The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 6, 2005, 06:28 PM   #1
bk83gold
Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2005
Posts: 25
44 mag and 357 mag HELP

Hello guys,
My brother in law and myself are getting into reloading for the first time. I did it a long time ago with my grandpa and my dad but this is the first time flying solo. I reloaded 44 mag with Hercules bullseye powder and a Speer 240 gain JHP. I used 9 grains of powder just what the book says to use. I took it out to the desert and it felt like a 44 special rd not a 44 mag. The same thing happened with the 357 ammo. I followed the reloading books perfectly and both the ammo I reloaded felt way under powered. What could be causing this?

I am not looking to reload hot loads just factory style loads. If you have any suggestions on powder type powder weight and bullet weight I would appreciate it.

Just a note I am very careful about measurements and following the booklets. I do not want any accidents. Suggestions would be great for some one who is starting out.

Thank you
Brandon
bk83gold is offline  
Old September 6, 2005, 07:13 PM   #2
redrooster2
Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2004
Location: north of Acadiana
Posts: 80
You will never get magnum performance from a fast powder like Bullseye. Suggest you consider Alliant 2400, Winchester 296 or Hogdon H110. Check the manuals and work up slowly.
redrooster2 is offline  
Old September 6, 2005, 07:19 PM   #3
bk83gold
Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2005
Posts: 25
Thank you I have some H110 I'll give the next set a try. Why would slower powder be better for mag bullets?

Brandon
bk83gold is offline  
Old September 6, 2005, 08:03 PM   #4
Zekewolf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 2, 2005
Posts: 886
AA#9 is also great for full-power .44 mag loads. Slower powders don't "BURP" the bullets out.
Zekewolf is offline  
Old September 6, 2005, 08:26 PM   #5
Bullet94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2004
Location: Kansas
Posts: 723
The difference between powders with slower or faster burn rates I believe has to do with how pressures are achieved (pressure curve). I use H110 for 44’s myself just don’t reduce the powder charge by more than 3% from MAX. I use Alliant 2400 for 357’s.

Here is a link to some data -

http://recipes.alliantpowder.com/rg....evolver&step=1

http://www.hodgdon.com/data/pistol/44remmag.php

http://www.hodgdon.com/data/pistol/357mag.php
__________________
PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT - Live Free or Die
Bullet94 is offline  
Old September 6, 2005, 09:18 PM   #6
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,244
BK83,

The fast powder's pressure hits the chamber maximum before the bullet has moved much at all. This means the peak pressure is confined to the small volume of the case behind the bullet. The fast powder burns up and the gas that makes that pressure in that small space expands as the bullet goes down the barrel. It just isn't enough gas to be pushing very hard by the time the bullet leaves the muzzle. So, bullet acceleration is mainly during the early part of its travel down the tube.

A slower powder lets the bullet get down the tube an inch or two before the pressure peaks. This means you can use a lot more powder since the peak will occur in the bigger volume that is behind the bullet after it has got that far down the tube. This gas volume then holds maintains higher pressure longer as the bullet goes down the tube and expands the space. This is both because of the larger peak pressure gas volume and because the slow burning powder also keeps adding gas because it hasn't all burned up yet.

Another way to look at it is this: The main propellant is nitrocellulose in both the fast and slow powders. It has the same energy per grain of weight whether it is in a slow or a fast burning formulation or grain shape. The fact the slow powder peaks its pressure after the bullet has moved enough to create a bigger volume behind it lets you use more than two and a half times as many grains of H110 as you can Bullseye. More powder, more energy.


Bullet94,

I am curious where you got that 3% figure from? I know W-W used to warn not to reduce 296 loads, but I never picked that up for H110? Hodgdon Manual #27 has almost 10% difference between the starting and maximum loads for a 280 grain bullet in the 44 mag propelled by H110.

Nick
Unclenick is offline  
Old September 6, 2005, 09:40 PM   #7
Bullet94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2004
Location: Kansas
Posts: 723
Unclenick

On my H110 powder container is says Maximum loads-Do not exceed-reduce by 3% to start. I have stuck bullets in the barrel by reducing slow powder (which at that time was a listed load – before the warnings not to reduce by more than 3%). I believe the powder I was using was 296 but since then I have always only reduced slow powders by no more than 3% and have never had stuck bullets since. Here is a link to Hodgdon -

http://www.hodgdon.com/data/pistol/index.php
__________________
PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT - Live Free or Die
Bullet94 is offline  
Old September 6, 2005, 09:52 PM   #8
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,244
Ah! Probably a good policy. Sounds more like a suggested starting load reduction than a mandated minimum, though. I just wondered why it was at odds with Hodgdon's own loading data? I looked at the linked loading data you posted and it doesn't show minimums. Shame on them.

I would guess a 10% reduction isn't going to stick a bullet, but you’ve provided a good heads-up to watch out for the problem. I've noticed both H110 and, especially, W-W296, at the recommended loads are nowhere near SAMMI maximum pressures. That's probably why they can get away with posting one charge recommendation for all case brands and all bullet brands of the same weight. I would, however, hesitate to use those charge weights with sintered metal bullets or other bullets that were low density and extra long for their weight. That’s too much case volume reduction to be safe.

Nick

Edit: Ok, I just read the linked warning. It's more than a suggestion. Funny about their own loading data disobeying it?
Unclenick is offline  
Old September 6, 2005, 10:00 PM   #9
Bullet94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2004
Location: Kansas
Posts: 723
Unclenick

I added a link to Hodgdon’s warning above. I must have edited my reply at the same time you posted so here’s Hodgdon’s warning link again –

http://www.hodgdon.com/data/pistol/index.php
__________________
PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT - Live Free or Die
Bullet94 is offline  
Old September 6, 2005, 10:23 PM   #10
Bullet94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2004
Location: Kansas
Posts: 723
Unclenick Quote – “Ok, I just read the linked warning. It's more than a suggestion. Funny about their own loading data disobeying it?”

I’m no expert but I’ve found listed data in the past that stuck bullets with slow powders and not just in 44 Mag. There sometimes seems to be conflicting data too. I’ve had listed loads that won’t even function in my Glock and have to load more than 1 grain over listed MAX loads to achieve listed velocities. Loading data is just a starting point, too many variables to reloading. When in doubt error on the safe side.
__________________
PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT - Live Free or Die

Last edited by Bullet94; September 7, 2005 at 12:40 AM.
Bullet94 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

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 03:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08672 seconds with 7 queries