Win 296 & H110

I made a very precise measurement.
I smelled them both.
They smell the same.

Hodgdon confirmed years ago that those powders are indeed the same.

AussieMike said:

G'day All,

Are these two powders exactly the same ie from the same factory? Win 296 is available to me in Australia but H110 is not. Australian Defence Industries makes H4227 and a number of Hogdon rifle powders and I just wondered whether Winchester and Hogdon shared a supplier.

Thanks,

mike

Click to expand...

Hodgdon is the exclusive distributor for all Hodgdon, IMR and Winchester powders now. There are a handful of powders they now admit have always been the same under different labels...

years ago the appearance and texture of the two was totally different and the loads were listed as different amounts. Nowadays, they are listed as the same, I can't say about he appearance as I don't have any of the newer H110 to look at.

I spoke with a tech from Hodgdons about this two years back and he said if I had the older stuff to use the older data until I used it up, then simply use the new data they had posted on their site. So far I have simply stock with the 296 so not had any issues.

It will open up a new world of recipies for you in various calibers, just follow the loading rules with it and you will be fine. It doesn't respond well to downloading.

AussieMike said:

Are these two powders exactly the same ie from the same factory? Win 296 is available to me in Australia but H110 is not. Australian Defence Industries makes H4227 and a number of Hogdon rifle powders. Thanks guys, that opens up opportunities some new loads for my Rossi 454.

mike

Click to expand...

As others have said, H110 and W296 are now the exact same powders. I might suggest that if you have access to IMR4227 that you give that a try in your .454. It too has been changed, As I understand, the "old" H4227 is now the "new" IMR 4227 and the "old" IMR 4227 has been discontinued. Either way, I prefer it to H110/W296 in my .460S&W hunting loads as it is less temperature sensitive.


BTW.......if you use IMR4227, I am not suggesting you use old reloading data for H4227. Use modern data and modern powder.

H110 and W296 have always been the same powder. It's called SMP #296 and it comes from St Marks in Florida. Always has.

I have always loved this war on powders. Reminds me of the day when we were discussing W-231 and HP38. Both claimed to be the same powder, but the load manuals give different powder charge weights.

Now we are at war with the venerable W-296 and H110. Again claimed to be the same powder. And again manuals show different powder charge weights.

I will STILL disagree with the prevailing thoughts on this and go with the load data manuals. They may be similar as in preformance, but not the same powders.

And I don't care what Hodgdon says!!

The Bushmaster said:

I have always loved this war on powders. Reminds me of the day when we were discussing W-231 and HP38. Both claimed to be the same powder, but the load manuals give different powder charge weights.

Now we are at war with the venerable W-296 and H110. Again claimed to be the same powder. And again manuals show different powder charge weights.

I will STILL disagree with the prevailing thoughts on this and go with the load data manuals. They may be similar as in preformance, but not the same powders.

And I don't care what Hodgdon says!!

Click to expand...

If you look at the online version reloading data they are the same. Hundreds of threads and phone calls to Hodgdon by others, Hodgdon even posted on another forum.

They are the same only the names have been changed to protect the innocent.

http://data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp

They are the same powder. Call St Marks Powder in Florida and talk with them. They'll set you straight.

The Bushmaster said:

I have always loved this war on powders. Reminds me of the day when we were discussing W-231 and HP38. Both claimed to be the same powder, but the load manuals give different powder charge weights.

Now we are at war with the venerable W-296 and H110. Again claimed to be the same powder. And again manuals show different powder charge weights.

I will STILL disagree with the prevailing thoughts on this and go with the load data manuals. They may be similar as in preformance, but not the same powders.

And I don't care what Hodgdon says!!

Click to expand...

Do you really think in today's litigious society any company would tell you one powder is the same as another without it being true?

You can believe what you want but it's not a good idea to tell possible new reloaders who are reading this thread the powders are not the same when the company who distributes them (Hodgdon) and the factory who makes them (St. Marks) are lying! You should keep your ignorance to yourself when it comes to important FACTS that can cause others harm.

The difference in load data that you see is the difference in the lot-to-lot variation in the powder.

Powder manufacture and the chemistry involved with it are as much an art, as a science. Getting the exact same results every time is tough.

As production equipment has been replaced through the years, the lot-to-lot consistency has gotten better, and better.

Also, when Winchester was still the distributer for the powder, they did their own lab testing and used different equipment and techniques than Hodgdon, hence the difference in their results......

Heck, if you switch from Winchester primers to CCI primers, and switch bullets from Remington JHP's, to Speer Gold Dots, you see a similar change in velocities/max. powder charges.....

RhinoDefense

H110 and W296 have always been the same powder. It's called SMP #296 and it comes from St Marks in Florida. Always has.

Click to expand...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_10_50/ai_n6180926/

My son tells me the way to get facts is from Wikipedia.
He says if you contribute info to wiki, you will need references, so you should get your own web page, state your facts, and use yourself as a reference.
In the nicest way, I try to ask people what they believe and why they believe it.
When people pay me for info, they often ask for "source data", which means raw measurements.
We don't get source data in load books.

The following Winchester/Hodgdon powders are the same.

Win 231 = HP-38
Win 296 = H110
Win 540 = HS-6
Win 571 = HS-7
Win 760 = H414

Cheers!

To add on if you have some really old powders laying around used for shotguns.

Win 452AA = WST
Win 540 = WSF

W540 is HS6, not WSF. WSF is WSX #170.

Clark, after years and years of going through these topics on forums, I've largely given up spoon feeding information to people that don't have the energy or intelligence to look it up themselves.

W540 is HS6, not WSF. WSF is WSX #170.

Click to expand...

Not according to the Win load manuals I have. I used W540 in the 70's and 80's for 20ga shotgun powder. If you pull the later load books the loads are exactly the same as WSF.

AussieMike,

Look at Hodgdon's on line site and check out the MSDS section. See where Hodgdon lists their powder with an ADI number next to it. Then compare the ADI online data to the Hodgdon data and you will see that Hodgdon is using the ADI data as is. You will find that Hodgdon is using quite a bit of ADI powder and rebranding it here in the States. 4227 is only one of the powders that is rebranded. There are several former Winchester powders (St. Marks) that this also applies to; they have already been discussed.

However, IMR vs. Hodgdon powders.......if the IMR powder has an MSDS from Canada, it is distinctly different from the Hodgdon powder with the same number in almost every case.