f> W296 in .357 Rifle Loads - Page 2 - Ruger Forum

Ruger Forum

W296 in .357 Rifle Loads

This is a discussion on W296 in .357 Rifle Loads within the Reloading forums, part of the Firearm Forum category; HBK, They must have good proof readers. I would think there would be a huge legal liability if a reloading manual published a misprint. I ...


Go Back   Ruger Forum > Firearm Forum > Reloading

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes

Old May 9th, 2017, 05:58 AM   #16
Retired Moderator & Gunsmith
 
Iowegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CB, IA
Posts: 11,972
Iowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to behold

Awards Showcase

HBK,
Quote:
They must have good proof readers.
I would think there would be a huge legal liability if a reloading manual published a misprint. I have a big stack of reloading manuals .... some dating back 30 years. My four current version manuals are Speer, Hornady, Sierra, and Nosler. Of course I have not checked each and every load .... but for the calibers I own, I have run many of the loads through QuickLOAD for a "sanity test" and they all seemed to track quite well. I will say .... sometimes it does look like a mistake until you actually analyze the load. As an example .... when a load in one manual develops 1000 fps with a given powder charge and another manual has a load that uses 1 grain less powder yet produces a little higher velocity with the same weight bullet ..... it would appear to be a mistake when really it was a big difference in the barrel length of the guns used to chronograph the loads.




Last edited by Iowegan; May 11th, 2017 at 06:21 AM.
Iowegan is offline  
Advertisements
Old May 9th, 2017, 06:37 AM   #17
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N. Calif
Posts: 2,580
firescout will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by HBK View Post
I recall one of the writers in one of the gun mags printed a story about finding a misprint and named the manual and the fact he contacted them about the misprint in their new manual and they corrected the mistake. This was about 8-10 years ago.
I am surprised there is not more. They must have good proof readers.
A misprint of exactly what? A gross overcharge of powder?

Why would you be surprised that there are not more mistakes in major reloading manuals? Good proofreaders are quite common in the technical publishing industry.
firescout is offline  
Old May 9th, 2017, 07:17 AM   #18
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N. Calif
Posts: 2,580
firescout will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowegan View Post
...firescout,

"Shopping for answers" in different data sources can get you in a heap of trouble and here's why. All loads published in reputable reloading manuals are pressure tested and are within SAAMI pressure standards...
Maybe you misunderstood my post. I'm not one to 'shop for answers' in handloading data. I use only newer data from reloading manuals and powder manufacturers to base my handloading on. Over my 30+ years of handloading, I have revised some of my 'pet loads' due to changes in the data or specs. I do keep older manuals and powder manufacturers loading booklets for the archives, but I don't base any new loads on them.

What I was getting at is that I like to compare and contrast the loading data and see the different test methods, conditions, and components that lead to differing data for near-identical loads. To me, the science of internal and external ballistics is a part of handloading that I enjoy.

Something else I do with much of my handloading is to select a powder for somewhat lower chamber pressures for a given bullet weight/type at a specific velocity.
firescout is offline  
 
Old May 9th, 2017, 07:49 AM   #19
Retired Moderator & Gunsmith
 
Iowegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CB, IA
Posts: 11,972
Iowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to behold

Awards Showcase

firescout, I guess I did misinterpret your post .... sorry! As I'm sure you have noticed here on the forum, many reloaders ARE data shoppers .... a practice that I feel is potentially dangerous. I just wish others would follow your procedures and not try to think they are smarter than the manual.
Iowegan is offline  
Old May 11th, 2017, 04:05 AM   #20
 
Salmoneye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: VT
Posts: 592
Salmoneye is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowegan View Post
I did some research and learned something new about W-296/H-110. The "DO NOT REDUCE" cautions are strictly for revolvers with a B/C gap or semi-autos, not for closed breach actions (like a most rifles or a T/C pistol).
Can you tell us where you 'researched' this?

I have never heard the 'B/C' caveat, and Hodgdon has never published anything to this effect (that I am aware of)...
Salmoneye is offline  
Old May 11th, 2017, 05:00 AM   #21
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1,470
at liberty is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowegan View Post
HBK, I don't recall seeing a misprint in any reputable reloading manual. Could you provide a reference?

Not a misprint per se, but certainly a revision in a dynamic source, Speer data for 327 Federal Magnum is not included in their manual #14, so they provide data sheets for download on their website. I have older copies of those sheets that show the primer number has been changed from small pistol magnum to small rifle.
at liberty is offline  
Old May 11th, 2017, 08:29 AM   #22
Retired Moderator & Gunsmith
 
Iowegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CB, IA
Posts: 11,972
Iowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to behold

Awards Showcase

Salmoneye, My reference was from an old (undated) Olin reloading data sheet. Olin owned the Winchester name since 1935 and in 1980, all Olin gun powders began being marketed under the Winchester brand name. So ... the data sheet had to be printed before 1980. For 296 powder, it says: Olin 296 is a very fine granule ball powder for magnum handgun cartridges. Maximum loads must not be reduced more than 10% for revolver cartridges due to the possibility of squib loads. Magnum primers are preferred. 296 was designed specifically for 410 shotshell loads and is also used in 30 M1 Carbine ammunition.

There is nothing stated about closed breach firearms so I'm assuming reduced loads don't apply for rifles. Loads in this data sheet for 357 Mag 158gr bullets show a minimum charge of 16gr and a max charge of 18gr. According to the Olin data sheet, the minimum should be no less than a 10% reduction of the maximum, which would be a minimum charge of 16.2gr .... so Olin violated their own rules.

Just an FYI .... back in 1993, SAAMI lowered the chamber pressure standards for 357 Mag (25%), 41 Mag, and 44 Mag (10%), Powder charges with W-296 were reduced well below the 10% noted in the Olin data sheet. As an example, the old Speer #11 manual shows a starting load of 15.8gr and a max load of 17.8gr. The newer Speer manuals show a starting load of 13.2gr and a max load of 14.7gr. Using the old Olin 10% rule, the minimum charge should be 16.2gr .... which is considerably more than the current max charge. Go figure! Speer #14 current Rifle data for the 357 Mag is the same as for handguns. The Speer #11 manual loads for 357 Mag rifles are 15.3gr minimum and 17.3gr maximum .... a half grain lower than for handguns.

at liberty, Sounds more like an update instead of a misprint. There are many examples of updates .... mostly during the transition period from the old crusher method of measuring chamber pressure to the newer piezo transducer method that was approved by SAAMI in 1993. Many reloading manuals still list loads that were tested with the old crusher system (rated in CUP), especially for less popular cartridges. Slowly but surely these cartridges are being retested with Piezo transducers so newer published manuals will reflect those updated changes. Often the powder charges don't change .... only the pressure ratings are updated to "psi". Some powder companies such as Hodgdon still use the old method and rate chamber pressure in CUP.

FYI, Small Pistol Magnum primers and Small Rifle Standard primers have virtually the same "mix" ... the only difference being rifle primers have a slightly stonger cup and are known to handle pressures in excess of 65k psi. Small Pistol Magnum primers are known to handle pressures up to 50k psi .... which would be a minimum safety margin for those high pressure 32 Fed mag cartridges (45k psi). So .... using Small Magnum Pistol primers would probably be safe but under freak circumstances, it could possibly result in a blown cup.

Last edited by Iowegan; May 11th, 2017 at 09:39 AM.
Iowegan is offline  
Old May 11th, 2017, 09:58 AM   #23
 
Salmoneye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: VT
Posts: 592
Salmoneye is on a distinguished road
Interesting...Thanks for taking the time...

I have had an 'issue' with the 'dire warning' that Hodgdon had on their site for years about not reducing H110 more than 3%...

I have been known to go on about it (at other sites, and maybe here in the past)...

I have an early 90's jug right here that clearly has a max load of 14.5gr for a 158gr jacketed bullet in .357 Mag, whereas current starting load data from Hodgdon site is 15gr with a max of 16.7gr with a 158gr jacketed...

Here is an old thread I waxed poetic in:

Loading 357 mag.

Pic of the jug on my shelf:

Salmoneye is offline  
Old May 11th, 2017, 12:39 PM   #24
Retired Moderator & Gunsmith
 
Iowegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CB, IA
Posts: 11,972
Iowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to behold

Awards Showcase

Salmoneye, I have been following the W-296/H-110 saga for decades. It started out where these were different powders with very similar formulas but were made in the same factory .... Primex Technologies in St. Marks Florida. It's hard to say if these two powders are still slightly different formulas or if they are identical .... only the factory knows for sure. It really doesn't matter because load data between the two is directly interchangeable and produce virtually identical results.

I believe the old "do not reduce" warnings were because many people did not use magnum primers. It's a well known fact ... they are very difficult to ignite and to stay ignited until the bullet leaves the muzzle. This is especially important as temperatures drop below freezing because H-110/W-296 become even harder to ignite. This "hard to ignite" attribute is solved when magnum primers are used. Even Winchester WLPs .... made for both standard and magnum applications will ignite these powders reliably.

As I have noted before, all slow burning powders act much like a fuse and burn in a serial manner. This means the first granule of powder gets ignited by the primer and it ignites the next granule and that granule ignites the next one .... on and on until the powder is burned up or blown out of the muzzle. Magnum primers with their hotter mix and longer burn time start initial ignition much better and keep producing a flash until the bullet is well on its way down the barrel. When standard primers are used, the fire can literally go out in an air gap (void) between kernels of powder. When this happens on initial ignition, a squb load is produced that does not develop enough chamber pressure to push the bullet down the bore.

I had quite a few guns with squib loads come into my shop. In all cases with H-110 or W-296, there was a large blob of yellow plastic looking material between the cylinder throat and forcing cone with some of it oozing out of the B/C gap and a bullet stuck in the bore. The scenario was either a light charge of powder, a standard primer, or a very cold day .... or a combination thereof. Once the gun was cleaned up and the bullet had been removed from the bore, it was restored back to normal. The fear with a squib is .... if a bullet is stuck in the bore and you fire a round that is not a squib, you will have a classic Kaboom on your hands.

There were also rumors of Kabooms when light charges of W-296/H-110 powder were used. The theory was .... pressure would get very high spikes because more powder was exposed to the primer flash ... which would blow up the gun. This rumor was dispelled when piezo transducers started being used .... no spikes, just poor ignition. I think the real fact was .... someone loaded a very light powder charge and got a squib .... then followed it up with a normal cartridge and blew his gun up .... not a pressure spike at all, just a squib that went unnoticed.
Iowegan is offline  
Reply

  Ruger Forum > Firearm Forum > Reloading


Search tags for this page

w296 powder reduced loads

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Ruger Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
.357 cowboy loads vs reg 357 hindu64 Ammo Dump 5 April 21st, 2015 08:59 PM
Loads for 77/357 mnh2obuff Ruger Bolt Action 8 January 9th, 2012 01:14 PM
357 loads weldernewt53 Reloading 15 December 29th, 2011 10:23 PM
.357 Rifle Loads mnh2obuff Reloading 8 November 28th, 2010 08:30 AM
Lever Rifle Loads in 38/357 newtmaker Reloading 14 September 21st, 2010 07:05 PM

Top Gun Sites Top Sites List
Powered by vBulletin 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright © 2006 - 2017 Ruger Forum. All rights reserved.
Ruger Forum is a Ruger Firearms enthusiast's forum, but it is in no way affiliated with, nor does it represent Sturm Ruger & Company Inc. of Southport, CT.