The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 15, 2013, 02:57 PM   #1
foghorn25
Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2011
Location: CT
Posts: 40
Basic reloading question

My reloading experience is rather limited so the answer to this question may be obvious, but here goes.....

I have some 160 gr. lead SWC bullets (Carroll) I'd like to use in a .357 load. My Lyman manual has 3 bullets at close/identical weights, 2 at 158 gr. and a 160 which is a JSP. Am I OK to use the data from the 160 even though bullet is a SP, (or, if the 160 hadn't been listed, one of the 158s)? I do have the 296 powder used for each load.

I imagine with the scarcity of bullets, powders, etc. right now many people are in the same boat and just can't match these loads 1 for 1. I do realize for a given spec, using the listed powder (at the given min-max weights) is key, I am mainly concerned here with using a different bullet of very close weight and perhaps a different design.

Thanks!
foghorn25 is offline  
Old May 15, 2013, 03:13 PM   #2
Sevens
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,755
Here's what I think-- but this is just my opinion, we'll see if some contrary arguments counter my approach.

First, you are talking 2 grains in weight. Effectively, 2 grains in bullet weight (NOT powder weight! ) is about as close to nothing as you'll get. Realistically, you can find some bullets that will vary in weight across a range that isn't all too far from the 2 grain spread. In other words, it's not a concern. Also consider that it's 2 grains out of 158/160 grains. It's not 2 grains out of a 35 grain .224" rifle slug, so it's a bullet that is less then TWO percent heavier. In my opinion, it's simply NOT a factor.

As for using published data for bullets of different construction, shape, physical makeup, again...I try to keep in mind a couple of things.

Lead bullets (of the PROPER diameter) will offer less resistance in a bore. Thus, all other things being equal, a jacketed bullet of the same weight will run a higher pressure load. So if you want to use some published data as a guideline, you are in a safer position to READ jacketed data and APPLY it (loosely) to lead bullets, not the other way around.

Another thing to look at (more often when looking at jacketed data and using jacketed bullets) is that a JHP tends to be slightly LONGER than a JSP or FMJ in the same bullet weight (if composition is the same) because the hollow point takes space out of the slug, making it LONGER for the same weight. Thus... read JHP data and substitute JSP/FMJ slugs, but not the other way around.

Finally, and more important than all the others is...
Published data is merely one labs testing results. It is not and never has been a rule set in stone. And published loads (when they list only one load) are published MAXIMUM loads that you must safely work toward and never start at. This is a cardinal rule of handloading. If the load says "158gr JSP with 14.5 grains of SuperBlaster powder" then you start at 12.0 grains and you build some rounds there, some at 12.5, some at 13.0, some at 13.5, etc etc.

This is load development. Proper, safe, methodical and measured load development will keep you safe nearly always, at least with respect to approaching "maximum" loads.

Please note in your specific question that the bullet FIT in your bore will have monumental effect on how well your project goes... you may not see the results you hope for as loading with lead bullets is a different ballgame, but that's fodder for a different thread.

One last thing... as with anything you read on this forum, my words are not law. Not published, not backed and I am not a professional, so do more research. However... anything and everything I said is entirely INVALID for rifle bullets and especially, bullets made from NON-LEAD. These are a total game changer due to their size and physical metal content that follow completely different rules.
__________________
Attention Brass rats and other reloaders: I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.
Sevens is offline  
Old May 15, 2013, 03:30 PM   #3
foghorn25
Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2011
Location: CT
Posts: 40
Sevens

Thanks for the great info! I do realize there are no "set in stone rules" with reloading manual data, but I was just trying to get a feel for if my approach was right.

And my intuition of course said to start at minimum charges and build up, but I will say I have read, for example, with the Winchester 296 powder you don't want to underload it. And to be honest, if they were available I'd be loading jacketed bullets (I did order some 110 gr. Barnes all copper because that was all I could find out there for this caliber). Hopefully this will get a bit easier if and when supplies start to build up again.
foghorn25 is offline  
Old May 15, 2013, 03:38 PM   #4
Sevens
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,755
That's the number one reason (of a few) that I still do not, to this very day, have any H110/W296 in my entire cache, and I keep a ridiculous number of powders. That powder goes against my typical approach, and I can do similar things with OTHER powders, so I stick with other powders and I skip past H110.

It's a fine powder and most everyone who uses it gets terrific results. I have plenty of others I'd rather use.
__________________
Attention Brass rats and other reloaders: I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.
Sevens is offline  
Old May 15, 2013, 06:05 PM   #5
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,285
I would base my load data selection first on bullet composition, then on weight when weight is within 5 grains. I would base my load development on the 158 SWC data.

Start at min load and work up. Your max for a 160 is probably ~0.2 gr less than the data.
Nathan is offline  
Old May 15, 2013, 08:34 PM   #6
histed
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 9, 2013
Location: Central PA
Posts: 254
I agree with Steve on the H-110 powder. I use it my .357, but only with jacketed bullets. IMO, its hard to go wrong with Unique under a SWC bullet. I've had some success with Blue Dot as well. Good Luck
__________________
You Have enemies? Good. That means that you've stood up for something in your life. --Winston Churchill
The right to buy weapons is the right to be free. -- A.E. Van Vogt
histed is offline  
Old May 15, 2013, 09:17 PM   #7
WESHOOT2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 1999
Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country)
Posts: 14,324
357 Magnum; it's about the bullet

W296 works well under lead.
So does AA9 and N110 and 2400 and H110.

Use Magnum primers (I prefer CCI and Federal) to ignite W296 and H110.
__________________
.
"all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"
WESHOOT2 is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 05:46 AM   #8
foghorn25
Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2011
Location: CT
Posts: 40
Well 296 wouldn't have been my first pick (although it is supposedly for magnum loads) but it was all I could find available so I grabbed it. One of the 158 reloads in the Lyman book I mentioned is for a lead bullet and even though the 296 has no "starting data", only "maximum data", H110 does have a "starting" and I understand they are the same powder so I'll use that data. Anyhow, for the lead bullet it's the only load of the 3 listed that I have the powder for.

I do have very limited amounts of 231 and Unique that are years and years old so could use one of those, but I figure try and use the 296 for the .357. since I got 4 lbs of it and I just bought it. The lack of bullets is really the main issue.

This shortage on everything really stinks.....
foghorn25 is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 07:15 AM   #9
TimSr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
Quote:
W296 works well under lead.
So does AA9 and N110 and 2400 and H110.

Use Magnum primers (I prefer CCI and Federal) to ignite W296 and H110.
x2 (if cast to proper hardness)
TimSr is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 07:32 AM   #10
foghorn25
Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2011
Location: CT
Posts: 40
I don't have magnum primers, how big a deal is that vs. using small pistol?
foghorn25 is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 12:36 PM   #11
Sevens
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,755
When using H110/W296, magnum primers ARE a big deal.

Good news is that if you have some small rifle (non-magnum) on hand, you can substitute those to similar effect.

If you have CCI Small Rifle, then you actually have CCI Small Pistol Magnum, that much we know. From the other companies, we are not sure, but I would do it.

The only concern would be the slim possibility of light primer strikes because the small rifle primer will have a harder, thicker cup than a regular small pistol non-magnum primer and if you have a revolver with a weak hammer spring, you may see the occasional FTF, especially in double action shooting.

CCI primers are harder than many right from the start, it's not likely to be an issue.

Personally, I would not make any load using H110/W296 without having either a small magnum or small rifle non-magnum primer on hand.

Of course...I wouldn't make any loads with H110/W296 in the first place!
__________________
Attention Brass rats and other reloaders: I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.
Sevens is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 12:43 PM   #12
Revolver1
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 150
The biggest difference is lead vs copper. When using W296, watch leading. Load data is usually up for slow powder. As for the two grain difference in bullet weight, play it safe and load for 158gr.
Revolver1 is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 06:04 AM   #13
WESHOOT2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 1999
Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country)
Posts: 14,324
side query

How much did you pay for those 4lb of W296?
__________________
.
"all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"
WESHOOT2 is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 08:27 AM   #14
foghorn25
Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2011
Location: CT
Posts: 40
Well, maybe I hit a stroke of luck. I just ordered/received 1000 small rifle primers (Winchester), so those would be good to go for my .357 loads?

As for the 296, I ordered it since it was one of the few powders available and I knew I could use it at least for magnum loads. "Beggers cant be choosers", I guess. I've read some people like it, other's don't. I have no experience with it. Sounds like I'll need to be extra dilegent with barrel cleaning due to lead fouling? I guess I can deal with that.

I can't say if my revolver has a weak hammer spring or not, it's a GP-100 that's never failed me yet so hopefully the answer is "No"
foghorn25 is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 04:34 PM   #15
57K
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2013
Location: Heart of Texas
Posts: 788
Sevens gave you good advice and it is best to use the data for a bullet of similar construction with a difference of 2 grains not being much of a factor even with the recommendation that W296/H110 should not be used with a load less than 3% of a Max. Charge, as per Hodgdon. I would definitely use the 158 gr. Cast Bullet Data.

For .357 Magnum, I totally agree, and IMO W296 and H110 are best used in the .44 Magnum but sometimes does well with top-end loads in the .41 Magnum. The smaller case of the .357 Magnum makes powders with just a slightly faster burn rate more suitable. AA#9 and Enforcer are very well suited to the case capacity and AA# 4100 is said to be the same powder as Enforcer but that should be confirmed by Western Powder Co. that owns both brands.

Since you have 4# of 296, might as well use it, but I thought I'd also mention AA#9 that was brought up previously and I have replaced it with Enforcer that I like very well in .357 and the .41 Magnums. Something that might be worth considering as a practical purchase to go along with your 296 would be AA#7 where you can load the 160 gr. Cast bullets from medium velocity to near the capability of 296. AA#7 has a well earned reputation for accuracy in this type of loading and works very well with cast lead bullets. Not as a replacement for 296, but to be able to load at lower and more comfortable velocities with excellent accuracy potential and the lower velocity cast lead bullet loads will extend barrel life over 296 at near or at Max. Charges and make you some great general use loads. I would use the 296 for top-end jacketed or solid copper bullet loads. AA#7 will serve you well for everything else and the more expensive V-V 3N37 isn't a bad choice either.
57K is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.10266 seconds with 10 queries