300-MP Acting Squirrely

[Swampman]

From Wikipedia:

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary...

 

[buck460XVR]

All this argument on whether or not 300-MP is the same as H110/296, still has not given us the reason for "squirrely" loads in .45 Colt and the lack of load recipes for the combo. I wonder If Gamestalker ever got a conclusive reply back?

 

[RealGun]

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary...

Tendentious is to argue in favor of existing beliefs (or the desired outcome). Objectivity will be difficult to find.

If one is NOT using load data as interchangeable, then this is all just trivia.

 

[hardheart]

That's a critical part of the quandary here, which you might want to try to confirm beyond speculation.

Unless the speculation is whether of not Virginia can "import" from Florida, then there is no speculation, as the legal requirement is for contact information for either the manufacturer of the importer to be laced on the MSDS.

 

[buck460XVR]

I was under the initial impression that since 300-MP was intended to compete against H110/W296.... that like them, it did not download well and may have been the reason for the OPs issue with it. But upon further research, I see Alliant shows a substantial downloading with it when used for reduced recoil loads in .460 S&W, .45 Colt's big brother. About 12 gr of difference with a 300 gr projectile. So it must download quite a bit better than H110/W296.


Research on the Ruger Forums show little or no use of 300-MP in .45 Colt. I'm still curious to hear if GS has heard anything.

 

[gamestalker]

Are you kidding, this debate is still on going?

There is no published data for 300-MP and 45 lc, which I think some would exist if it was in fact, the same powder as 296 / H110.

GS

 

[ArchAngelCD]

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

As far as I'm concerned, 243winxb pretty much nailed this whole thing back in post #23 when he stated that:


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 was going to stay out of this conversation but those two posts contradict each other. The guy from Alliant says 300-MP was made by St. Marks Powders and the next post claims it wasn't. Both can't be true.

St. Marks does make W296/H110 and 300-MP.

 

[Walkalong]

All this argument on whether or not 300-MP is the same as H110/296, still has not given us the reason for "squirrely" loads in .45 Colt and the lack of load recipes for the combo.

I believe 300-MP and W296/H100 are different powders, but either way, at those burn rates, and with all of them being very fine grain powders, if they were loaded to .45 Colt pressures I would not expect them to burn well, and the results could definitely be considered "squirrely."

 

[gamestalker]

Oh, sorry I didn't see your last couple posts 460XVR, nor did I notice that this thread was still going.

But to answer your question, no, they haven't gotten back to me. And judging by the initial response, I doubt they will. The guy didn't seem all that interested in giving me a real explanation, thus I seriously doubt my question was ever posed to the engineer's.

So I guess we'll just have to continue with the debate, or not.

GS

 

[buck460XVR]

I believe 300-MP and W296/H100 are different powders, but either way, at those burn rates, and with all of them being very fine grain powders, if they were loaded to .45 Colt pressures I would not expect them to burn well, and the results could definitely be considered "squirrely."

Similar to my statement earlier in this thread. But the OP claimed he was interested in Ruger only loads and there is plenty of recipes out there for H110/W296 in .45 Colt at those pressures.

But......lack continued lack of info from "Ruger only" sites and being blown off by the powder manufacturer when that info is wanted, may still be an indication that altho the powder works in that platform, it does not work well.


300-MP is one of the few handgun powders I regularly see on the shelves in multiple units, and those units usually sit there a long time. While I have been tempted to buy some just because of it's availability and the claims made by the manufacturer, I have yet to see enough positive feedback on it from others that have actually used it. I often wonder if that's the reason it's there.

 

[Jlr2267]

Similar to my statement earlier in this thread. But the OP claimed he was interested in Ruger only loads and there is plenty of recipes out there for H110/W296 in .45 Colt at those pressures.

But......lack continued lack of info from "Ruger only" sites and being blown off by the powder manufacturer when that info is wanted, may still be an indication that altho the powder works in that platform, it does not work well.


300-MP is one of the few handgun powders I regularly see on the shelves in multiple units, and those units usually sit there a long time. While I have been tempted to buy some just because of it's availability and the claims made by the manufacturer, I have yet to see enough positive feedback on it from others that have actually used it. I often wonder if that's the reason it's there.

I can give positive feedback on 300-MP for use at published loadings in 357 magnum and 44 magnum...works very well...never found a workable load in the larger 45 Colt case, however...and I don't care to experiment further with it.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

If you can't find your usual Magnum handgun powder I see no reason not to pick up a jar or two of 300-MP, especially since it's readily available.

 

[Walkalong]

But the OP claimed he was interested in Ruger only loads and there is plenty of recipes out there for H110/W296 in .45 Colt at those pressures.

I used to load lead to "Ruger Only" levels with W-296 (In the metal can) using a Blackhawk, but have not done so in a long time. One would think 300-MP would work for that, but perhaps not.

 

[gamestalker]

I'm of the mind set, well being that I enjoy loading warm stuff, that if the load was bumped up carefully, and, or, a magnum primer was added to the load, it might perform acceptably.

Another idea, and something I've done with "Ruger Only" 45 lc loads, is to add a filler to help the powder stay down against the flash hole. I've used a piece of tissue paper on top of the powder, and then dacron filler on top of that. Doing the above has cleaned up some other wise dirty and inconsistent loads for me before.

GS

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I'm of the mind set, well being that I enjoy loading warm stuff, that if the load was bumped up carefully, and, or, a magnum primer was added to the load, it might perform acceptably.

Another idea, and something I've done with "Ruger Only" 45 lc loads, is to add a filler to help the powder stay down against the flash hole. I've used a piece of tissue paper on top of the powder, and then dacron filler on top of that. Doing the above has cleaned up some other wise dirty and inconsistent loads for me before.

GS

I never tried a filler in 45 Colt loads although I don't think it could hurt anything and could possibly help. I have tried fillers in 45-70 loads but I saw no difference in the results. That's probably because the powders i was using were not know to be position sensitive. (other than SR4759)