296 powder for 44 mag
- Thread starter Jeff Flannery
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
Jeff Flannery
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2018
- Messages
- 195
240gr hp. sorry I omitted that small detail!
OP
OP
Jeff Flannery
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2018
- Messages
- 195
you read my mind!!
All is well then. You are within Hodgdons load data for a pistol and not even at max
Yes That powder calls for a MAG primer. It doesn't burn well without it.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,085
No.....it doesn't. While the data may be in the "handgun" section of the manual/webpage, the cartridge is still loaded to the exact same specs when used in a rifle. While some manuals/webpages do have separate sections for .44 mag rifle, the recipes are exactly the same, other than the performance obtained from the test firearm. So again, platform is really a moot point. Now I agree that performance will vary, just as performance will vary within the same platforms. That is what the OP asked about. My reference to the question at Walmart is relative to this topic because even tho the use may be in different platforms, and how it is sold can vary, the cartridge is still loaded exactly the same. Like many here who reload, I reload for several .44 magnum revolvers as well as several .44 magnum carbines. Now while I may, and do, sometimes handload differently for the different platforms, they are still loaded under the exact same specs and can be used interchangeably within those platforms. Very similar to the other questions asked by the OP, concerning H110/W296. No need for different recipes, because it's the exact same powder. Hodgdon, the distributor of both, has told us they are the same and give mirror image recipes for them. Still, some insist on questioning that too........
mcb
Member
I have nearly always seem Magnum primers called for H110/W296 when used it 357 Mag but rarely see it called for with the same powder in 44 Mag. I have never had an issue using standard large pistol primers in 44 Mag maybe the large primer makes the difference since 357 Mag is a small pistol primer. I use even larger quantities of H110 in 450 Bushmaster and use standard small rifle primer.
RealGun
Member
Please stop and go read the Hornady manual. The rifle loads in terms of powder weight are NOT the same as pistol.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,085
...and then go to the Hodgdon(since this thread is about the use of H110/W296) reloading page and you'll see they are exactly the same, right down to the exact same chamber pressures. Go to the Lyman manual....exactly the same. Go to the Speer.....exactly the same. I have all four right here on my desk. I just looked under 240gr because that's what I load and what pages I have marked in all. In the instance of the Hornady manual, the minute difference could be the difference between lot numbers or even test day. No different than slight differences from manual to manual. They are all still loading to within the exact same SAAMI specs for the cartridge itself, which both platforms are designed to operate under. None of your argument pertains to the question asked by the OP. Why are you trying to confuse him any more than he already is?
RealGun
Member
What you are saying is simply not true, which you will see when actually reviewing a Hornady manual. I certainly agree that most other sources I have seen show the same loads or make no distinction. If it were me, I would probably load them the same, but the OP's question is served by the answer that yes indeed, there is some data available especially for rifles, and the differences are consistently significant.
LaneP
Member
I don't know if this will help the OP and apologies if this has already been posted before, but this is Hodgdon's take on load development for cartridges that are interchangeable between handguns and rifles:
DOES SHOOTING A PISTOL CALIBER IN A RIFLE CHANGE THE RELOAD DATA?
DOES SHOOTING A PISTOL CALIBER IN A RIFLE CHANGE THE RELOAD DATA?
Obturation
Member
That sums it up, from the manufacturer of the powder in question. Other companies may take another stance (possibly?) But if you don't believe the company that produced the powder i doubt you would believe anyone.
H110/w296 likes a full case and a mag primer, i haven't had good results below near max loading that powder (i use h110 more than any other). And while i do get some static here and there for it, i use mag primers for everything- it's factored in for MY load work up and has never given me any issue of any kind. Reason being that it simplifies my components, everything gets a mag primer (i've heard complaints of insufficient firing pin power in some guns but has not been my experience)
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,941
Hornady uses real firearms for their testing, and expectedly would have used different lots of powder for the rifle test vs. the handgun test. In the case of the Hornady manual, a 1:38” 18” Ruger Carbine was used for the rifle data, while a 1:20” 7.5” Ruger Redhawk was used for the handgun data. A difference in throat diameter, forcing cone condition, or even the drastically different twist rates can contribute to variations in pressure.
Another example of this inherent experimental variability is the fact there is “inconsistency” between the data between H110 and W296, which are known to be the same powder, as confirmed by Hodgdon directly. Referencing the 240grn XTP day for both: In the same Carbine, Hornady claims .2grn greater max charge weight for W296 than H110, and in the revolver, 0.3grn greater max charge weight for H110 than 296... Effectively, in one individual test firearm, one lot of powder hit MAP at a lower charge than another lot of the same powder, and then in the OTHER individual test firearm, what may have been two additional lots of the same powder showed the opposite.
So the anecdotal soapbox @RealGun is standing upon as “evidence” there are different pressure standards for revolver and rifle data is built completely from a misunderstanding of experimental and manufacturing variability, with absolutely no scientific founding.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,085
I don't necessarily think it is because of a stance, but just test results. Folks will argue that H110/W296 is not and cannot be the same powder because in the Hornady manual they give slightly different loads for both, even tho the distributor of both tell us flat out they are. I seriously believe that Hornady knows as much about H110/W296 as the rest of us and will readily acknowledge they are the exact same powder, even tho they themselves have gotten different test results. This is what I see here. Insistence that there are different recipes for .44 mag rifle and handgun because of a difference in test results, even tho the cartridges themselves were loaded to the exact same SAAMI specs for over dimensions and max chamber pressure. While there are certain platforms that need loads adjusted plus or minus, I know of no .44 magnum recipes as such. Thus, any published recipe safe for a modern .44 mag revolver, is also safe for any modern .44 mag rifle/carbine. This also from Hodgdon......
In short, to the OP, use any modern data from a reliable published source for .44 magnum, knowing that it is safe to interchangeably use data between H110 and W296. While manuals will show you the difference in velocity that a longer barrel may give you, know that the cartridge itself was loaded to the same pressure specs as ammo for a revolver. Any slight differences in max loads is probably due to different lots used, different test barrels or other ambient environmental conditions. Since most reloaders do not have pressure testing equipment, manuals allow for a slight margin of error to compensate for those differences. If you look at Hodgdon web page the loads they give show a margin of error at max from modern SAAMI max pressures of 36,000 PSI (40,000 CUP). Some of this comes from not a maximum chamber pressure, but because adding more powder does add more velocity. Some older data reflects the old standard of 43,500 CUP, of which still should be safe in any modern firearm.
Concur completely.
RealGun
Member
I never mentioned pressure, and reloading dies don't have settings for pressure. I only stated THE FACT that there are existing differences in rifle loads versus pistol for the same powder/bullet, which is the OP's premise.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,941
But in stating the fact there are variations in data, you conveniently neglect to mention WHY those experimental variances exist.
RealGun
Member
"Conveniently", as in a personal attack, deliberately intending to deceive? Come on!
Sounds factual, not personal, but either way, it certainly came across as if you intended the post to mean their was separate data for both depending on barrel length (Pistol vs rifle), if not, we simply misread it.
Jim Watson
Member
But how do they know what the pressure is in "real firearms?"
There used to be a lot of real gun load development but I would have thought the major manufacturers could afford a test rig.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,085
While there is a small amount of variance between firearms due to the variance in machining, firearm chambers are built to SAAMI specs too, so pressures created within those similar chambers is also similar. .This is why you see a margin of error included in recipes along with a margin of error added to the strength of most modern firearms, to account for these minor variances. While manufacturers cannot know exactly what pressure is created in any given individual firearm with a specific load, they do know within reason and within the safety margins what pressure will be created in a SAAMI speced chamber.
RealGun
Member
There is separate data. That's a fact and all I ever tried to share. Hornady has 44 Magnum in both their rifle section and pistol section. The thing to note about Hornady is that their loads reflect what was used to fit their velocity milestones in even 100s of fps. I made no claim about what that data looks like under a microscope.
mcb
Member
Is any one arguing that separate data has not been generated for both pistols and rifles? Hodgdon does similar to Hornady having data for 44 Mag under both their handguns and rifle data sets. The pressure spec for both is the same and the ammo should be safe in either, it has just optimized/tested for a long or short barrel. At least with Hodgdon's data some of the loads are identical and the only difference is the reported velocity due to barrel length. Some of the data is unique and only in one data set or the other.
In my own working up 44 Mag for both my M29 and M92. I saw a huge difference in performance between a faster powders optimized the revolver and a slower powders optimized for the carbine.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,085
I know I concurred that all of my reloading manuals, plus Hodgdon's web page, gives recipes for .44 rifle, back in post #59. My argument was never that there were no recipes given. My argument was that it is is not necessary to use .44 mag rifle specific recipes, as both rifle and handgun are reloaded to the cartridge and the SAAMI specs of the caliber, not to the platform in which they are shot. Again, there are platforms out there that have specific load data for them in specific calibers. But to my knowledge, there are no platforms in .44 mag of which this is true.
RealGun
Member
- Status
