Questions about Hodgdon online data (.357mag)

G

Grawfr

BANNED
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
BANNED
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Sol III
Hello all, there's something that's bugging me about Hodgdon's load data online, and perhaps some of you might have an insight to help explain it.

Using their reloading center, for rifle, caliber .357mag, bullet weight 158gr, Hodgdon powders, I get the following data (I didn't reproduce all the loads from the website, just a sampling):

158gr HDY XTPH422714.5gr1578ft/s34 600 CUP16.0gr1668ft/s42 600 CUP
158gr LSWCH422710.5gr1288ft/s15 400 CUP11.5gr1382ft/s17 800 CUP
158gr HDY XTPHS-68.0gr1181ft/s28 000 CUP9.5gr1427fr/s41 900 CUP
158gr LSWCHS-66.0gr1083ft/s12 900 CUP7.0gr1224fr/s15 500 CUP
158gr HDY XTPUniversal5.8gr1059ft/s32 100 CUP6.3gr1147ft/s39 300 CUP
158gr LSWCUniversal5.5gr1214ft/s23 300 CUP6.7gr1380ft/s34 600 CUP
[td]Bullet[/td]
[td]Powder[/td]
[td]Start Load[/td]
[td]Velocity[/td]
[td]Pressure[/td]
[td]Max load[/td]
[td]Velocity[/td]
[td]Pressure[/td]

The question that I have is: why such inconsistency between the jacketed (HDY XTP) and the lead/semiwadcutter (LSWC) bullet loads?

The data for the lead bullets normally gives them a markedly lower maximum velocity and chamber pressure than for the jacketed bullets. But take note of the data on the last line of that table... it allows for MORE powder, HIGHER velocity for the lead SWC bullet than the jacketed XTP, and it allows for TWICE the chamber pressure of the other LSWC recipes. What gives? If you can go that fast and high pressure with the Universal powder, how come you cannot do it with the H4227 or HS-6? Was the velocity the limiting factor? None of the online loads from Hodgdon exceed 1400 ft/s for the lead bullet.

For comparison, C.Rodney James's ABCs mentions hard cast lead bullets zipping of up at 2000 ft/s, and Lyman's 49th shows data for 170gr lead bullets (no gas check) made of #2 alloy (BHN~15) going 1700 ft/s from 15.0gr of H110. I'm planning to use hard cast bullets with a BHN of ~25.

I understand about leading the barrel and soft lead bullets flying apart at high speed, certainly, but the Hodgdon online data seems really strange and inconsistent, to the point that I'm wondering how far to trust it. Perhaps it's time to buy one more load manual! :)

What do you think?



Eh, second question while I'm at it: Anyone has load data using H110 powder for a 158gr Lead SWC bullet? I'm expecting a shipment from the Bullet Barn soon and I'm trying to find some useful recipes for them. :)
 
Last edited:
Lead bullets offer less resistance and therefore lower pressure than jacketed bullets. Faster powders reach peak pressure more quickly, and somewhat differently than slower powders. Harder bullets ( jacketed ) need to be accelerated more slowly so as not to exceed maximum pressures during their trip out of the chamber and down the bore. No soft lead bullets will "fly apart" at the speed a .357 magnum rile can propel them. Hodgdon's know what they're doing. I don't see any contradictions in their data. It is a bit mysterious, but you really need to study more. I have had a couple of rude surprises when I expected the published data to meet my expectations.
About your second question, have used H110 (actually W296, same powder, different lot ) with Lead SWC bullets, and it makes a huge difference if the bullet is very hard vs pure lead, has a gas check or not, what lube is used, and also the diameter in relation to chamber and bore. Use suggested starting loads and you'll be safe, if you want maximum velocity and maximum accuracy that's a whole new graduate degree! The website Castboolits (castboolits.gunloads.com) is a good place to obtain a post-graduate education.
 
Nothing is wrong with what you are looking at, it is just the way they chose to do it.
Looking at the last line you talk of, they just chose to load up the cast lead alloy bullet a bit more. There is no magic velocity number whereby cast bullets reach a point where they lead the barrel. There are too many nuances that effect when barrels lead up, or don't lead up. You will likely never see it on the internet, but a major factor respecting a barrel collecting lead, is the microscopically smoothness of the barrel, something you can't determine by looking down the barrel. Ruger once had an article on this subject that was in their manual that came with new Ruger Magnum revolvers, including methods to smooth out a new magnum revolver barrel.
I had a book of my own results of reloading both 357 and 44 Magnum cartridges, almost exclusively for revolvers, both S&W and Ruger, in the two magnum calibres, but I gave my records book to a grand son, so I can't quote figures now. H110, a war surplus powder, is the same powder as Winchester 296 and is stated to be the powder they used in developing the 357 revolver, in the mid 1930s. H110/296 is a very popular powder for reloading both the 357 and 44 Magnum calibres.
The loading table you quoted is for rifles in 357 calibre, so pistol velocities will be 250 to 300 fps slower than the table shows.
 
Thanks you two, I appreciate the info!

It's not the contradiction, it's the inconsistency that bugs me. The peak pressure for Universal being twice that of HS-6 and H4227, in particular. Unless Hodgdon wanted to limit the velocity of the lead bullet to 1400 ft/s for some reason, there is no reason I can think of to have such low max loads for those two powders. Not only that, but Lyman's data is really, really different:

Lyman is giving for a lead SWC of 158gr a charge of 8.8-9.7gr of HS-6 for a top velocity of 1491 ft/s, compared to Hodgdon's 6.7-7.0gr at 1224 ft/s. We're talking Lyman's MINIMUM being much higher than Hodgdon's MAXIMUM! :sok2

Also Lyman's 12.4-15.2gr of IMR-4227 for a max speed of 1549 ft/s, compared to Hodgdon's 10.5-11.5gr of H4227 for a max speed of 1382 ft/s. Same thing: one's minimum is above the other's maximum. :(

Lyman's shoots out of a Winchester 94AE, 20" barrel with a twist of 1:16 and groves at .356, using Federal cases and CCI 550 primers. Hodgdon's shoot out of a test barrel, 18.5" with a twist of 1:18.75, unknown grooves, using Winchester brass and WSPM primers.

I can't really conceive of those setups being so different as to justify one's minimum charge being so much higher than the other's maximum charge, that's just plain weird.

I'm using a Henry Big Boy Steel with a 20" barrel, Federal/Winchester cases with CCI550 primers. Twist rate and exact groove size unknow, I have to assume around 1:16-1:18 or so. I know it shoots 158gr plated and jacketed bullets fine, to about 2MOA

That seem to put me closer to the Lyman's setup than the Hodgdon, I think I'm going to have to go with their data.

Thanks again, you two!
 
I shoot mostly lead bullets in my 357s, and mostly 158s.

I start with a Start load and work up, looking for accuracy. (not velocity)

The table looks like it is quoting loads that will generally work well. The max loads that are mild could obviously be loaded hotter, but for some reason they did not suggest that.

You asked about H110. That powder is used to deliver max velocity at max pressure. It may or may not be suited for your 158LSWC in your gun.

Because I like to work up, looking for accuracy, I seldom use H110, because it is not very reliable at less than full pressure. Universal, on the other hand, will work well at medium power and up to quite hot. It is much more flexible and a good powder to use. It is similar in speed to Unique, but meters better.

If you are looking for accuracy and power in a revolver, Universal is a good choice. It is available again.
 
Thanks Ganderite!

I have a couple pounds of H110 to burn through, but I'll definitely consider Universal as its successor, then. :)
 
Ganderite said:
Personally, I would save the H110 for jacketed full power loads in 347 and 44 Mag.

Can you switch to plated 158s, at least? No leading at high velocity.
Click to expand...

The 158s I ordered aren't plated (if you meant moly or polymer?). It might be interesting to try those next, aye. Good idea, thanks!
 
"I can't really conceive of those setups being so different as to justify one's minimum charge being so much higher than the other's maximum charge, that's just plain weird. "

Actually, the differences are reasonable and understandable:

A bore diameter difference of .003" will make really big difference. And is not unheard of between manufacturers in the industry,
Same with chamber dimensions,
And length of chamber to the start of the rifling.
And the hardness /ductility of alloy used in the cast bullets.
And the relationship of bullet to bore/chamber diameter.
And whether or not the bullet is gas checked.
And the Lube used.
And the rifling twist.
And the desired velocity.
And the internal volume of the case used.
And the energy and composition of the primer used.
And the amount of crimp on the case mouth.
And the desired accuracy.
And the condition of the surface of the rifle bore.
Please be aware of the sum of the many significant small differences, then you will appreciate that they add up, and truly are real.
 
Longwalker said:
"I can't really conceive of those setups being so different as to justify one's minimum charge being so much higher than the other's maximum charge, that's just plain weird. "

Actually, the differences are reasonable and understandable:

Please be aware of the sum of the many significant small differences, then you will appreciate that they add up, and truly are real.
Click to expand...

Longwalker, I know exactly what you mean, and I'm aware! But you missed my point, perhaps because I was unclear. There are no differences between the bullets or testing setups and that's precisely where the problem is because the results are so different for the same bullets!

In the table I made for the OP, we're seeing the pressures obtained at max charge by Hodgdon as given on their online site...

- for the SAME LSWC bullet,
- of the SAME exact 158gr weight,
- with the same presence of absence of gas check,
- used with the SAME Winchester case,
- with the SAME WSPM primer,
- set to the SAME 1.610" COL,
- shot from the SAME test apparatus,
- with the SAME chamber,
- and the SAME barrel length,
- and the SAME twist rate, etc...

The ONLY thing that changes is the powder, nothing else AFAIK, though I suppose the alloy, roll crimp tension or the lube could vary from one test to another, it's not as if those would be specified in the dataset.

Yet the pressure they give for the amount of powder they've decided was a "max charge" varies from 15 500 CUP to 34 600 CUP, more than doubling the peak pressure with no obvious explanation! That can't be caused by a switch between different lubes, you know?

THAT is the inconsistency I am talking about. Not between different bullets, but between the same exact bullets used with three different powders in the same exact test setups. :)

If we can use a (max) charge of Universal powder and accept a 34 600 CUP peak chamber pressure, why does the max charge chosen for HS-6 produces only 15 500 CUP of pressure? Why not a larger max charge that will bring the pressure to, say, around 25 to 30 000 CUP with a corresponding bullet velocity increase? It's not as if the loads were even compressed.

That's where Hodgdon's figures make no sense to me, it's as if they capped their max charge arbitrarily to stay below 1400 ft/s in velocity for some reason. And that makes me profoundly distrust their numbers. Given Lyman's much larger max charges and velocities, I suspect the Hodgdon data is voluntarily understated.

Anyways, thanks for your time and advice, it's appreciated. :d
 
"why does the max charge chosen for HS-6 produces only 15 500 CUP of pressure? "
Well - I'm guessing here, but somebody figured the maximum results ( whether accuracy, effect on target, economy, or ???) had been reached. Maximum is not necessarily the most you can get out of a firearm without harming yourself or others, it might just be the most you can expect for a given job.

If you don't trust their data, don't use it. But then you are on your own, and in the realm of hobby experimenters. That's a fun realm, and I've done it myself, but suggest that you don't expect that you can sue anyone when you discover your own practical limits.
 
Last edited:
Longwalker said:
"why does the max charge chosen for HS-6 produces only 15 500 CUP of pressure? "
Well - I'm guessing here, but somebody figured the maximum results ( whether accuracy, effect on target, economy, or ???) had been reached. Maximum is not necessarily the most you can get out of a firearm without harming yourself or others, it might just be the most you can expect for a given job.

If you don't trust their data, don't use it. But then you are on your own, and in the realm of hobby experimenters. That's a fun realm, and I've done it myself, but suggest that you don't expect that you can sue anyone when you discover your own practical limits.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I think I'll head out and get Lee's book also, to complement my Hornady and Lyman and Hodgdon data. The more data the merrier! I've been finding loads with the H110/W296 powders online, and from one source to another those loads seem relatively consistent.

I believe in personal responsibility, no worries: the only ones I'll sue when the gun blows up are the gnomes. Everything is the gnomes' fault. Always. ;)
 
I have an old Speer manual that lists up to 10.2 gr of HS6 for a 158 gr jacketed bullet with a magnum primer!!

I ran up a box of HS6 to 10 gr before I got pressure signs in one of my revolvers. I keep them around to allow new shooters to finish off their handgun session with some "full house" 357 MAGNUM loads. It's usually a crowd pleaser.

The point is that in my revolver I was able to get up much higher than Hoddons data before seeing pressure signs. My 1982 Hodgdon data book lists up to 8 gr of HS6 for an equivenent bullet. I also use quick load software extensively and when I enter all the data with the 10 gr HS6 load it's over max SAMMI pressure recomendations!!! It's for this reason I won't make any more at 10 gr but cut it back instead. There's really no reason to make loads over max SAMMI specs.

It sounds to me like your doing the right thing in referencing other data books and extrapolating your own safe data from them. Good luck!!

Edit- that same Speer manual #11 (and #10 actually) lists 17.8 grains of H110 with a CCI mag primer at max for 158 Gr JHP bullet. In Speers manual #8 the max for the same lod is only listed at 17.5 gr H110.


I have a Hornady division Pacific Tool reloading Manual dated 1967 and revised in '71 that says max 15 gr. of H110 with a jacketed 158 gr bullet.

Hornady Third Edition circa 1981 lists 16.5 Max of H110 for 158 gr JHP.

The Sierra first edition manual lists 13.3-16.3 gr. For 158 Jacketed.

Lyman 36th edition has it at 13.7-17.7 for 158 JHP.

I have quite a few more manuals if you need anything specific.

**Edit #2**

Lol! I just saw you asked for listings for 158 gr lead bulletsnot JHP's!! I'll run through the manuals again later and list them here.
 
Last edited:
Grawfr said:
Hello all, there's something that's bugging me about Hodgdon's load data online, and perhaps some of you might have an insight to help explain it.

Using their reloading center, for rifle, caliber .357mag, bullet weight 158gr, Hodgdon powders, I get the following data (I didn't reproduce all the loads from the website, just a sampling):

Bullet
Powder
Start Load
Velocity
Pressure
Max load
Velocity
Pressure
158gr HDY XTP
H4227
14.5gr
1578ft/s
34 600 CUP
16.0gr
1668ft/s
42 600 CUP
158gr LSWC
H4227
10.5gr
1288ft/s
15 400 CUP
11.5gr
1382ft/s
17 800 CUP
158gr HDY XTP
HS-6
8.0gr
1181ft/s
28 000 CUP
9.5gr
1427fr/s
41 900 CUP
158gr LSWC
HS-6
6.0gr
1083ft/s
12 900 CUP
7.0gr
1224fr/s
15 500 CUP
158gr HDY XTP
Universal
5.8gr
1059ft/s
32 100 CUP
6.3gr
1147ft/s
39 300 CUP
158gr LSWC
Universal
5.5gr
1214ft/s
23 300 CUP
6.7gr
1380ft/s
34 600 CUP

The question that I have is: why such inconsistency between the jacketed (HDY XTP) and the lead/semiwadcutter (LSWC) bullet loads?

The data for the lead bullets normally gives them a markedly lower maximum velocity and chamber pressure than for the jacketed bullets. But take note of the data on the last line of that table... it allows for MORE powder, HIGHER velocity for the lead SWC bullet than the jacketed XTP, and it allows for TWICE the chamber pressure of the other LSWC recipes. What gives? If you can go that fast and high pressure with the Universal powder, how come you cannot do it with the H4227 or HS-6? Was the velocity the limiting factor? None of the online loads from Hodgdon exceed 1400 ft/s for the lead bullet.

For comparison, C.Rodney James's ABCs mentions hard cast lead bullets zipping of up at 2000 ft/s, and Lyman's 49th shows data for 170gr lead bullets (no gas check) made of #2 alloy (BHN~15) going 1700 ft/s from 15.0gr of H110. I'm planning to use hard cast bullets with a BHN of ~25.

I understand about leading the barrel and soft lead bullets flying apart at high speed, certainly, but the Hodgdon online data seems really strange and inconsistent, to the point that I'm wondering how far to trust it. Perhaps it's time to buy one more load manual! :)

What do you think?



Eh, second question while I'm at it: Anyone has load data using H110 powder for a 158gr Lead SWC bullet? I'm expecting a shipment from the Bullet Barn soon and I'm trying to find some useful recipes for them. :)
Click to expand...



I've noticed the same thing with the Hodgdon's data. Generally we expect the "maximum" load to be based on maximum pressure. In this case it seems like they have limited the velocity of the LSWC to about 1400 fps and this is the controlling factor for the "maximum" LSWC powder charge. 1400 fps is a conservative number but not overly so for a plain based cast bullet.

Cast bullets offer less resistance and start to move easier than jacketed bullets so in most cases they never build up to the same pressure as a jacketed bullet does with the same load and this effects velocity at the same time.
 
OP.........I have asked myself the same question many times about different load data. The term MAX load is not always in consideration of pressure, they had other criteria in mind when doing these loads and were working within their preset parameters. In this case MAX LOAD is not a pressure consideration and yes you can exceed these loads up to a max pressure limit if you choose to, without damage to the firearm. However you will likely not get optimum performance from this bullet and barrel combination. The data published looks perfectly normal to me given powder charges, velocities and pressures, I see no anomalies in the data at all, they just chose to work with different parameters and maximum pressure of the cartridge and firearm was not part of these parameters when using lead bullets.
To sum it all up in a nutshell......the term MAX LOAD in this data is not relevant to pressure and is not the maximum powder charge than CAN be used in this cartridge/bullet/rifle.
 
Grawfr, I see no reason why you would want more loading manuals. You already have more than enough, to see that every one is different and you can't see a reason for the difference.
You, like a great many others on here, are trying to read too much into the information you have. Don't forget, loading charts are only a guide to your loading and should not be considered the final word on it. People are making a big deal out of what the figure the loading charts state as being minimum load. Maybe one manual puts the minimum load as what they consider would be a nice, easy load to shoot, while another firm uses some other criteria to get their min. load. Reloaders who follow every word and figure in a manual, are actually little more than robots, well trained to follow written directions, whereas real hand loaders have great pleasure in making their own loads, while keeping well within the safety range.
With the fast powders used with revolvers, I would say the min. load is what will drive the bullet out the barrel! Some of my most remembered hand loading events has been when I was seeing the very minimum loads of fast, pistol/shotgun powder I could use and still get basement accuracy. I used about 160 grain cast bullet in the 30-06 and loaded so light that a six year old son could lay with the stock under his arm so he could see the sights and the recoil would barely move the rifle. With that load I could make clover leafs in the basement at 30 feet. And that is enjoyable loading and shooting.
CAUTION: with such light loads, always make sure that every bullet fired leaves the barrel.
 
H4831 said:
...With the fast powders used with revolvers, I would say the min. load is what will drive the bullet out the barrel!
Click to expand...

That's my opinion as well. And if you do happen to stick a a bullet in the barrel while experimenting it won't hurt anything as long as you notice it and remove it before you shoot again. Cast bullets are IMO better for reduced loads, because they are less likely to stick, and more importantly - a lot easier to remove if they do stick. Learned the hard way. :)
 
I've just started reloading for PPC and experimenting with some Berrys plated and Speers lead 38sp 148gr HBWC. Ran some test loads through the chrono and found that the the Speers lead HBWC (.358") were ~250fps faster than the plated Berrys (.357"). Test loads were shot with a S&W Model 64 with a custom Lou Ciamallo 6" barrel.

2017-01-05 148gr Testing Results.jpg

The ES on the 2.8gr Berry's test batch was HORRIBLE, so I think I'm not generating enough pressure to get a consistent burn. Looks like Speers lead 148gr HPWC is the way to go for my PPC load. Now I just have to work on getting a more consistent powder throw :)
 

Attachments

  • 2017-01-05 148gr Testing Results.jpg
    2017-01-05 148gr Testing Results.jpg
    35.7 KB · Views: 29
I'd like to thank everyone here, all of your experience put together makes for very valuable and interesting reading!

I think that the way I'll experiment is to cover the largest range of charges, from Hodgdon's low to Lyman's high. Just have to make sure that the bullet really does get out of the barrel at the low charge and that the cases aren't showing pressure signs at high charges (the cases ejecting by themselves is a sign of high pressure in a lever action, right? Right?). ;)

I've been finding loads reported by users on website for 158gr cast lead (SWC) being used with H110 with charges of 14.5gr to 16.5gr approx, one going as high as 17gr. Most seem to report best accuracy around 15.5-16.3gr though they usually shoot from revolvers, not a 20" barrel. I'll start at 15.1 and increase by 0.2 until 16.5, see what happens.

Thanks again everyone. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom