Just wanted to complain ... I tried Winchester 296 and it worked grate for 9 shots ... The 10 shot it made a thump sound and the bullet got stuck in my barrel ... It says this powder can have a ignition trouble an suggest that you use a heavy crimp or a compressed powder charge ... Or you can have the problems I had or sometimes it will partially ignight and you can have very high pressures as a results .... I think I'll go back to using 2400 powder ... Thanks hearing my complaint ...

W296/H110 like pert-near 100% load density for ignition. I use them for high zoot handgun but wouldn't personally choose it for reduced rifle loads for the exact reason you describe.

CO,

What I'm about to say is mostly for whomever reads this thread later.

Never, never, never ever, 110/296 for reduced capacity loadings.  BAD JUJU BWANA!!

As stated, full case/small capacity cartridges are 110/296's forte.

BAD things happen with small charges getting rolled around in a large(ish) case.

Even 2400 can be shown to be somewhat position sensitive with the chronograph.

I personally *much* prefer the recoil pulse of 2400 over 110/296 due to the nasty pressure spike it makes.  300BO with 110-125gr jacketed is outstanding in a single shot pistol, not in anything big enough to be less than AT LEAST 60% case fill.

I'm glad to hear that you got off with just a stuck bullet and will switch back.

Yeah.  I have read something along that line too.  No reduced loads for H110.W296.  Even Sierra in their manual for 300BLK said reduced loads below the sub round load is not recommended.  I looked in a filled case and it appeared the 220RNs would be sitting on the powder or just a cat whisker above it.

I take those kind of warnings as gospel from the bullet gods when I read them. 

A powder in that burn rate that I have used a lot is Blue Dot.  It makes for some very accurate loads.  Some reloaders are leery of it however.  You might also try using a CCI#34 primer with your 296, they are meant to light ball powders.

Where/how did you come up with the idea to use 296 for a reduced in the 30-40 ?  Did you use published load data, or just make a WAG ?  If the latter, not even a good idea.