Taken from page 169 "The Complete Reloading Manual for the T/C Contender"
PLEASE NOTE: "The following loads are for the Contender pistol only."
Use the below information at your own risk. This information is provided for informational purposes only. This is Published Load data circa 1991.
Test Specifications:
Firearm:T/C Contender
Bbl. Length / Twist: 14" / 1-16"
Cases: Norma
Trim-to Length: .987
Primers: Federal 150
Sierra Bullets Used
150gr JHP
Powder 1300 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600
No.7 11.6 12.2 12.5 12.8 13.1
Blue Dot 10.9 11.5 11.8 12.1 12.3
HS7 11.7 12.5 12.9 13.2
No.9 14.5 14.9 15.3 15.7 16.0
180gr JHP
Powder 1100 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400
No.7 9.8 10.6 11.0 11.3
Blue Dot 9.0 9.4 9.6 9.8 10.0 10.3
HS7 9.8 10.6 11.0
No.9 12.5 12.9 13.2 13.5
2400 12.3 13.1 13.5 13.9
190gr FPJ
Powder 1000 1100 1200 1250 1300 1350
No.7 9.2 9.8 10.5
Blue Dot 8.6 9.2 9.8 10.1 10.4
HS7 9.5 10.1 10.7
No.9 12.5 13.0 13.4 13.7
2400 12.0 12.7 13.3 13.6 14.0
Thanks for the data Pinsnscrews, that Load data is that of standard 10mm loadings but with velocities of the 14" barrel.
Data from the period from AA as tested from 5" barrels to compare.
AA Powder 150 Sierra 150JHP from 5"
No.7 13.0gr 1405 fps 36,400 psi
No.9 16.7gr 1459 fps 33,000 psi
AA Powder 180 Speer 180JHP from 5"
No.7 11.4gr 1232 fps 36,600 psi
No.9 14.5gr 1290 fps 32,600 psi
AA Powder 180 Hornady 180XTP from 5"
No.7 10.7gr 1183 fps 35,300 psi
No.9 13.5gr 1242 fps 34,100 psi
AA Powder 190 Speer 190TMJ from 5"
No.7 11.2gr 1198 fps 36,000 psi
No.9 14.2gr 1267 fps 35,800 psi
I have shot those Blue Dot loads shown and beyond in some of my testing as well...
I have not seen loadings for 2400 listed anywhere else.
Here is a copy of Page 44 of the Alliant 2006 PDF, 2400 is all the way right side. Those numbers are still conservative.
(http://i1086.photobucket.com/albums/j441/_The_Shadow/Alliantpg44.jpg)
14gr of 2400 is a lot more than the 12.5 Alliant is showing :D
My tables seem to have shifted. I will scan the page and repost it that way.
Pinsnscrews, don't get me wrong, I enjoy the data you have posted, I even added a copy to my files. In doing so I can compare it to other data for further study. Reviewing Mike McNett's data on GT, you will find that he was compressing the 2400 powder charge quite a bit. Also the performance, even from the KKM 6" barrel, didn't yield what Blue Dot did in his testing...
12.0gr 2400 200XTP - 1106fps
12.5gr 2400 200XTP - 1147fps (compressed HP)
13.5gr 2400 200XTP - 1194fps (closed HP)
In his testing from the 10" T/C:
AVG 10 shots Starline cases, CCI 350, 1.26" OAL
200 XTP 11.2gr BD - 1566 fps 38,600psi
Sorry if I gave you the impression I was possibly misunderstanding your intent.
This was published data that I was not sure other's knew about. Since the Publisher (Loadbooks USA) stated it was for Contenders Only, and considering it was 1991 data, I felt it 'Proper' to label as such. I just happened to notice the tables were not lining up properly any more. Without knowing what You are seeing on your screen, if the format on my screen was no longer lined up as typed, I think I need to just scan the page in.
For example:
Your Alliant posting shows
190gr JFP 12.5gr/2400 1195fps
My table is supposed to show:
190gr FPJ 14.0g/2400 1300fps
Pinsnscrews, sometimes the data can shift on forum post, tabs not in alignment, they don't place the info like you started out. No fault of yours. Sometimes what you see, is not what you get... ???
The original posting you did have it marked as T/C Contender (ONLY), I was trying to show relationships to other book loads with pressure values, as to where some of those T/C loads stood. The T/C being a strong, fully supported chamber with a locked breech could take more pressure and also a longer barrel firearm will produce more velocity as a result.
Some of the loadings where the top end book loads as published, like those of Accurate Arms, and inside the SAAMI MAP
Maximum Average pressure or MAP of 35,700 psi. Therefore some of those loadings would be safe in any 10mm firearm, whereas others may not be.
WARNING to those who do not fully understand, what you were showing was T/C Only loadings as published.You also mentioned you never seen any data for 2400;
QuoteI have not seen loadings for 2400 listed anywhere else.
Therefore I wanted to show you that even Alliant did publish tested data for 2400 in 2006.
Although the 2400 data was shown in the T/C Only data to be above Alliant's published info, I was trying to show a relationship of the amount of the charge weight to the pressure. 2400 is a slower burning powder and it takes quite a lot more powder to make the pressure changes, as show in a T/C test done by Mike McNett of Double Tap. He was compressing the powder so much that it deformed the nose of the XTP, I have seen this with heavy charges of the AA#9 as well. Yes the 2400 load in your post was even higher than what Mike McNett was testing.
Another relationship, is that 190 grain bullet being a JFP would be a shorter bullet than that of the 200XTP, thus allowing room for more powder. But I would bet it too was highly compressed loading. It too may be close to the same pressure like that which Mike McNett was showing for the 200XTP as tested.
So I guess I muddied up your post somewhat, with the comparisons for all to see. But this shows the reason that you can never have too much data to reference.
Well, I had a barrel custom made for the Encore and what I found went against the conventional wisdom.
I don't think T/C ever chambered for the 10mm simply because the extractor system works better with a rimmed cartridge. For that reason, most (all?) 10mm are custom chambers. Because there is no need to autoload, these chambers are tight. My chamber allows .002 expansion on a fired case! A loaded round doesn't drop in. It is pushed in.
When there is less room for case expansion, the chamber pressure is higher. It is similar to seating bullets deeper. My experience with the Encore barrel is that the primers show more flattening than the same load shows in the auto pistols. Going into this I thought I could load hotter loads and I had to make sure not to allow them into my Glock or the Witness pistols. Now I think a hot load in one is a hot load in the other.
If I'm going over the limits, The Encore will certainly handle that better. A blown primer in a locked breech is better than a blown case destroying a pistol, but its not good to go there in either!
I'm sure FPS will be greater for a duplicate in a T/C, even with the same length barrel, just because the pressure rises faster and hits a higher peak pressure. There is also near zero pressure bleed off through the breech. Add a longer barrel to the mix, velocities are in a different class.
One more advantage for the single shot too. If you decide to lengthen the free bore, you can load for a much longer OAL and fit more powder and slower burning powder into the case. This can be accomplished because the round doesn't have to fit in a magazine.
Greg
Not at all Shadow, I appreciate the discussion, AND, you showing more load data. I simply wanted to CYA since the data I was providing was marked as "for the T/C Contender Only" by the publisher.
I /Know/ some of our more aggressive loaders here do go over book max in their loadings in their guns. My intent was simply to offer other published load data. I appreciate you clarifying my misinformation about 2400. Keeps me honest, and helps keep others honest. I have a PDF copy of Alliant's load data on my ipad, however, I must not have looked that deep into the chart because I hadn't noticed the data for 2400, and for that I do appreciate it. The T/C Book only provides the loads I showed on the table, since this is data from '91, a 200gr bullet may not have been available at that time. I need to just get the damn scanner out and get it scanned. I will just do it that way in the future. :P
Geeman, the 10mm was not chambered in the Encore by T/C, it was however, a Factory chambering in the Contender.
You might contact Mike Bellm, http://www.bellmtcs.com/store/
He may have some suggestions for you with regards to the tight chamber. I Really want him to cut me a barrel in 10mm. As soon as the funds are available, I am having him rechamber my .222 Rem barrel into .222 Rem Mag. Everything he says about how badly T/C tended to cut the throats and all the misalignment is totally accurate on my .222 barrel. For the cost, he cleans it all up and rechambers it to a round he has had a lot of success with in the Contender.
Quote from: Pinsnscrews on September 14 2014 12:07:43 PM MDT
Geeman, the 10mm was not chambered in the Encore by T/C, it was however, a Factory chambering in the Contender.
You might contact Mike Bellm, http://www.bellmtcs.com/store/
He may have some suggestions for you with regards to the tight chamber. I Really want him to cut me a barrel in 10mm. As soon as the funds are available, I am having him rechamber my .222 Rem barrel into .222 Rem Mag. Everything he says about how badly T/C tended to cut the throats and all the misalignment is totally accurate on my .222 barrel. For the cost, he cleans it all up and rechambers it to a round he has had a lot of success with in the Contender.
No, the tight chamber is a main reason I went custom. I haven't had the range time with this barrel yet, but all of the rest of the Bullberry barrels have met and exceeded the 1 MOA guarantee.
I went to the 10mm becaause I wanted to set it up for testing chamber pressure. I still need to attach the strain gage to the barrel and spend some range time. If I wasn't wanting to test the 10mm pressures, I likely would have gone to a 41 Magnum instead.
Pics (I mounted the scope well forward to make room for a strain gage)
(http://www.spanielsport.com/photos/i-4KxdMGG/0/XL/i-4KxdMGG-XL.jpg)
(http://www.spanielsport.com/photos/i-Wv6mDzN/0/L/i-Wv6mDzN-L.jpg)
Greg
I really like your set up. That is some beautiful furniture on there. Mine is a first Gen that sat for a long time in someone's gun safe.
Late '70s I had a Contender w/357 Mag, 30 Herrett, and 22k-hornet barrels. It was a lot lighter for hunting purposes. I always disliked having to reset the trigger if the hammer was uncocked, which I do all the time in the field. The trigger pull was sweet though!
I'm hooked on the specialty pistol concept, though. I think they are a hoot to shoot, and I've made many rifle shooters take notice of the groups they can shoot.
Greg
(http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c167/wyckedflesh/10mm-tc-data_zps4bf147b7.jpg)
Hmm, I am new to this web site and seem to have posted my question where I didn't intend it to be. And I can't find it now to remove it. So forgive me for "double posting."
Has anyone worked up a load in a ten to 14" barrel with a 180 gr bullet using 296 or 110 powder?
Quote from: Bruce Frank on April 18 2016 12:20:56 AM MDT
Hmm, I am new to this web site and seem to have posted my question where I didn't intend it to be. And I can't find it now to remove it. So forgive me for "double posting."
Has anyone worked up a load in a ten to 14" barrel with a 180 gr bullet using 296 or 110 powder?
Yes. W296/H110 is much too slow, and the 10mm case capacity isn't enough, with any weight bullet. Case capacity is the limiting factor, not the pistol or barrel length. Even with a 9" barrel, a maximum compressed load wouldn't cross 1000 FPS with 180 gr. cast, plated or jacketed bullets. A 6.5" barrel didn't make 900 FPS. I like the powder for a lot of cartridges, but it is just not for the 10mm.
Thanks! I really like the way that 296 feeds and I have settled on Power Pistol right now as it also feeds accurately. But I was hoping. 296 is my powder of choice for 357 mag,44 mag and 357 maximum, and I have a lot of it!
I have seen some data with 296 out of 6" barrels and it is clear that the powder isn't efficient in such a short barrel. Pressure is way down around 22,000. I was hoping that a longer barrel would get things up to speed and allow the powder to burn more completely. A 6" barrel has a phenomenal muzzle flash. Appears that it just doesn't have enough capacity in the case to do the job.
Quote from: Bruce Frank on April 18 2016 12:37:35 AM MDT
Thanks! I really like the way that 296 feeds and I have settled on Power Pistol right now as it also feeds accurately. But I was hoping. 296 is my powder of choice for 357 mag,44 mag and 357 maximum, and I have a lot of it!
Me too. I like 296 for a lot of my magnum, and even some rifle loads, but it just won't work for 10mm.
Yep, agreed the 296/H110 take too much space and are too slow for the 10 and also for the 9x25Dillon. AA#9 was about as dense a charge to yield some high numbers. Trying to find a balance of powder charge to performance yield has been very interesting with the 10mm. I am liking what I see with BE-86 in some loadings...
296/H110 is the std. for 300blk these days. (Supersonic or sub sonic) I agree that 10mm case is too small to work
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk