H110 and W296

[jmorris]

I have it from a trusted source that W296 is the same powder as H110 these days.

Anyone know at what point they became the same?

Hard to believe Hornady managed to work up loads with the same powder with such different results.

 

[kcofohio]

If you go to Hodgdon's site, to their reload data page. Select a magnum handgun caliber. select bullets and check box for both H110 and W296. The powder charges and velocity, pressures will show tit for tat.

http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/

 

[kcofohio]

Hard to believe Hornady managed to work up loads with the same powder with such different results.

Maybe different lots?

Lyman's Third Edition Pistol & Revolver would have different results with W231 and Hp-38.

 

[hdwhit]

Which edition of the Hornady Manual is that?

That's the same load data as shown in the 4th Edition which was published in 1991 (and may have appeared in earlier editions that I don't have). 1991 is not "these days" and the loads could have been carried over from one printing to the next.

 

[adcoch1]

Some of the h110 loads ive seen use a true "magnum" primer and the w296 loads sometimes use standard large pistol primers. It makes a difference....

Sent from my LGLS740 using Tapatalk

 

[Cheesemaker]

I have the Hornady 8th and 9th manuals. No H110 or W296 loads listed for 44 Mag @ 180grain.

They do listed both powders for the 240grain - up to 3 tenths of a grain difference between powders. Not the delta the OP shows.

 

[astocks2622]

I have used them interchangeably for my heavy 357 loads. Obviously I work back up each time I switch as they are almost certainly different lots, but I always end up within .2-.3 grains for the same performance when swapping.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

 

[mdi]

Did the Hornady manual's lab techs use the same powder lot of W290 and the H110 they tested? Did they test them at the same time or on different days, weeks, months or even years? Lot to lot powder variations and personnel and equipment differences will give different results during testing, and it's just over .2 grain...

 

[243winxb]

Powder company manuals

2006 to 2008? Old Hodgdon data shows both H110 and W296 in Hodgdons 2008 data. W296 is not in the 2006 Hodgdon data. http://castpics.net/ Last Winchester manual may have been 2006? I could go look and see when the powder companys changed hands. But i did it before. Its online somewhere.

 

[jmorris]

The one I have is the 4th from 1991. I also understand they are the same now except for lot to lot differences but that would not cause an almost 2 grain difference in load data.

As I understand it St Marks Powder inc, that makes "them" has a +\- 2.5% variance or the batch is scrapped.

Just wondering if/when it changed or that much difference was acceptable to them.

 

[243winxb]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=9236755&postcount=38 Maybe this? General Dynamics to Acquire Primex Technologies, Inc. Nov. 2000.

 

[jmorris]

Yep, that's what I was looking for.

Now, anyone have books from the same source that cross over when 2400 went from Hercules manufacture to Alliant, to see if anything changed?

 

[243winxb]

2400

Its changed. I am currently shooting an old unopened can that was just given to me. The residue left is different. Cant check velocity, no chronograph.

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[kcofohio]

Here is an article I just came across in searching about 300 MP.

http://www.shootingtimes.com/reloading/reloading-the-44-magnum/

During a visit to the Olin powder factory years ago, I learned that W296 and H110 were the same powder. The information was later included in an article on handloading the .44 Magnum. I went on to say that any chamber pressure/velocity differences between the two are due to slight burn rate variations from one manufacturing lot to the next. That explained differing maximum charge weights published for the two powders in various reloading manuals for .44 Magnum loads.

That was back in the days when people wrote letters, and a reader took me to task for my statement. In an attempt to prove me wrong, he contacted Hodgdon and Winchester. Of course, representatives from both companies did not give him the answer he was searching for. They refused to comment simply because in those days they were competitors.

Now that both powders are under the Hodgdon umbrella, Reiber willingly confirms that W296 and H110 are indeed the same powder. If the guy who wrote that nasty letter about three decades ago is still capable of reading small print and has a copy of Hodgdon’s latest Annual Manual, he may see that listed charge weights, velocities and pressures for the two powders are identical.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

According to Hodgdon and St. Marks powder W296 and H110 have always been the same powder.

Different testing equipment, different powder lots, different primers, different bullets and different brass will all cause different results. I also had a very hard time believing the charge weights could be so different until I asked Hodgdon and St. Marks because they have no reason to lie.

BTW, your data lists W296 @29.2gr and H110 @31.5gr. The current data on the Hodgdon site lists that same 31.5gr max load for both.

 

[jmorris]

According to Hodgdon and St. Marks powder W296 and H110 have always been the same powder.
...
BTW, your data lists W296 @29.2gr and H110 @31.5gr. The current data on the Hodgdon site lists that same 31.5gr max load for both.

Those charges are max and at different velocities. At 1500 fps they are 1.9 grains different. Hornady claimed all testing was done with:



Also interesting to note the Ruger preformed exceptionally well with Bluedot and W296 and best accuracy & uniformity with W296 and IMR 4227. Being the same, I would have figured H110 would have made the list too.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Remember, when a lot if this information was written most people were under the belief W296 and H110 were similar but different. Not many have gone back to rewrite the plethora of articles and reviews written over the Decades.

You can't rewrite what is in an old manual although they may correct it future manuals. They cover themselves but claiming the new manual supersedes all past manuals and renders the older manuals obsolete.

 

[jmorris]

I have always been one to not use single source information anyway maybe my distrust in "trusted" sources was correct after all....

Kind of takes the "scientific" aspect and throws it in the trash when a major manufacturer can't even get repeatable results with the same powder.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I have always been one to not use single source information anyway maybe my distrust in "trusted" sources was correct after all....

Kind of takes the "scientific" aspect and throws it in the trash when a major manufacturer can't even get repeatable results with the same powder.

I hear that buddy. I sometimes feel we are too hard on ourselves and we produce better results that we think.

 

[Salmoneye]

As I understand it St Marks Powder inc, that makes "them" has a +\- 2.5% variance or the batch is scrapped.

If one lot is 'in spec' at -2.5% from optimal burn rate, and the next lot is 'in spec' at +2.5%, then that can mean a full 5% difference from one lot to the next...

This is why when we change lots of powder we should drop charges back by 5%, and work back up...

 

[243winxb]

Powder is not scrapped from what i read. Different lots get blended. Note date .

In the manufacturing process, smokeless powders are recycled and reworked (National Research Council 1998). When a powder within a batch is found to be unsatisfactory, it is removed and returned to the process for use in another lot. Manufacturers save money by recycling returns by distributors or the return of surplus or obsolete military powders. Hence, reworking and recycling the material assures good quality control of the final product, reduces costs by reusing materials, and reduces pollution by avoiding destruction by burning

 

[buck460XVR]

I have it from a trusted source that W296 is the same powder as H110 these days.

Yep...me too. Hodgdon themselves. As for the discrepancies shown from Hornady and other manuals and the big differences between start and max loads between some manuals, it's clear that powder testing is not a perfect science. Otherwise every manual's recipe would be exactly the same. This is not any different than other powders and the discrepancies shown between manuals on them, nor is it any different than the discrepancies shown in manuals between W231 and HP38, which Hodgdon has also told me, are the exact same powders.

 

[jmorris]

This is not any different than other powders and the discrepancies shown between manuals

Except for the page shown in post 16 where they used the same case, primer, firearm, dimensions etc and still would up with 1.9 grains different powder charges between "the same" powder and both reached 1500 fps.

It's not like they used a 4" revolver vs a 14" contender or some other large variable.

 

[buck460XVR]

Except for the page shown in post 16 where they used the same case, primer, firearm, dimensions etc and still would up with 1.9 grains different powder charges between "the same" powder and both reached 1500 fps.

It's not like they used a 4" revolver vs a 14" contender or some other large variable.

This is what I meant about load testing not being an exact science. If it was exact, there would not be any discrepancies. Even tho manuals are reprinted and updated regularly, I doubt that all loads are retested beforehand. Some manuals like Lee don't even test their published loads, only reprinting what others have done. Then there is the difference from lot #s, difference in ambient temps and humidity, etc. Again, the difference in published loads between H110 and W296 in the same manual is not any more than those differences between just H110 between different load manuals. This variance(especially between H110/W296) has been discussed regularly here and on every other gun/reloading forum for years. It is not a new phenomenon, and yet, even tho Hodgdon themselves claims the two are the exact same powder, there are those folks that try and use those variances as some kind of proof they are not.

 

[jmorris]

there are those folks that try and use those variances as some kind of proof they are not

I was thinking it was some kind of proof that the contents of some reloading manuals, we are supposed to follow, contain questionable information.

Per the example in the OP, if someone came in here and said:
"My manual lists a max charge of 29.2 of W296 and I have worked my way up to that charge, now I am going to keep on going until I get to 2.3 grains over the max load, what do you think?"

Most would advise against but not the book above, as H110 and W296 are the same powder.