H110/W296 is to grossly overload it well past powder manufacturer's recommendations.
Click to expand...

On this I fully agree...
 
I have loaded H110 in 30 carbine, 357 Magnum, 44 Magnum, 454 Casull, 458 Lott, 460 Weatherby, 50AE and 500 S&W. I haven't had any problems with loads as low as 70% of fill capacity. I have only fired a few loaded that low since they were just starting loads for bullets with no published data.

The exception being 454 Casull. Even at listed book max about one in five rounds would chronograph around 950fps with the others being around 1550fps. Going 2-3 grains over max got rid of that problem. All my previous reloading has been with standard primers. Switched to magnum primers in the 454 because I pierced a standard Winchester primer with that load.

I wouldn't worry to much with any published starting load for 357. Or any max load for that matter.
 
56hawk said:
I have loaded H110 in 30 carbine, 357 Magnum, 44 Magnum, 454 Casull, 458 Lott, 460 Weatherby, 50AE and 500 S&W. I haven't had any problems with loads as low as 70% of fill capacity. I have only fired a few loaded that low since they were just starting loads for bullets with no published data.

The exception being 454 Casull. Even at listed book max about one in five rounds would chronograph around 950fps with the others being around 1550fps. Going 2-3 grains over max got rid of that problem. All my previous reloading has been with standard primers. Switched to magnum primers in the 454 because I pierced a standard Winchester primer with that load.

I wouldn't worry to much with any published starting load for 357. Or any max load for that matter.
Click to expand...
You should be using magnum primers with all loads using W296/H110. That powder is hard to ignite and IMO requires a magnum primer.
 
ArchAngelCD said:
You should be using magnum primers with all loads using W296/H110. That powder is hard to ignite and IMO requires a magnum primer.
Click to expand...

So I have heard people say. Yet I have fired tens of thousands of rounds with standard primers and full charges of H110.
 
WARNING: OVERBOOK LOADS SHOWN:

After three days of interpolating between Lyman data for near/but-not-same (SAECO) 180gr bullet, measured/exact
water volume for Starline cases, matching Quickload calculations, and split-the-difference between precise 93-100% load
densities underneath a specific/measured shank depth -- for mid-pressure pushing heavy lead...

(Charges thrown by Harrells Schuetzen measure)
This is what came out today at 50 yds:

r1bj2b.jpg

THIS RIFLE, THIS BULLET, THESE CASES, THIS POWDER LOT -- ONLY --
Your mileage will definitely vary
 
Last edited:
56hawk said:
So I have heard people say. Yet I have fired tens of thousands of rounds with standard primers and full charges of H110.
Click to expand...
Yet you are getting inconsistent loads in the 454 Casull and who knows what else since you didn't send every one of those tens of thousands of rounds over the chrono...
 
ArchAngelCD said:
Yet you are getting inconsistent loads in the 454 Casull and who knows what else since you didn't send every one of those tens of thousands of rounds over the chrono...
Click to expand...

Well, with the 454 the recoil difference was very noticeable. I only got it recently. Most of my H110 use has been with 44 Mag and 500 S&W and I have never had any problems with any of those loads or noticed any inconsistency in the recoil. 454 is odd in that it uses small rifle primers, so I don't know if that has something to do with it. Of course I use the same primers in 30 carbine without any problems.
 
Hey, whatever works for you is good for you. Many reloaders agree magnum primers are better for hard to ignite ball powders like H110. Most, if not all of the older reloading manuals also listed magnum primers with those powders.
 
I have loaded this combination for years, first with the Beartooth 185, and then with a self-cast Mountain Molds copy. I worked up gradually down below minimum to the 16gr. and found that accuracy, consistency was so obvious that I never questioned or worried about it again. To use 13.5gr. H-110 like Lyman suggested seemed absurd. That load isn't even remotely accurate. The bullet does not have friction like the jacketed recommendation, and also has much more bullet mass above the rim of the cartridge. I'd guess I have shot 2,000 of these along with 20,000 other rounds, and the Marlin 357 1894C still looks new.
 
I have loaded this combination for years, first with the Beartooth 185, and then with a self-cast Mountain Molds copy.
Click to expand...
Can you please tell me (for my comparison reference) what the bullet length(s) is you are using above, and what the final Cartridge OAL winds up at?

I'm gradually working towards the "available case-volume theory" of 296/H110 and the more case study experiences the better.
 
In 45 Colt with 250 gr XTP 1.6":

20 gr H110 heavy roll crimp 73.5% fill ratio, shoots fine but kinda wimpy
23 gr H110 no crimp...........84.5% fill ratio, primer goes off, but not the powder and bullet jams in forcing cone.
24 gr H110 heavy roll crimp 88.2% fill ratio, kicks like a mule 1225 fps handgun 1535 fps rifle.


Hodgdon warned me not to use reduced loads of H110 due to danger of a stuck bullet.


What does it all mean?
It seems the load books do not trust the handloader to make a good crimp.
And why should they?
 
It seems the load books do not trust the handloader to make a good crimp.
Click to expand...
Notwithstanding the obvious "what kind of heavy roll crimp does the Gentle Reader not understand?"
what could be so hard about screwing the seating/crimping die down to shell contact -- then 1/2-5/8
turn more to set the roll-over ?



** (Truth-in-lending: I admit I seat/crimp in separate operations when running ball powders like H110/296)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
185 FNGC @ 1100 fps from S&W 4" .357 Mag.
Replies
5
Views
409
GooseGestapo
GooseGestapo
J
  • Locked
.44 Rem Mag, Lead GC bullets and H110 loads
Replies
5
Views
2K
bluetopper
bluetopper
M
  • Locked
.357 Mag loads for Model 19s
Replies
8
Views
1K
MarineTech
M
WrongHanded
  • Locked
357 Mag, 180gr: What Is Really Achievable?
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
murf
murf
G
  • Locked
Quiet 357 handload question
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
FROGO207
FROGO207
Back
Top