Problem with Win 296

I wonder why the OP seems wedded to some data which is probably 20 years old? Current data from the powder company shows min/max loads for a 125-grain bullet of 21/22 grains of H110. His load is well below this level.

That said, even Hodgdon has puzzling data. Look at their data for 140-grain bullets in the .357, the load weight spread for the two bullets is from 12.0 grains to 19.0 grains of H110. Just when we thought we knew the issue....


.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter how popular the powder, they do very.

While they do vary, it's generally within a 3% range, not 10%.

The OP is using a low load in a powder that is intended as hot loads.

According to Hornady, the OP is loading a charge that falls dead center in the load range for a 125 gr jacketed bullet(generally a good range for plated bullets). I know that Hornady gives some anemic recipes for H110/W296 in .357, but they are not unsafe. Do you honestly think Hornady does not know about the risk of a stuck bullet with low powder charges of H110/W296? Do you honestly think they don't have the knowledge to allow for the slight variance in powder lots to keep their recommended start loads safe? Do loading manuals not tell us to start at the suggested start load and work up? I've yet to have one tell me to start at max and work my way down.

Has something changed? Sure it has. Could be bad powder, but could be bad primers too. Could be wrong primers. I only buy primers by the case after seeing store clerks picking up loose primers and stuffing them back into 100 count boxes after customers had to open and spill them. I often wonder how they know which are which.

Everyone recommends three things with H110/W296 in small cases like .357. Stick above recommended start loads, use a magnum primer and a firm roll crimp. Sounds like the OP did this....as far as he knows. The reason for the suggestion of all three, is that all help with ignition of the hard to ignite powder. The statement of a squib followed by a flamethrower type load makes me think of a difference of powder charge, difference of primer or difference in crimp. As I said, plated bullets are difficult to roll crimp. Too soft of a crimp and you don't hold the bullet firmly enough for good ignition ind to prevent jump and crimp them too hard and you deform the soft lead bullet under the plating and end up worse than little or no crimp. Jump crimp just a tad in a revolver and you increase case capacity and can greatly decrease pressure. Plated bullets, IMHO, are best with a taper crimp and low to moderate velocities/pressures, and thus best with faster, easy to ignite powders.

Yes, there are better powders for plated bullets at modest velocities. I certainly would not use the combo the OP is. But in truth we only know the OP thinks he has a correct powder charge(hasn't pulled any bullets), claims to have used magnum primers and used a proper crimp. Did he use mixed brass with different case tenths, wall thickness and mouth hardness? I dunno. I'd like to see what Hodgdon has to say about the lot number. All any of us can do is take a WAG as to what happened. Could be a combination of things, not just one. A slight mistake in powder charge and a light crimp or a light crimp combined with mismarked or bad primers. Could be a contamination problem with either primers or powder. As I asked before....was there any moisture used with cleaning the brass? I have seen case polish clump in brass and have seen folks who thought their washed brass was dry. Both critically affected the way the ammo performed. Would upping the charge decrease the risk of a squib? Of course it would, but it wouldn't prevent one of there are some of the other issues going on that have been mentioned here. You are correct.......with a marginal load to start with it does not take much.
 
Agreed, it could be more than one variable but the variable the OP has control over is the charge.

Its also the know last change variable, he might have changed others and not realized it or brought it up.

Quick and easy test is .5 gr increase and and see what that gets him. 3% powder variation is .5 (changed)

18.5 is not the lowest but its in the area of very low at the best and under by some other measures.

My old Hornady 3rd shows 18 as the low, that is with jacketed. It also whows 21 as the high.

An adjustment is easy enough, clearly W source has some an issue as there is NO powder that is a single charge only.

As this is with a plated bullet and its aspects, hmmm
 
Last edited:
Do you remove and empty your measure when your done loading?

Do you cycle the last little bit into the jug when you empty it?

Is the white collar sleeve part #13845 (page 54 of the manual) in place?
 
From the bullet maker's web site:

Our Copper Plated Bullets can be run at mid-range jacketed velocities or higher end lead velocities. We recommend keeping velocities to less than 1500 FPS (Feet Per Second) and using only a light taper crimp​

A light taper crimp, a light bullet and 296 are not a good mix. I have burned a lot of this powder, and most of the time it worked great. However, it really is not hard to stack up issues and get to what the OP desicribed. Yes, I have "been there, done that" a few times and did not like it one bit.

It is hard to see a 125 plated as needing to be run above 1200 to 1300 fps. I have loaded thousands of 125s for this type of shooting. I started with a fast burning flake (Red Dot, 700x, etc), then went to a medium "pistol powder" then went back to the fast burning flake.

If you are just not willing to go with a fast burning flake, consider a traditional pistol powder (231, HP38, Bullseye) or a medium flake (Unique, etc).

If you need maximum bang, the 296 is not bad. Just use a more mid weight bullet and one with a design that allows for a heavy crimp.
 
Last edited:
357 mag neck tension, Plated bullet & 296 powder.

Neck Tension / Bullet Pull will not be the same on all brass cases.

When the primer fired, it moved the bullet out of the case neck, before the powder could start burning , making pressure.

A heavier 158 gr bullet may help. The expander should be .002" smaller then bullet diameter. The smaller ID of the case may resize the soft plated bullets diameter after seating.

The OPs loading is for a jacketed bullet. So he is using the wrong data.

Data here http://castpics.net
 
Last edited:
I'd recommend switching powders or switching bullets. AA#7 or 2400 should let you load those bullets up in "magnum" territory. You have 8 lbs of powder already, so either get some heavy bullets to go with it, or trade it to someone who reloads .410 shotgun shells or .30 Carbine.

It might be worth buying 100 magnum rifle primers and seeing if that fixes it. I like Federals when I'm using small rifle primers in a pistol cartridge because they seem more sensitive.

The previous keg of the same powder worked just fine, but maybe it was barely working just fine. (how could you tell?)
 
Last edited:
poconolg said:
My load is 18.5gr as recommended by a Winchester manual. They say not to use more or less. Winchester small pistol magnum primers and Remington brass. The bullets are Extreme 125gr plated. I have been using this combo for many years with no problem.

I looked that 18.5 grain load up. You will note it is for a 125-grain JHP, not a softer plated bullet. But that's not really what caught my eye. The 357 Magnum is rated for 45,000 CUP by SAAMI. The loads given by the old Winchester manual for 296 range from 31,600 CUP to 39,500 CUP, while Hodgdon's current load numbers range from 38,400 - 41,500 CUP; closer to SAAMI max. Back in the 80's, when that Winchester data was developed, burn rates of a number of powders (particularly slower powders) were varying more like bulk powder burn rates do. So it's very possible those low pressures from 296 were used to leave a margin for the occasional faster lots that would show up. Anyway, it looks like you are using real bottom number data at this point.

Today, burn rates for canister grade powder are more tightly controlled. Hodgdon, who is now the packager and distributor for Winchester and IMR powders, even revamped its entire QC system somewhere around the early 2000's, IIRC. So I suspect they may have established a new center burn rate (you'd have to ask them) and that they better control the powder burn rate to be closer to that center value than the old Winchester powder was. This lets them load nearer to the SAAMI maximum without worry.

You might email or call Hodgdon to bring this up. If you still have the container, you could send them your old lot number and your new one and ask if they know the new lot is slower than your old number was. Tell them why you suspect it. Hodgdon actually introduced St. Marks WC296 as H110 before Winchester picked up the ball (powder ;)) and introduced it as W296, and later just 296. So Hodgdon actually has longer experience with it.
 
Winchester manuals 125 gr jacketed with 296 powder in 357 mag.

CUP

1996-32,500 cup-18.5 grs.-No bullet listed. I would guess all Winchester bullets & primers. Olin Corp., East Alton, Il.

2006-41,400 cup-22.0 grs.- Bullet Hornady XTP. Shawnee Mission, Kansas.

Back in the day, 110 & 296 were different powders, till Hodgdon got involved? IMO.

Unclenick, great info , ty.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the later data. I have their 2003 edition, which still had the smaller charge data in it.

Both powders always were WC296 (WC is for Western Cannon, not Winchester Cartridge) from St. Marks. It's just that burn rates were not controlled as well back when they first came on the reloading market, and Hodgdon and Winchester didn't buy the same lots, so you could buy a container of each and get significantly different burn rates and seem to have evidence the two were not same base powder, even though they actually were. Bullet company load manuals often listed them separately because they got different results from their purchases, too. The load developers were buying powder off-the-shelf with no idea how representative it actually was of the powder type in general, and that's still true today.

When Hodgdon improved its QC system (after getting a number of complaints about Varget being too different from one lot to the next, IIRC) H110 stopped varying so much. You would still see small differences with 296 because Hodgdon and Winchester weren't buying the same factory lots. But now that Hodgdon distributes both, they actually are the same lots packaged in the two different containers, so the Hodgdon data powder for developing loads is the same for both, too.
 
"That said, H110/296 probably is not the best powder for plated bullets."

That might be right. I only shoot my home cast bullets in my handguns and use a heavy roll crimp. That is an apparent no no with plated bullets. I've only used 296 in the ,44 magnum to try much preferring 2400 for most heavy .357 and .44 magnum handgun loads.
Paul B.
 
Back
Top