H110 vs 296

[Paul D. Heppner]

I realize that the general consensus is that they are the same powder. Yet I have not found this to be true. The differences I have seen could be attributed to different lots or not. What have you gentlemen experienced with regards to a 310 gr Lee in the 44 magnum. I have been using 21.5 of H110 with a Fed 150 primer. My supply of H110 is almost gone and can't locate any locally. I do have a good supply of 296 and a great supply of 310's. I plan to use what H110 I have left to load my seasons supply of hunting loads but need to load up some for frequent practice sessions.

[kenyerian]

http://data.hodgdon.com/main_menu.asp This link will take you to the Hodgdon reloading data. Look up loads for the 44 Remington Magnum and you can verify that Hodgon gives identical data for H110 and W296. my situation is reverse as i just finished off my 296 and will have to use 110 for the next batch. I haven't used the Lee Boolit

[Moonie]

Hodgdon says they are the same and they manufacture it. I believe them, I also use them interchangeably in a few cartridges.

[pdawg_shooter]

H110 and 296 are now and have always been the same powder in different cans. If you buy both from the same lot they will be identical.

[sixshot]

For sure, they are the exact same powder, except, like you said, there can be a difference from lot to lot, thats all. They are exactly the same powder.

Dick

[Paul D. Heppner]

I just returned from the range. Same point of impact, recoil is slightly, very slightly, sharper. Groups the same. Tomorrow I'll put some through the chronograph to really tell the story. The H110 version gives me an embarrassingly low standard deviation.

[Scharfschuetze]

Back in the 70s when I used both 296 and H110 in the 41 Magnum, the loading flyer from Olin/Winchester stated in no uncertain terms that the load shown for 296 was not to be reduced or modified in any way, yet the Hodgdon manual showed an ascending level of powder charges for H110 in the same cartridge and bullet weight.

Any one know why Olin/Winchester made that proviso for 296? If (and it seems to be so) they are the same powder, I wonder how two different ballistic laboratories would come up with the two diametrically different approaches to using what is the same powder?

[dragon813gt]

They're the same powder and Hodgdon will tell you this. Any variances are due to powder lot differences and your reloading techniques. Anytime you move on to a new lot of powder you're supposed to work the load up again. If the powder lots are the same there should be no difference. If they're different then expect different results.

[Dale53]

Paul;
When I am using a "full load" with H110 (I also have the surplus WC 820 which is similar) I use the chronograph and run them side by side on the same day with the same components. My particular lot of WC 820, as an example is .5 gr. faster than my lot of H110. A chronograph is NOT a pressure gun but unless you are running "gun straining" loads, it will help to keep you out of trouble.

As a for instance, you have chronograph data for your previous lot of H110. I have been guided by statistics that state you need to run 33 rounds to minimize statistical errors of each load (you may be happy with less). At any rate, using your old H110 as a bench mark, just use enough of the new lot of powder to equal the "proven old loads" and you should be "good to go".

I tend to buy rather large quantities of powder at once (at least I did when things were more normal) and I don't have to run the tests very often:mrgreen:.

FWIW
Dale53

[376Steyr]

Back in the 70s when I used both 296 and H110 in the 41 Magnum, the loading flyer from Olin/Winchester stated in no uncertain terms that the load shown for 296 was not to be reduced or modified in any way, yet the Hodgdon manual showed an ascending level of powder charges for H110 in the same cartridge and bullet weight.

Any one know why Olin/Winchester made that proviso for 296? If (and it seems to be so) they are the same powder, I wonder how two different ballistic laboratories would come up with the two diametrically different approaches to using what is the same powder?

I think you sort of answered your own question. Olin/Winchester data was in a "flyer" that would probably be used by a less sophisticated reloader (to put it kindly) who might be tempted to load either reduced charges (a bad idea with 296) or to add a little bit extra to an already hot load. Easier to tell them to load it exactly as shown to hopefully keep them out of trouble. I think the .44 Magnum had the same warning on it.

[DougGuy]

I use the two interchangeably. Although I load heavy boolits in both .45 and .44 I don't load to the absolute max so any variation in lot numbers or even charge weight wouldn't cause a pressure event. My max load, is how much powder can I use with this boolit and still have a bit of headroom for safety..

[Paul D. Heppner]

I don't load for max velocity either. Accuracy is what counts, best groups with sufficient velocity.

[W.R.Buchanan]

There is a list of powders that are the same with different names. H110/W296 has always been the same and as stated many times above any differences are due to differences in lots. I have known this since I started loading the powder in 1978.

I just bought a can of W748 today because I couldn't get BLC-2, but then again I did buy BLC 2 it just has a different label on the bottle.

I had a conversation with the gun shop owner on how I thought that it would be nice if Hodgdons would rename the powders with names that include both designations. IE H110/W296, or W231/HP-38 or BLC-2/W748.

This simple step would end this confusion forever. I personally think that SAMMI should demand it.

Maybe we should all call Hodgdons and suggest this.

Randy

[dragon813gt]

I actually like that they're branded different. Hodgdon branded powders are cheaper. I prefer to not pay for the Winchester name ;)

[felix]

Why not call them out as factory numbers as they are referred to there? About 100 percent of the production at St. Marks is called out as SMP-nnn nowadays. ... felix

[MtGun44]

NOT "general concensus" - hard FACT. Made in the same factory, St. Marks.
Both are packaged by Hodgdon in the same facility. They ARE
the SAME powder. I have friends there and this is the truth.

I don't remember asking about 748, but I am pretty sure that they are NOT the
same powders, there are real differences there. H414 is W760, but I
am pretty sure that there is no exact Hodgdon powder for W748. Sure,
BLC-2 is similar, but I do not think they are the same. W540 =HS6
W571=HS7.

Bill

[GaryN]

I bought a 12 lb. of w571 in the 80's. It was a good deal. I never did find a whole lot of data for that powder and I still have a pile of it. I look for the HS7 loads also to use. I was mostly using it for 1 1/2 ounce 12 ga. loads when we shot lead at ducks.

[W.R.Buchanan]

Bill: one of the Hodgdon boys told me W748 and BLC-2 are identical three weeks ago on the phone.

Call them yourself and ask. That's what I did. Also while you're at it, ask for the complete list, there is about 8-10 that are ='s

Randy