preferred powder for 44 magnum reloads?

[Asherdan]

I've always used standard LP, the data I've worked from has always indicated a standard LP as well.

 

[td48604]

primers

I don't have my manual in front of me right now, but I'm certain there was a warning of some sort about reducing loads with magnum primers. I will have to go grab a manual.. I will be using standard LP primers.

 

[Ben Shepherd]

Plinkers- 7-7.5 grains of Unique or universal under a 245 SWC.

Mid-range- Blue Dot under a 245 SWC.

(The following load is above most current published maximums, approach with due caution. Nethier THR or it's staff assumes any responsibility or liability for its use! )
Hunting loads- 22.5 grains of 2400 under a 245 Kieth type SWC.

Heavy hunting loads- Either a 300 XTP over 2400, 296, or H110, or N110. Or one of the Cast Performance hard cast offerings on top of a stiff dose of 2400.

Overall, lead slugs and 2400 are as good as it gets in the 44 mag. If I had to choose a single load to do everything for this caliber, it'd be a 245-255 Keith HCSWC over roughly 20 grains of 2400 without any hesitation at all.

 

[LTR shooter]

With the 2400, are you guys using a standard primer or magnum primer??

I use the Winchester WLP which states "for standard or magnum pistol loads". I use the same with 296 , H110 or AA #9. My last outing using VVN-110 I used magnum primers and shot my best 50 yard 44 mag group.

 

[Ben Shepherd]

With the 2400, are you guys using a standard primer or magnum primer??

Speers latest edition has revised data with 2400, stating to use standard primers. Seems in their testing they got better performance with lower variations in SD and ES.

A lot of folks here report the same results. My own experience when I tried this was squibs in cold weather. Back to magnum primers, no more sqibs.

So I'd say the answer is- Testing is required in your gun, under the conditions you shoot in.

 

[fprefect]

44 magnum powder

I realize that there is one post saying in effect that W296 is a very "forgiving" powder and a good powder to use for reduced loads and I'm happy the poster has found it to be so.

However if you go to the Hodgdon or Winchester load site you will find warnings against using W296 or H110 (same powders, both manufactured by Hodgdon) for anything except for loads that will fill or nearly fill the entire case. In fact for some 357 loads there is only one grain difference between the starting and maximum loads.

I'll be the first to admit that I am much more familiar with good rifle loads than for pistols, but for reduced loads I use Unique in amounts of 6-8 grains for the 357 and 9 - 12 grs for both my Ruger SA Blackhawk and Model 29 S&W DA 44 and get reasonably good accuracy across the board with a wide range of bullets without the recoil and blinding muzzle blast that one can expect from 296 or H110 full house loads.

F. Prefect

 

[CSA 357]

2400 for me and unique for light loads

 

[td48604]

Clarification

Please allow me to clarify what I meant when I said 296 is a "forgiving" powder.

I stated:

"The one thing I like about the Win 296 is that it is "forgiving" as far as the range from minimum to maximum loads are concerned. With the measure I had, it was a real problem."


Meaning:
My manual lists a min. of 20.7 with a max. of 24.5 gr. I meant as stated later in the post, that it was the 3.8 gr of "leeway" between minimum and maximum loads. The problem was I was throwing 1 gr. over about every 25-30 rounds. There in lied the "buffer" or "forgiving" I was speaking of. I followed the manual to begin with a minimum and begin working my way up to a more suitable charge, but lost faith in the measuring device.

 

[jbkebert]

Really happy with Lil-gun 25.3 grains behind a 200 gr XTP from a 7 1/2" SPR. Clean burning and very accurate.

 

[buck460XVR]

td48604.......I've heard of folks having problems with W296/H110 and the auto-disk. This inconsistency along with a low starting point may very well be where your accuracy problems are.

 

[fprefect]

Clarification

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please allow me to clarify what I meant when I said 296 is a "forgiving" powder.

I stated:

"The one thing I like about the Win 296 is that it is "forgiving" as far as the range from minimum to maximum loads are concerned. With the measure I had, it was a real problem."


Meaning:
My manual lists a min. of 20.7 with a max. of 24.5 gr. I meant as stated later in the post, that it was the 3.8 gr of "leeway" between minimum and maximum loads. The problem was I was throwing 1 gr. over about every 25-30 rounds. There in lied the "buffer" or "forgiving" I was speaking of. I followed the manual to begin with a minimum and begin working my way up to a more suitable charge, but lost faith in the measuring device

That's good to hear. I have read several posts from shooters having problems metering 296 and not H110 and it's my understanding that the powders are identical and both manufactured by Hodgdon. Strange, as it looks like a powder that would be easy to meter.

I wish some of the bullet manufacturers would get together with the powder makers and come up with some far more accurate and safe load recommendations, particularly regarding the starting powder weights. Sierra and Hornady both show starting loads for the 357 magnum firing a 125 gr JHP in the 16 gr area with max loads at approx. 20-21. Hodgdon on the other hand who I would assume has done far more testing, shows 21 gr. for the starting load and 22 gr. for the maximum. Someone is wrong and I have my doubts if it's Hodgdon. Speer is the only reloading manual that shows a similar 1 gr. spread between starting and max. loads. 296 and 110 are great powders for hunting or defense loads but I'm not about to take 50 rounds to the range for a little practice as even the 357 load produces a "noticeable" recoil and the muzzle blast for either the 357 or 44 is "impressive" to say the least.

Some people may shoot hundreds of reduced loads using 296 or 110 without a problem, but I expect sooner or later a time will come when the main powder charge becomes shifted to the front of the case, the primer produces enough force to lodge the bullet briefly in the forcing cone before the main charge fully ignites and the revolver becomes a grenade. Fortunately this is only powder I'm aware of that has such a "narrow" 1 gr. spam of safe loading weights.

F. Prefect

 

[Walkalong]

but I expect sooner or later a time will come when the main powder charge becomes shifted to the front of the case, the primer produces enough force to lodge the bullet briefly in the forcing cone before the main charge fully ignites and the revolver becomes a grenade.

I believe I experienced that when trying Blue Dot in .22 Hornet. (Yea, I know) Anyway, with the powder back against the primer, no problem, but when I tired it with the powder forward it severely blew the primer. The only blown primer I have ever had.

I experienced the more pressure thing again to a small degree testing Solo 1250 in reduced .357 loads. It was not severe like the Blue Dot debacle, but it gave more velocity every time with the powder forward than it did with the powder back. All the other powders I had tried like this in .357 had less to significantly less velocity with the powder forward, away from the primer.

The problem was I was throwing 1 gr. over about every 25-30 rounds. There in lied the "buffer" or "forgiving" I was speaking of.

H-110/W-296 should not do that. One whole grain difference is huge for such a fine ball powder that meters extremely well. I would check your measure. It should meter +/- one tenth of a grain at most.

 

[LTR shooter]

Sierra and Hornady both show starting loads for the 357 magnum firing a 125 gr JHP in the 16 gr area with max loads at approx. 20-21. Hodgdon on the other hand who I would assume has done far more testing, shows 21 gr. for the starting load and 22 gr. for the maximum. Someone is wrong and I have my doubts if it's Hodgdon.

If the starting loads listed using 296/H110 in any of the various editions of the Hornady or Sierra manuals through the years were really causing serious problems I would think they would have been sued out of business many years ago. I have never had a problem with any 296/H110 load listed in any Hornady or Sierra manual in over 20 years of reloading from those manuals.

 

[MovedWest]

With the 2400, are you guys using a standard primer or magnum primer??

Personally I use magnum primers (CCI350) with my 240gr bullets but I use standard primers (CCI300) for my 300gr XTPs. Magnum primers see to be just a bit too much for those bullets. Magnum primers seem to be more accurate with my 240's though. Ken Waters even notes that in his book Pet Loads.

Personally I load my 240's with 20.5 gr of 2400. Prints like a Xerox machine out of my 7.5" Ruger SBH.

-MW

 

[COSteve]

I really like a 200 grain jhp over 12 grains of Unique for a mid range load (averages 1,366fps from a 6.5" bbl.).

20 grains of 2400 for a 240 grainer... standard primer. You can push it further, but this is what shoots well out of my 629 Classic and 1894 Marlin. Just shy of 1,300 fps out of the same 6.5" 629. Plenty of pop for me.



Oh, yeah... firm roll crimp.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

not a huge fan of 110/296. I use it sometimes but its not a very versitle powder. To me a better choise is aa9 or 2400

 

[jlynch34]

I use magnum primers with 2400, but only because I have alot of them. Standard primers work just fine.

I did load 240 XTP/HP bullet in front of 22 gns of 2400. However, I am a meat eater an was doing to much damage to deer so I've changed my bullet to 200 gn XTP/HP and use 20.5 gns of 2400. This is a much more pleasant load to shoot and I've killed three deer with it so far none of which took a step after being hit. My gun is a Ruger Redhawk with 7 1/2" barrel, open sights. Just the way I do it for your info.

 

[hydraulicman]

Not really a 44 but still a magnum

I use regular primers with 2400

I just worked up a .357 mag load with a 125 grain XTP and 20 grains of W296 and a 550 magnum primer

Hope i don't blow my self up

 

[KSCCHTrainer]

Haven't loaded .44 Mag in a few years, but when I was in Germany back in the late 70's, I had a friend who was casting bullets. He made me up a bunch of 240 grain semi-wadcutters with lyman gas checks on them.

I wound up using 8.0 grains of Red Dot for that bullet with standard primers. It was a medium load with exceptional accuracy out of both a Ruger Super Blackhawk and a Smith & Wesson Model 29 with the 8 3/8" barrel. Rested groups ran about 1.5" at 25 yards out of the Smith and still under 2" with the Ruger.

 

[Franco]

I've used H110 as my only 44 mag reload powder. I was not aware of any safety issues and have reloaded and shot close to a thousand rounds without incident. I've stayed about 1 g less than the max Hodgdon data and have had superior results.

 

[aerod1]

2400 has always worked well in my Ruger SBH and SRH.

 

[flipajig]

Im using W231 for plinking loads with cast pills and 2400 for my hunting loads This is what is working in my BH 6.6 grn of W231 and 19.5 of 2400 on the jacked side of the coin 200 grn Jhp at 22 grn of 2400 and 240 grn Jhp 20 grn of 2400 (This works in my guns dont know about yours)

 

[ArchAngelCD]

IMO any of the "Magnum" powders will do a good job in the .44 Magnum. With today's manufacturing and quality control they are all good powders. W296/H110, AA#9, 2400, Lil'Gun, 4227 and Enforcer will all do what you are looking for. My favorite Magnum powder is W296/H110 but I do like Lil'Gun for 180gr bullets in the .357 Magnum.

 

[Walkalong]

I just received 1 lb Vihtavuori N110. (along with 1 lb Nitro 100, and 5 lbs of AA #2) I The other N series pistol powders are so good, I wanted to try it in .44 mag. I'll let ya know one of these days.

 

[ranger335v]

Full power - 298/H-110 and mag primers, 2400, standard primers

Mid to upper mid levels - Unique, standard primers (a really GREAT powder in the .44)

Mild - ?? .. fer pete's sake, it's a .44 Mag!