Warning: Wolf LP primers and Mag loads

[Jolly Rancher]

I usually don't post here but wanted to share my experience from this afternoon at the range. For starters I've been reloading off and on for the past 30 years and recently purchased a NIB Ruger Blackhawk in 45 Colt. I, as most others, have noted the difficulty in obtaining primers lately so when I saw a deal to get 5000 Wolf LP primers plus shipping for $28.00 per 1000 I jumped on it. Before I go any farther this is not intended to be a Wolf bashing thread I just want to caution others. I first loaded up 100 45 ACP rounds of 225 gr lead flat nose bullets over 4.8 gr of Bullseye. Then I decided to the load up a hand full of 45 Colt using 250 gr XHP bullets over 26.2 gr of H110 to see what it would do. This load is listed as the max load for this bullet / powder per my reloading info. So I load up 35 rounds after verified that my powder measure is throwing that exact charge. Best of my recollection is I visually verified each cartridge was loaded with powder before seating the bullet (this load fills the case some where between 2/3 to 3/4 full). I take the Blackhawk to the range and commence to fire. Round #1 goes boom, Round #2 goes boom but round #3 goes "click" or so it sounded with my hearing protection on. I think great a dud so I wait for at least 30 sec to see if it was going to be a hang-fire but nothing happened. So still thinking I've got a "dud" cock the hammer and let fly again, big mistake. The piece almost flew out of my hand. It was like I had a double charge, but after looking at the barrel from the inside and out it was obvious that a round had been stuck in the barrel and I had just blow it out, bulging the barrel. I don't know how wise it was but I fired 3 more shots to see if it would still print on the paper. I stopped at the third round when it made a rather low quality "boom". I looked in the barrel and there was no bullet but there was a large amount of unburned powder. The only thing I can think of is that the primers weren't doing a very good job of igniting the powder. I would like to say that the 100 rounds of 45 ACP I loaded went "boom" every time as expected with good accurate. The only upside to this is now I've got an excuse to replace the 5 1/2 barrel with a 7 1/2 inch barrel and that no one was hurt.
Jolly Rancher

[Brian Pfleuger]

You started at max load without working up, then proceeded to fire without inspecting the firearm after an unknown problem occurred and then fired three more rounds after nearly blowing up the gun on a squib?

You don't have to worry about this turning into a Wolf bashing thread....

[mrawesome22]

What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.

[Bamashooter]

Wolf primers are as good as any other primer that ive ever used.

[SL1]

looks like a poor application for that powder. It doesn't burn well at low pressure, having a tendency to "squib", and even in a Ruger Blackhawk, the max pressure is low for that powder. And, load data I have seen ALWAYS states that MAGNUM primers should be used. That is even more important when the load is not up to the powder's preferred pressure.

So, I take this as a not-unexpected result of using the wrong strenght primers for H-110. While I can't fault the OP for not reducing an H-110 load (which usually carries a warning to not reduce at all or not more than 3%), I do fault his choice of primer strenght, rather than the Wolf primers for the squibs he created.

SL1

[oneounceload]

Sounds mostly like operator error. No Wolf bashing going to happen for sure......

[Unclenick]

Not only is H110 a magnum-primer-only, heavy crimp-only powder (needing the higher start pressure to sustain burning) but Wolf standard primers are among the mildest available. Great for target load accuracy with Bullseye and Trail Boss and the other light-load ilk in the .45 Colt, but not up to getting H110 going in a large volume case like the Colt. I think Hodgdon's load data contributes to the confusion because it lists the Winchester LP primers in its load data when you click the print button. The Winchester LP's are heavier dual use standard/magnum primers, but that listing could mislead someone not up to speed on current components into thinking any LP primer would do.

[Jolly Rancher]

Like I said I'm not out to bash Wolf I just never figured that the possibility of so poor of ignition would be possible. Live and learn. Will use only mag primers for mag loads in the future. If anything sounds the least bit unusual will stop and inspect. Up side no one was hurt. Look at the following website for the load. http://data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp
Jolly Rancher

[warnerwh]

A max load listing may be an over max load listing in your gun. There are a number of variables.

[SL1]

The Hornady data says Winchester primers. Substituting Wolf primers seems to be the root of the problem with the .45 Long Colt ammo.

You really do have to pay attention when you switch components from what was used to create the pressure-tested data you are using. And, since this was a case of pressure being too low instead of too high, the general concept of "reduce the charge and and work-up" doesn't help with this particular problem (and you aren't supposed to reduce minimum loads of H-110, anyway).

SL1

[spacecoast]

It's too bad the Hodgdon site doesn't specify magnum primers (it should). An expensive lesson for the OP, thankfully without injury.

[Scrapperz]

I have no problems with using Wolf LP primers with my 45 Colt loads using 10 grains of Unique and a 250 grain XTP and my other load of 7.3 grains of Unique and a 255 grain Hornady Cowboy. But I only have a 460 XVR to shoot them with currently.

[Unclenick]

Jolly Rancher,

Note that when you use the Hodgdon site, there are several selection buttons on the right side at the top of the listings. One of them says "Print". When you click that button you get a printer wizard and a preview screen. Unlike the load data you see without clicking on print, that preview screen shows the case and primer they used at the top. That information needs to be followed in order to copy their load.

Note, too, that a maximum manual load is not automatically safe in your gun. You can tell because, if you look at half dozen different load manuals you often get a half dozen different maximums. All you know for sure is that maximum was safe in the gun the manual authors used with its individual chamber and bore dimensions. The normal practice is to start with the lowest load, then gradually work it up, watching for pressure signs because you don't know the manual maximum will necessarily be safe in your gun, whose individual maximum may be lower.

To come up to speed on primers, I recommend this article.

[SL1]

The interesting thing NOT mentioned in the article in Unclenick's link is that the same unannounced manufacturing changes in primer strength that the author says would invalidate any primer reference chart should ALSO invalidate any load data published for the pre-change primers. Or, if the manufacturer DID do as the author says Speer did for its changes and made sure that the primer changes left the old load data, still valid, then I don't see why it would invalidate a primer comparison table. It seems like two sides of the same coin, not two different coins.

SL1

[edward5759]

What you did was ruin a good gun.
Years ago when I was working at Rock Island as an Engineer
We would sometime blow stuff up for max pressure testing.
We had several rifles that we would load the case full of bulleye powder and let loose.
I have seen primers vary pressure as much as 20% in the cartridge.
For max loads I’ve seen several 45 long colts that could not take even the starting load, yet the barrel was at .455 and would air gauge out fine.
Several guns would max out in pressures before hitting the half way up the loading data for a max load!
I personally had a Ruger 308 in 1968 that would blow the case and lock the bolt at 38 grains of BLC(2)! The barrel was at .308

Guns are like Women! There all different but with the same color of hair.

Just thank God you weren’t hurt in this ordeal and you are now a spokesman for starting loads and working up slowly and checking the barrel after a squibb.

Ed

[spacecoast]

Note that when you use the Hodgdon site, there are several selection buttons on the right side at the top of the listings. One of them says "Print". When you click that button you get a printer wizard and a preview screen. Unlike the load data you see without clicking on print, that preview screen shows the case and primer they used at the top. That information needs to be followed in order to copy their load.

Unclenick -

Thanks for the tip about the Print format on the Hodgdon web site. However, for the 45 Colt/H110 load in question, it only says "Winchester LP". Not everyone would realize that those primers are for both standard and magnum loads unless they've seen the box, and even then it's not clear that magnum primers are required. Hodgdon could do everyone a service by making sure it specifies standard/magnum in addition to the brand used. Fortunately their H110 loads for .357 magnum say Winchester SPM, making it clear which primer needs to be used.

[uncyboo]

JollyRancher, for future reference, when I load H110 in the 44 Mag, I set my crimp die to just start crushing the case, then back off just a hair. That gives me max crimp for that particular die. It has always worked well for me. H110 is the only powder I give this much crimp to.

[Unclenick]

Ed.

20%! Wow. I've never measured more than 8%, but I'll bet you saw an awful lot more variety than I have. That would take about a 10% change in powder charge to compensate for. I've usually recommended 5% powder reduction for a primer change, but will adjust that practice back to 10%, now. Do you happen to remember what the two primers were?


SL1,

Yup! And that makes it pretty clear why we work our loads back up whenever the primer lot number changes. Same as any of the other components.


Spacecoast,

If you look at my post #7 before that one with the tip, you'll see I mentioned the same thing; the LP designation could be misleading. I thought maybe it explained what happened? I should have got both sets of information in the same post.

Nick

[spacecoast]

Unclenick -

Sorry I missed that, you nailed it in #7.

[Sevens]

You started at max load without working up, then proceeded to fire without inspecting the firearm after an unknown problem occurred and then fired three more rounds after nearly blowing up the gun on a squib?

I'll just quote that in hopes that it gets seen again.

There are a few rules that all reloaders should follow... this is one of them.

[SL1]

While I agree that the OP made some mistakes that COULD have cost him more dearly, I am a little concerned about the generic advice to "Start low and work-up looking for pressures signs" being repeated in the replies to THIS thread.

In THIS particular case, we are dealing with a powder where Winchester used to publish ONLY one load, because there was so little room between too-low pressure causing a squib and max pressure for several cartridges. The Hodgdon data that the OP used has a spread of only 0.8 grains between "start" and "max" for a roughly 26 grain load, and the pressure difference between the two is given as only 2,800 psi (about 10%). To show the contrast, the same site shows loads for H4227 ranging over 4.6 grains for a slightly lower total charge weight, with pressures ranging over 6,800 psi (about 30% over "start"). So, even Hodgdon doesn't REALLY provide a "start" load that is significantly different from its "max" load in THIS particular data. So, in THIS particular case, pushing the "start low and work-up" is more a technicality than a true underlying casue.

What I would rather see emphasized are the following:

1. Check more than one source for relevant data. Hopefully, the other data sources contain more prominent warnings about squib loads with this powder.

2. Don't swap components from what is listed in the load data without RESEARCHING the potential effects of the swap. In THIS particular case, simply realizing that the Wolf primers were different from the Winchester primers would have been a good start, BUT, blindly reducing the load by 10% and working-up would have made the problem WORSE, rather than being the generic solution to ALL component swaps. If you decide to swap components, do some research on the differences between the components and then consider what effect(s) those differences might have when applied to the other components in the load recipe. If you find that you are using a powder that is prone to squib, then you need to worry more about the swap REDUCING pressure than raising it, as in this situation. Had the OP done that, then he MIGHT have looked for a lodged bullet when he got the first squib, because he would have been alerted to the possibility.

One other comment is that SOME reloading manuals tend to promote swapping by the way they present the data. In particular, Lee's "Modern Reloading" takes data from a variety of data sources and lumps them together under the bullet weight, with some differences for bullet type under the same weight. Although the original sources of that data specified what brand of primers were used to produce it, Lee's book does NOT provide that part of the data. To a new reloader who is using the Lee book as his only or primary source of data, this book tends to teach by example that primers don't matter. This just provides another reason to get more than one manual and read through them before you start reloading. NO single manual will teach you everything that you really will need to know as you face the reality of assembling reloads with available components and limited recipes.

SL1

[Nate1778]

My only advice as I have had a couple of squibs. If it goes click it may or may not have gone off. Do not pull the trigger again till you verify either way. Costly mistake I know, but I remember the first time mine went "click" bullet fortunately was stuck between the forcing cone and cylinder.

[Scrapperz]

I noticed this also SL1

One other comment is that SOME reloading manuals tend to promote swapping by the way they present the data. In particular, Lee's "Modern Reloading" takes data from a variety of data sources and lumps them together under the bullet weight, with some differences for bullet type under the same weight. Although the original sources of that data specified what brand of primers were used to produce it, Lee's book does NOT provide that part of the data. To a new reloader who is using the Lee book as his only or primary source of data, this book tends to teach by example that primers don't matter. This just provides another reason to get more than one manual and read through them before you start reloading. NO single manual will teach you everything that you really will need to know as you face the reality of assembling reloads with available components and limited recipes.

The Lee manual 2nd edition could "throw off" someone new at reloading regarding the type of primer to use. The First time I went quickly through the Lee manual I did not notice where they specified the type of primer they used, but on page 74 under priming it says "Use magnum primers only when load data specifies magnum primers." Also, they specify which type, not maker, of primer next to the diagram of the cartridge.

[Unclenick]

H110/296 is peculiar in regard to maximum loads being safe to start with. Indeed, I feel Hodgdon does a disservice by posting the 3% reduction warning then giving load ranges larger than 3% in many instances. That just adds to the confusion. But if you are going to choose a powder to start at maximum with, this is one powder where that is normally safe. That's relates to the reason it squibs out so easily. In regular magnum loads it seems to be running at close to the lower limit of the pressure it needs to sustain burning. That lets you put so much in the case that it gives high velocity at lower pressure than Blue Dot or 2400 can. The downside is the critical ignition. The same has been reported with quite a number of rifle powders if loaded down too far in pressure. Slow powders are not for low pressure.

[Pathfinder45]

.......I personally like Winchester Large Pistol primers...... but not for W-296 or H-110 powders. I know, I know; it says right on the package that they are suitable for both standard and magnum pistol loads. Never the less, when I used them with W-296 in my .45 Colt Vaquero I got hang-fires in about half of the cartridges. On the very same day I also fired an otherwise identical load, [that had been loaded the same day as the previous load and crimped identically], except using CCI Magnum Pistol primers and there were no problems. Many of you may have used Winchester primers with H-110 or w-296 and not had a problem. However, I've found it to be a marginal primer for those two powders. As far as Wolf primers go, I have not tried them and don't intend to because I have plenty of American primers. They may be good and in light of the recent shortages a lot of us have had to consider substitution of components. If that's all you can get, by all means keep shooting. Now, about the powder:

1. It's a finicky powder with a narrow range between start and max load.
2. Use a real magnum primer, the hotter the better.
3. If you can only get standard primers, use a different powder.

I don't think that W-296/H-110 are the best powders for people that are fairly new to reloading due to it's more exacting nature. It's easier to not, "get it right", with them. As we have just seen, in reloading, if you don't get it right, it can be dangerous. For slow burning magnum pistol powders I have had good results with AA-9 and IMR-4227. I have not tried Hodgdon Lil'gun but have read that it gives similar performance to H-110 while being easier to ignite. It might be worth a try. It seems I've read too many stories like the OP with H-110/W-296 being a common element.