H-110 and WW-296 are the same.

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sport45

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2004
Messages
2,783
Location
Houston, TX
In case anyone was wondering....

I emailed Hodgdon today to ask if H110 and W296 were the same.

Are H-110 and Winchester 296 the same stuff? This question has been bandied around for years. I though maybe you could put it to rest. An addition to your FAQ with this topic would be helpful.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

The reply I received a couple hours later from their Customer Satisfaction Manager was short and to the point.

They are the same
Click to expand...
 
Can you post the full email headers of the reply they sent to you for verification?

It will look something like the following. This is from GMail.

X-Gmail-Received: f83bfdc0b2314731f93a39d22930037a14008c16
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: by 10.49.38.12 with SMTP id q12cs63386nfj;
Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:01:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.54.156.14 with SMTP id d14mr1149428wre;
Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:01:34 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from mail2.wellbuiltnetworks.net (wellbuiltnetworks.net [209.51.144.72])
by mx.gmail.com with SMTP id 35si712865wra.2006.02.28.14.01.34;
Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:01:34 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: neutral (gmail.com: 209.51.144.72 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected])
Received: (qmail 11977 invoked by uid 398); 28 Feb 2006 22:02:20 -0000
Date: 28 Feb 2006 22:02:20 -0000
To: [email protected]
Subject: Reply to post 'Ithaca back in business - in Ohio'
X-PHP-Script: thehighroad.org/showthread.php for 130.191.17.218
X-PHP-Script: thehighroad.org/showthread.php for 130.191.17.218
From: "THR" <[email protected]>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
 
I've never seen a header quite like that. Here's a full cut and paste of the email. I'm just deleting my name for what it's worth.

Subject: RE: H-110 Powder
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:36:47 -0600
From: "Help Account" <[email protected]> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To:

They are the same

Mike Daly
Customer Satisfaction Manager
Hodgdon Powder Company/ IMR Powder Company

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 1:04 PM
To: Help Account
Subject: H-110 Powder


Are H-110 and Winchester 296 the same stuff? This question has been bandied around for years. I though maybe you could put it to rest. An addition to your FAQ with this topic would be helpful.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

How do I get all the information you listed from Yahoo mail?

You don't think I made this up, do you?
 
maybe they are the same but I think it is smart that you only use H-110 as listed in a reloading manual and 296 where it is listed. just because you have one powder and the manual shows another doesn't mean you can substitute them. just my opinion
 
X-Apparently-To: [email protected] via 66.163.178.141; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:42:16 -0800
X-Originating-IP: [204.181.36.130]
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Authentication-Results: mta110.mail.mud.yahoo.com from=hodgdon.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
Received: from 204.181.36.130 (EHLO hdgsvr3.INT.HODGDON.COM) (204.181.36.130) by mta110.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:42:16 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C63CA6.B1BA9FCE"
Subject: RE: H-110 Powder
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:36:47 -0600
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: H-110 Powder
Thread-Index: AcY8mb3DJBbEgULzTW+DpQLzLOB11gADO+1A
From: "Help Account" <[email protected]> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: "xxxx x" <[email protected]>
Content-Length: 966


Header corrected on edit.
 
Last edited:
maybe they are the same but I think it is smart that you only use H-110 as listed in a reloading manual and 296 where it is listed. just because you have one powder and the manual shows another doesn't mean you can substitute them. just my opinion
Click to expand...

I see no reason now not to use them interchangeably. The testing differences result from (I think in this order):

Different test apparatus
Different primers
Different bullets
Different powder lots

It's the same as any other powder. You'll find different data for any powder when looking at more than one source.
 
Sorry Sport45...I gotta agree with Steveno. I had this fight about W-231 and another powder. I will never substatute a powder for another unless it is listed together. and I have never seen that yet.:)
 
Well, when I was working up loads for my SRH .44mag and a S&W 686.357mag I tried both H110 and 296. Got way better results with H110. Now, this could be attributed to different lots, but......I've been sticking with H110 for over 15 years.
 
Sorry Sport45...I gotta agree with Steveno. I had this fight about W-231 and another powder. I will never substatute a powder for another unless it is listed together. and I have never seen that yet.
Click to expand...

Since Winchester signed a license agreement with Hodgdon Powder Company we may start seeing that now that they're under one roof.

Everyone should do whatever makes them comfortable. I had heard the powders were the same and I asked the folks who should know. I shared the information I received. I won't try to defend the answer, just that I relayed the information accurately.
 
Sport45, to view the email header from Yahoo accounts, just open the message in your browser, and you'll see a link in the bottom right hand corner to "Full Headers" beside the "Previous | Next |"

The following headers are the important ones, verifying the source of the email.
Return-Path:
Authentication-Results:
X-Originating-IP:
From:
Reply-to:

For the record, I'm on your side in this debate. I've used 296 and 110 interchangeably with no differences, other than potential lot differences for a few years now. I'm just getting good solid proof for the naysayers out there. :)

If you'll look carefully at the reloading manuals, you will notice anywhere from a 0.0gr to a 0.3gr max differences in the recipes between the two powders. That much(little) variance can be attributed to lot-to-lot variances. I've seen upwards of close to 0.5gr variances required for the same velocity from different lots. Hence the reason commercial manufacturers usually have to adjust powder charges from lot to lot of powder. For proof, just pull the bullet and weigh the powder of otherwise identical ammunition, but from significantly different lots. Far enough apart to be comfortable knowing that the powder is from different lots. You'll notice 0.2 to 0.6gr differences in most cases, at least with Winchester and Remington factory loads.
 
I corrected the full header in my previous post. I never knew you could get so much out of Yahoo.

You
Always
Have
Other
Options

Yahoo!
 
H-110 and WW-296 are the same???

H-110 and WW-296 are the same.
Click to expand...

But not necesarily idnetical.

Here's the way it was explained in an article I read once, and it made sense.

Powder manufacturers produce powder in bulk and sell it to their customers, both ammunition manufacturers and repackagers. These bulk lots have substantial differences in burn rate from batch to batch.

The ammo manufacturers determine their load in their balistics laboratory for each batch of powder. The load for one batch usually being different than the load for another batch. They do not load their ammo like a handloader with a recepie of X amount of powder.

The powder companies package for commercial reloading use is by necessity a much more consistent product in burn rate. The canister powders are blended to produce a burn rate to a stringent specification. This is why you and I can load our ammo from a manual and get consistent results year after year with different cans of powder manufactured and purchased at different times. As we all know you should rework up your loads after buying a new container of power from a different batch but canister powder remains consistant enough to use the same data and only occasionally needing small tweeks in load charges.

So while H110 and W296 is the same bulk powder there obviously must be a slight difference in the burn rate that the two compainies blend their powder to achieve. If the powders truely had identical burn rate specifications then their data would be identical rather than just very similar.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.:)
 
Alright guys, I confirmed that the email did in fact come from Hodgdon.

Reference the IP address that the email came to him from (X-Originating-IP 204.181.36.130), you can verify it at the following link by looking at the "OrgName:" parameter.

http://samspade.org/t/lookat?a=204.181.36.130


Steve C, you can use 296 and 110 as interchangeably as you can different lots of 110 or 296 exclusively. You are always supposed to start low and work your way up, especially when using a different lot... of the same powder. They ARE the SAME, as in their manufacturing recipe is _identical_. Just different lots! What makes the identical recipes different are atmospheric conditions on the day that the powder is made. Humidity, barometric pressure, etc change daily. So the same rules apply. The lot that the reloading manual editor had on hand is most assuredly a different lot than you have. That's why you, once again, reduce then work your way up.
 
Hmmm, Mitsubishi makes cards for Dodge, they are the same, but not identical. The Talon and the Eclipse.

Hodgen makes powder for Winchester. They are the same but, as with powder from the same manufacturer, lots can vary by as much as 16% according to Modern Reloading.

I'm sure they are safe, but most will probibly not agreee.

This is going to join the myriad of other debates that have nothing to do with facts, just how people 'feel'.
 
Neither Winchester (any more) nor Hodgdon (except for Pyrodex and 777) manufacture their own powder. Their Ball/Sperical powders come from St Marks Powder in St Marks, Florida; now owned by General Dynamics. There is no doubt that H110 and W296 come off the same production line. There are just, as previously posted, differences from lot to lot, from lab to lab, from bullet to bullet, and from brass to brass that give different load data. And, maybe, like Steve says, differences in vendor specifications.

My present supply of HP38 is about two tenths of a grain faster - lower charge weight - in .45 ACP than my last can of W231. Lot number, age (the 231 was in a metal can, not the recent plastic), or detail specification? I dunno, I just set the powder measure to make my chronograph read like I want it to. But I don't load to the max.

DuPont/IMR always says that they make IMR 4831 just like they always did and if H4831 has a slower burning rate (it does) it is because of the age of the surplus powder that Hodgdon got started selling and later had copied by other makers.
 
Do some research.

Yes, WW296 and H110 are essentially the same. So are HP38 and WW231. And so are some military surplus powders.

Check several different sources of information (reloading manuals); start low and work up.

I've been using surplus rifle powder for several years now. The powders come labelled "Similar to ____". So I check a couple manuals, start with a low end load and check velocities. If the velocities match, then I know I'm in the right ball park.

Having said all that; it's foolhardy to start at the top end of the loading range with any new can of powder.

Are any two lots of powder the same? They don't seem to be. I've got loading manuals from the middle '60s in my library. From the information shown, we don't have the same powders anymore; they just call them the same.
 
Asking if 296/h110 and 231/hp-38 are the same powders is one thing. Asking them if either bulk powder has ANY modifications done to it before final packadging is another.

Am lacking experience with H-110/296 and can't comment specifically, but hp-38 is consistently seems slightly faster burning than 231, in practice and in most manuals over the years.
 
I sell industrial chemicals. We've got a line that fills jugs from the same vat, but different labels are added depending on which division is selling it. You can't believe the number of buyers that will argue that it's a different product

When the manufacturer says it's the same thing and people still don't believe you, it's a lost cause. I'd go argue with a mule. They're less stubborn than some of the people here

This is going to join the myriad of other debates that have nothing to do with facts, just how people 'feel'.
Click to expand...
Which is another way of saying "my mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts"
 
I used to operate a press making envelopes.

A #10 envelope is a #10 envelope. All that ever changes is the print on the outside.

I'm sure it EXACTLY the same way in any business.
 
For a laugh, ask Mike at Hodgdon if they are blending H110 to meet canister consistancy.

Ask if it is blended at St Marks.
If so, is that per a Hodgdon blend spec, or the same blending that St Marks does for Winchester.

Ask how many engineers work at Hodgdon.
Find out how many engineers contribute to the high road reloading.
Divide the two numbers and get a ratio.
Put your Speer load book in the outhouse.
Squeal like a pig.
Stand on your head.
Do some experiments with H110 and W296 and see if they work the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
480 Ruger and H-110, OAL questions
Replies
0
Views
138
ballman6711
B
S
  • Locked
IMR/H-4227
Replies
0
Views
2K
scott5
S
J
  • Locked
Two Kabooms, Same Cause
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
osprey176
O
arcticap
  • Locked
Goex Sold to Hodgdon
Replies
3
Views
819
dwave
D
someguy2800
  • Locked
Cold weather powder/primer temp sensitivity testing results
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
Bbear
Bbear
Back
Top