Rick Courtright
Hawkeye
Chief 101 said:Mr Bill, do some research before you download WW296, I don't use much 296/H110 these days but in years past it was recommended to not go anything other that full-house loads with it. Again, have fun and shoot straight...
Hi,
Yes, one needs to check around when seeking to make "plinkers" using 296, but I've found some big changes in the "recommendations" for reducing 296 loads since Hodgdon's entered the distribution game for Winchester powders.
Originally, when Winchester was in charge, for years the word on 296 was "Thou shalt not reduce these loads!" Then Hodgdon's came into the picture and it became ok to download it 3%, while I think H-110 was ok'd for 5%. I'd have to look at Hodgdon's site to see what their limits are now, but I know today they use exactly the same recipes for the two powders, supporting what's been the word on the street for years that they're the same powder wearing two labels (another change from when Winchester was in charge.) I've also found some current info for 296 which allows up to the normal 10% "starting load" reduction we've used in so many areas for decades (I'd have to check, but I believe both Speer and Hornady show some reduced recipes in their recent editions.)
I've loaded a bit of that "seriously" reduced 296 data, and find it rather pleasant to shoot compared to the normal full house 296 loads which were, to be polite, uncomfortable to shoot even in my 7 1/2" Redhawk. The recipes using Unique are still nicer to shoot, but the difference isn't automatically painful like it used to be.
Read, research and test is about all I can suggest! And don't send the Smith down the road too soon... it'll be great insurance if you choose to add a BH or RH to the stable until we find out if the new CEO at Ruger believes the first thing you should be able to do with a gun you just bought is shoot it, or follow tradition and send it back right away to learn about the company's fantastic "customer service!"
Rick C