From: gmk@falstaff.MAE.CWRU.EDU (Geoff Kotzar)
Subject: Re: Summary: Ideal Concealed Carry Weapon (long)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University

In article <43866@mimsy.umd.edu> iftccu!bressler@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:

####swears that the 250-grain ~1200 fps load is quite safe.  This gives you
####_quite_ a bit more energy that .45ACP, in a tiny (19 oz, I believe)
####5-shot revolver.
###
##
##Are you sure about this load?  When I first read the post it sounded as if
##this was a .44 magnum load, not .44 spl.  So over the weekend, I took a look
##at my friends Speer reloading manual.  Under the .44 spl loading, the test
##firearm was a Charter Arms Bulldog.  There was no listing for a 250 grain
##slug.  The heaviest slug listed was the 240 grain, and the hottest loads for
##the 240 gr slug delivered velocities around or less than 900 ft/s.  I think
##that most loads fired through the Bulldog were in the 700-800 ft/s range.
#
#
#The .44 spl has never been loaded to it's full potential, a fact that
#was distressingly obvious to Elmer Keith and others.  That is why we have
#the .44 mag.  I'd wager the load mentioned above is far higher than the
#14,000 psi rating for a .44 spl.  (.44 mag operates at around 40,000 psi
#as I recall.)

The load the original poster listed: 250 SWC @ 1200 fps runs at only 20K CUP
according to the earlier Speer manuals #'s 5 & 6. While this is above the
original limit of 14K CUP for the .44 SPC it was still within the limits
of most of the guns chambered for it. For example, remember that the early
S&W's were chambered for the .44 SPC as well as the .45 ACP which had a max
pressure of 19.9K CUP. These were essentially the identical guns but the .44's
had cylinder walls .010 inch thicker and should have had an additional safety
margin. I would be a little reluctant to call this "magnum class pressure" or
even the lower limit of magnum pressures. I always thought of 20K as the upper
limit of standard loads, with magnum loads starting at something around 25-27K
CUP and going up from there. The Speer data I cited above was based on the old
Keith SWC - Lyman 429421.


#Over the years a lot of loading data has been published
#for the .44 spl that in fact tests out as far above the working pressure
#of the round.  I have only to cruise back to some of my older loading
#manuals to see this.  For example, the Speer manual mentioned (the
#latest two volume version I'd bet from the data presented) shows a max
#load of 11.4 grains of 2400 for the 180 grain xtp bullet.  This yields
#around 900 ft/sec in the bulldog.  Due to the increasing age and
#liability associated with these older guns, the manuals seem to be
#backing off from the hotter loads.  I've seen 2400 loads up to 17.5!
#grains for 240 grain bullets in some of my older (Lyman, for example)
#manuals.  These loads are defiantly approaching the bottom end of the
#magnum range.


The 17.5 gr of 2400 was the old Keith load for solid head cases - the only
kind we buy now a days - and with the 250 SWC cited above produces only 20K
CUP as I said. This is a extremely effecient and effective load. The .44 Mag
requires twice the pressure to produce only an additional 250 fps. Recoil in
one of the Charter Arms Bulldogs would be ferocious given their light weight
but I don't think safety would be a problem.

#
#I've personally tried up to 17 grains of 2400 in my bulldogs, with no
#overt signs of pressure.  (Except in my hand!)  I've found the best
#accuracy at 11.5 grains however.  Often decreased accuracy is a sign of
#high pressure.
#
#The bottom line is that there are a lot of old and weak .44 spl guns out
#there.  In a revolver of suitable strength, the .44 spl can be loaded to
#near magnum velocities, but if you want to do this, just buy the darned
#magnum!

I must agree with your advice not to try and turn a non-magnum into a magnum
but the .44 SPC has been hamstrung in recent years by the trend to limit
liability. Holding the loads to their turn-of-the-century pressures does a
disservice to a very effective cartridge. A "+P" commercial or hand load with
a limit of 20K CUP would certainly result in a load significantly more useful
than our present anemic choices. This kind of neglect really is not necessary;
the .38 SPC is as old as the .44 SPC with just as many old guns floating around
and we have loads and data with pressure limits that are more realistic given
the guns that are currently available. This is the reason for pushing the .44
SPC loads within reason. Oddly our older loading data in this caliber more
accurately reflects responsible loads for modern handguns.


#The bulldog is a strong modern gun, but why push it?  I've
#talked to one RO who claims a guy actually managed to cram .44 mag
#rounds into a bulldog, (worn chambers?).  The gun didn't explode, but
#after the fifth round it was bent enough that it wouldn't fire any more.
#
#Don't try any of this at home, unless you really know what you are doing.
#Even then, don't try it with a gun or hand that you value!



Geoff Kotzar                gmk@falstaff.cwru.edu

From: gmk@falstaff.MAE.CWRU.EDU (Geoff Kotzar)
Subject: Re: Summary: Ideal Concealed Carry Weapon (long)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University

In article <44399@mimsy.umd.edu> iftccu!bressler@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:

##The load the original poster listed: 250 SWC @ 1200 fps runs at only 20K CUP
##according to the earlier Speer manuals #'s 5 & 6. While this is above the
#
#I'll second this statement.  After my last post I went back and checked
#some of my older manuals.  I did indeed find this load listed and it was
#indeed listed at 20,000 psi! (Shows the age of the manual!)

non-relevant material deleted



##of most of the guns chambered for it. For example, remember that the early
##S&W's were chambered for the .44 SPC as well as the .45 ACP which had a max
##pressure of 19.9K CUP. These were essentially the identical guns but the .44's
##had cylinder walls .010 inch thicker and should have had an additional safety
##margin. I would be a little reluctant to call this "magnum class pressure" or
#
#Agreed, it's not.
#
##even the lower limit of magnum pressures. I always thought of 20K as the upper
##limit of standard loads, with magnum loads starting at something around 25-27K
##CUP and going up from there. The Speer data I cited above was based on the old
##Keith SWC - Lyman 429421.
##
#
#My old Hogdens manual listed some interesting H110 loads for speer 225
#and 240 grain hollow points.  Don't even know if H110 is still
#available, but it gave even better performance and lower pressures than
#2400.  Maybe I'll have to take a trip through some of the reloading
#catalogs and see if I can find some.  A 240 grain hollow point zipping
#along at 1200 ft/sec would be a serious defense load, and worth the
#effort of trying to find the powder!

H-110 is still readily available. The only problem I have heard about with
this powder is that it is difficult to get to burn well in relatively low
pressure loads. There was an article a number of years ago about a fellow
who got an inordinate number of hangfires and squibs when using it in a .44
Mag. Seems he had an expander button that was not small enough and could not
get a good even crimp from his dies. Apparently it takes a considerable
resistance to get it to burn well. A second problem was that when loads were
too light the powder would not burn completely in the barrel and would produce
hellacious fireballs. This would in turn lead the reloader to believe that he
had too heavy a load and load development would be discontinued prematurely.
For a long time H-110 was given a bad rap as a magnum handgun powder.

I have seen listed some very good .357 loads using this powder that produced
high velocities at extremely moderate pressures - 24K CUP. Also Winchester
lists a load for the .41 Mag that produces magnum velocities with the 210 JHP -
1400+ fps - at 24K CUP using 296. This is not H-110, I know, and a little
history is required. I will get to that later. As long as the pressures are
up over 20K this family of powders works well. You may be a little disappointed
with H-110 in the .44 SPC, but it is worth the $15.00 to find out. Let us
know how things progress. If it does not pan out you can always go with 2400.
BTW, this is why I said that I consider 25-27K as the magnum pressure floor.

Now the history. Winchester originally offered a powder called 295HP that was
a dream come true for the advanced handloader working with magnums. High
velocities at low pressures and clean burning. Only thing was you had to stay
within a fairly narrow range of operating parameters: heavy bullets, tight
crimps, small expanders, magnum primers, ect. If you did not follow the right
procedures its performance became erratic. Sound like H-110. It should because
it was recently reported that H-110 is in fact the original 295HP formulation.
As more people found out about this magic powder, they started loading with it
using the techniques they learned with DuPont and Hercules powders and started
getting unfavorable results. A squib that lodges a bullet in the barrel can
have unpleasant consequences. Anyway, Winchester pulled the powder from the
market, Hodgdon did not. After a dozen years or so Winchester introduced the
successor to 295HP: 296. This was supposed to be a little less touchy. If
you look at a Winchester loading manual you will find loads listed with 296
that are to be loaded exactly as Winchester states; no working up to maximum.
That same theme is shown in Lyman's two current manuals, the one for Pistols
and Revolvers and there standard Reloading Manual. For the magnum pistols they
show loads for both H-110 and 296 that are within a few tenths of a grain of
each other at maximum and 10 or 20 fps of each other in velocity, but for 296
there is listed only one load: maximum. And it is to be loaded and shot exactly
as listed. H-110 on the other hand shows a starting load and a maximum. As you
said legal liability is a bitch and I think winchester is a little gun shy. For
all practical purposes these two powders are identical and can be interchanged.
This is not my personal conclusion but rather peoples' like J.D. Jones, Ross
Seyfried, John Taffin,..... you get the picture.


#
#I must admit, the 250 grain load was lower pressure than I'd guessed.
#You must remember though, that for you to duplicate this performance and
#pressure, your groove diameter must match the test barrel down to .001,
#and seating depth is critical.  I've seen a difference in seating
#depth of .005 change a load with normal primers to severely flattened
#ones!

That was the reason I listed the mould number for the Lyman bullet for which
the data wsa developed. Crimp in the crimp groove and you have the correct
seating depth.


#
##The 17.5 gr of 2400 was the old Keith load for solid head cases - the only
##kind we buy now a days - and with the 250 SWC cited above produces only 20K
#
#I've still got some of the old balloon head cases!  Not that I actually
#use them.  More of a collectors item.  :-) And no, they can't
#inadvertently be mixed in with my normal brass!  (Locked in a separate
#box!)

The maximum load for use in BALLON HEAD CASES ONLY was 18.5 grains of 2400.
If you were to use the "current" maximum load of 17.5 grs you would be erring
on the safe side, the obvious age, condition and strength of the old balloon
head cases notwithstanding. Just to be on the safe side, the above is for
historical purposes, never ever use 18.5 grains of 2400 in modern solid head
.44 Special cases with 250 grain cast semiwadcutters.


#
##CUP as I said. This is a extremely effecient and effective load. The .44 Mag
##requires twice the pressure to produce only an additional 250 fps. Recoil in
##one of the Charter Arms Bulldogs would be ferocious given their light weight
##but I don't think safety would be a problem.
#
#Safety isn't a problem, provided you know what you are doing and work up
#slowly, keeping in mind all that I said above about groove diameter etc,
#as well as a bunch of other things.  And you're right, in the Bulldog,
#these loads are real 'stingers' on the shooters end!
#
#I'm currently in the process of working up a load for Hornady 180 XTP
#hollow points.  Once I think I've got them where I want them, I'll get
#them chronographed.  It's going to be fun to see where they clock in at!
#
##
###
###I've personally tried up to 17 grains of 2400 in my bulldogs, with no
##I must agree with your advice not to try and turn a non-magnum into a magnum
##but the .44 SPC has been hamstrung in recent years by the trend to limit
##liability. Holding the loads to their turn-of-the-century pressures does a
##disservice to a very effective cartridge. A "+P" commercial or hand load with
##a limit of 20K CUP would certainly result in a load significantly more useful
##than our present anemic choices. This kind of neglect really is not necessary;
##the .38 SPC is as old as the .44 SPC with just as many old guns floating around
##and we have loads and data with pressure limits that are more realistic given
##the guns that are currently available. This is the reason for pushing the .44
##SPC loads within reason. Oddly our older loading data in this caliber more
##accurately reflects responsible loads for modern handguns.
#
#I agree completely.
#
#Probably the reason we don't see much development along those lines is
#that the .44spl just isn't that popular any more.  What manufacturer is
#going to go to the effort of developing a load for a gun that isn't
#manufactured any more!

There was a letter to the editor in one of the gun mags this month from a
fellow who contacted Speer about intorducing Blaser loading in .44-40. Their
reply was they would be interested if there was sufficient interest. The
writer requested that anyone still using a firearm in .44-40 to contact Speer.
The .44-40 was a lot less popular than the .44 SPC so their might be some hope
if we were to contact the manufacturers.

#
#Rick.
#

Geoff Kotzar               gmk@falstaff.cwru.edu

From: gmk@falstaff.MAE.CWRU.EDU (Geoff Kotzar)
Subject: re: Magnum Powder Selection
Organization: Case Western Reserve University

In article <44835@mimsy.umd.edu> egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf) writes
#In article <44793@mimsy.umd.edu> jheath@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu (Jim Heath) writes:
##
###From article <44634@mimsy.umd.edu>, by gmk@falstaff.MAE.CWRU.EDU
###(Geoff Kotzar):
### H-110 is still readily available. The only problem I have heard about with
### this powder is that it is difficult to get to burn well in relatively low
### pressure loads. ...

I deleted some unnecessary material here

#If you want better low preasure loads than reduced H110, in a round that
#would digest H110 in full power loads, use a normal load of something fast
#like HP38. This will give reasonable velocity with low preasure a lot
#more efficiently (and with greater safety) than reduced H110. H110 should
#be used only in full power loads with a heafty bullet pull.

#BTW, H-110 and WW296 are the same powder. Hodgdon buys it and repackages
#it. Use the same caution switching between them that you would use switching
#lots of powder of any brand.

#For the cost conscious, the same goes for
#   HP38 / WW231
#   H414 / WW760
#   H450 / WW785
#						Skip Egdorf
#						hwe@lanl.gov


I was really fascinated by this last bit of information and called Hodgdon's
for confirmation. I talked to a fellow named Tom Shepherd for some 10 or 15
minutes and he passed on a tremendous amount of useful information. Here is
what I found out as accurately as I can remember.

H-110 is not the old 295HP as the one gun writer reported and I repeated. It
is based on the 296 "technology" -this is Hodgdon's terminology- but is not
identical to 296. Hodgdon's wrote their own performance specification for
two benchmark cartridges: .44 Mag and .30 Carbine/.357 Mag- Tom could not
remember which of the latter two it was. Olin modified their 296 to meet the
specification. According to Mr. Shepherd, people in the industry whose
opinions he respects report that they find consistent differences between 296
and H-110. Therefore, he had some resevations in saying that they are "twins".
Again this is his term for the powders in question. Also he told me that there
are probably 30 different flavors of 296 that have been supplied to OEM
loaders and that the cannister grade that we buy is the fastest formulation.

H-110 does require full magnum class pressures to perform consistently and
should not be used in reduced loads. In fact Hodgdon has started doing what
Winchester does with their 296 data: listing only one load at maximum pressure
in the appropriate cartridges. They will also start using the same adamant
language in their next manual about the loads being used as shown. BTW, #26
has been "put to bed" and we can start looking for it next year. The changes
will appear in #27.

The H-110 load for the .44 Special is an anomaly. That load was generated a
number of years ago; the fellow who worked it out is no longer with Hodgdon's.
It has apparently not been revised or verified since it was originally
developed. It will in all probabilty be deleted in #27 and Shepherd said he
would not use the H-110 data even though the gentleman who developed the data
was his mentor and known to be very consientious.

When I asked him about them not specifying which bullets were used in the
various loads he said they check out each new batch of bullets and pick the
worst case bullet for the load development. I then asked about the significant
differences in the seating depths of various cast bullets and which designs
their data reflected. An Elmer Keith .44 has a nose about .100 inch longer
than many commercial designs marketed by Bull-X, Penn Bullets and a host of
others, and a shorter seating depth. He did not know how the data dealt with
that parameter.

According to Mr. Shepherd, Sierra, Speer, and Hornady show a range of loads
for H-110 but Sierra has an excuse. They have no pressure barrel and therefore
don't see the erratic pressures. Speer and Hornady do not have such an excuse.
Why they continue in this vein he did not know.

Hodgdon's does has three powders that have "twins" in the Winchester line:

HP38 and WW231
HS6  and WW540
HS7  and WW571.

These three pairs are close enough that they are interchangable. As usual
if you are working with maximum loads you should treat them with the same
caution you would different lots of the same powder.

H414 and WW760 were another matter. We did not go into this in detail but he
said that these two were in fact not the same. I did not get clear whether
this was because the specifications for the two were markedly different or
because they were based on different technologies or were from different
vendors.

We spent more time talking about the H450 and WW785 pair. These two are
totally different. H450 is not even based on the WW785 "technology". WW785
has been dropped if I understood him correctly. H450 is based on the H380
technology. H380 dates back to the 30-06 and WW2 and Hodgdon has a wealth
of knowledge about how to speed up and slow down the basic H380 formulation.
Shepherd pointed out that if you had a chance to examine H450 and WW785 side
by side you would find that even the grain structure was different.

For anyone new to reloading, H380 and H450 are two toatlly different powders
and require totallty different reloading data; do not try interchanging
their data.

For the IPSC crowd, Hodgdon's has written a new spec for a powder to be called
"Major-9" which is currently being developed by ADI (Austrailian Defense
Industries). Their strategy is to try to work within the SAAMI framework
and employ a SAAMI barrel. Should they not be able to achieve major status
within SAAMI pressure limitations they will obtain an "IPSC barrel" and
produce a Hodgdon standard as they have done in the past for the 45-70. In
that case there will be two sets of data, one for standard applications and
a second for the specialized +P application of the 9mm Luger.

Hodgdon does not manufacture their own powder but rather specifies what kind of
performance they want and contract the manufacturing out to either ICI which
is a Canadian company I believe, ADI, or Olin. The only military surplus
powders they market at present are H870 and 5010. This latter powder will
never be produced again. It has produced excellent results in the 7mm STW
(Shooting Times Westerner), so anyone out there with this wildcat should stock
up now, especially since it is not carried by many vendors. If you cannot find
it on any gun shop shelves contact Hodgdon's directly. They have been known to
sell THIS powder, only, directly to the consumer.

According to Shepherd there is another powder in the Winshester line called
872. As the numbers go up the powders get slower, at least in theory. At the
Medina gun show yesterday I ran into the one vendor here who carries the
surplus Winchester powders and he had some of the 872 for the first time. He
told me that while 860 is NOMINALLY faster than 870 and 872 is NOMINALLY
slower than 870, the actual burning rates can vary by 20% depending on the
particular formulation. I guess it all depends on whose surplus Winchester
is selling off. Shepherd told me that Accurate Arms is supposed to have bought
a large order of the 872 and is selling it as, he believes, 8700.

I hope the information was worth the bandwidth.


Geoff Kotzar           gmk@falstaff.cwru.edu