44 mag velocities

[Stats Shooter]

I just developed a load for my 44 Mag. I'm using Federal Brass, CCI-350s, 240 gr Speer deep curls, and 23.7 gr H110.
Also a 1/2 turn Lee factory crimp.

I'm getting 0.75" groups with Open sights @ 25 yards and 1,400 fps w/ chronograph at 10 ft.

The gun is a Dan Wesson with 6" barrel.

Is this a comparable velocity to what y'all get and acceptable accuracy? I get about 2" groups at 50 yards but I don't think I can shoot much better than that with a handgun and open sights off bags.

 

[Nick_C_S]

With 22.5 grains of W296 (same propellant as H-110; packaged under the Winchester name), using Speer's 240gn JSP (#4457); and CCI 350's. Also using a Lee FCD, w/ about 1/2 turn of crimp (heavy crimp).

S&W 629 Classic 5" bbl - 1194 f/s.
S&W 629 8-3/8" bbl - 1355 f/s.

Chronograph at 4 yards.

This was done as two different tests, however. It was not a side-by-side comparison of the same ammo lot. The tests were done more than 2.5 years apart. In fact, the ammo wasn't even made using the same powder scale; much less the same lot of propellant (same recipe though). So there may be some apples-n-oranges going on here.

Take it as you will. That's my data. It's as close as I have to your test. I would say, considering my loading is more tame than yours, that my data roughly jives with your data. No eyebrows raised over here.

As for accuracy, I only shoot at 10 yards, and they seem to go pretty straight. I believe accuracy is largely a function of the bullet used and has little to do the the propellant pushing it (in the pistol world, that is).

This loading also goes straight in my Marlin 1894 20" lever action. At 50 yards (bench rest, scope), I cream the 4" target pretty much regularly. And I'm not a good bench rest shooter.

1728 f/s through the Marlin, btw - and that IS with the same ammo lot as the 5" bbl data.

 

[Stats Shooter]

Thanks Nick, given your 22.5 gr load data and I'm loading another 1.2 gr....also I'm loading Speer PN 4455. So I think everything makes sense. So now I can go ahead and load 200 or so.

Btw it is a stout load in the hand. You know it ain't a 44 sp with this load after you shoot it, no need to ask!

 

[Nick_C_S]

My 22.5 grains is a detuned version of what I used to load years ago. Back in the mid-eighties, I used to load the Speer #10 max for 240's. And the Speer max back then was way over what you're loading. I'm not suggesting you load to that level. Most published load data for magnums have been reduced considerably since then. I have my thoughts on it; but that's outside the scope of your post.

Point is, there's likely some "headroom" with your 23.7 grains. W296/H-110 is a rather forgiving propellant. In 357, I did things with it decades ago that I nowdays - and any other sane loader - would consider appalling. Again, I'm not suggesting any such reckless practice. I'm just saying that of all the pistol powders out there, W296/H-110 is far less likely to bite than most others out there.

W296/H-110 is well known for liking to be stoked up pretty good for best performance. When de-tuned, it tends to start yielding inconsistent results. It doesn't detune well. You're probably right in its wheelhouse at 23.7.

I've gotten older. These days, I'm not into recoil quite as much as when I was a younger man. Because I chose to turn down my full-house magnum loadings a bit, I also chose to move to 2400 for my big propellant. 2400 is a touch faster and also behaves more consistent as you turn it down. That suits me better these days.

But I'll always have a soft spot for W296. I used it for years and it's well-proven fantastic stuff.

 

[Stats Shooter]

My 22.5 grains is a detuned version of what I used to load years ago. Back in the mid-eighties, I used to load the Speer #10 max for 240's

I have not been hand loading nearly as long as a lot of guys on here I was actually born in the Mid 80's, so you have been doing this longer than I have been alive. But i study rigorously, and test very frequently. I am always testing, trying, recording, and learning.....to the tune of tens of thousands of rounds per year.

And as far as the "manual max" goes that has become more of a suggestion these days.....I use the books to get me in the ball park or Quickload, but have many loads in excess of the manual that I use regularly.

Actually, the reason I stopped at 23.7 gr is because that is as much powder as a small powder bar with ball powder will throw on a RL 550C. I figured this load shot decently enough to load a couple hundred and try it out for a while and if it isn't too stiff, I'll use a standard bar and move on up .

However, before going hot, I figured it wouldn't be a bad idea to try this and see if the recoil gets a bit old after a 50 round range session before trying to really juice it up.

 

[buck460XVR]

I shoot 240s using 23.5 of H110/W296. While I have gone hotter, IME, the extra powder used and the increase in recoil is not worth the extra few FPS gained, especially since for hunting, I'm more concerned with accuracy than absolute velocity. For me, in my guns, I gained no more accuracy by going hotter and accuracy actually suffered the closer I got to max.

 

[T. O'Heir]

The 0.75" groups is the important part. 23.0 is the Hodgdon start load., so you're just over minimum. S'ok. They tested with an 8.275" barrel so the velocities won't match. And H110 doesn't require magnum primers. Neither does .44 Magnum just because of its name.

 

[Tsquared]

However, before going hot, I figured it wouldn't be a bad idea to try this and see if the recoil gets a bit old after a 50 round range session before trying to really juice it up.

It is fun when you are younger. As I get older it starts to hurt so I have backed most of my 44Mag loads to extremely hot 44Spl loads.

 

[Unclenick]

Remington and Winchester only make one large pistol primer they claim works both for standard and magnum loads, and they seem to perform both tasks just fine. I assume they are somewhere inbetween what other makers offer as standard and magnum, but have never done testing to prove that one way or the other. If you are using primers from a maker that offers them separately, the magnum primer is likely to produce better velocity consistency and reduce the chance of having a squib load, but don't take that as gospel. Instead, check over the chronograph for velocity and SD differences. The primer whose loads produce an SD that is a smaller percentage of its mean velocity indicates you are getting best ignition consistency from it and should use that primer. Don't assume the choice will be the same in any other brand without re-testing.


Mississippi,

The velocity is about right, and the DW lets you tune the barrel/cylinder gap where you want it, which can help a little bit. Below is a 50 yard Redhawk group fired off bags. That was shot without reaming the chambers uniform, and the low and right hole appeared in every group and always from the tightest chamber throat. I was not using iron sights, though. A 1.5X pistol scope. The ammo was an old American Eagle JHP load which had the equivalent of 24 grains of 296/H110.

At one time, 24 grains for 240 grain JSP/JHP bullets was the one-and-only load recommendation Winchester made for 296. No starting load. It's that way in their 2003 data book, showing 1430 fps from a 6.5" test gun barrel length, so right in your ballpark and well-within normal gun-to-gun variability. The Winchester data gives 25 grains for 240 grain LSWC in one of the few published examples I've seen of a lead bullet load data being hotter and faster (1560 fps) than its jacketed counterpart. I've never seen any indication this data was unsafe in anything.

P.S., Note the Winchester velocity would have been measured at 15 ft, the SAAMI standard screen mid-point distance for muzzle velocity. For the Nosler 240 grain JHP, ballistics software predicts a 6 ft/s difference.

 

[Stats Shooter]

Uncle Nick
The primer whose loads produce an SD that is a smaller percentage of its mean velocity indicates you are getting best ignition consistency from it and should use that primer

The SD divided by the mean is the CV ( coefficient of variation). It is unit-less and used to measure variation where nominal means are dissimilar. I use it often for investment analytics, and sometimes handloading.

 

[Unclenick]

Yuppers! It's not only nice to have someone else explaining, but since you teach these matters and many members are vague about the significance of standard deviation, much less standard error, variance and CV, if you feel like putting something together about the meaning of what the typical chronographs reports, I'd be happy to make it a sticky.