Questions about H110

[scottyp99]

"but the load data I'm seeing isn't even close to a full case. What's up with that?" now read my answer and you will understand why I quoted the OP

Well, you've lost me. That looks like Hodgdon's data for a jacketed Hornady XTP bullet, using a Winchester case and a Winchester SPM primer. If so, I'm using a Cast Performance gas-checked hard-cast boolit, Starline case and CCI SPM primer, so what does it have to do with me? Also, why do people keep telling me to stay within published load data? In my original post I very clearly state that I intend to do just that. I'm still waiting to hear back from Cast Performance to verify or deny it, but I have read claims that Cast Performance recommends a min. of 13 gr and a max. of 14 gr with this boolit using H110/W296, and that's the data that I intend to use, if it's verified. I'm just wondering why so much space in the case? Does H110 tolerate some empty space when you get up there in bullet weight? I've heard folks talk about charges so big with 125 grainers that the powder actually needs to be compressed! Perhaps the heavier bullet has enough inertia that it allows pressure to rise rapidly enough a little air space is ok, and a packed case might actually lead to too much pressure?

Scotty

[725]

Read a proper data manual or suffer the consequences. May I emphasize "suffer"? Please do your range time alone if you don't. I've been injured once and missed closely once when caviler reloaders shot next to me. Truly I wish you the best of luck and hope you have a safe experience in this hobby.

[Estacado]

H-110 is a powder that I check and recheck. There is not much room between min and max loads. I have always been told under min is as bad as over max. It is a max load powder period.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

People say H110/W296 likes a full case, but the load data I'm seeing isn't even close to a full case. What's up with that?

scottyp99,
What People?

Like the other members here who are replying to you, I haven't heard this full case theory about H110

Also, why do people keep telling me to stay within published load data?

H110 can be a spooky powder if you "play" with the data (your original post implies that you feel you should be loading a full case). It needs a certain Pressure (and heat) to maintain a thorough burn of the entire charge. If you run it near, or at, Max (published charge) It's one of the best magnum pistol powders. Since it's Spooky, I suspect that is why other members here are telling you to go by the books, just to be safe. BTW, that's my advice as well.

[Larry Gibson]

One thing to add to what scottyp99 said; if the H110/296 has not reached it's pressure threshold for efficient burning and the bullet passes the barrel/cylinder gap of a revolver the pressure can have a sudden drop because of venting. This can "put the fire" out so to speak leaving the bullet stuck in the barrel. I have had it happen twice; once in a 44 Magnum with a 429421 and once in a 357 magnum with a 358421.

[mdi]

I'm juat an average reloader and started in '69 with a Lee Loader. I have only used H110/W296 on a few occasions and have no experience with "under min detonations" using H110, but I have heard and read enough not to try to determine how, why or when it happens.

[mehavey]

Uuuuuhhh....

I just went to QuickLoad w/RCBS 180 Sil(FNGC)* and seated it to the standard 1.59" OAL
102% Fill is 12gr/H110/W296/24,000psi/65-80% burn depending on whether revolver or rifle.

OP: Tell us a little more about your cartridge make-up/dimensions.....




* (which I actually have)

[dragon813gt]

Quickload gives erratic results w/ straight wall cases. I don't trust it w/ them especially w/ H110. I've chronoed loads and they didn't match, outside margin of error by a good bit, QL's predictions. It will tell you case fill but I wouldn't trust anything else.

[mehavey]

Over the past 15 years (+) I've found QuickLoad quite dependable -- indispensable in fact when operating using "unlisted" components powders -- after I adjust burn rate upon initial firing of a mid-range load.
Using QuickLoad blind and without a chronograph-- like any initial engineering exercise -- is not advised.

Ya gotta know what you're doing... and willing to do it.



But I again point out the problem w/ the OP's premise of powder load capacity under the 180gr FNGC. I can't see how it could anywhere near what's cited.

[swheeler]

Uuuuuhhh....

I just went to QuickLoad w/RCBS 180 Sil(FNGC)* and seated it to the standard 1.59" OAL
102% Fill is 12gr/H110/W296/24,000psi/65-80% burn depending on whether revolver or rifle.

OP: Tell us a little more about your cartridge make-up/dimensions.....




* (which I actually have)

Something just doesn't sound right on load density?? 102% at 12 grs @ 1.590 COAL, I shoot 12.5 grs with a 195 cast at that length and IIRC-believe it isn't compressed? RCBS lists 12.4 to 13.4 loading for that 180 sil bullet, the Nosler 180 Partition is very similar length to crimp groove and 12.5- 88% and 13.5 Max-95% load density. The OP couldn't understand my cryptic post? the point I was making is that several different cast bullets and jacket bullets of 180 grains list 13.5 grains as a maximum load, "filling the case up" could very well be dangerous.

[gundownunder]

I also load a 180 grain with WW296, and like the OP, I thought the case was supposed to be near full.
I also worked out that a full load would be well over the published data.
This prompted me to contact the Winchester tech team for clarification.
I was told to go with the published data, and they recommended not exceeding the maximum load even though the space is there to do so.

[scottyp99]

swheeler, I think I understand your post now. What confused me was that it had nothing to do with my question. I do appreciate you guys trying to look out for me, and keep me all in one piece, but I'm sure you can understand that it can be a little annoying when it is unnecessary. There's no way for you to know it's unnecessary, so you make sure, just to be on the safe side. I get it.

I have been thinking about it, and have come up with a hypothesis; the trick with H110/W296 is to quickly get it up into the pressure range where it burns efficiently before the bullet has had a chance to travel very far, right? Once that has been accomplished, everything goes OK from then on. With lighter bullets, it's a firm crimp and small airspace that encourages this, as the lighter bullet begins to move before too much pressure has developed. However, with heavier bullets, the bullet's inertia is greater, and a full case would make too much pressure before the bullet started moving, so we now have a situation where the small airspace is not an issue like it is with the lighter bullets. Does that make any sense to anybody else?

Cast Performance's data shows 13 gr to 14 gr of H110/W296, so I have loaded up a dozen each of 13, 13.5, and 14 gr loads. Starline brass, CCI 550 primer, A firm crimp into the crimp groove, with an overall length of 1.57" That's just where it came out with a crimp that I like the look of. These will be test fired in a 4" Ruger GP100, and if everything goes well, a 2 1/2" Taurus Model 66.

Scotty

[watkibe]

Why do people get so mixed up about H110 ? The first thing new handloaders need to hear is "use the data published by the manufacturer, and follow it closely". Shooting/reloading is full of legends and myths. Ignore them. You are not smarter than the powder companies, and even if you are, you don't have a ballistics lab with a pressure gun and barrels.
In my 357, 41, and 44, I use H110 when I want full power loads. At my age, I don't want full power loads all the time anymore, so for more pleasant and easy-to-shoot loads, I use a different powder.

[44MAG#1]

How much can H110 be reduced? Does it depend on the cartridge etc.? Bullet weight? Primer?

[scottyp99]

Why do people get so mixed up about H110 ? The first thing new handloaders need to hear is "use the data published by the manufacturer, and follow it closely". Shooting/reloading is full of legends and myths. Ignore them. You are not smarter than the powder companies, and even if you are, you don't have a ballistics lab with a pressure gun and barrels.
In my 357, 41, and 44, I use H110 when I want full power loads. At my age, I don't want full power loads all the time anymore, so for more pleasant and easy-to-shoot loads, I use a different powder.

Jeez, man, what's up your butt? I don't think I'm smarter than any powder company. I have loading data from the bullet manufacturer, and I'm using it. I have some experience using H110 with 158 gr bullets. I have fairly good common sense. I have an excellent track record of making effective, reliable ammunition in 30-06, 308 Win, 6.5x55 Swede, 303 British, 38 Special, 357 Magnum, and 45 ACP for about 10 years now. And, a PERFECT safety record during that time, also. What more do you want from me, a Master's Degree in reloading?

Anyway, took my experimental ammo to the range today. Bear in mind that it was cold out, about 20 degrees F. The GP 100 was unavailable, so the test was performed using the Taurus 66.I did not fire the minimum load of 13 gr of H110 because of the low temperature. I fired 12 rounds each of the 13.5 and 14 gr loads. They both were pretty hard kickers, with the 14 gr load being very slightly stouter (not surprising, eh?) Extraction was nice and easy, not sticky at all. The CCI 550 primers were noticeably flattened, but still had a rounded edge, I couldn't really tell a difference between the two loads under a 4x magnifying glass. After 5 rounds, the 6th was measured and no change in overall length was noted. When it warms up, I'll repeat this test, starting with the 13 gr load this time. Hopefully, I'll have a chrono by then. (My birthday is in May, and I've already started dropping hints!)

Scotty

[Motor]

Scotty. Load data is developed using pressure as the guideline. Air space within the casing (load density) is already considered before testing begins.

In the past "SEE" (which is basically detonation) was blamed on low load density using ball powders like H-110 but the fact is "SEE" has never been reproduced in testing.

The results of years of testing is just starting to show in the latest data. You have to realise most of the data we have was developed years ago. If you look at new data like data developed for cartridges that were introduced recently you will find a much wider range of charges using H-110/W-296.

Just look at 500 S&W data both jacketed and cast using H-110/W-296. The data blows away all of the old rules of thumb concerning this powder.

This is why so many of us here are saying just simply fallow the published data, use a firm crimp and a magnum primer with H-110/W-296. Some people don't even use the magnum primers in the smaller casings like .357 but I always do.

As far as reduced loads go using H-110/W-296: It may or may not be ok to do. We simply don't know because the people who do the testing have no reason to invest the money into doing it. Honestly why would they bother when there are so many powders available to load light loads. So I don't see it happening any time soon.

Motor

[kingrj]

I have had very good results with H110 and its twin WW296 in everything I have ever shot it in. In my opinion the percent case fill is NOT as important as a good hard crimp on the bullet and running the pressures near maximum for the cartridge. Anytime I strayed from this principle I got poor accuracy and inconsistent velocities. I do NOT think reduced loads with this powder is dangerous..I just think it will yield inconsistent results.

[44Blam]

I shoot 44 mag and I did a little ladder the other day. Most of the sources I saw agree that 24 grn is pretty much max for a 240 grn GC boolit (or jacketed). So, I shot my ladder with both my henry big boy and my ruger redhawk @ 50 yards. I started with the min load I found at 22 grn and laddered up by .5 grn up to 24.5 grn.

I found that with that boolit, 23.5 grain really shot consistently and the groups were less that 1". Funny the 22 and 22.5 grn rounds were pretty good around 2-3" groups, 23 was good, 23.5 was spot on, 24 started to go wild more like 5" groups and 24.5 was really spread out with some rounds off the paper. The handgun has significant recoil in that range, but with the 24.5 grn in the Henry rifle, the recoil is fairly mild...

Anyway, for both my guns with the 240 grn GC boolit I was shooting, 23.5 was optimal. 24 grain was listed as max in the Lee book, there were other places where it listed 24.5, though.

SO - I would say lookup what they say in Modern Reloading and take a couple other sources (be wary of folks on the interwebs - I've seen some crazy suggestions) and compare/contrast. But mostly, H110 and W296 are pretty specific for range.

I just loaded a "side by side" comparison of my ladders that I've done with W296 and Alliant 2400 where it is the same boolit and it is 23.5 grn 296 and 21 grn 2400. I loaded 100: 50 of each. And I'm going to go to the range and decide what powder I really want to shoot... I'm really leaning on the 2400 since I can make some loads for my 45-70 and it can be downloaded fairly easily.

BUT, I really like ~23 grn of W296 in the redhawk because there is a ball of fire that shoots out the barrel. It is awesome "flinch" training. If you pull the trigger and you watch the fireball, you did not flinch. If you see NO fireball, you flinched.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

How much can H110 be reduced? Does it depend on the cartridge etc.? Bullet weight? Primer?

3% according to a 2011 Hodgdon reloading manual.
They state, "due to inconsistency of velocity", but there are several posts in this thread by people I trust to better explain why it's dangerous.

Attachment 212125

Attachment 212126

[44MAG#1]

[QUOTE=JonB_in_Glencoe;4264443]3% according to a 2011 Hodgdon reloading manual.
They state, "due to inconsistency of velocity", but there are several posts in this thread by people I trust to better explain why it's dangerous.

Attachment 212125

How do you explain in the Hodgdons 2018 Annual Manual on page 155 and 156 for the 357 Mag they reduced the charge for H110 10 percent?
Also in page 159 for the 41 Mag they reduce the charge 10 percent for the 210 bullet? For the 170 they reduce the charge for H110 11 percent.
On page 162 for the 44 Magnum and the 270 they reduce it 9 percent. On page 161 they reduce it 8 percent.

These are just a few that I readily found. In other books such as Hornady they do the same thing.
How does one explain the 3 percent rule when even from the horses mouth they don't follow it?
Things are certainly funny don't you think.