Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) 32-40 load (Read 10248 times)
JLouis
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 10625
Joined: Apr 8th, 2009
Re: 32-40 load
Reply #15 - Jun 8th, 2017 at 11:58am
Print Post  
Years ago their was an incident reported in a publication in regards to a bad experiance pertaining only to the 110 in a 32-40 breech seating incident reported as being due to pressure spikes and thus rifle damage. All though it might now be the same as 296 now that Hodgdon is invoved in the WW line of powders I do not personaly believe it also held true for that period in time. As I recall 110 was a faster burning powder and I have tested several pounds of 296 in my 32-40 without issue but I also shyed away from ever trying any 110 due to having read such article. 

If I run accross it I will gladly post it here.

JLouis
  

" It Is Better To Now Have Been A Has Been Than A Never Was Or A Wanna Be "
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JLouis
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 10625
Joined: Apr 8th, 2009
Re: 32-40 load
Reply #16 - Jun 8th, 2017 at 5:21pm
Print Post  
Powder Valley now carries a line of Lovex / Shooters World powders and one of their Pistol powders I have been researching really sounds interesting for one to give a try. I am hoping to do just that at some point in time but now being on a limited income it kind of hampers my ability to continue the amount of testing I have always been able to acomplish in the past. I have also been looking at Norma and Nobel but they don't seem to be quite as atteactive as the Lovex at the time. 

JLouis
  

" It Is Better To Now Have Been A Has Been Than A Never Was Or A Wanna Be "
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RSW
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 1310
Location: Arizona
Joined: Sep 8th, 2006
Re: 32-40 load
Reply #17 - Jun 8th, 2017 at 6:00pm
Print Post  
John
Do you recall if the pressure spikes resulting in rifle damage were with loads approaching maximum for 110 or did the pressure spike problem pertain to all loads of that powder when breech seating?
  

Randy W
ASSRA 10211  -  ISSA 125
There are indeed two Americas. Simply put, it is not the haves and have nots. The two Americans are in reality divided into those who do and those who don't.
Back to top
GTalk  
IP Logged
 
frnkeore
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 7675
Location: Central Point, OR 97502
Joined: Jun 16th, 2010
Re: 32-40 load
Reply #18 - Jun 8th, 2017 at 6:27pm
Print Post  
RSW wrote on Jun 8th, 2017 at 6:00pm:
John
Do you recall if the pressure spikes resulting in rifle damage were with loads approaching maximum for 110 or did the pressure spike problem pertain to all loads of that powder when breech seating?


I've had multiple conversations regard the safety of shooting 296/H110.

First, TODAY they ARE the same powder and as I posted, in another resent thread, they where both made by Olin but, Olin tested the powder (296) for canister sales to the public, to insure that it was consitant, where Hodgdon bought it in bulk w/o scientific testing, just testing it in individual rifle and pistol applications. Buying in bulk w/o "bomb" testing, WILL lead to results that vary. When Olin tested 296 they blended the powder to produce reliable results. There are a lot of things that are done to powders to produce repeteable results when selling canister powders.

The only instance that I know of, that harmed a rifle, was CBA competitor, shooting fixed ammo, in a 308W. In that situation, the shooter couldn't rule out a double charge.

Frank
  

ASSRA Member #696, ISSA Member #339
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
JLouis
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 10625
Joined: Apr 8th, 2009
Re: 32-40 load
Reply #19 - Jun 8th, 2017 at 6:28pm
Print Post  
Randy as I recall it was closer to the upper load limits where most breech seated rifles seem to perform their best with a given powder and then spicked well over those limits thus creating the damage. If memory serves me right the article was published in the then renowned Handloader Magazine going back to the late 70's or there abouts. 

JLouis
  

" It Is Better To Now Have Been A Has Been Than A Never Was Or A Wanna Be "
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JLouis
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 10625
Joined: Apr 8th, 2009
Re: 32-40 load
Reply #20 - Jun 8th, 2017 at 6:35pm
Print Post  
Frank we know your thoughts you have shared them on numerous occasions so please let the others continue to speak freely. My comments are based on a published article and are not of my own opinon by any means and there are some who have an intrest in what is being shared all though it might longer pertain to current times.

JLouis
  

" It Is Better To Now Have Been A Has Been Than A Never Was Or A Wanna Be "
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
frnkeore
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 7675
Location: Central Point, OR 97502
Joined: Jun 16th, 2010
Re: 32-40 load
Reply #21 - Jun 8th, 2017 at 6:41pm
Print Post  
JLouis wrote on Jun 8th, 2017 at 6:28pm:
If memory serves me right the article was published in the then renowned Handloader Magazine going back to the late 70's or there abouts. 

JLouis


If you can get a little closer date, I have most, if not all Handloader from about '68 - '85.

Frank
  

ASSRA Member #696, ISSA Member #339
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
JLouis
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 10625
Joined: Apr 8th, 2009
Re: 32-40 load
Reply #22 - Jun 8th, 2017 at 7:09pm
Print Post  
I wish I could Frank my mind can't get that close now going back that far now and I wish it could it as it would be an enjoyable article for those interested to read even though it might not pertain to current times. 

JLouis
  

" It Is Better To Now Have Been A Has Been Than A Never Was Or A Wanna Be "
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JackHughs
Oldtimer
*****
Offline



Posts: 657
Location: Riverbank
Joined: Sep 27th, 2008
Re: 32-40 load
Reply #23 - Jun 8th, 2017 at 9:26pm
Print Post  
As I recall, the bad rap on 296/H110 was overpressure due to reduced loads in handgun applications.

JackHughs
  

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.  W.B. Yeats
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
scharfe
Oldtimer
*****
Offline


A good plan today beats
a perfect plan tomorrow.

Posts: 617
Location: ny / pa line
Joined: Dec 18th, 2006
Re: 32-40 load
Reply #24 - Jun 8th, 2017 at 9:51pm
Print Post  
date was around 1979 - 1981 I think. a friend was loading for an Fn commercial mauser in 243. 296 and lead gc  at I think around 100 gr. mild middle of the road load. blew off the top of the front receiver ring and cut my 1 1/2 15 x Unertl almost in half.   I don't load with 110 / 296 or loan scopes anymore.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
P1
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 98
Location: Bradford, Pa.
Joined: May 14th, 2015
Re: 32-40 load
Reply #25 - Jun 9th, 2017 at 6:26am
Print Post  
I have shot a lot of H110 in a 300 Whisper TC Contender with no pressure problems and it was very accurate. 

Another powder that sounds interesting is Hogden Lil'gun. I have been testing it in medium revolver loads. Has anyone tried it in the 32-40? It seems to gen good velocity per amount used.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
40_Rod
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


Extremism in the persuit
of accuracy is not a
vice

Posts: 4285
Location: Knoxville, TN
Joined: Apr 20th, 2004
Re: 32-40 load
Reply #26 - Jun 9th, 2017 at 8:13am
Print Post  
There were also problems with large cases like 32-40  in rifles. The theory was the powder strung out along the case led to pressure spikes. I have seen no problems reported with small cases like the .357 based shorts.

40 Rod
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
beltfed
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 1828
Location: Central Wi
Joined: Dec 20th, 2007
Re: 32-40 load
Reply #27 - Jun 9th, 2017 at 8:29am
Print Post  
Was'nt there a guideline to go with at least 90% case filling for
296 and maybe some other Olin ball powders?
beltfed/arnie
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
beltfed
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 1828
Location: Central Wi
Joined: Dec 20th, 2007
Re: 32-40 load
Reply #28 - Jun 9th, 2017 at 8:31am
Print Post  
With appropriate burning rate powders In appropriate ctges,of course
beltfed/arnie
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
desert-dude
Senior Forum Member
****
Offline



Posts: 439
Location: Selah
Joined: Jul 23rd, 2013
Re: 32-40 load
Reply #29 - Jun 9th, 2017 at 10:08am
Print Post  
Ah! Better response than I expected. Smiley
So much practical experience out there. 

Comment: there is a lot of experimental data that double based powders 
do not pressure spike in light loads, eg. lead bullets. whereas single based powders
may cause pressure spikes. Sure would be fun to put a strain gage on the
side wall of a falling block and monitor the actual breech thrust with various powders. 
SWAG - side wall monitoring will be more sensitive that looking at the hoop stresses.


I have the strain gages and the data acquisition but it needs Windoze 98 and I tend to
run Linux. I suspect the actual data transfer protocol is x-on x-off but don't know that. 
Unfortunately roundtoits are hard to find.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
Send TopicPrint