44 AUTOMAG
- Thread starter shooter45
- Start date
What Mort means, if you haven't figured it out, is that when you use all caps, it looks like you're yelling at us. And we usually don't wear ear protection when online.
Of all the reloading manuals I have, only Hodgdon and Hornady have info on the 44 Auto Mag, but they have quite a few loads listed. If you don't have access to one of these, (and you probably don't or you wouldn't have asked) and you can't buy or borrow one, let me know what your favorite powder is (2400, H110, W296, IMR427) and I will put up the min/max loads. But, I feel uncomfortable doing this because I have to check and double check the data.
[This message has been edited by Mal H (edited March 29, 1999).]
Of all the reloading manuals I have, only Hodgdon and Hornady have info on the 44 Auto Mag, but they have quite a few loads listed. If you don't have access to one of these, (and you probably don't or you wouldn't have asked) and you can't buy or borrow one, let me know what your favorite powder is (2400, H110, W296, IMR427) and I will put up the min/max loads. But, I feel uncomfortable doing this because I have to check and double check the data.
[This message has been edited by Mal H (edited March 29, 1999).]
Go to Shooters and click on directories then products (I think) and you shall be rewarded with a multitude of powder manufacturers links to on-line loading manuals. www.shooters.com
Walt Welch
New member
Fellow posters; it warms the cockles of my heart to see that you have adopted my suggestion to obtain all reloading data from the powder companies themselves. I looked up this cartridge following the usual protocol, and just like Mal H, couldn't find any data for this cartridge among the major powder manufacturers.
So what now? Should you utilize the info published in old reloading books, which almostly certainly used the copper crusher of pressure measurement?
ABSOLUTELY FREAKING NOT!!
Here's why. You are using powders (W296, H110) which have a VERY narrow window of acceptable pressure. Remember, Olin recommends NO reduction of their W296 loads, and Hodgdon recommends a max. reduction of 3%.
So, you have to use a very specific powder charge with specific components. The problem with this is that Olin, in particular, has switched to the piezoelectric system of pressure measurement, which is much more accurate, and has decreased the recommended powder charges for a number of cartridges.
So, what to do? I would e-mail the powder mfgrs. and ask what their current recommendations are. I would also e-mail the NRA, and ask what their recommendations are. The links in the Shooter's Guide' website:
http://www.shooters.com/gunlinks/index.htm
go there, and click on 'Product Manufacturers, non firearm,' then go to the powder mfgr's sites. They all have e-mail addys for the powder mfgrs. (Alliant, Accurate Arms, Hodgdon, Winchester, VV)
Then I would proceed with extreme caution.
Yours is a very precarious situation. You are combining powders which have an extremely narrow space between too little and too much, with data which were obtained by using outmoded methodology.
Hope this helps, Walt
So what now? Should you utilize the info published in old reloading books, which almostly certainly used the copper crusher of pressure measurement?
ABSOLUTELY FREAKING NOT!!
Here's why. You are using powders (W296, H110) which have a VERY narrow window of acceptable pressure. Remember, Olin recommends NO reduction of their W296 loads, and Hodgdon recommends a max. reduction of 3%.
So, you have to use a very specific powder charge with specific components. The problem with this is that Olin, in particular, has switched to the piezoelectric system of pressure measurement, which is much more accurate, and has decreased the recommended powder charges for a number of cartridges.
So, what to do? I would e-mail the powder mfgrs. and ask what their current recommendations are. I would also e-mail the NRA, and ask what their recommendations are. The links in the Shooter's Guide' website:
http://www.shooters.com/gunlinks/index.htm
go there, and click on 'Product Manufacturers, non firearm,' then go to the powder mfgr's sites. They all have e-mail addys for the powder mfgrs. (Alliant, Accurate Arms, Hodgdon, Winchester, VV)
Then I would proceed with extreme caution.
Yours is a very precarious situation. You are combining powders which have an extremely narrow space between too little and too much, with data which were obtained by using outmoded methodology.
Hope this helps, Walt
Walt, playing devil's advocate, just wanted to ask if the reloading table of old were so inaccurate, how come we didn't see more guns sending more than their bullets downrange?
You don't think there's a little CYA involved in the power reductions do you? I agree to be extremely cautious about getting reloading info over the net, but I look at info in the books in the same way, I'll try to match loads in another book if possible.
They make mistakes too.
You don't think there's a little CYA involved in the power reductions do you? I agree to be extremely cautious about getting reloading info over the net, but I look at info in the books in the same way, I'll try to match loads in another book if possible.
They make mistakes too.
Walt Welch
New member
Bear; OF COURSE there is a little CYA in powder companies being slightly conservative in some of their loads. Remember that they cannot control the other components, and even the powder can differ somewhat from lot to lot.
The recent reductions stemming from piezoelectric testing, however, result from the pressure being higher than was thought to be using the copper crusher method. Thus, the powder companies are simply regaining that very slight margin that allows for component variation.
That the old load data did not cause many guns to explode is a tribute to the ability of the powder testers to do a pretty darn good job with the Cu crusher method. This, when added to the margin of safety that every firearm has, means that even if the reloading data were slightly 'hot,' the gun wouldn't blow up. Using these loads, however, could certainly cause premature wear on your firearm.
Shooter 45 faces a double whammy; if he uses too much powder, he may damage his gun. If he uses too little powder, he may damage his gun. There is a very, very narrow window wherein lies the correct charge. That is why I suggested contacting the powder manufacturers. There is even some conflicting statements by the powder manufacturers: Winchester states not to vary the load at all; Hodgdon says don't reduce loads more than 3%. The fact is, Olin manufacturers the powder for Hodgdon (ever wonder why W296 and H110 have REALLY similar burning rates).
I stick with my position; check with the manufacturers of the powder. It CAN'T HURT, darn it, and may be the safest way to go!
Walt
The recent reductions stemming from piezoelectric testing, however, result from the pressure being higher than was thought to be using the copper crusher method. Thus, the powder companies are simply regaining that very slight margin that allows for component variation.
That the old load data did not cause many guns to explode is a tribute to the ability of the powder testers to do a pretty darn good job with the Cu crusher method. This, when added to the margin of safety that every firearm has, means that even if the reloading data were slightly 'hot,' the gun wouldn't blow up. Using these loads, however, could certainly cause premature wear on your firearm.
Shooter 45 faces a double whammy; if he uses too much powder, he may damage his gun. If he uses too little powder, he may damage his gun. There is a very, very narrow window wherein lies the correct charge. That is why I suggested contacting the powder manufacturers. There is even some conflicting statements by the powder manufacturers: Winchester states not to vary the load at all; Hodgdon says don't reduce loads more than 3%. The fact is, Olin manufacturers the powder for Hodgdon (ever wonder why W296 and H110 have REALLY similar burning rates).
I stick with my position; check with the manufacturers of the powder. It CAN'T HURT, darn it, and may be the safest way to go!
Walt
You might want to enquire at 44AutoMag.com for more information.