H110 + 45 colt = Hangfire

[tomme boy]

I was out shooting today and had a bunch of hang fires and one missfire.

The load was as follows. RP cases, Wolf LP primer, 21.8grs H110, 255gr RNFP lead.

The one that did not go off, stuck the boolit about 1/2" in the bore. When I took out the case, the whole front of the case had a green chunk of unburned powder. I emtied out the case and only the front had the green chunk. It acted like it had a flashover. The ones that had hang fires, you could hear and feel that they were not right. They would also impact 2-3ft low at 100 yds. I could get them to stop this by tilting the gun up and slowly lowering it to shoot it.

I think it is either a weak primer, or the flame is flashing over the powder. Anyone have any other suggestions?

[Larry Gibson]

Could be a weak primer but I would suggest that H110 is just not a good powder for 255 gr cast in the large 45 Colt case. Might try WLPs, CCI 350s or another magnum primer but frankly I'd switch to 2400 or 4227 with that bullet. I've had hang and fail to fires with H110/296 under 250 - 255 gr Keith bullets in .44 Magnums with 23.5 gr. Just not a good powder for cast PB'd bullets in that weight range as there isn't enough bullet mass. H110 does work well with harder, GC'd heavier bullets though, just not with 250 - 260 gr cast is all.

Larry Gibson

[MT Chambers]

There are alot of more suitable powders for the .45 Colt, that are faster burning, therefore less expensive to use, I really like Trailboss as it is impossible to double charge the big case.

[btroj]

I had a similar situation with my 44 mag and a 240 gr bullet and WAC 820. I finally figured out I needed much better neck tension.
H110 needs to get a good burn going before the bullet can move, otherwise the powder gasses seem to go out.
Nothing worse than having a bullet stuck in the barrel.

Like Larry said, 2400 might do better for you. It seems much less likely to give any hang fires or squibs.

[Rocky Raab]

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO SHOOT THOSE LOADS! You are flirting with a catastrophic gun failure.

The reason they tell you not to reduce loads with W296/H110 is because reduced loads can result in catastrophic pressure spikes. Partial charges do not develop sufficient initial pressure to continue ignition, and the powder "goes out" with most or all of the suppressant coating burned off. Like this:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c170/RockyRaab/hangfire.jpg

If there is a spark or ember remaining, the undeterred powder can then burn at many times its intended burn rate -- and KABOOM! The warning signs for this are hangfires and "duds." The photo above is from a so-called dud. Only a miracle kept it from being what I call a spontaneous omnidirectional self-disassembly.

Oh, "flashovers" are related to unicorns and zombies: people talk about them, but they don't exist.

[MT Gianni]

http://data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp
Winchester/Hornaday data center has 23.5 gr as a START load for 250 gr bullets.

[btroj]

Great photo Rocky, it shows what happens to powder in these cases.

The risks of a kaboom can be all to real. I don't mess with reduced loads for H110. It is for full blown loads and nothing else.

[Rocky Raab]

I've had it so long I don't recall the precise source or I would have credited it. But that photo is from a ballistic lab that was investigating a gun blowup that resulted in a lawsuit.

The injured shooter claimed he followed the load book, but in his first cylinder-full had one click, one hangfire, and then the KABOOM. There were injuries, if I recall correctly.

If the dud had not happened first, they might never have learned the cause because the top three chambers and cartridges were gone. This was what came out of the "dud" and appears to be not much over a half charge. It proved that the reloader had NOT followed the load book, and cost him the lawsuit, BTW.

[tomme boy]

The last time I tried these, they shot fine. The temperature that day was in the upper 60's. Today it never went over 30. One other thing, it was new brass.

[Whiterabbit]

Interesting. I was always under the impression that H110 wouldn't overpressure when reduced, just squib and endanger the shooter if he fired the next one into the first stuck bullet.

I've also read that the danger is related specifically to the amount of free space inside the case. That implies I could just seat the bullet deeper and eliminate the problem, yes? To a point of course, we aren't talking about 10 grains H110 in a 45 colt case here.

My own H110 colt load is somewhere around 26 grains, give or take. (might be thinking of 454)

But why can't I just seat the bullet to just on top of the powder? Should take up all the slack in the case and I'm good to go, right?

[btroj]

I am by no means an expert on internal ballistics but my understanding is this.

The primer ignites the powder, it begins to generate gas. The bullet moves forward increasing the case volume. If the powder isn't producing enough pressure at this point the case volume increase causes the ases to cool to a point where the powder "goes put". Of this happens like that we get a squib. Big trouble is when the gases expand just enough to slow the burning of the powder, the pressure drops and the bullets has just entered the barrel. At this point the bullets can top moving, pressure can begin to build and reignite the powder. Now we have a bore obstruction and the gases can build so rapidly that we have a buildup of pressure with no way out. In some cases the bullet may blow out of the barrel giving us a hang fire. In some cases the gun lets go and we have a kaboom.

In many cases a squib or hang fire are good predictors of a load waiting to go kaboom. Heed that warning carefully, it may prevent serious injury.

Like I said, I am no expert. It that is how I understand the phenoma, I hope to never see a kaboom.

[44MAG#1]

One of the most known and respected custom revolversmiths in the nation today recommends 24.0 GR of H110 with 250 to 270 gr bullets in the 45 Colt even in the NEW VAQUERO. Yes I said the NEW VAQUERO. This guy is a noted expert on the 45 COLT. No one I know of questions his knowledge.
Allient 2400 is MUCH BETTER suited to reducing than H110 and W296. Yes I know Hornady and Speer both have loads listed lower than 24.0 grs of H110 and W296 and I have tried them.
Forget it. Too much velocity variation. Ignition is very erratic.
Oh yes, this with a Win LP primer.

[Bwana]

QUOTE=btroj;1618485]I am by no means an expert on internal ballistics but my understanding is this.

The primer ignites the powder, it begins to generate gas. The bullet moves forward increasing the case volume. If the powder isn't producing enough pressure at this point the case volume increase causes the ases to cool to a point where the powder "goes put". Of this happens like that we get a squib. Big trouble is when the gases expand just enough to slow the burning of the powder, the pressure drops and the bullets has just entered the barrel. At this point the bullets can top moving, pressure can begin to build and reignite the powder. Now we have a bore obstruction and the gases can build so rapidly that we have a buildup of pressure with no way out. In some cases the bullet may blow out of the barrel giving us a hang fire. In some cases the gun lets go and we have a kaboom.
In many cases a squib or hang fire are good predictors of a load waiting to go kaboom. Heed that warning carefully, it may prevent serious injury.
Like I said, I am no expert. It that is how I understand the phenoma, I hope to never see a kaboom.[/QUOTE]

I am curious btroj, you write: "At this point the bullets can stop moving, pressure can begin to build and reignite the powder.". Where, pray tell, does the energy come from to cause the pressure to build and thereby "reignite the powder". You imply that the burning has gone out. I think that perhaps the burning has not gone "out" and that while the pressure may have plateaued for a spell, the pressure curve continues up as the internal dynamics change. It eventually peaks and then starts back down. The only thing that is important for maintaining the structural integrity of the system is that the peak pressure at any point does not exceed the weakest link. As was stated in an article posted by a member here, this plateauing, or dual peak pressure curve was not dangerous, just undesirable and as such that combination was abandoned.

[btroj]

Problem is that the second peak is not always predictable.
Like I said, I am no expert. I think it can be one of two ways in these situations. The bullet can move far enough to let conditions for powder burning to end. At this point we have a squib.
We can also have a case where the bullet slows enough to become stuck but not so far down the barrel tha the powder ceases to burn. Once the bullet stops pressure MAY begin to rise again. This rise in pressure can then allow for normal burning of the powder.
We now have a bore obstruction. None of use knowingly fire a fun with a bore obstruction.
The second peak is also potentially unpredictable. The powder is now burning in a manner other than that which it was designed for. What if the deterrent coating is now gone? The pressures may spike well above those that would occur in a normal burn situation. This spike in pressure is what can lead to the damage to the firearm.
Many guns are strong eough to contain even this higher pressure, but are you willing to take that chance?

My understanding is that these are the same conditions that make many slow burning rifl powders a poor choice for reduced loads.

Powder companies tell us not to reduce loads with some powders for a reason. I prefer to heed their warnings and not strike out on my own. I like my fingers where they are.

[Bwana]

The trouble with the "bore obstruction" senario is that the "case volume" is now anywhere from 30% to 100% larger than the case capacity when the round started out with the boolit seated originally. Then there is the "deterrent coating" thing. While there are deterrent coatings added to the exterior of some powder, primarily dual base powders, I don't think it would cause a catastrophic pressure spike under the examples usually given; that being a full case of slow powder. Think about it, the only powder that gets any heat is the bottom of the charge. At least that makes sense and is backed up by my experiences with powder charges that failed to burn completely and ended up with the bullet in the bore. Only the bottom of the charge was scorched and caked because of the heat. So how could the deterrent coating be removed from enough powder to cause a problem.
As far as bore obstructions themselves, I ran thousands of rounds through my Sav 10FP with the bullet seated into the rifling. I guess you could call that a "bore obstruction". All I know is I developed a load that worked with that setup and the rifle shot 5/8" groups at 100 yds. Worked for me. I also use that setup in my other rifles

[btroj]

Th powder is not just lit from the bottom. The primer has enough umph to ignite the powder charge almost all at once.
It has much to do with gas dynamics relating to pressure and volume and temperature. As the volume is expanding the gas is cooling. Once the bullet stop the gas stops losing heat and may be able to "reignite".
As for a muzzleloader, the bullet is sitting directly on the powder charge. Ask around in muzzleloading circles, you will be cautioned against sort seating a all and firing the load. I have seen a barrel blown when a charge was fired with the ball only a few inches down the barrel.
powders are designed to burn properly within a specific range of pressures. Outside of this range they may either burn poorly or they may generate pressures way aout those expected. Stay within the prescribed pressure range and all is well and fine, get outside of it and things go badly.
Like I said, I am no expert and may not be explains this real well. By no means does that mean it can't happen. It most certainly can, and has. THis is not an old wives tale. Guns have been blown up.

[leadman]

I have tried the Wolf pistol primers and would not recommend them for 100 or 296. A magnum primer and the amount of powder listed in the Hodgdon manual will make a good, safe load.

[btroj]

Just noticed that the OP later mentioned that the temp was lower than we he had previously used that load. I have found H110 to be a bit tep sensitive, as in it doesn't do as well at colder temps. Velocities can be much lower.

The temp alone may have been enou to cause the load to squib. Thisis another sign that that particular load is on the ragged edge of problems.

[44MAG#1]

To determine the ragged edge of the problems with H110 on needs a chronograph. If one can chrono 6 rounds with the revolver held up with the powder to the rear and then slowly lower the gun to the firring position then chrono all six that way then lower the gun and slowly bring it up to firing position then chrono 6 when the velocity average between the two 6 shot strings vary a lot one is not getting the proper loading density. Especially in cooler temps. It even happens in warmer temps too. And guess what? If it does it in warmer temps it is going to more than likely be much worse in cooler temps. Maybe even squibs too.
As I said, and it seems to go over peoples heads, is that some of the loading data given out with W296/H110 by Hornady and Speer is at the ragged edge of doing this. Especially with bullets less than 300 grains.
Simple if you don't believe me try their loads over a chronograph and prove it to yourself.
Too many people are looking for some scientific answer and are trying to look like scientist/chemists to just look at the simple side of the problem
Giving answers that are complicated and more complicated than needed may look good but is not needed in most cases.
Just my opinion and not anything mean meant by what I said but it seems like everyone is trying to be way more complicated than is needed on a lot of post on a lot of threads.
Maybe doing that makes it seem that one is more outstanding in their field.
I don't know. I guess we all need our egos stroked at times.

[felix]

Yep, ego is prolly the correct ideology. There can be no other explanation for those thinking they can win the lottery in their lifetime and will not ever have a SEE condition during that time. ... felix

[TXGunNut]

Like btroj, I'm no expert on internal ballistics or kabooms but his explanation is the only way I can see for it to happen. Under normal circumstances the amount of powder used doesn't generate enough pressure to burst a barrel. An obstruction and a "perfect storm" of burn conditions is the only explanation that makes sense to me. Kabooms are difficult if not impossible to duplicate under controlled conditions-pretty sure I'm not going to try very hard! When conditions suggest it's possible it's time to make some changes. It may never happen but I've seen kaboom guns and I don't want to be around one when it happens.
Back to the OP, some powders like high pressures and 296 is one of them. I only use it for max or near max loads. If I want to slow it down a bit I use Universal.

[Rocky Raab]

I don't think ANYBODY truly understands internal ballistics. Homer Powley himself admitted as much. Allan Jones (former head ballistician at CCI/Speer) writes that a lot of things he observed and measured could be predicted - but not fully explained.

First, primers don't merely spit a spark into the powder. It's a true explosion, with a supersonic shock wave. But different primers deliver differing amounts of gas volume (pressure) temperature, and incandescent particles. Even the shape of the flashhole changes how the shock wave and particles disperse into the powder column.

Second, powders vary in their shapes and suppressant coatings, both of which are designed to control ignition and how the powder burns. Spherical powders ignite and burn VERY differently compared to flake or tubular powders.

Thirdly, the gun itself alters a lot of what happens as and after the bullet touches the bore.

And physical conditions - mainly the temperature of the gun, not the air - adds their effects atop it all.

All of which explains why none of what happens in there is easily explained. As Jones says, we can observe it, we can often measure it - but we can't really explain it.

[btroj]

Rocky just summed up why it is best to avoid situations that are known to be potential problem areas. Reduced loads of H110/W296 are a great example.

Just because we don't know why it happens doesn't mean we don't know what the likely causes are.

[Frank]

Ranch Dog has the best .45 Colt crimp die. Lyman doesn't show H110/296 for that bullet. Maybe you want to try a powder they list, or go with that crimp die and make it good. How are you bullets holding under recoil?

[Rocky Raab]

This isn't really a crimp issue, Frank. It's a "violating clear warnings to make a bad load" issue.

[Frank]

Rocky Raab:

This isn't really a crimp issue, Frank. It's a "violating clear warnings to make a bad load" issue.
Where is the clear warning that he has a bad load?

[tomme boy]

This is in a H&R Handi rifle. The classic carbine. I think I am going to wait till it is warmer to get rid of a few other ones I have.

[Frozone]

I've shot a lot of 110 in 45 cal. mostly 454 but a lot of 45 colt too.

I can tell you that it is rather temperature sensitive. What is a good load at 70º is a weak load at 20º.

I'll use a load of 28.5g under a 350g GC cast at under 30º in a 454 that fine.
I Must reduce that in the summer to 25g.
But 25g in the winter just barely lights off - 24.5 is a likely misfire.

That is what I think has happened to the OP - a minimum load at cold temp.

[Whiterabbit]

To determine the ragged edge of the problems with H110 on needs a chronograph. If one can chrono 6 rounds with the revolver held up with the powder to the rear and then slowly lower the gun to the firring position then chrono all six that way then lower the gun and slowly bring it up to firing position then chrono 6 when the velocity average between the two 6 shot strings vary a lot one is not getting the proper loading density. Especially in cooler temps. It even happens in warmer temps too. And guess what? If it does it in warmer temps it is going to more than likely be much worse in cooler temps. Maybe even squibs too.


Dumb question. If I were even near this kind of load, why would I run this test? (that's the rhetorical question) Wouldn't it be better for me on the loading bench to just seat the base of the bullet right over the powder? (this is my real question)

Then there would be no powder position change, up or down. Right? Wouldn't that negate the need for the test, AND enhance safety at the same time?

[Bwana]

Whiterabbit, save your breath.

[44MAG#1]

Whiterabbit said:

"Dumb question. If I were even near this kind of load, why would I run this test? (that's the rhetorical question) Wouldn't it be better for me on the loading bench to just seat the base of the bullet right over the powder? (this is my real question)"

If you read my statement you will see where I said Hornady and Speer list loads that are borderline with W296 and H110 in charge weight concerning consistent performance.
The reason for the test is simple. When one is holding a gun on sandbags and cocking a revolver the powder get positioned more or less in a level area in front of the primer. Therefore giving one idea that the load is consistent due to the powder being the same position time and time again.
Now with the same charge in the front of the case it can be more difficult to ignite meaning a variation from the norm or having the powder in another place as with the powder in the rear of the case.
Really it is very simple to those who realize powder can be position sensitive too.
Now if you go by Hornady or speer the powder won't be near the base. Take my word on it. I've tried it.
Now in the case of the rifle the powder sloshing around in the loading and closing of the gun varies the powder charge. then placing said gun on the rest will further change position of the powder causing maybe a leveling out of said charge giving decent (not necessarily good) results in warmer weather but anytime the powder is a little farther from the primer in colder weather then the problem occurs.
Now if you load a charge that comes close to the case of the bullet well and good. The problem then dissipates the closer you get to the base of the bullet. But you still need to stay withing a proper load for the situation at hand.
Testing loads is the proper way to do things whether you believe it or not. Even book loads as there are no guarantees that you or I am doing it the way the lab did it.

[44MAG#1]

I've used deep seated bullets before too. Just be careful of the fact that you are reducing space. Now if one reduced space gradually instead of all at one time you should be safe if you can properly determine pressure signs.
Just proceed with caution and you can get the results even if you have to crimp over a drive band or over the ogive.

[Frank]

Whiterabbit:

Why don't I just seat the bullet so the base floats JUST over the powder charge? There there will be NO position change no matter WHAT I do. Revolver, rifle, stored up, stored down, Doesn't matter. The empty space in the cartridge would be minimal.

All I would have to do is measure the distance from a safe powder charge to the top of the case, and seat the bullet accordingly.




Why can't I just do that? why is that not recommended by anyone, even those who repeat over and over that H-110 is sensitive to empty space in the cartridge?

You start low and work up. In a magnum caliber your max is the sticking point. If I loaded my revolvers to max case capacity, I'd need a sledge hammer to get those cases out. Or maybe they'd find the "side exit" way of getting extracted. Remember, a bullet is moving before powder ignites. That affects capacity.

[Whiterabbit]

Awesome. My conclusions seemed like common sense, but to hear you confirm it based on your suggestions of what is going on makes me happier.

I ask questions like these because NO load data exists for bullets I like to use. No problem whem I'm using easy powders to load like trailboss. But not much window on H-110! So how do we make sure our loading is safe for initial experimentation?

We have to understand what makes the powder inherently safe or unsafe. And make sure we factor out as many of those safety issues as possible.

Not too many people are willing to follow that logic path, sadly. I do appreciate your input on that matter.

[Whiterabbit]

Whiterabbit:


You start low and work up. In a magnum caliber your max is the sticking point. If I loaded my revolvers to max case capacity, I'd need a sledge hammer to get those cases out. Or maybe they'd find the "side exit" way of getting extracted. Remember, a bullet is moving before powder ignites. That affects capacity.

Bingo, but H-110 is a special case, given manufacture recommendations to not deviate 3% from max loads. That makes estimating where I need to be REALLY hard. I have to hope I nailed it? I don;t have that much faith. Better to understand the mechanics of it and use that to load as safe as possible during the work up.

[44MAG#1]

Anyone that doubts me load Speers max load of H110 which is 20.5 grs with a Mag primer and 260 gr JHP and position the powder differnt places in the case and get back to me. Better yet use their start loads and work up doing it and then tell me the load data makes sense.
Now keep in mind that their max load with a 300 gr JSP is 23.5 gr.

[Whiterabbit]

...do this seating that jhp deep so the base is on the powder? :)

[44MAG#1]

One could being careful and crimping over the ogive.

[Whiterabbit]

or shoot them one at a time and not crimp at all. Remember, my point was about powder and pressure safety, not feeding, cycling, *jumping crimp*, accuracy, etc.

[Frank]

Lyman lists for 44 mag and 250 grn PB bullet 20.8 grains as a starting load with mag primers. There are no precautions about minimum charges. It does say 'bullets must be well crimped' to prevent movement during recoil. Movement changes capacity. Capacity affects minimum charge. Right?

[44MAG#1]

Movement, movement, movement. I would say so if we didn't have movement the bullet wouldn't come out of the muzzle end. So I guess if the bullet travels there are changes in capacity. Capacity can be figured easily by diameter squared times .7854 times the position the bullet is in in any point in time as it MOVES down the barrel
Just as an example: If the base of the bullet in a 45 colt case is .1.100 from the bottom of the inside bottom of the case the capacity is .175 cu in then if it moves to 1.5 inches from the bottom of the case the capacity is now .240 cu in.. then if it moves 6 inches from the bottom of the case the capacity is then ,963 cu in. We all know that if we can figure. I can figure.
This is assuming .452 diameter inside case dimensions. But as we know the case is tapered and that is not completely correct but it show that volumn increases the farther the base of the bullet is from the inside bottom of the case.
Since the OP said 45 Colt this is what i am referring to okay?
Okay now???

[44MAG#1]

"All bullets must be well crimped to prevent bullet movement under recoil." This is a direct quote from the Lyman 49th manual on the 44 Remington Magnum. I have it too.

[TheDoctor]

Might try calling Hodgdon and asking about your load. Personally, I NEVER use H-110 with cast. I'ver loaded 45 Colt with max loads of H-110, and according to my conversations with them, do not exceed max loads, and do not go under minimum loads. And that can be a very small difference sometimes. If I recall, on 44 mag, minimum for 240 jacketed is 23 grains, but max is 24 grains. One grain difference. But the pressure jumps from 25000 cup, to 35000 cup with that one grain. I've had 45 Colt clock 1300 fps at 40 degrees, and the same load batch clock 1500 fps at 70 degrees. Call Hodgdon. This powder does not give room for error.

[44MAG#1]

The title of this thread is, and I quote: H110 + 45 colt = Hangfire

[TheDoctor]

Sorry, wasn't trying to take the thread off topic, just trying to advise caution about going outside normal realms with this powder. Hodgdon does not list data for cast with this until you get into TC/Ruger only loads, then with a minimum bullet weight of 325 grains.

[44MAG#1]

That is because of the low chamber pressure of the standard 45 colt loads. 14000psi/15500cup.
Okay what do we do now? People have used H110 in the 45 colt for years. As I stated before ina post one of the most respected revolversmiths recommends H110 and is his favorite powder with 250 to 270 gr bullets in it.
Okay now how do we handle this discrepancy?

[Tar Heel]

Yup...all of the above. H110 is NOT a good propellant for the 45 Colt. Other - "more better" propellants are available. Whatever propellant you decide to use, a good roll crimp is beneficial too.

[Tar Heel]

Might try calling Hodgdon and asking about your load. Personally, I NEVER use H-110 with cast. I'ver loaded 45 Colt with max loads of H-110, and according to my conversations with them, do not exceed max loads, and do not go under minimum loads. And that can be a very small difference sometimes. If I recall, on 44 mag, minimum for 240 jacketed is 23 grains, but max is 24 grains. One grain difference. But the pressure jumps from 25000 cup, to 35000 cup with that one grain. I've had 45 Colt clock 1300 fps at 40 degrees, and the same load batch clock 1500 fps at 70 degrees. Call Hodgdon. This powder does not give room for error.

May I suggest rather than calling the propellant manufacturer that you instead purchase their reloading manual(s) if you have not done so yet. Propellant choices and load ranges are clearly indicated in those manuals. While H110 may not be a particularly good propellant for standard 45 Colt loads, it is an EXCELLENT propellant when used for magnum loads (in all calibers) with HEAVY roll crimps and when sparked off with magnum primers. Of course, all this is indicated in load manuals too. Cast bullets perform very well with H110 and its brother propellant 296. Accurate Arms #9 works well too with cast bullets.

Having loaded cast bullets over H110 and 296 for over 30 years now, I still have all my fingers and some of my best shot groups are with H110.

[44MAG#1]

H110 is fine if loaded to a charge level that it will perform well. Getting people to understand that is the problem.
Better powders does not make another powder no good.

[btroj]

H110 is fine in a 45 Colt using heavy loads. It is using reduced loads that get you into trouble.

I have used a 265 gr cast in my 45 Colt with good results. I was using well oer 21 gr however.

While Hornady and Speer may list loss using lower charges I will stick to wha Hodgdons says and not reduce loads over 3%.

[Tar Heel]

Gentlemen, H110 IS a great propellant - just not in the 45 Colt standard load. I just checked the Hodgdon Load manual and NOWHERE is H110 specified for the 45 Colt when using bullets from 160-300 grains in a standard 45 Colt load. It is specified when loading the 45 Colt to higher pressures for the Ruger, T/C Contender, and Freedom Arms revolvers. Again - it is called for in the Magnum section of loads - not in standard loads.

Take a look if you want to at their online load data too: http://data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp

[44MAG#1]

If one will look at the answer i gave to "the doctor" concerning Hodgdons loading data for the 45 Colt my answer was: That is because of the low chamber pressure of the standard 45 colt loads. 14000psi/15500cup.
No one has said that H110/W296 was good for standard pressure loads. Where did we say that???

[subsonic]

One other thing, it was new brass.


Neck tension. Did they seat easy? Pay attention to what you feel on the press handle. Also do not OVER crimp, as that can kill your neck tension by bulging the brass directly below the crimp. Run your calipers over a case that you have just crimped. If the needle swings to a bigger number as you pass the crimp, you have crimped too much and lessened neck tension.

Plus H110 is not really ideal for reduced loads. Jury also still sequestered on the Wolf primers vs ? You also mention that as being a standard primer.

So you have a below starting load.
Standard primer.
Light(ish) boolit.
Bad neck tension.

Don't do that again! :holysheep

You might get away with bending one or two rules, but not all of them.

[Rocky Raab]

So here's the summary:

tommie boy used the wrong powder for that cartridge and load. He used the wrong amount of that wrong powder. He used the wrong primer for that powder. He may have used the wrong amount of crimp.

The manuals warn against doing it. Most of the posters here warn against doing it. Tommie boy's own reported experience warns against doing it.

Will any of this change tommie boy's future loading decisions? We can only hope.

[btroj]

Rocky pretty well summed it up.

I personally don't use H110 in my 45 Colt any more. I just don't need to run those kinds of pressures or velocities.

[44MAG#1]

I'm sure he got that load somewhere as most are to cautious to develope their own loads. The problems lay in not knowing how to test a slow or hard to ignite powder to see if it is feesible at the levels one wants to use.
Position sensitive is just a simple test that anyone can check.

[Tar Heel]

Rocky pretty well summed it up.

I personally don't use H110 in my 45 Colt any more. I just don't need to run those kinds of pressures or velocities.

Yup...'nuf said.

[Rocky Raab]

Oh, I'd disagree with "most are to (sic) cautious to develope (sic) their own loads."

How often have we been told "Manuals are only a guide?" Or, "Published load data is limited by lawyers?" Those and other lines are used to rationalize going off on somebody's own brave new world of load data all the time - on this website.

This event has nothing whatever to do with position sensitivity, and I don't think anybody mentioned it until now.

[44MAG#1]

Can you give scientific proof that the powder in the loads he used in colder weather wasn't in the forward part of the case?
I have had loads that were on the ragged edge of being too low give problems. His density was too low to keep the powder close enough to the primer in conjunction with the colder weather and it caused a problem.
I have used standard primers myself and still do with 45 Colt data and H110 powder but my density is high enough to keep the powder back closer to the primer. And i shoot in colder weather too.
Now not to belabor the point but when you are using a charge that varies velocity alot depending on where the powder lays in the case that makes the powder position sensitive at that point even if it isn't when loaded to regular levels in charge weight.
One can due to using powders in inappropriate amount can make a powder position sensitive even if it normally isn't. It is operator error. Not necessarily powder error or powder quirks.

[tomme boy]

The neck tension and crimp are good. I spent about an hour today beating the hell out of my impact bullet puller taking apart about 75 of these.

What still seems strange to me, is how only the powder at the front of the case was burned. So to me, it was a flashover.

I poped off a couple of the Wolf primers to see how loud and the force of the primer had. I then loaded a couple with Win LP primers. I took the 2 two Win and put a black mark on the case with a marker and put them in my pocket with two Wolf primed. I did not want to know what I was grabing. I then inserted one in the gun a fired the primer. I then did this for the other three. I can say that the Win seems to have more power than the Wolf. The onces I marked were louder and threw some sparks out the end. The Wolf did not throw any sparks.

So, I am going to say that the Wolf Primers are not to be used with a ball powder, unless they use a mag strength primer. Just like the same problems the guys are having with the standard rifle primers are having with ball primers.

Also, some of the mag primers made by Wolf an Tula are not the same as domestic made mag primers. They rate the Mag primers as a thicker cup material. So that is one other thing that needs to be watched for when using these.

Could someone please point out where it says not to reduce H110 loads as I can not find it anywhere. I also have the last 3 editions of Hornady manuals as well as the last 2 Nosler an Sierras. What I do not have is any cast loading books. I will admit that I should get a couple of them. I also know that my rifle will handle loads up to 60K psi. I am not running anything near that area. I am mostly trying to run in the 15-30K range. I have a bunch of loads that use red dot that I use for plinking. I had a bunch of H110 that I wanted to try. That was the reason for a reduced load. Everyone always says to reduse the load if it is a first time trying that load. That was what happened.

I have also had H335 and 748 win do this same thing. But both of them, it was a weak primer. Both times it was in a 303 Brit case and a middle of the listed data load. So it CAN happen to a powder that is not redused. Just like was said in another post about load position of the powder. In this case, a mag primer took care of it. Ball powders are just hard to ignite.

This post has turned into a very imformative post. I hope all have taken something away from it. I know I have. One thing I learned is Wolf standard pistol primers are not that strong. I think I am going to keep these for use in my 45acp. I also learned the burning caracter of this powder. So keep adding to the post as needed to further the learning.

[44MAG#1]

It can happen with a CCI mag primer. The incidents I mentioned were with a CCI MAGNUM primer. The density wss too low. Once the density was right it stopped.
Even with Standard primers and the correct density the loads will be consistant.
Simple. Direct. No fuss no muss.

[Rocky Raab]

Pardon me, 44Mag#1, but you say you have used H110 in the 45 Colt in reduced loads with standard primers...

...and then you say few reloaders venture outside what the manuals recommend?

Friend, you just sawed through the limb you were sitting on.

[mustanggt]

I've use H110 for quite a few years now in 44 mag. and M1 carbine. I just follow the Hodgdon manual for the load and stick to it. It is much easier than going through all that some people do and make a situation worse by not keeping it simple. This powder is not like working up loads in other firearms. It pretty much is 1 grain from min to max and that is not much room to work. You can play with other powders but this you can't, so don't. If you want to play with loading use another powder. Also I'm not smart enough to deviate from the manual like some folks seem to want to do. The experts are at the powder companies so I leave it to them and I follow what they say to do. That makes life simpler and leaves me happy to shoot more. [smilie=w:

[44MAG#1]

Rocky Raab:

I experiment quite a bit. i am an exception to the rule. i am not tied to any loading book but use them for what they are just a guide with ever changing parameters depending on the circumstances that are in place at that time.
Now what else do you want to question me about?
Through experimenting with the very situation I mentioned using a low charge weigth of H110 and positioning the charge in front of the case and in the rear and chronographing i found out to my satisfaction that H110 is a position sensitive powder brought on my the operator themselves.
Not if the powder is used appropriate for the application.
Now what else do you want to know?\
Anyone who has been loading as long as i have knows that experimentation in varying situations is what one wants to do. Not take a book as the absolute authority in anything.
My Speer #14 manual had some misprints in ti so Speer sent me a new one. If you have one of the very first on the market better check it. Even sent a box with a shipping label for me to send it in.

[btroj]

Rocky, I think you are beating ypur head against a wall. I suggest you stop before it gives you a headache. I sure know I have one. The again, I try to explain things in a Scientific manner to boost my ego.

I'm out

[Frank]

Talk about low charges, Lyman #4 shows .475 Linebaugh 20.2 min, 22.5 max H110 with the RCBS 400. I shot that bullet with 26.5 grains 296 into 1" at 50 yards with my handgun. I didn't get any hang fires. [smilie=l:

[Bwana]

Say what you will, this has been one hell of a ride. I have another phenomena which I have mentioned some time ago in another thread. I think I'll start a new thread about it tomorrow. It is very interesting.

[giz189]

The neck tension and crimp are good. I spent about an hour today beating the hell out of my impact bullet puller taking apart about 75 of these.

What still seems strange to me, is how only the powder at the front of the case was burned. So to me, it was a flashover.

I poped off a couple of the Wolf primers to see how loud and the force of the primer had. I then loaded a couple with Win LP primers. I took the 2 two Win and put a black mark on the case with a marker and put them in my pocket with two Wolf primed. I did not want to know what I was grabing. I then inserted one in the gun a fired the primer. I then did this for the other three. I can say that the Win seems to have more power than the Wolf. The onces I marked were louder and threw some sparks out the end. The Wolf did not throw any sparks.

So, I am going to say that the Wolf Primers are not to be used with a ball powder, unless they use a mag strength primer. Just like the same problems the guys are having with the standard rifle primers are having with ball primers.

Also, some of the mag primers made by Wolf an Tula are not the same as domestic made mag primers. They rate the Mag primers as a thicker cup material. So that is one other thing that needs to be watched for when using these.

Could someone please point out where it says not to reduce H110 loads as I can not find it anywhere. I also have the last 3 editions of Hornady manuals as well as the last 2 Nosler an Sierras. What I do not have is any cast loading books. I will admit that I should get a couple of them. I also know that my rifle will handle loads up to 60K psi. I am not running anything near that area. I am mostly trying to run in the 15-30K range. I have a bunch of loads that use red dot that I use for plinking. I had a bunch of H110 that I wanted to try. That was the reason for a reduced load. Everyone always says to reduse the load if it is a first time trying that load. That was what happened.

I have also had H335 and 748 win do this same thing. But both of them, it was a weak primer. Both times it was in a 303 Brit case and a middle of the listed data load. So it CAN happen to a powder that is not redused. Just like was said in another post about load position of the powder. In this case, a mag primer took care of it. Ball powders are just hard to ignite.

This post has turned into a very imformative post. I hope all have taken something away from it. I know I have. One thing I learned is Wolf standard pistol primers are not that strong. I think I am going to keep these for use in my 45acp. I also learned the burning caracter of this powder. So keep adding to the post as needed to further the learning. tomme boy, WW 296 and H110 are the same powder. Powder companies have acknowledged this. You can google or search this site to find that out. Winchester says do not reduce their published loadings for their 296 powder, ie H110. Also, if you can find or pick up one of the publications Winchester Western prints and gives to the gun stores that sell powder, you will find it so stated in those publications. They also recommend using magnum LP primers for some ignition. Some folks agree, some dont. Me, I am a dumba@@ if the people who make the powder tell me not to do something with it, I usually will listen to them. Just my .02 worth.

[TXGunNut]

Could someone please point out where it says not to reduce H110 loads as I can not find it anywhere.-tomme boy


When "Min" and "Max" are very close together that is a warning to me that the powder is only suitable under very narrow conditions. Also when manuals (eg Lee) don't even list a load for that powder and boolit that generally gives me reason to pause and reflect.
Yes, I have a 296 load for my RBH 45 Colt and a 300 gr Hornady XTPbullet. Nope, it's not a reduced load, it doesn't exceed Hodgdon's max but it's not a load I feel comfortable posting.

[TXGunNut]

Whiterabbit, save your breath.

Nice try.

[leadman]

The warning on not reducing 110/296 is on the home page of the Hodgdon Reloading Data Center website.
This is the part that shows the warning:

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%.

[44MAG#1]

BUT, then again you will see data on Hodgdons site that is reduced by more than 10 percent with H110.
Actually by 12 percent.
In the 45 Colt data even.

[TheDoctor]

The 3 percent warning is for loads that do not show a starting load.

[44MAG#1]

Just to give an example of how load data is confusing here is an example: I checked a can/jar/container of H110 and no where did it say reduce only loads that do no show a starting charge by no more than 3 percent.
It does give some example loads on the front of the vessel that is max loads that says: Maximum Loads-Do Not Exceed-Reduce By 3 Percent.
BUT, if you will look at the loading from the data center for the 44 Rem Mag you will see the data for the Swift 280 gr. JHP with a starting load of H110 of 18.5 gr H110 and a max of 20.5 H110. which is reduced by 10 percent. (rounded for simplicity)
Now I can give some more examples such as their load for the 260 FA JSP bullet in the 454 Casull data that is reduced by 6 percent. This from the vessel of powder as opposed to their load data. Vessel "no more than 3 percent" Data center 6 percent.
More than likely I could give more examples but these should suffice.
Okay now.

[Larry Gibson]

Well, I've had this very same type of missfire with full loads of H110 in the .357, .41 and .44 magnums using magnum primers in each with nominal weight (160, 210 and 250 gr) cast bullets. Then if we throw in the larger expansion ratio of the .45 Colt with such a reduced load of H110 under a nominal weight cast bullet for that cartridge with a standard primer and probably cold weather to boot then, to me, the missfire should be expected rather than an anomily. We can argue or disagree all we want about what manuals say or don't say and other essoteric stuff but the fact remains that such a .45 Colt load is not a good one with H110 and all of this discusion is not going to change that. Use 2400 or 4227.

Larry Gibson

[44MAG#1]

If one will go to my post at #12 you will see where I memtioned 2400 as a better powder.

[Rocky Raab]

Good advice, btroj. I'll follow it and the words in 44Mag#1's own sig line - even if he himself doesn't.

[mustanggt]

Touche' Rocky! :smile:

[tomme boy]

Well, I saved 10 rounds to try them again to see if temp had anything to do with it. Today it was 72 deg here and I went to the range to try my new 300 gr boolits. All 10 went off with no problems. And I did not do anything special to get them to fire. I just inserted them an fired. I had a nice 3" group at 50yds fired off hand. Might have been better if I sat down and tried them, but all I wanted to do was get rid of them.

[Frank]

tomme boy:

I just inserted them an fired. I had a nice 3" group at 50yds fired off hand. Might have been better if I sat down and tried them, but all I wanted to do was get rid of them.
You have a good load and you also shoot good too. The guy behind the grip, not just the loading bench, is what has to perform also, and it sounds like you are up to the task. Great job!

[44MAG#1]

If it is a good load how come he had trouble with it in cool temps? A good load needs to fire in cool temps too.
Now the velocity and accuracy may vary some in cooler weather but they should still fire.
Wouldn't you agree?

[tomme boy]

I agree. I wanted to test this load. and it was a good test. It showed that it is a very marginal load. One that I cannot rely on. If any of the differant loads I shoot are tempermental, I will not use it.

[Frank]

44mag#1:

If it is a good load how come he had trouble with it in cool temps? A good load needs to fire in cool temps too.
Now the velocity and accuracy may vary some in cooler weather but they should still fire.
Wouldn't you agree?
He has an accuracy standard now. What is the load, temp, primer, crimp, powder charge?
When he tries it in cold weather, he can make the adjustment to more powder, hotter primer.

[44MAG#1]

So the load can be bettered as far as performance which factors in to the equation of a good load?

[Frank]

44mag#1:

So the load can be bettered as far as performance which factors in to the equation of a good load?
Maybe by a magazine scribbler's standard it is no load, but by The average American internet hand loader, it is his standard load. He has others also. At least two, or three, or four! He knows what load to make, for what, and can make the right final adjustment, tailored to his need.

[lead chucker]

I have a ruger black hawk convertible and I was loading about the same load you are talking about and had similar results never had a stuck bullet but the recoil was not consistent so I switched to unique and 2400. I do like H110 for my heavy bullets. I have a little more H110 to shoot up and am pretty much exclusive 2400 in my 44 and 45 colt.

[44MAG#1]

H110 in appropriate density loadings is okay. Appropriate density is the key word.