H-110 and W-296 Are Not The Same Part Deux, or Dux, or Ducks

[semperfi71]

After these two threads:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/121151-h-110-w-296-not-same.html

http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/207925-question-about-h110-296-a.html

I said I would do a more intensive test and report back here.

In these two threads several posters said, and several produced enough evidence, that these two powders are the same as manufactured. Ultimately an employee of Hodgdon's came aboard and confirmed that.

In these two threads I stated I was aware that the two powders are the same as manufactured BUT on the firing range, with MY method of accuracy testing they were actually performing differently enough to warrant testing of both for accuracy. Therefore I stated that if one wants to know the ultimate accuracy potential of his/her handgun with regards to ANY powder...even these two, they should test them.

Here is my test.

Two shooters, myself and my friend John. John is a handgunner/handloader such as me and uses the same methods as I do to test reloads. We are about the same size and build. I'm 58, he is 61ish. We both have good enough eyesight and muscle coordination to shoot steady enough for this test. He was in his youth rated "expert" with the M1 Garand in the U.S. Army. I shot "expert" with the M14 in the U.S. Marines. HOWEVER that was a LONG time ago.

I'm better looking.

We both agree that there are probably other shooters, and especially competitive target shooters, who could shoot "tighter" groups than us.

But remember we are trying to find the most accurate loads for us, in "our" handgun. Just as any recreational handgunner/reloader is apt to do.

Handgun: As used in the first test/post of 2010, the same M27-2, 4 inch barrel, nickle finish, S&W factory target stocks. Sights blackened with Sight Black by Birchwood Casey.

Climate: Blue sky, bright sun, no wind, approximately 68 degrees.

Test method: two hand hold with forearms rested on sandbags, no part of the revolver making any contact with the bags. Revolver fired single-action. Three sets of five shot groups for each powder type and lot.

Powders: All one pound canisters. H1urchased about three years ago, W1urchased about one year ago, H2 and W2urchased last week from the same gunshop.

H1 is an unmarked lot of H110, W1 is W296 with a lot #1050807 197, H2 is H110 with a lot #1030111 2224, W2 is W296 with a lot #1012010 219.

The lots of H1 and W1 have been stored in my climate controlled home. I do not have any doubts as to the quality of these powders. They are also the powders used in the original test of January 2010 in the first thread of that time.

Bullet: Speer 158 grain hollowpoint manufacture #4211, same as in the original test.

Components: R-P .357 brass reloaded about two times, CCI550 small pistol magnum primer, 14.5 grains of powder for all loads of all powders.

The original test of five shots per group and only one group:
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

We also chronoed the loads with two chronos, a PACT and a CRONY. Our results were inconclusive as we had many machine errors. We did find that those loads that printed were in the range of 1001 to 1065 fps for all powders.

Here are the results. Me is Me and John is John. The groups are in inches and measured center-to-center.

H1: Me: 3 4/8, 1 5/8, 3 4/8
John: 5 5/8, 2 7/8, 5 2/8
W1: Me: 3 7/8, 3 7/8, 1 5/8
John: 4 4/8, 4 1/8, 4
H2: Me: 3, 3 5/8, 2 3/16
John: 4 2/8, 2 4/8, 5 3/8
W2: Me: 3, 4, 3 3/8
John: 2 7/8, 3, 2 4/8

My conclusion.

In this accuracy test the results of the last test were reversed. H1 was now more accurate than W1, but not by much.

In this test the differences of accuracy will probably be seen by many folks as, "Not much difference to amount to any concern."

I would agree, I would say the most accurate load for me was H1, but not by much. For John it was W2. And judged against the other loads he shot he may have just about that point "found-his-groove".

I found this exercise quite interesting. I quit reading most gun print media about ten years or so ago.

Up to that time almost all gunwriters and shooters would simply shoot one group of five rounds, record the accuracy and call that good. I assume they, and myself, were assuming that a good quality handgun will print similar groups without too much deviation.

I would say that in this short and simple test the deviation can potentially be quite large.

I would like to add that Mr. Jamison, formerly of Shooting Times and Mike Venturino, also formerly of Shooting Times used to shoot, if I remember correctly 10 shot groups for HUNTING rifles, vice the time-honored 3 shot groups. Mr. Venturino, I think, ultimately was shooting 10 shot or even 20 shot groups for handguns. Again my comments on these two writers is from memory.

What gunwriters do today I do not know as I do not read much of gun print media anymore.

I do read the NRA's Rifleman and it appears they will shoot two to four groups of five shots each. This from my memory as I type here.

In the end, most folks will be happy shooting H110 and W296 and not worrying about the difference in accuracy.

Powder lot differences may cause a difference in accuracy and I think that's visible here, BUT the difference is not that much for the "average" shooter. Hence load one or the other as long as you ARE NOT SWITCHING POWDERS IN MAXIMUM LOADS. In that case back the load off and switch the powder to be safe. This warning is found in almost all reloading print material.

Older manuals, and some newer ones show different load amounts and velocities for the same two powders. Hodgdons and Winchester do not.

Mr. Daly from Hodgdons, who reported in the second thread, said those differences can be from different days, conditions, shooters, etc. But he emphatically said they are the same powders as coming out of the manufacturer. The only difference is lot numbers.

In the future, simply because I like to shoot groups for accuracy in my handguns I will probably still test H110 against W296 simply because I want to know without question which is the "best" for any specific handgun.

In reality I will be probably finding that they are close enough to be the same as far as practical accuracy is concerned.

And, to test accuracy, I will definitely shoot at least three groups of five or a single group of fifteen. That's gonna be expensive, and by the time I am done I will not have any bullets left to shoot at anything else!!

I will, if loading to maximum levels, try each powder separately because it might be possible that different levels of pressure could occur due to lot variations. Again in actuality, not enough to matter for safety reasons, but my handguns would be expensive to replace so I would err in safe judgement.

To finalize, I was wrong in my belief that W296 and H110 can display great differences in "practical accuracy" from a bench-rested handgun being fired without a mechanical rest.

My next thread will be: "Unique and IMR4831 are NOT the same when used as fertilizer." Stay tuned.

 

[Dragon88]

I was wrong in my belief that W296 and H110 can display great differences in "practical accuracy" from a bench-rested handgun being fired without a mechanical rest.

Your groups show zero difference in accuracy between the differently labeled lots of the same powder. It took three threads, but you finally got there for the most part. *claps*

 

[Alk8944]

All you have accomplished is to prove you are one of the types who believe they are smarter than the engineers, chemists and ballisticians who manufacture these two propellants. Do you have pressure testing equipment, or a "closed bomb" with which to determine accurately the properties and burning rate? I doubt it.

You can argue all you want, but if you believe one is more accurate than the other your testing results will display this. It isn't because one is better that the other, but rather sub-concious human nature.

You could save yourself an immense amount of aggravation by simply calling the manufacturer and asking. This is the phone number for St. Marks Powders in Crawford, FL. (850) 925-6111

My money is on you won't call them, and then report back honestly to tell everyone what they said! I know the answer, I have called them.

 

[Skip Sackett]

I said I would do a more intensive test and report back here.

To finalize, I was wrong in my belief that W296 and H110 can display great differences in "practical accuracy" from a bench-rested handgun being fired without a mechanical rest.

My next thread will be: "Unique and IMR4831 are NOT the same when used as fertilizer." Stay tuned.

A man of his word! Being shown you are wrong is one thing, being man enough to admit it is quite another. 3 threads or not, I take my helmet off to you sir! A real man. Now, if only others would/could get a grip on some admitting................

As for your next experiment, I only want to know AFTER you eat the tomatoes!

Too funny!

 

[semperfi71]

Thank you Smith Crazy.

I wish the chronographs would have worked, it would have been interesting to see how the velocities worked out.

I suspect they were not that different though based on the few readings we got.

 

[semperfi71]

Dragon88 and Alk8944,

How do you test your ammunition, either factory or reloads, to determine which is the most accurate in your handgun?

 

[Skip Sackett]

Just for the record, I ain't much on taking someone else's word for too much. Unless it comes right from the Scriptures, there just isn't too much I believe by blind faith and it sure isn't going to be something from someone on a web forum! No offense but, really, there are lots of nuts out there that are nothing more than "computer quarterbacks", if you get my drift.


Every last one of us are liable to put our own spin on things, every one of us, me included. It is just human nature. Not that we are all demon, awful, wicked, we are just human.

To act like we are above the next guy just proves that we aren't.

When dealing with firearms and the related hobbies, make sure you check out the information that you come across on the web, even the stuff I put out there. I, and I know this is hard to believe, could be wrong and so could others, even if they admit it or not. (Even professional folks that are considered "experts" in their field.)

Here is what I see happened here, maybe I am a bit simplistic though: You did your part for the economy by buying some new powder and bullets/primers and such, spent quality time with your hobby and did some reloading, got to go to the range and "light a few off" with a good friend and learned something to boot. Listen, and I may be weird, but I see that as a win/win all of the way!

Let me know how the squash turns out too!

 

[Missionary]

Good morning
To bad there is no comparrison of the two powders from the same lot.
If you ever get the chance to compare one lot of any powder to another lot of powder from the same company you may discover there is a difference between those lot #´s . Generally what is sold to us in relaoder land is reasonable well controlledas far as burn rates. But even then the powder manufactures highly recommend reloaders check lot #´s. If lot #´s of the same powder are not the same then start the loading sequence all over again because there can be differences from lot to lot.
Mike in peru

 

[SuperMan]

As was said, the only difference is the lot to lot variations in these two powders. Unless a can of H110 and a can of W296 from the same batch of powder are tested together anything else is meaningless. One will get the exact same results in testing two different lots of of the same powder produced several years apart...it is going to be close but not the same.

Winchester 231 is also the same HP38. Back in the 1980s and 90s I was a commercial reloader and bought powder by the 30 gallon drum. One time I got a barrel of HP38 in and when I pealed off the label the printing on the drum was for 231...

One question I have on your testing that I maybe missed or didn't note. When you and your friend fired your groups did you know as you were shooting which powder you were burning? To eliminate and possible bias the loads should have been packed and numbered in a book and then compared after all shooting was over.

Nice way to spend a day shooting...

Bob

 

[johngalt]

Dragon88 and Alk8944,

How do you test your ammunition, either factory or reloads, to determine which is the most accurate in your handgun?

I can't speak for them, but I've spent lots of time trying to find the 'most accurate' load for my target guns, trying many different loads and powders.

I've found that shooting from a rest is a complete waste of time beyond a certain point. I know you don't want to hear it, but you need a ransom rest to really determine what is most accurate.

Your tests should bear that out - you were seeing group sizes vary by more than an inch using the same lot of powder. In a couple cases over 2 - 3 inches. No powder is going to vary that much unless it is operating way outside its sweet spot. That is all human error, not powder inaccuracy.

Now I just use what the local bullseye shooters tell me is accurate. They have actually ransom rested their loads (in their guns of course), but I am not going to do any better shooting from a rest.

 

[Skip Sackett]

Even using B.R.A.S.S, what John says is all too true. I have never used a Ransom rest before because even with a normal hold, in an MTM pistol rest, my loads and handguns can perform better than I can.

Your mileage may vary but, unless we are of those folks that shoot professionally, like 2000+ rounds a day, most likely, we are going to need an "aid" to eek out all of the performance of our equipment.

I now have some glasses that have a tri-focal at the top of the lens. When shooting, I look through it in order to get the sight alignment/picture that my eyes got at 20 years old.
It greatly improved my groups.

I shot 230 out of 250 with the M16 in 1973, that qualified me for an Expert badge too. Seems to me though, I had a shooting jacket on along with gloves and a sling tied to my weak side bicep. I also had practiced my shooting positions for weeks before shooting for qualification and they became second nature. For instance, I could "feel" the spots on my elbows and knees where the two were supposed to be when In my sitting position. Muscle memory.

Usually, and I am speaking for me, I can repeat my shooting positions or stances pretty well. If I did it for weeks on end and 8hrs + a day, I would be much better at it, since I have a stinking full time job and a part time hobby, I will have to hope I do the best I can!

p.s. I am working on some 30/06 loads that are turning in sub MOA groups, so I must be doing something right! Not to mention that I am teaching the wife to shoot with that kind of precision too and she is performing well.

Just for perspective!

 

[Rule3]

Semperfi,

Thanks for the update. Perhaps on your next outing, try the Chronograph again without concern for accuracy, just to get the numbers. It would be interesting just for the data. I would expect that there would still be some slight variation just as there is with one powder.

 

[fredj338]

The only flaw in your testing is the unkown brass & the shooters ability. To have that little variation in accuracy, too close to call one "better" over the other IMO. A blind test using once fired brass, same number of rounds per shooter, but way more than 3-4 groups to remove errant shots.
A good test though, but w/o chrono data, it's not telling much about the commonality of the two powders. I could get Unique to shoot sim or better groups than H110, that doesn't prove anything about the two powders as far as their common traits.

 

[Win75]

Good test and thanks for the post!!!!

 

[semperfi71]

I agree that a mechanical rest would eliminate shooter error.

And to really prove the actual accuracy of a load you MUST have a mechanical rest.

Therefore any test without 1. A mechanical rest. 2. NO weather factor, i.e. indoors. 3. All other variables eliminated...is not truly scientific.

I never said my test was scientific and knew it was not.

But, again, I used methods that almost EVERY gunwriter and for sure EVERY shooter I have ever seen, and I have seen quite a few, used.

My methods were what is "commonly" used and not scientific.

I wish I had a true mechanical rest and a climate controlled labratory to test the differences of same powder lots as to accuracy and performance. It would be interesting to see the results.

BUT, based on what I did, and on the report of Mr. Daly of Hodgdons, for the common, non-competitive shooter, the difference in lots between H110 and W296 is not of great significance.

I fired the chronograph rounds over the chrono but not at the targets.
I fired the target rounds at the target.

The brass was of good quality and of known history as to reload count. All of the brass was reloaded either two or three times, my memory while here is failing. But they were all the same as to reload history.

The cartridges were loaded and marked on the primer faces as to lot number and powder.

I made sure that no cartridges were shot out of sequence, even to the point of almost having to slap John's hand and shouting, "Don't touch those!!"

I have to correct a statement about John. He fired expert with the M14 and not the Garand. He accused me of having him serve in the Korean War era.

He did not argue that I was better looking than him.

 

[semperfi71]

johngalt is dead-on with everything he posted.

I agree that testing your handgun, on a bench, without a MECHANICAL rest (such as a Ransom Rest) "is a complete waste of time beyond a certain point."

That is true and I proved it.

But, most common/recreational/hunting/and even some competitive shooters want to know which powder (for sake of discussion) Bullseye, W231, AA2 is the most accurate in their handgun.

So they shoot groups from a bench, usually without a mechanical rest but from sandbags, a rolled up shirt, a box, maybe their Mother-In-Law's shoulder (just kidding). They cannot afford, or do not have access to a mechanical rest. They have to "make-do".

When shooting DIFFERENT powders people will test them and MAYBE they will see significant differences.

But in powders of the same type H110/W296 or HP38/W231 the difference will be most likely be insignificant, even between lot numbers.

And I wish to add this, based on my previous shooting data, prior to this test, I might have shot a LOT of powders that were actually just as accurate in the same gun with the same bullet.

This because I was shooting only 5 shots for 1 group per powder. And my groups would vary only by 1/2 inch to 1 inch. Not enough to be significant. I did get groups that might vary as much as 2 to 4 inches (as in one group 3 inches the next 7). THOSE groups I think I can attribute to the powder or bullet and not mistakes by me.

The fallacy of my previous testing methods was 1 shot groups of 5 shots and calling it "good".

From now on, If I want to know the accuracy of a load, I will shoot at least 3 groups of 5 shots each or groups of 15 shots per powder or bullet.

I am glad I am retired and have the time. The War Department will be glad because she is also retired and every moment I spend at the range is more time for her to have a "peaceful" day at home!!!

 

[semperfi71]

Here's two true anecdotes about "sighting in" or "group-shooting-for-accuracy".

I went to the range and there was two guys shooting a Marlin .30-30 at a target that had over 200 bullet holes in it, unpasted. Most of them .30 caliber as well.

They were shooting at a Coca-Cola can they hung on the target with a stick.

After shooting about a half a box of shells (they had to save the rest of the ammo for their hunt) they walked down range, I did to. They pointed at a tight group of three shots just below the Coke can and said, "There's our group, we're sighted in and ready."

They never hit the can. The group was either their's or one of the original 200.

Then one of them said, "I've killed elk with this rifle at 300 yards."

Second anecdote.

An intelligent (I'm not being facetious, he had to be he was an accountant or a lawyer) shooter once told me in strict honesty that he found the most accurate distance to test loads for hunting rifles. It was 3 shot groups at 75 yards. Anything in front, or beyond 75 yards was not a reliable test because the mechanics of rifle bore vibrations were against any real accuracy other than 75 yards.

After he walked away my friend laughingly whispered in my ear, "Of course the groups are more accurate at 75 yards, he's CLOSER."

Thanks for all the posts here of helpful, positive attitude.

Stay tuned for my next thread. "Black-powder IS BETTER than smokeless-powder in cauterizing open wounds."

 

[Hobie1]

I've followed this thread for awhile. Semper Fi, I think you've taken one for the team and respectfully so. I enjoyed your coming back and telling it like you see it. I respect your honesty. However, were you holding your breath for 9.32 seconds before the trigger broke and the planets were in alignment? Ah, I thought so. Balance grasshopper.

Hobie

 

[ArchAngelCD]

In the future, simply because I like to shoot groups for accuracy in my handguns I will probably still test H110 against W296 simply because I want to know without question which is the "best" for any specific handgun.

You better buy an 8 lb jug of powder because even when you find the powder that is more accurate in your gun that will probably change when you buy more powder of a different lot.

In reality I will be probably finding that they are close enough to be the same as far as practical accuracy is concerned.

To finalize, I was wrong in my belief that W296 and H110 can display great differences in "practical accuracy" from a bench-rested handgun being fired without a mechanical rest.

I applaud your honesty Sir, bravo!

Thank you for running the test and taking the time to post your results. I do appreciate your efforts...

 

[semperfi71]

Thanks folks,

I did stick my neck out by slavishly following old practices, i.e. the one group of five shots and calling it good.

With centerfire hunting rifles I shoot three shot groups. Most of my rifles have consistently shot very close to the same size groups no matter if I fired one group or five of the same load.

BUT, if you look at John's shots, his last groups were much better than the first three.

Proof that even with a good two-handed hold at 25 yards accuracy testing with a handgun is as johngalt said: "I've found that shooting from a rest is a complete waste of time beyond a certain point. "

I "assumed" that my handgunning practices would be like my rifle practices. Plus this is what most of the gunwriters then, and recently did, as well as seeing a lot of handgunners at four ranges over the years do as well.

ArchAngelCD, I have 19 pounds of H110 that I purchased in 1990. All the same lot. And...I will probably never shoot it all.

Seriously, I think I am going to try handgun accuracy testing at maybe 15 yards. That may be close enough to hold tight enough and close enough to discern any viable changes in accuracy of different powders or bullets.

Or it may be like the guy who shot his rifles at 75 yards, closer but not necessarily better.