300-MP Acting Squirrely

[Jlr2267]

I have used 300-MP in 44mag and 357 mag with good results previously. I thought I'd try some warmish 45 Colt loads (Ruger loads). Starline brass, 255 grain lead, std primer and 22 grains of powder. EVERY charge was scaled at 22+/- 0.1 grains, firm roll crimp.

Today at the outdoor range it was cool and raining. Every cylinder full I'd get everything from squib to a flash/bang grenade with stiff recoil. The rounds that fizzled didn't have enough pressure to form the brass leaving a mess of residue and gritty yellow garbage between the cylinder walls & the case, making extraction difficult. The rounds that were stiff extracted fine.

I have used 23-25 grains in 44 magnum, and was estimating the 22 grain starting point. After a few squibs, I started visually checking the roll crimp on every round but could not tell good from bad by a visual on the crimp, so I don't think it was that.

I am stumped. Anyone else had this happen with under-loaded 300-MP...thought maybe the cold/humidity played a role...

Any ideas appreciated.

 

[Duckdog]

Maybe a magnum primer might help the problem? I use it in 410 shotshell loads and have had no issues. I do think I read somewhere that in metallic cartridge load that some recommend a mag primer, but I could be wrong. Might be worth checking into.

 

[Jlr2267]

Maybe a magnum primer might help the problem? I use it in 410 shotshell loads and have had no issues. I do think I read somewhere that in metallic cartridge load that some recommend a mag primer, but I could be wrong. Might be worth checking into.

Alliant loads all show std primer...in fact, I think thats one of the selling points. I never used a mag primer with this powder in 44 or 357.

I am beginning to wonder if its position sensitive, and/or sensitive to case capacity

 

[gamestalker]

I believe I read that thing about no magnum primer being necessary as a selling point also.

I was scanning the online data a minute ago after seeing this this thread, and I can't find any data at all for the 45 LC with this powder? For me, this raises a major red flag, as such, am I understanding that the OP is trying to develop his own data. Generally, when I don't find data that coincides with a particular cartridge, I accept that as an indication that the powder isn't designed to function in said cartridge. Kind of like trying to adapt 296 for loads in a 38 spcl, it isn't published, because it isn't designed to function in that cartridge, and for good reason.

My final thought is simple, this powder is not intended for 45 LC, other wise, wouldn't there be some published data to support such?

GS





GS

 

[RealGun]

The powder may be newer than the common data versions. There are published articles to support loading with this powder. I wouldn't speculate further without trying magnum primers. I use the powder in 44 Magnum, 357 Magnum and 41 Magnum, all with Magnum primers. In 45 Colt Redhawk, I use 4227 but will try the 22.0 gr 300MP (with mag primers).

 

[NeuseRvrRat]

There's no data for this powder in .30 Carbine either, but my old Rock-Ola produced its best group ever this past Friday with 300-MP.

 

[GooseGestapo]

I seem to have recently read an article on using Alliant 300. Seems they too had ignition issues in the .45colt with standard primers.
I believe it was in a recent "Handloader" magazine, but don't have the magazine immediately at hand.
Definitely sounds like an ignition problem.
FWIW; I only use #2400 for heavier than normal .45colt loads, and don't even load those anymore. For me, 950fps with a 250gr bullet is more than enough. Unique, Universal, and LongShot are my powders of choice for the .45colt.

 

[Jlr2267]

I believe I read that thing about no magnum primer being necessary as a selling point also.

I was scanning the online data a minute ago after seeing this this thread, and I can't find any data at all for the 45 LC with this powder? For me, this raises a major red flag, as such, am I understanding that the OP is trying to develop his own data. Generally, when I don't find data that coincides with a particular cartridge, I accept that as an indication that the powder isn't designed to function in said cartridge. Kind of like trying to adapt 296 for loads in a 38 spcl, it isn't published, because it isn't designed to function in that cartridge, and for good reason.

My final thought is simple, this powder is not intended for 45 LC, other wise, wouldn't there be some published data to support such?

GS

GS

Likely, it's not published as a 45 Colt load because it's a "magnum" powder and, as such, only usable for hot 45 Colt in Ruger revolvers. Most (all?) powder companies won't publish Ruger-only loads.

In reality, any load published for 240gr 44mag should work (slightly reduced) for a 255gr 45 Colt, assuming use of a Redhawk or Blackhawk revolver.

 

[GooseGestapo]

But, obviously, not H110/Win296 with standard primers....
There's a reason some loads aren't published, which you also have obviously found out with the 300 in a .45lc.
BTW; there is a considerable difference in case volumn between the .45Colt and .44mag. This with lower pressures easily explains your observations with the .45Colt.
Back in the '70's, we used to see the same thing all the time with #2400 in low pressure loadings in the .357mag. There were light loadings listed for #2400 in the .38spl. The same loads in a .357mag resulted in bullets stuck in the barrel and a mess in the cylinders/actions. (unburned powder).

 

[Jlr2267]

Case volumes are about 10% different...much less so than say 44mag vs 44sp. The fact that I downloaded by about 13%, coupled with the increased case volume, could explain it, but I would not have expected the powder to be that sensitive.

I am still somewhat perplexed by the fact that the load I used, being well within the range of normal use for 44 magnum, produces squibs in a case with 10% more volume...I have to believe I am missing something here.

 

[buck460XVR]

While Alliant shows loads for 300-MP in .44 and .357, it does not show any in .45 Colt. I'm thinkin' maybe they don't think it an appropriate powder?

 

[Jlr2267]

While Alliant shows loads for 300-MP in .44 and .357, it does not show any in .45 Colt. I'm thinkin' maybe they don't think it an appropriate powder?

AFAIK, no powder manufacturer publishes "Ruger only" load data. This powder would definitely be inappropriate for standard pressure 45 Colt loads, but that's not what we are talking about

 

[Jlr2267]

For me, 950fps with a 250gr bullet is more than enough.

Yep, I had forgotten just how stiff a hot 45 Colt could be until I shot some 260gr lead at ~1400 fps....ouch!

 

[Schwing]

There has been some speculation that 300 mp is the same powder as H110/Win296. I personally do not believe this since it looks slightly different and does not require magnum primers.

I have had this exact same issue in cold weather with PUBLISHED load data for .44 and .357 with 300 mp. In both cases, the loads were right at the bottom of or just slightly higher than the published minimum. I ended up with rounds stuck 4 inches down the barrel and a half casing full of unburned and slightly burned powder (it was kind of a sticky yellowish goo). I can't find my notes on the 44 so I cant tell you bullet weight or charge but I remember it was at the bottom. On .357, they were montana gold 158 grain jsps with 15 grains of 300 mp.

I corrected the issue but bumping the charges up and I never use minimum loads with this powder. I have a friend who switched to magnum primers but, since I will only use published data, I won't go that route.

It is a great powder and I still use it regularly but I do think Alliant needs to go back to the drawing board where their starting loads are concerned.

 

[Jlr2267]

Hey thats some good info Schwing. I really appreciate it. I guess 300mp is lot more like h110 than they want us to believe.

Maybe I will load a few with mag primer, then start bumping the load up toward full magnum levels.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

AFAIK, no powder manufacturer publishes "Ruger only" load data. This powder would definitely be inappropriate for standard pressure 45 Colt loads, but that's not what we are talking about

That is incorrect. The Hodgdon load data site has a section for 45 Colt Ruger, Freedom Arms, T/C only load data, and a good amount of data too. Accurate/Ramshot supplies load data for the 45 Colt for standard pressure loads and load data for "high pressure" loads to 30,000 PSI. It seems only Alliant is lacking in high pressure load data for the 45 Colt.

 

[Jlr2267]

That is incorrect. The Hodgdon load data site has a section for 45 Colt Ruger, Freedom Arms, T/C only load data, and a good amount of data too. Accurate/Ramshot supplies load data for the 45 Colt for standard pressure loads and load data for "high pressure" loads to 30,000 PSI. It seems only Alliant is lacking in high pressure load data for the 45 Colt.

Thus, the AFAIK. Now I know.

 

[buck460XVR]

There has been some speculation that 300 mp is the same powder as H110/Win296. .

There was an article to such in either the "Handloader" or "Handguns" magazine. Can't remember which one right off hand, but it has been posted on many gun forums and I read it myself. One reason I was always skeptical that it didn't need magnum primers.

 

[NeuseRvrRat]

I've read the whole "300-MP is the same as H110/W296" thing as well, but the results folks are having don't seem to support that. Most folks report having to bump their charge weights up to get the same velocity as H110/W296.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I've read the whole "300-MP is the same as H110/W296" thing as well, but the results folks are having don't seem to support that. Most folks report having to bump their charge weights up to get the same velocity as H110/W296.

That's because they are using standard primers over magnum primers.

I read the same article in Handloader Magazine as mentioned above they the author clearly states 300-MP is the same powder as H110/W296. All the "problems" and slight differences in performance can be attributed to the use of standard primers instead of magnum primers.

What the OP explained is exactly what is said about W296/H110 when you use a light load and a standard primer.

 

[Duckdog]

Pretty much what I thought. It should most likely have a magnum primer. It does do a stellar job in the 410, though.

I read a post from one of the Alliant techs themselves claiming it is not the same as H110/296, but it sure looks and acts the same! It's surely a kissing cousin if it's not the same.

 

[NeuseRvrRat]

I read the same article in Handloader Magazine as mentioned above they the author clearly states 300-MP is the same powder as H110/W296.

I saw a publication at the Piggly Wiggly today that clearly stated that Elvis Presley is alive and well. They even had a picture for proof!

 

[243winxb]

The MSDS for H110/W296 and 300-MP list different plants/companys in different states.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I saw a publication at the Piggly Wiggly today that clearly stated that Elvis Presley is alive and well. They even had a picture for proof!

So you are comparing a magazine that claims Elvis is alive to Handloader magazine? That is some statement and i'm not sure it puts you in a good light!

Remember, a few years back everyone laughed at those who said W296 and H110 were the same powders until Hodgdon and St Mark's powders admitted it was completely true and always was...

Really, Elvis???

 

[NeuseRvrRat]

Did the gun rag writer give any source for his claim that they're the same? I've heard the claim that 300-MP is the same many times, but the folks only ever cite that same article. I haven't been able to find the article online. I'd really love to find a better source. The folks who actually called Alliant and asked have reported that Alliant said they are not the same, so who knows for sure?

They may very well be the same, I really have no idea. I don't really care. I worked up a load with it and it does exactly what I bought it to do and it does it very accurately.