i'm very interested about your results with the h-108. i bought some surplus aa#9-s about 15 years ago and i'm almost out. i've been told that h-108 is very similar to the aa#9s. the 9s is my most accurate powder with 357 cast loads with it"s burning rate in my loads slightly slower than regular #9 and about the same as 2400.
At the time I purchased it (several years ago) it came in the typical black jug with the all familiar silver and brown label of H110. The H108 designation was computer printed on a white mailing label that had been placed over the H110 designation on the jugs commercial label. (Go figure that one!)
Over the years I've found it to be slightly slower than H110, yet faster than Accurate 1680. I've stoked up some outstanding .44 Mag loads with it, as well as some great .357 heavy bullet loads. I find that you can start with H110 data very effectively, then using the chronograph, the usual pressure signs and some good old fashioned common sense you have a great, low cost powder for developing magnum handgun cartridges. Too, it seems to be at its best with heavy weight bullets in every application I've used this propellent.
You ask if it is a military powder, this I can't comment on, but the folks at Powder Valley Services, Kent and Paula Radcliff are great people, and I'm sure that a phone call their direction would shed some light on this matter!
Marshall, thanks for sharing your experience with H-108. I find it very interesting that you've found it slower than H-110. The Hodgdon folks sent us some load data they developed for the .357, .44Mag and a couple others. Their data indicated it was a bit faster than H-110. Two of us went in on an 8# jug of 108 and look forward to expirementing with it in the .45 Colt along with .357 and the .256 Winchester. Caution and a chronograph will be applied to the unknown powder. Ed
With the recent events I decided to stock up on powder. Based on this topic I called Powder Valley and ordered some H-108. They seem to have plenty and said they would be able to ship it out today.
I next called Hodgdon to learn what I could about this powder. The person I spoke to in their lab will be mailing me what data they have, which he said isn't much; .357, .44 mag, & .454. He described the powder as faster than H-110. He also told me the powder is from a lot of military surplus WC820. I have heard of WC820, but never used it. I understand it has a pretty significant lot-to-lot variation.
My plan will be to use magnum primers and start with a published starting load for H-110, maybe a tad less. Then increase from there using the chrono and watching for pressure signs. If I get anything useful, I'll post it in LoadSwap.
As they say, "Great minds run off the same track" -- or something like that. I just had an 8lb. H108 bottle shipped to me Wednesday and Hodgdon has also forwarded data to me. Contender also has furnished a copy of the Hodgdon data to me.
So that we may be able to cover more area, could you let me know what bullets you plan on experimenting with and I'll try to not overlap, thus giving us a larger range of results. I'll be using a .44mag SBH with 2x7 Burris and will start at 25yds and extend that to 50yds. and more. I've found that many loads work well for me at 25yds. but don't perform as well as the 25yds results would predict for 50yds. I plan on using 320gr. WLNGC and 272gr. SWCGC for the .44mag tests. I'll also test some 360gr. WLNGC in my .454 Taurus.
And as one of the posts indicated, the web sites indicate that you may expect variation between lots and to make sure you work up the load carefully.
(Edited by DOK at 9<!--emo&:0--><img src="http://beartoothbullets.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'><!--endemo-->3 am on Sep. 14, 2001)
You go right ahead and experiment with those loads. I don't have any of those bullets, so we won't be crossing paths.
I don't get much time for load work, so it will be awhile before I have any info to share. I expect to try H-108 in loads I am currently using H-110/296; 41mag, 44mag, 45colt, 454 and 475 Linebaugh. I'll let you know what I learn, but don't count on it being soon.
Thanks for your interest. I look forward to hearing of your experiences.
First thing I've found is that if you have a container of H108 sitting close to a container of WC820, make sure you have then labeled -- they look exactly alike, very fine grain powders. Good news is that they meter very accurately in my Dillon 550b. Tested 10 consecutive Dillon 550b loads for each powder with a Dillon digital scale and only 2 of the 20 varied at all, and that was by +.1gr.. (note: Contender has indicated this very fine powder may have metering problems in cylinder style powder measures)
I've laid out my spreadsheet to test the 272gr. SWC GC first and will compare velocity and some accuracy for those two powders plus W296 and H110. I'll overlap the loads with all four powders as much as is safe and see how they compare, grain for grain. I'm sure you've already noticed that the Hodgdon data indicates 18.5gr. max for a 265 JSP, so I'll start at the recommended 10% reduction and work up to 18.5gr.. I'll start the WC820 at 18.5gr and work up and start W296 and H110 at 20.0 grs.. My primary interest is to see what powder weights give common velocities.
I don't plan on going beyond factory recommended max loads because the Loadswap already has several loads that identify 22.5gr. H110 as accurate loads, but not for S&W's and I've already screwed up one 񘈨 S&W gun up that way, so not taking that route.
My accuracy tests will be separate from the Chrony use, and initially only at 25yds.
Just got back from the range and I would suggest you will be very pleased with your purchase of H108. Hodgdon identified 18.5gr. as max for a 265gr. JSP, so for my 272gr. hard cast with GC, I considered the 18.5gr. to be max. load for my bullet also. Hodgdon instructions recommends reducing by 10% and working up, so I tested 16.5gr. through 18.5gr. in .5gr. increments. The way I prefer to test is shoot five rounds for the Chrony and five rounds for accuracy. And then repeat the same series the next day, with rounds loaded on separate days. The following is the first day results:
16.5 gr. 1124 fps, ES 79 fps, SD 28.4, 25yds. .95"
17.0gr. 1164 fps, ES 49 fps, SD 19.4, 25yds. .95"
17.5gr. 1185 fps, ES 30 fps, SD 12.9, 25yds. 1.4"
18.0gr. 1239 fps, ES 11 fps, SD 3.4, 25yds. .7"
18.5gr. 1271 fps, ES 43 fps, SD 16.6, 25yds. 1.0"
As indicated in earlier post, the H108 metered very well in the Dillon 550b. Additionally, I've always smiled when a powder is reported to burn clean, quite frankly, all my results seem to be dirty or dirtier. I cleaned between Chrony testing and accuracy and ran the jag through and it looked like I typically get on the third pass -- ran another patch through and it looked like I could have quit right there.
I also tested five loads of WC820PD, but will include those results in the completed test of all four powders.
Sooooooooooo, would appear you have a powder with good potential. Initial test suggests it may not be a direct replacement for H110, but the recoil was pleasant and I'm going to leave my testing at the Hodgon max. of 18.5gr.. We'll see how the Hodgdon H110 max of 21.5gr. (for my 272gr. bullet) compares and suspect it will be faster.
After reviewing yesterday’s results with H108, I’ve decided to extend the test to include a load(s) that exceeds the Hodgdon max. recommendation. This decision is based on the following:
1. The velocity gain with .5gr increments remained relatively constant, with the last increase representing a 32 fps increase. Thus, it appears the max. load for this batch of H108 has not been reached.
2. Without accusing anyone, I would suggest that individuals that purchase 8lbs of powder for the .44mag are not going to be inclined to be content with 1271 fps without testing an increased load. And since I’m already set-up, lets put the question “to bed”.
3. Several quotes suggested H108 and WC820 are comparable, and my testing with WC820 suggests that if that is true, more velocity is safely available. One quote identified a Hodgdon representative as saying, “He also told me the powder (H108) is from a lot of military surplus WC820.”
Well, interesting results – that suggest my tub of H108 does not come from the same source as my tub of WC820! In fact, my results would suggest they are different powders and come from different sources -- or at least significantly different lots of the same source. The previous H108 test showed 1271 fps for the Hodgdon recommended max. load of 18.5gr. This mornings test of 19.0gr produced 1249 fps and 19.5gr. produced 1256 fps. Thus it would appear that the 18.5gr max load is correct for my 8lb tub. This morning’s test of WC820 indicates that like quantities of H108 and WC820 produce very similar results (see below). However, the WC820 continued to reflect linear velocity increases through 21.0gr loads.
18.5gr 1271 fps, ES 43, SD 16.62, 25yds. 1.04”
19.0gr 1249 fps, ES 25, SD 10.23, 25yds. NA
19.5gr 1256 fps, ES 60, SD 22.21, 25yds. NA
18.5gr 1233 fps, ES 44, SD 19.20, 25yds. 1.2”
19.0gr 1242 fps, ES 20, SD 8.07, 25yds. 1.3”
19.5gr 1272 fps, ES 39, SD 14.75, 25yds. 1.3”
20.0gr 1306 fps, ES 31, SD 11.97, 25yds. .9”
20.5gr 1349 fps, ES 12, SD 4.99, 25yds. 1.0”
21.0gr 1384 fps, ES 5, SD 2.07, 25yds. .85”
All tests were conducted with new Starline brass, trimmed to 1.274” and OAL of 1.665”. 272gr SWC GC bullets, CCI350 magnum primers, SBH 7 ½” barrel with 2X7 Burris scope.
The continuation of this test will include H110 and W296 results.
Thanks Alan -- I was hyped up with the good results this morning, went out to lunch with some old fellow I.T. retirees, came home with thoughts of loading and hitting the range this afternoon and pulled in the drive- way only to find the boss had put the lawn mower and edger in a conspicious spot, subtle but effective!
Ya see Dan - that's when you need to "accidentally" run into (tap really) the power tools while pulling into the driveway. You can state in your defense that you were positive you did not leave these tools out for you understand that doing so would only invite such an accident. Emphasize you are thankful it wasn't her pulling into the driveway or a neighbor or family friend. Apologize and say you'll be more careful about putting away your tools next time. You'll be on your way to the shooting range in less than 15 minutes, guaranteed :biggrin:
Disclaimer: this message does not necessarily reflect the action that would be taken by the author.
One of the results of the discussion on H108 is that we have heard comments that it is similiar to H110. Thus, we would expect a handloader that was going to experiment with H108 to use H110 load guidelines, particularly for starting loads. For my particular SWC GC at 272gr., my best estimate for the H110 max. load would be 21.5grs., thus I would have selected 19.5gr (which is more than the recommended reduction of 3%) or maybe even 20.0grs. as a starting load. According to my tests, that would have been 1.0gr to 1.5gr over max for my jug of H108!! So to prevent that "guess work" from being necessary, I'll take a few minutes and post the Hodgdon recommended max loads at this time. Over the next few days, as time permits, I'll also enter the loads in the LoadSwap (if they're not already there).
The following are the printed Hodgdon recommend max. loads which indicates, "Starting loads should be used when developing a load. We recommend beginning 10% below maximums show above."
The text will be bullet description, powder weight, fps
H108 1271 fps, ES 43, SD 16.63, 25yds. 1.04"
WC820 1232 fps, ES 44, SD 19.20, 25yds. 1.2"
H108 1249 fps, ES 25, SD 10.23, 25yds. NA
WC820 1242 fps, ES 20, SD 8.07, 25yds. 1.3"
H108 1256 fps, ES 60, SD 22.21, 25yds. NA
WC820 1272 fps, ES 39, SD 14.76, 25yds. 1.4"
WC820 1306 fps, ES 31, SD 11.98, 25yds. .9"
H110 1238 fps, ES 72, SD 33.48, 25yds. 1.25"
WC820 1349 fps, ES 12, SD 4.99, 25dys. 1.0"
H110 1256 fps, ES 33, SD 15.03, 25yds. 1.2"
WC820 1384 fps, ES 5, SD 2.07, 25yds. .85" ****
H110 1289 fps, ES 24, SD 9.95, 25yds. 1.4"
WC820 1401 fps, ES 34, SD 10.69, 25yds. 1.1"
H110 1320 fps, ES 12, SD 4.39, 25yds. 1.0" ****
It appears that if one were to start with the anticipation that H108 and WC820 match H110, grain for grain, you would have to reconsider that assumption -- at least for these particular lots of powder. Simply another example for the "work up the load, don't assume" guideline
The "****" represents my opinion for the best loads for the three different powders. Pretty simple to select as the best ES, SD and accuracy all ocurred for the same load - with no "finger on the scale" on my part.
Additionally, a note on the accuracy posted. There are all five shot groups and in most instances, the "4 best" shots constitute a significantly smaller group. For example, the H110 20.5gr and 21.5gr groups had the best 4 shots within .4". And as you obviously appreciate, the results represent my equipment and myself -- and I've not had any manufacturers calling me to endorse their products based on my shooting performances!
I've completed the initial test for the four powders, H108, H110, WC820, and W296. It is my opinion that
a thorough test would include two separate days with loads produced on separate days, and then validated by tests from another source. So this effort is not offered as a thorough test, but an initial effort to provide some guidelines and insights. My primary insight was the confirmation that you should, as they say, "don't believe what you hear and half of what you see" -- work up the loads using the published factory information. One final disclaimer, experience and factory input says various "lots" of powder vary, and Mil. surplus probably more than Commercial, so when I get another 8lb. jug, I'll run another set of loads.
The only minor surprise that comes from testing the W296 today is that the W296 performed at the same level as an additional .5gr. of H110 did. But then, different lots may give different results
H108 1124 fps, ES 79, SD 28.46, 25yds. .95"
H108 1164 fps, ES 49, SD 19.42, 25yds. .95"
H108 1185 fps, ES 30, SD 12.97, 25yds. 1.4"
DOK i've enjoyed your series of posts on the powder comparisons.i haven't used the h108 but am very familiar with the other three , just never seen this much info on them at one time. the gun mags couldn't have done a better job. hubbard
Thank you and it's my pleasure. I have mixed emotions about the magazines and their testing. I have the advanatage that I'm not obligated to anyone or their product, on the other hand, it might be a nice problem to have. It's not just the expense for the materials, it's my "arrangement" with the boss -- she gets equal amounts and you should see the silly things she buys that could have been more powder/bullets! You'd think after 40yrs. of marriage, she'd have caught on by now! But I get even with her --- when we discuss purchases, I always convert the expense into, "Do you realize that is the equvilent of a handgun with scope! -- you've got to be kidding." No sense of humor, these women.
A forum community dedicated to Sport shooters, owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hand casting bullets, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!