H-110 Load Data Discrepancy--Hodgdon vs. Hornady - Ruger Forum

Ruger Forum

H-110 Load Data Discrepancy--Hodgdon vs. Hornady

This is a discussion on H-110 Load Data Discrepancy--Hodgdon vs. Hornady within the Reloading forums, part of the Firearm Forum category; ...Getting ready to hand load Hornady XTP 140 and 158 grain 357 Mag bullets using H-110 (for GP 100 and 77 357). After checking both ...


Go Back   Ruger Forum > Firearm Forum > Reloading

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes

Old September 16th, 2019, 10:56 PM   #1
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 8
gp4 today is on a distinguished road
H-110 Load Data Discrepancy--Hodgdon vs. Hornady

...Getting ready to hand load Hornady XTP 140 and 158 grain 357 Mag bullets using H-110 (for GP 100 and 77 357). After checking both Hornady (10th edition) and Hodgdon (on line) data for this powder and these bullets, there are major discrepancies in min and max loads. Tech service at both companies states that their data is "correct" and in reading many of the posts in the Ruger Forum (and others), there does not appear to be much info addressing this issue.

While there is a reasonable overlap between the two companies data for the 140 grn XTP, the Hornady data for 158 grn max loads barely overlap the Hodgdon min data for this bullet. I really want to stay within manufacturer's recommendations, and am well aware that loading beneath the listed minimum is not advised, but I am in a quandry as to whose data I should follow--the powder manufacturer's or the powder manufacturer's!

Any insights on this would be very much appreciated!

Bullet Hodgdon Hornady Hornady
(Pistol & Rifle) (Pistol) (Rifle)
Min/Max Min/Max Min/Max
140 17.1/19.0 15.7/18.4 11.5/18.3
158 15.0/16.7 12.7/15.6 8.6/15.5



gp4 today is offline  
Advertisements
Old September 17th, 2019, 06:59 AM   #2
 
gwpercle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Posts: 1,848
gwpercle is a jewel in the roughgwpercle is a jewel in the roughgwpercle is a jewel in the rough
I like to use the bullet makers data .

I would use Hornady Pistol Data for loads in a handgun .
Rifle loads can be geared to longer barrels with slower powders and give excessive flash when used in a short barrel . Then again I have seen some makers data where the Rifle and Pistol loads were exactly the same .

It's good to cross reference printed data to get a better idea of min. / max. loads,
no two sources are identical . I like to compare four different sources ( three minimum) to get a better handle on what's min. / max. loads.

Out of the dozen or so loading manuals on my shelf + web site data , the Hornady Manual #8 ( my Hornady Manual #1 is dated 1967) is one of my favorite data sources .
In the last 50 years have always found their data reliable and safe.
No two sources will be identical in data , too many variables . Read with what components the loads were tested , use common sense , don't start with any max. loads....always start low and slowly work loads up looking for signs of high pressure.

Based on 50 years experience what I do is take the lowest min. charge and the highest max. charge add them together divide by 2 ...that gets you in the middle of the road , which is a good place to start fine tuning for accuracy . Usually a grain or two above or below middle of the road is where I find the sweet spot . Full bore max. loads must be worked up to slowly and carefully...every gun is different. A safe max load in mine may be over pressure in yours.

Only you can prevent accidents, load safe!
Gary

Last edited by gwpercle; September 17th, 2019 at 07:10 AM.
gwpercle is offline  
Old September 17th, 2019, 08:05 AM   #3
 
brnwlms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 2,647
brnwlms has a spectacular aura aboutbrnwlms has a spectacular aura aboutbrnwlms has a spectacular aura about
Data never seems to be the same from manual to manual. That said, some companies are more conservative than others, but all published data from a reputable company (Hornady and Hodgdon both are) will be safe and will not exceed SAAMI maximum pressure and thus will be safe. As qwpercle said, I tend to follow the bullet manufacturer's load recommendations, and I always cross-reference. So, bottom line, rest assured that your load will be safe. One thing to keep in mind when using the Hodgdon website is that the exact bullet you are loading for will not always be listed (but in this case it is), so perhaps that is why the Hodgdon is more conservative, for people who are using the XTP load as a stand-in for any jacketed 158 grain bullet. Just a thought.
brnwlms is offline  
 
Old September 17th, 2019, 09:23 AM   #4
 
Mark204's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,170
Mark204 is a jewel in the roughMark204 is a jewel in the roughMark204 is a jewel in the rough
Use whichever load you’d like, just stick with the listed components. These companies aren’t just pulling random load data out of their “six”, they’ve all done their testing. Their results are based on the components they had on hand that given day. There’s no rhyme or reason as to why they used a certain case or a certain primer.

As far as a max load goes, it’s not the max load, it’s close. They know some reloader will run up to it and exceed it. It keeps you safe and it keeps them out of court.

I’ll use anybody’s published data in a modern firearm. No issues in over 30 years.

Last edited by Mark204; September 17th, 2019 at 09:26 AM.
Mark204 is online now  
Old September 17th, 2019, 10:07 AM   #5
Retired Moderator & Gunsmith
 
Iowegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CB, IA
Posts: 15,414
Iowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud of

Awards Showcase

gp4 today, I have written about this very issue several times. There are may reasons why data doesn't track between different reloading manuals, especially if Hodgdon is one of the companies. Hodgdon uses every trick in the book to make their powders appear to be more powerful. For this reason, I've learned not to trust Hodgdon reloading data unless it used modern test methods and current SAAMI standards.

Chamber pressure for the 357 Mag load in question is rated in CUP in the Hodgdon manual, which is the old copper crusher method that was replaced by the modern and much more accurate peizo transducer electronic method rated in pounds per square inch (psi). In 1993, the shooting industry started transitioning to the piezo transducer method and at the same time, SAAMI lowered max pressure standards for 357 Mag, 41 Mag, and 44 Mag because they were causing excessive gun wear. 357 Mag was lowered to 35k psi, a 25% reduction. 41 and 44 Mags were lowered by 10%. You just can't use different test methods and different SAAMI max pressure specs and come up with the same load data.

Next, each manual will normally state what gun and barrel length was used for chronograph testing. In the above case, Hornady used a 8" barreled Colt Python and Hodgdon used a 10" barrel but no specific gun is mentioned … probably a T/C Contender because it is one of the very few guns available with a 10" barrel. When slow burning powder such as H-110 is used, barrel length can make a very notable difference in velocity as will other gun related issues like B/C gap or an unvented barrel.

SAAMI establishes a max chamber pressure rating for each cartridge but reloading manuals reduce this pressure just to provide a safety margin for liability reasons. Why? Reloading manuals can't control how you reload, what components you use, what dies, powder measures, and scales you use so they always reduce max loads to provide a cushion. Some companies such as Hornady tend to be very conservative and will reduce max charges more than other companies like Speer, which is much closer to actual SAAMI limits.

I know a lot of people like to compare loads between manuals. This is OK providing you DON'T use bullets or seating depth from one manual and powder charges from another. The most accurate load data comes from bullet manufactures because they actually test each of their own bullets and recommended bullet seating depths with different brands of powder.
Iowegan is offline  
Old September 17th, 2019, 03:16 PM   #6
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 8
gp4 today is on a distinguished road
Re Load Data Discrpeancy

Gentlemen:

Thanks to each of you for your wisdom based on years of experience and knowledge of the industry!

I will stick with the Hornady data specific to the bullets and powder I intend to load!

Paul
gp4 today is offline  
Old September 17th, 2019, 04:33 PM   #7
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Alberta
Posts: 116
Reeferman is on a distinguished road
I use both 110 and 296 and have been loading using both Hornady and Hodgdon data and have had no issues. But find accuracy is improved at the higher end.
Reeferman is offline  
Old September 18th, 2019, 09:26 AM   #8
Retired Moderator & Gunsmith
 
Iowegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CB, IA
Posts: 15,414
Iowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud of

Awards Showcase

ditto1958 & JLS1980, You guys should open a new thread. This one is about H-110 in 357 Mags ….. not MP300, 3031, or 30-30s.
Iowegan is offline  
Old September 18th, 2019, 01:36 PM   #9
 
gwpercle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Posts: 1,848
gwpercle is a jewel in the roughgwpercle is a jewel in the roughgwpercle is a jewel in the rough
Quote:
Originally Posted by gp4 today View Post
Gentlemen:

Thanks to each of you for your wisdom based on years of experience and knowledge of the industry!

I will stick with the Hornady data specific to the bullets and powder I intend to load!

Paul
Hornady bullet specific data is an excellent plan !
Gary
gwpercle is offline  
Old September 20th, 2019, 01:58 PM   #10
 
SA45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 366
SA45 is on a distinguished road
I prefer to stick with sound data & components listed, and cross check similiar loadings from additional sources, as part of a knowlege base for myself.

Hodgdon makes some good products, but had heard from a reliable source decades ago (who was very close 'as in family ties' to founders or owners back then, etc.), that they were a bit 'out there' in some regards as in how they approach some things, yeah - I know thats kinda vague.

Ha! ....but SOME might say the same thing about me. GRIN
SA45 is offline  
Old November 27th, 2019, 01:14 PM   #11
 
SirRuger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 83
SirRuger is on a distinguished road
Based on 50 years experience what I do is take the lowest min. charge and the highest max. charge add them together divide by 2 ...that gets you in the middle of the road , which is a good place to start fine tuning for accuracy . Usually a grain or two above or below middle of the road is where I find the sweet spot . Full bore max. loads must be worked up to slowly and carefully...every gun is different. A safe max load in mine may be over pressure in yours.

Only you can prevent accidents, load safe!
Gary[/QUOTE]

This is sound advice from Gary, a procedure i have lived by since the 1980ís
SirRuger is offline  
Old November 27th, 2019, 01:30 PM   #12
 
ditto1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 5,143
ditto1958 is a name known to allditto1958 is a name known to allditto1958 is a name known to allditto1958 is a name known to allditto1958 is a name known to allditto1958 is a name known to all
SirRuger, I think moderation is excellent advice.

Despite my whining earlier in this thread, I stay in the middle, or even lower with all of my loads.
ditto1958 is offline  
Old November 27th, 2019, 01:54 PM   #13
 
Mark204's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,170
Mark204 is a jewel in the roughMark204 is a jewel in the roughMark204 is a jewel in the rough
Quote:
Originally Posted by ditto1958 View Post
I stay in the middle, or even lower with all of my loads.
And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. My accuracy loads, (for all my rifles) aren’t below the middle, most are just a tad above the middle. I’ve never found an “accuracy load” on the upper end of the charge weight, it hasn’t happened. Those middle of the road loads can be fine tune with seating depth.

Muzzle velocity does not equate to accuracy.
Mark204 is online now  
Old November 27th, 2019, 03:43 PM   #14
Retired Moderator & Gunsmith
 
Iowegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CB, IA
Posts: 15,414
Iowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud of

Awards Showcase

Mark204, This thread is about hand gun loads with H-110, not rifle loads and yes, it does make a difference. As for muzzle velocity, if you don't need magnum velocities, simply don't use magnum powders.

Have you ever fired factory magnum ammo in your handguns? If so, they are loaded to max SAAMI pressure ratings because SAAMI established this data based on the company that designed the cartridge. In other words, when Remington designed the 44 Rem Mag, their test data was used to establish SAAMI max pressure standards …. it's not just a number they pulled out of a hat.

Before a factory cartridge will sell well, it must meet velocity and accuracy expectations, otherwise customers will buy something else. When new cartridges are designed, the company that develops them does a huge amount of testing to find the optimum powders, primers, and bullets to produce powerful and accurate results in nearly all platforms. This developed data is then forwarded to SAAMI where official measurement standards are established and used by other ammo and gun manufacturers. Most factory loaded magnum cartridges use one of these two powders in their ammo and you must admit, it is pretty accurate in nearly all handgun brands, models, and barrel lengths.

Point being, H-110 and its twin W-296 are very slow burning powders intended for magnum performance. I have used these two powders for several decades in 30 Carb, 357 Mag, 41 Mag, and 44 Mag and without fail, I've found the loads at the high end of the chart produce excellent accuracy and develop factory equivalent velocities. If I don't need full magnum velocities, I will use a different faster burning powder to maintain about the same chamber pressure. Why? When powder charges are reduced with these two powders, you risk squib loads plus chamber pressure isn't high enough to get good ignition and powder burn. Most fast and mid-burn rate powder need to develop at least 15k psi chamber pressure or powder won't get a good burn and will leave unburned granules/flakes in the bore and bowls of the gun. W-296 and H-110 require at least 25k psi …. better yet 30k psi chamber pressure to get a consistent burn and a consistent velocity, which is a hard core requirement for good accuracy. You can easily prove this concept with a chronograph, measuring max velocity spreads and average velocity then putting the loads on paper targets.

Reloading manuals always keep their max loads well under SAAMI pressure specs for obvious liability reasons …. the max being different for each reloading manual but never over SAAMI standards. If you load at the very high end of their charts, you still won't get to SAAMI max pressure limits. I never exceed load data in reputable sources but I usually load very close to the top end with these two magnum powders and I get excellent results with a good safety margin.
Iowegan is offline  
Reply

  Ruger Forum > Firearm Forum > Reloading

None


Search tags for this page

hornady 10th edition review

,

hornady reloading manual 10th edition

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Top Gun Sites Top Sites List
Powered by vBulletin 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright © 2006 - 2020 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.