What do you guy’s think about the “Reduced Load Calculators” like the one on www.handloads.com? How do you know if you are going below the “Min” level for a particular powder? I would like to use a load of 20.3gr WW296 with a Cast Performance 265gr WFNGC for an approximate velocity of 1200 fps for a 45 Colt load from my 7.5” Ruger Super RedHawk 454 Casull. This is based on the “Reduced Load Calculator” that I mentioned above. The info was derived from a load that was listed by John Linebaugh; it consisted of 26.0gr of WW296 behind a Cast Performance 265gr WFNGC showing a velocity of 1464 fps from a 45 Colt Ruger BlackHawk with a 7.5 inch barrel. Based on that data, the “Reduced Load Calculator” recommended 20.3gr of WW296 to achieve the 1200 fps that I desire. Does this sound like a good load, or do you guy’s think that it will be to light of a charge of WW296?

The Hornady 4th edition, under .45 Long Colt (Ruger & T/C only) lists their 300gr. JHP with a max of 21.3gr. of 296 for 1300fps (from a 10" T/C barrel as their test pistol). Their starting load is 17.3gr. (1100fps)...I'd not go below that starting load (and proably start at 18gr. to make up for the lighter bullet and less resistance of lead), or above that max. load even with the ligheter cast bullet.

Also think there is a reason that Hornady fails to list 296 with their 250gr. JHP...at this loading density and pressure, it needs the heavy bullet to get the powder burning right.

I'd like a very firm bullet/case grip...crimp isn't a good substitute for a tight neck/bullet fit.

All in all, your calculations seem to be in agreement with Hornady.
-------
Interesting...Hornady seems to have no problem using "Long" in the .45 Colts name.

Thanks for the info ribbonstone; all the loads that I have been finding using WW296 or H110 are really hot! Even on Cast Performance's web site they only list one load for their 45 Colt 265gr WFNGC and it is 24.0gr of WW296! So I wanted to see if I could safely reduce that load to something that would give me around 1200 fps with that bullet but I wasn't for sure how much it was safe to reduce that load. Anyway, if the Reduced Load Calculators can be trusted, it suggested 20.3gr of the WW296 to get my 1200 fps; I guess I will give it a try.

If you look at Hodgdon and Winchester's info on those powders (they are the same powder, according to Hodgdon), they need to be at close to max pressure to work well. And, as previously mentioned, they need a heavy crimp.
You might be better off with a different powder for a reduced load.

Have used loads like this in both a revolver and a carbine.

In the carbine, once that bullet has moved a fraction of an inch (most of the bullet still inside the case) it strikes rifling. Much added resistance at engravement and this seems to promoite a clean burn (and increased pressure).

Same load in a revolver burns dirty..often get sooted cases. Bullet has a LONG way to go to engravement; but the time of that added resistance it doesn't serve very well to get the powder burn going (too large a volume).

To get a cleaner burn in the revolver, had to go to a tight case/bullet fit. No amount of crimp seemed able to increase resistance significantly. Turned an expander to .448" for the bottom 2/3, and left it as issued for the top 1/3 (and left the "belling" section alone). Kind of a two diameter expander..with the top half unchanged to guide the bullet to center, but with the bottom part allowing a very hard firm grip on the bullet. This, plus that hard crimp, did the trick...cases without sooting, pressure is probably higher as well as velocity picked up about 70FPS, accuaracy improved.

To be honest, I stopped using H110/W296 in the .45colt. Don't have a need to run it that hard...have other rifles/handguns better suited to the high-end and have some older/weaker handguns in .45LC (never a great idea to have two indetical calibers that require seggregation of loads...maistakes not only can happen, they WILL evntually happen).

I've been expermenting with different powders for reduced loads in the 44mag and 480 ruger. So far, IMR4227 works good , I'm getting 1000-1100fps, burns clean and accuracy is OK.

JimC

Thanks guy's, Ive got to find some good load data for the cast performance bullets that I want to use and stop guessing.

Actually, if you read the fine print, the published warnings on H110 and W296 have to do with reduced loads letting bullets get stuck in barrels. This is a particular problem in revolvers, which are the most common guns for magnum pistol rounds. Apparently it is possible to get the bullet out into the forcing cone, but have the powder still burning so slowly that gas venting through the barrel-cylinder gap drops the pressure. If it drops enough, the brass springs back to diameter in the chamber. Now you have gas bleeding out both through the barrel-cylinder gap and out around the case and past the breech. These gas bleeds stop the powder from gaining enough burning speed to continue building pressure.

As mentioned in the earlier posts, this all gets exacerbated by small bullet size. Less inertia to hold back the bullet while pressure builds, and less length to keep the case sealed before exposing the barrel-cylinder gap on its way out.

Sometime I will try playing with these powders for reduced loads in my Encore's .44 mag barrel. In the Encore or other closed breech gun, it should be possible to reduce the loads further before the gas starts escaping around the brass. This is both because of the absence of a leak contribution from a barrel-cylinder gap and because of the closer proximity of the rifling throat mentioned in an earlier post.

In general, WW296 and H110 are intended only for full-house magnum loads. They achieve magnum performance with a safe pressure margin, which is why the same loads get recommended for each bullet weight without regard for case and primer or bullet brands. Good magic if you are hunting or knocking down steel, but not much use for reduced loads in revolvers.

For 1200 FPS from a 240 grain lead bullet down a 7.5" tube, start with about 8.0 grains of Hodgdon Universal or Hodgdon Tightgroup, and work your way up toward 10 grains. Hodgdon lists 10 grains as a maximum load for Tightgroup with a cast lead SWC. 10.2 grains is their maximum for Universal, with an OAL of 1.620"; Winchester case and Remington 2 1/2 primer.

Nick

Unclenick,
With regard to downloading for your .44 Encore, be careful. I had problems with downloading my Encore 454 12" barrel with H110 and Lil'Gun. I had three bullets actually "stick" in the barrel. I stopped at that point, pulled my bullets, and started over. The powder charge was correct, but apparently the problem was with the free space in the casing. I have since started using PSB buffer and have no problems with empty space and sporadic powder burn!

I again, voice my vote for Tightgroup for lighter recoiling handgun charges. Found this powder to be the most consistant and very accurate low recoiling powder/charge I have used. You can't get high velocity loads with it, but 1300 -1400 fps are acheivable and make very accurate loads. Tightgroup worked awesome for my .44, 454 (jacketed and cast), .357, 45ACP, and 9mm. Even have loaded some for my CZ 52 in 7.62 x 39 with good results. Although it may be a bit anemic for the true effect with the Tokarev round.

__________________
Hunting is not a necessity.......it is an obsession!