Win296-h110

[Oklahoma Rebel]

ok, so in the lee 2nd edition book, 296 seems to produce less pressure on average then H110, on the other hand, in lyman cast boolit loading, H110 averages lower pressures. has anyone else noticed this? and which is correct? on the loads I saw it was usually a 12% difference ( I think that's right) for example one was 38,000 the other 34,000). if anyone knows this info needs to be shared because its pretty important. thank you very much, Travis

[Boolit_Head]

I thought they were the same powder? Probably depends on who tested it.

[Petrol & Powder]

They are EXACTLY the same powder and the differences listed in manuals are usually attributed to different methods used to measure pressures and not the actual powders.

[DougGuy]

They are indeed the exact same powder, made in the same plant, sold to both Winchester and Hodgdon with different labels. The only difference is lot to lot variations which you will have with every powder under the sun.

[Oklahoma Rebel]

well that's what I though, but I figured the books, at least one of them, knew something I didn't,ok cool,i am hoping to get a SBH in 44 mag this next spring, that's why I am asking.

[Moleman-]

Another thing to look at is seating depth. Could be the same charge and case capacity, but if one bullet seats deeper than the other you usually get higher pressure.

[MT Gianni]

Lee did no testing in their book, just cut and pasted from various manufactures.

[Tackleberry41]

Yea Lee is just regurgitating other data. Some places, like the Hodgden site shows H110/W296 data as the exact same. Then somebody else will show it as different. But like said its just differences in testing. And very likely they didnt do any actual testing just copied someone elses data from 2 different sources.

[GLynn41]

an email made the rounds a few years back-- it stated that 296 was the first pass and that h110 was the second-- the difference being more similar grains in size and shape in the 296 than the h110 but they are the same powder

[Oklahoma Rebel]

ahh, if that's true then small differences could arise, none being noteworthy though. I would think just consistency might be slightly affected, if that e-mail is true

[Petrol & Powder]

an email made the rounds a few years back-- it stated that 296 was the first pass and that h110 was the second-- the difference being more similar grains in size and shape in the 296 than the h110 but they are the same powder

/\Likely just BS internet lore spread by some idiot that completely made up something that he/she had no clue about. I recognize that GLynn41 isn't the source of that email and is only passing it along.

H110 and WW296 is the same powder. Comments about first pass and second pass, whatever that might imply, are just pure speculation.

[GLynn41]

regardless of validity of the mail-- the last thing I said was " they are the same powder."

[PositiveCaster]

The manufacturer, Hodgdon, says they are the same powder. Enough said. Today they are, forty plus years ago maybe not. Don't know.

Performance differences are not due to "different methods to measure powder" or some Internet legend. Loading manual developers are very careful about charge weight using calibrated scales, but different primers and test barrels could account for some differences.

Bottom line - differences are due largely to lot-to-lot variability. Experienced handloaders know that changing lots of any powder can give slightly different results. That is why modern data with these powders can show minor differences, and why working up loads from below max is so important.

If anyone besides Hodgdon tested both powders at the same time with the same cases, primers and test barrels then we would learn more.



.

[rupe01]

Hmmm..... i always thought they were the same powder, but i did a quick test on QuickLoad with everything remaining the same except the powder type and it seems to back up your findings Oklahoma Rebel, with H110 having the lower chamber and muzzle pressure of approx 12-14%. Now i know QL isn't God or anything but they must have pretty intimate knowledge of powder characteristics, so maybe they know more than we do about the differences. Just throwing it out there and thought it was a good point of reference.

[Petrol & Powder]

Or maybe the Quickload database simply used different data for H110 and WW296 in their program?

And GLynn41 I wasn't attacking you but rather the source of that email hypothesis about first pass and second pass.
I went back and read what I wrote and my apologies, it wasn't directed at you. I'll edit my post.

[rupe01]

Yep, i agree.....could be. I am not sure where they get all their data, but assume it would have to be from the manufacturers.....to be able to get such depth of detail for their calculations.

[rintinglen]

Look at the date of the data, or the book's copyright.
Up until about 2008, WW-296 and 231 were proprietary powders offered under the Winchester label. Lots that didn't make the cut, being a tad slow or fast were sold off to Hodgdon and marketed as HP38 or H-110. Since 2008, they are exactly the same powder, coming off the line at the same time and the only differences will be normal lot-to-lot variances.

[243winxb]

But back in the dark ages, many,many years ago, were they?

[Oklahoma Rebel]

Look at the date of the data, or the book's copyright.
Up until about 2008, WW-296 and 231 were proprietary powders offered under the Winchester label. Lots that didn't make the cut, being a tad slow or fast were sold off to Hodgdon and marketed as HP38 or H-110. Since 2008, they are exactly the same powder, coming off the line at the same time and the only differences will be normal lot-to-lot variances.

thanks for the info! so hp-38 was the same as 296/110? is that still the case? I assumed because of the name it was made for 38spl, of course I would never go by assumptions! but if it is like 296 or 110 its too slow for 38spl isn't it? thanks,Travis

[Gus Youmans]

Oklahoma Rebel,

HP38 and 231 are now the same powder. 231 and 296 are at opposite ends of the pistol powder burn spectrum from each other. 231 and 296 have never been the same powder. You will get interesting results if you use 296 data with 231. Just make sure no innocents are around when you test the loads.

Gus Youmans