H110 vs WW296

[nighthunter]

I've heard and read that 296 and H110 are the same powder manufactured and then put into two different brand name containers Win / Hodg. I have also heard people say that they are two completely different powders. What do you folks think? Are they the same?

[Bass Ackward]

I've heard and read that 296 and H110 are the same powder manufactured and then put into two different brand name containers Win / Hodg. I have also heard people say that they are two completely different powders. What do you folks think? Are they the same?

NH,

If you lay them out, you can see they are not the same. They were manufactured to compete for the same government contract class though. So they are close, but 296 is slower in most things I have shot it in.

[felix]

Every lot of these powders should be considered different from the previous lot. H110 and WW296 are various lots of the intended speed of "X". Are they one and the same powder? Yes, but assume different lots of the same. One lot could have been split between the different labels, but never count on that. Surely you can assume if the two brands have the same lot number, then you can buy the cheapest one. But then, there is no guarantee if the one you just bought is exactly like the one you are running out of on the shelf. Ball powders are typically rolled from round, to make speed adjustments. Therefore, each lot may look different. ... felix

[sundog]

Well, the thing I haven't figger'd out yet is how W can tell us NOT to use less than 96% load and H has reduced loads in their manual. Go figure. sundog

[felix]

Probably, and just a guess, that a lot a little "fragile" in ignition gets shipped to Shawnee Mission. ... felix

[nighthunter]

Thanks for the replies. I've never noticed all that much difference in the two.
Have shot a bunch of each and have recently been using WC820 in my 44 Mag with 300 grain cast and find it to be one of the best powders I've used with that cartridge and bullet.

[Junior1942]

Thanks for the replies. I've never noticed all that much difference in the two.
Have shot a bunch of each and have recently been using WC820 in my 44 Mag with 300 grain cast and find it to be one of the best powders I've used with that cartridge and bullet.

What's your load, please?

[Shuz]

Well, the thing I haven't figger'd out yet is how W can tell us NOT to use less than 96% load and H has reduced loads in their manual. Go figure. sundog

Corky--I too have wondered about that. You don't 'spose Winchester is saying that just so we "think" there is a difference, do ya? After all, they won't get into trouble suggesting what they do, now will they? Heck, I would rather save the money and go with the "similar" WC820, and for the really medium loads there's always our good old Green Dot!--Shuz

[44man]

I have always said that H110 is taken from a slightly different burn rate then 296. The burn rate being specified by the company that packages the powders. We have expended pounds of each with all different lot numbers. We found that the standard Redhawk would not shoot any lot of 296 but would shoot like gangbusters with any lot of H110. Just the opposite with the SBH and SRH, these only like 296. Yes, there will be a small lot to lot variation, but on the average what we found has held true.
It is more important to find which of these powders shoot the best from your gun rather then just sticking with one brand.
Working with H110 in my Rugers (SRH & SBH) has shown a little more is needed to match 296 velocities. But the accuracy never equaled 296. The Redhawk would go from shotgun patterns with 296 to very small groups with any lot of H110.
In my opinion, there is a difference in the powders just as there is a difference in the various brands of 4350 and 4831, etc.

[9.3X62AL]

I have become greatly fond of both WW-296 and H-110 in magnum revolvers with jacketed bullets over my years of re-stuffing ammo for the rolling thunderguns. Please note that none of this experience includes the Casull or like calibers--just the 357/41/44 and 45 Colt in Ruger platforms.

Overall, I think 2400 is a better fuel for cast boolits in these wheelers than are 296/110. I've done very little work with the heavy-for-caliber castings, and those boolits might change the outcomes a bit. For the "conventional boolits of ~.210 sectional density.......160 grainers in 357, 210 x 41, 240 x 44, and 255 x 45.......I like 2400 and standard primers. Recent work with WC-820 has shown it to be on par with 2400 with these boolits, not requiring magnum primers either. I have not tried low-density loads with the WC-820, though--that still remains the realm of 2400 in revolvers, although most loads with that fuel run at least 75% case volume anyway. More recently, 7.0 grains of WC-820 and a little dacron has made the otherwise intractable Marlin 94CL x 25-20 start acting like a rifle instead of a shotgun. This is not a high-density load, but has both dacron and bottleneck case design perhaps helping to keep combustion boiling.

Shuz mentions Green Dot yet again, reminding me to try some of that stuff one of these days. He and Nevada Duke swear by that fuel in the 44 Special, and I have seen fine work from its second cousin Herco in 41 Mag mid-range and 44 Special loads. Ditto for Unique--7.5 grains under Lyman #429421 just does so well in my M-624.

[Shuz]

Just for clarification--All my Green Dot utilization has been in the .44 mag case. I've never seen the need to utilize a .44 special case, but, that's another subject!--Shuz

[44man]

I got curious what H110 would do in the .475 Linebaugh. I loaded a bunch and went down to group them. I always use 296 in this gun. I was shooting 50 yd's. The groups were the same size that I usually get with 296, I would put 4 in 1" and either my wiggle factor or the bag tension under the grip would change and I would have one open the group to 1-3/8". I held the gun too loose on several shots and the barrel would push the bill of my hat away and just touch my head, these were called high. When I didn't rest on the rear bag, my side to side wiggle would have me calling right hits.
The point of impact was also exactly the same for both powders.
Then I have two problems that makes it hard to shoot my sub 1" groups.
First, the Tasco scope has a 4 minute dot and is hard to aim at the same spot.
Second, I have shot some of these cases 30 times and some have been shot 5 to 10 times. The brass is all different in hardness due to work hardening. This makes the case tension all different and I can feel it when seating boolits.
To gain back tight groups, I will have to use my new brass and shoot them all an equal number of times. My fault for not doing things equal.
Anyway, it appears that the larger bore might have a bearing on how the two powders act also. At least I know that I can substitute between these two in this gun.

[GregP42]

Well I have only used 296 once long ago in my first .41, it didn't like it for some reason, so I went to 110, it shoots good in all the .41's I have had, and I also use it in my .32-20 out of a Dan Wesson with 115g hard cast, that load is a right little terror out of an 8" barrel let me tell you. Maybe I should revisit 296 after all these years, but I have over half a jug left of 110 right now, guess I better get shooting more. Now off to find caffeine!

Greg

[Greg5278]

H110 and 296 are similar, but not exactly the same. They are made By Primex for Hodgon and Winchester. I have been told that they are different lots, and the burning speeds are close. But the specs are slightly different, the variation is similar to the standard lot to lot variation. I would not swap loads between each, that are near max but for stating loads it should be okay. Greg S

[onceabull]

GregP42: been thinking that I owned the onliest DW 32/20 sold, save the $1200 set that ran at GB or AA.. now with your post, I'm feeling better already.... wish I had the 8" ,but have made do with the 4 and 6 "..before I got this peestol I thought I had enough ear protection..!. Onceabull

[GregP42]

GregP42: been thinking that I owned the onliest DW 32/20 sold, save the $1200 set that ran at GB or AA.. now with your post, I'm feeling better already.... wish I had the 8" ,but have made do with the 4 and 6 "..before I got this peestol I thought I had enough ear protection..!. Onceabull

Onceabull,

Glad to know I am not the only one that has one. I got the 8" back in the days when I still shot IHMSA, it was one of the ones made for them. I only have the 8" barrel, I keep watching GB, AA and E-Bay for the short barrels for it, as I would use it for my carry pistol if it was smaller. PM me later, I am curious what the number on yours is. Also we could swap load data if ya need some with H-110

Greg

[44man]

I loaded up 5 each of my version of the .475 WLNGC boolit. It weighs 429 grs. Half were H110 and half were 296. I shot them at 100 yd's from my BFR revolver. The point of impact was close enough for hunting but the 296 loads were more accurate.
The holes with the black rings and yellow marks are 296 and the orange marks are H110.

[McLintock]

Howdy GregP42,
I'd be highly interested in your loads for 32-20 and H110 powder, as I'm shooting two New Model Ruger Blackhawks (Buckeye Specials) in 32-20 and an Old Model Ruger .30 Carbine with 32-20 cases blown out to Carbine size. So far I'm finding anywhere from 12.7 to 13.5 gr of H110 with a 115 gr gas check bullet in the latter gun with it's 7 1/2" barrel, shoot really good and I'm the limiting factor by far. Haven't tried H110 in the New Models yet but plan to and would like some other load info to go on. Thanks for any help or advice you're willing to share. Also, since my chrony has been packed away since moving over a year ago, any velocity readings you have for your loads would be much appreciated.
McLintock

[GregP42]

Howdy GregP42,
I'd be highly interested in your loads for 32-20 and H110 powder, as I'm shooting two New Model Ruger Blackhawks (Buckeye Specials) in 32-20 and an Old Model Ruger .30 Carbine with 32-20 cases blown out to Carbine size. So far I'm finding anywhere from 12.7 to 13.5 gr of H110 with a 115 gr gas check bullet in the latter gun with it's 7 1/2" barrel, shoot really good and I'm the limiting factor by far. Haven't tried H110 in the New Models yet but plan to and would like some other load info to go on. Thanks for any help or advice you're willing to share. Also, since my chrony has been packed away since moving over a year ago, any velocity readings you have for your loads would be much appreciated.
McLintock

McLintock,

First let me get this out of the way

Use at your own risk, ymmv, what is safe in my gun may not be safe in yours, contents may settle in shipment, this way up, etc etc.

OK, at one time I had a whole set of loads and lost them in a move, so I called Hodgen and ask them, after promising to never ever use these in a colt or colt clone the nice guy there gave me these from Hodgen #26 manual.

110 gr RN Start load 14.5 1380 Max load 16.2 1561
90 gr JHP Start Load 15.1 1545 Max load 17.1 1728

I then asked him about 115 gr lead loads, he told me to use the 110 gr load data to start, but to not go over 16 gr. Well the 115 gr I have are hard cast heat treated so they are real hard, out of my 8" Dan Wesson they really cook nice with 15.8gr of H-110. I ONLY use StarLine brass for these loads with CCI small pistol primers. I tried the small pistol mag primers, but the groups opened up too much, if I do my part this load will shoot just under 2" at 50 yards from my pistol, and just a shade over 3" at 100 yards. This was the load I used when I shot IHMSA field pistol or close to it as my sight settings are the same with the new load. As for speed, I am getting 1490 fps out of the 8" barrel, and I will have to come up with a softer load for the 25 yard targets as I am hurting them! I hope this helps, let me know if you need any other load data as I have it for W-680, IMR-4227, AA-9, 2400 and a couple of other powders in my notes.

Greg

[McLintock]

Yeah, thanks a lot for the info GregP42, it really helps to set some parameters on what to expect or try to go for. Also, I've been using Small Rifle Primers, because I seemed to get better results with them, and your results with pistol primers may give me cause to try them some more. I do use IMR 4227 in the 32-20, so any results you have with that powder would be greatly appreciated too. So far I'm just using a generic load of 12.0 gr with a hard cast gas checked bullet from an NEI mould, but have tried up to 14.0 gr with satisfactory results. Me and my 64 year old eyes are the limiting factors in accuracy, but I still want to try because they're such fun guns to shoot. Thanks again.
McLintock