question about oal

[Bill Steele]

I'm curious, why?

It is a margin for error thing. Or maybe better said, a margin for good results thing. As WR said above, W296 doesn't download very well, as you go down the combustion is less reliable and you get errartic burn, etc. On the other hand, if you look at Hodgdon's load data, the difference between start and max loads can be as little as 1gr or less (sometimes 0).

For instance, from Hodgdon's site: 240gr NOS JHP, start load 23.0gr Press 25,200 CUP - Max load 24.0gr Press 36,200 CUP.

That sort of thing.

Powders like AA#9 and 2400 can produce similar results to W296 but will also generally provide a little more margin for error, downloading, etc.

BTW, it is funny how Calguns forums work. I appreciate the compliment from Whiterabbit, but I was thinking how much I have learned from his experiences that he was kind enough to publish here, especially about loading the hot stuff.

[bill_k_lopez]

Sorry I didn't read the last sentence about wanting to load 240gr XTP's with W296 to a shorter OAL than your load data indicates.

Sorry if I wasn't clear...my first post was a little general, but here are the specific details:

Min OAL = 1.580 for the 240 grain XTPs & W296 - ideal for my gun is 1.574 - is the 6 thousands of an inch negligible?

Min OAL = 1.535 for my 240 grain cast rounds & W231 so 1.574 is ok.

Not sure W296/H110 would be my first choice for a beginner starting to learn how to work up a load. If you are not going from a reliable published source (ideally a couple), you are working up your own load.

Ah yes - well - I got the pound of W296 with a bunch of other supplies I purchased from a guy, $10 brand new unopened. Couldn't say no for that price. W231 is my regular powder.

FWIW, 240gr XTP's are .030" shorter OAL compared to an EK style 240gr LSWC. Sorry I didn't have anything to compare against that Hodgdon has comparable load data for, like a NOS 240 JHP, etc.

My books show same for NOS JHP and Lead. Min OAL of 1.535

[Bill Steele]

Maybe RSROCKET1's software can tell you how much the 6 mil difference is in pressures. For sure, if you are well under max loads, 6 mil will not matter at all. The problem with W296/H110 is the difference between max and unreliable burn might be pretty small.

I think maybe I would see if I could determine the difference in OAL of an XTP to a similar bullet like the NOS JHP that has a Hodgdon published load and see if you are in the safe zone OAL wise for the length you want to load. That is, get the OAL of a NOS JHP and make sure it is as long or longer than the XTP, if so, you are likely fine using that load data, at least start levels. One thing to consider is the XTP's jacket is a little softer than the NOS, so you might get a little different pressure with the XTP with the same load than the NOS bullet. With this in mind, if the seating depths keep you on the safe side of the street, just begin at the load data's start load level and watch for pressure signs as you work up.

One question I forgot to ask is about the XTP's cannelure and your gun's favored cartridge length. Does the bullet's cannelure work with the crimp at the cartridge OAL length the gun likes. Being a lever gun, it might be nice to be sure a good roll crimp is going to be in the cannelure.

I hope some of that made a little sense.

[socal44]

It is a margin for error thing. Or maybe better said, a margin for good results thing. As WR said above, W296 doesn't download very well, as you go down the combustion is less reliable and you get errartic burn, etc. On the other hand, if you look at Hodgdon's load data, the difference between start and max loads can be as little as 1gr or less (sometimes 0).

For instance, from Hodgdon's site: 240gr NOS JHP, start load 23.0gr Press 25,200 CUP - Max load 24.0gr Press 36,200 CUP.

That sort of thing.

Powders like AA#9 and 2400 can produce similar results to W296 but will also generally provide a little more margin for error, downloading, etc.

BTW, it is funny how Calguns forums work. I appreciate the compliment from Whiterabbit, but I was thinking how much I have learned from his experiences that he was kind enough to publish here, especially about loading the hot stuff.

This is something I find frustrating about reloading. I see that the Hodgdon manual has a one grain spread from min. to Max. But the Hornady manual has a 4.1 grain spread. For a 240gr HP-XTP bullet with H110, it's 20.7 min to 24.8 max. The variations between different manuals is confusing and potentially dangerous.

[rsrocket1]

I think too many new loaders don't realize that this is not a cookbook process. Reloading manuals, software, sites give information to let you know what is an approximate safe load for a given round. Nowadays with the involvement of lawyers, the loads are usually considerably below maximum.

The whole idea is that the published/calculated/recommended load is safe and can be used as a starting point for load development. You as the loader are then responsible for working the load up or down to suit your need and pay careful attention to when you have reached your optimum load/COL before reaching the lower or upper limit.

If all you want is a cookbook load for making noise and seeing dirt fly, then the mid range published load is most likely good enough for you.

You really shouldn't use the lower or upper limits as a starting point. Use the published loads to pick a starting point near the middle and develop your optimum load for your purpose (velocity, reliability in feeding, accuracy, recoil, or whatever you choose) while carefully looking out for the warning signs of too light or too heavy of a load.

[Bill Steele]

This is something I find frustrating about reloading. I see that the Hodgdon manual has a one grain spread from min. to Max. But the Hornady manual has a 4.1 grain spread. For a 240gr HP-XTP bullet with H110, it's 20.7 min to 24.8 max. The variations between different manuals is confusing and potentially dangerous.

I agree with rsrockets1 post above, with the only exception that I usually start at the "start" load, but his observations make sense as well. Many on these threads refuse to post what they load or provide any guidence, not because they fear what they have tried was dangerous, but to avoid getting sued when someone takes what they suggested, fouls it up in some way and then decides they want some compensation for their foul up. Frankly, I don't know how big this risk is and I tend not to worry very much about it (that blood out of a stone thing), but I am pretty sure many who know a whole lot more than I about this hobby generally take a pass at specific advice on load data.

I have loaded W296/H110 down (way down) on purpose to see how bad it might be. I found downloading W296 the burn results become erratic, pretty quickly. It seems like W296/H110 needs a certain amount of pressure for consistent burn. I never had a squib, but I got very erratic burn, spewed unburned powder, etc. I have had the same kinds of results using AA#7 below book start levels (in big case calibers like my .44RM), while I have had excellent results with downloading #9 in the same gun. I think it is a caliber and powder specific kind of thing.

On finding the Hornaday data, that may be really good news for the OP. It sounds like Hornaday has tested the 240gr XTP's using far lighter loads of W296/H110 than the Hodgdon site recommends. Maybe a call to Hornaday is all the OP needs to get his gun rocking at the right OAL using his W296. It won't take long to use the whole pound up shooting .44's.

[Whiterabbit]

Bill Lopez,

I just got back from the range, I had two test loads (among many! but only 2 matter here.)

One was seated to the closest thing I have to a cannelure. The other was seated so deep the bullet base was floating just over the powder.

The SHORTER OAL bullet (shortened OAL by over a quarter-inch) cut the group size in half.

Your mileage my vary of course! And the only reason I tried it with confidence with an existing load was because it's 4 grains lighter than the hottest load I've tried with that powder (and I believe I could at least get a few more grains of powder in there to reach max). In short, it was a light, light load, and if there was a "spike" in pressure caused by seating deep, I was confident I'd be nowhere near my pressure limits.

The point of writing all this? That reducing your OAL may improve accuracy.

[Whiterabbit]

Here's another story about loads I was testing today:

I've been goofing around with banded solids. The bullets I have have four driving bands, I've been seating to a driving band (easy to repeat). Which should I seat to? Not knowing, I tried them all.

The SECOND to shortest had the tightest group. So just as a shorter OAL might drastically improve your group, it might start to open it up, too.

There's at least one way to find out. A fun way, too