squib loads from compressed 296 in 454 casull

[MEHavey]

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.

And God created Man -- who created QuickLoad.
To then not use that God-given brain is a waste.

That said, the 90% case fill reqm't (met by the OP BTW) has less to do flash distance as it does with ignition mass start-up once initiated. Again, the need for a Mag primer was stated clearly.

QuickLoad is a superb resource -- and very dependable in finding safe mid loads with which a chronograph can then fine tune both velocities & pressures as the shooter progresses.

The OP's load was safe by a 50% margin in pressure.
QuickLoad did, however, note it was on the margin for case fill.

 

[usfan]

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 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.......

Well, IF there was some bullet creep, that would be a logical projection. But as i clearly stated in the OP, i visually inspected each one, after firing, to see if there was. I was looking for problems, not blindly assuming anything.

You also assume too light a crimp, which others have said i should NOT do. My crimps were fine. I have loaded for magnum before, & i knew what to watch for.

So, early on, when the problem was clearly defined, you had nothing to contribute, because you could see i was stupid & would not accept legitimate answers. Only afterward, when i provided my critical analysis, do you present YOUR assumptions & helpful criticisms, which seem to be more of a personal shot at me, personally, rather than any real analysis of the problem.

Rebut my analysis, rather than just make cheap shots at me, personally. Go to post #26 & show where my facts or reasoning is faulty, instead of assuming i am stupid.

Your 'argument of authority' does not impress me. If you have facts & data & clear reasoning, i will bow to your wisdom. But pontificating about your assumptions & mysterious omnipotence about the whole situation just smacks of arrogance.

 

[usfan]

And God created Man -- who created QuickLoad.
To then not use that God-given brain is a waste.

That said, the 90% case fill reqm't (met by the OP BTW) has less to do flash distance as it does with ignition mass start-up once initiated. Again, the need for a Mag primer was stated clearly.

QuickLoad is a superb resource -- and very dependable in finding safe mid loads with which a chronograph can then fine tune both velocities & pressures as the shooter progresses.

The OP's load was safe by a 50% margin in pressure.
QuickLoad did, however, note it was on the margin for case fill.

Thanks for the input. Why do you think the regular primers were sufficient in the more compressed loads? Do all 454 powder charges have to be compressed? I had some 4227 loads that were not compressed at all, & they ignited fine, with regular small rifle primers.

I do agree with you that a magnum primer in this instance would probably have solved it. I also agree that the relatively light charge was not the reason, as it burnt completely, had plenty of recoil, & decent accuracy, once i tilted the gun up to put 296 in the flash hole.

I subsequently fired much smaller loads, volume wise, in 45c. They all fired without incident, although with standard large pistol primers. The powder did not compress at all, & therefore did not clump forward, so any powder in the flash hole could dribble out. ..at least that seems like the most logical explanation, except the growing consensus that i am just stupid..

I suspect either a bit higher charge, which would not compress as much from the previous shot, OR magnum primers would have solved this completely. Perhaps, even a LOWER charge would have prevented the squib, as the powder would just slosh back & forth, & not compress or clump at all.

 

[buck460XVR]

Well, IF there was some bullet creep, that would be a logical projection. But as i clearly stated in the OP, i visually inspected each one, after firing, to see if there was. I was looking for problems, not blindly assuming anything.

You also assume too light a crimp, which others have said i should NOT do. My crimps were fine. I have loaded for magnum before, & i knew what to watch for.

So, early on, when the problem was clearly defined, you had nothing to contribute, because you could see i was stupid & would not accept legitimate answers. Only afterward, when i provided my critical analysis, do you present YOUR assumptions & helpful criticisms, which seem to be more of a personal shot at me, personally, rather than any real analysis of the problem.

Rebut my analysis, rather than just make cheap shots at me, personally. Go to post #26 & show where my facts or reasoning is faulty, instead of assuming i am stupid.

Your 'argument of authority' does not impress me. If you have facts & data & clear reasoning, i will bow to your wisdom. But pontificating about your assumptions & mysterious omnipotence about the whole situation just smacks of arrogance.

Your post #26 is what assured me that you do not have a clue. Your title of this thread says "squib loads from compressed 296" yet you claim the problem(via your "critical analysis") is from powder position too far from the flash hole.........which is impossible when the load is already compressed. Your refusal to accept any legitimate explanation shows us clearly if there is ignorance or arrogance displayed in this thread it is by you and not the others that have attempted to help you. The only reason I posted late in this thread is because of the way you spoke down to other folks here that I know have much more experience and knowledge about reloading than you. You and your reloading practices are a accident waiting to happen. I wish you the best of luck, you are going to need it.

 

[tootall]

I also tried to help clarify some of the issues with the OP and many have been helpful and expressed concern for safety issues that abound.

This site is really great for folks who need technical help as provided by others with experience and valuable inputs.

This thread has already covered the significant risks of some of the propellant selected as well as the projectile. Not much is left from a merit side.

I suggest that this thread is LOCKED as nothing beneficial seems to remain. I guess I'll 'report' my own post here to see if the MODs agree.

Lets try to keep THR a positive and educational place..

NRA metallic instructor and long time hand loader...

 

[usfan]

Your post #26 is what assured me that you do not have a clue. Your title of this thread says "squib loads from compressed 296" yet you claim the problem(via your "critical analysis") is from powder position too far from the flash hole.........which is impossible when the load is already compressed. Your refusal to accept any legitimate explanation shows us clearly if there is ignorance or arrogance displayed in this thread it is by you and not the others that have attempted to help you. The only reason I posted late in this thread is because of the way you spoke down to other folks here that I know have much more experience and knowledge about reloading than you. You and your reloading practices are a accident waiting to happen. I wish you the best of luck, you are going to need it.

Which points that i listed in post 26 are you rebutting? None that i see, just a generalized smear toward me, personally. Fine. If you don't want to try to make a systematic, logical attempt to solve a problem, you can heckle from the sidelines all you want. You & the rest of the johnny come lately dog pilers, who do not address the OP at all, but just want to fight. I have posted facts, analysis, & reason. You dismiss them all & make generalized smears. I don't care. I have solved the problem & all this now is dickery. But be on notice that i see through your hypocrisy, name calling, & dogmatic judgements.

Address the points, if you can, & stop deflecting with ad hominem.

 

[usfan]

I also tried to help clarify some of the issues with the OP and many have been helpful and expressed concern for safety issues that abound.
This site is really great for folks who need technical help as provided by others with experience and valuable inputs.
This thread has already covered the significant risks of some of the propellant selected as well as the projectile. Not much is left from a merit side.
I suggest that this thread is LOCKED as nothing beneficial seems to remain. I guess I'll 'report' my own post here to see if the MODs agree.
Lets try to keep THR a positive and educational place..
NRA metallic instructor and long time hand loader...

what are you talking about? I replied with appreciation & understanding to your ONLY post in this thread. You were concerned with the round nose projectile in a tube magazine, which i heartily agreed with. Why are you feeling the need to jump on this dogpile, too?

For me, this has been an educational exercise in solving a problem. Many 'theories' abounded as to the problem, but they were not logically confirmed. The only one that makes any sense is a void left by compressing the mildly filled case upon firing the previous cartridge, which left a void, causing the powder in the flash hole to dribble out. When i tilt the gun, it fires correctly EVERY TIME. So it is not too low of a charge, as many are insisting. it is indeed powder position, which surprised me in a partially compressed load.

All that is going on now is people drifting in to take pot shots at me, personally. I get it that some people love to fight, & take great joy in criticizing others, but i have been logical & analytical, though not always congenial in my replies.

The mods can close this if they wish. I have not backed down from the attacks, but have presented my case with facts & reason, instead of insulting hysteria. That is the big thing some of you don't seem to like. But i have learned other things here, too. Some of the posters here are very dogmatic, & insist on their way or the highway. I'll probably take the highway, even if it is not the high road..

 

[gamestalker]

I also call for this thread to be locked. It has done little more than veer off course, and is now anything but informative and productive.

GS

 

[tootall]

My comments apply to the thread and tone.

Technical factors and concerns have been covered.

It's not directed at you or anyone, just the discourse.

OUT HERE

 

[ljnowell]

It's another situation of someone asking for help and then dismissing all help because they know better.

 

[usfan]

It's another situation of someone asking for help and then dismissing all help because they know better.

..if you say so.

Everyone can make their parting shots, since there isn't much left do discuss about the OP.. unless anyone wants to rebut post 26. ..not much more for me to say, other than return fire to the hecklers. But it is getting a little boring. Even the insults are pretty lame. If you can't do better than this, why bother?

 

[gamestalker]

I'm dedicated to reloading, it's my favorite hobby, and that said, I don't know everything about this hobby. So I couldn't just let this thread dissolve into thin air, it's just far to serious in terms of your safety, and that of others who may seek advice based on this event. There is a profound degree of knowledge and combination of dedicated professionals here at THR, probably more than any other place on the planet when it concerns our hobby. If we can set aside our differences, I'm confident we can collectively, and effectively, solve this problem, be becoming united, as your screen name suggests.

So anyway, I've been trying to research this issue, I sincerely want to try and help you get this 454 running at typical pressures. Hey, it's far more fun to shoot the big dogs when they're working as they're designed, which is at typical magnum pressures. And 296, when used as published, and with all the right components as published, will deliver everything your looking for, I promise. As magnum class powder go, 296 is considered the big dog. But it's also probably the one and only magnum class ball powder out there that requires a specific published approach to get it to run right. Others will operate just fine with standard primers, or reduced charges, but that's just not the case with 296.

There are 3 steps to getting what you want from 296 / H110 as follows.

1. Use a magnum primer. I've never had a squib with 296, or any other powder for that matter. But the one and only time I came very close, was when I tried standard primers with 296 / H110.

2. Use a canelured bullet and roll crimp into it. This is to make sure that primer detonation doesn't move the projectile forward during the powder ignition phase. Preventing bullet movement is necessary to get adequate pressure build, which is then a necessary component to effect a full and efficient burn with 296. In this respect, I know absolutely nothing about the FCD, maybe it is just as effective as a roll crimp in preventing bullet movement during those critical moments. Either way, this is a key element associated with 296, that little bit of additional delay in bullet movement is essential to effecting an efficient burn.
This to is an area where I experienced problems with an inadequate crimp. I've had bullets walk out of the case mouths. This resulted in a very poor powder burn and erratic velocities. Please don't get defensive here, I don't know if you had problems with the crimp, I just mentioned this as a matter of fact, simply based on my experience with how 296 performed under those circumstances.

3. Do not reduce published 296 / H110 charges by more than 3%.

I hope this helps you completely resolve the problem. 296 is very unique in the above respect. You are not the first reloader to experience this problem when using it, but it can certainly be resolved. If tipping the barrel up to get the powder up against, or into the flash hole is necessary, then something is certainly not right, I would hope you would agree on that fact. I do understand what your implying though, I've used case fillers with the 45 LC with faster burning powders, just for this reason. But once again, and I think we can agree that this is not an acceptable approach with 296, nor should it ever be necessary.


I only want to try and help USFAN. There is far more informed and professional knowledge here than what I can offer. I'm only advising based on experience, I don't have the credentials and professional background that a lot of these guys have, but I think I'm on the right track to some extent, and if not, someone will call me out, it happens, and they should. Bad advice is dangerous in this hobby.

GS

 

[Walkalong]

I think we have covered this one. If there are remaining questions please feel free to start a new thread.