H-110 and W-296 Are Not The Same

[enfield]

What bothers me the most is the inplication that conversations with factory reps ARE 'scientifically and statistically meaningful'.

Without data it's just another opinion.

 

[Dragon88]

Don't take my word for anything, email or call them yourself if you are interested. Or build your own ballistics lab and test the powders yourself. Or best of all, make your own smokeless powder.

We all like to tweak and verify stuff, but at some point you have to trust what the manufacturer of the product tells you and just use the stuff.

 

[sourdough44]

I noticed in my 2010 Hodgdon manual they list HP-38 & win 231 exactly the same throughout the book. Yes I know they are the same, like H-110 & win 296.

 

[dcbridgwater]

So is there any other Hodgdon and Winchester powders besides H110/WW296 and HP38/WW231 that are the same?

 

[enfield]

It doesn't cost me anything in money, time or effort to treat the two powders as different, and it's a safe thing to do.

 

[Rule3]

Again, I do not deny that the powders are the same.

Does this mean they are the same but different??

My lot of H-110 dates back to 1992ish and my lot [one pound] of W-296 was purchased last year.

Let us not forget the above statement. You are comparing a 5 shot group with some powder that is 18+ years old with one that you say is new. So for the sake of discussion even if the powders where the same name (H-110) do you think loading some 18 year old powder vs some brand new powder would create some difference??

 

[BruceM]

"It doesn't cost me anything in money, time or effort to treat the two powders as different, and it's a safe thing to do."

No, but then again, that doesn't make it logical. Safer than what? Even back in the day, when Olin made W296 and H110 was a surplus powder, the two were so close that loading data was, for all intents and purposes, identical. Now, the only variance is lot to lot and unless you're on the razor's edge of the envelope, they can be used interchangeably.

I suppose that after this, we can discuss "new" vs "old" 2400.



Bruce

 

[Paul5388]

And we think 18 years is old for a double based powder? Alliant has powder (Unique) on the shelf that's over 100 years old that still performs to specification.

When I compared some 1940 Unique to 2005 Unique, the worst spread in average velocity I got was 51 fps and that was using 3 different guns. That 2" barrel just didn't like 5.5 gr as well as the 4" barrels did.

However, the 4" 1949 M&P was 36 fps faster than the 4" M66-2 with the same vintage powder.

 

[oldRoger]

The powders in question are made in large lots, some of each lot goes in one plastic bottle, some in another. Statistically any comparison between them is meaningless, unless we would like to prove that the container label was influencing the outcome.
We might in fact be able to do just that, statistical analysis is in the end, not perfect.

The point is that there is no reason to spend our time doing this when we know what the answer is before we start. IMO the manufacturer has no reason to fabricate this answer, in fact from a marketing standpoint could probably sell more powder by trying to convince us they the two were different.

 

[semperfi71]

OCD1 states: "Based on all the Previous reports direct from the company, a random 5 shot sample from one individual with one gun is not anywhere close to being a Scientifically Valid Sample. You do not have enough samples and too many variables to make your results have any true scientific or statistical meaning."

I never claimed my test was scientific. But the only real scientific test would be a labratory (sp) with the correct equipment. Not many of us have that, so most all of us shoot as I did. Over a rest at the range. Not scientific but realistic to our personal needs/desires.

johngalt states: "IMHO, accuracy tests shot by hand from a sandbag aren't going to tell you much. The human factor is going to introduce far more variation than any small differences between powders. You need to shoot from a ransom rest to have a chance at quantifying potential accuracy differences."

You are correct. But how many of us have Ransom Rests? So most of us test our loads by...over a rest at the range. What we end up with is what works for US/ME. Somebody else can easily have different results. Therefore they will prefer AA9 to 2400 because it is more accurate in their handgun. Or...W-296 to H-110 because it is more accurate...in their handgun.

MMA10mm states: "I think it's very silly or arrogant to say that your not going to listen to the factory reps."

I never said that either.

buck460XVR states: "...that's just the difference in lot numbers, not brand names, and every decent handloader knows this."

And regardless of lot numbers or the fact that both powders are reported to be the same, if one gives better accuracy with a given bullet over another I will load the most accurate. I would think an intelligent handloader would know that.

enfield states: "What bothers me the most is the inplication that conversations with factory reps ARE 'scientifically and statistically meaningful'."

In support of his comment Alliant has a warning on its site stating: "•Blue Dot® should NOT be used in the 357 Magnum load using the 125 grain projectile (Blue Dot® recipes with heavier bullet weights as specified in Alliant Powders Reloading Guide are acceptable for use).
•Blue Dot® should NOT be used in the 41 Magnum cartridge (all bullet weights)."
I emailed the "reps" and gave them the lot numbers of my Bluedot. They said its "okay". Yet they have this posted warning. AND, how can a powder be good in the .44 magnum but not the .41 magnum? I'm not a scientist or ballistician but I would like to know why.

BruceM stated: "I suppose that after this, we can discuss "new" vs "old" 2400."

Guess what? I have some old and new 2400 and its next for my "testing". That'll really get some folks fired up. Elmer and Skeeter used it religously and it still has a group of shooters who are religous about it.

Finally I beg to say that whatever is the most accurate powder in your pet pistol load is the powder that you must use, if you are concerned about accuracy. If you are concerned about cost, then by all means buy the cheapest, but it may not be the most accurate. AND, if you do not want to spend the time to find out if the same powders (W-296 and H-110 or W-231 and HP38) have any difference in accuracy in YOUR handguns(s) then so be it. But I now know what is the most accurate load in my M27-2 4 inch with the bullets selected. According to the accuracy I received W-296 and H-110 are different. They have been so in the past and still are today.

And guess what...I have had different accuracy results with W-231 and HP38 as well!! But that was a long time ago and I ain't gonna go dig that data out of my records...no matter how "umbrant" (I just invented a word!) some folks get.

Seriously, ya'll have a good night. Regards.

 

[Paul5388]

MMA10mm states: "I think it's very silly or arrogant to say that your not going to listen to the factory reps." I had a factory rep tell me a published load I have been using for about 37 years was over pressure and shouldn't be used. Of course, he was the same one that told me 35,000 psi and 45,000 cup are the same pressures in a .357 Mag.

 

[MMA10mm]

Perhaps I should have chosen my words better.

When not just a factory rep, but published information that is used for reloading purposes, as well as "suspicions/rumors/inuendo/speculation" have been published in the gun press for the past 25+ years, and representatives/employees/workers at all the companies involved are telling you this, you really have to be an ostrich sticking your head in the sand to ignore this.

It's not entirely the reloader's fault for falling for this. The bottom line is that powder companies have done a great job indoctrinating/brainwashing reloaders into being so hyper-careful and hyper-vigilant, that we now are having a backlash where people refuse to believe the same factory reps who told us they are different now that they are telling us they are the same.

Part of this brainwashing, I'm confident, was out of safety concerns because many reloaders don't take enough precautions on lot-to-lot variations and/or don't recognize the significant swings that can occur in lot-to-lot variations. BUT some of me believes that a lot of this was hype to sell one brand's name of the same powder as another's. (Buy HODGDON's H-110, it's better than Wincester's W296 - or vice-versa.)

Another factor in all of this is that when you see a burn rate chart, there is often a gap with another powder in-between two powders that are actually the same. This also occurs because of lot-to-lot variation and/OR the test conditions. Burn rate charts should NOT be looked at as linear. They should actually be looked at as clusters of powders in the same broad ranges of burning rate and any of those powders, depending on BOTH application AND lot-to-lot variation, can wind up in totally different order.

Some other powders that are the same include HS-7 & W571 and WAP (Winchester Action Pistol) is the same as Ramshot's Silohuette. There are others.

Seriously people, let's get our eyes open and not be stubbornly beholden to outdated information. Change is good. Don't be embarrassed if you were "sucked in" by the powder company's propoganda - we all were to some extent of another, and they spend a LOT of money and effort selling it to us. To ignore the truth though is not a good thing.

And, btw, if you're spending money on both H110 and W296 to do these comparisons, you ARE wasting your time and money. The differences you'll find will change every 6 months to a year whenever you buy a new lot of either or both powders.

 

[semperfi71]

MMA10mm,

Your last post is a good one. I believe one of our posters stated that he used only the online reloading data because it is so easy to access.

A large library of reloading data is a good thing. A cautious approach to anybody's data or opinions is also a good thing.

As to your last comment,

"And, btw, if you're spending money on both H110 and W296 to do these comparisons, you ARE wasting your time and money. The differences you'll find will change every 6 months to a year whenever you buy a new lot of either or both powders."

This is why I have a lifetime supply of H-110, bought at the same time in a case lot.

However, with the amount of shooting I do with the variety of guns I shoot, one or two pounds of W-296 with the 500 count of Winchester 158 grain hollowpoints I have will last me forever with my M27-2 4 inch.

Once again though, I agree that the powders W-296 and H-110 are the same as they come from the factory. And the difference on the paper targets is indeed probably due to lot-to-lot variances. But, that variance requires that an individual be cautious in their loading to max and/or the search for top accuracy.

As such, many times here we see a reloader come up and ask, "I need an accurate powder for my .38/.357/.41/.44/.45." The answers that come back generally always refer to one powder that the one responder uses.

The reality is that any one handgun cartridge generally has 20 or more powders available of which any 5 or less may prove to be oustandingly accurate. In the case of magnum loads the choice is more narrow but still selective. One must be ready to do a lot of range work with a lot of powders to find the "most accurate load for their handgun."

Then, when that load is found, buy enough of the components to last, if possible.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I didn't read all the posts because I don't have time right now, I will later. I did want to ask why you use different charge weights when attempting to disprove/prove W296 and H110 are different powders. Of course you will achieve different results with different charge weights. If you really wanted to prove both are different powders you would use the same brass, bullets, primers, OAL and exactly the same charge weights while shooting them in the same gun. Then and only then can you form a base to prove/disprove their being different or not.

 

[geomort]

Old WW296 is lots better than new WW296/H110

I have half a pound left of WW296 made in 2002. I bought it to load 44 mag. It smells of ether and the new WW 296 does not.
My starting load of 22grains WW296, CCI LPM primers, Federal brass, WW 240 grain lead HP come out of my S&W 329 4 inch barrel at 1585 fps SD 15. It is the best load I have found and all I can handle.
The primers show some flattening but the brass extracts easily.
Brass is clean with minimal unburned powder. I will miss this powder when it's gone. The new batch doesn't produce the velocity and clean burn of the old even with a max compressed loads.
So, look at the date of manufacture on the WW296 jug.
The new stuff is not as potent.

 

[mkk41]

Several magazine articles , several e-mails to and replys from St. Marks Powder Co , Hodgdon , and Winchester all say they are the same. All agree that any data differences are due to lots to lot variation , test method or equipment differences and altitude or atmospheric conditions at time of testing.

But YOU know better , huh?

 

[Paul5388]

Since I used to work in a chemical production plant, I have some idea of what lot to lot variation actually means. If you are allowed 1% water, you can blend two tanks of "juice" that are .5% and 1.5% water in equal parts and you'll get 1% in an evenly dispersed mixture/blend.

That isn't rocket science and it's also what powder manufacturers do. The canister powders are made/blended from bulk lots to produce the desired numbers and they'll be pretty close, if not exact.

Organic chemicals usually don't produce one variety of product. Nitrocellulose is no exception and produces a mono-nitro, di-nitro and tri-nitrocellulose in its normal production and varied by the amount of time the cellulose is exposed to nitric acid. The composition of each batch/lot can be determined in several ways, so the composition isn't an unknown.

To think there is wide variation is to fool yourself, but there will be minor amounts of variation.

 

[n4zov]

If the people who manufacture and sell the powders say they are the same, that pretty much settles the matter for me. However, if anybody wants to "treat them differently" or whatever it is sure fine with me, but I won't be wasting any more time reading about it!

 

[semperfi71]

ArchAngelCD,

I used different load weights between the H-110 and W-296 because the data I have indicated those would be safe loads to start with.

Everybody who has read this post is missing the main gist of my experience.

Even though H-110 and W-296 are the same powders. IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT IS THE MOST ACCURATE POWDER FOR YOUR HANDGUN YOU MUST LOAD AS MANY POWDERS AS YOU CAN. Your results may vary from mine, your handgun may shoot one powder better than another.

But, when looking for the most accurate load for your weapon, to be truly satsified one should load as many powders as possible. My data proves that.

For years I shot only H-110 and Unique. I go tired of Unique being dirty and I wanted to find a powder that provided a better overall accuracy in all of my handguns. I settled on Bullseye. On the average it gave me the best overall accuracy with clean burning. BUT it still was not the most accurate for each and every handgun. I now have the time to "branch out" and try other powders. Every handgun I have shot so far in this approach [10 or so] has shown that it prefers one powder over the next. If I want the most accurate load for each handgun I need to have 10 powders available.

mkk41 states, "But YOU know better , huh?" My response: My data proves that in MY M27-2, one powder does exceptionally well with one bullet but on the next bullet it does not. I never said I knew better. I have said here that one must always be willing to experiment to find the most accurate load for each handgun. And it is obvious that even powders reputed to be the same can produce different accuracy levels. Even if the difference is attributable to lot variations. And it is obvious that the difference can be as much as three inches.

Paul5388 states, "To think there is wide variation is to fool yourself, but there will be minor amounts of variation." My response: Look again at my data, the difference between 4 1/4 inch groups and 1 1/4 inch groups at 25 yards is a big enough variation that I think I want to shoot the smaller grouping load.

n4zov...you already read about it so I guess you already wasted your time. And everybody else's because you had nothing constructive to add.

To add more; I have loaded only Bullseye and then swapped out different bullets until I found the most accurate load. However I have also found out that by staying with one bullet and swapping out powders I can find a more accurate load. But...if you again look at my data, if I had only chosen the Sierra 158 grain HP and loaded as I did I would be left the impression that my pistol does shoot well. And I know the Sierra 158 grain HP is a very accurate bullet in other handguns.

Therefore, if one has the time, and I realize, the money; he/she should experiment as much as possible with several bullest and powders to find the right load. And even if the powder companies, or a lot of reloading aficianados state two powders are exactly the same, I suggest you do the experimentation and see for yourself. In my case they are not the same.

To prove this further I should probably load H-110 and W-296 to maximum loads with the same bullet and components, then chronograph them. If they provide the essentially same ballistics then we have two powders that are the same. But since they provide different levels of accuracy, perhaps I might find out different.

So I have two more steps to take. Load to max on H-110 and W-296 and see what, if any, are the differences in velocity.

And then choose one of the two, or both powders, and load several different lots of each powder and see what the differences in accuracy are.

Stay tuned if you wish, and I will be back with that report in a few weeks.

Except you n4zov, I would not want to waste your time anymore.

Ya'll have a good night.

 

[Paul5388]

For years we were told, in a round about way, they weren't the same powder. Thus we had different data published.

To say "If the people who manufacture and sell the powders say they are the same, that pretty much settles the matter for me.", is to assume they aren't lying again.

We have been indirectly told H4227 isn't the same as IMR4227, but then we find out one has been dropped and the actual dropped powder is in the container now. Does that really give you a sense of security in believing what the manufacturers say?

Do you really believe this handgun data from Hodgdon?

125 GR. HDY XTP Hodgdon H110 .357" 1.590" 21.0 1881 38,400 CUP 22.0 1966 41,400 CUP

Semperfi,

It is entirely possible for one lot to shoot better than another lot of the same powder, especially if there are several years difference in their production dates. That may be a result of solvent loss over the years or even moisture intake. Either situation would change the actual weight of the powder itself that you are loading, because you aren't weighing the lost solvent or you are weighing extra moisture. That's even if they are identical in the beginning.