Discussion in 'Handloading and Reloading' started by kerreckt, Jun 15, 2021.
"Winchester 572 is a ball powder strategically designed to optimize a myriad of shotshell and handgun loads. First, 572 has the correct burn rate to create the famous 3-¼-dram equivalent, 1-¼ oz, (1330 FPS) 12-gauge factory Winchester load with any brand case! Back Fence competitors and pheasant hunters will be delighted. Winchester 572 also provides superb clay target or field loads in 20- and 28-gauge, and, outstanding field loads for the wonderful 16 gauge. In addition, 572 has a vast number of pistol applications, ranging from the 25 ACP to 45 ACP, and all popular calibers in between."
If you go there, they have a handy load calculator at the bottom of the page. https://shop.hodgdon.com/winchester/winchester-572
If you are asking this question because you purchased some MP190 or MP195 from American Reloading, please remember to reduce your initial load by 10 percent at start and work your way up.
How difficult it is it to look at the Hodgdons website. They have data for all 3 calibers??????????
Obviously, I have checked these sources. I was looking for people's experiences. Thanks for your help!!!!!
Was not "obvious"
Sorry, your post did not indicate that you had looked there.
I have never used it myself.
Bought a pound and played with it, put it on my don't buy again unless it is the only thing available list.
Might be a bit slow burning for .45, but should work. I preferred CFE-P to W572. I like WSF better than CFE-P or W572.
I found the same thing with W244 in 9mm and .45ACP... workable, but not the optimistic velocities in the data.
I have a curiosity of W572, but like Dude mentions... it might be a little slow for .45ACP.
Yep, I noticed that with 244 as well.
Given the choice between 244 and 572 I would choose W244.
to do it over again, I’d prolly try WSF in 9…
It will work in .45, but for .45 practice/fun loads I prefer HP38, AA#2 or N320.
I don't own a .40 so I don't know how it is there but I would guess that it would work well there given it's burn speed.
Only issue with WSF is there is not a lot of data out there for it.
It seems to be positioned to replace HS-6. It has a higher volume density measure number (1 grain/cc) so it will weigh less per volume and case fill will be better (the higher the VMD, the better the case fill) compared to HS-6. It's about the same as AA#2 (0.0838 vs .0823 for W572) and it's a slightly slower powder than HS-6 - very slightly, just a touch closer to Blue Dot. I'm not sure what the need is unless HS-6 just isn't selling for some reason but, as far as I can tell, there are lots better shot powders out there and HS-6 is a good powder, already. Then again, there used to be HS-5 and HS-7 too and they're gone so, maybe this is just more "progress"?
I don't see any 1 1/8 ounce loads listed on their site for Rem STS hulls and 572. They do show W572 with 1 1/4 and 1 3/8 oz loads.
Separate names with a comma.