H110 Winchester 296

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was simply under the impression they were at one time two different powders based on the Speer#10, and a few other published sources that showed two different charges, using the same components, bullet, primer, and brass. And now days, or since we have been provided with the fact that they are the same, so why were they treat as being two different powders back then, and by most, if not all published sources?

I'm not arguing that they are, or are not the same. I'm just curious why they used to have two very different charge tables with the same components?

GS
 
if the 296 is still in the metal can I would definitely consider that a different powder than H-110. I don't remember the year when 296 started coming in the plastic can
 
I was simply under the impression they were at one time two different powders based on the Speer#10, and a few other published sources that showed two different charges, using the same components, bullet, primer, and brass. And now days, or since we have been provided with the fact that they are the same, so why were they treat as being two different powders back then, and by most, if not all published sources?

I'm not arguing that they are, or are not the same. I'm just curious why they used to have two very different charge tables with the same components?
Click to expand...

I'd say that it's probably a safe bet that, in the past, they WERE two different powders made by two different companies. But now they're not. Corporate mergers, ya know.
 
Uh, no.

H110 and W296 are manufactured right where they have been since 1969, in St Marks, FL.
The plant is now owned by General Dynamics. (As is the IMR plant which has been in Canada since about 1976.)

Back before Hodgdon got the distributorship, data for the two powders was different because the two companies had apparently standardized on slightly different canister lot specifications. Now that Hodgdon gets powder by the barrel and packages both brands out of the same lot, that does not happen.
 
I always check rifle loads in my manuals when H-414 and 760 are listed together. Rarely are they ever the same, must be because of lot to lot variations.
The bullet companies must know that they are the same but test anyway in the name of thoroughness.
 
Jim Watson is correct. Both have been made by the same plant for longer than most on this board have been reloading.

As for different data, that's simply because different loads were worked up at different times, and possibly by different technicians in the ballistics lab. I've been in the ballistics labs of both Sierra Bullets and Nosler Bullets, and they each start their load development from the beginning and then work up.

You can take your own components and work up a load, then do the same thing a year later and possibly get different results for the same components. Nothing is absolute when it comes to reloading data.

Hope this helps.

Fred
 
rfwobbly,

I didn't forget Finland. I just don't have any VV powders in my inventory. I also don't have any powders from Russia, Isreal or Brazil, but they exist.

Hope this helps.

Fred
 
Last edited:
Might have been an authoritative source when Olin still owned Primex at St Marks and General Dynamics and Winchester had not yet handed distribution over to Hodgdon.
The microphotograph is dated 2009, but the sample was obtained in 2005. That is slower than my old agency's lab.

And if the FBI can't find nitrocellulose in smokeless powder, they aren't such hot authorities.
 
MuffinMaster said:
I wonder if this is an authoritative source?
Click to expand...

If they claim that they are different when the manufacturer of said powder says they are the same, then no, they are not authoritative.

Who could possibly be more right than Hodgdon themselves??
 
As pointed out, the only difference between 296 and 110 is lot to lot variations...

If you go by what most powder manufacturers state is the acceptable range of +/-3%, this could mean a lot of one powder may vary as much as 6% when compared to a lot of the other, or different lot of the same powder...

This is why we drop back and work up when we open a new lot of powder...
 
H110 & w296

ATK and General Dynamics Form "American Powder Company", Munitions Propellant Joint Venture. June 2001. http://www.generaldynamics.com/news/press-releases/detail.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1811=13574 General Dynamics to Acquire Primex Technologies, Inc. Nov. 2000. (Win/Olin) http://www.generaldynamics.com/news/press-releases/detail.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1811=13199 Years ago,1960's or 70's?? i tested both for the 44 mag. Powder did not look the same, one being darker than the other. W296 produced better accuracy. About 2 years ago, i used up the last of the old H110. At the time, i compared both powders again. Results, W296 was more accurate, wish i had loged the info, but didnt.
 
Last edited:
If hodgdon wishes to be authoritative on their own powder then let them publish this question and answer on their site ..... somewhere. It is not like it has not been asked and besides it's not really apples and apples is it? It is more like explosives and explosives. I am not a lawyer but if I was I am sure I could explain the difference between apples and explosives in civil court terms.

Stating that some customer service manager at Hodgdon with a one word email response is more authoritative than the FBI ballistics lab is a little much for me. It is possible that this web site is might be fabricating this FBI report however. The report maybe too old to be relevant as well. I believe the contact info for the FBI person who help created this info is present on this site.

I do believe that these powder are so similar, if not the same, that the current published load data is interchangeable from what I have read. I base my decision not on an authoritative source but on what I have read and how I FEEL. Hodgdon should be an authoritative source for this question but the way they handle this speaks volumes. If this was an off the wall obscure question then their response would be fine. Why is Hodgdon not putting this question to bed by publishing this answer? They could you know. Now lets suppose that a Hodgdon spy encounters this thread one day and decides to further his carreer a little. At the next "new idea" meeting he proposes to publish this answer as well as the others (hp38-win231 for example). Will the marketing managers attending for the various powder lines all start coughing loudly.

If I discover one day on the range that I am wrong, I hope I will be able to FEEL my way back to my car.
 
MuffinMaster said:
I base my decision not on an authoritative source but on what I have read and how I FEEL.

If I discover one day on the range that I am wrong, I hope I will be able to FEEL my way back to my car.
Click to expand...


Seems regardless of what firearm forum it's on, every time this question comes up, someone expresses in their opinion, that the two powders are not the same.....even when folks like me, have gotten a definitive answer from Hodgdon that they are. Folks are entitled to their opinions, but that does not make them fact. I too will take Hodgdon's word on the products they distribute, and will accept their word that the differences others see are just the differences between production lots. If at some time in the future I need to find my way back to my vehicle, after a day at the range, I hope to do it knowing the facts about where I, the owner parked it, and not by feel. If at some point in the future Hodgdon tells me the two powders are not the same, I again will accept their answer as opposed to internet opinion. But that's just me. Others are free to do differently if they please.
 
Taken from the Hodgdon web FAQ site:

Question: Is hodgdon H110 the exact same as Winchester 296

Answer: Call us and we will tell you

I might be the only one but I FEEL that is a little unprofessional for this question. Unless I call Hodgden to swap load data for these powders I have no choice but to go with my FEELING (hahaha!).

Well some might realize that I am fabricating the FAQ above. Well my answer to that is ..... EXACTLY!
 
I've got a great idea Muffin! Why don't you just follow the published data and not argue with people you don't know on the internet? Wouldn't that make for a better outcome for all?

I've talked in person to the people at Hodgdon at the SHOT Show every year. They say Win. 296 and H-110 are the same powder, along with HP-38 and Win. 231. Win. 571 and HS-7, both discontinued, were also the same powder, as is Winchester Action Pistol (WAP) and Ramshot Silhouette.

Now, you don't have to take that from me as gospel, or from anyone else here, but the people who distribute the powder, and are most familiar with it, say they're the same, so for me that's pretty clear.

Like I said, follow the published data for each and every powder and believe as you wish.

Hope this helps.

Fred
 
I do not disagree at all with Fred nor others along his vain. I agree, if that did not come across. I have not but will call hodgdon before I use H110 load data for the win296 I have.

My point is that there is no authoritative answer published that has been identified so far but there SHOULD be. This question is not trivial nor new or unheard of. Such questions if answer incorrectly could injure or worse particularly to newbies to this sport like myself. The original poster posted this question because, in short, he could not find an authoritative answer that was published. Whose fault is that? In a word "HODGDON". What bugs me the most is why. I have a dog in this fight, I shot my own ammo. I own a bottle of Win296 too. Why is Hodgdon NOT forthright and put this in writing. If there are in deed the same ... what is the risk of publishing ..... "YES".

The site I offered as a question for a source I wondered about. It is not published on a .gov space but an .edu space. It reports to be a FBI sourced. I would source a published FBI ballistics lab current report as an authoritative source. Is this that? I do not know, hence the question. In any case should I be grasping for authoritative sources on line? No, but what are we left with. A phone call.
 
I think you're missing the whole point here. It's not up to Hodgdon, or anyone else, to confirm or deny, that two powders are in fact the same. They're doing us all a favor by developing very expensive loading data. Of course it's to their benefit to provide it so we'll use their products, but they really don't have to do it for free.

Like I posted previously, I've been in the ballistics labs of both Sierra and Nosler. It takes a long, long time, with expensive equipment, to develop a load. It's very labor intensive, and labor and time cost money.

They're not obligated in any way to provide written proof that two powders are the same.
They've provided the loading data for both named powders, so their obligation ends right there. Just because someone asks a question, it doesn't mean you have to answer it...... If you believe it does, you've never been married!

Hope this helps.

Fred
 
They are not doing me a favor. I am doing them a favor by buying their powder .... period. It is a business decision in as much as buying food, gas or anything else is. It is not gratitude it takes for me to pull that trigger with a full load. Its trust and that is the bedrock of my marriage too. Not to be argumentative but I do expect more from Hodgdon. Publishing this answer is easy and they should do it. It builds trust in their products.

I am grateful to god that those of power have not yet removed my right and ability to buy, bear and use firearms. The rest will need to earn my trust.

That my story and I am sticking with it ....... for now ;-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

303 hunter
  • Locked
Powder Question
Replies
5
Views
552
rcmodel
R
D
  • Locked
Why does the Speer manual....
Replies
4
Views
659
Ol` Joe
O
Durango_Dave
Equivalent Powders
Replies
21
Views
693
LiveLife
LiveLife
watermonger
  • Locked
Seeking 500 S&W load data for 350gr Sierra JHPs with H110/W296 powder.
Replies
11
Views
1K
watermonger
watermonger
O
  • Locked
.44 Mag 300-Grain Hard Cast/Win 296 Data?
Replies
17
Views
5K
grubbylabs
G
Back
Top