Anyone use Alliant Power Pro 300 MP for 30 carbine loads?

coldbeer · February 25, 2014, 08:40 PM

I haven't been able to find any A2400, H110/W296 or any other common powder for 30 carbine and 357 Magnum for a while. My friend at the LGS recommended Alliant Power Pro 300-MP for 357 and said it's very similar to H110/W296 so I bought a pound. I'd never even heard of this powder before today, but it looks extremely similar to H110/W296. In fact if you showed me both powders side by side I couldn't tell you which is which. From what little info I've been able to find online it's a little slower than H110/W296 and produces impressive velocity in magnum handgun calibers.
I was just wondering if anyone has loaded 30 carbine cartridges with this Powder and if you did how did you like it? I really want to like this powder since it's much cheaper than H110/W296 or A2400 and the LGS has plenty in stock.

FrankenMauser · February 25, 2014, 11:44 PM

At The Firing Line, your best bet is going to be Sevens.
He:
A) Loves his .30 Carbine Blackhawk
and,
B) Uses Power Pro 300 MP for .327 Federal (and I'm sure it has crossed over)

darkgael · February 26, 2014, 06:29 AM

I do know that the only Alliant powder listed on Alliant's reloading data website is 2400.
Might be worth a call to their tech people.
Pete

Real Gun · February 26, 2014, 07:48 AM

W296/H110/PowerPro 300-MP are the same powder, as documented in the December Guns and Ammo.

ligonierbill · February 26, 2014, 08:09 AM

Interesting. I wonder how Hornady is getting so much more velocity out of 300-MP than H110 in .357 Mag. Check the 9th Edition. The difference is pretty dramatic. That said, I wish the weather would break so I can get out and test my loads. Maybe it's an illusion. Don't load .30 Carbine, but it's the same list of powders.

Real Gun · February 26, 2014, 08:26 AM

Their W296 data is not the same as H110 either. I would speculate that they used old data for W296 and H110, while doing new tests on the new PowerPro 300-MP, not featured in edition 8. A true head to head would be interesting.

That said, the information that the three powders are all the same is not in doubt.

darkgael · February 26, 2014, 09:44 AM

Quote:

That said, the information that the three powders are all the same is not in doubt.

Did the article mention the manufacturer of the propellant? We can infer from the article that all three (all one?) are made by the same company.
Pete

Real Gun · February 26, 2014, 10:07 AM

All three are made at the same place.

madmo44mag · February 26, 2014, 10:13 AM

Can you find some IMR 4227?
It loads and shoots like 2400 in 30 carb, 357 and 44mag.
It is my second choice when I can't get 2400

zxcvbob · February 26, 2014, 10:51 AM

AA#9 works and there is data available.
AA4100 should work good in .30 Carbine too -- don't know if there's any data for it. And there's a Ramshot powder that is just like 4100; I think it is Enforcer.

Don't try Blue Dot. (just don't) At least dramatic case head separations don't hurt anything in a revolver.

coldbeer · February 26, 2014, 11:35 AM

I'm going to load a couple rounds starting at 14.5 up to 15 grains and run them over a chrono at my cousins house this weekend. I'll give Alliant a call today but I'm pretty sure they'll tell me they haven't tested this powder in 30 carbine. If it's the same powder as H110/W296 then it's my new favorite 30 carb powder since it only cost $18.99 compared to $24.99 for H110 and W296.

darkgael · February 26, 2014, 12:59 PM

Quote:

All three are made at the same place.

And that would be......?

Real Gun · February 26, 2014, 01:16 PM

I paid for the article copy, so I don't think I should read it here. I think it was St Thomas in FL, if it matters.

zxcvbob · February 26, 2014, 01:32 PM

St Mark's?

coldbeer · February 26, 2014, 02:24 PM

Yup St Mark's

FrankenMauser · February 26, 2014, 02:35 PM

Does the article specify that they are the same powder? ....Or just that they're all made by St Mark's?
There's a big difference.

I ask, because I have seen dozens of reports from people testing PP 300MP side-by-side with W296/H110, and the PP 300MP loads required notably higher powder charges to achieve the same velocity. And it doesn't seem attributable to just lot-to-lot variation, since I haven't seen any reports showing the opposite.

Everything I have seen, other than the "it's the same as H110" claims, indicates that PP 300MP is a different powder.

Real Gun · February 26, 2014, 03:34 PM

Never mind. I just made it up.

FrankenMauser · February 26, 2014, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Never mind. I just made it up.

That's not helpful, at all.
It was a simple question about an article that is unavailable to the members here that don't happen to have that issue of Guns & Ammo on hand.

We were simply asking for some clarification here, rather than, "take my word for it, or p*** off!"

Real Gun · February 27, 2014, 01:12 PM

The article (Dec-Jan issue) is for sale on Guns and Ammo, to anyone who wants the full story.

Sevens · February 27, 2014, 03:53 PM

Thanks for the shout-out, FM.

I have used 300-MP thus far in .357 Mag, .44 Mag and .327 Federal. I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that you could definitely use this powder effectively in .30 Carbine loads.

However, as to the "Alliant Power Pro 300-MP is the same as H110/W296" assertion, I will say this...

I also read the article published in Guns & Ammo in it's entirety.
My next step was to send an e-mail to Ben Amonette, ballistician at ATK for confirmation.
Ben did not reply to my e-mail.
That's odd, because I've sent him a handful of questions over the past couple years and he's always given a fairly quick reply, even if the reply wasn't helpful.

Was ~3 weeks ago that I tried to contact him, I guess I'll do it again. I would suggest some others among us do this also.

A couple things seem relevant on the subject:
Yeah, velocity numbers on published data have always been LOFTY from almost every published source. Fine print often reveals really long test barrels and universal receivers that often help. Sometimes, it just seems crazy high. For example, look at Alliant's published data for 125gr bullets in .357 Mag under this 300-MP powder. It's... well, it's ridiculous.

Furthermore, if these are the same powder, we see no specific warnings on the 300-MP as we see on H110/W296, specifically, the warnings to always use a magnum primer and to NEVER reduce more than 5% from max.

If it's the SAME powder, we should either see the SAME warnings...
Or someone has dropped the ball. Either Alliant should be issuing similar warnings, or all the warnings from Hodgdon over the last many years have been without merit. (or with less merit?)

I want to hear from someone other than a gun scribe in a magazine for sure that these are the same powders. They very well could be -- I'd say that author is REALLY sticking his neck out if it should happen to be not true, so I'd hope he's got solid information. That would be an idiotic thing to tell the readership if it weren't true.

I'd like to hear Alliant say it.
Is there anyone at St. Mark's that would even reply to a query?

zxcvbob · February 27, 2014, 03:57 PM

Maybe it's the same as 297 instead of 296? They are close cousins, but not identical like Patty and Cathy (Lane).

ligonierbill · February 27, 2014, 04:38 PM

Well, if the blessed polar vortex would just go back where it belongs, this central Ohio boy will haul his chrono, GP-100, and a winter's worth of reloads to Deer Creek to put it to the test. H110 has been great for me in .45 Colt, but so far, AA#9 has done better in the .357 Mag. This may be due to the fact that the Blackhawk has a 6" bbl vs. the GP-100's 4". I had to get a pound of 300-MP based on Hornady's 100-150 fps gain with 125 and 158 bullets, but yeah, they used an 8" Python. I'd go get a Python, but I'd rather get a new truck for the price. I have always wondered. There is no real debate on HP-38/231 and H110/296, but most manuals that test both get slightly different results. Hornady shows a big difference between H110 and 300-MP, however, in a real revolver. Of course, I only care about one revolver, so we shall see.

SHR970 · February 27, 2014, 06:12 PM

Quote:

There is no real debate on HP-38/231 and H110/296, but most manuals that test both get slightly different results.

That's because A) They haven't reshot the data in quite a few years and B) They still pretend that they are different powders. When you read the descriptions in the front of the manuals they might say that HP38 is like W231 but they won't say what we already know...they are the same powders.

As to point A) I have a copy of the email to Accurate Arms from 2000 regarding data for the 32 ACP since they didn't have published data in their manuals. Their answer is the same data that I see today from them. Funny thing, the min. max. and velociities for AA#5 in Lyman 49 are a dead on match to that email too.

Sevens · February 28, 2014, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Well, if the blessed polar vortex would just go back where it belongs, this central Ohio boy will haul his chrono, GP-100, and a winter's worth of reloads to Deer Creek to put it to the test.

Deer Creek? Immediately after winter?

Add flippers and a scuba mask to your packing list!

darkgael · February 28, 2014, 05:22 AM

FYI - I just spent some time reading the MSDS data for both 300MP and H-110. They are the same with one exception...the 300MP sheet is listed as a product of St. Mark's Powder (a General Dynamics company). The sheet for H-110 does not refer to St. Mark's at all, only to Hodgdon.....though the data is identical.
I was curious enough to look.
Pete
PS - 42% nitroglycerin.....bang!

February 25, 2014, 08:40 PM	#1
coldbeer Junior member Join Date: February 21, 2012 Location: Woodhaven MI Posts: 477	Anyone use Alliant Power Pro 300 MP for 30 carbine loads? I haven't been able to find any A2400, H110/W296 or any other common powder for 30 carbine and 357 Magnum for a while. My friend at the LGS recommended Alliant Power Pro 300-MP for 357 and said it's very similar to H110/W296 so I bought a pound. I'd never even heard of this powder before today, but it looks extremely similar to H110/W296. In fact if you showed me both powders side by side I couldn't tell you which is which. From what little info I've been able to find online it's a little slower than H110/W296 and produces impressive velocity in magnum handgun calibers. I was just wondering if anyone has loaded 30 carbine cartridges with this Powder and if you did how did you like it? I really want to like this powder since it's much cheaper than H110/W296 or A2400 and the LGS has plenty in stock.

February 25, 2014, 11:44 PM	#2
FrankenMauser Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2008 Location: In the valley above the plain Posts: 13,427	At The Firing Line, your best bet is going to be Sevens. He: A) Loves his .30 Carbine Blackhawk and, B) Uses Power Pro 300 MP for .327 Federal (and I'm sure it has crossed over) __________________ Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.

February 26, 2014, 06:29 AM	#3
darkgael Senior Member Join Date: February 9, 2006 Location: Homes in Brooklyn, NY and in Pennsylvania. Posts: 5,473	Alliant I do know that the only Alliant powder listed on Alliant's reloading data website is 2400. Might be worth a call to their tech people. Pete __________________ “Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports ... all others are games.” Ernest Hemingway ... NRA Life Member

February 26, 2014, 10:51 AM	#10
zxcvbob Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2007 Location: S.E. Minnesota Posts: 4,720	AA#9 works and there is data available. AA4100 should work good in .30 Carbine too -- don't know if there's any data for it. And there's a Ramshot powder that is just like 4100; I think it is Enforcer. Don't try Blue Dot. (just don't) At least dramatic case head separations don't hurt anything in a revolver. __________________ "Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth

February 26, 2014, 01:32 PM	#14
zxcvbob Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2007 Location: S.E. Minnesota Posts: 4,720	St Mark's? __________________ "Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth

February 26, 2014, 07:48 AM	#4
Real Gun Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: SC Posts: 2,743	W296/H110/PowerPro 300-MP are the same powder, as documented in the December Guns and Ammo.

February 26, 2014, 08:09 AM	#5
ligonierbill Senior Member Join Date: May 20, 2007 Posts: 2,459	Interesting. I wonder how Hornady is getting so much more velocity out of 300-MP than H110 in .357 Mag. Check the 9th Edition. The difference is pretty dramatic. That said, I wish the weather would break so I can get out and test my loads. Maybe it's an illusion. Don't load .30 Carbine, but it's the same list of powders.

February 26, 2014, 08:26 AM	#6
Real Gun Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: SC Posts: 2,743	Their W296 data is not the same as H110 either. I would speculate that they used old data for W296 and H110, while doing new tests on the new PowerPro 300-MP, not featured in edition 8. A true head to head would be interesting. That said, the information that the three powders are all the same is not in doubt.

February 26, 2014, 10:07 AM	#8
Real Gun Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: SC Posts: 2,743	All three are made at the same place.

February 26, 2014, 10:13 AM	#9
madmo44mag Senior Member Join Date: December 29, 2008 Location: Ft.Worth, Texas Posts: 1,522	Can you find some IMR 4227? It loads and shoots like 2400 in 30 carb, 357 and 44mag. It is my second choice when I can't get 2400 __________________ Texas - Not just a state but an attitude! For monthly shooting events in DFW visit http://www.meetup.com/TexasGunOwner-DFW

February 26, 2014, 11:35 AM	#11
coldbeer Junior member Join Date: February 21, 2012 Location: Woodhaven MI Posts: 477	I'm going to load a couple rounds starting at 14.5 up to 15 grains and run them over a chrono at my cousins house this weekend. I'll give Alliant a call today but I'm pretty sure they'll tell me they haven't tested this powder in 30 carbine. If it's the same powder as H110/W296 then it's my new favorite 30 carb powder since it only cost $18.99 compared to $24.99 for H110 and W296.

February 26, 2014, 01:16 PM	#13
Real Gun Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: SC Posts: 2,743	I paid for the article copy, so I don't think I should read it here. I think it was St Thomas in FL, if it matters.

February 26, 2014, 02:24 PM	#15
coldbeer Junior member Join Date: February 21, 2012 Location: Woodhaven MI Posts: 477	Yup St Mark's

February 26, 2014, 02:35 PM	#16
FrankenMauser Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2008 Location: In the valley above the plain Posts: 13,427	Does the article specify that they are the same powder? ....Or just that they're all made by St Mark's? There's a big difference. I ask, because I have seen dozens of reports from people testing PP 300MP side-by-side with W296/H110, and the PP 300MP loads required notably higher powder charges to achieve the same velocity. And it doesn't seem attributable to just lot-to-lot variation, since I haven't seen any reports showing the opposite. Everything I have seen, other than the "it's the same as H110" claims, indicates that PP 300MP is a different powder. __________________ Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.

February 26, 2014, 03:34 PM	#17
Real Gun Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: SC Posts: 2,743	Never mind. I just made it up.

February 27, 2014, 01:12 PM	#19
Real Gun Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: SC Posts: 2,743	The article (Dec-Jan issue) is for sale on Guns and Ammo, to anyone who wants the full story.

February 27, 2014, 03:53 PM	#20
Sevens Senior Member Join Date: July 28, 2007 Location: Ohio Posts: 11,756	Thanks for the shout-out, FM. I have used 300-MP thus far in .357 Mag, .44 Mag and .327 Federal. I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that you could definitely use this powder effectively in .30 Carbine loads. However, as to the "Alliant Power Pro 300-MP is the same as H110/W296" assertion, I will say this... I also read the article published in Guns & Ammo in it's entirety. My next step was to send an e-mail to Ben Amonette, ballistician at ATK for confirmation. Ben did not reply to my e-mail. That's odd, because I've sent him a handful of questions over the past couple years and he's always given a fairly quick reply, even if the reply wasn't helpful. Was ~3 weeks ago that I tried to contact him, I guess I'll do it again. I would suggest some others among us do this also. A couple things seem relevant on the subject: Yeah, velocity numbers on published data have always been LOFTY from almost every published source. Fine print often reveals really long test barrels and universal receivers that often help. Sometimes, it just seems crazy high. For example, look at Alliant's published data for 125gr bullets in .357 Mag under this 300-MP powder. It's... well, it's ridiculous. Furthermore, if these are the same powder, we see no specific warnings on the 300-MP as we see on H110/W296, specifically, the warnings to always use a magnum primer and to NEVER reduce more than 5% from max. If it's the SAME powder, we should either see the SAME warnings... Or someone has dropped the ball. Either Alliant should be issuing similar warnings, or all the warnings from Hodgdon over the last many years have been without merit. (or with less merit?) I want to hear from someone other than a gun scribe in a magazine for sure that these are the same powders. They very well could be -- I'd say that author is REALLY sticking his neck out if it should happen to be not true, so I'd hope he's got solid information. That would be an idiotic thing to tell the readership if it weren't true. I'd like to hear Alliant say it. Is there anyone at St. Mark's that would even reply to a query? __________________ *Attention Brass rats and other reloaders:* I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.

February 27, 2014, 03:57 PM	#21
zxcvbob Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2007 Location: S.E. Minnesota Posts: 4,720	Maybe it's the same as 297 instead of 296? They are close cousins, but not identical like Patty and Cathy (Lane). __________________ "Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth

February 27, 2014, 04:38 PM	#22
ligonierbill Senior Member Join Date: May 20, 2007 Posts: 2,459	Well, if the blessed polar vortex would just go back where it belongs, this central Ohio boy will haul his chrono, GP-100, and a winter's worth of reloads to Deer Creek to put it to the test. H110 has been great for me in .45 Colt, but so far, AA#9 has done better in the .357 Mag. This may be due to the fact that the Blackhawk has a 6" bbl vs. the GP-100's 4". I had to get a pound of 300-MP based on Hornady's 100-150 fps gain with 125 and 158 bullets, but yeah, they used an 8" Python. I'd go get a Python, but I'd rather get a new truck for the price. I have always wondered. There is no real debate on HP-38/231 and H110/296, but most manuals that test both get slightly different results. Hornady shows a big difference between H110 and 300-MP, however, in a real revolver. Of course, I only care about one revolver, so we shall see.

February 28, 2014, 05:22 AM	#25
darkgael Senior Member Join Date: February 9, 2006 Location: Homes in Brooklyn, NY and in Pennsylvania. Posts: 5,473	msds FYI - I just spent some time reading the MSDS data for both 300MP and H-110. They are the same with one exception...the 300MP sheet is listed as a product of St. Mark's Powder (a General Dynamics company). The sheet for H-110 does not refer to St. Mark's at all, only to Hodgdon.....though the data is identical. I was curious enough to look. Pete PS - 42% nitroglycerin.....bang! __________________ “Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports ... all others are games.” Ernest Hemingway ... NRA Life Member Last edited by darkgael; February 28, 2014 at 05:27 AM.