H110 vs W296 after 2008

[Franco]

I'm told that as of 2008 (or maybe after 2008), W296 and H110 are exactly the same powder. Hodgdon's reloading website seems to confirm this (impliedly) as they have the same amounts listed for every load (i.e. grains of H110 is always the same as grains of W296). However, load books like Hornady's shows a difference but, then again, they were copyrighted in 2007. Does anyone know that, assuming they are the same if manufactured after 2008, then would you use old H110 data or old W296 data? In other words, did they dumb one down or beef one up?

 

[Hangingrock]

Both are one in the same which predates the year 2008. Data differences lot variation and different test procedures.

 

[sourdough44]

I treat them as exactly the same.

 

[Ol` Joe]

Both are one in the same which predates the year 2008. Data differences lot variation and different test procedures.

Exactly....

 

[Franco]

Thanks. So if load data in Hornady's manual is different as between H110 and W296, then it's likely safe to use either one at the higher load amount? That's where I get a little worried. Maybe I need to use the load data from the one that's lower and work my way up with the chronograph.

 

[buck460XVR]

Thanks. So if load data in Hornady's manual is different as between H110 and W296, then it's likely safe to use either one at the higher load amount? That's where I get a little worried. Maybe I need to use the load data from the one that's lower and work my way up with the chronograph.

Because of the infinite amount of variables, regardless of what powder you load, you should always start low and work up. My experience has been that the start and max loads for H110/W296 are so close in any of the books I've seen, that the data is interchangeable. I treat them as the same powder and would not be afraid to load the starting load of whichever one is higher.....but I would still start at the min and carefully work my way up till I hit the sweetspot, as the max load for even the the lesser one may be too much for your specific gun. Hornady's loads for H110/W296 are fairly tame....if you're loading for your .460, Hodgdon's website has loads to compare them too. Hodgdon tends to load a little stiff, but list more bullet options. I've had good luck with IMR4227 in long pipes, and it seems to be a tad less sensitive to temperature changes.

 

[Franco]

Thanks all. Although I understand that many variables exsist, any differences based on the lot deviations and test procedures should be minimal I would think. I can't imagine that manufacturing processes for something like gunpowder would really allow for much lot deviation and I would also think that Hornady, for example, would use the same test procedures for all powders. Otherwise, their data would be somewhat meaningless. So if H110 being the same as W296 predates 2008 then I would really wonder why or how Hornady's data for the 240gr XTP Mag is several grains different between the two.

Having said that, I will start low and work up. I'll be loading some this weekend and look forward to shooting this new beast some more! Thanks again.

 

[cliffsgsr]

FYI according to Chris Hodgden: W231=HP38 W296=H110 W760=H414
Absolutly the same powders, just different labels.
Always work up loads carefully, when you get to pressure signs, back up at least 1 grain.