Interesting rifle powder data for .44 Mag.

[Chris]

I recently came up with some time to fool with a Marlin 1894 in .44, the thing has never shot for beans.

In preparation for the project I paid a visit to my "library"... a technical term for my piles of books, magazines, and photocopies... and found two copies of the attached IMR data. It seems to be from 1994 and has a tan cover.

Take a look at the powders listed for .44 mag. Over the years different ones have experimented successfully with using "too slow" powders to gently push the bullet into the barrel, that is well documented. I do not know the utility of doing this in the .44, but it may have merit and almost certainly will present challenges.

Just passing the data along in case anyone has interest, or better yet can comment on the powder applicability for the 44. I know there are some on this forum who have probably forgotten more about loading the .44 with cast than I'll ever know, this Marlin is my first experience with the cartridge.

 

[358156 hp]

Here's an article you might find interesting: http://www.lasc.us/RossLoadingthe44magnum.htm

 

[Chris]

Thanks, right on track. In summary, Ross mentions the same data I found but doesn't comment directly on the matter, rather he supplements the IMR data by mentioning 2015, H322, H335 as possible candidates owing to powder density and burn rate. he then mentions the reduced velocity that results from the slower powders.

Seems like these loads would perform better in rifle barrel length. Wonder if anyone has experimented with this and can comment on accuracy. I probably won't have time to try this now but it would make an interesting experiment.

 

[9.3X62AL]

I have a copy of this same guidebook in my "library" also. IMR/Dupont used to list their data in this manner for many years. It was incumbent upon the user to look at "velocity" and "pressure" results to arrive at meaningful recommendations for use of the powders. IMR 4831 in a 44 Magnum would not be a real effective idea, as deduced from the data in this guidebook--but at least the company provided the info so that the user could make an informed decision. The "best-case scenario" fuel--4227--still isn't the best possible fuel for castings in 44 Magnum, rifle or handgun. Those laurels go to WW-296 or its Hodgdon equivalent H-110, with Alliant 2400 a close second place. JMHO.

 

[Ian]

I hadn't seen that brochure before, thanks for sharing.

The only experience I have along these lines is with .45 Colt rifles. Heavy bullets and Reloder 7 worked very well for me.

Recently I posted a bunch of Quickload predictions for .45 Colt for RBHarter somewhere on the forum, many of the powders discussed were in the medium rifle range.

 

[Ian]

http://www.artfulbullet.com/index.php?threads/witchcraft-chaos-and-stuff-that-makes-no-sense.1548/

 

[Chris]

Ian, that is fascinating and thank you. I speed read my way through it and will study carefully when I get back from testing 2400 and the 265 in the Marlin. Curious about RL 7 and 4759 in this case.

BTW, 2400 seems to show some promise based on a few groups yesterday. Was in a hurry, barrel was getting hot and skewed results so a necessary re-test today.

 

[9.3X62AL]

Speaking of RL-7, IMR 4198, and other things that go BUMP in the night........

Fiver mentioned in Ian's link that he has used 4198 at 100% density in 44/40 to duplicate blackpowder performance/ballistics in that caliber. RL-7 is very close to 4198 in combustion characteristics IME, and I recall having read a bit on another site (contributor "W30WCF") concerning 100%-density loadings of RL-7 to simulate BP performance in 44/40. His goal was two-fold--1) the aforementioned safe pressure gradient and 2) support for the bullet base in lever action rifles for bullets like Lymans #427098 and #311008 that lack a crimp groove. In BP days, these bullets rested on a compressed charge of BP and cartridges were able to resist "telescoping" bullets as they shunted down a tubular magazine in that manner. I have pretty extensive use of this method in both rifles and revolvers in 32/20 and 44/40, and the results have been positive--BP velocities, and decent accuracy. In the revolvers, there is a small amount of unburned powder kernels left in bores; this is largely absent in rifles.

I have yet to try this regimen in 45 Colt or other magnum revolver cartridges. In some respects, the need for its bullet base support has been handled in 44/40 via use of SAECO #446 that includes a crimp groove. I still need to find or design a plain-based bullet for the 32/20 that emulates SAECO #446 in 31 caliber for 1882-level loads. Lyman #311316 serves well for the HV applications, but at 3 cents+ each gas checks for more sedate loads are superfluous.

 

[RBHarter]

I did get to shoot some of the trials . I'm still digesting what I came up with as some of the results just don't fit with the flow . I'm also working with a super heavyweight in a 45 Colts and trying to stay within reasonable pressures for the cartridge .
With H322 on hand I worked from 19.0 to 22.5 , 23 grain was a compressed load that exceeds my OAL limit in the 92' with a Lee 458-340 . 20.0 gave high 800s while 22.5 reached into the upper 1200s . The slow start didn't have the normal launch so I had to switch alloy . The soft 1-20 alloy , expecting low pressures and no more than 900 fps , didn't fare well at the 1200 plus fps speeds and will now be retried with 50/50 WW/1-20 water cooled . As for pressures the cleanest loads were between 20.5 and 21.5 the actually compressed loads didn't shoot as well and had about 2x as much powder shell as the lighter load . The steps having a window to work will be smaller this time with 5 vs 3 per step . There were no flat primers using CCI lrg pistol mag . While H110 shoots well with 255-265 bullets I wasn't willing to try it with a 353gr bullet . I may try Unique if the H322 doesn't work out.

Keeping in mind that this is in a 45Colts rifle and is strictly out in nomans land with no approved data .

 

[Rick]

Nothing new about using slow powder in straight wall cases. A really slow pistol powder is nothing but a really fast rifle powder on the burn rate chart. About 10 years ago I did a series of tests in the 357 magnum FA 10 inch using AA1680 and the RCBS 180 and 200 gr bullets and DW 360 brass trimmed to fit the mag case. It was actually pretty successful in terms of 200m accuracy. Ran out of useable powder space at 20 gr when velocity decreased going higher.

RCBS 180 @ 1gr.90
20.0 gr. AA 1680
Extreme spread - 15
Velocity 1490 fps
S.D. - 4

RCBS 200 @ 211 gr.
19.5 gr AA 1680
Extreme Spread - 22
Velocity 1437
S.D. - 7

The purpose of my tests was to reach a velocity goal, didn't quite get there. Testing was part of my quest for slow powder & heavy for caliber bullets but if all I had to load into the 357 mag was 1680 I would do it. I considered having a mold made of the RCBS 180 with the crimp groove moved down lower to allow less bullet in the case and just another half to 1 gr powder. The FA cylinder is long enough to accommodate such a load, just one of those get round to it things that I never got round to.

Also shot silhouette for a few years with the FA 454 using 240 gr bullet and IMR 4198, a fine load that won me several matches. My goal in working up that load was to match the ballistics of the DW 44 mag. The 44 with 23.5 gr H-110 was at 1380 fps and quite accurate. The 454 with 4198 and a 240 gr bullet was at 1430 fps and quite accurate.
.

 

[Ian]

Yep, seems that velocity capability peters out with all the straight wall cartridges right around H110/WW296. Quicker-burning powders max on pressure before velocity and case volume, slower powders max on volume before pressure headroom except in low pressure stuff like the Specials and Colt cartridge until you go down to a certain point per Allen's discussion above.

Speaking of Fiver and slow powders, I picked up a trick from him a while back and found it most handy: .30-30 Winchester makes a dandy garbage disposal for ancient 4831 military and canister powder (i.e. garage/estate sale odds and ends). Scoop the case full, shake out enough to leave room for the bullet to seat with very mild compression, load any cast bullet you like, and go shooting. 165-grainers get around 1700 fps out of a 18" barrel, 1800 out of a 20.

 

[9.3X62AL]

I tried a 100%+ loading of WC-860 in 30/30 with Lyman #311291. Good part--very boomy, enjoyable report. Bad part--1450 to 1500 FPS and lots of unburned kernels in bore that worked their way into the action and make a mess. Federal 215 primers weren't any better than CCI 200--still made a mess. Usable? Yes. Practical? Not really. Reminded me of the Pashtun fighters chopping up 35mm film to create "gunpowder" in 303 British brass with improvised bullets--stone, what have you. It worked--sort of. Once in a while, it burst a rifle--but such things kept the Soviets on their toes.

 

[Ian]

Events like that really put things in perspective. Infantry battle is difficult and horrific enough with premium gear.

 

[Chris]

Was just looking at burn charts to get a rough idea of how the slower powders line up in theory. Still interested in 4759 as a candidate... it and 4227 are in the just slower vicinity of 296.

On a whim I tossed 21.0 gr 4759 in a resized case (per the IMR data the subject of this post). Visual inspection appears that it will compressed for sure, maybe about 0.2" with a .44 265 RD. Bullet seated fine.

Is it enough to support the bullet base as is discussed previously? Not sure, but it should help a lot. IMR claims velocity similar to 110/296, could be useful powder if it shoots.

 

[300BLK]

I've owned couple of the Marlin 1894 44mags. The first was a pre-safety, microgroove gun that didn't shoot worth a hoot. A look down the barrel showed that it was roll stamped a bit too robustly, so back to Marlin it went. Rebarreled, it still didn't deliver the desired accuracy with 240gr jacketed over 24gr 296, but backed down to 22gr it shot cloverleaf groups at 60 yards. I foolishly traded that one off on something else along the way.

Rather than start with H110/296, I would opt for IMR4227 instead. My first revolver was a 44mag, and I shot 4227 in it with excellent accuracy. Too, I've used 4227 in other applications and have come to appreciate its flexibility vs the max load only H110/296.

BTW, MP300 is between H110/296 and 1680, so another option.

 

[9.3X62AL]

300--I swapped in Alliant 2400 for the 296/110 much like you did 4227 many years back, owing to 2400's flexibility in so many calibers and 410 gauge. Overall, 2400 did better work in more places. 296/110 has its place with jacketed bullets and full-tilt loadings, but that is its only niche. 2400 has always been much easier to find locally than either H or IMR 4227 as well.

 

[Rick]

296/110 has its place with jacketed bullets and full-tilt loadings, but that is its only niche.

Not exactly. Also is a fine choice with cast but agreed it doesn't work for beans reduced. Full or near full book loads only. I tried reduced H-110 in the 454 back when the caliber was first introduced and ya couldn't hit a barn with it if ya were standing inside it.
.

 

[9.3X62AL]

Rick, lotta respect for your experience and that of others who say 296/110 does good work for them with the Poured Ones. I wish I had better outcomes like you guys and gals have had, but I must be holding my mouth wrong. I even tried "blind" testing between the ball powders and 2400, and my guns just haven't done as well. I basically gave it up. 2400 is just easier--less cranky--and a lot more flexible. IME, anyway.

 

[300BLK]

H110/296 will work full tilt with cast as well as jacketed. It is my powder of choice for go fast 300BLK and (1894c) 357mag. It produced higher velocities from my 44mag Redhawks and heavy 330-370gr cast than did 680.

2400 has been virtually unobtainable here for a couple of years, but I can buy H110 or IMR4227 whenever I like. This situation has forced me to purchase alternatives.

 

[Ian]

Ian, that is fascinating and thank you. I speed read my way through it and will study carefully when I get back from testing 2400 and the 265 in the Marlin. Curious about RL 7 and 4759 in this case.

BTW, 2400 seems to show some promise based on a few groups yesterday. Was in a hurry, barrel was getting hot and skewed results so a necessary re-test today.

Home now where I have Quickload. Running a Lyman 429244 gas check bullet at 260 grains and 1.610" overall length, the prediction for 100% fill of 20.8 grains H4227 is 23,240 PSI and 1,464 fps out of a 20" barrel. Just about 80% burn.

22.0 grains Reloder 7 also equals 100% fill in that model and is predicted to generate 17,045 PSI and 1,343 fps at 69% burn.

H-110 at 24.4 grains equals absolute max load at the SAAMI pressure ceiling for the cartridge at 100% fill, 94% burn and 1,745 fps. You can see why H110 is THE powder for full-tilt .44 Magnum loads.

2400 at 19.3 grains is also an absolute max load at 89.5% fill, 97.74% burn, and 1,704 fps.

Remember these are only predictions and your case capacity, overall length, bullet weight, etc. are going to be different, but at least they will give you an idea of what the powders are doing within the same common model.