Which Powder 357 and 44 Full Power Loads?

[Michael J. Spangler]

Hi guys,

I'm looking to settle on a powder for full power 357 and 44 mag loads for my 686, 629 and my 1894C (357).
My main concerns being to able to meter consistently, being able to reach the higher velocities listed for these cartridges and not having a powder that is known for gas cutting top straps and eating away forcing cones like Lil Gun is known for. I know that gas cutting is self limiting, but either way I would like to limit it on my nice pre lock S&W revolvers as much as possible.
I've read that gas cutting appears mostly with light for cartridge bullets due to how the powder burns and the bullets being shorter so they can clear the cylinder before they're fully engaged in the forcing cone letting lots of gas pass by. I plan on sticking to the standard to heavy weight bullets in each cartridge. Either 158 SWC up to 180 RNFP in the 357 and a 250 SWC or a 300 RNFP in the 44 Magnum. I would imagine that would help the issue but if I can help with the proper powder that makes me happy too.
I know H110/296 is kind of king for velocity but supposedly has gas cutting issues to an extent though not as bad as Lil Gun. In all of the magnum powders I've researched between Hodgdon and Alliant (they seem to be the easiest to get in my area) they're mostly spherical (also an issue with flame cutting from my reading) except for the 4227 which is extruded. It seems it will get me top speeds in both cartridges without all the fuss of hard to meter super fine ball powder or the flame cutting.
There are other powders that seem to do the job pretty well in one or cartridge (W231 in the 44 mag with 240s) but lack in the other. Also they don't always give a reasonable gain in the rifle which is something I really need so I can hopefully use the 1894 for a deer rifle.

What can the experts give me for input? Anyone have any data of 4227 in their revolvers or lever guns? Thanks for all the help! Am I on the right track?

[NSB]

I've been shooting revolvers and lever guns in pistol cartridges for many, many years now. I'm not exaggerating when I say I've shot at least 75lbs of 296 over the years in numerous .357mag (my favorite caliber) and 44mags. I've tried, and keep on hand, a very large supply of different powders and I can state emphatically that I've never found a better powder than 296/110 for those calibers. In fact, right now I have nine pounds of 296 sitting in my loading cabinet. I've gotten some decent-good accuracy with other powders and if I couldn't get 296 I wouldn't hesitate to use them with complete confidence. However, being able to get 296 I don't even think about it. It's the easiest metering powder I've ever used, produces the best velocities, and shoots the best groups. That now being said, my second choice for both of those calibers is 2400. Nearly as good but always a runner-up. As far as 4227, it's not at it's best in the 357mag. It's my goto powder for my 357MAX though. You aren't going to be ruining any guns using 296. I've met very few people who've shot more of it than I have and I haven't hurt a gun yet using it. If you want your guns to stay in "as new condition", don't shoot them.

[Michael J. Spangler]

I've been shooting revolvers and lever guns in pistol cartridges for many, many years now. I'm not exaggerating when I say I've shot at least 75lbs of 296 over the years in numerous .357mag (my favorite caliber) and 44mags. I've tried, and keep on hand, a very large supply of different powders and I can state emphatically that I've never found a better powder than 296/110 for those calibers. In fact, right now I have nine pounds of 296 sitting in my loading cabinet. I've gotten some decent-good accuracy with other powders and if I couldn't get 296 I wouldn't hesitate to use them with complete confidence. However, being able to get 296 I don't even think about it. It's the easiest metering powder I've ever used, produces the best velocities, and shoots the best groups. That now being said, my second choice for both of those calibers is 2400. Nearly as good but always a runner-up. As far as 4227, it's not at it's best in the 357mag. It's my goto powder for my 357MAX though. You aren't going to be ruining any guns using 296. I've met very few people who've shot more of it than I have and I haven't hurt a gun yet using it. If you want your guns to stay in "as new condition", don't shoot them.

thank you.
what kind of loads are you using in your 44 and 357? heavy bullets or light? cast or jacketed?

[NSB]

Over the last forty years I've shot over 50 whitetail with 357mags. I've used bullets from 140g up to 180g. I've personally found the 158g to be the best compromise for penetration and expansion. The 180g will shoot as well and penetrate a bit better but will not expand as well. I can usually get complete pass through in the ribs under thirty-five yards.....usually. After than the bullet usually stops on the off side under the hide. I know this is a cast bullet site but I'll fess up and tell the truth.....most were shot with jacketed bullets. Almost all were Hornady XTPs. Some were Speer half jacketed 146g HP, and a few with Sierra 158g bullets. Hornady XTPs seem to shoot better groups for me. With the Hornady 158g XTP I use 15.7g of 296 and with the 44mag I use the 240g Hornady XTP with 24.2g of 296. With cast bullets, which I've used on occasion, I use a 158g round nose flat point in the 357 with 2400 powder. I'm not against cast bullets in any way for shooting or hunting. I've just had better grouping and better expansion with the Hornady XTP bullets. With the larger calibers a hard cast works better than it does in the smaller calibers simply due to the bigger bullet creating a larger wound channel. I'm sure some very experienced cast bullet shooters will have a lot to add to this post and I'll defer to their expertise in that area. I just haven't been bitten as hard as them in that area.

[runfiverun]

well 4227 will get you top end velocity's unfortunately it has a bad habit of getting stupid in the heat.
blue-dot has issues in the cold and doesn't play well with some combinations in the two cartridges either.

this leaves you some other choices, AA#9, 2400, or AA-4100 come to mind right off.
these are all ball type powders too.
but their gonna give you velocity's that stop where H-110 starts.
enforcer might be an alternate powder too but again it's a ball powder.

the ball powders are how you get a large weight of powder in a case to produce the gas volume you need for the higher velocity's.

[jonp]

Ive shot thousands of magnum 357, 41, 45lc and to a lesser extent 44mag loads in blackhawks, sp and gp and sw's using h110. I have not noticed any cutting problems but there are guys and gals here with far more experiance than me.

In my opinion, h110/w296 reigns supreme in full power pistol loads. If im fooling around top end for some reason its what I reach for.

I have 10lbs reserved for max pistol loads on my shelf and for 25yrs have never been without it or unique

[bhn22]

Unfortunately, all high intensity ball powders can be erosive when loaded to the max. Flake and extruded powders are a bit less erosive, but don't offer the all-out performance you want. I gave up on IMR4227 long ago because of it's personality disorders, as mentioned earlier. I suppose you could experiment with Herco, it's between Unique and Blue Dot in burning rate, but again, it's a compromise. 2400 has worked well for me in the past, but it's almost unobtainable right now. I doubt you'll find anything that offers an equitable compromise between performance, and reduced wear and tear on the gun.

[BD]

For heavier boolits in serious loads in the .357 and .44 mag I have had excellent results with: 296, H110, "slow" lots of WC 820, and WC297 if you can find any. I stay away from Lil Gun and 4227 due to the aforementioned personality issues.

Using lighter boolits in lighter loads, there are more acceptable options, but for serious business loads, the H110 class rules.

[osteodoc08]

296, 2400, AA#9, and even Lil Gun.

[NSB]

296, 2400, AA#9, and even Lil Gun.

You laid them out in perfect order.

[jonp]

I dont know about the cutting part. Has anyone here loaded and shot full house 44mag to the extent they started to notice and if so what was the round count?

[kenyerian]

Plus 1 on 296/110. I also use 2400 and Little Gun. I have not tried AA#9.

[9w1911]

Ive played around with lots of powders for 44mag. Some are fantastic at the range plinking, 17gr of Blue Dot, 19gr of 2400, 11 gr Unique, 20gr 4227, But for example sake, if I were to take the rifle with me on and excursion to Alaska, or Canada, or for hunting. I would be loading up nothing but my h110. I think it is ok to have powder performance variations at the range, but not when it counts. I have quite a lot of 296/h110/wc820 and I started to cull the random pounds of stuff that kinda works in 44. I am however just starting to load some aa4100 - 18.5gr 4100 under 250gr HG503 Keith.

*I do love 800x in 44, this is becoming my plinking powder for 44, it is just accurate.

**Full house - h110/296

I have not checked but can enforcer, wc820, 4100, aa9 reach h110/296 top end performance?

[Michael J. Spangler]

Ok I think it's time to get some H100 or 296 and run some loads to see how it does. I would love to stick with cast just because I made them myself and want to kill and animal with my own boolits.
Speaking of 2400 being unobtanium...... I'm sitting on a 4# keg with about a dozen 44 mag loads taken out and the pound in the back that I forgot about only had about 2 dozen 357 mag loads out of it. I just don't think it will give the top performance I'm looking for. I guess I need to load up some test rounds and shoot them over the chrono to see exactly what 2400 can do in my carbine.

[osteodoc08]

You laid them out in perfect order.

Thank you sir. That's about the way I use them.

[osteodoc08]

I dont know about the cutting part. Has anyone here loaded and shot full house 44mag to the extent they started to notice and if so what was the round count?

i have some forcing cone erosion on my 41. It is a Smif 57-1. It has worn to a certain degree and has pretty much stopped as far as the eye can tell. Round count is in the 10's of thousands. Maybe 20-30% of that 296. My SS RedHawks in 357/41/45 show no discernible wear or erosion. I shoot my Smithy the most. It probably needs a factory refreshening anyhow.

[sghart3578]

296, 2400, AA#9, and even Lil Gun.


This.

[Michael J. Spangler]

Ok do any of the hardcore magnum shooters have pictures of their forcing cones and top straps after said massive amounts of shooting?
I would love to compare a few. Thanks guys!

[Motor]

That's easy. W-296 or H-110 which Hodgdon's own data (who markets both of them) suggests are basically the same powder.

Motor

[Elkins45]

2400 if you can get it, because it's also just so useful for other stuff. Lots of folds would say H-110 as well, and it has the advantage of being available right now while 2400 is darned near unobtainable. I prefer 2400 because it has all the advantages of lighting like a flake powder but metering more like ball.

H-110/296 doesn't like to be loaded down but 2400 tolerates it much better, and you generally won't need magnum primers for 2400.

[DougGuy]

2400 gets it's best results with lighter than 240gr boolits. 296/H110 (which btw is the SAME powder, made in the SAME plant, just labeled for different buyers) is the go-to for heavier for caliber loads in the .44 mag cartridge. The .44 really shines with 300gr boolits and full house charges of H110. The only "personality" trait that 296/H110 has, is that it does not like to be downloaded.

I have found 2400 and LilGun to be most excellent for bringing the heavy boolit .44 into the 75% ~ 90% power band that this cartridge is capable of, this is something that 296/H110 should NOT be used for.

One of my favorite loads, and THE most accurate out of my 7 1/2" SBH is the Lee C430-310-RF cast in 50/50+2% with GC, Felix lube, over 17.0gr 2400, seated in the bottom crimp groove in Starline brass with WLP primers. A very respectable and reliable 1200fps load. Zero leading, black bore and lube star at the muzzle.

[MT Chambers]

MP-300 is velocity king for me, of course that is not as important as accuracy, but it is as accurate as the rest.

[atr]

great post...thanks guys

[perotter]

For full power loads for 1894 in .357 mag I quit using 2400. H110, 296 and WC820 were all easily more accurate. I've shot 1,000s of rounds of these.

[Shottist]

WC-820 is/was the standard powder for 30 carbine military loads. It was sold in 8-pound jugs and I bought several jugs some years ago. Hodgdon H-110 is a particular lot of WC-820 and is equivalent to Win. 296. Hodgdon has published the data for H-110. Other lots of WC-820 have a slightly different burning rate. I use WC-820 in both 357 and 44 Magnum reloads, with both hard cast and jacketed bullets. Have a chronograph, a 4-digit mike and a Ransom rest that I used to develop these loads years ago. Still going well. WC-820 meters uniformly, being a ball powder. It is not good for light or reduced loads, but great for heavy loads. I am totally satisfied with it (or with H-110 or 296 as well except for the price) for my S&W revolvers and also an older Marlin carbine.

[outdoorfan]

Hi guys,

I'm looking to settle on a powder for full power 357 and 44 mag loads for my 686, 629 and my 1894C (357).
My main concerns being to able to meter consistently, being able to reach the higher velocities listed for these cartridges and not having a powder that is known for gas cutting top straps and eating away forcing cones like Lil Gun is known for. I know that gas cutting is self limiting, but either way I would like to limit it on my nice pre lock S&W revolvers as much as possible.
I've read that gas cutting appears mostly with light for cartridge bullets due to how the powder burns and the bullets being shorter so they can clear the cylinder before they're fully engaged in the forcing cone letting lots of gas pass by. I plan on sticking to the standard to heavy weight bullets in each cartridge. Either 158 SWC up to 180 RNFP in the 357 and a 250 SWC or a 300 RNFP in the 44 Magnum. I would imagine that would help the issue but if I can help with the proper powder that makes me happy too.
I know H110/296 is kind of king for velocity but supposedly has gas cutting issues to an extent though not as bad as Lil Gun. In all of the magnum powders I've researched between Hodgdon and Alliant (they seem to be the easiest to get in my area) they're mostly spherical (also an issue with flame cutting from my reading) except for the 4227 which is extruded. It seems it will get me top speeds in both cartridges without all the fuss of hard to meter super fine ball powder or the flame cutting.
There are other powders that seem to do the job pretty well in one or cartridge (W231 in the 44 mag with 240s) but lack in the other. Also they don't always give a reasonable gain in the rifle which is something I really need so I can hopefully use the 1894 for a deer rifle.

What can the experts give me for input? Anyone have any data of 4227 in their revolvers or lever guns? Thanks for all the help! Am I on the right track?


What length is your revolver barrels? I find that in my 4" 686 I get best velocity with 2400 or aa9. H110 takes a back seat, I presume because 4" isn't enough barrel length to get full power out of that powder. In my 4 5/8 .45 Colt BH with 340 grains of lead, then H110 seems to shine quite well. However, I found it takes a heavy for caliber boolit to make H110 work well.

In my .357 levergun, it's not even close. Lilgun (which I realize you're not favorable of) beat H110 by a wide margin. I haven't tried mp-300. Btw, I only shoot a few full power loads every once in awhile (in the lever gun). My everyday load is a 150 gr 360640 at 1300 fps using Unique. It's accurate and is thrifty on powder. The Lyman 66 receiver sight allows me to very quickly change zeros back and forth between the two loads. Something to consider.

[robg]

2400 good for rifle too,meters well

[Michael J. Spangler]

I have a 4" 686 that I'm going to compare loads of 296 (bought a pound yesterday) and 2400 loads in. lets see if the 4" can make use of the 296 or if it will just throw an ever bigger fireball
I know the 296 will give great results in the carbine. 16.5" should be awesome. If it works well in the 1894 i'll keep with it in the 686 too even if it doesn't give much increase in velocity over 2400 in the 686. I hate having all kinds of loads for different firearms. I want one 38 special load and one 357 load!

[Blackwater]

My experience has been that 296 or H110 will give a bit higher velocities, but 2400 often gives slightly better accuracy with cast. 296/H110 is also noted for causing cuts in the top of the frame at the barrel/cylinder gap, though most report these little cuts are not critical to the strength of the usually "overbuilt" frames, and they carbonize fairly quickly and stop cutting at that point. For me, it's always depended on which powder produced the best accuracy, and the only way to determine that is by shooting both and seeing which your gun likes.

For guns that don't have a B/C gap, like single shots (Contenders, etc.) and autos (Desert Eagles, etc.) I'd WANT to pursue 296/H220 for their higher velocities, but again, accuracy would be the final determinant. Only hits really matter, and the more accurately the better.

[jonp]

i have some forcing cone erosion on my 41. It is a Smif 57-1. It has worn to a certain degree and has pretty much stopped as far as the eye can tell. Round count is in the 10's of thousands. Maybe 20-30% of that 296. My SS RedHawks in 357/41/45 show no discernible wear or erosion. I shoot my Smithy the most. It probably needs a factory refreshening anyhow.
I was not clear. I was speaking specificaly towards 296/110 on this

[Shiloh]

296 or 2400 is my only experience. That was .357. I no longer shoot anything more than midrange loads.

Shiloh

[dragon813gt]

H110/W296 is the original 357 magnum powder. You can't beat it for top velocities. And accuracy has only been beat by LilGun for me. But I won't use that powder anymore. If you want a powder that can be loaded down some then 2400 is what you want.

[bhn22]

i have some forcing cone erosion on my 41. It is a Smif 57-1. It has worn to a certain degree and has pretty much stopped as far as the eye can tell. Round count is in the 10's of thousands. Maybe 20-30% of that 296. My SS RedHawks in 357/41/45 show no discernible wear or erosion. I shoot my Smithy the most. It probably needs a factory refreshening anyhow.

Ruger uses a proprietary formulated stainless steel that was designed from the beginning to be especially abrasion resistant. S&W doesn't have access to this formula, and their stainless isn't as abrasion resistant. And of course you don't have the concern of the Rugers getting loose anywhere as quickly as a Smith will.

[Michael J. Spangler]

Ruger uses a proprietary formulated stainless steel that was designed from the beginning to be especially abrasion resistant. S&W doesn't have access to this formula, and their stainless isn't as abrasion resistant. And of course you don't have the concern of the Rugers getting loose anywhere as quickly as a Smith will.
I find that a little hard to believe. I guess that ruger uses a different steel and it could be more abrasion resistant but All S&W would need to do is buy a ruger and cut it a piece off to send out to be analyzed if they felt they needed to match their performance. If i remember correctly the 357 MAX was discontinued by ruger because they had some many issues with top strap cutting.

I was just looking at my lyman 49th with load data for a 4" barrel with a 358156 and also with 158 XTPs and it doesn't seem that H110 offers much of a velocity increase at all in that weight range. It did make a decent difference in 180 grain loads but still not a surprising amount. I was guessing the 4" barrel just can't benefit from it.
That being said the data for the 20" barrel rifle loads in 158 XTPs show less that 100 FPS gain. I would think it would have been more

I guess I'll load some test round with 2400 and 296 to chrono and see for myself.
Looks like the 296 will do better with 300 grain 44 mags though

[Lloyd Smale]

If I only was to buy one powder for it it would be 2400 it gives top end speeds withing a few fps of what 110 will give you and it also allows you to down load if you don't want full power and that's something that 110 296 aa9 and 4227 aren't real good at. I wont us lil gun anymore. It burns to hot and will do damage to your forcing cone if you shoot more then a few times a year.

[butch2570]

I have never used any myself, but isn't V V N 105 and N 110 slower handgun powders suitable for this?

[dragon813gt]

I have never used any myself, but isn't V V N 105 and N 110 slower handgun powders suitable for this?

Yes, specifically N110. Cost is the reason they typically aren't discussed. They are very clean burning powders that provide very consistent results.

[butch2570]

Yeah, LGS has had 8-9 pounds of N 105 for over 2 yrs for 32.99 and I saw some new stock N 110 at another place for 42.99 I think , but I never slowed down as I passed it. But, if it was a premium performer, I wouldn't be below paying a premium price either. I just don't need it.

[MT Gianni]

WC-820 is/was the standard powder for 30 carbine military loads. It was sold in 8-pound jugs and I bought several jugs some years ago. Hodgdon H-110 is a particular lot of WC-820 and is equivalent to Win. 296. Hodgdon has published the data for H-110. Other lots of WC-820 have a slightly different burning rate. I use WC-820 in both 357 and 44 Magnum reloads, with both hard cast and jacketed bullets. Have a chronograph, a 4-digit mike and a Ransom rest that I used to develop these loads years ago. Still going well. WC-820 meters uniformly, being a ball powder. It is not good for light or reduced loads, but great for heavy loads. I am totally satisfied with it (or with H-110 or 296 as well except for the price) for my S&W revolvers and also an older Marlin carbine.
While some lots of WC820 may have resembled H110/W296 most are closer to AA9 in burning rate. H110/296 data can get you into trouble with the two lots I have bought. The granules of WC820 are different than 110/296, I have a hard time believing that they are a run of 820.

[Petrol & Powder]

I'm not huge fan of magnum loads but I've loaded a shot more than a few. I'm sure that others have more experience but I've had very good results with H110. I found that it worked very well in 44 Special cases loaded above normal 44 special pressures. I've also used it in .357 magnum and 44 magnum loads with excellent results. There may be combinations to squeeze a little bit more velocity out of a particular magnum load but H110 seems to work just fine.

[JesterGrin_1]

As has been the norm for probably many years is that if one is only looking for Magnum loads then W-296,H-110 are the powders to run with. But if you are looking for a more versatile powder that will be darn close to W-296,H-110 but yet can be loaded down and used in many other cartridges including some rifle for cast boolit shooting then it would be 2400.

[jonp]

Yes, specifically N110. Cost is the reason they typically aren't discussed. They are very clean burning powders that provide very consistent results.
VV is spoken of highly by those that use it but I have never tried it due to the price. With the increase in American powders it might not be that far out of whack anymore.

[Michael J. Spangler]

Range report.

So I loaded some rounds with 2400 (between 13 and 14 grains) and some with 15 grains of 296
I didn't shoot them for groups, i just shot at rocks on the 50 yard berm with the 686 4" and the 1894 16.5"
They all shot very well and had no leading with the hi-tek coating. I'm going to load some more and mess around with a chrono next time to see what results I get.

Like I said in my last post and one or two of you also pointed out. I don't think the 296 is going to give me much increase in velocity with this bullet and especially in a 4" revolver.

I'll shoot some groups too to see if I can notice a difference. I think I need some peeps on my 1894 before I mess with shooting groups though.

I did notice that the 2400 had a decent amount more perceived recoil than the 296 did. I want to run them both over a chrono to make sure I'm getting the best burn with the 296 and not missing out on velocity due to a weak crimp or something weird. (though I doubt thats happening)

[Blackwater]

There's really no wrong answer here. I went with 296/H-110 for a while in my .44's and tried it in the .357 too. In .44, I began to notice some gas cutting in the top strap just above the barrel's rear forcing cone, and went back to 2400, even though I hear that carbonization of the tiny cut stops further cutting there. I just couldn't get over the idea, but that's my problem mentally, and doesn't have to be yours. 2400 uses std. primers, and that simplified my stocking list, but that's no biggie either, so it's a toss-up, really, and the best way to decide is to start with a pound of each and try them, and let your gun tell you which it prefers. Try varied loads.

In .357, I used the smallest max listed load of 296 from comparing several manuals with 125 JHP's, and the muzzle blast wrapped around and came back and hit me squarely in the face. VERY unpleasant experience! I knew I needed to up the charge to one of the higher listed loads, but just had enough of 296 with light bullets. Again, my problem, and doesn't necessarily have to be yours. Went to 2400 with the 125's, but soon went to 158's for almost all my .357 shooting, and for that, 296/H-110 proved just fine. 2400 did very well, too, and I liked the lower muzzle flash and slightly lesser muzzle blast of the 2400, and accuracy was pretty much a wash, so I just stuck with 2400 for the esthetics and because my gun shot both well.

Mostly, in questions of this type, we really need to let our gun tell us what IT likes best, and go with that. My eyesight has never been acute enough to shoot really teeny groups with irons, so it was very hard to tell the difference. I have a buddy who I take gun and loads to when I want to get the absolute best that my guns can do. He's a phenomenal shot, and my favorite shooting partner. I always like to shoot with someone who's better than I am. Keeps me focused and competitive, even with the eyesight problems.

[375supermag]

Hi...

I shoot a variety of loads in my .357 and .44Magnums. i use mostly Blue Dot for my .357magnum revolvers. I get good accuracy with both 158gr LSWC and Hornady 1598gr HP/XTPs at the mid-range of the suggested powder charges. I use W296/H110 when I want to go to the upper end of the velocity scale...I don't do that often because I dislike the narrow window that W296/H110 operates in. Having said that, W296/H110 works very well with Hornady 125gr HP/XTPs in my revolvers...several BlackHawks and a S&W 686Silhouette Model. I don't use that load in my Colt Troopers.

I use a lot of Unique in my various .44Magnum revolvers...my standard load is 10.0gr of Unique over a 240gr LSWC. I also use a lot of 2400 for heavier loads in my .44s with the same bullet. On occasion, I shoot some loads with H296/H110 and Hornady 240gr HP/XTPs but I do not shoot those heavy loads in my Model 57...they are reserved for the Dan Wesson, SBH and Virginian Dragoon. Accuracy has been very good if I do my part. I wear a shooting glove when shooting heavy loads in my revolvers and it does help mitigate wear and tear on the shooting hand and wrist. I learned that by getting a stress fracture in my right wrist years ago after shooting way too many heavy loads out of way too many revolvers in much too short a period of time. Wearing a soft cast and not shooting right-handed for a whole shooting season was enough to convince me that a shooting glove and somewhat less than maximum loads was a much better idea. I did become a pretty fair shot with a handgun left-handed that year...a talent that I have not pursued as conscientiously as I should have, but I digress.

As for the references to 2400 being unobtainable, I have been able to buy 1lb containers of 2400 fairly regularly during the last several months. The last I bought was early June...$24.99/lb.
I have seen 4 and 8lb containers at Shyda's in Lebanon,Pa as recently as 2 weeks ago. IIRC, the price was right around the $160 mark for an 8lb container. I have plenty and did not buy any.

[four70nitro]

I don't shoot much .357 anymore - but my go to powder for .44 Mag, .45 Colt (Ruger Bisley), and .475 Linebaugh is H110/W296. Shot tons of it through the .44 and substantial quantities through both the .45 Colt and .475 Linebaugh. Always great, consistent performance. I quit using 2400 because it is so danged dirty. I've also had extremely consistent results in the .44 Mag with AA9 - 12 rounds across the chronograph all between 1332 and1338 - 300 grain cast bullets and 17.something grains of AA9 (I'm working in Bulgaria at the moment and my loading data is at home....)

[cajts]

as said many times h110/w296 is hard to beat

[Lloyd Smale]

820 is aa9. Accurate powders when they started there business bought bulk surplus and repackaged it. Wc820 was one of those powders. One thing though is like in about all surplus burning rate can very. 820 has come in everwhere from a tick faster then 110 to a tick slower then aa7. Probably 80 percent of what was sold was in fact the same thing that accurate sold as aa9. Now they have it made but its made to the same burning rate as the old powder then sold. I probably use more 820 for mags then all the other powders combined and that includes my favorite, 2400. I use it because its accurate, cheap (at least it used to be) and meters well. Only downs side is it doesn't download well and doesn't work that great unless you use mag primers. Ive got about 50 lbs of it left from back when it was 50 bucks a jug. Should keep me going for a while. When its gone I will be buying aa9 because I actually like it better then 110 for heavy loads.
While some lots of WC820 may have resembled H110/W296 most are closer to AA9 in burning rate. H110/296 data can get you into trouble with the two lots I have bought. The granules of WC820 are different than 110/296, I have a hard time believing that they are a run of 820.

[9w1911]

I have not made as much comparisons from aa9 to h110, bit I do love 20gr of 820 in 44mag, hard to beat that load.

[Jedman]

. I haven't tried it yet but Alliant Power Pro 300- MP seems to get the best velocities in the 357 and 44 magnums in there load data.

Jedman

[9w1911]

I have not tried it either

[chloe123]

Good post but 357 Supermag you threw me for a loop. Because H110/W296 isn't that versatile, and has a narrow range, is why 125 grain bullets in a 357 magnum isn't a good choice. I wasn't sure if that was a typo. It just really stood out for me when I read it. If you're at the minimum 90% capacity, that's a lot of powder unless it's an unusual design like a spire point. I just think this wouldn't be advocated as you'll either be dealing with powder not igniting or having way too much pressure.

Edit: I left my original post intact. Hodgon online reloading manual lists the Hornady 125 XTP with a hi/low range of a grain for H110. Well, it's safe as long as your gun can handle pressure at 40K. I was totally wrong with my impressions--sorry