Was looking at my Speer Reloading manuals (#10 & 12) and noticed a big difference in the lowest and highest loads for this cartridge between the manuals for the same bullet and powder. In the #10 manual the 140 grain JHP is listed at 17.7 on the low side and 19.7 on the high side with H110 charges being .2 grains less for both high and low. In my #12 manual the low and high charges are 16 & 18 grains for both powders. I then go to the Hodgdon website and they show a starting load of 17.1 grains and a max of 19 grains. I notice that Hodgdon and my Speer #10 shows the pressure of these loads in the CPU measurement standard and my Speer #12 uses the PSI standard.

In the #10 manual Speer was testing both powders separately and the differences between them may have been lot numbers or other variables. In #12, odds are they tested only one powder and like Hodgdon treated them both as the same powder(which they are) and published similar recipes. The differences in charge rates are probably due to different test barrels/guns/equipment and the difference in lot numbers, ambient temps, etc. Hodgdon used the Hornady 140 gr XTP as compared to Speer and their 140 gr UCHP, which is not a true cup and core jacketed bullet but a bonded(plated) bullet. BTW....in my Speer #14, they give two different recipes for H110 and W296 and the max of one is about the min of the other. This is why reloading recipes are not Gospel, but guidelines. One reason I always use more than one source as reference wjhen developing new loads.

As mentioned:
Lot number of powder has a lot to do with it.
Next, any change in gun, exact bullet design, COL, cases and primers can have an unknown effect on pressure.
Then, there is the fact that unless all manuals used the same test procedures and equipment, they can get different results.
As you go from old to new manual, you go from CUP (copper crusher testing that only tells you how much the pressure crushed a copper slug) to transducers and gages of different designs to get to where we are today where they can see the pressure in the chamber from primer impact to bullet exiting the barrel and have found out lots of things that have lowered the numbers. Currently, SAAMI specified three statistical pressure measurements for a lot of ammunition and that testing requires quite a number of shots--so, if they test reloads like factory ammo, they are testing a LOT more and learning a LOT more today than they ever dreamed of in the past.
Then, this may have nothing to do with the OP's findings, but 296/H110 is a hard to ignite/burn powder that requires both pressure and heat to burn. Years ago they found that is was possible for the powder to not burn completely at lowered charge weights and to leave a wad of semi-molten powder in the barrel that acted as a barrel obstruction for the next shot. This didn't happen often, but once is too much.
Thus, many manuals have a start load for 296/H110 that is only 2% or so less than the max load.
Personally, since I never got great accuracy with 296/H110, never needed max loads, never needed the extra 50-100 fps that it would give me over 2400, I have simply stayed with 2400 and done very little with 296/H110.
I have found that changing guns, bullets, COL and possibly cases and primers can have enough effect that I only start loading at the lowest start load I can find and currently don't trust or need 296/H110 for anything.

Speer manuals are up to #14 now. H110 and W 296 are the exact same powder.

Look at the Hodgdon site for the Hornady 140 gr bullet. All data is the same.

I use the online data for either bullet. It's not going to matter.

Set your sights on pistol reloading data | Hodgdon Reloading

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

In my model 27 with a 5 inch barrel the 296 loads with both 125 grain, 140 grain and my favorites but not made anymore 146 grain Speer half jacketed SWCHP they all shoot well. But in all honesty I usually shoot mouse fart 38 special loads in it. The loads I quoted in the Speer 10 & 12 manuals where for the same 140 grain bullets, I did notice the Hodgden website load was for a Hornady bullet.

I did notice on the Hodgdon website they had loads for two different Hornady 140 grain bullets and when you look at those bullets you can see a big difference in the seating depth of those bullets.

The only time I load max .357 is for use in my Henry - and I go with 16 grains of 296 with a 158 grain JFP bullet. Rifles tend to like the upper end loads - both my Winchester Trapper did and so does the Henry.

Yes, you are correct. The most similar to the Gold Dot is the good old XTP

The FTX is a newer design and uses a shorter case, It has a polymer flex tip.

The Cowboy I guess is a lead bullet I don;t know about that one.

The main thing is that the data differences between H110 and Win 296 has been around since time began. They are slowly updating their data (the manuals and tests were done years ago) The testing methods have also changed over the years.

The two powders are exactly the same, as are HP38 and Win 231 where you will see different loads for those in manuals.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

I am definitely not questioning the fact that W296 and H110 are the same powders, just interesting to see the differences in minimum and maximum powder charges between the various loading manuals and the manufactures website. Just for fun I did the same comparison with 2400. Big differences there as well.

I was taught early on that the difference is mostly just because of different lot numbers.

Somebody posted here that if you have 2 manuals with the same load data, you have 2 of the same manuals.

.
.
The W296 & H110 data in Speer #14 is the same (but different min/max) as the data in Speer #13 for the 140gr JHP mentioned. Speer #13 was printed in 1998.

Per Handloader #253 article "Winchester 296", the 2008 Hodgdon Annual Manual states that these powders "are now listed as having identical ballistics: W296 & H110" marking the first time that they indicated these are "essentially the same" powder".

Speer #13's (1998) data would have been with the (then) two slightly different powders, W296 and H110, thus the load differences.

As already stated, you just need to do your homework, consult several sources, weigh (pun) the data & start conservative. You shouldn't expect their data to be identical, just hopefully in the same vicinity.

.

__________________
Waiting for the break of day

Thanks for the replies, more than anything it was interesting to see how much the loads dropped in recommended powder charges between the two Speer manuals, what used to me a less than max load in the first Speer manual is now close to a max load in the later Speer manual. Looks like Speer is being more conservative in regards to maximum pressures developed. I know the testing methods for pressure have changed as well for Speer but it looks like Hodgden is using the CPU method on their website and Speer is using the PSI method on their loads in the later manual. With a 5" barrel those 296 loads don't seem to burn all the powder in the gun

Note also that Hodgdon is using a 10" test barrel not a "real" gun,

Heck if we had the equipment we could test your gun and my gun with all else the same and the data will will be different.

The good thing about the real slow powders that fill up handgun cases it's hard to blow one up. It's much easier to blow up with a fast powder. I have loaded compressed loads with H110 and there is very little difference (it was a test, I do not do that on a regular basis)

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

The more manuals you look at, the more variance in data using "identical" components you will find. It's not hard to understand if you know what's transpired and what you're looking at.

The information you see in loading manuals are not "recipes" but rather the results of repeated controlled experiments using different equipment, different lab protocols, different lots of components done on different days at different elevations above sea level under different atmospheric conditions. Is it any wonder that they do not mirror each other. If you were expecting them to your expectations are rather unrealistic. A lot of this has to do with the concept of a "recipe" as opposed to what data is. With a recipe there is an expectation of an essentially identical product (and with it performance) will be produced when identical components in identical quantities are assembled in an acceptable manner. Unfortunately, in the case of handloading, there are way way too many variables involved for this to be possible. While the use of the term recipe as related to handloading may be cute especially to those wordsmiths among us, it erodes the understanding and expectations of a large number of handloaders. This is especially so of those less experienced. This erosion or lack of understanding extend to other information contained in loading manuals such as why C.O.A.L. is actually listed in the data. It's not a guarantee as to the functionality of the finished round but rather qualifies the conditions under which the data was obtained. The same goes for listing the universal receiver's barrel length or firearm used in the testing.

Having said all of this, what does comparing data in multiple sources really tell you? if doubts arise, what's the tie breaker? Averaging data makes little to no sense in this context, especially if rule #1 (start low and work up) is followed. Then again, if you just want to copy somebodies else's work and not actually engage in load development for YOUR GUN??

Personally I have numerous loading manuals but I use them not for comparing data looking for possible discrepancies but rather for finding powder and bullet combinations another book may not contain. You will find data which does not correlate closely but that does not mean that it is in error. Some 7mm Rem. Mag, data published by Speer specifically comes to mind. Many folks questioned the low velocities and charge weights of the listed maximum loads. The data was in fact correct for THEIR firearm and components. If you are looking for discrepancies, you will find them and more than you at first think! That said, if you do not trust (for whatever reason) the data in a book you have, you should get rid of it.

In the particular case of H110/W296, you cannot stuff enough of it in a case and properly seat a bullet to create a kaboom event in .357, .41 and .44 magnum cases. Flat primers and very sticky extraction yes. I do not recommend this but I did learn it in years gone by. I also learned that when I reached that point accuracy went out the window. An undercharge with the propellant produces a squib and not a detonation.

Start low and work up, approach maximum loads with caution and remember that a chrono is your friend when determining max. loads for your gun with low pressure round like the .45 ACP.

Be safe and do a little thinking before you act.

Bruce

Just a correction on my part, I noticed that in my Speer #10 manual they had a max pressure of 46,000 CUP and the Hodgdon website has a max pressure of 40,900 CUP.

That, to me, is one of the great attributes of H110/W296. It is virtually impossible to stuff enough into a magnum case with a bullet properly seated to harm a modern sidearm.