H110 vs 296?

[gunslinger20]

I know that opinions are wide and varied and thats ok so here is my situation I am almost out of an old old ( 10 years) bottle of h110, I have been told that 296 and h110 are identicle. I have noticed the load data for the two are pretty close together. Im not sure how the old h110 compares to new h110 vs 296 also is 296sensitive to the case fill as h110? Does it have ignition issues in cold weather like I have heen told h110 does? I have not had this issue with my old h110.


PS 45 colt ruger black hawk bisley 71/2 bbl
Thanks in advance for the help.

[peerlesscowboy]

It's my understanding they're the same, made by Winchester named 296. Hodgdon bought a bunch and sold it named H110. true or false?? I dunno' :confused:

[btroj]

My understanding is that they are different lots of the same powder.
I would treat them as identical in regards to no heavily reduced loads, firm crimp, good bullet pull, and tougher ignition in cold weather.

[wiljen]

They are the same powder and all differences can be accounted for by normal lot to lot variations. Hodgdon has admitted as much since buying the Winchester powder line out.

[JesterGrin_1]

Yep it is now the Same Powder. The W-296 used to be a tad slower than H-110 but not anymore.

So save a couple of bucks and get the H-110.

[ReloaderFred]

They are both made by St. Marks Powder Company, which I believe is owned by General Dynamics. Since Hodgdon bought the rights to the Winchester line of powders, they have standardized the loading date for both H-110 and Winchester 296 at exactly the same in current data from Hodgdon.

They are the same powders now.

Hope this helps.

Fred

[gunslinger20]

I use the h110 with 300 to 315 gn g/c boolits and good accuracy I also use 2400 with the same results. If there isnt a need Im not going to replace the h110 at all. Ill just continue the 2400. If my memery serves me right and I may be wrong the recoil is less with 2400. I just remembered I also have used h110 in 44 mag with excelant results ( 1 1/2" groups @ 67 yds. I know why 67 yds. distance from my deck to my backstop.

Thanks Guys.

[GLynn41]

at one time 296 was the first pass powder and H110 was the second with the differences being 296 was more consistent in its grain size- H110 less so-- different sizes made the surface area available to ignition a little different -- that was a while back -- and was from an email posted on another forum but I do not remember where --. now as was stated their data is now the same

[EOD3]

H110 & W296 are the same powder, different lots (normally). Treat it like a different lot number, back off 3% and work up if needed.

In all the Hodgdon data I've seen published in the last couple/three years has been identical in charge, pressure, and velocity. :cool:

[spqrzilla]

I'm of the opinion that WW296 and H110 have always been the same powder but for lot to lot variation.

[SMCCORD]

Yep it is now the Same Powder. The W-296 used to be a tad slower than H-110 but not anymore.

So save a couple of bucks and get the H-110.


I have also heard H-110 and W296 are the same thing. When i recently bought my first 44 mag revolver, I went to my local reloading supplier and H-110 was $24.99 lb but W-296 was $18.96 lb. I bought all i could afford.

[JesterGrin_1]

I have also heard H-110 and W296 are the same thing. When i recently bought my first 44 mag revolver, I went to my local reloading supplier and H-110 was $24.99 lb but W-296 was $18.96 lb. I bought all i could afford.

Good going it used to be the other way around. W-296 was more expensive than H-110

[danm0]

You should treat them as different, because when you bought that H110 it was a different powder, in 2004 I believe is the year that Hodgdon bought the rights to sell W296

[detox]

The name 296 sounds more cool. I have a brand new unopened canister of it.

Why are all the major gun powder companies selling out. I once worked for Hercules now they no longer exist. Allient bought all the Hercules powder division and logo shortly before Hercules sold all other remaining businesses. Another company purchased remaining businesses, stock, and pension plans.

[Larry Gibson]

Yup, same powder but different lots, concur with all.

Larry Gibson

[felix]

Got new news, Larry, from cartridge production folks at the new WW plant at Biloxi. St. Marks has plenty of powder for shipment and the real news is that they are NOT labelling the lots with the old time WW numbers. Hodgdon is now the sole distributor of the produce to others, no matter who they are except to the WW plants. So, sooner or later the packaging will indicate even same lot numbers until one of the retail number's die. Every lot now is being shipped from St. Marks as industrial powder, if you will. Canister "grade" is now up to the purchaser from St. Marks. In other words, expect number changes for these individual lots, unless Hodgdon is going into the mixing business (of smaller lots) to make up an "old" Canister number. ... felix

[JesterGrin_1]

Got new news, Larry, from cartridge production folks at the new WW plant at Biloxi. St. Marks has plenty of powder for shipment and the real news is that they are NOT labelling the lots with the old time WW numbers. Hodgdon is now the sole distributor of the produce to others, no matter who they are except to the WW plants. So, sooner or later the packaging will indicate even same lot numbers until one of the retail number's die. Every lot now is being shipped from St. Marks as industrial powder, if you will. Canister "grade" is now up to the purchaser from St. Marks. In other words, expect number changes for these individual lots, unless Hodgdon is going into the mixing business (of smaller lots) to make up an "old" Canister number. ... felix

Felix you must be slipping lol. As most of the posts from you I have to read at the very least twice to get the drift. Where as this one only took one read over lol.

But to get back on Topic. Even before the changeover between H-110 and W-296 they were darn close. W-296 was just a hair slower than H-110.

I prefer the Old W-296 more than H-110. But it just might be a feeling and nothing more. But I could swear that the Old W-296 would burn cleaner than the new W-296/H-110. What is even more funny is that for hunting only loads I will still grab for the W-296 and use the H-110 for everything else when Magnum loads are wanted. But does it really make a difference in the real world. Probably not but it makes me feel more confident. Maybe it should have come in a Blue Can lol.

This is for the .44 Magnum.

For the .357 Magnum I use H-110 to preserve my W-296 for the .44 :).


But when you get down to brass tacks and you wish to load Magnum rounds I do not think you can go wrong with either powder choice.

[Rocky Raab]

Okay folks, for the 947th time (seems like, anyway)...

H110 and W296 are the exact same powder. Period. Always have been, no matter what some folks believe. Any difference was (and is) due to lot variation. This isn't my opinion, my guess, or my surmise. My source for the information is Chris Hodgdon.

[357Mag]

Gunslinger:

Howdy !

I've shot WW296 in .357Mag, in all kinds of weather, to include cold/wet conditions ( as-cold-as -35*F ). I myself, never encountered a failure to fire when shooting WW296 in .357Mag.

The load I keep ranting and raving about ( 14.5gr WW96 and SP Mag primer ), came right out of the older Winchester ( Olin ) reloading guide
pamphlet.. you could pick-up for free @ gun stores. To be more specific.... the 14.5gr charge ( to my memory ) was THE minimum charge they recommended.

The guide also strongly recommended that you NOT sub primers or brass, and of course.... use of all Winchester components was advised.
I opted to use a variety of .357Mag reloading components when assembling MY loads over the years, and it presented no problems that I could discern.

I did not know ( for many years ) that WW296 and H110 were the same stuff. My loads testing ( in the dark ) showed small charge wt variance between the two, when shooting both in a benchrest-grade .357AutoMag carbine. In that regard... I think Sprgzilla observance, is on the mark.

Visually... the two cans I compared of the 2 different powders showed one had slightly flattened grains.


With regards,
357Mag

[Mallard57]

Okay folks, for the 947th time (seems like, anyway)...

H110 and W296 are the exact same powder. Period. Always have been, no matter what some folks believe. Any difference was (and is) due to lot variation. This isn't my opinion, my guess, or my surmise. My source for the information is Chris Hodgdon.
I caused a lot of hate and discontent by saying that years ago, same thing with WW760 and Hodgdon 414.
Jeff

[Rocky Raab]

We're Air Force, Mallard. We rise above it all...

[cheese1566]

So riddle me this?

If it has always been the same (for quite a while anyways...) why does the load data in my books and elsewhere warn about reduced loads of WW296 but nothing I found ever mentioned this for H110?

Just curious. I use WW296 in my 357mag loads and soon will run out. I'll switch to H110 if available and cheaper.

[BAGTIC]

I suspect there are several reasons companies are getting out of the powder business. All get down to risk and profit. OHSA, EPA, US tort law, and the threat that tigher guns laws would severely impact the future of the business.

[454PB]

I caused a lot of hate and discontent by saying that years ago, same thing with WW760 and Hodgdon 414.
Jeff

And WW231 and HP-38

[leadman]

I just used up my old cans of these powders but when Hodgdon starting selling it I looked at both the H110 and W296 I had. Can remember which powder was which but one was the dark gray and the other was the greenish/gray color like H4895. Did they color the powders differently way back?

[Rocky Raab]

Powders can change a bit over time, especially semi-irrelevant things like color. But I assure you that the W296 of a given time was exactly the same as that time's H110.

Before they merged, it's entirely understandable that Winchester and Hodgdon officials may have felt differently about cautions and warnings issued with a given powder. That goes for load data, too. Now that they are essentially the same company, the two will be worded the same.

The official list of identical powders is:

W231 = HP38
W296 = H110
W540 = HS-6
W571 = HS-7
W760 = H414

Note that W748 is NOT (repeat NOT) H335, as some people believe. Never was.

[mdi]

Hey Rocky, mebbe been answered before but, are H110 and W296 the same powder?


:kidding: sorry, I just had too....

[chuck4570]

What about Winchester 748 and Hodgdon BL-C(2) ?

[EDG]

Hodgdon told me in an email that WW760 = H 414.
I am not sure why anyone would ever contest that.


I caused a lot of hate and discontent by saying that years ago, same thing with WW760 and Hodgdon 414.
Jeff

[Mallard57]

Hodgdon told me in an email that WW760 = H 414.
I am not sure why anyone would ever contest that
This was some years back before Hodgdon bought everything, but if you say something contrary to someones preconceived notion about their favorite powder they aint happy. Many times the results they would use to justify the difference were no more than differences in powder lots. I know the HP38 and WW231 are the same powder but it seemed different to me(but I knew better).

[Airman Basic]

Felix, I know Winchester has a plant in Oxford, but didn't know about one in Biloxi?

[felix]

That's correct, it's Oxford, not Biloxi. I just typed the wrong town while thinking of the other. Winchester (Olin stockholders) has a center fire factory, and a rimfire factory right next to each other, both fairly new. The factories hire old timers for the most part, those who know what it takes to make a living through profitable work. Not many students are hired from Ol'Miss, which is a couple of miles south. I would have expected otherwise because of locality. Locality was chosen to escape union influence commonplace in the St. Louis area. ... felix

[Nickle]

What about Winchester 748 and Hodgdon BL-C(2) ?

Different. BL-C 2 is considered the same as WC 846, not 748.

[pdawg_shooter]

Okay folks, for the 947th time (seems like, anyway)...

H110 and W296 are the exact same powder. Period. Always have been, no matter what some folks believe. Any difference was (and is) due to lot variation. This isn't my opinion, my guess, or my surmise. My source for the information is Chris Hodgdon.

+1 ON THIS! The only difference between H110 and W296 is the packaging. They are and always have been from the same batch, just bottled different.

[PS Paul]

I suspect there are several reasons companies are getting out of the powder business. All get down to risk and profit. OHSA, EPA, US tort law, and the threat that tigher guns laws would severely impact the future of the business.

Yep. Just more pressure, regulations, fees and backbreaking taxes/restrictions designed to put more and more businesses out of business. Doing anything to HELP businesses by making things easier just ain't in the DNA of those in Fed govt., peiod.

[Lloyd Smale]

dont know the answer but ive seen the same with 110/296 and with imr4227/h4227 with the differnt colars. I wont argue that there both not the same powders but looking at my old load data for both of these two combinations and ive find some pretty big differnces in accuracy in differnt guns that couldnt have been just a lot number because it held up for years. My opinion of them is this. With both comparisons the burn rate is so close that there about interchangeable and today they are the same powder as the companys combined. But back in the day there was something differnt between both of these combinations that did effect accuracy and even pressures and velocitys. 44 man discussed this too. If i recall he said he allways got a tad better accuracy in his siloutte gun using 296 then he did with 110.
I just used up my old cans of these powders but when Hodgdon starting selling it I looked at both the H110 and W296 I had. Can remember which powder was which but one was the dark gray and the other was the greenish/gray color like H4895. Did they color the powders differently way back?

[skeet028]

Way back when I bought 2 25 lb cans of HP-38 and H 110. Got 'em from one of the last full line powder wholesalers in the east. CHEAP too. He was in Jersey and couldn't sell large cans like that. When I got them back to my shop..opened the boxes..the can from the HP-38 said Win 231..the other can was marked Win 296 and the box on it said..of course..H-110. What Rocky said is correct. The loading data from Win and Hodgdon was done in different pressure guns and different bbls on different days. OF course they would not be as close as you would think. I have quite a few lbs of Win 540 and HS-6..same powders..Same with HS-7 and Win 571...They even look the same. Now..I have about 10 lbs of HS-5 and it was supposed to be the same as Win 473..and it may be..but they look nothing alike. One day I will find some good loading data for it. I think Trap 100 and Win 452 were the same also.

[C.F.Plinker]

Got new news, Larry, from cartridge production folks at the new WW plant at Biloxi. St. Marks has plenty of powder for shipment and the real news is that they are NOT labelling the lots with the old time WW numbers. Hodgdon is now the sole distributor of the produce to others, no matter who they are except to the WW plants. So, sooner or later the packaging will indicate even same lot numbers until one of the retail number's die. Every lot now is being shipped from St. Marks as industrial powder, if you will. Canister "grade" is now up to the purchaser from St. Marks. In other words, expect number changes for these individual lots, unless Hodgdon is going into the mixing business (of smaller lots) to make up an "old" Canister number. ... felix

Your last two sentences lead me to believe that Hodgdon received "canister grade" powder from St. Marks in the past and also that they (Hodgdon) did not have the facilities to blend different lots into a more uniform product. If they are not able to blend lots does that mean that we can expect greater differences between cans with different lot numbers from here on out?

[felix]

Yes! Does NOT mean that two different lots won't do the same in a specific application, but it DOES mean to treat each lot as a brand new number. ... felix