CWLONGSHOT
Well-Known Member
I like and use both. Like most, I think I reach for 2400 more for cast.
want to try some 110 in my legend with GCd hard lead RD 190's.
CW
want to try some 110 in my legend with GCd hard lead RD 190's.
CW
H-110 versus 2400
- Thread starter fiver
- Start date
I'm trying to wrap my little brain around 296 applications. If you've ever seen primer tests, like a small gun, shoots hot slag (Pb or Al) out ~ 6". From rocketry, you want the propellant to burn from outside in (like stick powder) or at least have a controlled surface area. With full loads of fine powder, that is not easy to control but full load will require primer to plow thru the middle of the powder. Light loads, powder lies at the bottom of the case and burn is very fast and uncontrolled. Boom instead of bang. We say we want the pressure up to make the powder burn right but is that correct? Yea, ignite powder in open air and it fizzles. constrain it and it goes bang. Kinda thinking the pressure tends to compact the powder, controlling surface area and burn rate.
fiver
Well-Known Member
yes pressure is essential for a controlled efficient burn.
let's take a look at H-110.
it's extremely fine grained and heavily burn deterrent coated.
if we removed the coating it's burn rate would speed up by probably double [or more] moving it down the scale to something like red-dot.
if we increased it's size, it would slow down again because there is more area to burn.
those are the tricks the engineers play to come up with 'new' powders without having to mess with the basic formula of the powder itself.
but since it is so small and so coated it needs to be pushing against something to generate the heat and pressure that keeps it in an efficient area.
drop the outside temperature and you affect the heat generation causing the powder to become unable to do the same thing over and over.
raise the outside temperature and you raise the minimum temperature the powder is able to maintain once again affecting the outcome of consistency [or over affecting it in some cases]
the heat and pressure allows the powder that is burning to transfer that heat and burn to the next granule much more efficiently.
if you don't have that you end up with partially burned pieces of powder unless the powder doesn't have the coating and can pass it along before the bullet is too far away.
that pressure might be 10,000 psi or it might be 60,000 psi.
it just depends on the coating and granule size.
as far as weight goes your accelerating the heavier projectile at a much slower speed, this retains a smaller volume the gas can occupy generating more heat and more pressure.
both things accelerate the efficient consumption of powder, too much of a fast powder and pressures sky rocket.
not enough of a too slow powder and nothing really happens because you never achieve the heat/pressure zone necessary to keep the powder going properly.
hit the balance of a slow enough consumption and enough powder consumption to maintain pressure and heat and your getting just about everything the package can deliver.
payload weight, powder efficiency, speed,, they all fall into line and are dependent on one another.
change one of them out and the balance is lost until something else is corrected to change the balance again.
let's take a look at H-110.
it's extremely fine grained and heavily burn deterrent coated.
if we removed the coating it's burn rate would speed up by probably double [or more] moving it down the scale to something like red-dot.
if we increased it's size, it would slow down again because there is more area to burn.
those are the tricks the engineers play to come up with 'new' powders without having to mess with the basic formula of the powder itself.
but since it is so small and so coated it needs to be pushing against something to generate the heat and pressure that keeps it in an efficient area.
drop the outside temperature and you affect the heat generation causing the powder to become unable to do the same thing over and over.
raise the outside temperature and you raise the minimum temperature the powder is able to maintain once again affecting the outcome of consistency [or over affecting it in some cases]
the heat and pressure allows the powder that is burning to transfer that heat and burn to the next granule much more efficiently.
if you don't have that you end up with partially burned pieces of powder unless the powder doesn't have the coating and can pass it along before the bullet is too far away.
that pressure might be 10,000 psi or it might be 60,000 psi.
it just depends on the coating and granule size.
as far as weight goes your accelerating the heavier projectile at a much slower speed, this retains a smaller volume the gas can occupy generating more heat and more pressure.
both things accelerate the efficient consumption of powder, too much of a fast powder and pressures sky rocket.
not enough of a too slow powder and nothing really happens because you never achieve the heat/pressure zone necessary to keep the powder going properly.
hit the balance of a slow enough consumption and enough powder consumption to maintain pressure and heat and your getting just about everything the package can deliver.
payload weight, powder efficiency, speed,, they all fall into line and are dependent on one another.
change one of them out and the balance is lost until something else is corrected to change the balance again.
Good explanation.
My feeling on the squibs is that low neck tension and weak crimps add to the problem. Bullet moves too soon and pressure drops enough for the powder to not burn efficiently.
Worse is when the bullet stops in forcing come just enough for pressure to rise again and powder burns right. I think this is part of what is called SEE.
I experienced this with WC820 in my SRH. Stopped shooting, added a far heavier crimp, and problem went away. Seeing is believing!
My feeling on the squibs is that low neck tension and weak crimps add to the problem. Bullet moves too soon and pressure drops enough for the powder to not burn efficiently.
Worse is when the bullet stops in forcing come just enough for pressure to rise again and powder burns right. I think this is part of what is called SEE.
I experienced this with WC820 in my SRH. Stopped shooting, added a far heavier crimp, and problem went away. Seeing is believing!
fiver
Well-Known Member
I have forced some shot shells to do the same thing.
primer jumps the wad ahead in the case and partially collapses the crush section.
then it gets caught and held by the crimp folds [actually the petals folded over into the hull] and stops.
the powder fizzles back to life and you get a full on boom just like you had a fully loaded shell.
there is a definite pook pause boom.
primer jumps the wad ahead in the case and partially collapses the crush section.
then it gets caught and held by the crimp folds [actually the petals folded over into the hull] and stops.
the powder fizzles back to life and you get a full on boom just like you had a fully loaded shell.
there is a definite pook pause boom.
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
Brad, That was Norma Powder's testing also. They are the only one who published their results about SEE incidents. And why it doesn't happen very often, rarely, with single base stick powders. Ric
Ian
Notorious member
When you remove the deterrent from any smokeless powder you are left with ony a high-explosive base.
Page 3 drift alert.....
I'm still trying to get my head wrapped around the secondary pressure spikes seen in some rifle loads, way down the barrel, at 21.6". Charlie Sisk has some theories, but nobody really knows why yet.
Page 3 drift alert.....
I'm still trying to get my head wrapped around the secondary pressure spikes seen in some rifle loads, way down the barrel, at 21.6". Charlie Sisk has some theories, but nobody really knows why yet.
Found it.
The initial degradation of the propellant components is controlled by the breaking of the -C-O-//-NO2 bond (characterized by the 40 kcal/mole activation energy). This is considered to be a temperature sensitive only process, irreversible (therefore not influenced by the pressure level). This is a 2 flame (& liquid) process.
The net heat of decomposition is seen to be exothermic(sic.. external) and increasing with burning rate (due to an increase in pressure).
SIC ... (conclusion) Pressure forces secondary flame to the particle and increases the melting and gasification of the liquid. Decomposition of the propellant is still from external flame. At 10 atm of pressure the burn rate is constant but increase to 100 atm and the burn rate CAN double.
From:
The initial degradation of the propellant components is controlled by the breaking of the -C-O-//-NO2 bond (characterized by the 40 kcal/mole activation energy). This is considered to be a temperature sensitive only process, irreversible (therefore not influenced by the pressure level). This is a 2 flame (& liquid) process.
The net heat of decomposition is seen to be exothermic(sic.. external) and increasing with burning rate (due to an increase in pressure).
SIC ... (conclusion) Pressure forces secondary flame to the particle and increases the melting and gasification of the liquid. Decomposition of the propellant is still from external flame. At 10 atm of pressure the burn rate is constant but increase to 100 atm and the burn rate CAN double.
From:
fiver
Well-Known Member
I'd have to think it's because there is an onrush of oxygen from somewhere about that point.
kind of like opening the door or window to a room that's starved of oxygen but smoldering, as soon as you get that thresh hold of balance back again,,,, foom everything available goes up.
kind of like opening the door or window to a room that's starved of oxygen but smoldering, as soon as you get that thresh hold of balance back again,,,, foom everything available goes up.
RBHarter
West Central AR
The pressure/flame rise can be simulated and visualized in a tool used to compare the fire of the of spark plugs under pressure .
From whatever ambient is at as little as 40 psi the visible spark will double ......of course sometimes the spark goes out as the pressure rises , but that's how you find a failed plug .
When the pressure is reduced to whatever point the weakened plug quit , it comes back usually at it's maximum intensity but fades as the pressure drops . I've seen examples of plugs that wouldn't fire at ambient pressure but lit up at 30-40psi (kind of like H110) . If you get a chance to play with a spark plug comparitor tool take a few minutes to play with a plug with a cracked chamber insulator .
From whatever ambient is at as little as 40 psi the visible spark will double ......of course sometimes the spark goes out as the pressure rises , but that's how you find a failed plug .
When the pressure is reduced to whatever point the weakened plug quit , it comes back usually at it's maximum intensity but fades as the pressure drops . I've seen examples of plugs that wouldn't fire at ambient pressure but lit up at 30-40psi (kind of like H110) . If you get a chance to play with a spark plug comparitor tool take a few minutes to play with a plug with a cracked chamber insulator .
More like simmering water vs boiling water. Spark plug thingy is due to increased density (reduced electrical resistance) of air at pressure.
I loosely put some powder on a paper, lit one side. Some flame, red glow and didn't often burn all of it (no contact heating). Place in a heap and more flame, less glow and most all burns. Burn rate is still extremely SLOW. Curve in the first part of the article explains it all - final pressure is determined by P=V*T and the amount of 'burnable' material. So the 'bomb' numbers we get in rate tables is the max burn rate - flat part of the 'curve'.
Conclusion - small amount of powder loose laying at the bottom of large case may not ignite all and probably won't get pressure up high enough to get the 'super' burn. And burn rate will be MUCH slower! Akin to the only SEE test that I've heard reproducible when hot flammable 'stuff' exits the muzzle and hits the wall of air - increased pressure 'wave' immediately ignites flammable 'stuff'. It is NOT when the muzzle blast hits O2 and flames, it's the shock wave increased pressure. Yes, flash is partially the photons given off by air as pressure is increased.
I loosely put some powder on a paper, lit one side. Some flame, red glow and didn't often burn all of it (no contact heating). Place in a heap and more flame, less glow and most all burns. Burn rate is still extremely SLOW. Curve in the first part of the article explains it all - final pressure is determined by P=V*T and the amount of 'burnable' material. So the 'bomb' numbers we get in rate tables is the max burn rate - flat part of the 'curve'.
Conclusion - small amount of powder loose laying at the bottom of large case may not ignite all and probably won't get pressure up high enough to get the 'super' burn. And burn rate will be MUCH slower! Akin to the only SEE test that I've heard reproducible when hot flammable 'stuff' exits the muzzle and hits the wall of air - increased pressure 'wave' immediately ignites flammable 'stuff'. It is NOT when the muzzle blast hits O2 and flames, it's the shock wave increased pressure. Yes, flash is partially the photons given off by air as pressure is increased.
Last edited:
mattw
Active Member
Interesting question... I really do like H110, I also have about 60 pounds of a commercial reloaders varient that was once available for bulk purchase and used by the reman community in the 90's and early 2000's, it is called H110 Data. H110 Data is a slightly faster version of H110 powder. So, either increased case capacity or a little powder conservation. 
Either H110 option is my go to if I want to shoot a true magnum level load in 357, 41 or 44, often in conjunction with heavier than normal bullets. For example, 260 or 275 grain bullets in my 41 magnum hunting loads. It requires a good very solid roll crimp to unify pressure, near case fill for consistency is also a big help and a magnum primer! But the performance is amazing. I also burn a lot of 2400, for me I consider it a mid-magnum for loads that i don't want to be quite as brutal... these I use for practice loads and sometimes hunting loads where distance is not expected to be extreme. I use 2400 with most of my loadings for the Saeco 411 bullet in 41 Mag. I also tend to crimp 2400 loads very heavily, not as severe as my H110 loads though.
I cannot imagine not having both in my storage as they are quite different in their use for me.
Either H110 option is my go to if I want to shoot a true magnum level load in 357, 41 or 44, often in conjunction with heavier than normal bullets. For example, 260 or 275 grain bullets in my 41 magnum hunting loads. It requires a good very solid roll crimp to unify pressure, near case fill for consistency is also a big help and a magnum primer! But the performance is amazing. I also burn a lot of 2400, for me I consider it a mid-magnum for loads that i don't want to be quite as brutal... these I use for practice loads and sometimes hunting loads where distance is not expected to be extreme. I use 2400 with most of my loadings for the Saeco 411 bullet in 41 Mag. I also tend to crimp 2400 loads very heavily, not as severe as my H110 loads though.
I cannot imagine not having both in my storage as they are quite different in their use for me.