300-MP Acting Squirrely

Status
Not open for further replies.
it seems that the quote "W296, H110 and Alliant's Power Pro 300-MP are identical spherical magnum revolver propellants made at the same facility." comes from a caption under a picture of all three powder bottles. I think this statement, while printed in Guns & Ammo, is just flat-out wrong. If I had to guess, I'd say that the pictures and captions weren't chosen or written by Layne Simpson.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you are so invested in this denial of what the article stated. The text of the article also states, and I quote:

re the Power Pro spherical line-

"All are useful in the applications for which they were formulated, but 300-MP was the one needed most in the Alliant lineup. W296 and H110 from Hodgdon are also made at St. Marks and are actually the same powder with different names."

I could agree that the grammar leaves the last sentence ambiguous as to which powders are included as being the same, but IMO the previous sentence set the context and established sufficient implication of 300MP.

I feel silly just arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
 
NeuseRvrRat said:
a bunch of folks on the internet claiming they're the same means jack doodley
Click to expand...
NeuseRvrRat said:
http://www.300blktalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=141&t=87911

more interesting information here
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight, the first post I quoted of yours says what people on the Internet say means jack doodley then you post a link to another forum to make your point. Why are the people on this forum jack doodley but the people on that other forum not?

This is getting ridiculous so I'm done here. Believe what you want but try not to be a hypocrite.
 
I just thought it was interesting. I don't think it proves anything. I don't think anyone has presented conclusive evidence to support either side of this argument yet. At least I'm making an effort to find out the truth.
 
I don't think anyone has presented conclusive evidence to support either side of this argument yet.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Personally, I still don't believe they are the same powder but I wouldn't stake my life on it. I have to retract my earlier statement that they do not look the same though. I had a buddy who had some 296 and we compared them. They look exactly the same. They still don't smell the same to me, however, which doesn't prove anything but...

I have seen several threads on other forums where folks have worked up identical loads and have consistently seen slightly slower performance from the 300 mp. As soon as I can, I am going to do my own workup. I am not sure what motivation Alliant would have to not admit they are the same if that were the case. 300mp is about the only powder I see on the shelf and h110 and 296 have been ghosts as far as my local LGSs have been concerned for the last 2 years. In any case, I don't think it will stop me from using it. I have had some great results with anything other than minimum loads.
 
But were they also using magnum primers?
Click to expand...

That I can't answer. When I do my workups, I think I will go off the reservation and use magnum on both powders. It is a fair question if they are seeing in the neighborhood of 20-30 fps difference but are not using the same primers.

Don't get me wrong here. I may believe that it is different powder but a big part of me hopes I am wrong here. I don't seem to have any problem finding 300 mp so it would be great.
 
3 pages into it......why are you using data that doesn't exist for what your shooting?
Click to expand...

Personally, I use the data that is on Alliant's site, and my Hornady 9th edition includes loads for it.
 
As for me... It aint the same powder

I loaded up 2 batches of 44s. All of these were loaded with 240 grain semi wad cutters in brand new Starline brass with federal large pistol magnum primers. They were loaded on the same press to the exact same OAL. Both batches were loaded with 24 grains of their respective powders. Both batches were fired from the same 7.5 inch Ruger Super BlackHawk. The only variable was the powder.

The first was H110. The average FPS over a dozen shots fired was 1384.

The second was 300 MP. The average FPS over a dozen shots fired was 1301.

This is a decisive difference in my book. Not only were the FPS much lower under the 300 MP, but the perceived recoil was substantially lower.

I also still stand by my earlier statement that these two powders don't smell anything alike, both in the bottle and from their smoke.
 
That suggests that the 300-MP may have been packaged with an additive, given the axiom that the base powders are the same in bulk from St. Marks. I am not sure anything is "conclusive" at this point. Is a 6% difference in chrono readings that telling? Was the gun cleaned and cooled between batches? See how this goes? Cursory science does not necessarily prove anything.
 
I am satisfied with the results. Yes, in my book I believe a 6% difference is significant enough to be conclusive. The slowest recorded shot with h110 was faster than the fastest recorded shot on the 300 mp which is also telling.

I did not allow the barrel to cool. I have never seen any increase or decrease on this gun at different temps. I also did not clean it as there was nothing to clean. If I was being more systematic, I should have staggered the rounds alternating between one and the other but that will be another day :)

The perceived recoil was so drastically different from h110 to 300 mp that it alone convinced me there are significant differences between the powders.

I am not trying to convince you that this is conclusive. I am stating that I am personally convinced that they are not the same powders. I will not use the same load data for them etc. Having said that, I will still buy and use both.
 
RealGun said:
given the axiom that the base powders are the same in bulk from St. Marks.
Click to expand...

Is this a reasonable premise, given the discussion thus far?

A small % difference could be significant, depending on the variation within each set of readings. Still, it would only show that the 2 powders used are giving different results, and could still be lot/lot differences.
 
I don't think the the article was written well enough to give you enough information to be 100% definitive. The wording is unclear. That is why I decided to test it for myself and get my own conclusions.

I thought it was kind of funny. I showed the article to a few people at work and had them arguing about whether it was claiming that just h110 and 296 are the same or whether all 3 were the same based on the wording in the article. These people are not gun folk at all so it was an interesting argument.

In any case, I don't want anyone to interpret what I am saying as trying to argue or make an unwavering claim to be followed by all. As realgun has pointed out, there are a lot more variables at play here. I just made my own findings available to any who are interested. I am happy with both powders and am going to keep pursuing this. To me, doing stuff like this is at least half of the fun.
 
The only way to bear out the truth of the powders being stated as "the same", yet producing variable results, is for the respective distributors to have added something to it before packaging.
 
I personally do not put much stock in anything written in G&A and haven't for years. Not since Seyfried left.
 
NeuseRvrRat said:
here's an excellent thread where someone from Alliant actually posted and even gave real pressure numbers on a head-to-head comparison:

http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=327598

it seems that the quote "W296, H110 and Alliant's Power Pro 300-MP are identical spherical magnum revolver propellants made at the same facility." comes from a caption under a picture of all three powder bottles. I think this statement, while printed in Guns & Ammo, is just flat-out wrong. If I had to guess, I'd say that the pictures and captions weren't chosen or written by Layne Simpson.
Click to expand...
Here is the text of that reply for anyone who cares to end the bickering, from a member of that forum named "Alliant Reloading. It appears to be someone from within Alliant.

Guys,
I saw this post this morning and wanted to jump in and set the story straight, but I didn't have any data directly comparing Win296 to Power Pro(R) 300MP. I have shot some head to head and can now prove that 296/H110 are faster burning than Power Pro 300MP.
I shot Win 296 and 300MP at the same charge weight in 357Mag (I am not going to give the load details):
Win296 - 1696ft/sec @ 38,500psi
Power Pro 300MP - 1637ft/sec @ 30,900psi
So, as you can see, the Power Pro 300MP is a good bit slower burning than 296/H110. This is how we intended it. We had St. Marks design the product to be slower burning than WC 297, which is slower than 296, and they did a good job.
Please accept this as the final word on this. Power Pro 300MP and Win296/H110 are not to be confused as the same products with different names. They will have different reloading data, and they must not be confused.
I don't know where Layne Simpson got the impression that the products are the same, but it should not have been from us. I recall having a nice discussion with him and Ben at the last SHOT Show, but we would not have told him they are the same.
Sorry for any confusion on this. Please accept my input as the final word here.
Be safe.
Paul
 
I can accept this, but I do wonder why 300-MP as the slower burning powder does not require magnum primers and is lower in velocity and pressure than W296 data shown here.

How does that data tell me that "300MP is a good bit slower burning than 296/H110"?

I shot 20 gr 300-MP with 210 gr XTP, 41 Magnum yesterday and can say that 300-MP really has the wallop to it and a report that draws the expected attention.

p.s. I was using magnum primers.
 
Last edited:
I believe he was referencing the fact that the pressure is much lower for the same velocity. If it was the same powder as H110/296, the pressure would match. Other than that, I don't know what to tell you. I stopped using H110 after the first pound and haven't looked back.
 
In the burn rate charts I've seen show 300-MP either slightly faster or the same as H110/W296. The reason H110/W296 needs a Magnum primer is not it's burn rate but the retardants it is coated with. A slower powder does not always give higher velocities and pressures for the same weight powder charge. Some slower powders are so bulky that you cannot get enough of them in a case to give velocities higher than a slightly faster powder. IMR4227 is a good example of all three. Many folks put way to much emphasis on burn rate.
 
Not the same powder

This is from the guy at Alliant in another forum, but thought it could help.

Seadog

Guys,
I saw this post this morning and wanted to jump in and set the story straight, but I didn't have any data directly comparing Win296 to Power Pro(R) 300MP. I have shot some head to head and can now prove that 296/H110 are faster burning than Power Pro 300MP.
I shot Win 296 and 300MP at the same charge weight in 357Mag (I am not going to give the load details):
Win296 - 1696ft/sec @ 38,500psi
Power Pro 300MP - 1637ft/sec @ 30,900psi
So, as you can see, the Power Pro 300MP is a good bit slower burning than 296/H110. This is how we intended it. We had St. Marks design the product to be slower burning than WC 297, which is slower than 296, and they did a good job.
Please accept this as the final word on this. Power Pro 300MP and Win296/H110 are not to be confused as the same products with different names. They will have different reloading data, and they must not be confused.
I don't know where Layne Simpson got the impression that the products are the same, but it should not have been from us. I recall having a nice discussion with him and Ben at the last SHOT Show, but we would not have told him they are the same.
Sorry for any confusion on this. Please accept my input as the final word here.
Be safe.
Paul
 
stick with published load data. there is no data for the 45lc using 300-mp. so don't use it.

there is a reason all reloading manuals warn against reduced loads with h110/w296. they cause erratic ignition and can stick a bullet in the barrel, hangfires, etc.

as the op clearly shows, 300-mp causes erratic ignition with reduced loads. so, don't use 300-mp in 45lc loads.

if the bullet/powder manufacturers thought doing so would be safe, they would have published the data.

murf
 
As far as I'm concerned, 243winxb pretty much nailed this whole thing back in post #23 when he stated that:
"The MSDS for H110/W296 and 300-MP list different plants/companys in different states"
Click to expand...

According to their respective MSDS sheets, H110/W296 is manufactured by St Marks Powder in Florida, a division of the General Dynamics Company.
See MSDS:
https://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/MSDS Fi...rs/All Hodgdon Spherical Powders_02-11-14.pdf


Power Pro 300MP is manufactured by Alliant Ammunition and Energetics Co. A subsidiary of ATK, at the Radford Army Ammunition Plant in Virginia.
See MSDS:
http://www.alliantpowder.com/downloads/msds/PowerProSeries.pdf

I'm fairly certain that the manufacturer stated on the MSDS is required by law to be the actual manufacturer.

In addition, the ingredient lists for the powders, while similar, are not identical.

A quick perusal of their respective MSDS sheets will pretty much rule out any possibility that these three powders are all identical.
 
I'm fairly certain that the manufacturer stated on the MSDS is required by law to be the actual manufacturer.
Click to expand...

That's a critical part of the quandary here, which you might want to try to confirm beyond speculation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Nothing beats 300-MP, so far anyway
Replies
9
Views
515
kcofohio
kcofohio
L
  • Locked
Alliant 300 MP in 44 Mag
Replies
2
Views
254
skeeterfogger
S
S
  • Locked
First 20 rounds of 357 Max.
Replies
0
Views
293
Stonechucker
S
N
  • Locked
Alliant 300-MP in the .357 Magnum
Replies
13
Views
5K
nody
N
wasa
  • Locked
Alliant 300-MP in 357 Magnum and Different Bullet Weights
Replies
4
Views
298
wasa
wasa
Back
Top