|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 11, 2007, 10:50 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: January 22, 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 40
|
Anyone find N110 isn't pushing bullets up to speed?
I've been trying out N110 as a replacement for 2400 in magnum loads in 357, 41, and 45 colt to reduce the flash and concussion that 2400 is known for. So far, N110 definately produce less flash and noise, but also significantly less velocity! This has been mostly consistent, so I'm wondering if my bottle of N110 is a bit off, or if there is something else I should try. Every other published comparison of the two powders shows them producing very similar results.
What have you experienced? This weekend I shot the following with the listed results: 4" S&W 173 Keith bullet from Beartooth bullets, CCI 500 (non-mag) primer, starline brass, 45 deg F. N110 13.3g = 980 fps 13.8g = 1045 fps 2400 13.5g = 1185 fps 14.0g = 1220 fps 45 colt - 5.5" Ruger 250 Hornady XTP, CCI300 (non-mag) primer, starline brass, 30 deg F. N110 17.5g = 740 fps 19.0g = 900 fps 20.5g = 920 fps 2400 17.3g = 950 fps 19.0g = 1040 fps 20.5g = 1180 fps 41 mag - 6" (or is it 6.5"?) Ruger 210 Sierra JHP, CCI300 (non-mag) primer, mixed brass, 40 deg F. N110 16.0g = 1000 fps 18.0g = 1350 fps 2400 16.0g = 1260 fps 18.0g = 1380 fps So what do you think? If it were not for that one data point at 18.0g of N110, I'd say my powder is off. Maybe I should buy another bottle. Does N110 take some serious pressure to really light it off? Should I try magnum primers? The easy answer is to keep using 2400; however, something just doesn't add up here. Thanks for you ideas. Chap |
March 12, 2007, 12:06 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2007
Posts: 132
|
Couple loads I have used
The closest comparison I can find right at the moment is for a couple of fairly mild loads utilizing the Hornady 140 gr. XTP bullet.
N-110 14.3 gr. Avg. Velocity 1098 2400 13.2 gr. Avg. Velocity 1086 I used CCI 500 primers with both loads, as well as Winchester brass There does seem to some difference in velocities obtained in direct powder weight comparison, but in the case of the two above loads I have found N110 to produce better groups. Like you I have also noted a reduction in muzzle flash and blast, and that I can appreciate during informal plinking sessions. |
March 15, 2007, 01:21 AM | #3 |
Member
Join Date: January 22, 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 40
|
Anyone?
What are your experiences with VV N110? Do you find it much less than published values (even more so than 2400), or does it live up to your expectations?
BBT Thanks, Chap |
March 15, 2007, 01:32 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 10, 2007
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 216
|
I have a freind the uses N110 and N120, I will ask him next time I see him. I use 2400 hot loads and Unique for my shooting loads
__________________
Born pre-war and proud of it! |
March 31, 2007, 12:03 PM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: January 22, 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 40
|
One more time
One more try on the weekend for ideas on this.
Thanks! |
April 2, 2007, 12:06 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 26, 2005
Location: Orygun
Posts: 2,589
|
It's a little on the chilly side.... N110 may need the magnum primers at lower temps. -tINY |
April 2, 2007, 01:13 PM | #7 |
Member
Join Date: October 4, 2004
Posts: 54
|
I average 1240 fps out of a 6" 586 using a 158g bullet and 15.1g of N110. This is a starting load and I havent gone any further yet. I use CCI 550 primers but a small rifle primer would probably work OK too. I like this powder because clean up is easy.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|