Author Topic: 296 Hornet loads (Read 1748 times)

zoner · « **on:** October 27, 2008, 12:24:47 PM »

got a new handi hornet....the brown truck just brought my Midway parcel...dies,brass,bullets(40 gr Sierra JSP, Hornady 45 gr JSP), scope mount due in a couple days( putting a Leupold Vari X II 2X-7X 0n that puppy)...things are lookin REALLLY good around here I'll tell you...any of you other Hornet guys using Win 296? It just so happens that I have a pound can layin around...would like to use it in the hornet....anybody got any pet Hornet loads with 296 powder?

dw06 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 27, 2008, 01:00:31 PM »

I had a handi hornet for 15 years, its preferred load was 10-10.5 grains of WW 296 under the 45gr Hornady sp. I could use remington or winchester brass and rem 6 1/2 primers, but it really shined when using fed match primers. That was my overall favorite bullet in the hornet, although the 40gr ballistic tip was a very close 2nd!

Badnews Bob · « **Reply #2 on:** October 27, 2008, 01:15:42 PM »

My hornet has been neglected in the safe for a few years, poor thing but I've just recently broke her out. I have a bunch of brass ready to load just gotta get started.

BTW I thought that being off work would let me get allot of reloading done, Not hardly, My back hurts to much to sit and do anything for more than 15 or 20 minutes. I got plenty of time to think about it thou.

zoner · « **Reply #3 on:** October 27, 2008, 05:28:28 PM »

thanks...the info i've gotten is 11-11.5 gr with the 40gr bullet and 10-10.5 with the 45 gr....got to get a chronograph one of these days...maybe when i get a trigger pull guage to replace the string and gallon jug.....

cjclemens · « **Reply #4 on:** October 27, 2008, 07:01:52 PM »

Ive been using 296 for all my hornet loads. I don't have the actual charges I used in front of me, but Ive had great luck with 35 and 40 grain bullets. If you use the 45 grain bullets, accuracy tends to get a bit better if you back away from the max charge. H110 is supposed to be another good powder for the hornet, but I havent had a chance to try it out yet.

LaOtto222 · « **Reply #5 on:** October 28, 2008, 12:42:47 AM »

I have had some good results using CCI small pistol primers. My best load for 296 is 12.4 grains under a 34 grain Mid South bullet. Try around 10.0 grains with the 40 grain bullet and about 9.7 with the 45 grain bullet, all using the CCI small pistol primer and WW case. I crimp my 22 Hornet loads, I seem to get more consistent results with a crimp. The 34 grain bullet gets in the nieborhood of +3000 fps, it is not a max load. W296 really shines with the lighter bullets. BTW I use Speer's Manual #14 for my reloading data with the 22 hornet. Good Luck and Good Shooting

Badnews Bob · « **Reply #6 on:** October 28, 2008, 01:39:52 AM »

H110 and win296 are the same powder. Not just almost the same they are made at the same time by the same equipment, I believe hodgedon makes all off Wins powder.

LaOtto222 · « **Reply #7 on:** October 28, 2008, 01:51:00 AM »

Quote from: Badnews Bob on October 28, 2008, 01:39:52 AM

H110 and win296 are the same powder. Not just almost the same they are made at the same time by the same equipment, I believe hodgedon makes all off Wins powder.

I am not arguing your fact - I think it is correct. However there seems to be variance between lots. If a case hold lots of powder, these variances do not add up to much, but in a small capacity case like the Hornet, you need to be careful about them. If you look at reloading data, there is a difference between the load charges of W296 and H110 - some times. Some times they are the same. If you switch lots even with in the same powder, then you need to back off just a little and work your way backup. If you are in the middle of the data, you probably do not need to back off, but be aware and watch your velocities and back off if needed.

bilmac · « **Reply #8 on:** October 28, 2008, 02:49:12 AM »

I used 2400 for years and thought it was good enough, but then I tried some 296 and it shot much better without even fiddling with it.

Badnews Bob · « **Reply #9 on:** October 28, 2008, 03:31:26 AM »

LaOtto You are correct I know reloaders who start over with every new jug of powder because of lot diffrences. Just because its the same type powder dosnt mean its exaclly the same.

Graybeard · « **Reply #10 on:** October 28, 2008, 03:54:46 AM »

Quote

I believe hodgedon makes all off Wins powder.

Bad info in fact to some extent the reverse is actually true. The ball powders are made by Primatex (might be an incorrect spelling) which is owned by Winchester. So in effect the ball powders Hodgdon has been selling for years were made by Winchester.

Now Hodgdon has taken over sole distributorship of all the Winchester branded powders as well as their own Hodgdon brand and also IMR brand. I think they actually bought IMR so might actually be making powder now. For most of their history tho Hodgdon was not so much a powder maker as an importer of powders made by others or in some cases they bought US made powders. These days they have greatly expanded tho and are really THE major player in the US in powder for reloaders.

Badnews Bob · « **Reply #11 on:** October 28, 2008, 09:05:49 AM »

What you believe and whats fact aint always the same. I am willing to amend that fault, But I gotta admit it will take some doing, We're all born ignoranant and some never get over it.

Graybeard · « **Reply #12 on:** October 28, 2008, 09:32:52 AM »

Ain't that a fact Bob. But in reality we're all ignorant on something. Since ignorance is defined as lack of knowledge there are some subjects on which we're all ignorant. I do try to work on those areas and reduce them as much as possible in areas of interest to me at least. In areas not of interest to me I really don't try to remove my igonrance.

I think my hard drive in my head is approaching the limit of it's capacity and some times I have to dump old data in order to have room to store new data. At least that's the excuse I use when I forget something I used to know.

quickdtoo · « **Reply #13 on:** October 28, 2008, 09:35:35 AM »

Badnews Bob · « **Reply #14 on:** October 28, 2008, 11:55:26 AM »

Amen

cjclemens · « **Reply #15 on:** October 28, 2008, 05:07:18 PM »

Quote

H110 and win296 are the same powder.

I was unaware of that. I had just assumed they were similar ball powders. I guess ya learn something new every day.

zoner · « **Reply #16 on:** October 29, 2008, 04:29:50 PM »

thanks again for the info

shaner · « **Reply #17 on:** October 30, 2008, 01:00:24 AM »

ive used the 296 but find lil gun a lot better for me? i used 10.5 of the 296 and a 45gr pill

Gohon · « **Reply #18 on:** October 30, 2008, 03:28:21 AM »

Don't know if 296 and H-110 are the same powders or not but I know they shoot differently in my Hornets. Ran some tests once using 296, H-110, Lil'Gun, 2400, and Unique behind Sierra 40 aqnd 45 grain JSP's, with the goal of accuracy in mind and not speed or power. Settled on Lil'Gun and H-110 as the best for my shooting. Using H-110 at 10.5 grains I get 2,450 fps at the muzzle and cloverleafs at 100 yards. If I recall correctly I was using the same charge of the 296 but averaging 2 inches at 100 yards. Doesn't answer your question directly and doesn't mean 296 won't perform well for you but it just didn't shoot well in my guns. 8.9 grains of H-110 behind the 45 grain Sierra gives me right at 2400 fpe and excellent accuracy. I know I can go much higher on these loads but as I mentioned, accuracy was my main goal. Personally I believe a lot of new shooters with the Hornet simply attempt to make the Hornet perform on the low side of the .223 and to me that is a mistake. Load the Hornet to what it was designed to do and you'll be a happy camper.

LaOtto222 · « **Reply #19 on:** October 30, 2008, 04:53:58 AM »

This is my opinion only; based on what I have seen and experienced. H110 and W296 have variances between lots. Enough that each lot# has to be tested. So once you get your load with H110 for instance, the next time you buy your powder, it may perform differently. The next time you buy H110 it may not perform as well as it did the time before so it takes more or just the opposite, it takes less. I am only talking a tenth grain or three, but that makes a considerable difference when you are only using 10 grains to start with. It gets real critical when you are talking small amounts of it. If you look at load data from different sources that list both the powders, many times they have different amounts down as maximum. One time it may be that W296 will get more velocity than H110 with the same powder charge, some times it is reversed and some times it is the very same. I think it has to do with the particular lot that was tested at the time. Some powders are known for their consistency between lots. H322 is one of them and Bench Resters like it for that reason. They will have very little variation between lots so they can count on the next lot of H322 to perform nearly the same as the last one did. They may have to make just a small adjustment to get the same performance or none, but it will not vary much. VV N133 is another powder that has some consistency between lots and is gaining favor with the Bench Rest crowd. So I guess what I am saying is if you found H110 to be better than W296 when you tested, if you did it again with different lots of powders, you may find the same thing or you may find just the opposite. Maybe you have come to a different conclusion based on what you have experienced. This one thing I am sure of - just trying one lot of powder is not necessarily representative of what you will get in the future, especially with small capacity cases.

Gohon · « **Reply #20 on:** October 30, 2008, 05:16:22 AM »

LaOtto222, your point is well taken and may be in fact very accurate however I would think the difference in lot to lot would be small enough not to make a great amount of difference to most but maybe a more so to others. But, I could be very wrong about that also. If there is that much of a difference it doesn't say much for quality control of the powder companies. I would add that the 296 and H-110 I used for these particular tests were 15 years old but still good powder. I've also heard rumors that some powder companies have ever so slightly adjusted their formulas over the last several years. Don't know if that holds water or not but that certainly would have a effect on end results. Quite frankly I was not only surprised but disappointed the 296 did not perform as well in my Hornet as I have used that powder in other calibers and still do, with excellent results. Would be nice if the powder companies gave a heads up on these matters but on the bight side it gives one more excuses to play around and shoot more. Another thing I would add is I've often seen warnings to never go below minimum on 296 because of increased pressure but I've never seen that warning on H-110. Something to think about.

quickdtoo · « **Reply #21 on:** October 30, 2008, 05:33:26 AM »

Quote from: Gohon on October 30, 2008, 05:16:22 AM

Another thing I would add is I've often seen warnings to never go below minimum on 296 because of increased pressure but I've never seen that warning on H-110.

Now you have!!

Tim

For those loads listed where a starting load is not shown, start 10% below the suggested maximum load and then approach maximums carefully, watching for any sign of pressure (difficult extraction, cratered and flattened or blown primers, and unusual recoil). H110 and Winchester 296 loads should not be reduced more than 3%.

Reduce H110 and Winchester 296 loads 3% and work up from there. H110 and Winchester 296 if reduced too much will cause inconsistent ignition. In some cases it will lodge a bullet in the barrel, causing a hazardous situation (Barrel Obstruction). This may cause severe personal injury or death to users or bystanders. DO NOT REDUCE H110 LOADS BY MORE THAN 3%.

http://data.hodgdon.com/main_menu.asp

BCall · « **Reply #22 on:** October 30, 2008, 06:28:10 AM »

This is what I find troubling about 296. I have looked at several loading manuals(can't say which ones for sure right now, they are at my fathers), but one manuals max load is the starting load in the other manual. I have been shooting my Ruger #1 with 296, and I started at what the Hodgdon manual listed as starting load. Going up .1 at a time, I was getting pressure signs well before I reached max, and groups were going south quickly. I don't remember exact starting load right now, but going up .5 grains in .1 grain increments, groups went from 1" to over 4". I considered going down from the starting load because of the pressure signs I was seeing( flattened primers and sticky cases), but am scared to do so even though the other manual lists a lower starting load. I've bought some lil gun, and hope it works a little better. I have no desire to reach 3000 fps in the hornet, but 2800 with accuracy would be nice. Billy

LaOtto222 · « **Reply #23 on:** October 30, 2008, 06:57:10 AM »

I am well aware of the data differences between one manual to the next. It is disturbing.

I have been talking about W296 and H110 up to this point. I have been using the data out of the latest Speer manual #14 lately. It seems to be very realistic to what I am actually getting with the guns I have been shooting them in; a Handi SL and a Savage Model 40. The Speer manual uses small pistol primers and WW cases, so that is what I have been using. According to the manual, W296 and H110 get better velocity than Lil'Gun with the very light bullets 35 grain and under. I have found the same thing. I know velocity is not the one thing that you should look at, accuracy is much more important to me any way. But it tells you you can get more velocity with the same type pressures. This gives you room to back off and still get decent velocity. I highly suspect that Lil'Gun varies between lots as does H110 and W296. I have not gotten the outstanding results out of Lil'Gun like a good many others have. I get higher pressures with less powder than others claim. I can only contribute this to a difference in lot#. I am not the only one that has had not so good results with Lil'Gun. If you do a lot of research on the subject you will find that about 1/4 of the people that tried Lil'Gun has had bad results, mostly erratic pressures, but other problems as well. there seem to be two camps on this, either they love it or they hate it. I am some where in between, but leaning toward not using it in the 22 Hornet.

Gohon · « **Reply #24 on:** October 30, 2008, 08:11:56 AM »

That's not the same warning I was speaking of. That is the reduction when no minimum load is listed. The warning that comes, or at least use to come with 296 is a warning of zero reduction below the minimum listed starting load. What's odd about that warning is it says no more than 3% below maximum load listed when there is no minimum load listed, but at the same time there are loading manuals, Speer for example, that show a minimum and a maximum load for these two powders and some of those loads have the minimum load as much 10-12% below the maximum load. Go figure............

When Winchester was making the powder they gave this information on loading the M1 Carbine.... "Winchester who when they made and sold the powder called it a do not deviate from load meaning neither above or below 15.0 grains. It is a easy to reload milspec "recipe." It is not a powder to experiment with. The cartridges to which it is adapted operate at a safe pressure and going under the recommended loads causes odd sorts of things to happen between non ignition and improper burning rates. One risk of light loadings is a primer kicking the bullet out of the case forward into the barrel, the bullet stops, and then the powder lighting. This creates higher than normal pressures with what is less than a normal powder load. It is counter-intuitive". Hodgdon apparently takes a different view.