300MP vs WW296 vs WC297 vs H110

User avatar
mtngun
Site Admin
Posts: 1624
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:45 pm
Location: Where the Salmon joins the Snake

300MP vs WW296 vs WC297 vs H110

Postby mtngun » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:23 am

I picked up some MP300 a while back because it was on sale and hopefully I'll have a chance to try it soon. Sadly, Quickload does not yet offer data for MP300. :cry:

If you have already tried MP300 please weigh in with your results.

This is what I know
-- of course WW296 and H110 are the same powder in different packages. Both are made at the St. Mark's plant in Florida.
-- WC297 is slower than WW296 / H110 and also has a flash suppressant that WW296 / H110 lack. Flash suppressants are generally helpful to cast bullets but can make the powder harder to ignite. That said, I use WW 296 / H110 data with WC297 and have yet to notice a difference in burning rate.
-- MP300 is also made by St. Marks, but has a slightly slower burning rate than WW296 / H110.
-- what I'm hearing from reloaders is that MP300 may outperform WW296 / H110 in long barrels, but not in short barrels?
-- of course all powders may vary slightly from one lot to the next.

From Shotgun World 2012.
Image

From Shotgun World 2013.
Image

User avatar
mtngun
Site Admin
Posts: 1624
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:45 pm
Location: Where the Salmon joins the Snake

Re: MP300 vs WW296 vs WC297 vs H110

Postby mtngun » Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:14 pm

Here's an apples-to-apples comparison in an 8" 357 mag:

M29-357
8 1/4" barrel
WSPM primer
160 gr. TC plain base
J.R. brand reclaimed shot
tumble coated with Columbia Coating Fire Plug Red hybrid
baked 400F for 23 minutes
quenched in water
seated 1.610"
17.3 gr. powder

300MP -- 1395 fps
WC297 -- 1495 fps
WW296 -- 1586 fps

Wow! Paul was right -- WC297 is definitely slower burning than WW296, and 300MP is slower than either.

All three powders generated noticeable muzzle flash. Perhaps WC297 does have a flash suppressant, but if so it's not 100% effective.

My impression is that 300MP is too slow for top velocities in the 357 mag, but would probably be close to ideal in a 357 maximum, or in other "maxi" length cases like the 500 S&W. It would help tremendously if Quickload data became available for 300MP.

ussrsnpr
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 5:59 am

Re: 300MP vs WW296 vs WC297 vs H110

Postby ussrsnpr » Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:41 am

I have a Ruger Blackhawk with a 5.5" barrel and have been loading with 18.6 grains of 300MP exclusively for 158 grain cast PB bullets. I do not own or have access to a chrony, but I really enjoy this powder in the 357. have loaded some 140 grain with 20 grains and still seems to be a great powder. Even with the short barrel this gun really groups well. I know I have no technical data to share but thought others might like to know.

User avatar
mtngun
Site Admin
Posts: 1624
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:45 pm
Location: Where the Salmon joins the Snake

Re: 300MP vs WW296 vs WC297 vs H110

Postby mtngun » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:16 am

Thanks for the data, Ussrsnpr. :)

User avatar
mtngun
Site Admin
Posts: 1624
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:45 pm
Location: Where the Salmon joins the Snake

Re: 300MP vs WW296 vs WC297 vs H110

Postby mtngun » Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:25 pm

Another comparison of WW296 to WC297, however with different cases so it was not 100% apples to apples:

-- 20.6 gr. WW296, coated 140 gr. GC, CCI 550, RP nickel cases, 1806 fps predicted by QL, 1682 fps actual, 56 ES, huge fireball! :twisted:
-- 20.6 gr. WC297, coated 140 gr. GC, CCI 550, WW nickel cases, 1749 fps predicted by QL, 1715 fps actual, 83 ES, moderate fireball.

-- my Quickload predictions take the different case capacities into account.
-- my QL predictions use my tweaked powder file for WC297, since there is no official powder file.
-- both powders produced velocities slower than Quickload predicted, presumably because the light bullet did not generate enough resistance to make the powder burn well.
-- but WC297 was only 34 fps slower than QL predicted while WW296 was 124 fps slower than QL predicted, and the bottom line is that WC297 was 33 fps faster than WW296. Since WC297 has a slower burning rate than WW296, the only explanation I can think of is that WC297 is easier to ignite than WW296.

Admittedly that is only one data point with one bullet in one gun. Still, the more I use WC297 the more I like it. To the extent that WC297 is different than WW296 I think it is better -- easier to ignite and less flash. I wish someone would offer WC297 as a canister powder.


Return to “revolvers”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron