H-110 Powder and 45-70

[Just Duke]

I read somewhere H-110 can be used in a lever-action 45-70 with a 480 grain plus load. I can't find any Data so far. I am also wanting to shoot this bullet around 1200 to 1250 or so.
Anyone can help would be appreciated.
Duke

[Lloyd Smale]

i wouldnt fool with 110 for loads like that. You could probably use them with mag primers and filler but something that lights off easier like 2400 is a much better powder to use.

[wiljen]

for 1200-1250 I'd look at unique. No filler needed.

[Boomer Mikey]

H110 or WW296 isn't a good idea for reduced loads in the 45-70.


An excerpt from: The use of pistol powders in rifle cartridges

Of Note: a failed flash ignition, becomes a ragged conductive ignition, also known as Detonation. Extreme care must be exercised with loads near the flash ignition, ragged conductive ignition border. Detonation is a life threatening event.

• Given that this author's early successes were with fast double base pistol powders, given that RCBS's 1980s contribution to the genera were also double base pistol powders, and given, with the exception of one, Sport Rifle #80, the historic data was all with double base powders, we concluded that a near necessary characteristic for a powder to be viable for our use, it had to be a double base powder. The question of SR 80 remained. From the old data, a RQ for SR 80 of 240 is suggested (that of AA 7 and a hint slower than Blue Dot's 250). We shot VVN350, a RQ 240, single base, tubular powder, as was SR 80. We were uncomfortable, but never had a problem. Though from the data it is obvious that n grains of VVN350 takes more energy to flash ignite than a comparable charge of Blue Dot. Where flash ignition cleanly occurred the velocity SD values were as good as the best double base powders; but as the charges became larger, the SDs grew by a factor of 5+, suggesting we were close to flash ignition failure.

• The original Accurate Arms #5 pistol powder, a disc double base powder, although difficult to throw loads with, was one of our early on choices. Since then Accurate has changed #5 to a double base ball powder, and claims the two are ballistically equivalent. To explore the area of double base ball powders, we shot both the new AA #5 and their #7 - the #7 from knowing its reputation of burning well and cleanly in significantly reduced pistol loads. Although they in fact both shot well and with small SDs, because of our concerns of packing and smoldering ignition, we suggest they both be ignored (especially given the wealth of DB disc powders).

• 700X is one of the powders suggested in the RCBS manual. We found that given the speed of the powder, the small size of the loads (read: weighing errors), and the difficultly of metering said loads, we would suggest other powder choices.

• Red Dot also suggested by RCBS, again because of it RQ, we would suggest other powders. (Red Dot does not share 700X's metering problems.)

• One of our first choices of powder would be Winchester's 231. Introduced by Win in 1972, it is another double base disc powder (small at .025 x .009), we deduce a RQ of 300 plus or minus. At 22.5%, 231 packs a significant but not overwhelming nitroglycerine charge. It ignites very easily, burns very cleanly, and generates small SDs. While shooting BC measuring loads, we found we could easily shoot 200-250 w231 CAS loads without fouling the (45-70) bore.

• Both Green Dot and Blue Dot proved to be fine choices. Blue Dot up near 20 gr size loads might be nearing flash ignition failure, or at least larger SDs have been seen. Green Dot cannot be loaded that heavily and as such SD growth was not seen.

• While developing loads for BC shooting, we found that good loads would exhibit a SD of 4 or 5 fps across 10 shots; lesser loads would shot 10 fps or greater SDs. For someone working up CAS loads, if their loads are showing greater than single digit SD, they should keep looking. With BC shooting loads, it was not unusual for 20 or 25 rounds to print less than 2" at 50 yards.

• In our shooting, magnum primers always increased SDs, usually by 50 to 100%.

• While working on our CAS loads, multiple times it was suggested we look at IMR 4227, H4227, I and H 4198 and #2400. We did, and found them each vastly inferior to the double base disc pistol powders. Our impression is that for reduced velocity loads (ie, half or quarter muzzle *energy* loads) these powders are quite appropriate; but for CAS velocity loads they are too (RQ) slow. Of note: because of the charge sizes, these powders were never flash ignitable, and as such were always prone to irregular conductive ignition - the resulting SDs were up to 10x those of the pistol powders.

In Conclusion
A bicycle is not a modified car. CAS velocity (900-1250 fps) loads are not simply further reduced high powder loads. CAS loads are different; they require a different loading paradigm - the use of moderately fast, disc, double base pistol powders is indicated.

gj mushial, 12 jul 99
e-mail address: gmushial@gmdr.com
(c) copyright greg mushial, gmdr, 1999-2000, all rights reserved
Note: if these comments are being read not as part of the www.gmdr.com web site, then the mentioned data is available at saidsame web site.



Be safe, Use published data in the RCBS Cast Bullet Handbook or the Lyman Cast Bullet Manual.


Boomer :Fire:

[35remington]

Asserting that 2400 is not suitable for reduced loads is a quite doubtful statement.

Many here use it with every success for reduced loads and recommend it highly. Stating otherwise is swimming upstream on this forum.

2400 is a double base powder. See the label on the can of powder or various reloading references.

I would suggest the "detonation" you witnessed was a double charge, which is quite possible.

2400 is one of the most proven reduced load powders; see Milsurps and various other forums here for evidence of its successful use. Calling 2400 unsuitable will get you sideways with many shooters here, of course including myself.

As with any powder that does not occupy a majority of the powder space, check carefully for the possibility of an accidental double charge. A loading block is a good idea.

Incidentally, the previously quoted site used very small charges of powder to generate very low pressures and velocities; not necessarily apples and oranges with the velocity/bullet weight we're discussing here with the OP. The poster is asking about a bullet weight (~500 grains) and velocity that are quite within 2400's reliable and intended pressure range. It is expected that 2400 would equal and more likely exceed the accuracy and safety of the fast pistol powders in this loading. The slower push of 2400 usually exceeds the accuracy of the fast pistol powders once loads get past the very light level. I wouldn't categorize a 500 grain bullet at 1250 in a lever action where OAL is held at 2.55-2.57" to be a light load of the sort that the linked site is discussing. Loading density and pressure are higher off the bat with a deeply seated heavy bullet; 2400 is more useful and accurate here.

I would also pass on H110 for this use.

[Dr. A]

Musial's data is all in the lower 1000's, and does not involve the use of gas checked bullets. I've used 2400 in my 30-30's and 45-70's for years, and have many thousands of rounds down the tube. I use it for moderate velocities, and will use other powders for CAS type velocities if that's what I am wanting. I'd suggest looking up some Lyman handbook loads.

My favorite load has been 405gr, 300gr., or 340gr. plain based lead bullet with 25gr. of 2400. This has been ultra reliable for me.

[pumpguy]

Dr. A introduced me to the above load. I have developed loads from there and have had excellent results as well. In fact, 25gr of 2400 under a 457122 was the load I took elk hunting this year.

[Just Duke]

Asserting that 2400 is not suitable for reduced loads is a quite doubtful statement.

Many here use it with every success for reduced loads and recommend it highly. Stating otherwise is swimming upstream on this forum.

2400 is a double base powder. See the label on the can of powder or various reloading references.

I would suggest the "detonation" you witnessed was a double charge, which is quite possible.

2400 is one of the most proven reduced load powders; see Milsurps and various other forums here for evidence of its successful use. Calling 2400 unsuitable will get you sideways with many shooters here, of course including myself.

As with any powder that does not occupy a majority of the powder space, check carefully for the possibility of an accidental double charge. A loading block is a good idea.

Incidentally, the previously quoted site used very small charges of powder to generate very low pressures and velocities; not necessarily apples and oranges with the velocity/bullet weight we're discussing here with the OP. The poster is asking about a bullet weight (~500 grains) and velocity that are quite within 2400's reliable and intended pressure range. It is expected that 2400 would equal and more likely exceed the accuracy and safety of the fast pistol powders in this loading. The slower push of 2400 usually exceeds the accuracy of the fast pistol powders once loads get past the very light level. I wouldn't categorize a 500 grain bullet at 1250 in a lever action where OAL is held at 2.55-2.57" to be a light load of the sort that the linked site is discussing. Loading density and pressure are higher off the bat with a deeply seated heavy bullet; 2400 is more useful and accurate here.

I would also pass on H110 for this use.

With that I will pass on the H110 for the 45-70 and thanks all for your help.

[cohutt]

for 1200-1250 I'd look at unique. No filler needed.

+1
15.1g under a 440g boolit 1200 fps in nef bc

[Boomer Mikey]

The lowest published 2400 load in the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook and RCBS Cast Bullet Manual with a 464 grain bullet is 24 grains to develop 1350 fps for Ruger #1 and #3 rifles. The RCBS Cast Bullet Manual lists loads of 25 grains of 2400 with a 500 grain bullet for the Marlin 1895 @1325 fps and 25 grains of 2400 with the same bullet in the Ruger #1 rifle @ 1322 fps.

The article and my statement isn't saying that 2400 isn't suitable for cast bullet loads... just that using less powder to achieve less velocity than published load data can be dangerous, and there are better options than attempting to do so.

The intent is to make one think about what they're doing... using less powder to achieve lower velocity than a published load isn't a good idea and there is published data for loads using double base pistol powders that will typically achieve the results asked for with lower SD's than 4227, 4198, and 2400. There isn't any published data for H110 and WW296 for this bullet weight/velocity/caliber combination.

Stay safe... use published data from a known source and verify that data with at least one more authoritative source.

I would rather be the fool than see someone get injured.

Boomer :Fire:

[Lloyd Smale]

Two of my most commonly used 4570 loads are 20 grains of 2400 with a 405 and 22 grains of 4227 with a 500. the first load was given to me by paco kelly personaly and he said it has been one of his favorite light loads. Now ive shoot probalby 10000 of these loads without any problem. Ive shot them over a chrono many many times and dont ever remember seeing a problem and im here to tell you theres probably not a more knowlegable lever gun loader and shooter then paco. If he says something you can take it to the bank. In all my years of loading and shooting and in all the time ive been on this computer i can not remember hearing of even one case of pistol powders blowing up a 4570 unless it was a case of an overload or double load from poor reloading practices. Its alot easier to get into trouble loading a 4570 with 231 then it is with 4227!! I do though use mag primers with any powder slower then unique. I allways have not because i found a problem but because it is a big case and i shoot alot in very cold weather. As a matter of fact some of my 2400 loads are more accurate with a standard primer but they usually get mags anyway just because its easier to process brass together for both loads and the 4227 seems to like a mag primer.

[DonH]

The lowest published 2400 load in the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook and RCBS Cast Bullet Manual with a 464 grain bullet is 24 grains to develop 1350 fps for Ruger #1 and #3 rifles. The RCBS Cast Bullet Manual lists loads of 25 grains of 2400 with a 500 grain bullet for the Marlin 1895 @1325 fps and 25 grains of 2400 with the same bullet in the Ruger #1 rifle @ 1322 fps.

The article and my statement isn't saying that 2400 isn't suitable for cast bullet loads... just that using less powder to achieve less velocity than published load data can be dangerous, and there are better options than attempting to do so.

The intent is to make one think about what they're doing... using less powder to achieve lower velocity than a published load isn't a good idea and there is published data for loads using double base pistol powders that will typically achieve the results asked for with lower SD's than 4227, 4198, and 2400. There isn't any published data for H110 and WW296 for this bullet weight/velocity/caliber combination.

Stay safe... use published data from a known source and verify that data with at least one more authoritative source.

I would rather be the fool than see someone get injured.

Boomer :Fire:

I agree that one should make sure they understand the nature of the propellants they intend to use, and know which ones are not appropriate for the intended usage. Having said that, I don't consider the Lyman Handbook to be the "Bible". I am a rank beginner compared to many here but not to relaoding in general so when Lyman lists only fast pistol powder loads for casr bullet .303 Brit loads while they list slower rifle powder loads for .30-40 I think, "you are nuts!" Virtually the same cartridge, same case capacity, bullet weights, twist rates, etc. but I'm going to blow up one with a powder which works in the orther? Much of the Lyman data reminds me of what might be put together if a number of reloaders were asked to submit loads for their favorite calibers.

When I was hunting with a .44 mag revolver, 296 was my powder of choice for full throttle loads. top velocity and excellent accuracy. I always thought it interesting how Olin made it sound like 296 was like nitroglycerin; deviate the least little bit and BOOM! Hodgdon was always more flexible with their loading data for H110 so I thought what gives? They are not identical powders but are virtually the same - close enough to load the same within a grain or so with H110 seeming to be a tad quicker burning. Looking into the subject further, reading everything I could find on the subject, Olin made it sound like 296 would detonate if one deviated one iota from published data while Hodgdon sounded more like the problem was incomplete ignition if charge amounts were reduced too much. Now if a reduced load resulted in poor ignition and squibbed,sticking a bullet in the bore then the next round ignited properly you DO have a BOOM! Understanding where they were coming from, I relaxed and enjoyed using a fine powder. I did not throw caution to the winds, that is foohardy, but I lost any fear of backing 296 dow a grain or two ala H110 and it worked just fine. Neither 296 nor H110 are correct powders for true "reduced loads" but I personally believe both have been the victims of much "lawyerese".

For .45-70 reduced loads there are just far more appropriate powders than the slow pistol/fast rifle hard-to-ignite ball powders.

[35remington]

"The lowest published 2400 load in the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook and RCBS Cast Bullet Manual with a 464 grain bullet is 24 grains to develop 1350 fps for Ruger #1 and #3 rifles."

You need to reread the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook and include the stuff you've left out. They go as low as 21 grains of 2400 with a 420 grain bullet for 1252 fps and 17,000 CUP in the leverguns; see page 234.

A 480 grain bullet would raise pressures noticeably with the same charge, and likely the starting charge would be even less than 21 grains; point being that 2400 is far from being a poor choice in this application, and it is likely superior to any pistol powder for the specific velocity he mentioned in the first post.

Lower SD's with pistol powders? Very likely. Less accuracy with pistol powders for the 120-1250/480 grain combination is very likely, too. Low SD's are not a vital component of accurate loads.

I am merely pointing out that sticking to very fast pistol powders here and trying nothing else is limiting and may lead to disappointment, and that 2400 is an excellent reduced load powder for the purpose he envisions. The "I think 2400 detonates" statement could also have been left out, as it is certainly not an issue with this load.

[Boomer Mikey]

I consider Paco Kelley's data authoritative as well as data from other shooters I've known over the years and trust; however, I wouldn't suggest anyone use loads presented to them by sources unknown without validation.

I use some reduced loads that shoot well with high SD's too but none of them produce groups without fliers in left field.

I just don't want anyone unknowingly pulling the trigger on a pipe bomb.

I've learned a valuable lesson here,

Boomer :Fire:

[Dr. A]

Would AA#9 fit into this application at all? How about 420gr. bullets? I've often wondered if this powder would work similarly to 2400.

[felix]

Yes, but DO NOT use it! 2400 has much better ignition characteristics. If you MUST use either, I'd prefer 100 percent fill shotgun filler as a powder-boolit buffer. ... felix

[Just Duke]

So how does this sound.
Guns to be used;
Marlin 45-70 1895 XLR, Winchester 1886 45-70 TD and Regular barrel profile.
NEI 475 grain cast gas check compliments of Nyack Kid
Winchester primer
22 grains of 2400 to start.

Would that be considered a safe starting load and somewhere in the vicinity of 1200 to 1300-ish?

[Just Duke]

Btt..........