squib loads from compressed 296 in 454 casull

[usfan]

Alright. I just got back from the range, & i thought i'd give my opinion on what was happening, for anyone in the future who might be looking for the same info.

Since the squib was (as far as i can remember) the second shot in my test rounds, i am theorizing that the impact of the previous shot packed the powder even more toward the front of the bullet, leaving a void in the powder. As the next shot was fired after cycling with the barrel pointed down, the powder did not get into the flash hole. You do not have this problem with non compacted loads, except with very small loads, as the powder can jump forward & back, & some remains in the flash hole. I had gotten some squibs years ago in mild 38spl loads, & the small amount of powder caused there to be none in the flash hole. It was necessary to point the gun up after every shot to prevent this, in those mouse fart loads.

I loaded up a bunch more, in 45c, & 454. I had 23.2g of w296, & 24g, plus some 29.4g of 4227. I had a variety of projectiles, including 250 flat nosed plated (berry's), hitech coated 300 swc w/gas checks, & 230g fmj. I shot about 100 total rounds, of the different combinations. I had NO squibs, this time. I did deliberately point the rifle up between shots, but i didn't with the 45c loads in the redhawk. Those were double action revolver shots.

The 230g fmj were all fine, but since the earlier loads were not as compressed as the 300g rounds, i suspect the powder was compacting more from the recoil, & without tipping the next shot so any loose powder would be near the primer, it resulted in a squib.

I could be wrong.. i was once, back in '68. But i think i have eliminated the other possibilities:

1. not enough powder. I used a lot less in the 45c rounds, with no compaction at all.
2. wrong primers. I used regular small rifle in the 454, & large pistol in the 45c. All of them fired properly, at this session.
3. Wrong projectile. I used the same ones, in a variety of powders & charges. They all work fine.
4. The lee factory crimp die did it. All were crimped, & all fired without issue. It is perhaps not needed (aren't there threads on that topic?), but it should not have caused a squib.
5. Projectile not rated for higher velocity. IMO, they are, but it is a moot point if the powder is not igniting. the powder did not 'know' the projectiles were not rated high enough & decide not to ignite.
6. wrong powder. Admittedly, w296 has issues, but this was not because of the powder, imo, but the compaction & distance from the primer. NO squib loads when pointing the gun up between shots, & none from the pistol at any time.
7. No manual data. I got a blend of information, from a variety of sources, including the winchester tables. They have very little for 230fmj, & even less for rifle 454. Many of the loads were composites & extrapolations from successful loads that others have tested. But this did not cause the squibs.
8. i was confusing and/or stupid in my question. Perhaps, but this still did not cause the squib.. unless you mean my accumulated applied stupidity caused it.

Anyway, this is my analysis of why i got the squibs, & i've learned a bit.
1. Don't assume the powder being compressed slightly will not move forward more & leave a void.
2. Don't ask questions here, unless you feel like some abuse.

The replies were entertaining, even if irrelevant. Sorry i did not take it in better humor, as i am getting grumpier in my old age.

 

[gamestalker]

That's really not a fair statement to consider our advice as abuse. THR consists of a lot of experienced individuals who are willing to donate their time and experience to helping others, I hardly consider that as abusive. This is a serious problem you're dealing with, one that could have resulted in a KB if any of those rounds would have detonated.

As for picking data, you can not compare two different cartridges, and then use that as your baseline, such as 45 LC being compared to 454 cas.. They are two entirely different cartridges.

296 is not a picky or fussy powder. I've been loading full house with it using published data for decades, with never a single issue what so ever. It requires published loads, magnum primers, a roll crimp, and the correct bullet, you did not follow that protocol, thus you experienced problems. Stick to published data that's specifically intended for that cartridge / chambering, and you'll not have problems.

If you want to horse around with powder reductions and different bullets, don't do it with full throttle magnum ONLY powders, and certainly not 296. 3% reduction is the limit with 296 / H110, and even then, it probably won't perform optimally.

GS

 

[Rule3]

Thank you gamestalker you said what I was going to but perhaps much nicer.

We both, as well as others tried to assist in solving this issue but got nothing in return to the questions we asked.

So I have my solution to any further assistance.

 

[usfan]

That's really not a fair statement to consider our advice as abuse. THR consists of a lot of experienced individuals who are willing to donate their time and experience to helping others, I hardly consider that as abusive. This is a serious problem you're dealing with, one that could have resulted in a KB if any of those rounds would have detonated.

As for picking data, you can not compare two different cartridges, and then use that as your baseline, such as 45 LC being compared to 454 cas.. They are two entirely different cartridges.

296 is not a picky or fussy powder. I've been loading full house with it using published data for decades, with never a single issue what so ever. It requires published loads, magnum primers, a roll crimp, and the correct bullet, you did not follow that protocol, thus you experienced problems. Stick to published data that's specifically intended for that cartridge / chambering, and you'll not have problems.

If you want to horse around with powder reductions and different bullets, don't do it with full throttle magnum ONLY powders, and certainly not 296. 3% reduction is the limit with 296 / H110, and even then, it probably won't perform optimally.

GS

That's fine. But i was asking a specific question to a specific problem. As it is, i think i have solved it. but it was a powder compaction issue, not the projectiles, not the primers, not a dozen other things that were thrown at me. I don't mind hearing about possibilities, but the patronizing, pissy tones got to me a bit.. i did not reply in kind, but made a final swipe in the last post.

..funny that was all you seemed to read. But don't worry, i won't bother you guys again, if my stupidity annoys you so much.

 

[usfan]

Thank you gamestalker you said what I was going to but perhaps much nicer.

We both, as well as others tried to assist in solving this issue but got nothing in return to the questions we asked.

So I have my solution to any further assistance.

seriously?

I answered & clarified many times. I put up with deflections, false information, & patronizing attitudes. Pardon me if i don't kiss your ring or your ass for your contribution. I won't bother you again, you can be sure of that.

 

[ljnowell]

usfan,



case volume difference between 45lc and 454casull is significant. the extra volume in the casull case reduces internal pressure (with the same powder charge) enough to severely affect the powder burn. changing components : case volume, bullet shape/weight, powder type/charge, primer type, col, crimp, etc., is why we insist on everyone staying within reloading manual guidelines. change one component and bad things can happen.



good thing you didn't try to stuff that 300gn bullet and 30 grains of powder in a 45lc case.



murf

^^^. The load was acceptable in the 45 colt because of the reduced case volume.

 

[murf]

usfan,

we answer your questions to the best of our ability, not only for your sake, but for the sake of others that follow this thread. bottom line: I don't condone your reloading practices, or agree with your assumptions and conclusions in this matter.

murf

 

[usfan]

usfan,

we answer your questions to the best of our ability, not only for your sake, but for the sake of others that follow this thread. bottom line: I don't condone your reloading practices, or agree with your assumptions and conclusions in this matter.

murf

What is your evidence & reasoning to the contrary? You can dispute my opinion, but i have offered data & reason, not just speculation.

It was not the primer.
It was not a low powder charge.
It was not the projectile.
It was not the factory crimp die.

So what was it? That was my question, which i offered in good faith, not looking for a fight or any ridicule.

How is my conclusion faulty? What evidence do you have for the contrary?

 

[murf]

usfan,

this is not a courtroom.

your facts keep changing to fit the situation.

I'm done here.

murf

 

[gamestalker]

I'm finished here as well, no sense in beating a dead horse.

GS

 

[ljnowell]

What is your evidence & reasoning to the contrary? You can dispute my opinion, but i have offered data & reason, not just speculation.

It was not the primer.
It was not a low powder charge.
It was not the projectile.
It was not the factory crimp die.

So what was it? That was my question, which i offered in good faith, not looking for a fight or any ridicule.

How is my conclusion faulty? What evidence do you have for the contrary?

You loaded a 45 colt load in a 454 case and you can't realize that's an undercharge? The powder you are using isn't supposed to be reduced that far for that very reason.

 

[gamestalker]

I felt compelled to add one more post, not to raise tensions, but explicitly for the safety of those who may read this thread seeking direction. This isn't even directed at the OP, but rather the circumstances involved.

First of all, and for the sake of other reloaders who may read this thread looking for direction, it should be known that, just because a load may have functioned at all, doesn't by any means imply that it's safe to stray from published data, and this is specifically concerns, and is directed at the use of H110/296 where applicable.

The two primary issues IMO, are that the powder charge is some where in the range of 20% below published book. This is certainly a primary and very serious issue, and will, as warned by Winchester and other publishers, cause squibs, and a risk of detonation.

The second serious issue concerns the bullet that was used, in that, there is no published data that would suggest that weight bullet, or style is applicable. And once again, this refer's specifically to the use of H110 / 296. I'm sure one could get away with loading light target loads and bullets with most any cartridge, but with an appropriate powder that would operate at much lower non typical 454 ca. pressures, of which H110/296 is not at all suited for. Folks load light target loads for all kinds of magnum class cartridges all the time, including the big 500 S&W magnum, but they do it with faster burning powders that can be reduced significantly. But once again, and to reiterate, this can't be accomplished with H110/296, this is not a powder one can safely experiment with, second guess, or step outside of the specific published data, at all.

That's not to say that 296 ? H110 is finicky or hard to work with either. It's an awesome powder when used for full house, full pressure, top dog, magnum loads, and that's it's only application.

One final comment, and again, regards 296 / H110 specifically. The crimp must be a good typical roll crimp, and into a canelure in order to hold the projectile that little millisecond longer to initiate a burn. Pressures are the key, which this powder must attain enough of, or it won't consistently light.

That's all I have to say, except that I apologize to the OP for anything I may have said was interpreted as offensive, that was not my intended or implied goal. I was only trying to identify the obvious issues related to the squibs. This is THR.

GS

 

[cfullgraf]

What is your evidence & reasoning to the contrary? You can dispute my opinion, but i have offered data & reason, not just speculation.

It was not the primer.
It was not a low powder charge.
It was not the projectile.
It was not the factory crimp die.

So what was it? That was my question, which i offered in good faith, not looking for a fight or any ridicule.

How is my conclusion faulty? What evidence do you have for the contrary?

Yes, your conclusion is faulty by not following the loading limitations of Winchester 296. You have an excellent example of why one does not load Winchester 296 below recommended charge levels.

With the 230 grain, 45 ACP FMJ bullet in a 454 Casull case, 30 grains of Winchester 296 is too light of a charge, about 16% too light, at least from looking at the Hodgdon reloading data web page.

For a nominal 300 grain bullet, your 30 grain charge of Winchester 296 is at the maximum charge weight based on the Hodgdon reloading data web page. But different testing labs usually come up with different data.

Citing the source of the published, tested data you used would be most helpful.

 

[usfan]

usfan,

this is not a courtroom.

your facts keep changing to fit the situation.

I'm done here.

murf

1. My facts have not changed. All the relevant details were given for the problem.
2. This is a scientific problem with scientific solutions, not legalistic, formulaic mandates.
3. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I was looking for a rational reason for a specific problem, not general advice about all the details of reloading, or how i must follow specific rules.

..funny how i'm getting more 'feedback' for my little quip at those who were deflecting from my problem, than any real addressing of the problem itself. No one wants to discuss my analysis, or solution, but just needle me, personally, for some alleged misconduct or breach of etiquette.

 

[usfan]

You loaded a 45 colt load in a 454 case and you can't realize that's an undercharge? The powder you are using isn't supposed to be reduced that far for that very reason.

It was not a 45 colt load. It was a 454 load. The max charge i could find for a 45 colt load is in the 26 grain charge.

 

[usfan]

I felt compelled to add one more post, not to raise tensions, but explicitly for the safety of those who may read this thread seeking direction. This isn't even directed at the OP, but rather the circumstances involved.

First of all, and for the sake of other reloaders who may read this thread looking for direction, it should be known that, just because a load may have functioned at all, doesn't by any means imply that it's safe to stray from published data, and this is specifically concerns, and is directed at the use of H110/296 where applicable.

The two primary issues IMO, are that the powder charge is some where in the range of 20% below published book. This is certainly a primary and very serious issue, and will, as warned by Winchester and other publishers, cause squibs, and a risk of detonation.

The second serious issue concerns the bullet that was used, in that, there is no published data that would suggest that weight bullet, or style is applicable. And once again, this refer's specifically to the use of H110 / 296. I'm sure one could get away with loading light target loads and bullets with most any cartridge, but with an appropriate powder that would operate at much lower non typical 454 ca. pressures, of which H110/296 is not at all suited for. Folks load light target loads for all kinds of magnum class cartridges all the time, including the big 500 S&W magnum, but they do it with faster burning powders that can be reduced significantly. But once again, and to reiterate, this can't be accomplished with H110/296, this is not a powder one can safely experiment with, second guess, or step outside of the specific published data, at all.

That's not to say that 296 ? H110 is finicky or hard to work with either. It's an awesome powder when used for full house, full pressure, top dog, magnum loads, and that's it's only application.

One final comment, and again, regards 296 / H110 specifically. The crimp must be a good typical roll crimp, and into a canelure in order to hold the projectile that little millisecond longer to initiate a burn. Pressures are the key, which this powder must attain enough of, or it won't consistently light.

That's all I have to say, except that I apologize to the OP for anything I may have said was interpreted as offensive, that was not my intended or implied goal. I was only trying to identify the obvious issues related to the squibs. This is THR.

GS

I realize that the 30g w296 & 230g is a somewhat light load for this projectile.. but there are no published loads for this, & even less for the manufacturer, so blasting me for that seems a bit unfair. There are no 'book loads' for this projectile, from hogdon. the closest one is a max load, freedom arms with a 260g jfp. That is 36g of w296, which i am nowhere near, even with the book recommendation of a 10% reduced starting load.

IF it could have been demonstrated, or at least logically explained WHY this reduced load was causing the squib, this would have answered my question. but this seemed more like a deflection.. an irrelevant criticism of my reloading prowess, rather than addressing the question. It was fine as an aside, to warn prospective reloaders of the dangers of departing from published loads, but it still did not deal with my question.

As it is, i do not intend to use 230g fmj with 30g w296 for any loads, because of the squib issue, the round nose, & the better projectiles available. But reloaders are an experimental lot. We try things, that are at least in the realm of feasible. Linebaugh was a pioneer in pushing the limits of the 45colt, even with the hysterical objections of the status quo. Innovation & experimentation, with plausible predictions of success have brought us a lot of variety in the firearms industry. My pathetic experiment was hardly pushing the envelope of danger, with a reasonable load and a reasonable projectile. IMO, the matter is settled, with my conclusion of powder compaction & a vacant flash hole. When powder was in the hole, it worked fine, & was a functional load.

I clearly explained my crimp procedure, which is a matter of diverse opinion even among the experts.

Regarding w296, i will quote Linebaugh:

Too heavy a slug, seated too deeply in the case can cause #2400 to act like Unique and Unique to act like Bullseye. Small increases in powder charges can result in dramatic pressure jumps. For any serious heavy handloads I use only H-110 and WW 296 powders. These are the 2 most stable powders we have for this reloading application. Our pressure testing has proven both powders to be absolutely stable up to 60,000 CUP. Steady, smooth and no pressure spikes. Other powders can be used but great caution is advised..

His research & experimentation with h110 is legendary. That is the kind of scientific, logical explanation & application that is needed, not directives to follow mandates. I get it. It is better to err on the side of caution, but to demean someone for their experimentation, especially when it is within the realm of plausibility, is not what the firearms reloading community is about.

 

[usfan]

Yes, your conclusion is faulty by not following the loading limitations of Winchester 296. You have an excellent example of why one does not load Winchester 296 below recommended charge levels.

With the 230 grain, 45 ACP FMJ bullet in a 454 Casull case, 30 grains of Winchester 296 is too light of a charge, about 16% too light, at least from looking at the Hodgdon reloading data web page.

For a nominal 300 grain bullet, your 30 grain charge of Winchester 296 is at the maximum charge weight based on the Hodgdon reloading data web page. But different testing labs usually come up with different data.

Citing the source of the published, tested data you used would be most helpful.

You contradicted yourself in this post. first you said that you should always follow published data, then acknowledge that 'different testing labs come up with different data'.

Most reloaders know this. There are myriads of reasons for 'official' loads, litigation being a major factor.

I have consistently acknowledged that this is a light load. Too light? Maybe. It did have some successful tests. The issue? Squibs. The question? Why? The lectures on always following published data is very proper & responsible. But that did not solve the problem or answer the question.

I still find it very peculiar that many of the responses have been to criticize me, personally, rather than deal with the central question. Sure, people like to argue, especially on the internet. And i get that i will get some irrelevant 'solutions', which i dealt with kindly & graciously. It was just my final remark that has stirred everyone up, not my analysis of the problem.

the 30g of 296 was not the cause of the squib. 11 of the 15 samples had nice big booms, good recoil, & acceptable accuracy. The cause of the squib was no powder in the flash hole, imo. It was not the regular rifle primer. it was not the crimp. it was not the published loads. You insisting that this was too light of a load is not borne out by the facts. the weight of the powder did not cause the squib, but the lack of ignition, due to vacating the flash hole.

If you wish to demonstrate, logically & with facts, how the light powder load would sometimes work fine, but have an occasional squib, go for it. That was the question. You seem to just want to pile on after the fact, since i have stirred things up with a parting criticism of the 'help' i got.

 

[MEHavey]

There is nothing wrong with a well-crimped 454Casull/230grFMJ/W296/30gr load. While it produces only 28ksi (in a 65ksi-rated cartridge and only 80% burn), it is still 90% case fill and operating in a pressure regime where I've shot hundreds of 45Colt rounds using H110/296 out of a `94Marlin.

I would, however, always stay w/ a magnum rifle primer with this cartridge/powder combo.

 

[usfan]

There is nothing wrong with a well-crimped 454Casull/230grFMJ/W296/30gr load. While it produces only 28ksi (in a 65ksi-rated cartridge and only 80% burn), it is still 90% case fill and operating in a pressure regime where I've shot hundreds of 45Colt rounds using H110/296 out of a `94Marlin.

I would, however, always stay w/ a magnum rifle primer with this cartridge/powder combo.

I suspect this would solve this particular issue completely, as did tilting the gun up to ensure that powder got into the flash hole. Being a partially compressed load, it compacted enough to hold together & clump, letting any powder in the flash hole dribble out. The regular primer was inadequate to ignite the clumped powder, resulting in the squib.

Unless i hear of a better explanation, with reasonable supporting evidence, this is my conclusion.

My solution: Avoid this combo. Save the 45fmj for 45acp or even 45 colt, as they work fine there. Use the 300g swc for the hot 454 loads, which make more sense to reload. Milder loads are easy to do in the 45 colt, & brass is cheaper & more abundant.

What threw me was the full case of powder. I did not expect faulty ignition with the full case. I have had squib loads from mild 'mouse fart' loads in 38spl, which could be avoided by pointing the gun up each time. Had these been low volume loads, i would have suspected that right away. And since it did not have a repeat after pointing the gun up, the suspicion seems to be confirmed.

Perhaps 33g would compact enough & not allow forward movement of the powder clump. But i'm tired of this, & will probably just stick with the 30g & 300g projectile, as it consistently performed.

Thanks to all who took the time to reply, & the good intentions of helping a fellow reloader. Sorry if i came across as grouchy, i can get into a 'logical mode' that is strictly business. Most of the time, i enjoy kidding around & not taking things too seriously. And of course, peripheral issues with any question are fair game in any thread. I just got a little testy about the dogmatism & patronizing tone of a couple of posts.. no hard feelings, & no offense at my end.
peace.

 

[cfullgraf]

You contradicted yourself in this post. first you said that you should always follow published data, then acknowledge that 'different testing labs come up with different data'.

No contradiction at all.

Just read several different sets of load data and there will be differences in the minimum and maximum charges.

Different labs, different technicians, different components, different firearms or test barrels, different lots of powders, different lots of primers, different lawyers, and so forth all contribute to publish data from reputable sources being different.

If you are loading from published, reputable data that says 30 grains of Winchester 296 with 230-240 grain bullets is a tested, safe load in 454 Casull, please let us know the source. Inquiring minds want to know.

Otherwise, heed the warnings about Winchester 296 and do not reduce starting loads below published levels from reputable sources.

 

[usfan]

No contradiction at all.

Just read several different sets of load data and there will be differences in the minimum and maximum charges.

Different labs, different technicians, different components, different firearms or test barrels, different lots of powders, different lots of primers, different lawyers, and so forth all contribute to publish data from reputable sources being different.

If you are loading from published, reputable data that says 30 grains of Winchester 296 with 230-240 grain bullets is a tested, safe load in 454 Casull, please let us know the source. Inquiring minds want to know.

Otherwise, heed the warnings about Winchester 296 and do not reduce starting loads below published levels from reputable sources.

Excellent legal disclaimer.
..but thanks, i think i have the problem solved. It was not incomplete ignition, or too low pressure, or the crimp, or the projectile, but the lack of powder in the flash hole, which a magnum primer might have overcome. I won't bother testing this theory, but it seems reasonable. The lack of information on this combination was part of the problem, but it was not the main problem.

 

[MEHavey]

If you are loading from published, reputable data that says 30 grains of Winchester 296
with 230-240 grain bullets is a tested, safe load in 454 Casull, please let us know the
source. Inquiring minds want to know.

This is why God created QuickLoad.

Even within the bounds of straightwall case calculations, that load is of sufficient case-fill and more than safe pressurwise. The only issue is ignition w/ a Mag primer.

 

[usfan]

There are similar things going on with 357/38spl, & 44mag/44spl. You can create low powered loads in the bigger cartridges, but there are sometimes issues. The issue here, which was what i wanted to solve, was why this amount of powder, a high charge in a 45c case, would squib in the 454. I would have the same question if this happened in 357, but since there is a lot more data & experimentation with it than the newer 454, i could not find a solution from searches.

 

[buck460XVR]

usfan,

we answer your questions to the best of our ability, not only for your sake, but for the sake of others that follow this thread. bottom line: I don't condone your reloading practices, or agree with your assumptions and conclusions in this matter.

I'm done here.
murf

I'm a big fan of H110/W296....I also load a lot of .460(.454's big sister) and have been for years. I was tempted early on in this thread to contribute some info I have gleaned from my experience over the years, but saw some reluctance from the OP to accept legitimate answers to his questions. I doubt very much of the OPs problem has anything to do with powder position, but is more likely a combination of several things.....i.e low powder charge, combined with non-magnum primers and too light a crimp using a improper projectile, all negatives when it come to H110/W296 usage.

Since the squib was (as far as i can remember) the second shot in my test rounds, i am theorizing that the impact of the previous shot packed the powder even more toward the front of the bullet, leaving a void in the powder.

Since the squib came after another round was fired, I'm more prone to think that bullet jump from too light a crimp using a bullet without a cannelure than the recoil compacting the powder away from the flash hole was the cause. But that's my just honest opinion. But honest opinions are all any of us can give without being there in person and going on the information given to us. All information I saw given here was by folks with much reloading experience and with given with concern because of more than one issue with reloading techniques used. Ignoring those opinions and concern is not a intelligent move.

Just sayin.......

 

[mavracer]

This is why God created QuickLoad.

God didn't create quick load man did and as such it is not infallible. Had god created it he would have probably understood that 90% case fill in a longer case makes the 10% bair space just that much larger and that much further away from the primer flash.

Most of the time, i enjoy kidding around & not taking things too seriously.

I do to but I would take squib loads seriously as they can be followed by catastrophic failure.