296 / H110 still published with different data

I don't know if it's true or not but I was told that it was because 296 was around awhile ago and Hogdgon changed the formula for it when they bought Winchester Powder(or however that all went down). So Some loading manuals still use the same data for the older formula.
It makes sense and scares me.

"Why is it that even though 296 and H110 have been acknowledged by the manufacturer's as being the same animal, that the data is still different? "

Because the firearms used to develop the data are different; there's a message in that. And your's is different too.

We must always remember that those who publish loads are telling us what they found in their testing with the equipment they were using. Yes, we should expect to find some variations in data from different sources and from different time periods.

This is why we are each responsible to "WORK UP OUR OWN LOADS". The data gives us a safe place to start.

I suppose those powders are the same, but not at all surprised that you can find different data. Start low and work up.

James2 said:

Start low and work up.

Click to expand...

With W296/H110, start low is at the bottom of the published data, not below it. There is enough information out there that W296/H110 does not play well in light charges.

Also, not all data is re-tested every time a new manual is published, so data could be older.

Also, different lots of powder can yield different results.

cfullgraf hits it on the head.

The listed 'Maximums' aren't a challenge. A serious suggested safety limit.
Start at a known safe point and work to a loading that meets or approaches what you are wanting from that combination. That combination doesn't do it, try a different mix.

Test the same loading in two weapons that are 'the same' and velocities/accuracies will not be the same.
Most 'Book data' is from test bed non-weapons, fired under very controlled conditions.

Another main reason why some manuals still show different charge weights and velocities for W296 and H110 is, the data is old and was not retested. Many reloading manuals merely copy the old data to the new manual and the only new data is for new cartridges released since the last manual or in the case of new powders that have been developed.

For example, it would be financially impossible to retest all the bullet weights with all powders for the .357 Magnum. They will however test a new bullet like the 160gr Hornady FTX bullet. They will also do tests for a new powder like Alliant's Powder Pro 300-MP in the .357 Magnum. That data will be new while the data for powders and bullets that have been around for many years is just copied.

Its irritating, isn't it ?

All I can say to them though is thanks ! Everyone grabs the 296 because its listed first in a lot of manuals, and leaves the 110 for me to swoop in and snag- its happened more than once... and right in the heart of our current crisis ta boot.

Sometimes, igonrance is beneficial bliss.

What gets me is not so much that they give different results and load recipes for H110 and W296, but that there sometimes is such a big difference in those results/recipes. Sometimes as much as 2 grains difference in start and or max loads in handgun caliber cases using only 22-26 grains of powder. This means that there is much more variance between powder lot numbers than I wish to believe, or that there are other variables that make more difference than we think. Since the test barrels, projectiles and primers are always the same, where does that much of a difference come from if not the lot variance? You would think the air temperature in the lab would be always about the same, and their loading techniques top notch.

A couple things about canister powders.

1. Canister powders are blended from bulk powders to reach a specified burn rate by the companies producing and packaging the canister powder. Using the same bulk powder doesn't necessarily equal the same burn rate of the 2 different labeled canister grades though they may be very close.

2. Hodgdon is marketing Winchester and IMR powders by agreement and not necessarily using Hodgdon only specs or even producing and packaging the canister powders labeled as Winchester, IMR, etc.

Probably due to variations between lots of powder and testing equipment. That's what safety margins are for.

Its interesting that when we were debating whether or not paper manuals are still needed this is something that most people overlooked. Load data in the manuals many times is copied from another source, not tested by the manual publisher, and at times is very much outdated.

W296/H110 is (sic) the same powder, varying only in lot-to-lot variations

The difference in Loading Manuals come from:

- Different test lots
- Different primers (even though magnum)
- Different cases/volumes
- Different bullet designs (even of the same weight)
- Different shank depth/effective case volume under the bullet at OAL.

You have to check all those factors before deciding how to play the game -- then write it down as you go.


.

MEHavey said:

W296/H110 is (sic) the same powder, varying only in lot-to-lot variations

The difference in Loading Manuals come from:

- Different test lots
- Different primers (even though magnum)
- Different cases/volumes
- Different bullet designs (even of the same weight)
- Different shank depth/effective case volume under the bullet at OAL.

You have to check all those factors before deciding how to play the game -- then write it down as you go.


.

Click to expand...

Yes...but my question was, is there that much difference between lots, that the same manuals using the same components, same test barrels and equipment, using the same reloading procedures have the starting loads for one at or above max for the other, as I have seen in several well known manuals. In other words, other than the day they were tested, the only other variable in the equation is the lot #. H110/W296 has a narrow parameter of many times 2 grains from min to max, and is heavily cautioned by Hodgdon and other published manuals NOT to reduce. Then a manual shows a start charge of 2 gr less for one than the other. Is it the variance between lot numbers or the testing itself that leads to such a variation?

H110/W296 is a primary powder for all of my magnum loads. It works well for me and along with IMR4227 is about all I use for those applications. I have also known for years that it IS the same powder altho many manuals do not treat it as such. Many time recommending one over the other. I have found it to be very consistent from lot to lot using similar charges run over a chrono. Since I don't load to max, I generally don't redo workups any more when changing lots because of this, altho I used to. I found that the small differences in lot numbers is no more than the difference between ammo loaded in different batches on different days and many times that is no more than SD of any one batch. One reason those big differences in published manuals makes me go hmmmmmmmmm.

If Hodgdon lists both H110/W296 with the same charges per bullet type and weight, and they do, that's good enough for me. I rarely use the H110 that I have, mainly in my 410 with specialty heavy loads.


NCsmitty

Maybe the way load books get written is:
1) They work up what load gets a bullet stuck in the bore and what load blows up the gun. They average the two, then fine tune the load with a Ouija board or a dart board, and then get final approval from a committee of attorneys.

2) They copy them from another load book

3) They just make them up.

In the above first process, the "W296" was a bigger target on the dart board than the "H110" that was harder to hit.

Like wise with the Ouija board, the fingers were drawn toward the round curves of the 96.

But the attorneys always put H110 first, because that was alphabetical, and thought H110 would be named first in a law suit.

When loads were being made up, those drinking whiskey loved to yell, "WINCHESTER TWO NINDEE SIX!!", so it came first again.

"Speer 12" H110 heavier loads suggest they spent more on attorneys than on Whiskey.

Yes and I'm sure that Clark, with his Quickload software and reckless abandon, knows better than all the pros. Please.

"...the same manuals using the same components, same test barrels and equipment, using the same
reloading procedures have the starting loads for one at or above max for the other, as I have seen in
several well known manuals...."

Click to expand...

Interesting. Can you give us an example in which this is the case (and we have identical info on the case, primer, bullet type/manufacturer, and OAL?

CraigC
Location: West Tennessee
Yes and I'm sure that Clark, with his Quickload software and reckless abandon, knows better than all the pros. Please.

Click to expand...

I know science and engineering, that is how I made my fortune.
And load books are neither. They are recipe books.
Asking why a load book has different loads for the same powder is like asking how a cook book can have different recipes for different brands of chocolate chip cookies, when they are really the same chips.

1) They tried some stuff
2) They copied some stuff
3) They made up some stuff.

And you bought it.

...that is how I made my fortune.

Click to expand...

And you are probably the luckiest person I know of to still be alive.

I guess you know better than Phil Sharpe, Elmer Keith, John Lachuk, P.O. Ackley, F.W. Mann, Julian Hatcher and every other authority who's ever written a book on the subject. Why haven't you written a book to share your ahem, knowledge, with the rest of the world? Or are you just satisfied sharing it with anonymous internet folks, as an anonymous internet folk, one post at a time?

MEHavey said:

Interesting. Can you give us an example in which this is the case (and we have identical info on the case, primer, bullet type/manufacturer, and OAL?

Click to expand...

Sure...Speer Manual #14, page 1002. 300 gr GDHP using identical components, loading to same OAL and using the same test barrel and testing equipment.

H110...... start 34 gr to a 36gr max.

W296...... start 36gr to a 38 gr max.


Lyman Manual #49, page 377. 225 gr Speer JHP using identical components, loading to same OAL and using the same test barrel and testing equipment.

H110..... start 25 gr to a 26 gr max.

W296 ..... start 24 gr to a 25 gr max.

There are many more out there with similar ironies. The Speer book has some of the most variances from others I have seen, altho there are similar differences in the Hornady and Lyman manuals. Start loads in one exceeding max loads of the other. Also differences of start loads more than the 3% reduction recommended by Hodgdon.

Ain't like I lose sleep over this. As I said I use H110/W296 all the time and have found their safe and accurate levels in all of my magnum handgun/carbines. Just one'na those things.

Here's a partial answer, in the pressure effects of only a 3% burn-rate variation between lots of the same powder.



Now if the two testing sessions used different cases in addition to different testing times and powder lots.....

i hear that St. Marks Powder, which is owned by General Dynamics and makes military powders, sells the powder to Hodgdon and Winchester. It is blended by St. Marks to attempt a consistent burning rate, put into drums and sold to both powder brands.

I worked for 4 years at the Rocket Research center in the 1980s, and it got bought out by the above big company, and I will be getting a pension from them starting in 3 years.
They kept offering me discount shot gun shells and I never got them, but I am going to cash those pension checks.