Experience with WIN296 for 357 mag

brasscollector · October 10, 2015, 09:34 AM

Just looking for some advice on loading Win296 into 357 magnum loads using 125gr and 140gr pills.
I have read a few places not to download / light load win 296. Looking in my Hornady manual give a range for the 125gr's of 16.9-20.3 (1250-1500fps) using win296. Online at the Hodgdon site give a much narrower range of 21.0-22.0gr (1880-1960fps).
I'm not exactly looking to push them as fast as the Hodgdon site indicates they might go. My gut instinct tells me to start with the Hornady info and refine by my usual techniques but I thought I would toss this out there and see what experience others have had. These will mostly be fired from 4+6" barrels.

hoghunting · October 10, 2015, 10:00 AM

I would use Hodgdon's data since they are the distributors of the powder and have the powder manufactured to their specs. I use 296/110 with 158 gr bullets using Hodgdon data and never had a problem, but if you're using pills, maybe you should check with your pharmacist.

NoSecondBest · October 10, 2015, 12:31 PM

+1 with hoghunting. Hodgdon is the sole seller of this powder now and they have it made to their specs. This powder was NEVER designed to be "downloaded". It's burning characteristics depend on a full, or nearly full, case of powder to get the rapid combustion needed to burn properly. I've shot a couple of hundred thousand rounds using WW296 over the last forty years or so and it's very good powder. FWIW, I've never had as good a results using "pills" (I call them bullets) lighter than 140 grains. I've found the best results with 158 and 180 grain bullets with this powder.

T. O'Heir · October 10, 2015, 01:04 PM

"...not exactly looking to push them..." You may want to rethink the 296. Doesn't produce the highest pressures, but certainly drives both weights faster than other Hodgdon powders.
296 is really a .30 Carbine powder vs a handgun powder.

Nick_C_S · October 10, 2015, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Just looking for some advice on loading Win296 into 357 magnum loads using 125gr and 140gr pills.

W296 (or Hodgdon H110 - they are the same, only under different labels) is a "magnum slow" propellant; designed for full-throttle, max velocity (potentially) rounds. I have been loading for 31 years; and about 29 with W296. It has been my experience - after loading 110's, 125's, & 158's (sorry, never loaded 140's) - that it clearly works best with the heavy 158's, and probably heavier (which I've never loaded).

Back when I was a silly loader, I used to really love the 4' long, 18" diameter flame bloom that would emit from the 110's at night - and that was with an 8-3/8" bbl 686. Now days, I try to load "balanced" rounds - that is, ammo that is correct for the application and gun (especially the barrel length). With that, even 125's are too light for W296 - unless you're shooting them through a lever-action carbine.

Quote:

I have read a few places not to download / light load W296.

Yes. And no. I think it's mostly urban legend that it's somehow dangerous. But the point is moot anyway because if you're going to load with W296, it's kind of pointless to load it any other way than good n stout. That's its purpose. It's in its DNA. That's what it does. I've way underloaded it without any problems - except inconsistent, sooty burns.

Quote:

Looking in my Hornady manual give a range for the 125gr's of 16.9-20.3 (1250-1500fps) using win296.

I would refer to the Hornady manual. Maybe because I'm old, but I always turn to bullet mfg load manuals first.

Quote:

Online at the Hodgdon site give a much narrower range of 21.0-22.0gr (1880-1960fps). I'm not exactly looking to push them as fast as the Hodgdon site indicates they might go.

Hodgdon's data is through a ridiculous 10" bbl. I don't know why they do that. It's just silly. Just one more reason to go with the Hornady manual.

Quote:

My gut instinct tells me to start with the Hornady info and refine by my usual techniques

I agree.

Quote:

these will mostly be fired from 4+6" barrels.

I rarely shoot 296-loaded ammo with anything shorter than a 6" bbl - and that's with 158gn bullets. Lighter bullets call for even longer barrels. This is all my opinion, of course. Others will disagree - fair enough. But shooting my W296/158 loaded ammo through my 4" 686 results in a tremendous amount of flash, report, and recoil. It's an out of balance round for the gun and in my mature years, it just seems kind of pointless. And the chronograph agrees too; as I can get more velocity from AA7 through the 4"; but W296 is the champ though the 8-3/8". Through the 4", the W296 is producing more flash, report, and recoil, than bullet velocity. To use an automotive analogy: It's a bit like running 110-octane aviation fuel in an engine with an 8.5/1 compression ratio - a good percentage of the fuel is just going to burn in the exhaust, not the combustion chamber.

**Mike Irwin** · October 10, 2015, 04:19 PM

I've used a lot of 296 over the years, both in .357 and in .41 Mag.

No matter what cartridge you're using it in, the by word is crimp.

LOTS of crimp.

**Unclenick** · October 10, 2015, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick_C_S

I think it's mostly urban legend that it's somehow dangerous…

Actually, the powder distributors created the warning. Winchester first, then Hodgdon echoed it, IIRC. Before Hodgdon updated its web site, the warning was on the front page where you enter the load site. It said not to drop any published load of this powder by more than 3% because it could extinguish and leave a bullet stuck in your barrel. Then the next round not to extinguish could bulge your barrel or even burst the gun.

Why the warning is gone now, I don't know. I don't imagine it happens often, so maybe they decided their general cautions were adequate. You could call them and ask.

In point of fact most powders can extinguish if you run them with bullets that are too light for the burn rate. It's because they have a temperature and pressure threshold that must be maintained to keep releasing oxygen fast enough to sustain the burn in a sealed environment.

Lee S. Forsberg · October 10, 2015, 10:58 PM

I've burned some 296 and H110. They both like heavy bullet and long barrels.
Mike Irwin has it right. No matter what bullet is used make sure it has a heavy crimp. Had the fire go out with the bullet half way up the bore because of a light crimp using this powder.

Kosh75287 · October 11, 2015, 02:19 AM

I agree with Mike Irwin about crimp.

I don't think there's any kind of detonation hazard associated with loading H110 below recommended levels, but there seems to be a somewhat greater hazard of "hangfire" from under-loading, and lodging a projectile in the barrel then firing a round off, right behind it, converting the poor revolver into a grenade. I suspect the danger lies in avoiding one of those situations.

I've used H110 in .357 Mag loads and the results were good, but not worth the trouble of the narrow charge weight range.

I've had excellent results with 2400 in and either of the 4227s, all of which are far more forgiving of under-loading than H110. H110 is probably perfect for applications other than making the .30 carbine go, but I haven't heard of one, yet. These days, if I can reload a cartridge using H110 or anything else, I try to use anything else.

Mike / Tx · October 11, 2015, 06:16 AM

Once upon a time I ran LOTS of 296 and 110 under the lighter weight bullets in both of my GP-100's and in my 41mag and my 44. I have nice little lines across all of the top straps as a result. Not that they are any worse for wear but none the less they all have those little lines there now.

I learned as most have reported there are MUCH better powders for loading lighter bullets and getting good results. I still use a LOT of 296 but it is now under medium to heavy weight bullets and is within the parameters of the listed data. There is nothing fun about the hammer dropping then two seconds later the round actually goes off, or you get a poof and then have a half burnt load of powder falling out of the cylinder gap and a bullet lodged in the barrel. I have expereinced this with 296 more than any other powder I use, and I can only attribute it to working down the scale against the listed warnings.

Granted on the other end of that spectrum you DO get some pretty awesome fireballs out of some of the loads, but for the 357, I stick with 140 to 180gr bullets, mag primers, and solid crimps when I use this powder.

brasscollector · October 11, 2015, 07:55 AM

Thanks for all the good info. I originally picked up the Win296 as it was about my only option at the time. Looking at the website for my local supply store shows they have 4227 in stock now so it looks like I should grab some before it's gone. I will pick up some jacketed 158's while I'm there.

m&p45acp10+1 · October 11, 2015, 08:27 AM

H110/Win296 are the same enough that data for either can interchange for the other. They meter the same, and volume for powder measure is the same. Both have a few things in common.

1. They are not for light loads. Never ever, ever, ever go below the starting load listed for it.

2. With them as far as I know there are not any listed light loads with them. It is a Magnum powder in handgun loads.

3. As has been stated a heavy crimp is needed. It helps it to build pressure to expel the bullet out of the barrel. It also helps to keep the recoil from working as a bullet puller, and tying up the cylinder of the revolver.

I load .41 Mag, and .30 Carbine with it.

hoghunting · October 11, 2015, 06:24 PM

Quote:

H110/Win296 are the same enough that data for either can interchange for the other. They meter the same, and volume for powder measure is the same. Both have a few things in common.

W296 and H110 have everything in common as they are the same powder, just in different canisters.

Mobuck · October 11, 2015, 09:35 PM

If you want less than top end loads, you need a different powder. That's why I stock AA#9 and Lil'Gun.

sawdustdad · October 12, 2015, 08:08 AM

296 is my other "go to" powder (besides 2400) for magnum pistol loads in .357 and .44. I love the way it meters so consistently. And for some reason, the name "Winchester" on the can just makes me feel like a cowboy.

(also tend to favor 748 and 760 in rifle loads)

I, too, avoid downloading either of these powders, first because of the warnings in my '80s vintage loading manuals and secondly, because there is no reason to download with either of these powders. There are so many other powders out there for that purpose.

I shoot both 158g and 125g jacketed bullets using these powders. For some reason, the 125g bullet is more accurate out of my Dan Wesson 6inch revolver than the 158g loads. With a good crimp, I find that 296 burns completely and cleanly, even with 125g bullets.

**Unclenick** · October 12, 2015, 08:38 AM

Hoghunting is correct. Both 296 and H110 leave the General Dynamics St. Marks, Florida powder plant as Western Cannon WC296, with burn rate adjusted to canister grade tolerance. This information was in the Hodgdon MSDS sheets for their brands and Winchester brands through 2009, before they became less informative. You can still find the 2009 MSDS sheets on line, though, if you poke through the sites that collect MSDS data.

TimSr · October 12, 2015, 09:31 AM

Always defer to powder mfg published data if it conflicts significantly with bullet mfg's data.

Dangers of underloading 110/296 is squibs and hangfires.

I've used it for decades with 125-158gr bullets and all performed excellent.

Sighting in for 158gr bullets will keep you a lot closer to the zero point of impact if you change up ammo. After 125gr full power loads, anything else you shoot hit much higher.

buck460XVR · October 12, 2015, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Looking in my Hornady manual give a range for the 125gr's of 16.9-20.3 (1250-1500fps) using win296. Online at the Hodgdon site give a much narrower range of 21.0-22.0gr (1880-1960fps)

This is one reason I always try and reference at least three sources for reference when developing new loads. What you are experiencing are the two extremes, if you look at Speer, they give a range of 18-20 for a 125gr jacketed. 22gr may be a compressed load with H110/W296. Published loads have been tested to be safe in modern firearms using the components tested. I tend to avoid extreme mins and maxes, again by using three or more sources it's easy to see which loads are extreme. Squib loads created by H110/W296 are generally a combination of low powder charge, and/or too light a crimp and/or not using a magnum primer.

My experience with H110/W296 is that it performs very well when used at the upper end of it's parameters. If one is looking for performance other than that, another powder should be considered.

October 10, 2015, 09:34 AM	#1
brasscollector Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2015 Posts: 526	Experience with WIN296 for 357 mag Just looking for some advice on loading Win296 into 357 magnum loads using 125gr and 140gr pills. I have read a few places not to download / light load win 296. Looking in my Hornady manual give a range for the 125gr's of 16.9-20.3 (1250-1500fps) using win296. Online at the Hodgdon site give a much narrower range of 21.0-22.0gr (1880-1960fps). I'm not exactly looking to push them as fast as the Hodgdon site indicates they might go. My gut instinct tells me to start with the Hornady info and refine by my usual techniques but I thought I would toss this out there and see what experience others have had. These will mostly be fired from 4+6" barrels.

October 10, 2015, 01:04 PM	#4
T. O'Heir Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12,453	"...not exactly looking to push them..." You may want to rethink the 296. Doesn't produce the highest pressures, but certainly drives both weights faster than other Hodgdon powders. 296 is really a .30 Carbine powder vs a handgun powder. __________________ Spelling and grammar count!

October 10, 2015, 04:19 PM	#6
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,390	I've used a lot of 296 over the years, both in .357 and in .41 Mag. No matter what cartridge you're using it in, the by word is crimp. LOTS of crimp. __________________ "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.

October 10, 2015, 10:58 PM	#8
Lee S. Forsberg Member Join Date: July 31, 2005 Posts: 36	Win 296 I've burned some 296 and H110. They both like heavy bullet and long barrels. Mike Irwin has it right. No matter what bullet is used make sure it has a heavy crimp. Had the fire go out with the bullet half way up the bore because of a light crimp using this powder.

October 11, 2015, 06:16 AM	#10
Mike / Tx Senior Member Join Date: April 8, 2000 Posts: 2,101	Once upon a time I ran LOTS of 296 and 110 under the lighter weight bullets in both of my GP-100's and in my 41mag and my 44. I have nice little lines across all of the top straps as a result. Not that they are any worse for wear but none the less they all have those little lines there now. I learned as most have reported there are MUCH better powders for loading lighter bullets and getting good results. I still use a LOT of 296 but it is now under medium to heavy weight bullets and is within the parameters of the listed data. There is nothing fun about the hammer dropping then two seconds later the round actually goes off, or you get a poof and then have a half burnt load of powder falling out of the cylinder gap and a bullet lodged in the barrel. I have expereinced this with 296 more than any other powder I use, and I can only attribute it to working down the scale against the listed warnings. Granted on the other end of that spectrum you DO get some pretty awesome fireballs out of some of the loads, but for the 357, I stick with 140 to 180gr bullets, mag primers, and solid crimps when I use this powder. __________________ LAter, Mike / TX

October 10, 2015, 10:00 AM	#2
hoghunting Senior Member Join Date: March 27, 2006 Posts: 1,559	I would use Hodgdon's data since they are the distributors of the powder and have the powder manufactured to their specs. I use 296/110 with 158 gr bullets using Hodgdon data and never had a problem, but if you're using pills, maybe you should check with your pharmacist.

October 10, 2015, 12:31 PM	#3
NoSecondBest Senior Member Join Date: December 7, 2009 Location: Western New York Posts: 2,736	+1 with hoghunting. Hodgdon is the sole seller of this powder now and they have it made to their specs. This powder was NEVER designed to be "downloaded". It's burning characteristics depend on a full, or nearly full, case of powder to get the rapid combustion needed to burn properly. I've shot a couple of hundred thousand rounds using WW296 over the last forty years or so and it's very good powder. FWIW, I've never had as good a results using "pills" (I call them bullets) lighter than 140 grains. I've found the best results with 158 and 180 grain bullets with this powder.

October 11, 2015, 02:19 AM	#9
Kosh75287 Senior Member Join Date: October 15, 2007 Posts: 820	I agree with Mike Irwin about crimp. I don't think there's any kind of detonation hazard associated with loading H110 below recommended levels, but there seems to be a somewhat greater hazard of "hangfire" from under-loading, and lodging a projectile in the barrel then firing a round off, right behind it, converting the poor revolver into a grenade. I suspect the danger lies in avoiding one of those situations. I've used H110 in .357 Mag loads and the results were good, but not worth the trouble of the narrow charge weight range. I've had excellent results with 2400 in and either of the 4227s, all of which are far more forgiving of under-loading than H110. H110 is probably perfect for applications other than making the .30 carbine go, but I haven't heard of one, yet. These days, if I can reload a cartridge using H110 or anything else, I try to use anything else. __________________ GOD BLESS JEFF COOPER, whose instructions, consultations, and publications have probably saved more lives than can ever be reliably calculated. DVC, sir. انجلو. المسلحة. جاهزة. Carpe SCOTCH!

October 11, 2015, 07:55 AM	#11
brasscollector Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2015 Posts: 526	Thanks for all the good info. I originally picked up the Win296 as it was about my only option at the time. Looking at the website for my local supply store shows they have 4227 in stock now so it looks like I should grab some before it's gone. I will pick up some jacketed 158's while I'm there.

October 11, 2015, 08:27 AM	#12
m&p45acp10+1 Senior Member Join Date: May 3, 2009 Location: Central Texas Posts: 3,930	H110/Win296 are the same enough that data for either can interchange for the other. They meter the same, and volume for powder measure is the same. Both have a few things in common. 1. They are not for light loads. Never ever, ever, ever go below the starting load listed for it. 2. With them as far as I know there are not any listed light loads with them. It is a Magnum powder in handgun loads. 3. As has been stated a heavy crimp is needed. It helps it to build pressure to expel the bullet out of the barrel. It also helps to keep the recoil from working as a bullet puller, and tying up the cylinder of the revolver. I load .41 Mag, and .30 Carbine with it. __________________ No matter how many times you do it and nothing happens it only takes something going wrong one time to kill you.

October 11, 2015, 09:35 PM	#14
Mobuck Junior member Join Date: February 2, 2010 Posts: 6,846	If you want less than top end loads, you need a different powder. That's why I stock AA#9 and Lil'Gun.

October 12, 2015, 08:08 AM	#15
sawdustdad Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2014 Location: Virginia Posts: 484	296 is my other "go to" powder (besides 2400) for magnum pistol loads in .357 and .44. I love the way it meters so consistently. And for some reason, the name "Winchester" on the can just makes me feel like a cowboy. (also tend to favor 748 and 760 in rifle loads) I, too, avoid downloading either of these powders, first because of the warnings in my '80s vintage loading manuals and secondly, because there is no reason to download with either of these powders. There are so many other powders out there for that purpose. I shoot both 158g and 125g jacketed bullets using these powders. For some reason, the 125g bullet is more accurate out of my Dan Wesson 6inch revolver than the 158g loads. With a good crimp, I find that 296 burns completely and cleanly, even with 125g bullets.

October 12, 2015, 08:38 AM	#16
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,063	Hoghunting is correct. Both 296 and H110 leave the General Dynamics St. Marks, Florida powder plant as Western Cannon WC296, with burn rate adjusted to canister grade tolerance. This information was in the Hodgdon MSDS sheets for their brands and Winchester brands through 2009, before they became less informative. You can still find the 2009 MSDS sheets on line, though, if you poke through the sites that collect MSDS data. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

October 12, 2015, 09:31 AM	#17
TimSr Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2013 Location: Rittman, Ohio Posts: 2,074	Always defer to powder mfg published data if it conflicts significantly with bullet mfg's data. Dangers of underloading 110/296 is squibs and hangfires. I've used it for decades with 125-158gr bullets and all performed excellent. Sighting in for 158gr bullets will keep you a lot closer to the zero point of impact if you change up ammo. After 125gr full power loads, anything else you shoot hit much higher.