• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

300-MP Acting Squirrely

Status
Not open for further replies.
You won't find it online (legitimately). I had to buy a reprint of the entire May 2012 issue (of Guns and Ammo). The article is "Propellant Powerhouse" (re Alliant) by Layne Simpson. When reprinted, its pages take on the current month and year, so don't get confused like I did.
 
I found the article from Handloader Magazine that folks usually cite as the source for the claim that 300-MP = H110/W296. It mentions nothing of the sort.

So I looked up the Propellant Powerhouse article you mention. It says:

Spherical powders require a different manufacturing process than do those of tubular and flake forms, so the Power Pro series--which includes 300-MP, 1200-R, 2000-MR, 4000-MR and Varmint--is made at St. Marks Powder in Florida. All are useful in the applications for which they were formulated, but 300-MP was the one needed most in the Alliant lineup. W296 and H110 from Hodgdon are also made at St. Marks and are actually the same powder with different names. They have long been the choices for delivering top velocities in magnum revolver cartridges from .357 Magnum to .500 S&W Magnum, but they now share that role with Power Pro 300-MP.
Click to expand...

This is vague. It isn't clear if the author is saying that H110 and W296 are the same as 300-MP, or simply that H110 and W296 are the same.
 
I agree. That wording is ambiguous. As written, though, it sounds like they are only stating that h110 and W296 are the same.
 
It is one man's opinion but, I don't believe they are they same. They don't look the same, they don't smell the same, and the charges I have seen are not the same for similar loads. I also really doubt that Alliant would encourage using non-magnum primers for a very magnum powder.
 
great find on the quote, poor and ambigous writing

All are useful in the applications for which they were formulated, but 300-MP was the one needed most in the Alliant lineup. W296 and H110 from Hodgdon are also made at St. Marks and are actually the same powder with different names. They have long been the choices for delivering top velocities in magnum revolver cartridges from .357 Magnum to .500 S&W Magnum, but they now share that role with Power Pro 300-MP.
Click to expand...

Tweeze out those two Italicized sentences and as I read it, W-296 and H-110 are made at St Marks and are the same powder. 300-MP is also made at St. Marks and fills the same role for Alliant that 110-296 do for Hodgdon, a true no holds barred Magnum Powder.....Not that 300-MP=W-296=H-110 but that all are designed for the same purpose by the same people and 2 share the same formulation.

Poor, poor writing to leave such ambiguity in a statement that could be potentially damaging should someone blindly assume they were all the same and use data from one for the other like we can 110-296.

imo that quote you dug up settles it once you parse it carefully. Thanks again
Poco
 
300-mp In the 45 Colt -No Data

Alliant Ammunition and Energetics Co.
Radford Army Ammunition Plant
Route 114, P.O. Box 1
Radford, VA. 24141-011
Click to expand...
The "New River Energetics" plant as a commercial sub-lease on the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (RFAAP) site which produces commercial propellant powders. MSDS for 300-MP http://www.alliantpowder.com/downloads/msds/PowerProSeries.pdf There is NO data for the 45 Colt. :banghead:
 
Last edited:
So, thinking we needed an explanation as to why Alliant hasn't developed data for their PP300MP and 45 lC, so I sent the Experts an e-mail addressing this topic. Today I received a response from their PR dept, and the gentleman didn't know the reason, but surmised it may have something to do with the resulting tests by the engineers deciding that the 45 lc may not have the ability to handle magnum pressures, as pp300mp is a dedicated magnum powder. However, he said he would further discuss this with the engineers and try to provide a better explanation, and if there is any future plan to develop data for the 45 lc. with this powder.

With any luck, we might get some form of data intended for the Ruger/TC, like the other powder companies have been doing for quite a long time.

GS
 
This is vague. It isn't clear if the author is saying that H110 and W296 are the same as 300-MP, or simply that H110 and W296 are the same.
Click to expand...

Oh, I think it's quite clear, but to some, not credible. We make it sound like we're interpreting the 2nd Amendment. It means what it says, allowing for the legalese of the time in which it was written.
 
response I received today:

The 300 MP powder not the same. It is similar but not the same. If you use one of those other loads for the 300MP powder you may stick a bullet in the bore. Do not assume they are the same loads. They are different powders and should be treated as their own entity. Use load data for 300MP when using this powder.
Thanks,

Shoot Straight
DuaneVB
CCI/SPEER/ALLIANT POWDER
2299 Snake River Ave.
Lewiston, ID
Click to expand...
 
NeuseRvrRat said:
response I received today:
The 300 MP powder not the same. It is similar but not the same. If you use one of those other loads for the 300MP powder you may stick a bullet in the bore. Do not assume they are the same loads. They are different powders and should be treated as their own entity. Use load data for 300MP when using this powder.
Thanks,

Shoot Straight
DuaneVB
CCI/SPEER/ALLIANT POWDER
2299 Snake River Ave.
Lewiston, ID
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And for a very long time everyone swore H110 and W296 were not the same powders until Hodgdon took over distribution of Winchester powders and came clean. Alliant claiming they are not the same means nothing to me...
 
Anyone looking at the loading data can quickly tell they are not the same. I load the 2 1/2" 410 for Sporting Clays , and the data is night and day.

I load 18.5 gr for 1300 fps in the 410 with moderate pressures. Max charge for H110 is 16.5 gr at a much higher pressure.
 
Regardless of their lineage, MP-300 and W296/H110 appear to have similar burn rates, and it's my thought that the OP's issue can be addressed by using magnum primers in his work up, in spite of Alliant saying that it should work with standard primers. There is just not that much case difference between a 44 Remag and a 45 Colt in a higher pressure firearm to say that MP-300 wouldn't work in the 45 Colt.


NCsmitty
 
a bunch of folks on the internet claiming they're the same means jack doodley
Click to expand...

Come on now, be fair and more respectful. It is based upon a credible article in Guns and Ammo magazine, which clearly reported that the powders are the same.
 
Primers Standard VS Magnum

We tested loads at both maximum normal pressures and at the starting loads (some labs calculate start loads—we shot them). Standard primers caused no ignition issues at the max load but posted higher extreme variations in pressure and velocity in the lower pressure regimes of the start loads. In extreme cases, the start loads produced short delayed firings—probably in the range of 20 to 40 milliseconds but detectible to an experienced ballistician. Switching that propellant to a Magnum primer smoothed out the performance across the useful range of charge weights and completely eliminated the delays.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.shootingtimes.com/2011/01/04/ammunition_st_mamotaip_200909/#ixzz2wVqJoSfE Large pistol primers like WLP & Rem 2 1/2 are the only LP primers made by each company. The WLP should work with any/all powder that are hard to light up. If your powder charge is correct, not to light as the OP load.
 
243winxb said:
Read more: http://www.shootingtimes.com/2011/01/04/ammunition_st_mamotaip_200909/#ixzz2wVqJoSfE Large pistol primers like WLP & Rem 2 1/2 are the only LP primers made by each company. The WLP should work with any/all powder that are hard to light up. If your powder charge is correct, not to light as the OP load.
Click to expand...

I was using WLP. I can assume now that 22gr of this powder in a 45 Colt case (10% more volume than a 44 mag case) is just too light for consistent burn, even though it works fine in the smaller case.

The whole experience has made me hesitant to continue with the experiment. If the powder is this sensitive to case volume on the low end, how does it behave on the high end...and where might that high end be in a 45 Colt case..? How large is that hi/low spread? As stated earlier, at 22gr some rounds felt like full house 44mag, others were squibs. No good answers for these questions, and I don't think I will be the guinea pig on this one :)
 
Arguing seems silly, if one wants to dispute the clarity of this direct quote from a copy I purchased from the publisher:

"W296, H110 and Alliant's Power Pro 300-MP are identical spherical magnum revolver propellants made at the same facility."

ref Guns and Ammo, May 2012, page 28, Propellant Powerhouse, Layne Simpson, Intermedia Outdoors.
 
The first time I loaded .44 magnum with that 300MP I had similar results to the OP. Lots of unburned powder, wildly inaccurate.

That was with CCI300 primers.

I loaded another batch, same Starline brass and 240gr Hornady XTPs, but this time used Federal 155 magnum match primers.

Man what a difference! No more unburned powder, very accurate and burns clean. Alliant can tell me all they want that this stuff doesn't need magnum primers, but at least in MY gun it sure does!
 
here's an excellent thread where someone from Alliant actually posted and even gave real pressure numbers on a head-to-head comparison:

http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=327598

it seems that the quote "W296, H110 and Alliant's Power Pro 300-MP are identical spherical magnum revolver propellants made at the same facility." comes from a caption under a picture of all three powder bottles. I think this statement, while printed in Guns & Ammo, is just flat-out wrong. If I had to guess, I'd say that the pictures and captions weren't chosen or written by Layne Simpson.
 
michaelnel said:
The first time I loaded .44 magnum with that 300MP I had similar results to the OP. Lots of unburned powder, wildly inaccurate.

That was with CCI300 primers.

I loaded another batch, same Starline brass and 240gr Hornady XTPs, but this time used Federal 155 magnum match primers.

Man what a difference! No more unburned powder, very accurate and burns clean. Alliant can tell me all they want that this stuff doesn't need magnum primers, but at least in MY gun it sure does!
Click to expand...
Like I said in one of my above posts, the difference in performance and charge weights with 300-MP can be easily explained by the lack of a magnum primer.

I'm not surprised that some won't believe the 2 powders are not the same because Alliant is denying it. After all, Hodgdon, Winchester and St. Marks are all telling everyone H110 and W296 are exactly the same powders and always were and some reloaders still won't believe that fact either.
 
NeuseRvrRat said:
i left a message with someone at st. marks. i'll update you folks if they return my call.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure St. Marks has a confidentiality agreement with everyone they do business with. If Alliant doesn't want anyone to know St. Marks will not tell. It was the same thing when Olin was distributing W296, St Marks would not comment and tell you it was the same exact powders as H110. It was only when Hodgdon took over distribution of Winchester powders the truth came out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Nothing beats 300-MP, so far anyway
Replies
9
Views
521
kcofohio
kcofohio
L
  • Locked
Alliant 300 MP in 44 Mag
Replies
2
Views
263
skeeterfogger
S
S
  • Locked
First 20 rounds of 357 Max.
Replies
0
Views
298
Stonechucker
S
N
  • Locked
Alliant 300-MP in the .357 Magnum
Replies
13
Views
5K
nody
N
wasa
  • Locked
Alliant 300-MP in 357 Magnum and Different Bullet Weights
Replies
4
Views
303
wasa
wasa
Back
Top