NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/guns/18653

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 5.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!falstaff.MAE.CWRU.EDU
From: [e-mail] (Geoff Kotzar)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: light .44 Magnum loads?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:59:45 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: /etc/organization
Lines: 90
Approved: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (E. Michael Smith) writes:
#In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
#
##In the beginning of the book it mentions that such powders
##as 296 and H110 shouldn't be used in reduced loads (i.e. don't reduce
##more than 10%) but I don't see any other mentions in .357 Magnum
##or 44 Magnum (pages 426-429) sections.
#
#Hmmm.  I have some H110 and was thinking about making some .44 Special
#class loads in a .44 Magnum case with it ... Guess I'll have to think
#again!  (I was going to check MY Speer reloading book befor starting,
#but maybe I'll just use up some old Unique instead...).
#
#Any idea why they say this about H110?  I know they say to use Magnum
#primers...  Is it a worry that you will get a partial ignition (just
#enough to wedge the bullet in the bbl, then the full ignition to
#blow the gun?
#
#Scary to think that a powder might be lethal in a 'special' load ...



I am glad you asked this question. The misinformation that has been passed
on regarding this subject has been a pet peeve of mine for some time.

To reiterate a previous post of mine, WW-296 and H-110 are ballistic twins
and are literally the same powder. According to whom? Tom Shepherd, the VP
of sale at Hodgdon. Why don't Winchester-Western and Hodgdon recommend
using these powders in reduced loads? W-W is very explicit in their 12th
edition of their reloading products catalog. This contains their reloading
data; everybody has one of these right? They state that reduced loads of
296 can result in erratic pressures and a bullet lodged in the barrel, ie.
LOW pressures. Contrast that warning with the ones listed for 8mm Mauser and
.338 Win Mag. W-W states explicitly that components and charge weights of
the powders used, 748 and 760, must not be altered as dangerously HIGH
pressures can result. W-W is not the least bit reticent when it comes to
stating when destructively high pressures can result. W-W also state that
weak crimps when using 296 in pistol loads can result in erratically low
pressures. WW-296 and H-110 seem to be very sensitive to the initial condi-
tions, more so than to the operating pressure when it comes to producing
reliable ignition and reproducible pressures. If this last statement is not
quite clear I will try to elaborate.

I talked to Tom Shepherd prior to the publication of the 26th Edition of the
Hodgdon manual. In previous editions of their manual there was a listing of
an H-110 load for the .44 Special. Now the .44 SPL operates at roughly one
third the pressure of the .44 Mag and yet the load they developed worked just
fine even at .44 SPL pressures. Tom Shepherd knew the man who developed the
load in question personally and stated that he was absolutely reliable and,
hence, he had a lot of faith in the load. But the fellow had died and no one
at Hodgdon's knew how he had actually assembled the loads. As a result of
this and reports of erratic pressures and poor ignition from reloaders of .44
Mags they were going to delete the .44 SPL data with the publication of the
27th Edition rather than re-develop the data. Well if you check the 26th Ed
you will fing no listing for H-110 in the .44 Special. They managed to pull
the data even though the manual was already at the printers. So DATA POINT
#1: Hodgdon did develop reliable loads with H-110 that operated at about
14k CUP.

DATA POINT #2: W-W lists 296 loads for 3 magnum cartridges with which I am
familiar, .357, .41 and .44. The data for the .357 and .44 list operating
pressures at 35+k CUP but the .41 data list pressures of only 24k CUP. So
these combined with the warning about the heavy crimp requirement along
with articles that have appeared in Handloader's Digest during the last
20 years indicate that the conditions at the time of ignition are of greater
importance at keeping the fire going than bringing the pressures up into
the high 30's.

For those of you who purchased the Lyman 47th and need loading data for that
296 on your bench, you are SOL. Lyman lists NO data for 296 in this new
manual. When I called their customer service office, Ed Matunas, the editor
of the manual and the one reponsible for the technical content, was not
available. The young lady on the phone did not know why the data was omitted
but managed to find out. They wanted to limit their liability due to the
erratic pressures "common" to 296; and yet they included data for H-110
which is functionally identical. Exactly what this means I do not yet know
but I have a letter on the way to Lyman asking for an explanation and will
keep you posted.

The upshot of this is that H-110 and its twin WW-296 are fast RIFLE powders
and behave as such. Reduced loads do NOT, repeat do NOT, result in catastro-
phically high pressures excursions, at least according to the people with whom
I have talked and according to W-W literature. If the loads are assembled
improperly, squib loads can result which ultimately may leave a bullet lodged
in the barrel. Even if that should happen, a little care on your part can
prevent a more serious problem.


geoff kotzar           [e-mail]