Why Can’t Win 296 Be Down Loaded?

[Orchard6]

I’m sure there is some simple explanation I’ve overlooked here, but we all have heard from either load manuals or word of mouth that 296/H-110 should not be down loaded more than X percent (I’ve heard various numbers from 3% to 10%) for magnum pistol use. But in my manual for 300 Blackout I’ve got data for sub sonic loads that are way below a magnum pistols pressure zone (22,700psi from Hornady) for 296/H-110 in 300 blackout, what gives?

[nhyrum]

It's not about pressure loadings, it's more about empty space. H110/W296 are hard to light, so if there's too much empty space, the powder won't light before the force from the primer drives the bullet out of the case, in which case, the powder won't burn, and if there's way to much empty space, the powder won't light, and you'll get squibs. There's also reports that it can tend to clump if it's too lose, which makes it burn erratically

The biggest issue I've had is unreliable ignition, which usually results in squibs, and if you're not paying attention, a squib 300 blackout sub can feel like a normal round and will usually eject. Recipe for a real bad day
Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[358429]

The pressure build up is different between straight wall and bottle neck casings.

I think the bottle neck cartidges generally are much more efficient for generating pressure and velocity for a given powder charge mass and internal volume.

Remember that when the bullet starts moving the available volume increases for the expanding propellant gases to occupy.

[45-70 Chevroner]

Reduced loads for 296 or H110 are not recommended, at least this what I have read in several manuals.

[rbuck351]

I,m not sure why but I suspect possible SEE with a hard to light powder loose behind a bullet. Possibly because of the bullet being pushed into the rifling before the powder starts burning and then lighting the complete charge instead of a steady burn from the rear. That is just a guess as I'm not sure anyone knows exactly what happens when something goes bad inside the chamber/barrel of a gun. The manufactures do know that something causes bad results when 296/H110 is down loaded.

[megasupermagnum]

Those percentages are on the side of safety. When working up loads for unknown bullets or calibers, I've loaded well below 10% from what maximum turned out to be. H110 is a very single purpose powder. When you get too far down in pressure, it simply won't burn right. There is a narrow window where it goes from bang to a bullet stuck in the barrel. It's the same reason magnum primers are recommended. I've never seen it, but I've heard of people using standard primers that work great in 70-80 degrees, and then when they try and shoot in 0 degrees, the stuff doesn't even ignite. I use magnum primers myself, and get really good velocity spreads with them. I have tried standard primers, but I see no reason to use them.

So to answer your question, it is a safety recommendation, because below those, bloopers and stuck bullets become a very real possibility.

[Outpost75]

It's small particle size and higher percentage of deterrent coating to base grain make it hard to ignite.

[Orchard6]

I figured it was something simple I was overlooking! Thanks guys!

[Sasquatch-1]

Let me ask you this, If you load a below recommended charge and the use a filler, such as poly-fill, would that make it a safer round?

The filler holding the powder against the flash hole.

[44MAG#1]

Depends on how much DOWNLOADED you mean. It can be downloaded somewhat.
If not someone needs to tell Hodgdons and Hornady.

[nhyrum]

Let me ask you this, If you load a below recommended charge and the use a filler, such as poly-fill, would that make it a safer round?

The filler holding the powder against the flash hole.Hmmm... Now that's a good question... I might have to start getting some and playing around with it. I've got 45 colt loads that could definitely use some filler, since some of the light mouse fart loads I had to point the gun up and slowly lower it to get the rounds to fire...

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[243winxb]

The warning was for Winchester 296 powder, not Hodgdon H110 powder. Many years ago, they were 2 different powders.
Hodgdon has made them one powder now.

[44MAG#1]

The warning was for Winchester 296 powder, not Hodgdon H110 powder. Many years ago, they were 2 different powders.
Hodgdon has made them one powder now.

What year did they become the same? I have a 3rd edition Hornady book that was printed in 1981 with reduced loads in 357 Mag and 44 Mag.
Also a 1991 Hornady book with reduced loads and a 10th edition book with reduced loads.
I also have a 1987 Speer book with reduced 357 Mag and 44 Mag reloads

[megasupermagnum]

The warning was for Winchester 296 powder, not Hodgdon H110 powder. Many years ago, they were 2 different powders.
Hodgdon has made them one powder now.

H110 was introduced in 1962, and was nothing but surplus powder from the 30 carbine, sold by Hodgdon. I'm fairly sure as far back as a 1970's Hodgdon manual shows the do not download warning. I assume Olin owned it at the time, but they started selling the same surplus powder as Winchester 296 at a later date. I'm not even sure it was listed in that 70's manual (edit: stupid me, of course no Winchester powders in a Hodgdon manual). you don't really start seeing 296 data until a little later it seems. In the Lyman cast bullet handbook (1980) that data for both H110 and 296 are almost identical, lot to lot variation. Since 1980, both powders have been newly manufactured, coming from the same plant, off the same line. Hodgdon did not buy Winchester powders until 2006, and had nothing to do with them being the same.

So maybe for a couple years in the late 70's they were not technically the exact same (one being surplus, and the other newly made), but as far as all the info I can find, they always have been exactly the same formula. H110 has had the warning as long as W296 has.

[243winxb]

W296-1960. H110- 1970. Fired both in 44 mag. Different powders. :smile:

[nhyrum]

W296-1960. H110- 1970. Fired both in 44 mag. Different powders. [emoji2]They were, but I've personally seen a letter written by the manufacturer of the two say that they are now one in the same.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[megasupermagnum]

W296-1960. H110- 1970. Fired both in 44 mag. Different powders. :smile:

I'm not saying you did not use a 296 in 1960, but it was not Winchester 296. W296, the best source I can find show it came out in 1973, but I can't find a single source from then that shows it. The earliest manual I have that has it is the 1980 Lyman cast bullet handbook #3.

If you were using a different 296, that would explain the confusion. Hodgdon's H110, and Winchesters 296 both were surplus 30 carbine powder, then manufactured when that ran out. They always were the exact same thing.

[Outpost75]

Let me ask you this, If you load a below recommended charge and the use a filler, such as poly-fill, would that make it a safer round?

The filler holding the powder against the flash hole.

I can tell you positively that 18 grains of 296 with Saeco #315 in .308 which shoots well in Az at 80 degs F will blow up a Remington 700 at 45 degs F in Wapwallopen, PA

[44MAG#1]

The question remains about downloading. It can be downloaded within reason.

[charlie b]

Why not just use a different powder if you want lower vel?

[44MAG#1]

Why not just use a different powder if you want lower vel?
That can be done too.

[littlejack]

What Charlie b said. No sense in pushing your luck. "At all"

[44Blam]

There is a secondary detonation issue. I'm not sure exactly why it happens but I saw it with 80% full 350 legend cases. I wound up destroying a lot of brass because I did not realize that it was expanding the webbing of the case until I had a primer blow out and get stuck up above the bolt carrier... When I started checking my brass it was about 1 in 3 cases the webbing was expanded to the point where they would no longer chamber. These were also Winchester cases - so they were the strong ones...

[44MAG#1]

In a manufacturing boardroom around 1905

Executive-1: Gentlemen, I think it is high time we provide these smokeless propellants, packaged in small containers of about one pound, to the public. Profits would increase as we develop and expand the new reloading market.

Executive-2: The production loss of providing these new smokeless propellants to the general public far outweigh the potential revenue of an untested speculative market. I don’t think it is a good idea sir.

Boardroom: harrumph harrumph mumble mumble wisper wisper harrumph

Executive-1: Gentlemen. Gentlemen! Apparently my memo regarding this matter was not read or not understood by this fine assembly of educated executives. Perhaps the memo did not reach your appointment by some trick of fate. Let me reiterate that expanded profits of 23% are possible within two years, 30 months at the worst, if we proceed with this investment. The shareholders will not believe the genius of this board and Executive bonuses could, mind you, be doubled within three years – not to mention the stock value growth of 6.7 points.

Boardroom: Hear! Hear! Hear! Harumph Harumph Harumph Loud banter.

Executive-4: I have to agree with the prospectus of growth and revenue increase. Look at what Thomas Melon has done with the banking institution, Wells Fargo with secured delivery. John Rockefeller has created an oil industry in conjunction with Henry Ford. Created markets are now possible with the new concentrations of people and wealth in more densely populated areas. This can be done! We can create a reloading market with material provided to the public.

Boardroom: Louder banter. Harumph. Hear! Hear! Squabbling.

Executive-1: Gentlemen! I make a motion we vote on this matter of providing smokeless propellants and other componants to the public for the creation of a new era in “private sector handloading!”

Attorney: Gentlemen! Gentlemen! Do you not realize the danger of providing this material to the general public - most of who can’t even read? Do you not see the risk to health and life by providing smokeless propellants to the masses? Do you not realize what potential litigation may arise from this when some mother of 8 children brings a lawsuit to us in Superior court for providing the material which killed her husband? Do you actually believe that the general public, the farmers, laborers, construction workers, mill workers, and the majority of the lay public can assemble these dangerous components and use them safely? Are you naive enough to see only potential profits and ignore the blown off limbs?

Executive-4: Sir! We will be sure to publish loading data with the product. Surely this will relieve us of responsibility when John Goober blows himself up!

Executive1: I second the motion to vote!

Chair: All those in favor of providing smokeless powders to the public say aye.

Executive-1, Executive-2, Executive-3, Executive-4: Aye

Chair: All those opposed to providing smokeless powders to the public say nay.

Attorney: Nay

Chair: The motion is carried. We will provide smokeless propellants to the public!

And so begins the bloodletting when John Q. Public deems himself smarter than an army of highly educated chemical engineers and ordinance experts.

The question is, can W296 be safely downloaded WITHIN REASON? WITHIN REASON are the KEY WORDS.
There is nothing totally safe. All anyone can do it to be as safe as they can be. Mistakes will be made. Look at the recalls from ammo companies
One is plastered on Winchester's site as of just 2 or 3 days ago. To be totally safe don't reload, don't shoot anything. Just buy your guns to look at and fondle and talk about.
Don't drive either. Look at the injuries and death caused by vehicles.
Could be this is similar to "Gag at a gnat but swallow a camel" thing.

[Mal Paso]

Ball powder started as a way to recycle WW1 surplus nitro cellulose cannon powder. It was dissolved in ethyl acetate. Water and surfactants added to make an emulsion of small spheres and nitroglycerin added to adjust power. Much easier to make than single base powders which is why they are getting more expensive and disappearing from the market.

There is a lot of hype about H110/296. I think it's cheap powder with a very narrow range.

[Orchard6]

Why not just use a different powder if you want lower vel?

In normal situations that’s reasonable but in todays market if a fella had a good supply of 296 and little to nothing of another more suitable powder what is he to do? Now I’m not advocating everyone and their brother try it but I’m sure someone on here has at one time or another and I was more or less curious of the results.

[Orchard6]

There is a secondary detonation issue. I'm not sure exactly why it happens but I saw it with 80% full 350 legend cases. I wound up destroying a lot of brass because I did not realize that it was expanding the webbing of the case until I had a primer blow out and get stuck up above the bolt carrier... When I started checking my brass it was about 1 in 3 cases the webbing was expanded to the point where they would no longer chamber. These were also Winchester cases - so they were the strong ones...

Hmm, interesting, and I’m not saying you’re wrong at all but I don’t think that the 9.2 grains of 296 in 300 blackout is anywhere near 80% case capacity.

[white eagle]

burn pounds of H 110 with no squibs and no magnum primers
its true not to drop below a certain percentage but the powder
is intended for magnum loads in the first place
there are safer powders for lighter charges and if that
is you intent I would look at those instead of 296 or 110

[Orchard6]

burn pounds of H 110 with no squibs and no magnum primers
its true not to drop below a certain percentage but the powder
is intended for magnum loads in the first place
there are safer powders for lighter charges and if that
is you intent I would look at those instead of 296 or 110

I don’t intend to try it, just curious is all. There seems to be so many different outcomes with this powder. In 300 Blackout the load is nowhere near Magnum velocity or pressure and with a case capacity near that of a 357 mag it just makes me wonder how it’s a “book load” for one cartridge and considered dangerous in another with similar case capacity.

For a minute I was thinking it may have had to do with rifle vs pistol primers but if a 350 Legend has issues at 80% case capacity and rifle primers (I’d assume rifle primers anyhow) I now am lead to believe that primers aren’t the issue either.

I guess I was more or less looking for a definitive answer such as if you load under X% this or that occurs, but I’m hearing several different possibilities from squibs to detonation to it works just fine according to my Hornady load data.

I guess perhaps we’ll never know!

[358429]

Hey Orchard 6 what bullet weight are you using what type of bullet Construction

[Orchard6]

Hey Orchard 6 what bullet weight are you using what type of bullet Construction
The data for the blackout is for 208 grain A-Max, for the 357 a 200 TMJ with a max charge of 14 grains of 296.

[44MAG#1]

The data for the blackout is for 208 grain A-Max, for the 357 a 200 TMJ with a max charge of 14 grains of 296.

Hornady 10th manual. 208 gr A Max at 2.250 OAL , WSR, Hornady brass. 7.5 Gr. W296 start load 11.7 W296 Max
BTW, my math skills are not good but isn't that a 36 percent reduction?

[Orchard6]

Hornady 10th manual. 208 gr A Max at 2.250 OAL , WSR, Hornady brass. 7.5 Gr. W296 start load 11.7 W296 Max

That’s a whole lot more than a 3% difference!

[358429]

I load 15-16 grains h110-ww296 with 155-172 grain bullets in 357 mag. They are compressed loads.

[358429]

Important part is that I shorten the brass to 1.22 to reduce internal volume and cartridge overall length.

[Martin Luber]

Ball powders are not linear in pressure vs charge like the IMR. They have a very narrow range of safe operation. 296 being more limited, comes with loading data. Undercharging or even degraded primer strength, can give nasty pressure spikes.

[Orchard6]

Ball powders are not linear in pressure vs charge like the IMR. They have a very narrow range of safe operation. 296 being more limited, comes with loading data. Undercharging or even degraded primer strength, can give nasty pressure spikes.
In the 300 Blackout it doesn’t seem to behave this way though. A 36% difference between start and max charges seems to suggest that it could be down loaded quite a good bit. I’m not sure what’s special about this one cartridge but it goes against all the warning I’ve seen for 296’s use.

[nhyrum]

In a manufacturing boardroom around 1905

Executive-1: Gentlemen, I think it is high time we provide these smokeless propellants, packaged in small containers of about one pound, to the public. Profits would increase as we develop and expand the new reloading market.

Executive-2: The production loss of providing these new smokeless propellants to the general public far outweigh the potential revenue of an untested speculative market. I don’t think it is a good idea sir.

Boardroom: harrumph harrumph mumble mumble wisper wisper harrumph

Executive-1: Gentlemen. Gentlemen! Apparently my memo regarding this matter was not read or not understood by this fine assembly of educated executives. Perhaps the memo did not reach your appointment by some trick of fate. Let me reiterate that expanded profits of 23% are possible within two years, 30 months at the worst, if we proceed with this investment. The shareholders will not believe the genius of this board and Executive bonuses could, mind you, be doubled within three years – not to mention the stock value growth of 6.7 points.

Boardroom: Hear! Hear! Hear! Harumph Harumph Harumph Loud banter.

Executive-4: I have to agree with the prospectus of growth and revenue increase. Look at what Thomas Melon has done with the banking institution, Wells Fargo with secured delivery. John Rockefeller has created an oil industry in conjunction with Henry Ford. Created markets are now possible with the new concentrations of people and wealth in more densely populated areas. This can be done! We can create a reloading market with material provided to the public.

Boardroom: Louder banter. Harumph. Hear! Hear! Squabbling.

Executive-1: Gentlemen! I make a motion we vote on this matter of providing smokeless propellants and other componants to the public for the creation of a new era in “private sector handloading!”

Attorney: Gentlemen! Gentlemen! Do you not realize the danger of providing this material to the general public - most of who can’t even read? Do you not see the risk to health and life by providing smokeless propellants to the masses? Do you not realize what potential litigation may arise from this when some mother of 8 children brings a lawsuit to us in Superior court for providing the material which killed her husband? Do you actually believe that the general public, the farmers, laborers, construction workers, mill workers, and the majority of the lay public can assemble these dangerous components and use them safely? Are you naive enough to see only potential profits and ignore the blown off limbs?

Executive-4: Sir! We will be sure to publish loading data with the product. Surely this will relieve us of responsibility when John Goober blows himself up!

Executive1: I second the motion to vote!

Chair: All those in favor of providing smokeless powders to the public say aye.

Executive-1, Executive-2, Executive-3, Executive-4: Aye

Chair: All those opposed to providing smokeless powders to the public say nay.

Attorney: Nay

Chair: The motion is carried. We will provide smokeless propellants to the public!

And so begins the bloodletting when John Q. Public deems himself smarter than an army of highly educated chemical engineers and ordinance experts.It's also a world where there's more lawyers than engineers... Kinda.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[mdi]

Not case capacity/fill. Reports of detonation with loads under book minimum. Erratic burn with loads beow min.

[44MAG#1]

Let's look at Hornadys 10th manual on the 357 Mag with 158 grain XTP bullets. 12.4 start 16.0 Max with W296. The 41 Mag with 210 XTP,. 17.6 start 22.6 Max.
44 Mag with 240 XTP 20.7 start 24.5 Max

[megasupermagnum]

Wow, whole lotta people speculating on 3rd hand knowledge without ever having tried it themselves, or apparently even calling Hodgdon. There isn't a huge mystery on what is going on here, but that's the internet for you. :popcorn:

[DougGuy]

There is also the issue of powder laying horizontally in the case with space above it, and the rectangular area of powder exposed to the primer ignition is MUCH greater than just the area within the circumference of the case, the theory being that much more of the powder begins to burn which could create a very high pressure spike or in some cases a detonation.

I always thought THIS scenario was why downloading H110/W296 below about 78% of case density was to be avoided.

[littlejack]

I have read the same thing if using a light charge of slow burning rifle powder in larger cartridges. That is why there are certain powders that are reccomended for this purpose, 4895 being one of the best.

[Larry Gibson]

Come on guys, that "theory" has been de-bunked for some time.

The recommendation to not "down load" H110/296 is based on its use in straight walled pistol cases, mostly when used in revolvers and especially with lighter weight shorter bullets. Those ball powders have a heavy deterrent coating on them, as previously mentioned, which requires a consistent pressure level/increase to continue burning. What can happen with such reduced loads of H110/996 in revolvers is the primer flash moves over or through the loose powder charge pushing the bullet out of the case and forward into the forcing cone. If the powder did start to burn there is a drastic increase in volume when that happens along with a drastic drop in pressure, particularly if the pressure is also vented at the barrel/cylinder gap. The bullet then is stuck in the forcing cone because there is no pressure to keep it moving.

The powder goes out or smolders.

If the powder smolders and then begins to burn and the bullet begins moving you may get a "click-bang" as that sequence can happen quickly. Worse, if the bullet is stuck and has expanded to fit the cylinder throat sealing the now increasing gas pressure in you may very well experience an SEE.......not good.

If the powder goes out and the bullet is long enough that it bridges the barrel/cylinder gap the cylinder is tied up in the frame. When you get it open you'll find a lot of unburned powder which is "singed" and off color. Worse, the bullet is short enough that it is stuck in the forcing cone/barrel and the cylinder can turn. If you are shooting rapid fire and don't notice or ignore the "click" only you may rotate another round up behind that bullet stuck in the barrel and pull the trigger......not good.

Bottom line it is best not to reduce H110/296 below recommended charges in revolver cartridges.

In bottle neck cartridges used in closed breach systems such as bolt, lever and SS actions reduced charges of H110/296 under medium to heavy weight cast bullets for the cartridge appear to be safe. Still, I suggest using proven, tested data before using.

[243winxb]

Winchester from 1996 https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?media/44-remington-magnum.2914/full

410 skeet loads using 296 & Win components function perfectly at about 10,000 PSI. The big difference , there is NO FREE AIR SPACE.

May make the difference? Just follow published data.

[Mal Paso]

296 likes heavy bullets and long barrels.

[rbuck351]

Well that cleared it up to, no one seems to know for sure what happens but it could be very bad for any of several reasons. I'm not planning on trying reducing loads with 296/H110 to find out. I'm fairly sure the factories have decided that something bad does happen often enough to give the warning whether or not even they know what it is that happens.

[oldsalt444]

The best explanation (or theory) I've heard is that since it is very slow burning, too much space in the case can allow primer spark to light the back end AND at the same time jump up to the front end of the charge and light it there as well. So you get both ends burning toward the middle which creates a double pressure spike resulting in a blown up gun. It's rare, but can happen. This is what the factory ballisticians came up with, but nothing has been definitively proved.

[44Blam]

Hmm, interesting, and I’m not saying you’re wrong at all but I don’t think that the 9.2 grains of 296 in 300 blackout is anywhere near 80% case capacity.

The issue with this powder is when you are UNDER 90% case capacity. It is a known issue with these powders. I've shot 10s of thousands of full power 44 mag loads with W296 with no issues. My loads are full power and have about a 95% fill in the case. But when I started using published loads from Hodgdon for 350 legend, I found that I started having issues. I wouldn't use W296/H110/AA11FS unless you are going about 90-100% fill in the case.

[Hanzy4200]

The W296 vs H110 thing has always been a question to me. It looks the same, it burns the same, but most manuals list slightly varied charge weights. Why?

[Mal Paso]

The W296 vs H110 thing has always been a question to me. It looks the same, it burns the same, but most manuals list slightly varied charge weights. Why?

Different lots of powder. Each batch is slightly different.

[W.R.Buchanan]

OK after reading thsi entire thread the only one here that is close to answering the OP's question is Larry.

I talked to Hodgdon around 1978 when I started using H110/W296, because I wanted to know why you shouldn't down load it.

Here's exactly what they told me. First H110 and W296 have always been the same powder the only difference was in various lots of powder going to Winchester or packaged by Hodgdon. Now they are exactly the same and the only difference is the label on the bottle.

The reason why you don't want to down load below a certain amount, is because when the powder level drops below the flash hole when the gun is held normally and the cartridge is horizontal. The primer flashes over and ignites the entire charge from the top down instead of burning from the back to the front like it would if the case was filled or held vertically. This results in a higher percentage of the powder charge being Ignited Quicker than it normally would be which results in a "faster burn rate," which causes a pressure spike. If the gun was held strait up this would not be a problem as the powder would be ignited from back to front and there would be no Flash Over.

In other words. the surface area that the primer flash sees is much less if burning from Back to Front than if it flashes over the charge and burns from Side to Side.

This was explained to me in detail by the Hodgdons Ballistician and I have also discussed this at length with Brian Pearce who told me the exact same story, which he got from a different Hodgdons guy.

One thing that helps with load consistency is to always tip the gun up before firing it, thus insuring that the powder is seated evenly in the case. Most of us do this unconsciously when shoot a big revolver as we come down on the target.

Hope this helps with the understanding of this phenomenon. Plus that if you want reduced loads use a different powder. H110 doesn't work very well if the pressure isn't up higher.

Randy

[bruce drake]

I would recommend you buy a newer manual 44Mag#1. 30 year old loading manuals don't stay true to modern powders if they've changed over the decades....

[P Flados]

The BO round is a lot different than the typical straight wall magnum pistol round.

The bullet in the BO round is very long and skinny. Also, for sub rounds, most of the bullet is inside the case and there is not a huge amount of empty space. At primer firing the inertia of the long bullet requires much more pressure to get it moving than for the short & fat pistol bullets. This extra pressure required for bullet acceleration seems to be high enough to get good reliable ignition of H110/296.

I was active in IHMSA in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I used a lot of WW 296 in my Dan Wesson 357 Max and was very happy with it. Then I took a long break from shooting.

After getting back into shooting, I still had several pounds of old stock 296 and was not going through it very fast. Eventually in 2017 I ran out of 296 and bought an 8lb jug of H110. About the same time I was switching over from J words to PC coated cast. I was also using regular small rifle primers where in the past I had used mostly magnum small pistol primers. I started having occasional squibs in multiple guns and other signs of poor ignition. Problems were much worse as temperatures dropped.

Different batches of powder are known to have variations. I was thinking that my specific batch of H110 was closer to the "hard to ignite" end of the normal H110 range. I tried some different primer choices but was not getting any real improvement.

Then I had a close call with my 357 AR max. I had a squib, got distracted and then racked a live load into the chamber. I was looking through the scope before I noted that something "felt wrong". I stopped, checked out the gun and found a bullet stuck half way down the barrel.

I moved on and went looking for other powders. I ended up with WC 680 for a slightly slower choice and Heavy Pistol for a slightly faster choice. I may still use the H110 in very select applications (6 lbs or so just setting there and all ...), but I have come to really prefer the "less finicky" choices I am using now.

[358429]

Hey orchard 6

Are you trying to diagnose/troubleshoot a problem with your gun or ammunition?

[Orchard6]

Hey orchard 6

Are you trying to diagnose/troubleshoot a problem with your gun or ammunition?
No, I was just curious as to why it in some instances 296 could be downloaded and others it wasn’t recommended.

[44MAG#1]

No, I was just curious as to why it in some instances 296 could be downloaded and others it wasn’t recommended.

As with ANYTHING dealing with BALLISTICS and DATA nothing is written in stone. By anyone or any thing.
Many with varying degrees of experience from those who shoot more than the US Army, owns more firearms than the whole US Military and owns thousands of dollar worth of equipment to those who shoot almost none, who owns one gun, owns one box of ammo and who has never pulled the handle of a reloading press will give their views.
One has to ferret out what one wants to believe.

[lead chucker]

H110 likes full cases. I used low loads on the load chart to work up a load for a 44 mag and had a few do a delay fire. I like a full load charge in my 44 mag. I used H110 in my 300BO full load Lyman load book with 125 gr bullet good accuracy

[charlie b]

Just use it the way it is intended. Don't download it further than recommended.

Yeah, it would be nice to have some pipsqueak loads, but, if your selection of powders is limited then your loads are limited.

I'd like to have a bunch of 2400 and AA7, but, I don't, so I make do with what I have.


Just part of the problem we are dealing with these days.

[fredj338]

Well that cleared it up to, no one seems to know for sure what happens but it could be very bad for any of several reasons. I'm not planning on trying reducing loads with 296/H110 to find out. I'm fairly sure the factories have decided that something bad does happen often enough to give the warning whether or not even they know what it is that happens.

Actually Larry G did give a good description of what can happen. I have had a hangfire using W296 in cold weather with lighter 200gr bullets & not running full charges. So not a fan of W296/H110 unless you run it full charge. 2400 is more user friendly giving good results downloaded & no mag primer needed.
I can always find something to load lighter loads with. Any shotgun powder will work well, even BlueDot downloads better than H110/296. So just look for something in the fast to medium burn rate.