WIN 296. Vs. A-300 MP

[Palladan44]

I've always loaded my 357 and 44 magnum jacketed loads using WIN 296/H110 and really really like it. I really like 2400 for moderate Magnum loads using cast lead.

In stock at my local shop is an 8lb jug of Alliant 300 MP, and I'm intrigued by what it's intended use is for......right up my alley.

My question is does 300MP offer anything that W296/H110 cannot offer? Is 300 MP just an Alliant brand of basically W296??

 

[AJC1]

Some of the load manual list stupid fast velositys for 300mp than all independent testing I've seen or looked for says is false. One such test was done on jonnys reloading bench but there are a ton more. If you need powder I would grab it no question, but dont expect mirricals like some of the data suggests.

 

[BBarn]

300MP works better for me in the 22 Hornet .

 

[Charlie98]

In stock at my local shop is an 8lb jug of Alliant 300 MP, and I'm intrigued by what it's intended use is for......right up my alley.

I have a curiosity of it, myself. I'm wondering... I haven't looked... if it's a typical Alliant slow powder, like 2400, and doesn't require Magnum primers. That would be a plus.

 

[twistytorn]

300MP is pretty much just a slightly slower H110/296. Alliant doesn't call for magnum primers with their data. I've used in .44 mag with Winchester LPP. No ignition issues.

Alliant used some very long test barrels for their load data--if I recall correctly, the .357 mag looked crazy fast, but it was from a 10" test barrel.

 

[reloaded_in_pa]

Do you load 300MP near max like 296 ? I've never used it .

 

[twistytorn]

Do you load 300MP near max like 296 ? I've never used it .

I think that you're referring to the warning Winchester had on 296 to reduce no more than 3% from max? Alliant doesn't have that warning--they still say that their published values are max loads and you should start by reducing 10%.

 

[WrongHanded]

I've never used W296, just so you know.

I have used 2400, and 300-MP. I like 300-MP for heavier bullets, and/or longer barrels. And that's what it likes too. It does not require a magnum primer, and is a slower burning powder than 296.

I've had good success with 158gr jacketed bullets in .357 Magnum from a 20" rifle barrel, averaging over 1800fps. The same load is more anemic than one with 2400 out of a 4" GP100, where it doesn't quite hit 1200fps. However, I believe a full charge would push a 180gr bullet to that same velocity out of that barrel. It's an odd powder that way.

On the other hand, 300gr bullets in .44 mag will hit about 1200fps out of a 4-5/8" SBH.

 

[2ndtimer]

300-MP is slightly slower burning than W-296/H-110. In my 6” GP-100, it chronographed 50-75 FPS faster than max loads with 158 gr jacketed bullets with similar accuracy. I guess you have to decide if a 5% increase in velocity is worth the 10% heavier powder charge. All things being equal, I would use whichever one I could find at a reasonable price. Although Alliant doesn’t recommend magnum primers, I tried both and felt I got better ignition and less unburned powder with magnum primers in .357 Magnum loads.

 

[Palladan44]

Sounds like my assumptions are about correct.
I think I'll be buying the 300 MP, I hope my keg of WIN 296 doesn't feel awkward sitting next to it.
Make new friends, keep the old....one is silver and the other gold??

 

[kcofohio]

I have dabbled some with 300-MP. I found it functions well with 300BO in subsonic AR. I have some loads with 180 gr. in 357 for rifle that I need finish testing.

I have always used 2400 before 300-MP. So I don't know how W296/H110 compares.

 

[Palladan44]

I have dabbled some with 300-MP. I found it functions well with 300BO in subsonic AR. I have some loads with 180 gr. in 357 for rifle that I need finish testing.

I have always used 2400 before 300-MP. So I don't know how W296/H110 compares.

I was really surprised when I saw the name of the powder "300MP" and saw how it placed on the burn chart (right with other favorable 300 BLK powders) to find that Alliant listed no loads for 300 BLK on their data. When I first saw the name of the powder, I assumed it was designed specifically for 300BLK.
But assumptions are often worthless I guess.

 

[kcofohio]

I was really surprised when I saw the name of the powder "300MP" and saw how it placed on the burn chart (right with other favorable 300 BLK powders) to find that Alliant listed no loads for 300 BLK on their data. When I first saw the name of the powder, I assumed it was designed specifically for 300BLK.
But assumptions are often worthless I guess.

Alliant's newest download has 300 BO data, but only from 110-130 gr. bullets, nothing in subs. Speer's load data list 300-MP, but only up to 180 gr. And still no subs.

As for the name, 300-MP must be the noodle that stuck on the marketing department.

 

[AJC1]

Alliant's newest download has 300 BO data, but only from 110-130 gr. bullets, nothing in subs. Speer's load data list 300-MP, but only up to 180 gr. And still no subs.

As for the name, 300-MP must be the noodle that stuck on the marketing department.

I just looked at it as 296 slowed down so 300??? Mp is mag pistol.

 

[kcofohio]

I just looked at it as 296 slowed down so 300??? Mp is mag pistol.

True, but even Hodgdon list H-110/W296 and Lil' Gun with subsonic data.

I originally bought 300-MP for 357 magnum several years ago, because I couldn't find any 2400. I found it better suited for rifle than handgun. But it has worked well for 230 gr. cast bullets. And functions the action of my AR pistol.

 

[joneb]

I like H-110 and 300-mp for 22 Hornet, not so much with Lil-gun and Accurate 1680 they do work but... I prefer the 1st two.

 

[forrest r]

Back in oct-2011 handloader magazine (#274)/Brian Pearce did a write-up on using MP-300 in the 327mag/357mag/41mag/44mag/454casull. That article used a bullets weighing 200gr to 310gr with the 44mag for example.

A couple years ago I finely got around to buying a couple #'s of MP-300 to do my own testing. Used the 357mag as a test platform with 2 1/2". 4", 6", 8" & 10" bbl's. Used the same bullet and did head to head comparisons with 2400 VS H110 VS MP-300.

At the end of the day the H110 & MP-300 really started to shine with firearms that had 6" or longer bbl's. Really couldn't tell any real difference between the H110 & MP-300 velocity wise. They were both within 20fps of each other with 3 different 6" bbl's, 8"bbl & 10" bbl firearms.

Did a little testing with the 44mag using 6" & 10" bbl'd firearms. Again really couldn't say that the MP-300 outperformed the H110, they both were close to each other with velocities, sd's & es's.

 

[Palladan44]

Back in oct-2011 handloader magazine (#274)/Brian Pearce did a write-up on using MP-300 in the 327mag/357mag/41mag/44mag/454casull. That article used a bullets weighing 200gr to 310gr with the 44mag for example.

A couple years ago I finely got around to buying a couple #'s of MP-300 to do my own testing. Used the 357mag as a test platform with 2 1/2". 4", 6", 8" & 10" bbl's. Used the same bullet and did head to head comparisons with 2400 VS H110 VS MP-300.

At the end of the day the H110 & MP-300 really started to shine with firearms that had 6" or longer bbl's. Really couldn't tell any real difference between the H110 & MP-300 velocity wise. They were both within 20fps of each other with 3 different 6" bbl's, 8"bbl & 10" bbl firearms.

Did a little testing with the 44mag using 6" & 10" bbl'd firearms. Again really couldn't say that the MP-300 outperformed the H110, they both were close to each other with velocities, sd's & es's.

Great info. Sounds like Alliant 300 MP is Alliants answer to Winchester's 296..... now that I look at data for WIN 296 in longer barrels, the more these 2 offerings become similar.
When I get around to doing a work-up and comparison, I'll be sure to use my M-27 with 8-3/8" barrel......wound up picking up one pound of 300-MP

 

[Charlie98]

Makes me want to try 300MP for my .41MAG Marlin loads... vs IMR4227, although IMR4227 is working pretty well in my .45 Colt heavy loads.

 

[WrongHanded]

Makes me want to try 300MP for my .41MAG Marlin loads... vs IMR4227, although IMR4227 is working pretty well in my .45 Colt heavy loads.

What bullet weight and what barrel length?

 

[Alliant Reloading]

Power Pro(TM) 300MP is also quite popular loading 410 bore for skeet. I load a good amount into 2.5" AAHS hulls, with a Fed209A primer, CB5010HS wad, 226gr #9 and 16gr+/- 300MP. That is a beautiful 1300ft/sec load that will break clays from anywhere on the skeet field, if you put the shot in the right spot.
Thanks for your interest in our powder.
Shoot well,
Paul

 

[Alaskamike]

I only have a pound of 300MP, so I'm keeping it for carbine specific loads, and using my 2400 and 296 for .357 and .44 mag handgun loads.

I really like 300MP in .357, .44 mag and .454 Casull carbine loads. I do get better velocities with it than 296. I use mag primers with it, because I may very likely take those loads hunting in sub zero temps, and I want to make sure they light off reliably.

For the handguns, it does give slightly better velocities, but it's a little to "blasty" for my taste in the handguns.

If I could find an 8 lb jug at a reasonable price, I'd snap it up in a heartbeat.

 

[Charlie98]

What bullet weight and what barrel length?

In the .41, it's the standard 215grn commercially cast SWC, out of the 20" Marlin, generally. IMR4227 pops them out at around 1500fps, 2400 around 1700fps, so I'm wondering if 300MP won't be more like 2400 in behavior.

In my 20" H&R Classic, again, the standard 255grn commercially (or locally) cast SWC or FN. IMR4227 gives me 1175fps and good accuracy, but I have a newer load... 21grn IMR4227... that showed better accuracy, but I've not run it over the chrono, yet. I've also considered 2400 for it, but I don't have any 2400, anymore.

I guess that's an interesting question... is 300MP a better powder than 2400, and why?

 

[WrongHanded]

I guess that's an interesting question... is 300MP a better powder than 2400, and why?

My counter question would be....for what?

300-MP is a slooow powder, but also quite clean. It also meters nicely in my RCBS Uniflow. Though it fell out of the Lee Auto Drum I had, because the balls are so tiny.

I believe that it will get higher velocities than 2400 in barrels of around 4" with heavy-for-caliber bullets. But because it burns more slowly, I don't think lighter bullets in such a barrel length will produce better results than 2400. I actually think 2400 may be the velocity winner in that arena.

But for heavier bullets, or in your case, a longer barrel, I think 300-MP is an excellent choice. And is better than 2400 for either of those applications. And certainly better when combining the two.

As far as accuracy goes. I can't say. I've had good groups from both with the right charges, in several cartridges.