296 Powder

[FISH4BUGS]

I wonder - why does WW recommend that you NOT reduce loads with 296? Everywhere else in their reloading data they say to start at a reduced load and work up.
I want to load 296 in magnum loads (357 and 44) with cast gas checked bullets. Why CAN'T I reduce the load by some 10-15% and work up?
What is so different about 296?
Thanks,
Donald in NH

[Larry Gibson]

296 is a slow burning ball powder (H110 also). To be that slow burning it has a heavy deterent coating. This can give ignition problems with reduced loads. These ignition problems can run from non-ignition up to SEE. Neither is something you want to contend with or the consequences of such. Good reason for the warnings; heed them.

There are many suitable powders that you can reduce the loads with; 2400 and 4227 for example.

Larry Gibson

[Shuz]

I've wondered whether the same caveat on ww296 would apply to AA9 and it's surplus clone WC820. Anybody heard from the suppliers of these powders?

[beagle]

It's the SEE problem on WW296. I've never seen the warning on either WC820 or AA9 although both tend to ignite a little errratic at reduced lods so I tend to not go too light with either./beagle

[sundog]

Shuz, and the other in the AA9/WC820 trilogy -- H108 -- which has been a darling of the single shot boys for years. They don't seem to have a problem at all shooting light charges with these three. How about a 200 gr PB boolit in 32-40 at 1300-1350 fps. That ain't very much powder.

[BABore]

If your looking for top end loads, then I would deal with it. You won't find a better powder for those two calibers. WW296/H110 are at their best at top end. Drop down 1 1/2 grs to 2 grains from the data's max load and work up. These powders work best with the heavier boolits and a firm crimp.

If your looking for a powder that can be loaded down some, 2400 is hard to beat. I've had limited experience with AA #9, but from the data I've seen you can load it down similar to 2400. I believe WC820 is similar too.

[Mack Heath]

296 is a slow burning ball powder (H110 also). To be that slow burning it has a heavy deterent coating. This can give ignition problems with reduced loads. These ignition problems can run from non-ignition up to SEE.
^^^
Neither is something you want to contend with or the consequences of such. Good reason for the warnings; heed them.

Larry Gibson


I am sorry to have to break in here, but the above comment about SEE is off the mark. The problem is with squib loads resulting.

If you look at the data for the .30 Carbine in the rifle section of the Winchester pamphlets, the only load listed is with 296, and there is NO mention about erratic pressures in that application. Winchester advises reducing the charges no more than 10%. With magnum handguns, the firearm is routinely a revolver. Once the bullet crosses the barrel-cylinder gap pressures start to drop a lot faster than in a closed breech firearm, like a rifle. It is tough to get the fire burning well enough to keep going, so if you reduce te powder charge, or use too light a crimp or use too cool a primer, the fire can go out before the bullet leaves the barrel.

I spoke with a Winchester engineer about 10 years ago on just this issue. Winchester will accept any data generated in a pressure barrel. What this means is if you ask them about the proper powder charge with 296 and ,say, a Hornady bullet, they will put you on hold and get the Hornady manual off their bookshelves. And the reason for pointing this out is that Hornady, as well as Speer for that matter, do not list a single powder charge with 296. Hornady has the starting load reduced by as much as 20% and Speer by 10%. All of that is acceptable to Winchester.

If you want to work a load up with 296, you can start 10% low and just remember that you have a real chance of sticking a bullet in the barrel if your crimp is not heavy enough or the primer is not hot enough. Take a range rod along. The same proviso applies to H-110 as it is a sibling of 296.

Sorry if I've stepped on anyone's toes here, but I keep reading the same thing. And that is not what you get when to talk to Winchester.

[FISH4BUGS]

296 is a slow burning ball powder (H110 also). To be that slow burning it has a heavy deterent coating. This can give ignition problems with reduced loads. These ignition problems can run from non-ignition up to SEE. Neither is something you want to contend with or the consequences of such. Good reason for the warnings; heed them.

There are many suitable powders that you can reduce the loads with; 2400 and 4227 for example.

Larry Gibson

What is an SEE?

[Ricochet]

It wasn't SEE. It was squibs with stuck bullets with the 295P that preceded 296 in Winchester-Western's .44 Magnum loads in very cold weather. They reformulated the powder to improve the cold ignition, and stuck in the warning not to reduce it just to be on the safe side.

[BABore]

Ditto's

Only problem I've ever witnessed with 296 is a squib. About 10% light with a lighter bullet in a 454. Went Pop-Psssft. Bullet in the bbl and a half burnt slug of powder that goes everywhere when the case is extracted.

[oneokie]

What is an SEE?

Secondary Explosion Effect.

The powder charge detonates instead of burning progressively. Google is your friend.

[9.3X62AL]

I've burned A LOT of WW-296 and a lesser amount of H-110 over the years in magnum revolver calibers, all at top-end loadings and the majority using jacketed bullets. I don't think a better powder can be found for that application, or for 30 Carbine at top-end either. 2400 is a LOT more flexible, and almost as good at top end--so as time goes on I've used more 2400 than 296 in recent years.

My cast boolit work with 296 is always with gas-checked boolits, 'cause those little spheres ding the daylights outta boolit bases. I've seen that myself with recovered projectiles in the lab--lead bases look like a moonscape after top-end loads of 296 get fired. Even jacketed bases and gas checks get slight but noticeable stippling--this characteristic can indicate usage of W-W ammunition (or spherical powder) from the forensic perspective. 4227 does the same type of thing, but is rod-shaped in aspect and not as deeply impressed as the spherical stippling from 296 and like propellants.

[felix]

Mack, the manufactures would be forced to close their doors to handloaders if they ever mentioned the word SEE. The evil lawyers are taking lead from the public, knowledgeable or not, right? I can imagine what would happen if "explosions" were "proved". SEEs only occur in firmly closed actioned guns for the most part, 99.999%. When wave forms and/or pressure can escape, there is no collaboration of internal energy to initiate a SEE. ... felix

[FISH4BUGS]

Secondary Explosion Effect.

Google is your friend.

Sometimes TOO good a friend!

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,830,000,000 for SEE [definition]. (0.16 seconds)

Gee....give me a few decades and I'll sort though all those hits!

[454PB]

I've had problems with H-110, AAC#9, and WC820. All can and WILL produce hangfires and squibs in the right conditions, and I now treat them all the same. Magnum primers, no more than a 5% reduction from listed (when you can find it) maximum, and very tight case grip on the boolit. Squibs are mostly a nuisance, but can be dangerous in the wrong situation. My very first one 35 years ago was in just such conditions, and I actually fired another round behind the stuck boolit. Luckily, it was a very strong Ruger SBH, and neither I nor the gun was damaged. My only injury was a bloody hand from the increased recoil.

[44man]

You can reduce 296, H110, etc, to the starting load listed in the manuals. I have been using the powder since it first came out and never, ever had a problem and I have been using a standard primer for years in the .44 and .45 for extreme accuracy.
The secret is to have case tension on the bullet and not depend on crimp. Crimp only has a limited effect and then stops improving burn rate.
By experimenting I have found that too hot of a primer can move the bullet/boolit out of the case before fire happens and that is more detrimental then anything. The tighter a boolit is held the better but remember, lead and lube is slippery.
Going to larger cases will need a hotter fire and there is more room to absorb primer pressure.
I have to mention the .357 with mag primers, I don't see the effect because they are smaller primers so they are what I use.
When you have a squib load, don't blame the powder, look over your loading practices.
In a rifle you CAN get SEE by reducing too much just like using a greatly reduced load of any slow powder in any caliber.
I had it happen in the 6.5 X 55 with 46 gr's of 4831 because of the long throat. No damage to the gun but I had to use a mallet to open the bolt and the primer was gone. My friend had it happen with his too. This was NOT a reduced load. A switch to Varget cured it.
The bullet was driven up to the rifling before the powder fully ignited and the bullet acted like a bore obstruction.
The long, deep throat caused it so what can happen to a revolvers pressure if the boolit is blown into the rifling by a high pressure primer before the powder fully lights off? Thank your stars for the cylinder gap.
If you have a problem with 296 using a proper load, YOU didn't load the round properly.

[wmitty]

Would anyone be willing to comment on using 296 in cast loads in rifle cartridges?

I mentioned doing this a while back and was treated as if I were quite mad for doing so.

40 gr of 296 behind the RCBS .375 -250- FN is very accurate in the M 70 I'm using; 2.5 " group at 200 yds.

[oneokie]

Sometimes TOO good a friend!

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,830,000,000 for SEE [definition]. (0.16 seconds)

Gee....give me a few decades and I'll sort though all those hits!


:-D Try using the search criteria: Secondary Explosion Effect. :-D

Reduces the number of hits dramatically. Results 1-10 of about 262,000

One example: (Second on the list)

http://www.sahunt.co.za/en/sahunter_The_Secondary_Explosion_Effect.aspx

Quite informative, IMO. :drinks:

[Larry Gibson]

Mack Heath

Sorry, but my remarks are not "off the mark". While the use of 296 is mostly in magnum revolver cartridges (fish4bugs does not mention any cartridge) it has other applications as mentioned. As you can see most of the problems are with squib loads from the poor ignition (many times because of reasons 44man mentions) in revolvers and the barrel/cylinder gap quickly vents what pressure there is and the flame goes out. In rifles this may not be the case. I personally have had hang fires with reduced loads in the .30 carbine and in a .44 magnum M94. Hang fires are the hints that SEE is possible in some case, mostly with slow burning powders. There also is a case of SEE in a 45-70 TC Contender using 300 gr bullets with 296.

The warnings for 296 say not to reduce the loads beyond the listed starting loads. That may "miss the mark" but I believe, from personal experience, that the advice is good and should be heeded. You may not do so at your pleasure, or displeasure if that should occur.

Larry Gibson

[mdi]

When I started reloading in the mid 70s, the prevailing thoughts on reduced loads of 296 and H110 was the SEE theory. Many gun writers made note of this and reloading manuals warned against reduced loading of 296. Squib loads and bullets stuck in barrels was the warning with all powders using reduced loads, especially in large cases.

[beagle]

The .30 Carbine is really not a representative cartridge to talk about WW296 and reduced loads in. With almost any bullet you can load in there and WW296, you have almost a compressed load or at least very little air space.

That significantly reduces the SEE factor.

The .357 and .44 Magnum with reduced 296 charges will normally give more air space and thus a better chance of SEE.

IMO. squib loads with 296 are only a SEE waiting to happen when you get better than normal ignition due to lack of coating on the powder.

296 is a good powder and I've used it in "elephant killer" loads with 280 and 320 grain bullets in the .44 Mag. NOthing better but I'm not reducing it a lot.

Haven't ever had a SEE and I don't want one./beagle

[Ricochet]

I'm referencing what George Frost, who worked for Winchester-Western at the time they changed from 295P to 296, said about the cold weather squib problem in his book Ammunition Making.

[FISH4BUGS]

Mack Heath

Sorry, but my remarks are not "off the mark". While the use of 296 is mostly in magnum revolver cartridges (fish4bugs does not mention any cartridge) it has other applications as mentioned. As you can see most of the problems are with squib loads from the poor ignition (many times because of reasons 44man mentions) in revolvers and the barrel/cylinder gap quickly vents what pressure there is and the flame goes out. In rifles this may not be the case. I personally have had hang fires with reduced loads in the .30 carbine and in a .44 magnum M94. Hang fires are the hints that SEE is possible in some case, mostly with slow burning powders. There also is a case of SEE in a 45-70 TC Contender using 300 gr bullets with 296.

The warnings for 296 say not to reduce the loads beyond the listed starting loads. That may "miss the mark" but I believe, from personal experience, that the advice is good and should be heeded. You may not do so at your pleasure, or displeasure if that should occur.

Larry Gibson
I was referring ONLY to 357 and 44 mag. I should have made that clear. Sorry about that.
My reloading books DO NOT say "do not reduce these loads below starting loads".....in fact, there are NO starting loads listed....just the maximum load with the warning to "not reduce these loads".
My point was that I wanted to work up a load, and would start somewhere lower than maximum, perhaps 10-15% lower. If I want light loads, I have many pounds of 231 to use. In view of this warning, I was hesitant to do so.

[dwtim]

I've never cared to do this with 296 after having experimented with AAC9 in the .357--with "standard" primers and pygmy bullets. I had erratic ignition. And by erratic, I mean that one round gave a report like a full-power load, while the next sounded like a 38, and shot low. I tested low charges to large charges with run-up loads.

Finally, I had one so bad that the bullet stuck in the bore. I can see where rapid fire practice would be extremely dangerous. At first I thought it was contaminated powder, but after experimenting extensively with the 125 grain bullet, it became obvious that it was quite possible that the spectrum of ignition problems included "none at all". It is interesting that the primer alone was able to push the bullet far enough to engage the rifling on a revolver--of course, there was a substantial column of propellant occupying volume in the case. (Interesting side note: the charge technically did burn a little; the silvery coating was burned off leaving brown, sticky propellant balls.)

I changed propellant to AAC4100, lowered the charge down again, trimmed my cases to the minimum acceptable length, seated the bullet a tad deeper, and made absolutely sure that the sharp edges of the trimmed mouth dug in, but that I did not crimp too much and cause a buckle, (and therefore less contact area.) The result was a much more consistent ignition, but still weak and with excess powder residue.

Conclusion: I created an expensive 38 Special round that made my gun dirty.

My brother makes a 158 grain condom bullet load with a 1-grain reduction under start charge with W296, and mag primer. Neither of us have ever had a problem with this load. I have had no problem with standard primers and AAC9/AAC4100 with lead or FLGC bullets of 150 grains or heavier. The lead ones have a deep crimp groove and the others have plenty of contact area.

So I guess my attitude can be summed up like this:

It's possible, but when you examine the risks and the performance... why?


Also: FISH4BUGS, what loading data are you using? I'm looking at the new stuff added at Hodgdon's site, and I see the standard warning about working outside the published data. Every load listed has a start and a max charge. I also have a printout from the old Winchester website, and it has similar data.

Here is a direct quote from the current disclaimer page:

source: http://data.hodgdon.com/main_menu.asp

"For those loads listed where a starting load is not shown, start 10% below the suggested maximum load and then approach maximums carefully, watching for any sign of pressure (difficult extraction, cratered and flattened or blown primers, and unusual recoil). H110 and Winchester 296 loads should not be reduced more than 3%.

Reduce H110 and Winchester 296 loads 3% and work up from there. H110 and Winchester 296 if reduced too much will cause inconsistent ignition. In some cases it will lodge a bullet in the barrel, causing a hazardous situation (Barrel Obstruction). This may cause severe personal injury or death to users or bystanders. DO NOT REDUCE H110 LOADS BY MORE THAN 3%."

[454PB]

Cartridge neck tension is controlled by a lot of things: your case sizing die, your expander plug, boolit hardness and lubricity, case anneal, and boolit diameter and length. We have control of all of those things, if you're willing to either do or pay for the machining. After my last squib load, I went through all my expander plugs and measured them. I found none that I consider oversized, but that really depends on all the other variables involved. For instance, I use .432" boolits in one of my .44's. If I use a .425" expander, I'm putting a .007" squeeze on the boolit. Now cast that boolit from a soft alloy, and you will actually size it when you seat it. It doesn't do a lot of good to deliberately produce an "oversize" boolit and then squeeze it down to an undersize boolit when it's seated. In general, new brass is the softest, and it work hardens as it is repeatedly fired. It's pretty easy to resoften it (annealing), but not so to make it tougher. This may not be a problem when using the slow burning ball powders, since the alloy hardness should be fairly high anyway, but the variable is the expander. You better have more than one expander plug for the various hardnesses to be used.

In one of my experiments that went bad, I was using .451 Hornady XTP bullets of 250 grains in my F.A. .454 Casull, backed by AAC#9. Nearly every round was a hangfire. I was using a bonifide loading manual recipe and working up from their listed starting load. I didn't reach a level of non-hangfires until I was within 1 grain of the listed maximum. Jacketed bullets provide a tighter grip due to their higher coefficient of friction, but reduce the bullet diameter by .001" and that advantage is lost. Though I didn't do it, one solution would be to turn down the expander plug for more case tension. Thus my remarks about having multiple expander plugs for various bullet or boolit sizes.

I've just quit using lighter boolits or bullets with the slow burn, high deterent coated ball powders. If I want to load light for caliber rounds, I go to a different powder.

And I should also mention that that squib behind the 250 gr. boolit in my .44 Ruger SBH was preceded by thousands of identical rounds, and followed by many thousands more. Just because it works many times doesn't mean it will never squib.

[FISH4BUGS]

Also: FISH4BUGS, what loading data are you using? I'm looking at the new stuff added at Hodgdon's site, and I see the standard warning about working outside the published data. Every load listed has a start and a max charge. I also have a printout from the old Winchester website, and it has similar data.
[/i]

The Reloaders Manual 15th edition from Winchester on page 47.
Winchester 10th edition Ball Powder Propellant Loading Data page 28

[crowbeaner]

I've used a couple kegs of WW296 in the .357 and other magnum handgun cartridges. Just load it exactly as shown in the reloaders' guide. Use magnum primers and high bullet pull by virtue of tight neck tension and firm crimp. No fuss, no muss, no problems. 2 of the most accurate loads are with cast boolits and 14.0 and 14.5 grains with hardcast.