H-110 and W296

[ACC]

Are these two powders the same thing. Is reloading data exchangeable for either powder? Was in my local range house today and they were telling this one guy that you can use load data for H-110 with W296. I don't think this is right.

ACC

[Wheelguns 1961]

Everything that I have ever heard is that they are the same. Most load data confirms this. The same goes for hp-38 and w231

[Hick]

I have heard the same thing, that H110 and W296 are the same. I looked them up in the National Crime powder database and they do indeed appear to be very similar chemically. I have used them interchangeably in my 357 magnum loads and cannot see a difference. I don't know for absolute certain, but as the saying goes: if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

[DougGuy]

They both are made in the same plant, they are the exact same powder, they are badged and packaged differently. Hodgdon markets H110, Winchester markets W296. These are for retail, but if you buy in bulk, they have the same number. Any variations between the two are attributable to lot to lot variations which are normal.

[Petrol & Powder]

Are these two powders the same thing. ................

/\ YES /\
No more discussion needed

[Kosh75287]

I can only imagine you getting into trouble if you use very old data. Even then, you might not. It seems to me that, in the late 80's to early 90's the data for the propellants was different. I don't remember, because I never used either until they "became" the same, and only used H110 when reloading .30 Carbine.
It COULD be that they've ALWAYS been the same propellant with different labels, but for some reason I want to say they were different, way back when. It doubt you'll encounter any 30 or 40 year old W296 or H110 propellant, but ancient data has a way of surfacing, from time to time. Be watchful.

[nhyrum]

They are literally the exact same powder. I've heard it direct from the people that make both. I know, it made me nervous interchanging the two as well. But, they are the same.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[gnappi]

Kosh, I'm not wanting to start an issue, but old data is not unsafe in any way. But the fact is powder makers go to great lengths to assure as best they can that powders remain the same so old data should be just as viable as new.

Quote from an old Alliant manual I have:

"Every container of Alliant smokeless powder is backed by a century of manufacturing experience and the most exacting quality control procedures in the industry. We check and control chemical composition, the shape and size of powder grains, even the propellants' density and porosity. We send samples of every batch to our ballistics lab, testing among other things for burning speed. Then after blending the batches together for exactly the right ballistic characteristics, we use our advanced computerized equipment to test again.

The result: A line of products known and respected for consistent quality and performance - not only in the lab, but on the firing line.

One of the reasons you're a reloader after all, is so you'll know exactly what to expect every time you pull the trigger. With Alliant powders you will. Not only shell after shell, but also year after year. "

Quote off

I've yet to see a disclaimer in a load manual that claims that after a certain date their data is invalid. As a matter of fact, I've been using Alliant (and the others) data near or at max loads (working up obviously) since the 80's and have never experienced an issue. Can powder change year after year if stored poorly? Likely but powder makers also go on at length on how to correctly store powder (and in proper containers) over time to keep it from degrading.

[Mitch]

I do not know about older powders.But if you look at the hogdon loading site H110/ 296 and HP38/231 it is all the same loads. And this has been rehashed here many times in the past.

[derek45]

they are the same, as is win231 / hp38

if you call hogedon and talk to tech support they will confirm it

[nhyrum]

I've yet to see a disclaimer in a load manual that claims that after a certain date their data is invalid. As a matter of fact, I've been using Alliant (and the others) data near or at max loads (working up obviously) since the 80's and have never experienced an issue. Can powder change year after year if stored poorly? Likely but powder makers also go on at length on how to correctly store powder (and in proper containers) over time to keep it from degrading.

I've heard of one powder that manuals stated the old was not the same as the new. I believe it was a shotgun powder in a shotgun manual. But I do not remember what powder it was. But for 99.9% of everything, you are correct.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Static line]

I can only imagine you getting into trouble if you use very old data. Even then, you might not. It seems to me that, in the late 80's to early 90's the data for the propellants was different. I don't remember, because I never used either until they "became" the same, and only used H110 when reloading .30 Carbine.
It COULD be that they've ALWAYS been the same propellant with different labels, but for some reason I want to say they were different, way back when. It doubt you'll encounter any 30 or 40 year old W296 or H110 propellant, but ancient data has a way of surfacing, from time to time. Be watchful.

Yes, like in my powder cabinet. I still have those two powders in cardboard containers and still use them.:wink:

[Kevin Rohrer]

This has been discussed numerous times and a SEARCH would have given the OP the answer. Work smart, not hard.

[44magLeo]

I have older as well as newer manuals. If H110 and W296 are the same, why don't the manuals match?
Using the same cases, same primers and bullets just the two powders you get different max charges, pressures and velocities.
This leads me to believe they are different.
Leo

[nhyrum]

I have older as well as newer manuals. If H110 and W296 are the same, why don't the manuals match?
Using the same cases, same primers and bullets just the two powders you get different max charges, pressures and velocities.
This leads me to believe they are different.
Leo

I do not know why data for the two are different. If you call Hodgdon and ask, they will tell you they’re the same.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Burnt Fingers]

The RCBS Bullet Manual shows different loads for H110 and 296, it also shows different loads for HP-38 and 231.

The book was published in 1993 if my memory is correct.

[EDG]

I called Hodgdon and asked them the specific gravity of Varget and they would not tell me. The guy on the phone did verify that H110 and 296 are the same propellant.

[mattw]

Back many years ago I worked with a commercial large scale reloader. We would get in drums of H110 or 296 and inside the drums were the spec papers, sometimes the drum would say H110 on the outside and the papers indicated 296. They were interchangeable, 1 and the same.

The powder I wish had taken off was one we would get in in huge drums, it was called H110 Data, I think it was the short lived H108 consumer powder. It looked, felt and smelled just like H110 but was 12% faster. It was the best powder I have ever worked with in 357's and 41 magnums. I still have about 30 pounds left from those days. Sometimes took pay in powder or bullets, and was always happy to. I find that this powder results in less muzzle flash and a bit better velocity with a tad less powder used. It also seems to burn more completely in a revolver.

[jsn]

I have older as well as newer manuals. If H110 and W296 are the same, why don't the manuals match?

Since Hodgdon started selling Hodgdon/IMR/Winchester powders under the same marketing umbrella, Hodgdon has shown H110 and W296 as two separate powders with the same load data. The same for H414 and W760. This goes back to at least 2007 with the annual magazine format reloading manuals.

You can see this for yourself on Hodgdon's online reloading data.

I also have older manuals and agree that they are never the exact same. Maybe they were close enough that after coming under common control someone just decided to split the differences and use the same powders for both. Or maybe the differences were variations in lots to begin with.

[Dufferin]

I have bought quantities of powder for group buys in the past for shooting club members and required an import certificate to do so. Included with the paperwork was an extensive list of powders that were approved for importation. Something interesting was for example a listing for Win231. On either side of the listing for W231 was a number of sub-listings such as A-B-C W231 or W231-1 ,W231-2, etc. I asked the powder manufacturers what this referred to and was told that "straight W231 was "cannister" grade of a known exact burn rate and characteristics for reloaders which conformed to published reloading l data. The numbers to either side were powders that after finishing the manufacturing process came in with a bit faster or slower burning characteristics.
These powders would be sold to ammo manufacturers who had the ability to blend the powders together to achieve the desired results in a factory loaded cartridge.
This is probably a good reason not to decide that a powder that you examined from a "pulled" factory round must be XXX because it may not have the same burn rate as you think it looks like.

[swheeler]

Yes W296- H110, W231-HP38, W760- H414 are the same powders

[firefly1957]

Back in the 1970's the powders were different My buddy went with H-110 in 357 Magnum I went with WW-296 I could use about three more grains of H-110 then WW 296 before primer flattened in my S&W model 28 with Sierra 150 JHC . I still have a full round steel can of that powder it is darker in color the grains do look close in each.

[Mal Paso]

/\ YES /\
No more discussion needed

Not even close. I'll bet this thread goes 3-4 pages at least.

[jmorris]

Around 20 years ago ATK joined General Dynamics and they acquire Primex tech. Neither Winchester nor Hodgdon make gun powder. In fact both are distributed by Hodgdon, look on the back of the bottle both will have 6430 vista dr, shawnee Ks for an address. The powder being sold is made at St Marks Powder inc, they have a +\- 2.5% variance or the batch is scrapped standard. The same powder is sold commercially under two different labels, H110 and W296 (for OEM/mil it is known as WC296 but has a wider +/-3% burn rate spec). Any lot to lot difference should be inside the 5% tolerance they allow.

https://www.gd-ots.com/propellant-and-propulsion/st-marks-powder-propellants/

Before that there is a pretty good chance they were different as some of my old load manuals have data that is several grains apart for the same bullet at the same velocities. That said, there are other powders that have changed as well over time. Like Hercules 2400 cleaned up a bit when it changed to Alliant 2400 and W231 has cleaned up too, load some old metal can 231 side by side with the modern stuff and its easy to see the results.

[jetinteriorguy]

I thought part of the reason was due to more accurate ways of measuring barrel pressures causing some revisions due to discovering older data was too high.

[bishopgrandpa]

I develop an accurate load at 70-80 degrees out with 296 and in Nov. the group opens up considerably. Do the same with 110 and no problem. 296 always was temperature sensitive but not 110. Mine are 10 year old cans but so what. They may be close but are not the same.