Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

296 / H110 still published with different data

Discussion in 'Handloading and Reloading' started by gamestalker, Mar 22, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gamestalker

    gamestalker member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2008
    Messages:
    9,832
    Location:
    SW Arizona
    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? Some of spreads are rather significant too. If not for the fact that I established my loads with them a long time ago, I would probably be viewing them as two different powders.
    GS
     
  2. Broken Bottles

    Broken Bottles Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2013
    Messages:
    15
    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.
     
  3. ranger335v

    ranger335v Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,797
    "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.
     
  4. James2

    James2 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    878
    Location:
    Northern Utah
    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.
     
  5. cfullgraf

    cfullgraf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,128
    Location:
    East TN
    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.
     
  6. oldpapps

    oldpapps Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    735
    Location:
    Middle America, Mo now East of I-435
    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.
     
  7. ArchAngelCD

    ArchAngelCD Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    22,120
    Location:
    Northeast PA, USA
    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.
     
  8. blarby

    blarby Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,144
    Location:
    Calapooia Oregon
    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.
     
  9. buck460XVR

    buck460XVR Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    5,937
    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.
     
  10. gamestalker

    gamestalker member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2008
    Messages:
    9,832
    Location:
    SW Arizona
    Archangel actually answered more of my question as it was posed.
    Thanks!
     
  11. Steve C

    Steve C Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,673
    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.
     
  12. gamestalker

    gamestalker member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2008
    Messages:
    9,832
    Location:
    SW Arizona
    Blarby, I have seen the exact same thing a number of times, and also during this buying craze. I saw H110 on the shelf a month or so ago, and when I grabbed it, a guy standing near by me said, if that was 296 I would have bought it, you can have that H110, as if it's really any different. I have both, and load with both. I could care less if it's 110 or 296, they both load the same in my experience, which is to say, nicely, if you like a flame throwing wheel gun, which I do.

    I was just curious to know why there is still newer data out there that uses different start and max charges. Another one of those mysteries of reloading I guess.

    GS
     
  13. CraigC
    • Contributing Member

    CraigC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    14,744
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    Probably due to variations between lots of powder and testing equipment. That's what safety margins are for. ;)
     
  14. ljnowell

    ljnowell Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    6,193
    Location:
    The Peoples Republic of IL
    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.
     
  15. MEHavey

    MEHavey Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,294
    Location:
    virginia
    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.


    .
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2013
  16. buck460XVR

    buck460XVR Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    5,937
    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.
     
  17. NCsmitty

    NCsmitty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,325
    Location:
    North Carolina
    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
     
  18. Clark

    Clark Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    4,292
    Location:
    Where I5 meets the rain forest
    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.
     
  19. CraigC
    • Contributing Member

    CraigC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    14,744
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    Yes and I'm sure that Clark, with his Quickload software and reckless abandon, knows better than all the pros. Please. :rolleyes:
     
  20. MEHavey

    MEHavey Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,294
    Location:
    virginia
    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?
     
  21. Clark

    Clark Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    4,292
    Location:
    Where I5 meets the rain forest
    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.
     
  22. CraigC
    • Contributing Member

    CraigC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    14,744
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    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?
     
  23. buck460XVR

    buck460XVR Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    5,937
    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.
     
  24. MEHavey

    MEHavey Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,294
    Location:
    virginia
    Here's a partial answer, in the pressure effects of only a 3% burn-rate variation between lots of the same powder.

    [​IMG]

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

    Clark Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    4,292
    Location:
    Where I5 meets the rain forest
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page