H110 Reduced Loads

[jmorris]

See POST#16 here
He got it directly from the Manual

I will take both your and the OP’s word for it; however, I will stand by my assessment that the data does not fall within cumulative data in numerous other load manuals, printed over decades.

I wouldn’t use it but have no problems with others doing so.

The OP had always had an understanding, that was correct and a single source has him questioning it?

How about this, for the OP and we can all learn something. Take an average of normal starting loads and shoot them for groups, noting ES of velocities and work your way down to that 8.6gn. The results would be enlightening to many of us.

 

[MEHavey]

Post#16 makes it clear that 8th/Hornady 357 Mag Rifle Load (p672 - - where the 8.6gr load came from) is an aberration.
Do NOT use it.

 

[jmorris]

May just be another Sunday during lockdown thread, the OP has a decent grasp on what to expect.

Why not. If it’ll work, then what’s the problem.

Enough to answer his own question.

I had read about erratic ignition and other issues with reduced H110 loads.

 

[Walkalong]

See POST#16 here
He got it directly from the Manual

I see, and I agree with you, it's a misprint or something, but it's definitely too low.

 

[C Younger]

Thanks for all the replies and explanations. The reason this even caught my attention to begin with is that Speer and Hornady both had data where their max was near Hodgdon’s start. My concern wasn’t over charging, but rather the risk of undercharging by using published minimums under what Hodgdon had listed. I don’t, and never did, have any intention of loading wimpy loads with H110.

As a side note, I noticed that Hodgdon is the only manual that I’ve seen where H110 and 296 have identical data, but that’s a discussion for another day.

Have a good week.

 

[Charlie98]

As a side note, I noticed that Hodgdon is the only manual that I’ve seen where H110 and 296 have identical data, but that’s a discussion for another day.

Not really...

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/h-110-and-ww-296-are-the-same.186089/

 

[murf]

8.6 seems awful low for a 357 case, speers 38 spl loads have more than that, in a smaller case, shorter OAL...

Then there is the 6.9 grain difference between max an min...that data is wrong. Where did you get it? You should contact them about their mistake.

View attachment 946764

View attachment 946763

just another fyi regarding your 38 special +p page. i found a box of 38 special +p reloads (probably by my dad) with h110 powder. so i went out and shot them up in the combat masterpiece. as i recall, the first cylinder full had one weak report that cleared the barrel and one weak report that stuck a bullet in the barrel and left a bunch of yellowish paste in the case. the rest of the rounds fired ok. the second cylinder full (yes i am curious to a fault, i guess) was fired until another bullet got stuck in the barrel. i got tired of beating bullets out of the barrel, went home and pulled the bullets on the rest of the box.

bottom line, i won't use h110/w296 on low pressure cartridges like the 38 special. i won't down load h110/w296 in any cartridge for any reason.

luck,

murf

 

[JimKirk]

Yes most of the early W296/H110 called for no reduction ....

I would keep loads close to full loads ...

 

[jebova2301]

Post#16 makes it clear that 8th/Hornady 357 Mag Rifle Load (p672 - - where the 8.6gr load came from) is an aberration.
Do NOT use it.

I don't know that it is so much an anomaly, as much as I believe Hornady just uses a computer program to generate a portion of their load data, and it is why I don't really have any faith in my Hornady manual. I also think they are being WAYYYYY too conservative(and also way too optimistic on velocities) with a lot of their load data, possibly even to dangerous levels(such as with H110 start charges). When I looked at the load data for my 50AE using H110, Speer says run 33.5-34.5 for a 300gr bullet, or 29.4-32.6 for a 325gr bullet. Hodgdon says to run 29.0-32.5 for a 325gr bullet. Lee says to run 29.0-32.5 for a 325gr bullet(pretty sure they are just using Hodgdon's data since the seating depth and velocity numbers are the exact same). Hornady, for a 300 grain bullet...start at 27.7 grains up to 33.7 grains.

All the things I have read on H110 have always warned along the lines of never reducing more than 10% from max load. If you look at the data from everyone else, it stacks up pretty close. Speer...2.9% on a 300gr bullet, 9.8% on a 325gr bullet. Hodgdon and Lee...10.8%. Hornady...a whopping 17.8% reduction from max.

When I look at 9mm with Unique and 124gr XTP, Lee says load 5.1 grains up to 5.8 grains. Alliant says to use 5.8 grains for a 124gr speer GDHP(not the same bullet, but a similar profile). Hornady...start at 4.0 and never exceed 5.0 grains. Been there, tried it, it shot like trash. Decided to do loads going from 5.0 grains all the way up to 6.0 grains. Shoots like a dream at 5.4 grains out of my Glock 19, and one of my "g19" polymer80 builds, and then like a dream at 5.3 grains from the other g19 sized polymer80 and my Glock 17.

223 remington with a 55gr FMJ and H335 powder? Hodgdon and Lee both say start at 23.0 and go up to 25.3 grains. Sierra says 23.6 to 25.7 grains. Speer says 24.0 to 26.0 grains. Hornady...20.8 up to 23.2 grains.

After seeing that much discrepancy in most of the cartridges I reload, the Hornady manual has just kind of left me feeling like I can't really trust it.

 

[Blue68f100]

Back in the early 70's when H110/W296 was first released it had a DO NOT REDUCE on it, with heavy crimp required. This was in the Winchester Free load data pamphlet. Then several years later it changed to 3% reduction from max. I do know if you go below the 3% it starts getting a little erratic. This powder is only good for the what I call Full Magnum Loads. If you want or need to reduce use a different powder like 2400.