IMR 4227 vs H110 for 30 carbine

C

condor bravo

New member
Since acquiring my first cosmoline wrapped DCM 30 carbine some time back for some $14 or so, my loading data has been 14.5 gr IMR 4227 and standard 110 gr bullets. Recently running low on 4227, I bought some of the popular H110 powder and CCI 450 mag primers but have not been very pleased with it. With 4227 you can see the powder level in the case at the bullet seating station on a 550 Dillon, a real plus. With 14.5 gr of the 110 you cannot see the powder level. Also with the somewhat finer granules of the 110, there is a greater tendency to clog the powder charge bar and requiring disassembling the powder measure to clear away the offending residue. About ready to use this 110 for grass fertilizer (if I had grass). For those using H110, do you find any similar problems with it and any suggestions as to its use.
 
I single stage load... so I won't belabor your issues with your powder measure.

However, I have used many many pounds of W296 / H110 in the Carbine and have not been disappointed by its performance. You do not need magnum primers for it as Small Rifle are plenty hot for the amount in the case. Your 14.5 gr. charge is my standard under a Speer Varminter H.P.

W296 and AA#9 are my Go To powders for the 30 Carbine.
 
Yes, performance has been fine with the H110 powder. Seems to be a preference for many. Whenever it is mentioned, mag primers are almost always mentioned in the same breath so I got the 450s to eliminate everyone recommending that I use them. I have the CCI 41s and 400s and no doubt they would do the job. Actually I am "single staging" as well by cycling one round at a time through the 550, not that it is really necessary to do it that way. So I'll keep struggling along with the H110 but probably return to 4227 when the 110 is used up.
 
Whenever it is mentioned, mag primers are almost always mentioned in the same breath so I got the 450s to eliminate everyone recommending that I use them.
Click to expand...

More than once I have said that the mantra of "Magnum Primers MUST be used" with W296 / H110 is wrong and taken out of context. I have been pilloried more than once over this. Once again I will say that ESPECIALLY in this use they are NOT NEEDED! I have a Hornady manual that calls out for Fed 200 Primers in this specific application. This is NOT a typo. on my part.

15 gr. of WC ball powder does not need a Magnum Primer in a 30 Carb. if 25 gr. of a slower WC ball powder in a 223 does not.
 
Magnum pistol primers are generally preferred and needed for H110 in pistol rounds. In rifle and carbine rounds the small rifle primers do a good job. I don't shoot 30 Carbine but I do shoot 357 Maximum. The Maximum uses small rifle primer regardless of the powder used.
 
You do not need magnum primers for H110. (You will note, if you look on their site, that Hodgdon, for who knows why, only says to use magnum primers and H110 with magnum named cartridges, but not with H110 in .30 Carbine et al. )
You don't need CCI "milspec" #41 primers, that are nothing more than magnum primers, either.
You do need to work up the load again. H110 is not anywhere near nor nothing like IMR4227. 14.5(C) of the IMR is the current max load for a 110 grain bullet. 14.5 of H110 is a half grain over minimum with considerably less pressure. About 2,000 CUP difference.
Oh and the compressed loads vs not compressed is why you can see the IMR but not the H. Whole thing isn't an issue anyway. If you're going to use the H you need to work up the load again and not just pick one and hope.
Having tried it long ago, H110 doesn't give the accuracy IMR4227 does either. At least not out of my Carbine. Didn't give the very satisfying BARK!!!! 14.5 of IMR4227 does either. Don't recall any issues with the H causing any issues on the bench though. Been a long time and I may have not owned a powder thrower then.
 
It has been my experience that H110 is at it's best with very close to maximum charges. There is also some difference in listed loads between W296 and H110 that is likely due to lot variations and procedural differences. They are the same powder, coming from the same vat, and the loads should not be any different between the two powders. My Sierra manuals are consistently 1 to 1.5 grains apart on loads for these two powders. Lot to lot variations are real so I always work the loads up from a reduced load and watch carefully for any signs of excessive pressure. If your loads are at maximum listed loads and are not accurate then drop the load down in 1/10 grain steps no more than 1/2 grain to see if it is more accurate. If not you may have a combination of gun and bullet that your gun doesn't like with H110. Both the hunting and accuracy loads listed in the Sierra manual are the same load with H110; 13.8 with a 110 grain bullet.
 
OK already, I'm outnumbered, and will concede to the majority that the 450 mag primers are not needed for H110 and the carbine. Perhaps they will better serve with .454 Casulls.
 
Last edited:
Started loading for our Carbines back in the early 70's. We used 2400 forever then tried W296 when it was different than H110.

Never used anything but standard SR. primers except in testing a couple of comparrison loads with my Blackhawk just for kicks. Really didn't help anything in it.

All said though between AA9, 2400, and both the old 296 and newer H110 version I think i like AA9 about as well as anything.
 
Mike, W296 and H110 have always been the same powder. They are made by the same manufacturer and just labeled for the two wholesalers. There are often different loads for them from different bullet makers and I always chuckle when I see them. Lot to lot variations have never been wide enough to account for the different loads but when you figure that people are involved in the process of determining the safe loads as they work them up it is easier to understand the variance.
 
I use H110 in my Carbine and have loaded lots of rounds w/ my 550. But I use a Quick-Measure, so I see the powder drop into the case.
 
Mike, W296 and H110 have always been the same powder.
Click to expand...


Back in the early 80s they might have been the same but the looked entirely different. The 110 was very fine and looked like graphite and the 296 was courser and almost had a slight greyish green tint to it.

It wasn't until around the mid to late 90s that I started to see them look the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top