357 Rifle Powder?
- Thread starter fshfindr
- Start date
Please don't confuse the poor lad any further!!!
They come in cans with different labels, they are listed separately in the load data, I have data where the amount is different for each. Short of a verified letter from the both "makers", I'm not buying it.
They may be "the same thing" today, but I remember a time when H110 wasn't "the same thing" as H110! There have been at least 3 different identified burn rates of H110 within living memory, and I understand that it was changed again, after those were "cleaned up". That is one of the reasons I never used H110 much.
And I won't believe that without a certified letter...
BTW
The load data on the Hodgdon site lists the exact same charges of H110 and W296 when searching particular caliber/bullet combos...
An old thread from THR about H110/W296:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=186089
buck460XVR
New member
E-Mail or call Hodgdon, and they will tell you it's the same thing. I have.
And PRESSURE, don't forget that the perssures are the same also.
There are several powder combos that are the same between differing labels. Hdgdon's seems to have the bulk of these since they have both Winchester and IMR powders in their portfolio.
I wish the folks who wrote the books would stop pretending that they are different and add the caveat that it may not apply to powders that are more than a decade or two old!
trapper9260
New member
I shoot the same ammo in my handgun that also use in my rifle.
i do that for 357 and 44mag. that way I just deal with one type on data
i do that for 357 and 44mag. that way I just deal with one type on data
What has caused confusion about H110 ans 296 burn rates in the past is just QC being less than great for a number of older lots. There was too much burn rate variation by current standards for canister grade powders. Hodgdon tightened their QC considerably about 2000, and the variations have gone down to the ±3% that is normal for canister grade powder sold to handloaders today.
Both H110 and 296 are Western Cannon WC296 from St. Marks Powder in St. Marks, Florida, currently a General Dynamics owned company (though Olin owned it at one time). Hodgdon put this powder on the market for handloaders first, as H110, but I believe this was surplus and was before there was a canister grade version. Then Winchester came along and began to offer fresh powder as 296. But as near as I can tell, the burn rate variation back then was still around the 10% level you more commonly see in bulk grade powders. Since Hodgdon took over distributing Winchester, the same lots are now in the cans with the different labels, so the load data is now always identical and the lot variations have pretty much gone away.
For written proof of the above, seek out Hodgdon's MSDS for their brand spherical powders from 2009 and also Hodgdon's MSDS for Winchester Ball powders from the same year. WC296 is named as the "also known as" for both H110 and 296 in those two documents. Since then, the reporting requirements for MSDS sheets has lightened up a little, and that information is no longer given. I have both, but can't attach them here both because they are all-image PDF files about 770K in size, and both are copyrighted information we can't distribute under board policy. If you look through some of the several sites with collections of MSDS sheets, you may find them, as some of these sites keep very old copies available and will sometimes have three or four for a product.
What I am interested to try out is Alliant's Power Pro 300-MP. They are claiming almost 6% more velocity or about 12% more kinetic energy than H110/296 for a 158 grain JHP in a 10" tube (1686 fps vs 1591 fps). It's not a lot of difference, but might help knock down steel at a little more range and its peak pressure might be a little gentler on cast bullets. Something to experiment with.
Both H110 and 296 are Western Cannon WC296 from St. Marks Powder in St. Marks, Florida, currently a General Dynamics owned company (though Olin owned it at one time). Hodgdon put this powder on the market for handloaders first, as H110, but I believe this was surplus and was before there was a canister grade version. Then Winchester came along and began to offer fresh powder as 296. But as near as I can tell, the burn rate variation back then was still around the 10% level you more commonly see in bulk grade powders. Since Hodgdon took over distributing Winchester, the same lots are now in the cans with the different labels, so the load data is now always identical and the lot variations have pretty much gone away.
For written proof of the above, seek out Hodgdon's MSDS for their brand spherical powders from 2009 and also Hodgdon's MSDS for Winchester Ball powders from the same year. WC296 is named as the "also known as" for both H110 and 296 in those two documents. Since then, the reporting requirements for MSDS sheets has lightened up a little, and that information is no longer given. I have both, but can't attach them here both because they are all-image PDF files about 770K in size, and both are copyrighted information we can't distribute under board policy. If you look through some of the several sites with collections of MSDS sheets, you may find them, as some of these sites keep very old copies available and will sometimes have three or four for a product.
What I am interested to try out is Alliant's Power Pro 300-MP. They are claiming almost 6% more velocity or about 12% more kinetic energy than H110/296 for a 158 grain JHP in a 10" tube (1686 fps vs 1591 fps). It's not a lot of difference, but might help knock down steel at a little more range and its peak pressure might be a little gentler on cast bullets. Something to experiment with.
357 is such a fun amd versatile round to reoad for, I like a lot of powders for different things. but f I had to pick one, it would be 4227. it's not even close to the winner for velocity due to case capacity issues, but it makes good, solid magnum loads at lower pressures and softer recoil and BOOM compared to h110 and lil' gun and the super powders. 4227 meters well, is usually easy to find compared to the others and is more versatile than than the other, like you can load down to softer loads w/o the peak issues. but if you want full power, 90 mile an hour fastball to the hand, nothing beats h110 and lil gun, man they put out some real power. but that's not usually all I want out of powder, especially with a fun cartridge like .357mag.
I am finding that titegroup is actually pretty sweet too. as the 4227, wont quite get the numbers h110 will, but makes some stout loads with a lot less kick. titegroup makes a heckuva boom though, but I am finding it to be very comfortable and accurate with 110-140gr bullets.
I am finding that titegroup is actually pretty sweet too. as the 4227, wont quite get the numbers h110 will, but makes some stout loads with a lot less kick. titegroup makes a heckuva boom though, but I am finding it to be very comfortable and accurate with 110-140gr bullets.
Where I live we are still having problems finding the powders we want. I am almost out of my standby 357 mag powders (H110 & Al2400). I use either of these powders to push a SAECO 180 gr hard cast bullet in my Winchester M94AE in 357 mag. I haven't seen any of these powders for quite sometime in my local Cabela's or Sportsman's Warehouse stores. What I have found for magnum loads is IMR 4227 and am working up loads with that. Good luck to the OP in finding a selection of magnum pistol powders to purchase for his use. He may need to settle for something else as I have.
Cary
Cary
UncleNick, I was with you up to that point...
And I don't doubt you about the change in the information, just about the reason for it. It is difficult to accept the government easing the rules on anything, particularly chemical safety.
Among other things, I spent a couple decades deeply involved with MSDSs for a spent nuclear fuels reprocessing plant, and being one of the primary chemical storage area inspectors for a project that included a couple of nuclear reactors and a few thousand tons of spent nuclear fuel in storage. I know MSDSs.
And I know a zillion ways "barracks lawyers" and real lawyers interpret the regulations. And that's what I think is the most likely reason the information was changed. Certain things are required to be in an MSDS. Typically, there is a lot more than the bare requirements. Changing, or even dropping information above the min legal requirement happens a lot.
My standing joke for a long time was what it should say on both covers of the MSDS binder(s)...."can of worms...open other end"
If anyone is interested, I can explain this in mind numbing detail.
Oh, and if you really want a blank look, ask your retailer for a copy of the MSDS for that can of powder (or virtually every other chemical product), he's required by law to make it available to you, IF you ask...
Saw this coming before I retired. Its going to be ugly. While I see the benefits of a standardized system, once again, the US is being "forced" to adopt a "foreign" system, and this will cause some resentment.
That, in itself is a minor thing, however, I can see potentially serious problems during "transition" times. The big issue I see is that the "new" international system uses a hazard rating scale the exact OPPOSITE of the one we use.
(or at least the "proposed" new system I was shown used it, don't know what the end reality will be)
Our system uses "1" as low hazard, "4" is high hazard. Under the international system, "1" is high hazard. I see a large potential problem, don't you? Particularly during the YEARS that chemical containers marked with the "old" (our current) system, will remain in the inventories of businesses all over the country.
My other gripe with what I saw was a bit simpler. With over 30 years experience in chem management and use, I could not recognize several of the "international symbols" that the entire world (including the illiterate) is supposed to be able to understand at a glance.
Sure, training will fix this, training always fixes everything. Right?
Believe that and I have a bridge you might be interested in buying!
I was not able to get H110 unless I got the (I think) 8lb container. Which $$$ I did. So I made up 20 at 13.9 and 20 at 15.2g. Hopefully, I'll try them at the range tomro or Thursday. Then I looked at M.D. Smith's page and saw that he does not recommend lead at, I think it was greater than 800FPS. My lead is water dropped Lyman #2. (Can't get WW in NJ.) Does that mean that my ammo is going to disintegrate on the way to the target? 
Very confused. My Lee book says I will probably get 1581 FPS. I looked at the charge for 158g XTP since I could not find 158g lead in the Lee book. So now I'm thinking that Lee may not want me to drive my lead that fast too. But my Lyman book does have it with 14.4-15.9g at 1857 FPS. I am still confused.
Very confused. My Lee book says I will probably get 1581 FPS. I looked at the charge for 158g XTP since I could not find 158g lead in the Lee book. So now I'm thinking that Lee may not want me to drive my lead that fast too. But my Lyman book does have it with 14.4-15.9g at 1857 FPS. I am still confused.WVMountaineer
New member
From my limited understanding of lead bullets, and it is limited, if your bullets are rated for plinking loads and, you push them at mag velocity's, you are going to have leading issues.
I'm working hard to increase my personal experience and knowledge of the in's and out's with lead bullets. But, I think I have this right. :^) I'm sure someone that does have this first hand experience will be along shortly to confirm or correct this assumption. God Bless
I'm working hard to increase my personal experience and knowledge of the in's and out's with lead bullets. But, I think I have this right. :^) I'm sure someone that does have this first hand experience will be along shortly to confirm or correct this assumption. God Bless
See my question earlier in the postings.
There is swaged lead (soft stuff) like what Hornady and Speer offer and then there is cast lead.
Swaged lead is good to 800-100 fps depending on the gun, then you start leading up your bore and accuracy goes to pot.
Cast lead is any one of a myrad number of alloys that range from somewhat hard to very hard.
Lyman #2 is pretty hard. You can push it pretty fast w/o leading the bore. But if you run it too slow, it will not obturate properly in the bore and accuracy will suffer. Follow the Lyman book where data for Lyman alloy bullets came from! Lee only regurgitates everyone elses data...and some of it is obsolete.
There is swaged lead (soft stuff) like what Hornady and Speer offer and then there is cast lead.
Swaged lead is good to 800-100 fps depending on the gun, then you start leading up your bore and accuracy goes to pot.
Cast lead is any one of a myrad number of alloys that range from somewhat hard to very hard.
Lyman #2 is pretty hard. You can push it pretty fast w/o leading the bore. But if you run it too slow, it will not obturate properly in the bore and accuracy will suffer. Follow the Lyman book where data for Lyman alloy bullets came from! Lee only regurgitates everyone elses data...and some of it is obsolete.
Some of the "older" magnum pistol powders like 4227, 2400, etc will work well.
But H110/296 will outperform them all by a mile in .357 and .44 magnum, whether pistol or rifle. I've tried them all, and I now use H110 exclusively for .357 and .44 mags.
If Elmer Kieth had access to something like H110, he'd have used up his beloved 2400 for starting campfires.
But H110/296 will outperform them all by a mile in .357 and .44 magnum, whether pistol or rifle. I've tried them all, and I now use H110 exclusively for .357 and .44 mags.
If Elmer Kieth had access to something like H110, he'd have used up his beloved 2400 for starting campfires.
I like H110 and 2400 for my carbines (Marlin and Ruger 77/357). I also found a pound for 300MP and I like it a lot too. I played with it a bit and got a Hornady 110 grain bullet going just under 2500 FPS. With 300MP most books say use a non-magnum primer. I suggest the same.
a 110 grain bullet doing a bit under 2500 FPS is awesome for varmints! The bullets tend to grenade. In water jugs they tend to fragment very rapidly and seldom make it past 2 jugs. The first jug is usually shredded and the second one usually looks more like it was shot with small shot shell.
in my experience 300 MP out does H110 but requires an even larger charge to do it. With the heavier bullets it out does h110 by a larger number than it does using lighter bullets. Hodgdon lists a load with H110 in a rifle that is only 60 FPS slower than my 300 MP load.
I wish I could find another pound of 300MP.
a 110 grain bullet doing a bit under 2500 FPS is awesome for varmints! The bullets tend to grenade. In water jugs they tend to fragment very rapidly and seldom make it past 2 jugs. The first jug is usually shredded and the second one usually looks more like it was shot with small shot shell.
in my experience 300 MP out does H110 but requires an even larger charge to do it. With the heavier bullets it out does h110 by a larger number than it does using lighter bullets. Hodgdon lists a load with H110 in a rifle that is only 60 FPS slower than my 300 MP load.
I wish I could find another pound of 300MP.