110, 296, 2400, and AA #9.

These powders came up in another topic as an alternative to using Lil Gun in a 454. I'm going to be reloading for a 14" barrel from MGM in 460, and its gonna be with 300 grain XTP-MAGS for the most part. Some will be plinkin rounds with the 240 grain version, but for the most part, its gonna be the heavy loads for elk hunting, and watermelons. (Yes, the watermelons around here are very mean and REQUIRE such a load! LOL)

Of the four mentioned above, which one takes the cake? If they are all about the same, which ONE would you take if you only had one for the rest of your life.

Without a doubt...H110/296(Exact same powder).

John Linbaughs testing has shown that the powder will will run all the way throguh 60,000 with a smooth pressure rise and no spikes....some powders get to a specific pressure and then they change dramatically. H110/296 does not do this.

And since 296 still burns very well down in the 35,000 range it has quite a bit of operateing range in the big high pressure 460 rounds.

If you want to load it for all its worth, H110/296 are hard to beat. The 2400 can be downloaded to a lighter charge for plinking if you wish, as well as magnum charges. I find lower end H110 loads are sufficient for my purposes, and are relatively easy shooting.

PERFECT!!! That's what I needed. Thanks!

there all good powders but I use 296 and 110 interchangably in my .454,.357,.44.500mag,.22 Hornet.

I've noticed no one ever has anything to say about AA#9, is there a reason? I use it alot in my 44, and 454 casull. I also plan to use it in my 475 Linebaugh, and find myself a little concerned that it's not mentioned.

another vote for H110, 296 is normally a couple more bucks a pound but as stated the burn rates are basicly identical.

linebaugh:

I tried AA#9 in my .475L. It didn't group as well as W296 and N110. Your results may be better.

I use AA#9 in my 454 and my 500 Linebaugh. Great powder.

Ramdominator:


The guy at gun shop too said it was great for big bore revolvers. But I tested them side by side and it only got the bronze. It does go "bang". Maybe that is all he was doing.

I use 296 in my 44, 454 & 475 almost exclusively. It's also easier to find 8lb cans of 296.

freedom475:


Did he take a picture of his test apparatus? How was it built?

No, I beleive he had Hogdgon do most of the earlier testing..

I know that Western does some testing now... When I was in Cody, the ballistic tech from western was there and they had just tested a load for curiousity that had flattend the top of a 500L cylinder.

The story was that a guy had grabbed his can of HS6 off the shelf thinking it was H110 and loaded up a full house load in his 500.. It didn't blow the gun but really put a flat spot in the cylinder where it had slammed against the top strap. The testing data put the load (if I remember right) just over 90,000..LOL

I suspected. One powder company who doesn't even make their own powders now claiming another powder company's product gave poor results on their test equipment. Sounds like more of the same dark, murky bull gravy we've grown accustomed to.

I've used #9 in a multitude of calibers to include 357 Mag, 44 Mag, 45 Colt ( Ruger & T/C ), 454 C., 480 R, 475 L, 50 AE, 500 JRH, 500 L, 30 M1 carbine, 22 Hornet. Great velocity, good consistency, meters well in measure, doesn't need a mag primer.

Doc