The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 19, 2012, 10:52 AM   #1
cysnake
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Posts: 8
winchester 296 wap data needed

I have a 3lb can of this and have been told to use ramshot silhouette data. Im trying to figure out if I can use this for 357 and 454 loads. Here is what ive got,:

357 magnum 158gr hornady xtp
357 magnum 158gr nylock

454 casull 260gr fmj
454 casull 260gr hollow points
454 casull 260gr lead

Im fairly new to reloading, ive been doin it for a few years now, but im far from being a pro with powders. Any help is greatly appreciated!

Chris
cysnake is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 11:00 AM   #2
steveno
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2004
Location: Minden , Nebraska
Posts: 1,295
I believe there is Winchester load data on the Hodgdon website.
steveno is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 11:09 AM   #3
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,321
Go here and your questions will be answered:

http://data.hodgdon.com/main_menu.asp

Do NOT use Ramshot Silhouette data. I don't believe they are interchangeable.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 11:20 AM   #4
cysnake
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Posts: 8
Ive been on hodgdon, thats where i get all my reload data from. I REALLY like the winchester ball 296 load for the 357 hornady xtp. Packs some SERIOUS knockdown punch! Should i use the regular win 296 data? I bought an older 3lb can of the 296 WAP. What exactly is the difference? Thanks for the replies!
cysnake is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 12:10 PM   #5
SL1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 8, 2007
Posts: 2,001
296 WAP ???

Winchester marketed TWO powders, one was W-296, and the other was WAP ("Winchester Action Pistol"). They are SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT powders, with much different load data. The data for the discontinued WAP powder should be close to the data for the still current WST powder. These are a LOT faster than 296.

So, if the powder you have is really WAP, using 296 data could be DANGEROUS!

The real question is what exactly is this "296 WAP" powder that you have? I don't know of anything that was marketed with that designation. (But, I don't know it all.) Are the markngs original from the manufacturer, or where they made by somebody else, after purchase, perhaps when they used an old can from one powder to store another powder? Or did somebody MIX the two powders and GUESS that the mixture would be similar to Ramshot Silhouette? (That would be REALLY BAD NEWS, because the burning characteristics of powder mixtures are not predictable by us non-professionals, and that has gotten some folks into trouble when they tried to mix powders).

Be careful, please.

SL1

Last edited by SL1; June 19, 2012 at 12:55 PM.
SL1 is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 12:19 PM   #6
cysnake
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Posts: 8
Its actually winchester 296 ball wap3 (3 for the 3lb can) Its in a round metal can, all original manufacturers label. Ive done alot of reading on it, and everything ive read said to use ramshot silhouette data because its the same powder. Ill snap a picture of the can this evening and post it.
cysnake is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 12:26 PM   #7
cysnake
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Posts: 8
Heres one of my sources that says they called ramshot (who owns the winchester brand now) and according to the burn rates, the wap and silhouette are exactly the same.

http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=65098
cysnake is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 12:45 PM   #8
SL1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 8, 2007
Posts: 2,001
cysnake,

OK, I read your link, and it is talking about "WAP" powder NOT "296 WAP" powder. Also, it seems strange that WAP and Silhouette could use the same data, since they appear well separated on a chart of the powder burn rates. In fact, the Ramshot line of powders has another powder "True Blue" that appears between WAP and Silhouette. So, this link seems to have some dubious info in it. Remember, this is the Internet, where people write all sorts of garbage, sometimes INTENDING to cause trouble.

That aside, do you have ANY other references to something called "296 WAP"? A Google search for that turned-up nothing for me.

What you have posted is raising a lot of red flags in my mind. Please be careful and complete your research before attempting to load from that can.

SL1
SL1 is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 12:55 PM   #9
mikld
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2009
Location: Southern Oregon!
Posts: 1,180
"296 WAP" is a new one on me. I haven't seen that listed in any reloading manual I've read/used, even the Hogdon manual. I would proceed with extreme caution...
__________________
My Anchor is holding fast!
mikld is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 01:42 PM   #10
Mal H
Staff
 
Join Date: March 20, 1999
Location: Somewhere in the woods of Northern Virginia
Posts: 14,564
It's a new one on me also.

cysnake, please heed SL1's warning - do not use Silhouette load data with anything labeled 296, it doesn't matter if there is the term "WAP" on the same label.

Note on the following burn chart where both Silhouette and (the real) WAP are, numbers 42 and 43. Now note where 296 is, number 72.

http://www.reloadbench.com/burn.html


Winchester 296 (and H110) are in the handful of powders you should not attempt to download. If you use Silhouette data, I think that is what's going to happen - big time.
Mal H is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 02:40 PM   #11
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,321
Please take a picture of the lable on the can and post it.

I have WW 296 cans that date back to the late 1980s, when I started using the powder, and none of them say 296 WAP that I can remember.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 05:24 PM   #12
SHR970
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 555
If it is 296 then there should be an Orange Band with a large 296 in it. In smaller font above it should say:

"For Center Fire Rifle, Handgun, and 410 Shotshell Loads"

There should also be a 2963 on the lable to indicate W296 3 lb. can.


WAP: Winchester Action Pistol was introduced in 1994 and was made to replicate the powder used in factory 9mm and 40 S&W loads.

WAP3 means Winchester Action Pistol 3 lb. can.

If you have the Orange Label with 296 in it and WAP3 in small print at the bottom near the Net WT marking then something is a misprint. As the Staff have said, post pictures.

Underloading 296 poses one issue; overloading WAP presents another.
SHR970 is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 05:43 PM   #13
snuffy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 20, 2001
Location: Oshkosh wi.
Posts: 2,797
Quote:
Here's one of my sources that says they called ramshot (who owns the winchester brand now) and according to the burn rates, the wap and silhouette are exactly the same.
Nope, Hodgdon distributes all winchester AND IMR powders. Ramshot is distributed by Western powder company.

http://www.westernpowders.com/

Confused yet? There was a time when all the companies were a separate entity. Hodgdon has ALWAYS been simply a distributor. Dupont owned the IMR powders, Winchester owned the Olin powder company that made both Winchester powder and sold the same stuff to Hodgdon that re-named it, hence, 296-H-110 being made at the same Olin plant. Along with HS-6 is WW-540, HS-7 is WW-571 H-714--is WW760
__________________
The more people I meet, the more I love my dog

They're going to get their butts kicked over there this election. How come people can't spell and use words correctly?
snuffy is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 06:04 PM   #14
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,482
Another piece of bad information you got was that Ramshot owns Winchester. Winchester licensed the distribution of its powder brand to Hodgdon because it wanted out of that business. Ramshot is distributed by Western powders and has nothing to do with Winchester. So Hodgdon's site will have the best data for current production Winchester powders. Unfortunately, WAP isn't one of them. Who sells what isn't relevant to getting you load data, but the errors do make it sound like your information source is pretty confused. That would be OK if you weren't playing with gunpowder and putting yourself in danger of blowing up your gun and yourself by confusing the two powders.

What I can tell you is that WAP and Silhouette are both in the QuickLOAD database, and in that software it does appear they are extremely similar and that Silhouette load data will work for both powders. However, these loads are just about exactly half as much charge weight as you would use of 296.

For future reference, though, don't trust burn rate charts to identify similar powders. It worked out in this case, but often it does not. First, they are not very precise. I have found a burn rate chart that shows Bullseye is the fastest powder, another that says it is 3rd fastest, another that says it's 8th fastest, and yet another that says it's 15th fastest. And even if these were correct, burn rate is not enough information to pick a powder with. First, they make the comparison under just one standard set of conditions. In real guns burn rates often change places because the different characteristic burn curves behave differently under different pressures. For example, IMR 4895 is slower than IMR 4064 at low load pressures, but faster than IMR 4064 at higher load pressures. So you can see why you need to know what the powder will do in your actual cartridge. For another thing, different powders have different energy densities (Joules per gram) so that even if their burn rates behaved identically under all conditions, you would still need different charge weights of them to run at the same pressures.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member

Last edited by Unclenick; June 19, 2012 at 09:08 PM. Reason: typo fix
Unclenick is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 06:41 PM   #15
SL1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 8, 2007
Posts: 2,001
+1 for what Unclenick wrote.

I also compared WAP and Silhouette in the QuickLOAD powder database and noted that they have almost identical parameters. Their parameters are even closer than other powder pairs that are supposed to be identical. So, the particular lots of those two powders used by the QuickLOAD author to get those parameters probably WERE identical.

However, even powders sold by the same name by the same company vary from lot to lot by enough that you really need to work-up loads again when you change lot numbers. (That is probably why the other pairs of "identical" powders in the QuickLOAD database are not so close.)

But, FIRST, we need to be sure that what you have is WAP instead of W-296. IF it is really W-296, then even the maximum charge weight for WAP would create pressures too low to get the bullet out of the barrel. But, firing a SECOND bullet into the previous bullet while it is stuck in the barrel might cause serious damage to your gun and/or yourself.

So, please post the picture of the container and also the lot number on the can.

SL1
SL1 is offline  
Old June 20, 2012, 06:00 AM   #16
WESHOOT2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 1999
Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country)
Posts: 14,270
still have a 'bit'

When Western stopped making WAP for Winchester they ever-so-slightly tweaked its formulation, enhancing both its flash suppresant and temperature reduction, and called it Silhouette.
Data is interchangeable with WAP.




Rumor has it that in the 'old' days W296 was not H110; H110 was W295.
Hope this explains to those with old lots of both why they look and act so differently.
__________________
.
"all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"
WESHOOT2 is offline  
Old June 20, 2012, 07:43 AM   #17
cysnake
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Posts: 8
My bad, it is strictly WAP, there is no 296. Dont know why i was thinking 296. Guess i didnt drink enough coffee yesterday! Anyway, thank you all for your input. I started reloading with my dad a few years ago, and im extremely cautious when it comes to powder. So is the consensus that i CAN use the wap powder with sihlouette data?
cysnake is offline  
Old June 20, 2012, 09:38 AM   #18
SL1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 8, 2007
Posts: 2,001
cysnake,

Yes, I think I see a consensus here that Silhouette data is appropriate for WAP powder.

But, please remember that both of those powders vary somewhat from lot-to-lot. And, since they are marketed with different names, the difference between the two powders is not subject to the SAAMI limitation on variability of burn rates among lots of powder with the same name. The rather large difference in the postions of WAP and Silhouette on various burn rate lists indicates to me that there can be much more difference than indicated by the data used in QuickLOAD.

So, please remember to start low and work-up carefully.

SL1
SL1 is offline  
Old June 20, 2012, 09:42 AM   #19
cysnake
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Posts: 8
Will do, Thank you very much SL1!
cysnake is offline  
Old June 20, 2012, 09:49 AM   #20
cysnake
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Posts: 8
One more question, using this powder in 357 mag loads. Looking at ramshots data, i can use this in 38 special with 158g hornady xtp, but theres nothing for 357 using the same bullet. Is there a safe way to use this in 357? Also, i have a ton of 158 grain nylock bullet heads, would you use the "lead" data for reloading these?

Thanks!
cysnake is offline  
Old June 20, 2012, 10:28 AM   #21
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,321
If you can't find loading data for a particular powder/bullet combination, either at the website or in a loading manual, then the answer is NO. There is no safe way to do it.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old June 20, 2012, 02:26 PM   #22
SL1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 8, 2007
Posts: 2,001
I'll have to disagree with Mike on that one.

Generally, I would agree with Mike that you can't use a powder safely if you can't find pressure-tested load data for it.

But, you have found load data for the bullet and powder you want to use, except that it uses a .38 Special case instead of a .357 Magnum case. Because the .357 Magnum case is just a little longer than a .38 Special case, AND because the .357 Magnum is loaded to much higher pressure than the .38 Special, it is clear that the powder can be safely used in the .357 Magnum case with a slight adjustment. At least, it can be used for loads that are no more powerful than the .38 Special loads in the data.

The adjustment is to slightly increase the charge weight to compensate for the slight increase in case volume, so that the pressure of the start load will not go too low and stick a bullet in the barrel. (That is a particular concern for 158 grain jacketed bullets in the .38 Special when shot in long barrelled revolvers.)

To do that accurately, you would need to figure-out the difference between the powder space when your bullet is loaded into a Magnum case and a Special case. That is commonly done by weighing cases empty, then filling them with water flush to the mouth and weighing them again to find their "water capacity" in grains. Then you need to do some math to subtract the part of the case volume that will be occupied by the bullet so that you get the volumes of the powder spaces. The load data is then adjusted by the ratio of the powder spaces.

Because you are talking about shooting Special level charges in a Magnum gun, you have a lot of margin between the 18,500 psi upper limit for +P .38 Special loads and the 35,000 psi limit for .357 Magnum loads. So, it is not so critical to get the charge adjustment factor just right. So, I'm going to compute one for you instead of typing-out a lengthy procedure for you to follow with cases fired in your particular gun.

Using the QuickLOAD program to compare the powder spaces in a "default" pair of Special and Magnum cases, I get 15.826 grains of water for the Magnum case and 13.320 grains of water in the Special case when the bullets are seated to the same depth in each case. (The seating depth was chosen to match the 1.434" COL in the Ramshot data.) So, the ratio of powder spaces is 15.826 รท 13.320 = 1.188. So, if you increase the charge weights in your .38 Special data by 18.8%, you should get about the same pressure as the Special loads when you load the Magnum cases.

Ramshot's Silhouette data is:

Quote:
Silhouette 158 HDY HP XTP 5.0 872 5.6 969 16,410 1.434
That is, the "start" load is 5.0 grains giving 872 fps
and "max" load is 5.6 grains giving 969 fps and 16,410 psi.

To get the same pressures in the Magnum cases,:
"start" is 5.0 x 1.188 = 5.9 grains
"max" = 5.6 x 1.188 = 6.6 grains.

Since this max load is still giving only about 16,400 psi in the Magnum cases, I suspect that you might be tempted to load more powder for more performance. That is where I need to agree with Mike. You should not do that without having some pressure tested data that tells you where you need to stop. Some powders can cause pressure spikes when loaded beyond the POWDER'S design pressure in ceratin cartridges, so it is not just a matter of doing calculations to extrapolate the charge weight up to the Magnum pressure limit. Those calculations may or may not reflect reality, and that is why the manufacturers do pressure testing.

If you want to take Silhouette to Magnum pressures, I suggest that you try asking the Ramshot people for some data. Try them at 406-234-0422 or www.ramshot.com .

SL1

Last edited by SL1; June 20, 2012 at 03:50 PM.
SL1 is offline  
Old June 21, 2012, 05:08 AM   #23
WESHOOT2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 1999
Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country)
Posts: 14,270
easiest answer

Might I suggest using WAP data?

There is plenty of published data available, including from Winchester.
__________________
.
"all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"
WESHOOT2 is offline  
Old June 21, 2012, 07:09 AM   #24
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,321
SL1

"But, you have found load data for the bullet and powder you want to use, except that it uses a .38 Special case instead of a .357 Magnum case. Because the .357 Magnum case is just a little longer than a .38 Special case, AND because the .357 Magnum is loaded to much higher pressure than the .38 Special, it is clear that the powder can be safely used in the .357 Magnum case with a slight adjustment. At least, it can be used for loads that are no more powerful than the .38 Special loads in the data."


Yes, good point, and absolutely correct.

I took the query, however, to mean that he wanted to use it for .357 Magnum to develop .357 Magnum power/velocity levels, not to duplicate .38 Special ballistics.

For that task, it can't be done safely.

It's also a pretty good bet that if you can't find information for a particular bullet/cartridge/powder combination from the powder manufacturer, they already did the testing and found that, for whatever reason, it was NOT a good combination or was even unsafe.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old June 21, 2012, 07:40 AM   #25
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,307
Send an email off to Johan at Western powders. If it can be done, he will be able to supply you with the load data you seek.
steve4102 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 12:25 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 0.13334 seconds with 7 queries