I would buy mag primers for that powder next time around.I Thought I had some lg pistol mag primers, but I don't. That being said, I used cci reg lg pistol primers . Hopefully all will go bang!
murf
I would buy mag primers for that powder next time around.I Thought I had some lg pistol mag primers, but I don't. That being said, I used cci reg lg pistol primers . Hopefully all will go bang!
240gr hp. sorry I omitted that small detail!What is your point? What weight bullet??
you read my mind!!I would buy mag primers for that powder next time around.
murf
240gr hp. sorry I omitted that small detail!
Yes it does, The 44 mag is a pistol.revolver cartridge not a rifle. There is data for 44 mag PISTOL
22 rimfire ammo and legality questions at WalMart or anywhere else is irrelevant to this topic
In Florida you now have to be 21 to buy a rifle so it makes no difference.
Please stop and go read the Hornady manual. The rifle loads in terms of powder weight are NOT the same as pistol.While some manuals/webpages do have separate sections for .44 mag rifle, the recipes are exactly the same, other than the performance obtained from the test firearm.
Please stop and go read the Hornady manual. The rifle loads in terms of powder weight are NOT the same as pistol.
What you are saying is simply not true, which you will see when actually reviewing a Hornady manual. I certainly agree that most other sources I have seen show the same loads or make no distinction. If it were me, I would probably load them the same, but the OP's question is served by the answer that yes indeed, there is some data available especially for rifles, and the differences are consistently significant....and then go to the Hodgdon(since this thread is about the use of H110/W296) reloading page and you'll see they are exactly the same, right down to the exact same chamber pressures. Go to the Lyman manual....exactly the same. Go to the Speer.....exactly the same. I have all four right here on my desk. I just looked under 240gr because that's what I load and what pages I have marked in all. In the instance of the Hornady manual, the minute difference could be the difference between lot numbers or even test day. No different than slight differences from manual to manual. They are all still loading to within the exact same SAAMI specs for the cartridge itself, which both platforms are designed to operate under. None of your argument pertains to the question asked by the OP. Why are you trying to confuse him any more than he already is?
That sums it up, from the manufacturer of the powder in question. Other companies may take another stance (possibly?) But if you don't believe the company that produced the powder i doubt you would believe anyone.I don't know if this will help the OP and apologies if this has already been posted before, but this is Hodgdon's take on load development for cartridges that are interchangeable between handguns and rifles:
DOES SHOOTING A PISTOL CALIBER IN A RIFLE CHANGE THE RELOAD DATA?
Please stop and go read the Hornady manual. The rifle loads in terms of powder weight are NOT the same as pistol.
That sums it up, from the manufacturer of the powder in question. Other companies may take another stance (possibly?) But if you don't believe the company that produced the powder i doubt you would believe anyone.
The barrel length has no impact on the chamber pressure and hence the reloading data (powder charge and pressure). The length of the barrel will change the actual velocity you observe. ... This does not change the reload data (powder charge and pressure), just the velocity.
Concur completely.Hornady uses real firearms for their testing, and expectedly would have used different lots of powder for the rifle test vs. the handgun test. In the case of the Hornady manual, a 1:38” 18” Ruger Carbine was used for the rifle data, while a 1:20” 7.5” Ruger Redhawk was used for the handgun data. A difference in throat diameter, forcing cone condition, or even the drastically different twist rates can contribute to variations in pressure.
I never mentioned pressure, and reloading dies don't have settings for pressure. I only stated THE FACT that there are existing differences in rifle loads versus pistol for the same powder/bullet, which is the OP's premise.Hornady uses real firearms for their testing, and expectedly would have used different lots of powder for the rifle test vs. the handgun test. In the case of the Hornady manual, a 1:38” 18” Ruger Carbine was used for the rifle data, while a 1:20” 7.5” Ruger Redhawk was used for the handgun data. A difference in throat diameter, forcing cone condition, or even the drastically different twist rates can contribute to variations in pressure.
Another example of this inherent experimental variability is the fact there is “inconsistency” between the data between H110 and W296, which are known to be the same powder, as confirmed by Hodgdon directly. Referencing the 240grn XTP day for both: In the same Carbine, Hornady claims .2grn greater max charge weight for W296 than H110, and in the revolver, 0.3grn greater max charge weight for H110 than 296... Effectively, in one individual test firearm, one lot of powder hit MAP at a lower charge than another lot of the same powder, and then in the OTHER individual test firearm, what may have been two additional lots of the same powder showed the opposite.
So the anecdotal soapbox @RealGun is standing upon as “evidence” there are different pressure standards for revolver and rifle data is built completely from a misunderstanding of experimental and manufacturing variability, with absolutely no scientific founding.
I never mentioned pressure, and reloading dies don't have settings for pressure. I only stated THE FACT that there are existing differences in rifle loads versus pistol for the same powder/bullet, which is the OP's premise.
"Conveniently", as in a personal attack, deliberately intending to deceive? Come on!But in stating the fact there are variations in data, you conveniently neglect to mention WHY those experimental variances exist.
Hornady uses real firearms for their testing, and expectedly would have used different lots of powder for the rifle test vs. the handgun test. In the case of the Hornady manual, a 1:38” 18” Ruger Carbine was used for the rifle data, while a 1:20” 7.5” Ruger Redhawk was used for the handgun data. A difference in throat diameter, forcing cone condition, or even the drastically different twist rates can contribute to variations in pressure.
But how do they know what the pressure is in "real firearms?"
.
There is separate data. That's a fact and all I ever tried to share. Hornady has 44 Magnum in both their rifle section and pistol section. The thing to note about Hornady is that their loads reflect what was used to fit their velocity milestones in even 100s of fps. I made no claim about what that data looks like under a microscope.Sounds factual, not personal, but either way, it certainly came across as if you intended the post to mean their was separate data for both depending on barrel length (Pistol vs rifle), if not, we simply misread it.
There is separate data. That's a fact and all I ever tried to share. Hornady has 44 Magnum in both their rifle section and pistol section. The thing to note about Hornady is that their loads reflect what was used to fit their velocity milestones in even 100s of fps. I made no claim about what that data looks like under a microscope.
Is any one arguing that separate data has not been generated for both pistols and rifles? Hodgdon does similar to Hornady having data for 44 Mag under both their handguns and rifle data sets. The pressure spec for both is the same and the ammo should be safe in either, it has just optimized/tested for a long or short barrel. At least with Hodgdon's data some of the loads are identical and the only difference is the reported velocity due to barrel length. Some of the data is unique and only in one data set or the other.
Except that I should not have said "separate", when I meant "different".Is any one arguing that separate data has not been generated for both pistols and rifles? Hodgdon does similar to Hornady having data for 44 Mag under both their handguns and rifle data sets. The pressure spec for both is the same and the ammo should be safe in either, it has just optimized/tested for a long or short barrel. At least with Hodgdon's data some of the loads are identical and the only difference is the reported velocity due to barrel length. Some of the data is unique and only in one data set or the other.
In my own working up 44 Mag for both my M29 and M92. I saw a huge difference in performance between a faster powders optimized the revolver and a slower powders optimized for the carbine.