I have read on multiple forums that these two powders are the same. What I am now confused about is the data from Nosler’s site for 158 grain JSP shows a max of H110 at 15.6 gr. at 1479 FPS, and 296 15.3 at 1550 FPS. less powder but more velocity. I understand they are about the same on the burn chart also. Just confused as I was looking to try 296 compared to the H110 I have in 357. Thanks for any insight or testing knowledge.
H110 vs. 296
- Thread starter jarbo
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
STORMINORMAN
Member
Per the actual manufacturer they are now (and for quite a while) the same powder.
So-called "published load data" non-withstanding...
Believe whom you will: in the end it really makes little or no difference in the real world.
Cheers!
P.S. Same for HP38 & WIN231...
So-called "published load data" non-withstanding...
Believe whom you will: in the end it really makes little or no difference in the real world.
Cheers!
P.S. Same for HP38 & WIN231...
Ivan the Butcher
Member
Different Lots of powder give different results. The reality is two different lots of the same powder can give more diverse results than that.
I Try to buy 8 pound jugs of powder so my large batches of a cartridges.
About 120 years ago, the famous Harry Pope would buy his 4227 from DuPont by the 24-pound case for his 32-40 target rifle. He got groups of about 20" at 300 yards, FOR 500 SHOTS OFFHAND! That's about 7.5 MOA which sounds bad at first, but second place record is ONLY 200 +/- shots hit the 5' target! That is before WWII.
Ivan
I Try to buy 8 pound jugs of powder so my large batches of a cartridges.
About 120 years ago, the famous Harry Pope would buy his 4227 from DuPont by the 24-pound case for his 32-40 target rifle. He got groups of about 20" at 300 yards, FOR 500 SHOTS OFFHAND! That's about 7.5 MOA which sounds bad at first, but second place record is ONLY 200 +/- shots hit the 5' target! That is before WWII.
Ivan
Alk8944
US Veteran
H-110 and 296 are the same, both manufactured by General Dynamics at their St. Marks, FL St. Marks Powder plant. They are both distributed by Hodgdon now. Hodgdon may package powder from the same lot as either H-110 or W-296.
The difference in data is two-fold. Lot-to-lot variation that exists in all propellants. and slightly different testing conditions between bullet manufacturers in their load testing. Nothing to be concerned about! Exactly like two cars from the same maker and model giving different mileage results car-to car and driver-to driver.
Just like different results from gun-to gun, even in the same barrel length and manufacturer when loads are chronographed by the individual shooter.
The difference in data is two-fold. Lot-to-lot variation that exists in all propellants. and slightly different testing conditions between bullet manufacturers in their load testing. Nothing to be concerned about! Exactly like two cars from the same maker and model giving different mileage results car-to car and driver-to driver.
Just like different results from gun-to gun, even in the same barrel length and manufacturer when loads are chronographed by the individual shooter.
Last edited:
They are the same. I have both in stock with my reloading supplies. When the 296 runs out, I'll go to the H-110 and probably not change the drop settings on my drum powder measure (after verifying with a few test loads).
Rogeronimo
Member
The OP is specifically targeting Nosler data, and I think Nosler should answer the question. My guess would be old results vs. new results. I've never seen a data publisher confirm same day, same gun and I suspect some loads are recycled from previous tests. Everyone feel free to disagree.
As Ivan and Alk both pointed out it’s just normal lot to lot variation in canister grade powders intended for reloading.
With data for H110 and Win 296 the folks working up the load data obviously had powder from two different lots. Look across a number of load data manuals showing both in the same table and you’ll see similar variation - up to .5 grains in some handgun loads.
The fact that so many reloaders don’t understand this variation occurs in different lots even in powder with the same label is the second most disturbing thing I see.
Simply put, a max load listed in a load manual is a max load for that particular lot. It’s why you are directed to start 10% below max and work up.
It’s also why if you are loading to a specific velocity you work up a new load with each new batch of powder.
The most disturbing thing I see are reloaders who don’t understand that canister grade powders intended for reloading have much less lot to lot variation than bulk powders used by ammunition manufacturers.
For example, I see folks talking about replicating military loads for things like M1 Ball, M80 Ball, M193 ball etc and they will cite a source for a “nominal load”.
They apparently don’t understand that a nominal load of, for example, 42.6 grains of WC846 doesn’t mean that 42.6 grains of a lot of WC846 will produce the desired 2800 fps velocity. Variation in bulk powders is huge, particularly in WC846 which has always had a very wide specification range. It could easily be 2-3 grs off the “nominal” charge weight.
With data for H110 and Win 296 the folks working up the load data obviously had powder from two different lots. Look across a number of load data manuals showing both in the same table and you’ll see similar variation - up to .5 grains in some handgun loads.
The fact that so many reloaders don’t understand this variation occurs in different lots even in powder with the same label is the second most disturbing thing I see.
Simply put, a max load listed in a load manual is a max load for that particular lot. It’s why you are directed to start 10% below max and work up.
It’s also why if you are loading to a specific velocity you work up a new load with each new batch of powder.
The most disturbing thing I see are reloaders who don’t understand that canister grade powders intended for reloading have much less lot to lot variation than bulk powders used by ammunition manufacturers.
For example, I see folks talking about replicating military loads for things like M1 Ball, M80 Ball, M193 ball etc and they will cite a source for a “nominal load”.
They apparently don’t understand that a nominal load of, for example, 42.6 grains of WC846 doesn’t mean that 42.6 grains of a lot of WC846 will produce the desired 2800 fps velocity. Variation in bulk powders is huge, particularly in WC846 which has always had a very wide specification range. It could easily be 2-3 grs off the “nominal” charge weight.
Go to the source...
Go to the best source, Hodgdon Reloading Data Center.
They show the exact same data for each to keep it simple.
Many reloading manuals, like Lyman, are reusing data from decades ago when they were different.
PS: All of Hodgdon's "new" test data is in PSI so these are likely "old" crusher CUP numbers but you get what they are saying nonetheless.
.
.
Go to the best source, Hodgdon Reloading Data Center.
They show the exact same data for each to keep it simple.
Many reloading manuals, like Lyman, are reusing data from decades ago when they were different.
PS: All of Hodgdon's "new" test data is in PSI so these are likely "old" crusher CUP numbers but you get what they are saying nonetheless.
.
.
Last edited:
Yendor357
Member
Here I go again…..
Buy a Garmin Xero. They’re selling for about $600. That little marvel answers a lot of questions. Without one, you’re just shooting in the dark.
Buy a Garmin Xero. They’re selling for about $600. That little marvel answers a lot of questions. Without one, you’re just shooting in the dark.
