PDA

View Full Version : Milsurp WC820 (FAST) and the 357 Mag



TCLouis
10-02-2005, 09:48 PM
I started testing loads using the fast . . . FAST lot of Bartlett's WC820 (Kinda supposed to be HS-7 speed).

Using the 10"TC I was amazed that the chamber was short enough to be an issue with the 180 RNFPGC bollit from Glenn's group purchase. The standard Lee 150 SWC worked fine seated to the crimp groove.
8.0 grains with the 150 and 9.5 with the 180 proved to be most accurate. The 180 will really open up a 1 gallon milk jug of water and penetrate about 8-10 inches into my wet clay berm. The cavity in the clay is about 2.5" in diameter so I guess that is why meplat is important. Sould prove to work for close in deer.
9.0 is a MAX load with the 180 in my OM Blackhawk.

jcork
10-08-2005, 02:39 PM
So, what's the loading density like? Is the powder pretty comparable to HS-7 or only in speed? I understand 820 is like AA9, and AA9 normally requires pretty high pressures for accuracy. Does the Fast version also seem happier at high pressures?

My application would be midrange loads in .357 and .44 with cast bullets. I see I am down to my last pound of Unique ...

Junior1942
10-08-2005, 02:49 PM
Does the Fast version also seem happier at high pressures? My application would be midrange loads in .357 and .44 with cast bullets. I see I am down to my last pound of Unique ...My WC820 (n) doesn't like low to mid range loads in 44 mag SBH pistol. I got erratic ignition, including squib rounds.

Mid range seems to work fine in my 357 mag rifle, however.

TCLouis
10-08-2005, 09:24 PM
I have a batch of WC 820 (PD) from long ago (luckily I got 24 pounds of it) that has compared with H110 in every comparison load I have shot across the chronograph. For the 45-70 and 300 grain bullet in the Contender one manual listed 1500 fps, I got 1567. That is close enough to the same for me to say they "equal". I wonder if I could get repeatability of my own load shot on different days that was any closer? I tested loads in 357 Mag and 44 Mag and they were closer to the manuals listed comparable H110 velocities.
We also have the "newer batches of WC 820 (N) and WC 820 (PD) that seem to load more closely to AA#9 data.

Then we have the WC 820 listed as WC 820 (F), which is listed as being appropriate to use HS-7 load data. I can NOT compare load density with
HS-7 because I have NEVER even seen the HS-7 powder let alone a loaded round using the powder.

The loads I found to shoot well in the 357 Mag (with MINIMAL load development) leave plenty of room with the 150, less with the 180 since it has to be loaded so deep. I stress that these loads shot fairly well, but that is not to say that there is a hotter load that will shoot better. I had to get these developed so I could loan the gun and ammo to someone to get ready for deer season.

There are 3 distict levels of WC 852 out there also.

These are some of the reasons to me that Milsurp powders are NOT for everyone. There are those out there that have no concept of "Start Low and Work Up with a close eye on pressure signs/measured velocities" (stepping down from soapbox)

Nazgul
11-24-2005, 07:45 PM
Ditto on the higher pressures needed for good ignition. Loaded some 454 Cassull with 20.0 gr and a 325 gr LFNGC from an Applegate mould. This is well within the specs for AA#9. Got a squib load and one delayed fire in the first 10 rounds. Pulled all the rest and reloaded with 24.5 gr and had no problems. Haven't chronoed it yet or fired for accuracy, it is a Magnum Research BFR, 7.5" barrel, magnum rifle CCI primers.

This seems slower than the can of AA#9 I had, but faster than the H110 usually loaded.