RepackboxTitan ReloadingPBcastcoReloading Everything
RotoMetals2Load DataWidenersInline Fabrication
Lee Precision MidSouth Shooters Supply
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: Questions about H110

  1. #41
    Moderator Emeritus


    JonB_in_Glencoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    15,838
    Does the 2018 manual have the same 3% warning near the front of the manual with the other numerous warnings?

    The warning in the 2011 manual doesn't say, MAX loads should not be reduced by more than 3%. It says, "loads should not be reduced by more than 3%".
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”
    ― The Dalai Lama, Seattle Times, May 2001

  2. #42
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,401
    Quote Originally Posted by JonB_in_Glencoe View Post
    Does the 2018 manual have the same 3% warning near the front of the manual with the other numerous warnings?

    The warning in the 2011 manual doesn't say, MAX loads should not be reduced by more than 3%. It says, "loads should not be reduced by more than 3%".
    Well since we are splitting hairs here. Because if the 2011 manual doesn't say which loads not to reduce more than 3 percent, which to me would be dangerous to not mention it, because how would we know what not to reduce more than three percent, says on a fairly new one pound of H110 I have is this:
    MAXIMUM LOADS-DO NOT EXCEED-REDUCE BY 3% TO START.

    Now we could say that they are talking about the loads they have listed on the powder container but, if we look on their website the 44 load with the 280 Swift bullet is reduced by 9.75 percent and the 41 mag load the list on the powder container is reduced by 10 percent. True I did not do an extensive search of all calibers but either they are talking out of both sides of their mouth or they could be in error such as the error Larry Gibson found on a rifle load awhile back.
    Who really knows? Evidentally you and I don't because I have been in wonderment over their warnings on H110 for years. This isn't the first time I have noticed double talk about H110 from Hodgdons.
    So what do we do?
    OH YES, they used the Remington 2 1/2 STD primer in their data.
    I am sure Hodgdons tested their loads extensively. We should probably go by them.
    But the problem is people read something like the 3% thing and it becomes gospel from then on. Everyone does their best imitation of the talking parrot and blathers the 3 percent thing extensively along with the magnum primer thing.
    I don't know, maybe it's time the talking parrot thing dies down.
    Again I am pretty dumb.
    Last edited by 44MAG#1; 01-19-2018 at 09:30 AM.

  3. #43
    Moderator Emeritus


    JonB_in_Glencoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    15,838
    Quote Originally Posted by 44MAG#1 View Post
    How much can H110 be reduced? Does it depend on the cartridge etc.? Bullet weight? Primer?
    I am sorry, I didn't realize this was a rhetorical question.



    Quote Originally Posted by 44MAG#1 View Post
    Well since we are splitting hairs here. Because if the 2011 manual doesn't say which loads not to reduce more than 3 percent, which to me would be dangerous to not mention it, because how would we know what not to reduce more than three percent, says on a fairly new one pound of H110 I have is this:
    MAXIMUM LOADS-DO NOT EXCEED-REDUCE BY 3% TO START.

    Now we could say that they are talking about the loads they have listed on the powder container but, if we look on their website the 44 load with the 280 Swift bullet is reduced by 9.75 percent and the 41 mag load the list on the powder container is reduced by 10 percent. True I did not do an extensive search of all calibers but either they are talking out of both sides of their mouth or they could be in error such as the error Larry Gibson found on a rifle load awhile back.
    Who really knows? Evidentally you and I don't because I have been in wonderment over their warnings on H110 for years. This isn't the first time I have noticed double talk about H110 from Hodgdons.
    So what do we do?
    OH YES, they used the Remington 2 1/2 STD primer in their data.
    I am sure Hodgdons tested their loads extensively. We should probably go by them.
    But the problem is people read something like the 3% thing and it becomes gospel from then on. Everyone does their best imitation of the talking parrot and blathers the 3 percent thing extensively along with the magnum primer thing.
    I don't know, maybe it's time the talking parrot thing dies down.
    Again I am pretty dumb.
    ahhh, you are not dumb, you seem smarter than most.
    I, myself, am a simple man, and what Hodgdon states about their H110 powder seems simple enough for me.
    Good Luck on your quest to get answers to all those questions you ask.


    I recall, some years back, I was on a quest, a quest where the facts were seemingly equally confounding as this H110 conundrum you pose. Pressure developed from the friction of a bullet going through a barrel. Jacketed bullet vs lubed cast boolit. I was sure a dry copper jacketed bullet would cause more friction and raise the pressure higher than a equally weighted lubed cast boolit being pushed through the same barrel with the same charge. It took a while, but I did find the answers at the end of my quest.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”
    ― The Dalai Lama, Seattle Times, May 2001

  4. #44
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    106
    I am working up a load for .357 Magnum using WW296, Starline cases, CCI 550 primers and (until I get my casting stuff set up) Hornady 158 grain XTPs for my Ruger 77/357. I'm using Hodgdon's data for H110 (which I understand is identical to WW296 by numerous accounts, born out by essentially identical load data from multiple sources) from their 2017 manual. The maximum load in the manual (16.7 grains of H110) lists velocity at 1,757 fps. The last 10 rounds I shot (15.0 grains of WW296) averaged 1,520 fps. I'm going to stop when I get it up to 1,700- ish fps, because that's all I need. I'm pretty sure I chronographed some factory Blazer Brass at around 1,750 fps in the Ruger, but since I didn't record it, I can't be certain and will have to do it over to establish a baseline.

    John Barsness (a writer I respect) recommends using a chronograph to assess pressure (rather than flattened primers or difficult extraction). Essentially, if velocities are substantially over those listed in published data, pressures are higher as well.
    In my opinion, this is safer than relying on how hard a case extracts. It's always possible that my least expensive Chrony isn't as accurate as it should be, to be fair. Since it's cold now, I'll have chronograph reloads again in summer to make sure I don't exceed velocity/pressure.

    If any of the above is incorrect or inaccurate, I would like know about it.

  5. #45
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    1,514
    I've seen this discussion about percentages many times. I've also read them many times. This is how I understood it:

    The 3% rule pertains the "listed start loads" As in don't reduce the listed start loads by more than 3%.

    The 10% rule comes from data sources that only listed a maximum charge weight. They say "The loads listed are maximum and should be reduced by 10% to start"

    I believe these are accurate interpretations of both rules.

    Motor

    ETA: Steven66. I don't see anything wrong with your post. Data varies a good bit. The latest Hornady manual maximum is lower than their older manuals.

    I worked my loads up a long time ago and still use 16.8gr W-296 with 158gr jacketed bullets in .357 magnum. They were fine 30 years ago and are still.
    Last edited by Motor; 02-04-2018 at 05:38 PM.

  6. #46
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor View Post
    I've seen this discussion about percentages many times. I've also read them many times. This is how I understood it:

    The 3% rule pertains the "listed start loads" As in don't reduce the listed start loads by more than 3%.

    The 10% rule comes from data sources that only listed a maximum charge weight. They say "The loads listed are maximum and should be reduced by 10% to start"

    I believe these are accurate interpretations of both rules.

    Motor

    ETA: Steven66. I don't see anything wrong with your post. Data varies a good bit. The latest Hornady manual maximum is lower than their older manuals.

    I worked my loads up a long time ago and still use 16.8gr W-296 with 158gr jacketed bullets in .357 magnum. They were fine 30 years ago and are still.
    Understanding can mean many things.
    I have before me a relatively new pound container of H110. It list maximum loads for both the 44 Magnum and a 454 Casull.
    It says under the load data, and I quote: "Maximum loads-do not exceed-reduce by 3% to start."
    It says nothing about not reducing the start loads no more than 3%.
    If you go to Hodgdons site the loads they list reduced,the 44 Mag load 9.87% and the 454 load by 5.9%.
    The bottom line is if we have load data books we need to use them. Are they infallible, no, nothing man has anything to do with is infallible.
    Bottom line is if one has no books to go by then it is time for them to turn loose of the long green and buy a couple at least.
    Look at the data, and use the data.
    Things like this will not need to be hashed, rehashed etc..
    But be careful. Nothing is infallible.

  7. #47
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    1,514
    44mag#1
    You won't get any arguments from me. I believed I read the "3%" rule in a manual that actually did list a range of data.

    Your post just proves that your advice to use actual data is the best rule. As I posted earlier in this thread the very newest data blows away both the 3and10 percent rules.

    Motor

  8. #48
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    106
    I chronographed ten rounds yesterday, four (forgot to record the 5th) @ 15.4 and five @ 15.5 grains of 296 with the rest of the components the same as in my earlier post. The 15.5 grain load averaged 1667 fps and the 15.4 grain load averaged 1683 fps. Possibly the shot I forgot to record would have normalized the lighter load, but I'm wondering if stepping up charges 0.2 grains (instead of 0.1 as is commonly recommended) is more appropriate for spherical powders like WW296 (because the grains are so fine)? I intend to stop when I hit around 1770 fps, since that's what I get with factory loads (and, by implication, safe pressures). Also, does it seem that crimping is necessary to get a consistent, relatively clean burns with this powder?

  9. #49
    Moderator
    RogerDat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Michigan Lansing Area
    Posts
    5,751
    I don't use that powder much but everything I have heard or read says it needs pressure to burn correctly. So not good for reduced loads, very good in a narrow band of top end loads. Myself I don't like the hand abuse so I seldom want a full power load.

    I trim the brass to get a good consistent and snug crimp. Which also avoids unfired bullets walking out on recoil and helps with building consistent pressure. I use published load data. Seldom right at the bottom or right at the top. Wife still gets pissed if she gets one of the "hot" loads. Which is one more reason to not make them in my world. Less chance of pissed off spouse. I do make them from time to time. What is the point of a .357 mag if you only load it to .38 special power?

    Seems obvious the case fill "rule" comes from the poor performance and/or risk associated with improper burn from too low a pressure. It also seems pretty clear it like many rules of thumb doesn't stand up to examination terribly well across a range of circumstances.

    Manuals vary, same manual different years, different manuals same years etc. You won't get identical data but you will get tested data from all of them. The newer may be more cautious but it will also reflect the current formula and latest testing methods so in theory should be the most accurate.
    Scrap.... because all the really pithy and emphatic four letter words were taken and we had to describe this source of casting material somehow so we added an "S" to what non casters and wives call what we collect.

    Kind of hard to claim to love America while one is hating half the Americans that disagree with you. One nation indivisible requires work.

    Feedback page http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...light=RogerDat

  10. #50
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    136
    I use a lot of H110 for 357, 44 , and 460 mag. Excellent powder as long as you stay near max loads. You start loading below 10% of max you will start to see some elevated SD's (standard deviation) in velocities . To the average loader without a chronograph, shooting at 25 ft you won't notice any difference. Shooting a handgun at 25 yds now you start to see stray shots. I've since switched to 2400 if I desire to run milder magnum loads. Just my experiences, YMMV

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check