Squib with both powder and primer present

[Nick_C_S]

Real Gun, I don't have an answer as to what specifically went wrong.

I've been lurking this thread and at the risk of my post now being just another of the normal topic deviations, I really believe you need to re-think your propellant choice.

What should that starting load be for 240 gr lead SWC?

The "starting load" should be something other than PP 300-MP. As I freely put my "fast(er) powder centric" approach to loading here on TFL, this is another one of those times. PP 300-MP is a huge propellant. I would never put it under a moly (or lead) bullet of any kind. In fact, I have a 5" 629 Classic, and I would never load any round for it with 300MP. IMO, 300MP is for lever-action carbine (at least) rifles. It just won't produce a "balanced" round for a 5" bbl gun of any caliber.

If I were in your position, I would not worry about what specifically happened because the point would become moot as I would switch to a propellant more appropriate for the application. I would use nothing slower than 2400 for the application; and would more likely turn to Unique or HS-6.

 

[Salmoneye]

The 20.0 load is accurate and fun, and I am sticking to it. The load did not cause the squib, no way, and I am done defending it.

You're a full 5 grains (20%) below jacketed max...

Lead is 'slicker' than copper jacket, and will 'generally' produce lower internal pressures given the same bullet weight...

I am not surprised you experienced a squib by underloading a very slow pistol powder...

 

[Real Gun]

I researched where I got my load and finally found it in Hornady 9th Edition under 240 gr XTP starting at 19.5 grains. Lead would typically be lower, but I am above that at 20.0 originally 20.7, which was a bit sharp for me.

You're just going to have to accept that the load itself is not the cause of the squib.

My other research around the web and in my magazine articles reveals that the reloading community just does not have its arms around use of this powder for lead bullets. The water was also muddied by the discredited report that 300-MP was the same as W296/H110, which seemed like all anyone wanted to discuss, lost in the trivia.

I pulled the remaining 10 rounds. There is quite a bit of leakage during extraction but the weighing of powder charges looks like they were probably all on weight. It took me a few to realize powder was leaking from my puller, but when I was done I had 181.1 grains from 10 rounds. The few that I checked using waxed paper to cover the opening in the puller were right on weight within +0-.1.

 

[Unclenick]

Real Gun,

I suspect you've reached the wrong conclusion. Trust what your eyes are telling you. You had some ignition, or the bullet wouldn't have got that far down the tube, as you know, because you already correctly pointed out a primer isn't nearly strong enough to get a bullet past sticking in the throat. What you may not know is that when powder extinguishes, the surface has often heated to the point that it fuses the grain surfaces into clumps. Often the clumps are yellow like some kind of fish roe, because the graphite has burned off the surface, which helps let the lumps fuse to one another (the graphite acts like release agent). But if you got clumps that easily fall apart between your fingers, it probably only got part way there. The point is, the clumps prove the powder was exposed to heat.

The main danger you face from these loads is if you don't notice there's a bullet stuck in time to avoid firing a second one into it, which will at least bulge the barrel if not burst it or the cylinder. For that reason, if you have a load prone to doing this and decide you don't mind periodically knocking a bullet out, you don't ever want to run any fast double-action strings with it, or you may be unable to stop the next trigger press in time to avoid ruining the gun.

I've had strong assurances from a Hodgdon tech that any number of powders can be under-loaded to extinguish during firing just like H110/296 does. Particularly in revolvers, where the barrel/cylinder gap adds an opportunity for start pressure to bleed down a bit. I even saw it happen to someone shooting IMR 4831 in a rifle one time. He was trying to shoot a bullet too light for that powder. All it takes is the powder being too slow for your peak pressure, or too slow for the bullet weight, or the load having too much empty space in the case.

For example, if you look at published loading densities for H110/296, you quickly figure out the powder factory approved loads never have much more than about 10% empty space in the case with the lowest of them. That's key. I expect 300-MP will have some minimum loading density that it likes, too. And it may not be the same for jacketed and lead bullets.

The St. Marks spherical propellants, in particular, have high concentration surface deterrent coatings that are harder to ignite than some others (Ramshot powders, for example). CCI changed their magnum priming mix in 1989 just to get it to shower more sparks on the surface of the St. Marks Western Cannon series of powders, which their slower spherical powders, like WC296, are part of. I expect the bulk powder name for 300-MP will turn out to have the WC initials in front of it, unless they've got some truly new chemistry going.

The reason you don't hear more about this sort of sqip issue is that when people shoot reduced loads they usually go to a faster burning powder. This is because faster powder uses a lower charge weight to achieve the same velocity and it ignites more uniformly when there is empty space in the case. This both saves money on powder, improves velocity consistency and reduces recoil because there is less powder mass being pushed out of the muzzle with the bullet. Using a slow powder for reduced loads thus partly defeats three of the main reasons for loading down: cost reduction, recoil reduction and practical accuracy improvement from the reduced recoil.

I think what you you should ask Alliant is not if 300-MP is like H110/296 (the mere mention of the names will get them defensive), but rather ask if they have done any lead bullet reduced load development with 300-MP—not just if they think it should be OK for that, but if they have actually done it? Anything less, and I would take that as an admission that you are in uncharted waters. I suggest that's the only safe attitude to take in this situation. Let them do the legwork and have a chance to experience problems in their test equipment before they say it's OK.

 

[Real Gun]

That's all good information, but the premise that the load is under weight is incorrect. I am above the minimum according to Hornady 9th Edition, 240 gr XTP. I have shot many rounds before this squib.

 

[mehavey]

RealGun, it squibbed, fused the powder, shoots balls of flame
from unburned propellant at the best of times, ...and is specifically
designed by Alliant to be slower than H110/W296.

All the warning signs are posted.... That's all we can do.

 

[Unclenick]

Realgun,

When I compared the Hornady manual's rifle loads to powder maker loads recently (haven't done it for handgun cartridges yet), I found their maximum loads to be anywhere from 1% to 9% lower than the powder company's loads that used the same Hornady bullets. Since Hornady lists all their velocities as fired in production guns rather than in SAAMI standard velocity guns, I suspect they actually work their loads up in those guns first, then send what they think is a maximum out to be pressure tested and don't try to correct it unless it's over pressure. But I don't think they are actually developing a maximum load in a pressure gun directly or we wouldn't see that much discrepancy in maximums¹. The powder companies use pressure test guns all the way, except in a few unusual instances.

Since, as you've found, this is not a problem that shows up with every round, they could well have randomly created a questionably low load that just didn't reveal its shortcoming during their testing. Something as simple as them shooting in a manner that tends to keep the powder back over the primer and you letting it fall forward by lowering the muzzle before bringing it up to fire can be the difference between seeing a pressure sign like a flattened primer and not seeing it.

I would certainly write and tell Hornady about your squib with that load so they know it happened at least once, even if they dispute my theory of the cause. That way, if they get enough more such feedback they'll eventually figure out they have a problem.


¹ Though I suppose that is still possible if they were using copper crushers; those can disagree by 10% worth or powder, which is usually produces 20% or a bit more difference in peak pressure.

 

[Real Gun]

If you have nothing you consider credible to go on except a 25 grain maximum published by Alliant re SJSP, what would you extrapolate for lead? Personally, I took off 10% for load reduction and then 10% for lead. That gave me 20.2 gr. As I said, I started at 20.7 and thought it was a bit nasty. I would have to concede that I should be at 20.2 minimum, but I can't say enough that this load at 20.0 has been used extensively with no issues.

I use 300-MP in 357 Magnum also, again having to create my own loads for lack of data for lead (coated).

As far as flash, the articles I have read all refer to the fireball that seems to be par for this powder. One compares the flash to that of H110, which also has a huge fireball.

I am afraid that the discussion is less about my squib and more about lack of acceptance of 300-MP. Near as I can tell, this was simply a low powder charge on one cartridge, with all preceding rounds firing well, and remaining rounds pulled with no anomalies found.

I do plan to increase the charge to 20.2 but only as a matter principle, satisfying rules of thumb about load extrapolation.

Lastly, why would Hornady publish a load range with velocity numbers for various increments, if they hadn't actually fired it? Why is there manual lacking in credibility only for 300-MP?

 

[mehavey]

RealGun, I searched all of NoVirginia for 300-MP (none to be found), so I could actually get it out on the range and through a chronograph for various loadings [44Mag/Lead-240's/soft Federal primers, etc, etc] and compare it against the actual data/variations as published by the Alliant Rep (and others).

Both my 4" Mountain Gun, and then my 20" `94 Marlin. Pitch up/pitch down.
If it's as slow/volume sensitive as reputed, the 4 v 20/pitch up/down results should be revealing

-- Real data (Gawd, whatta concept)

Fil at Eleven.....

 

[buck460XVR]

That's all good information, but the premise that the load is under weight is incorrect.

I think you may be looking for a simple solution to a complex question. Alliant(the distributor of the powder)shows no recipes at all for lead bullets. This tells me, obviously they do not feel it is appropriate for lead. Secondly, with a slow burning powder like 300-MP, one needs a heavy crimp to assist with proper burning. Could be the low charge and a light crimp could be the problem. Maybe a slightly shorter case(were you cases measured or trimmed to the same length?) added to the light crimp. A light crimp, a slick bullet and a low powder charge is always a problem for slow burning powders.

 

[Metal god]

ask if they have done any lead bullet reduced load development with 300-MP—not just if they think it should be OK for that, but if they have actually done it?

Has anyone here emailed them with this question ?? If not I will but I don't want to send them the 5th email asking the same question .

This thread has really peaked my interest and I don't even load the caliber . You don't often see so many posters pretty much say the same thing and the OP refuse to believe it . I'm not saying the OP is wrong at all because I have no idea really . How ever when so many say the same thing the OP's usually at least give that idea a closer look .

 

[Real Gun]

This thread has really peaked my interest and I don't even load the caliber . You don't often see so many posters pretty much say the same thing and the OP refuse to believe it . I'm not saying the OP is wrong at all because I have no idea really . How ever when so many say the same thing the OP's usually at least give that idea a closer look .

Did you actually read any of my replies? Were all the posts but mine valid somehow? Let's not start with the bullying.

I talked to my gunsmith, who said the gun is ready. He said there was plenty of powder and suggested I stick with magnum primers or go to even magnum rifle primers, since it is possible I had a primer blow out.

I have been pressed enough about use of 300-MP that I decided to set it aside until the reloading community has a better grasp of the use of this powder, free of misinformation, speculation, and a dearth of credible data.

I am loading 18.8 gr of A2400 with the same Missouri 240 gr coated LSWC. I reloaded the 14 pulled, which had magnum primers. The loading information indicates standard primers with 2400, but I need to resolve the conflict with the advice to use robust primers.

 

[Jim Watson]

What is your starting position before firing a shot?

I had a stuck bullet under conditions that led me to conclude that long OAL/shallow seating over a reduced load and a "low ready" start that put the powder at the base of the bullet caused poor to no ignition of the powder.

If you were coming out of a holster or other muzzle down position, the powder might have been marginally too far from the primer flash to ignite. A borderline condition because you only stuck one.

 

[Metal god]

Did you actually read any of my replies? Were all the posts but mine valid somehow? Let's not start with the bullying.

Sorry if it felt that way , that was not my intention . All my point was that many think it's a low charge for the powder and a few gave great reasons why . How I read your replies to those was - the charge is fine lets move on -

For me when that many people see it different then I do with valid reasoning .especially Unclenick ( not to toot anyone's horn ) I try to give it another look . I thought I was clear by saying I have no idea who is right meaning you may very well be correct . By saying that you'd think that would not be bulling . I personally would give the charge weight a second look .

Truly sorry if this or my other post came off snarky
Metal

 

[stubbicatt]

Real Gun, IIRC, large rifle primers are not interchangeable with large pistol primers, as they are taller.

Hope you get to the bottom of this conundrum. Do you use a wet tumble procedure to clean your brass? Just a little left over water in the case of the suspect round could have caused your issue.

 

[Real Gun]

What is your starting position before firing a shot?

I shoot paper at about 10 yards, the 44 Mags usually just a few cylinders full at the end of a range session with various guns/cartridges, usually all revolvers, some DA and some SA.

I don't often take advantage of a cease fire to set a new target at a longer, more caliber-appropriate range. I shoot almost exclusively single action and have a minimum of gun motion between shots, although the muzzle certainly rises while recocking.

From a reloading perspective, 300-MP fills a case similarly to A2400 and resulting in powder right up against the bullet, bordering on compression and leaving the powder with nowhere to settle. I doubt if this instance is a very good case in point for position sensitivity. Good thought though.

I use a firm crimp with a nice roll without signs of case damage under magnification. I crimp as far forward as the crimp groove allows, currently 1.595 versus a 1.60 COL spec.

 

[Real Gun]

Hope you get to the bottom of this conundrum. Do you use a wet tumble procedure to clean your brass? Just a little left over water in the case of the suspect round could have caused your issue.

I do sonic clean my brass, but it is usually not a good enough result to suit me other than avoiding handling dirty brass or fouling tumbling media. Once the sorted brass is dry it goes in a nut can for that single caliber/cartridge that, when full, indicates a full tumbler load. I use corn cob media and usually don't tumble already clean cases for more than two hours, wanting to just to make them look pleasing like new ammo.

It would be unusual for brass to be washed, dried, tumbled and used all in a short period. For one thing, I learned from experience that if I rush the drying, I could stick media clumps against the flash hole.

All brass retains the spent primer until station #1 decap on my press.

On new brass, typically Starline, although I see I settled also for 5 bags of Winchester when laying in a foundation supply, I wash the cases in Armor All Car Wash in order to impart some wax that helps reduce galling on the expander, a problem I don't get so much on fired brass. That would be a case where I would be vulnerable to use of wet cases if I don't allow enough time. Most wet brass is dryed in a dehydrator at 154 degrees for two hours. I first towel dry everything to remove excess water. Microfiber cloths are especially good for that.

That's my story.

 

[HiBC]

I have not used this powder.

I have loaded and shot a lot of .44 magnum since I bought my Ruger SBH in the 70's.Mostly wheel weight 240/250 gr Elmer bullets.(Cast SWC)
And H-110 has been my power of choice.I figured a grain or two under max made sense.

You mentioned your charge was described as appropriate in Hornady's 9th for a 240 gr XPT jacketed bullet.You are shooting moly coated lead bullets.

That is a very significant substitution.The data for the 240 gr jacketed bullet is not relevant to a cast bullet.

Your bullet will provide less resistance to engrave the rifling.That will have an adverse effect on ignition.

If you have a squib with powder and some ignition,how many options are there?

The powder only burns properly at an appropriate pressure,which you apparently did not achieve.

I suggest you apply cast bullet data to cast bullet loads.Jacketed bullet data does not apply.If no manufacturer publishes load data for that powder with cast bullets...it might be they found no loads that gave results worthy of publish.
I might suggest it is a mistake to begin with any unproven assumption.
Begin with buying some Hornady 240 gr XPT bullets to use with the Hornady data.Use all the recommended components and charges.Don't forget your crimp.
Note your results.Are they good?Yes? Great!!

Now,only changing one variable at a time,make changes at your own risk.

Cast bullet,book charge. Results? Good? OK

Reduce charge.Still good?

Keep going till you get failure...or success.Let us know how it goes.


It has long been known that a good ,strong crimp is important to proper ignition in handgun cartridges.

How uniform are your case lenghths? Which will translate to how uniform are your crimps?.Might your squib have come from a shorter case,with less crimp?

 

[Real Gun]

I suggest you apply cast bullet data to cast bullet loads.Jacketed bullet data does not apply.

Lots of good rules to live by, but first order is that we are going to use lead bullets, coated to allow higher velocities without excessive leading. I would change powder before changing bullets. I do have a supply of XTP but not to be shot up at the range.

Extrapolating lead load data from XTP/jacketed loads by rule of thumb is certainly nothing new. You use your best judgment, make a few rounds and try them, and then proceed, refining accuracy results and enjoyable shooting characteristics, mostly recoil and discomfort. The load I was using had been well proven.

 

[HiBC]

Intresting.

Generally,if I am stumped about a problem ,and I ask for help,I am at least open to the wisdom and experience of those who make a serious attempt to help me.

I'm happy to help,but not interested in arguing.

One question I have for you,if you don't know enough to solve your own problem,how can you know enough to reject the path to solution?

Your premise that cast bullets can be substituted for jacketed bullets with only minor adjustments is flawed.Wrong,even.It CAN work SOMETIMES.
But "Do not substitute components" is a basic of good reloading practice.There are reasons.

Some powders,like Varget,are very flexible.Hogdon's Reloading annual lists loads from 17 Mach IV to 45-90.

Some are not,Like H-110,and the loads are for very specific parameters.

As a handloader,we CAN often get something that is less than ideal to work.

A good example might be a hot load 2 gr over max.We shoot 100,or 200 of them with no problem.Silly books!! But we have used up our margin of error.Next can of powder is a different lot.Its a hotter day.Etc.OOPS!!.Stuck bolt?

You found something on the fringe that marginally works.Some small variable arrived,and your load could not handle it.
Its not a good load.
But do feel free to fight it.Its your gun,time,and trouble.

Bye,