H110 Winchester 296


PDA






scythefwd
December 5, 2013, 05:18 AM
Seeing in several forums that these are the same powders. hodgdons load data on their website seem to agree with that. Anyone have an official acknowledgement of this from hodgdon?

If you enjoyed reading about "H110 Winchester 296" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
steveno
December 5, 2013, 06:04 AM
at one time I think there was a statement on the hodgdon website that they are the same or at least now they are the same. I always used the H-110 data for H-110 loads and if I was to use 296 I would use 296 data

scythefwd
December 5, 2013, 06:29 AM
Steve - Thats my intent.. but I like being informed. If you look at the 357 mag, 158gr xtp load data on data.hodgdon.com, you'll see its the exact same velocities, coal, and charge data for those two powders.

evan price
December 5, 2013, 06:33 AM
Ask Hodgdon via their customer service link on the website. I will confirm that they are the same powder as sold recently, but I'm just some anonymous yokel on the internet.

Grumulkin
December 5, 2013, 06:43 AM
If you buy Hodgdon's annual reloading magazine, you will find that many different loads that use H110 have IDENTICAL loads for Winchester 296. The same is true for Winchester 760/H414 and one or two other powders.

If they weren't the same powder, it would be impossible for that to happen. I contacted Hodgdon years ago about H110/Winchester 296 and they confirmed they were the same powder. They probably get a little tired of answering the same question over and over.

scythefwd
December 5, 2013, 06:54 AM
Grum - sent that email yesterday lol.

osteodoc08
December 5, 2013, 09:51 AM
Same same.

While were talking pistol powders....

HP-38/W231 also same same

Several charts floating around like the one below

ADI Name Hodgdon Name
AS25BP / Trail Boss Trail Boss
AS30N Clays
AS50N International Clays
AS70N Universal Clays
AR2205 IMR 4227 - H4227
AR2207 H4198
AR2215 IMR 4198
AR2219 H322
AR2206H H4895
AR2208 Varget
AR2209 H4350
AR2213 H4831
AR2213SC H4831SC
AR2217 H1000
AR2218 H50BMG
AR2225 Retumbo
Benchmark2 BenchMark

Winchester Name Hodgdon Name
Win 231 HP38
Win 296 H110

RWS Rhino Name Alliant Name
Rhino 10 (RP10) Rl-10x
Rhino 15 (RP15) Rl-15
Rhino 19 (RP19) Rl-19
Rhino 22 (RP22) RL-22
Rhino 25 (RP25) Rl-25

RWS Rhino Name Norma Name
RP9 Norma 200
RP11 Norma 201
RP14 Norma 202
RP15 Norma 203b
RP18 Norma 204
RP22 Norma MRP
RP30 Norma MRP-2


Norma Name Alliant Name
Norma 203b RL-15
Norma MRP Rl-22

Winchester Name Alliant Name
WXR Rl-22

scythefwd
December 5, 2013, 11:01 AM
nice chart man.

So next question.. how well does it meter?

rondog
December 5, 2013, 11:03 AM
Isn't most gunpowder made by St. Marks Powder Co. in St. Marks, FL, and merely marketed under various brand names? I've read that before, anyway.

http://www.wwpowder.com/history.html

ReloaderFred
December 5, 2013, 11:38 AM
Powders are made all over the world. I've got powders that were made in Australia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Canada, Australia and the U.S. A lot of the Winchester/Hodgdon powders are made by St. Marks Powder Company, but since it's a "world market", the only way you'll know where your powder is actually made is to look at the fine print on the jug.

Hope this helps.

Fred

Rule3
December 5, 2013, 12:01 PM
Seeing in several forums that these are the same powders. hodgdons load data on their website seem to agree with that. Anyone have an official acknowledgement of this from hodgdon?

It is one of the most often asked questions, posts, threads discussions about powder on the "net"

I feel sorry for the folks at Hodgdon.

It is exactly the same powder. If a search is done you will find this to be true and documentation from St Marks Powder.

Jim Watson
December 5, 2013, 12:59 PM
As Fred says, powder is sourced from all over.

Accurate Arms was the worst about changing suppliers without notice. You could get the same label you were accustomed to and the powder would have an entirely different appearance. Because they were getting it someplace else and while the burn rate was close enough to use the same load data, the chemistry and granulation were different.

Hodgdon started out selling WWII surplus powder, had new powder made here there and yonder when surplus ran out, and has over the past several years been acquiring other companies. Hodgdon bought the US DISTRIBUTORSHIPS for IMR and Winchester powders. They do not own the powder mills in Canada and Florida, those are, or were the last time I looked them up, owned by General Dynamics.

For a while they kept the lineups separate, IMR coming out of Canada, H made in Australia, but have been confusing the issue with recent changes. IMR 8208 XBR is made in Australia. It gets worse, the H4227 label has been dropped but what you get in the IMR can is made in Australia. I think 4198 has gone the same way. Trail Boss is branded IMR but made in Australia.

osteodoc08
December 5, 2013, 01:46 PM
H110/296 meters very well for me, as all the ball powders I've used in the past.

Some of the extruded rifle powders I end up undercharging with the measure and trickling to meet the final weight.

243winxb
December 5, 2013, 02:17 PM
http://www.hodgdon.com/msds.html A MSDS may tell you who made the powder, but not always.

rodregier
December 5, 2013, 03:48 PM
I have a letter from Winchester on their letterhead from many years ago confirming the equivalency between H110 and W296 in addition to some other powder pairs.

Keep in mind there is a modest amount of lot to lot variance.
Also, loading and testing equipment can vary which will also account for some variance
in what is considered a maximum load by different responsible testers.

Rule3
December 5, 2013, 05:04 PM
From Australian Handloaders Guide

http://www.adi-powders.com.au/handloaders-guide/equivalents.asp

The only difference between HP38 and Win 231 along with H110 and Win 296 is the name. Generally the Winchester name commands a little higher price

H110 and Win 296 meter like water.

scythefwd
December 5, 2013, 05:25 PM
is that to say it leaks everywhere and it wont meter accurately at all because it slips right around cylinder?

Rule3
December 5, 2013, 05:34 PM
is that to say it leaks everywhere and it wont meter accurately at all because it slips right around cylinder?

:)No I meant it, as it meters very well.

It is a fine ball powder I have used it in a RCBS Uniflow, The Lee Pro Auto Disc and yes, even the lowly Lee Perfect powder measure, Some folks complain that leaks but they have the screw to lose,

It does require a magnum primer or a Winchester Large Pistol which is good for regular and magnum.

I load a lot of 30 Caliber Carbine ammo with it.

OH, and here is the verification you requested;) 2006

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=186089

cfullgraf
December 5, 2013, 08:30 PM
is that to say it leaks everywhere and it wont meter accurately at all because it slips right around cylinder?

In a drum style powder measures like a Uniflow or Redding 10-X, no leakage to speak of.

Some of the Lee measures leak if the wiper or seals are not set correctly.

The slide bar powder dispenser on my MEC 600jrs leaks W296 fairly badly if I do not get the tension correct on reservoir bottle and then it still leaks a little.

Even with the little leakage, they all meter very well.

I do not know about the Dillon measures or the Lyman 55.

Hope this helps.

ArchAngelCD
December 5, 2013, 10:48 PM
Ball (spherical) powders meter like water and I like using them.

As said above, W296 and H110 are identical confirmed by Hodgdon and St. Mark's Powder.
BUT, you should confirm that for yourself because also like said above, never trust anyone on the Internet for important information like that.

Just for your records, there are a handful of Hodgdon powder which are identical to Winchester powders. They are:
W231 = HP-38
W296 = H110
W540 = HS-6
W571 = HS-7 (both discontinued)
W760 = H414
In addition, WAP = Silhouette

Call, write or email Hodgdon and have them send you first hand information...

Rule3
December 6, 2013, 12:33 AM
Come on ARCH, it's been verified a million times.You and I know from the other forum how many times it was bantered about:D

The link I posted shows the email form Hodgdon.

buck460XVR
December 6, 2013, 12:31 PM
Steve - Thats my intent.. but I like being informed. If you look at the 357 mag, 158gr xtp load data on data.hodgdon.com, you'll see its the exact same velocities, coal, and charge data for those two powders.


A few years back, because of that info I contacted Hodgdon and asked if H110/W296 were the same powder. I was told in fact they are the same powder only labeled differently. A coupla years or so back, I contacted them and asked the same thing about H4227 and IMR4227 because published info was the same. I was told no, they are not the same and one should not use info from one to reload the other. (even tho it was THEIR info showing exactly the same charge rates and pressures for both). Few months back I e-mailed them again with the same question and was told this time....yes they are the same, altho we do not distribute H4227 anymore. Come to find out the new IMR4227 is the old H4227 renamed and the old IMR4227 is what was discontinued. :uhoh:

454PB
December 6, 2013, 03:15 PM
There is a full length article in the 2012 Hodgdon Annual Reloading Manual about H-110/WW296 and how they were manufactured by WW and distributed by both WW and Hodgdon. The "father" of H-110 was actually WC820, which was originally developed during WW II for the .30 Carbine.

gamestalker
December 6, 2013, 07:02 PM
I've been a big fan of 296 and H110 and have been using it for several decades with super great performance.

As for the difference between them, back when I started using them the data conflicted, but I think they might have been two difference animals back then? I don't really know though, because I only load with current published data. Now days it's been confirmed that they are the same powder. But even so, I don't deliberately mix them.

GS

454PB
December 6, 2013, 09:49 PM
Not according to the article. They have always been the same.

The only difference would be lot to lot variation.

gamestalker
December 7, 2013, 01:01 PM
I was simply under the impression they were at one time two different powders based on the Speer#10, and a few other published sources that showed two different charges, using the same components, bullet, primer, and brass. And now days, or since we have been provided with the fact that they are the same, so why were they treat as being two different powders back then, and by most, if not all published sources?

I'm not arguing that they are, or are not the same. I'm just curious why they used to have two very different charge tables with the same components?

GS

steveno
December 7, 2013, 01:45 PM
if the 296 is still in the metal can I would definitely consider that a different powder than H-110. I don't remember the year when 296 started coming in the plastic can

rondog
December 7, 2013, 02:09 PM
I was simply under the impression they were at one time two different powders based on the Speer#10, and a few other published sources that showed two different charges, using the same components, bullet, primer, and brass. And now days, or since we have been provided with the fact that they are the same, so why were they treat as being two different powders back then, and by most, if not all published sources?

I'm not arguing that they are, or are not the same. I'm just curious why they used to have two very different charge tables with the same components?


I'd say that it's probably a safe bet that, in the past, they WERE two different powders made by two different companies. But now they're not. Corporate mergers, ya know.

Jim Watson
December 7, 2013, 02:45 PM
Uh, no.

H110 and W296 are manufactured right where they have been since 1969, in St Marks, FL.
The plant is now owned by General Dynamics. (As is the IMR plant which has been in Canada since about 1976.)

Back before Hodgdon got the distributorship, data for the two powders was different because the two companies had apparently standardized on slightly different canister lot specifications. Now that Hodgdon gets powder by the barrel and packages both brands out of the same lot, that does not happen.

conrad427
December 7, 2013, 03:12 PM
I always check rifle loads in my manuals when H-414 and 760 are listed together. Rarely are they ever the same, must be because of lot to lot variations.
The bullet companies must know that they are the same but test anyway in the name of thoroughness.

ReloaderFred
December 7, 2013, 03:27 PM
Jim Watson is correct. Both have been made by the same plant for longer than most on this board have been reloading.

As for different data, that's simply because different loads were worked up at different times, and possibly by different technicians in the ballistics lab. I've been in the ballistics labs of both Sierra Bullets and Nosler Bullets, and they each start their load development from the beginning and then work up.

You can take your own components and work up a load, then do the same thing a year later and possibly get different results for the same components. Nothing is absolute when it comes to reloading data.

Hope this helps.

Fred

rfwobbly
December 7, 2013, 08:36 PM
Powders are made all over the world. I've got powders that were made in Australia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Canada, Australia and the U.S.

Fred -
You forgot Finland !! :D

ReloaderFred
December 7, 2013, 08:45 PM
rfwobbly,

I didn't forget Finland. I just don't have any VV powders in my inventory. I also don't have any powders from Russia, Isreal or Brazil, but they exist.

Hope this helps.

Fred

MuffinMaster
December 8, 2013, 12:29 AM
I wonder if this is an authoritative source?

http://www.ilrc.ucf.edu/powders/sample_detail.php?powder_id=35

http://www.ilrc.ucf.edu/powders/sample_detail.php?powder_id=80

If this site is then they are NOT the exact same. FBI testing indicates different chemical and physical properties. Last updates for both of these powders is 2009.

They might be and seem to be similar in use however. Could this be what Hodgdon was attesting to and others are quoting?

Jim Watson
December 8, 2013, 03:14 AM
Might have been an authoritative source when Olin still owned Primex at St Marks and General Dynamics and Winchester had not yet handed distribution over to Hodgdon.
The microphotograph is dated 2009, but the sample was obtained in 2005. That is slower than my old agency's lab.

And if the FBI can't find nitrocellulose in smokeless powder, they aren't such hot authorities.

ljnowell
December 8, 2013, 04:46 AM
I wonder if this is an authoritative source?

If they claim that they are different when the manufacturer of said powder says they are the same, then no, they are not authoritative.

Who could possibly be more right than Hodgdon themselves??

Salmoneye
December 8, 2013, 07:56 AM
As pointed out, the only difference between 296 and 110 is lot to lot variations...

If you go by what most powder manufacturers state is the acceptable range of +/-3%, this could mean a lot of one powder may vary as much as 6% when compared to a lot of the other, or different lot of the same powder...

This is why we drop back and work up when we open a new lot of powder...

243winxb
December 8, 2013, 09:32 AM
ATK and General Dynamics Form "American Powder Company", Munitions Propellant Joint Venture. June 2001. http://www.generaldynamics.com/news/press-releases/detail.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1811=13574 General Dynamics to Acquire Primex Technologies, Inc. Nov. 2000. (Win/Olin) http://www.generaldynamics.com/news/press-releases/detail.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1811=13199 Years ago,1960's or 70's?? i tested both for the 44 mag. Powder did not look the same, one being darker than the other. W296 produced better accuracy. About 2 years ago, i used up the last of the old H110. At the time, i compared both powders again. Results, W296 was more accurate, wish i had loged the info, but didnt.

MuffinMaster
December 8, 2013, 01:16 PM
If hodgdon wishes to be authoritative on their own powder then let them publish this question and answer on their site ..... somewhere. It is not like it has not been asked and besides it's not really apples and apples is it? It is more like explosives and explosives. I am not a lawyer but if I was I am sure I could explain the difference between apples and explosives in civil court terms.

Stating that some customer service manager at Hodgdon with a one word email response is more authoritative than the FBI ballistics lab is a little much for me. It is possible that this web site is might be fabricating this FBI report however. The report maybe too old to be relevant as well. I believe the contact info for the FBI person who help created this info is present on this site.

I do believe that these powder are so similar, if not the same, that the current published load data is interchangeable from what I have read. I base my decision not on an authoritative source but on what I have read and how I FEEL. Hodgdon should be an authoritative source for this question but the way they handle this speaks volumes. If this was an off the wall obscure question then their response would be fine. Why is Hodgdon not putting this question to bed by publishing this answer? They could you know. Now lets suppose that a Hodgdon spy encounters this thread one day and decides to further his carreer a little. At the next "new idea" meeting he proposes to publish this answer as well as the others (hp38-win231 for example). Will the marketing managers attending for the various powder lines all start coughing loudly.

If I discover one day on the range that I am wrong, I hope I will be able to FEEL my way back to my car.

buck460XVR
December 8, 2013, 02:04 PM
I base my decision not on an authoritative source but on what I have read and how I FEEL.

If I discover one day on the range that I am wrong, I hope I will be able to FEEL my way back to my car.


Seems regardless of what firearm forum it's on, every time this question comes up, someone expresses in their opinion, that the two powders are not the same.....even when folks like me, have gotten a definitive answer from Hodgdon that they are. Folks are entitled to their opinions, but that does not make them fact. I too will take Hodgdon's word on the products they distribute, and will accept their word that the differences others see are just the differences between production lots. If at some time in the future I need to find my way back to my vehicle, after a day at the range, I hope to do it knowing the facts about where I, the owner parked it, and not by feel. If at some point in the future Hodgdon tells me the two powders are not the same, I again will accept their answer as opposed to internet opinion. But that's just me. Others are free to do differently if they please.

243winxb
December 8, 2013, 02:18 PM
The current MSDS lists ST Marks Powder as the manufacture of both H110 & 296. :D http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n420/joe1944usa/Saved%20stuff-private/horse2.gif

MuffinMaster
December 8, 2013, 02:38 PM
Taken from the Hodgdon web FAQ site:

Question: Is hodgdon H110 the exact same as Winchester 296

Answer: Call us and we will tell you

I might be the only one but I FEEL that is a little unprofessional for this question. Unless I call Hodgden to swap load data for these powders I have no choice but to go with my FEELING (hahaha!).

Well some might realize that I am fabricating the FAQ above. Well my answer to that is ..... EXACTLY!

ReloaderFred
December 8, 2013, 03:41 PM
I've got a great idea Muffin! Why don't you just follow the published data and not argue with people you don't know on the internet? Wouldn't that make for a better outcome for all?

I've talked in person to the people at Hodgdon at the SHOT Show every year. They say Win. 296 and H-110 are the same powder, along with HP-38 and Win. 231. Win. 571 and HS-7, both discontinued, were also the same powder, as is Winchester Action Pistol (WAP) and Ramshot Silhouette.

Now, you don't have to take that from me as gospel, or from anyone else here, but the people who distribute the powder, and are most familiar with it, say they're the same, so for me that's pretty clear.

Like I said, follow the published data for each and every powder and believe as you wish.

Hope this helps.

Fred

MuffinMaster
December 8, 2013, 04:36 PM
I do not disagree at all with Fred nor others along his vain. I agree, if that did not come across. I have not but will call hodgdon before I use H110 load data for the win296 I have.

My point is that there is no authoritative answer published that has been identified so far but there SHOULD be. This question is not trivial nor new or unheard of. Such questions if answer incorrectly could injure or worse particularly to newbies to this sport like myself. The original poster posted this question because, in short, he could not find an authoritative answer that was published. Whose fault is that? In a word "HODGDON". What bugs me the most is why. I have a dog in this fight, I shot my own ammo. I own a bottle of Win296 too. Why is Hodgdon NOT forthright and put this in writing. If there are in deed the same ... what is the risk of publishing ..... "YES".

The site I offered as a question for a source I wondered about. It is not published on a .gov space but an .edu space. It reports to be a FBI sourced. I would source a published FBI ballistics lab current report as an authoritative source. Is this that? I do not know, hence the question. In any case should I be grasping for authoritative sources on line? No, but what are we left with. A phone call.

ReloaderFred
December 8, 2013, 05:32 PM
I think you're missing the whole point here. It's not up to Hodgdon, or anyone else, to confirm or deny, that two powders are in fact the same. They're doing us all a favor by developing very expensive loading data. Of course it's to their benefit to provide it so we'll use their products, but they really don't have to do it for free.

Like I posted previously, I've been in the ballistics labs of both Sierra and Nosler. It takes a long, long time, with expensive equipment, to develop a load. It's very labor intensive, and labor and time cost money.

They're not obligated in any way to provide written proof that two powders are the same.
They've provided the loading data for both named powders, so their obligation ends right there. Just because someone asks a question, it doesn't mean you have to answer it...... If you believe it does, you've never been married!

Hope this helps.

Fred

MuffinMaster
December 8, 2013, 06:38 PM
They are not doing me a favor. I am doing them a favor by buying their powder .... period. It is a business decision in as much as buying food, gas or anything else is. It is not gratitude it takes for me to pull that trigger with a full load. Its trust and that is the bedrock of my marriage too. Not to be argumentative but I do expect more from Hodgdon. Publishing this answer is easy and they should do it. It builds trust in their products.

I am grateful to god that those of power have not yet removed my right and ability to buy, bear and use firearms. The rest will need to earn my trust.

That my story and I am sticking with it ....... for now ;-)

Walkalong
December 8, 2013, 09:30 PM
Enough.

If you enjoyed reading about "H110 Winchester 296" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!