Problem with Win 296 - Page 2

243winxb · December 30, 2018, 05:29 PM

Neck Tension / Bullet Pull will not be the same on all brass cases.

When the primer fired, it moved the bullet out of the case neck, before the powder could start burning , making pressure.

A heavier 158 gr bullet may help. The expander should be .002" smaller then bullet diameter. The smaller ID of the case may resize the soft plated bullets diameter after seating.

The OPs loading is for a jacketed bullet. So he is using the wrong data.

Data here http://castpics.net

zxcvbob · December 30, 2018, 06:04 PM

I'd recommend switching powders or switching bullets. AA#7 or 2400 should let you load those bullets up in "magnum" territory. You have 8 lbs of powder already, so either get some heavy bullets to go with it, or trade it to someone who reloads .410 shotgun shells or .30 Carbine.

It might be worth buying 100 magnum rifle primers and seeing if that fixes it. I like Federals when I'm using small rifle primers in a pistol cartridge because they seem more sensitive.

The previous keg of the same powder worked just fine, but maybe it was barely working just fine. (how could you tell?)

**Unclenick** · December 30, 2018, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poconolg

My load is 18.5gr as recommended by a Winchester manual. They say not to use more or less. Winchester small pistol magnum primers and Remington brass. The bullets are Extreme 125gr plated. I have been using this combo for many years with no problem.

I looked that 18.5 grain load up. You will note it is for a 125-grain JHP, not a softer plated bullet. But that's not really what caught my eye. The 357 Magnum is rated for 45,000 CUP by SAAMI. The loads given by the old Winchester manual for 296 range from 31,600 CUP to 39,500 CUP, while Hodgdon's current load numbers range from 38,400 - 41,500 CUP; closer to SAAMI max. Back in the 80's, when that Winchester data was developed, burn rates of a number of powders (particularly slower powders) were varying more like bulk powder burn rates do. So it's very possible those low pressures from 296 were used to leave a margin for the occasional faster lots that would show up. Anyway, it looks like you are using real bottom number data at this point.

Today, burn rates for canister grade powder are more tightly controlled. Hodgdon, who is now the packager and distributor for Winchester and IMR powders, even revamped its entire QC system somewhere around the early 2000's, IIRC. So I suspect they may have established a new center burn rate (you'd have to ask them) and that they better control the powder burn rate to be closer to that center value than the old Winchester powder was. This lets them load nearer to the SAAMI maximum without worry.

You might email or call Hodgdon to bring this up. If you still have the container, you could send them your old lot number and your new one and ask if they know the new lot is slower than your old number was. Tell them why you suspect it. Hodgdon actually introduced St. Marks WC296 as H110 before Winchester picked up the ball (powder

) and introduced it as W296, and later just 296. So Hodgdon actually has longer experience with it.

243winxb · December 31, 2018, 10:59 AM

Winchester manuals 125 gr jacketed with 296 powder in 357 mag.

CUP

1996-32,500 cup-18.5 grs.-No bullet listed. I would guess all Winchester bullets & primers. Olin Corp., East Alton, Il.

2006-41,400 cup-22.0 grs.- Bullet Hornady XTP. Shawnee Mission, Kansas.

Back in the day, 110 & 296 were different powders, till Hodgdon got involved? IMO.

Unclenick, great info , ty.

**Unclenick** · December 31, 2018, 04:20 PM

Thanks for the later data. I have their 2003 edition, which still had the smaller charge data in it.

Both powders always were WC296 (WC is for Western Cannon, not Winchester Cartridge) from St. Marks. It's just that burn rates were not controlled as well back when they first came on the reloading market, and Hodgdon and Winchester didn't buy the same lots, so you could buy a container of each and get significantly different burn rates and seem to have evidence the two were not same base powder, even though they actually were. Bullet company load manuals often listed them separately because they got different results from their purchases, too. The load developers were buying powder off-the-shelf with no idea how representative it actually was of the powder type in general, and that's still true today.

When Hodgdon improved its QC system (after getting a number of complaints about Varget being too different from one lot to the next, IIRC) H110 stopped varying so much. You would still see small differences with 296 because Hodgdon and Winchester weren't buying the same factory lots. But now that Hodgdon distributes both, they actually are the same lots packaged in the two different containers, so the Hodgdon data powder for developing loads is the same for both, too.

Paul B. · January 2, 2019, 05:03 PM

"That said, H110/296 probably is not the best powder for plated bullets."

That might be right. I only shoot my home cast bullets in my handguns and use a heavy roll crimp. That is an apparent no no with plated bullets. I've only used 296 in the ,44 magnum to try much preferring 2400 for most heavy .357 and .44 magnum handgun loads.
Paul B.

December 30, 2018, 05:29 PM	#26
243winxb Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2011 Location: USA Posts: 1,730	357 mag neck tension, Plated bullet & 296 powder. Neck Tension / Bullet Pull will not be the same on all brass cases. When the primer fired, it moved the bullet out of the case neck, before the powder could start burning , making pressure. A heavier 158 gr bullet may help. The expander should be .002" smaller then bullet diameter. The smaller ID of the case may resize the soft plated bullets diameter after seating. The OPs loading is for a jacketed bullet. So he is using the wrong data. Data here http://castpics.net Last edited by 243winxb; December 30, 2018 at 05:42 PM.

December 30, 2018, 06:04 PM	#27
zxcvbob Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2007 Location: S.E. Minnesota Posts: 4,720	I'd recommend switching powders or switching bullets. AA#7 or 2400 should let you load those bullets up in "magnum" territory. You have 8 lbs of powder already, so either get some heavy bullets to go with it, or trade it to someone who reloads .410 shotgun shells or .30 Carbine. It might be worth buying 100 magnum rifle primers and seeing if that fixes it. I like Federals when I'm using small rifle primers in a pistol cartridge because they seem more sensitive. The previous keg of the same powder worked just fine, but maybe it was barely working just fine. (how could you tell?) __________________ "Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth Last edited by zxcvbob; December 31, 2018 at 11:25 AM.

December 31, 2018, 10:59 AM	#29
243winxb Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2011 Location: USA Posts: 1,730	Winchester manuals 125 gr jacketed with 296 powder in 357 mag. CUP 1996-32,500 cup-18.5 grs.-No bullet listed. I would guess all Winchester bullets & primers. Olin Corp., East Alton, Il. 2006-41,400 cup-22.0 grs.- Bullet Hornady XTP. Shawnee Mission, Kansas. Back in the day, 110 & 296 were different powders, till Hodgdon got involved? IMO. Unclenick, great info , ty. Last edited by 243winxb; December 31, 2018 at 11:04 AM.

December 31, 2018, 04:20 PM	#30
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,063	Thanks for the later data. I have their 2003 edition, which still had the smaller charge data in it. Both powders always were WC296 (WC is for Western Cannon, not Winchester Cartridge) from St. Marks. It's just that burn rates were not controlled as well back when they first came on the reloading market, and Hodgdon and Winchester didn't buy the same lots, so you could buy a container of each and get significantly different burn rates and seem to have evidence the two were not same base powder, even though they actually were. Bullet company load manuals often listed them separately because they got different results from their purchases, too. The load developers were buying powder off-the-shelf with no idea how representative it actually was of the powder type in general, and that's still true today. When Hodgdon improved its QC system (after getting a number of complaints about Varget being too different from one lot to the next, IIRC) H110 stopped varying so much. You would still see small differences with 296 because Hodgdon and Winchester weren't buying the same factory lots. But now that Hodgdon distributes both, they actually are the same lots packaged in the two different containers, so the Hodgdon data powder for developing loads is the same for both, too. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

January 2, 2019, 05:03 PM	#31
Paul B. Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 1999 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,802	"That said, H110/296 probably is not the best powder for plated bullets." That might be right. I only shoot my home cast bullets in my handguns and use a heavy roll crimp. That is an apparent no no with plated bullets. I've only used 296 in the ,44 magnum to try much preferring 2400 for most heavy .357 and .44 magnum handgun loads. Paul B. __________________ COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!