|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 1, 2001, 03:46 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 22, 1999
Location: Deep East Texas
Posts: 474
|
Sir,
When talking about heavy loads for .45 Colt, you recommend W296 as the powder to use. However I keep hearing that H-110 is very similar to W296. Have you noticed something? The reason I ask is, I use H-110 for heavy .45, and I am quite pleased with the ballistics with this powder. Have you done a comparison to see how similar (or different) these two powders are, and if so, why you choose W296? Inquiring minds want to know...
__________________
Yes, in fact I do have a 454... in more ways than one. "No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority" - Thomas Jefferson |
May 1, 2001, 10:05 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 20, 1999
Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country)
Posts: 14,324
|
The powders you mention are different, and every outside data source I use recommends W296.
__________________
. "all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo" |
May 2, 2001, 10:54 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 1999
Location: MN
Posts: 640
|
I've read (on TFL and elsewhere) that Winchester 296 is just H-110 that has been blended lots. So, supposedly 296 will be more consistent than H110 (from batch to batch).
I don't know if Hodgdon does anything to the powder once they buy it, so I wouldn't just use the same data for both powders unless I read something official. -Kframe |
May 2, 2001, 03:00 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 22, 1999
Location: Deep East Texas
Posts: 474
|
That is nice all your sources recommend W296, but could you elaborate? I also like to use H4227 and AA1680 for "Ruger" loads in .45 Colt, I have just never purchased and used W296, and if it is almost the same as H110, which I have a lot of, then I do not need to go down that avenue...
__________________
Yes, in fact I do have a 454... in more ways than one. "No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority" - Thomas Jefferson |
May 2, 2001, 05:41 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 19, 1998
Posts: 986
|
IME, in both .357 Mag and .30 Carbine, both H-110 and 296 will reach almost exactly the same bullet speeds at max loads. CHARGE WEIGHTS MAY BE DIFFERENT, SO DO NOT INTERCHANGE LOADING DATA. It's the results with appropriate charges that I've found to be alike.
If you already have a standard, satisfactory and safe load in H-110, I see no need to try out 296...unless you're out to _see_ if it can give you an extra 50 fps over H-110 in YOUR gun(s) (It wouldn't be worth it to me...). |
May 2, 2001, 08:07 PM | #6 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 19, 2000
Location: Jeanerette, La. Near the
Posts: 1,999
|
Guys I am glad y'all got this discussion going! I made a good deal on some WW630 (8 pound keg) some years back and use it only for the 45 Colt(Ruger Blackhawk). I load what is considered warm for a Colt revolver so they are plumb safe in the Ruger, but the WW630 is about gone, and I have been deciding if I was gonna go with H-110(surplus) or WW296 to replace it. Boys go ahead and wring out this subject. I will be reading every word!!!!!
|
May 4, 2001, 07:40 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 20, 1999
Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country)
Posts: 14,324
|
Suggest that if you're happy with H110 then stick with it (single most accurate load I've ever made -copied from Wiley Clapp- was with H110).
Wife is hollering -- I'm off! |
|
|