A lot of potential politicians and media "heads" here who can read but either cannot comprehend or are intentionally obscuring what has been openly stated by me.

In my very first thread, brought to life again here by one other than me in his/her vanity as to their supreme knowledge, I HAVE ALWAYS STATED THAT H110 AND W296 ARE PROBABLY/OR ARE THE SAME MANUFACTURED POWDERS AS THEY LEAVE THE ORIGINAL FACTORY.

I go on to state, what is reported by other sources on this forum, in loading manuals, and in gun reporting lore, THAT EVEN THE VERY SAME POWDER BUT IN DIFFERENT LOTS, VARIATIONS CAN EXIST AS TO BURN RATE, VELOCITIES, AND...."ACCURRACY".

That is why many sources suggest that if you are shooting a "maximum power, top pressure load"...when you change powder lots of the same powder you should reduce the load and build it back up.

I will state again what I stated in the first long ago thread and here...H110 and W296 may/are the same powders from the factory. BUT based on MY USAGE ONLY (nobody else's) at the shooting bench I have found differences in accuracy levels. Somebody else might have different results...I am happy for them.

I stated MY results by MY efforts are not scientific and were not meant to be. Since 1972 when I started reloading I have NEVER seen a truly, all factors removed scientific ammunition accuracy test conducted by ANY gunwriter, shooter, and expert such as we seem to have here in some of you/ya'll.

Years ago ALMOST all reloading manuals showed different data between W296 and H110, with no explanation as to why. Then more recent manuals show the same data. Why the change? I do not know. Years ago did they know the powders were the same as they left the factory? I do not know.

Every gun writer that I ever read tested their handgun loads off the bench from a two handed rest, or they shot offhand with two hands. Sometimes, rarely, a Ransom Rest was used. Elmer Keith, Skeeter Skelton, Bob Milek, Mike Venturino, and ALL of the rest. Rarely did any of them use a Ransom Rest in their magazine articles.

I will say that Mike Venturino, if I remember correctly would shoot 10 shot groups or more to prove accuracy for a specific load. But he still shot almost all of those handguns OFF OF A BENCH, FROM A FIRM REST, WITH A TWO HAND HOLD.

They shot the loads, reported the results, and people bought and used products as they were reported.

I have specifically stated that ALL of us are relegated to just about the same recourse. We do not have access to a Ransom Rest. So we go to the range and test our loads how WE SEE FIT. After we are done we choose the load that was the most accurate to US........

Then we tell our friends, and in my case my detractors here how our loads did. Cautious folks, like myself, state, this worked for ME. NOT YOU.

I never said anything that could be taken as gospel, rule of law, or you'd better do it my way or else. Or as one person here stated, "prosey...prothle...prothelizing...preaching from the pulpit" (couldn't spell the word).

What I did say, and I am willing to prove it to the person who provides a solid mechanical rest, an enclosed labratory, a series of technicians in white lab coats, MY HANDGUNS (because that is what I AM SHOOTING), certified certificators to certify that everything meets the standards that folks here are demanding as true scientific proof....let me catch my breath...I am willing to prove under those conditions that the same powder with the only difference being of different lot numbers, MAY shoot to different accuracy levels. Even if that accuracy level is different by one inch, THEY ARE DIFFERENT AT THE SHOOTING BENCH EVEN IF THEY ARE THE SAME POWDERS MANUFACTURED/NAMED/LABELED.

Therefore MY DISCOURSE IN THIS ISSUE is that the powder, or powders ARE NOT THE SAME at the SHOOTING BENCH, which is the only reason for having gunpowder in the first place, to shoot from a gun.

I have been shooting at public and private ranges since 1972. A lot. I have NEVER seen anyone use a mechanical pistol rest of any kind. I have seen EVERYONE who was testing THEIR loads in THEIR weapons use a two handed rest over a support such as sandbags, or two hands sitting or standing with no support, i.e. offhand.

In 1974, at Yuma, Arizona's public range I watched a man walk up to the line with a shooting box with several .45 autos. He had another man and his son in tow. As an aside the shooter looked like, was built like, and talked like Slim Pickens (almost a clone, even had the potgut). He was a former Bullseye shooter who had been shooting at Camp Perry since 1936 or so. He had worked one of the .45 autos for his companion and son. He pulled the .45 out of the box, liberally sprayed it inside and out with WD40, shook off the excess, loaded it and fired it at 10 and 25 yards offhand Bullseye regulation fashion. He had 2 inch or lesser groups at both ranges. It was about 21 shot groups each.

What he did was "contrary" to the current-of-that/this-day-gunwriter handgun testing technique. He did not use a rest, he did not use two hands, he did not do it any any "scientific" manner. But he shot better then than most people then or later in my life, including me, could have done from a rest with two hands.

When he was done he said in the same voice and mannerisms as Slim Pickens, "There, I think this handgun is ready for any competition."

I would like to hear some of you-alls comments on his "lack of scientific proof", or lack of anything for that matter. The man could shoot, he had enough experience, talent, and knowledge to know that his test was ENOUGH to decide for HIM the accuracy level of that handgun.

I have the experience, the knowledge, SOME talent, to know that what I shot from a solid rest with two hands produced what I have stated here.

H110 and W296 will not shoot to the same accuracy levels at the shooting bench FOR ME. Even though, as produced they are reported to be the same powders, thay have ALWAYS (to me only) produced different levels of accuracy. I can only suggest that this is due to different powder lots.

And yes I can "wiggle-waggle" even from a rest and throw a few rounds off. But read this from my original, first thread:

"Speer 158 grain HP: H110-4 1/4 inches, 2400-2 7/8 inches, W-296-1 1/4 inches, AA9-3 1/2 inches"

If the difference between H110 and W296, in this load only, is what is reported, I know I did not "wiggle-waggle" that much. So when I want to load THAT bullet in MY M27-2 I will choose W296 and NOT H110.

I will say it again. The variables are such that if one wants to TRULY know the accuracy potential of his/her handgun they SHOULD try ALL powders available for their chosen purpose. Including the reported "same" powders. Only then will they TRULY know the accuracy potential of their weapon.

Ya'll keep them cards and letters coming...........

__________________
Have guns...will shoot'em.