Again, this horse is dead. Go AA #9!!
Question about H110 and 296.
- Thread starter Win75
- Start date
Dragon88
Member
It's the same as WAP. People are using Silhouette data with WAP powder and vice versa. Oh the horror!!!!
semperfi71
US Veteran
ArchAngelCD...go back and read my previous posts more closely.
I'm happy that everyone agrees with me that H110 and W296 are the same manufactured powders according to all known sources. I never spoke otherwise.
I do maintain that when shot from the bench, ALL powders MAY show different accuracy levels and other factors even if of the same make. The differences caused by the powder lots.
Therefore these "same" powders are not the same at the target range. Evidentially due to lot differences.
Therefore, when someone posts, "Are H110 and W296 the same powders?" I say no, not when you shoot them out of your handgun. You may get different levels of accuracy and even velocity (probably minor I assume). And the levels of accuracy can be quite different as posted in my original post, brought back to life by someone else.
W296 is most accurate in some loads and H110 is most accurate in some loads, as is 2400 and AA9. But you will not know this unless you experiment. If your handgun shoots both powders equally accurate then you have the luck of a more versatile handgun.
Once again, most of us do not have access to a Ransom Rest. Since 1972 I have consistently seen almost all gunwriters and fellow shooters test loads with two hands over a solid rest. If one powder groups 1 1/4 inches and the other groups 4 inches I think its safe to say which is most accurate for ME in MY handgun since I am doing the shooting.
I am not a competitive target shooter, but I am trained quite well in sight picture, sight alignment, trigger squeeze, and flinch control. And my eyes are not as sharp as they were in 1972 but they still are sharp enough. If I shoot as I say I do for accuracy, I am solid convinced that the target and handgun is not lying.
There's enough difference on paper that ALL powders should be tested before an individual says he/she has the MOST accurate load for his/her handgun.
That's why all of these powders that are the same from the manufacturer can sometimes not be the same at the target range. It's due to lot differences.
You may well find that your pound of H110 is accurate. Then you shoot it all up. The next pound of H110 is of another lot. Your pet load may go south as well. It may not. But you will not know this unless you shoot it for accuracy.
I'm happy that everyone agrees with me that H110 and W296 are the same manufactured powders according to all known sources. I never spoke otherwise.
I do maintain that when shot from the bench, ALL powders MAY show different accuracy levels and other factors even if of the same make. The differences caused by the powder lots.
Therefore these "same" powders are not the same at the target range. Evidentially due to lot differences.
Therefore, when someone posts, "Are H110 and W296 the same powders?" I say no, not when you shoot them out of your handgun. You may get different levels of accuracy and even velocity (probably minor I assume). And the levels of accuracy can be quite different as posted in my original post, brought back to life by someone else.
W296 is most accurate in some loads and H110 is most accurate in some loads, as is 2400 and AA9. But you will not know this unless you experiment. If your handgun shoots both powders equally accurate then you have the luck of a more versatile handgun.
Once again, most of us do not have access to a Ransom Rest. Since 1972 I have consistently seen almost all gunwriters and fellow shooters test loads with two hands over a solid rest. If one powder groups 1 1/4 inches and the other groups 4 inches I think its safe to say which is most accurate for ME in MY handgun since I am doing the shooting.
I am not a competitive target shooter, but I am trained quite well in sight picture, sight alignment, trigger squeeze, and flinch control. And my eyes are not as sharp as they were in 1972 but they still are sharp enough. If I shoot as I say I do for accuracy, I am solid convinced that the target and handgun is not lying.
There's enough difference on paper that ALL powders should be tested before an individual says he/she has the MOST accurate load for his/her handgun.
That's why all of these powders that are the same from the manufacturer can sometimes not be the same at the target range. It's due to lot differences.
You may well find that your pound of H110 is accurate. Then you shoot it all up. The next pound of H110 is of another lot. Your pet load may go south as well. It may not. But you will not know this unless you shoot it for accuracy.
BruceM
Member
"To wrap it up I'll say it again, H110 and W296 ARE not the same powders, not at the shooting bench where it matters."
White is white! No it's not, white is black; no matter what anybody says I know it's not white but black!
"You may well find that your pound of H110 is accurate. Then you shoot it all up. The next pound of H110 is of another lot. Your pet load may go south as well. It may not. But you will not know this unless you shoot it for accuracy. "
Yep, using this convoluted logic, even two bottles of the same powder are really not the same. The thing about canister grade powders is that they are produced to have extremely high lot to lot consistency. This means that 99.5 percent of all end users will not notice any detrimental difference in performance. For the other 0.5 percent, most of whom are 1,000 yard target competitors, even the same powder is not the same. To these and AROC types, even the water from your tap is not the same from glass to glass. Anybody now want to debate what the meaning of the word 'is" is?
For all intents and purposes, current production H110 and W296 is the same canister grade propellant with canister grade lot to lot variances. Game, set, match. That's all there is folks!
Bruce
White is white! No it's not, white is black; no matter what anybody says I know it's not white but black!
"You may well find that your pound of H110 is accurate. Then you shoot it all up. The next pound of H110 is of another lot. Your pet load may go south as well. It may not. But you will not know this unless you shoot it for accuracy. "
Yep, using this convoluted logic, even two bottles of the same powder are really not the same. The thing about canister grade powders is that they are produced to have extremely high lot to lot consistency. This means that 99.5 percent of all end users will not notice any detrimental difference in performance. For the other 0.5 percent, most of whom are 1,000 yard target competitors, even the same powder is not the same. To these and AROC types, even the water from your tap is not the same from glass to glass. Anybody now want to debate what the meaning of the word 'is" is?
For all intents and purposes, current production H110 and W296 is the same canister grade propellant with canister grade lot to lot variances. Game, set, match. That's all there is folks!
Bruce
semperfi71
US Veteran
I'm glad another "expert" showed up.
I have reported how the two powders H110 and W296 have done in MY handguns with MY shooting. Therefore in MY experience the two powders differ at the shooting bench ONLY.
As far as the reported "convoluted logic", yes, if two canisters of the same named powder are shot, and they come from different powder lots, the accuracy CAN/POSSIBLY be affected. This has happened to me and to others as well.
Therefore I suggest that if one is interested in finding the "best" accuracy for his/her handgun they must experiment and be prepared to insure that they maintain the same lot of powder in as many pounds of it they need.
If someone else's experience differs I am happy for them.
I do know this, I posted actual loads and their effects downrange. Nobody else has.
I am prepared, if need be, to do the testing again, with witnesses and signed statements, along with stamped notary stampings, government documentation, state and federal oversight, Mom and Dad's approval, a carefully selected non-partisan jury, AND delivery by sealed envelope from some famous sealed envelope deliverer.
I am retired and have the time..........
Somebody fax me a Ransom Rest and we'll really settle this......
I have reported how the two powders H110 and W296 have done in MY handguns with MY shooting. Therefore in MY experience the two powders differ at the shooting bench ONLY.
As far as the reported "convoluted logic", yes, if two canisters of the same named powder are shot, and they come from different powder lots, the accuracy CAN/POSSIBLY be affected. This has happened to me and to others as well.
Therefore I suggest that if one is interested in finding the "best" accuracy for his/her handgun they must experiment and be prepared to insure that they maintain the same lot of powder in as many pounds of it they need.
If someone else's experience differs I am happy for them.
I do know this, I posted actual loads and their effects downrange. Nobody else has.
I am prepared, if need be, to do the testing again, with witnesses and signed statements, along with stamped notary stampings, government documentation, state and federal oversight, Mom and Dad's approval, a carefully selected non-partisan jury, AND delivery by sealed envelope from some famous sealed envelope deliverer.
I am retired and have the time..........
Somebody fax me a Ransom Rest and we'll really settle this......
BruceM
Member
Be sure that when you retest, that all other variables are removed from the equation including the human one. This included atmospheric conditions, piece to piece variation of brass & bullets and the mechanics of the loading procedure and equipment adjustment.This would include weight, shape, dimensional and material variables of all components. Include the relative condition of your firearm which must be exactly identical from shot to shot, especially the condition of the chambers and bore. After that, I suspect that the collected data will be of great interest. Until then, it is unscientific and statistically insignificant conjecture and surmise obtained under uncontrolled circumstances!
Incidentally, regardless of your experience, you have stated emphatically that the two powders are not identical even though the manufacturer states that they are. You are obviously more qualified than said manufacturer based on your "experience" and obviously more forthright. At any rate, roll out your ballistics lab and qualify your "facts" under lab conditions in order to add validity to your conclusion that the manufacturer has erred in his statement, either because of ineptitude or mischief. Alternatively, you can qualify all of your statements by saying most emphatically that they are, in actuality, opinion and not fact, based solely on your experiences. At the end of the day, it will matter not one iota and will define you as being as much of an expert as you suspect I am.
Bruce
Incidentally, regardless of your experience, you have stated emphatically that the two powders are not identical even though the manufacturer states that they are. You are obviously more qualified than said manufacturer based on your "experience" and obviously more forthright. At any rate, roll out your ballistics lab and qualify your "facts" under lab conditions in order to add validity to your conclusion that the manufacturer has erred in his statement, either because of ineptitude or mischief. Alternatively, you can qualify all of your statements by saying most emphatically that they are, in actuality, opinion and not fact, based solely on your experiences. At the end of the day, it will matter not one iota and will define you as being as much of an expert as you suspect I am.
Bruce
Last edited:
Please see post #12 and post #23.
Which one is it?????
But then in post # 23 you state:
"I'm happy that everyone agrees with me that H110 and W296 are the same manufactured powders according to all known sources. I never spoke otherwise."
Which one is it?????
But then in post # 23 you state:
"I'm happy that everyone agrees with me that H110 and W296 are the same manufactured powders according to all known sources. I never spoke otherwise."
Last edited:
mkk41
US Veteran
Email to St.Marks and reply.
Dear Sir:
Yes, we manufacture the same propellant lot that is both H110 and WC 296.
----- Original Message -----
From: mkk41
To: Faintich, Stephen (StMarks)
Sent: Mon Jul 17 19:35:19 2006
Subject: Win powders=Hodgdon powders
According to a recent article in GUNS magazine , several Winchester ball are the same as several Hodgdon ball powders. FI , H-110 is supposedly the same as W-296.
Any truth to this.
Dear Sir:
Yes, we manufacture the same propellant lot that is both H110 and WC 296.
----- Original Message -----
From: mkk41
To: Faintich, Stephen (StMarks)
Sent: Mon Jul 17 19:35:19 2006
Subject: Win powders=Hodgdon powders
According to a recent article in GUNS magazine , several Winchester ball are the same as several Hodgdon ball powders. FI , H-110 is supposedly the same as W-296.
Any truth to this.
semperfi71
US Veteran
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...........
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...........
Sir,
It is not called "gunpowder" anymore. It's smokeless powder
Just kidding, please do not take it seriously.
Believe it or not, I do understand what you are saying in so many words and agree to an extent, but still believe there are so many other variables that it can not be narrowed down to the powder alone.
Yes, in individual tests, by different people using different guns on different days and environments there certainly should be some variation in ballistics between H110 and W 296. Not many man made things are absolutely perfect or the same. Each lead bullet out of a box of 500 is probably a little bit different than the others.
You or I can go to the store buy a brand new jar of H110 and a a jar of W 296, load 10 rounds of each and perhaps there will be a slight variation. But for all practical purposes and based on the manuals, and manufacturers they still are the same powder.
mkk41
US Veteran
Huh?
Are you saying that either Winchester/Olin or Hodgdon somehow 'doctors' the powder after it comes from the manufacturer?
semperfi71
US Veteran
Reading Comprehension Class 101.
From my very first post last year:
"Yes, many reports, here and elsewhere, have stated that the powders are the same and that H-110 is actually W-296 but only shipped to Hodgdon’s and packaged by them as H-110. Or maybe packaged somewhere else and sold by Hodgdon’s. However it “becomes” H-110 does not matter to me. I like both powders.
I do not contend that anyone, including the factory representatives are lying…or obscuring the truth….or drinking to excess.
But, I do contend that both powders are different, as to accuracy and as to loading quantities. Several reloading manuals will show different load weights for different velocities and different load weights for maximum pressures."
WHICH MEANS W296 AND H110 ARE THE SAME POWDERS AS MANUFACTURED BUT MAY DIFFER AT THE SHOOTING BENCH.
My subsequent post:
"I'm back. I still contend H-110 and W-296 are NOT the same powders.
Strictly due to the fact that loaded side-by-side in "all-other-factors-in-the-same-loads" you WILL get different results.
Your velocities will vary as will your accuracy. Same with HP38 and W231. Or any other "same" powder with a different name.
The reason as stated here elsewhere...powder lot differences.
So when someone posts, "Which powder should I use H-110 or W296?" Then someone posts, "Either, they are the same."
I contend that is the incorrect response.
For many years the manuals posted different data for the two powders. Now it appears a number of manuals post the same data. However they will vary in actual use."
WHICH MEANS W296 AND H110 ARE THE SAME POWDERS AS MANUFACTURED BUT MAY DIFFER AT THE SHOOTING BENCH.
My subsequent post:
"I'm happy that everyone agrees with me that H110 and W296 are the same manufactured powders according to all known sources. I never spoke otherwise.
I do maintain that when shot from the bench, ALL powders MAY show different accuracy levels and other factors even if of the same make. The differences caused by the powder lots.
Therefore these "same" powders are not the same at the target range. Evidentially due to lot differences."
WHICH MEANS W296 AND H110 ARE THE SAME POWDERS AS MANUFACTURED BUT MAY DIFFER AT THE SHOOTING BENCH.
My subsequent post:
"I have reported how the two powders H110 and W296 have done in MY handguns with MY shooting. Therefore in MY experience the two powders differ at the shooting bench ONLY.
As far as the reported "convoluted logic", yes, if two canisters of the same named powder are shot, and they come from different powder lots, the accuracy CAN/POSSIBLY be affected. This has happened to me and to others as well."
WHICH MEANS W296 AND H110 ARE THE SAME POWDERS AS MANUFACTURED BUT MAY DIFFER AT THE SHOOTING BENCH.
My subsequent post:
"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"."
WHICH MEANS W296 AND H110 ARE THE SAME POWDERS AS MANUFACTURED BUT MAY DIFFER AT THE SHOOTING BENCH.
My subsequent post:
"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."
WHICH MEANS W296 AND H110 ARE THE SAME POWDERS AS MANUFACTURED BUT MAY DIFFER AT THE SHOOTING BENCH.
mkk41: I have continually also stated that I suspect/believe the difference in the accuracy is from lot differences of the powder, as in H110 lot #456 may not shoot as well as W296 lot #2345.
My data:
"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"
WHEN THIS HAPPENS I WILL ALWAYS SHOOT W296 FOR THIS LOAD. Regardless of the variables that day. As long as I held steady...and I did.
Posted by Rule3:
"It is not called "gunpowder" anymore. It's smokeless powder
Just kidding, please do not take it seriously."
By me: I never take much of anything seriously anymore other than food portions.
There is one fly in the mix to my "experiences" with H110 and W296. I should have shot 20 shot groups for each load. Five shots per load and making a judgement is not truly "test" enough. BUT I am cheap, and my time has to be spent elsewhere. AND ALMOST ALL the gunwriters used to shoot the same five shots and call it good. So did I.
I never said anything other than essentially, "This is what happened to me and may be an indication that points to possible differences in accuracy of the supposedly same powders." I then suggested that if others want the most accurate load they have to experiment with ALL powders.
As an aside I took my K22 Combat Masterpiece and shot five shot groups with a variety of .22 LR loads. The best 5 shot group became my chosen ammo. Then I went back and shot 20 shot groups of all of the same different brands of ammo. The same brand of ammo was still the most accurate.
One gun, one guy, one day, with one set of variables. I ain't going back to see how well all of the different loads shoot when I am cold, hot, wet, hungover, or in my underpants.
From my very first post last year:
"Yes, many reports, here and elsewhere, have stated that the powders are the same and that H-110 is actually W-296 but only shipped to Hodgdon’s and packaged by them as H-110. Or maybe packaged somewhere else and sold by Hodgdon’s. However it “becomes” H-110 does not matter to me. I like both powders.
I do not contend that anyone, including the factory representatives are lying…or obscuring the truth….or drinking to excess.
But, I do contend that both powders are different, as to accuracy and as to loading quantities. Several reloading manuals will show different load weights for different velocities and different load weights for maximum pressures."
WHICH MEANS W296 AND H110 ARE THE SAME POWDERS AS MANUFACTURED BUT MAY DIFFER AT THE SHOOTING BENCH.
My subsequent post:
"I'm back. I still contend H-110 and W-296 are NOT the same powders.
Strictly due to the fact that loaded side-by-side in "all-other-factors-in-the-same-loads" you WILL get different results.
Your velocities will vary as will your accuracy. Same with HP38 and W231. Or any other "same" powder with a different name.
The reason as stated here elsewhere...powder lot differences.
So when someone posts, "Which powder should I use H-110 or W296?" Then someone posts, "Either, they are the same."
I contend that is the incorrect response.
For many years the manuals posted different data for the two powders. Now it appears a number of manuals post the same data. However they will vary in actual use."
WHICH MEANS W296 AND H110 ARE THE SAME POWDERS AS MANUFACTURED BUT MAY DIFFER AT THE SHOOTING BENCH.
My subsequent post:
"I'm happy that everyone agrees with me that H110 and W296 are the same manufactured powders according to all known sources. I never spoke otherwise.
I do maintain that when shot from the bench, ALL powders MAY show different accuracy levels and other factors even if of the same make. The differences caused by the powder lots.
Therefore these "same" powders are not the same at the target range. Evidentially due to lot differences."
WHICH MEANS W296 AND H110 ARE THE SAME POWDERS AS MANUFACTURED BUT MAY DIFFER AT THE SHOOTING BENCH.
My subsequent post:
"I have reported how the two powders H110 and W296 have done in MY handguns with MY shooting. Therefore in MY experience the two powders differ at the shooting bench ONLY.
As far as the reported "convoluted logic", yes, if two canisters of the same named powder are shot, and they come from different powder lots, the accuracy CAN/POSSIBLY be affected. This has happened to me and to others as well."
WHICH MEANS W296 AND H110 ARE THE SAME POWDERS AS MANUFACTURED BUT MAY DIFFER AT THE SHOOTING BENCH.
My subsequent post:
"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"."
WHICH MEANS W296 AND H110 ARE THE SAME POWDERS AS MANUFACTURED BUT MAY DIFFER AT THE SHOOTING BENCH.
My subsequent post:
"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."
WHICH MEANS W296 AND H110 ARE THE SAME POWDERS AS MANUFACTURED BUT MAY DIFFER AT THE SHOOTING BENCH.
mkk41: I have continually also stated that I suspect/believe the difference in the accuracy is from lot differences of the powder, as in H110 lot #456 may not shoot as well as W296 lot #2345.
My data:
"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"
WHEN THIS HAPPENS I WILL ALWAYS SHOOT W296 FOR THIS LOAD. Regardless of the variables that day. As long as I held steady...and I did.
Posted by Rule3:
"It is not called "gunpowder" anymore. It's smokeless powder
Just kidding, please do not take it seriously."
By me: I never take much of anything seriously anymore other than food portions.
There is one fly in the mix to my "experiences" with H110 and W296. I should have shot 20 shot groups for each load. Five shots per load and making a judgement is not truly "test" enough. BUT I am cheap, and my time has to be spent elsewhere. AND ALMOST ALL the gunwriters used to shoot the same five shots and call it good. So did I.
I never said anything other than essentially, "This is what happened to me and may be an indication that points to possible differences in accuracy of the supposedly same powders." I then suggested that if others want the most accurate load they have to experiment with ALL powders.
As an aside I took my K22 Combat Masterpiece and shot five shot groups with a variety of .22 LR loads. The best 5 shot group became my chosen ammo. Then I went back and shot 20 shot groups of all of the same different brands of ammo. The same brand of ammo was still the most accurate.
One gun, one guy, one day, with one set of variables. I ain't going back to see how well all of the different loads shoot when I am cold, hot, wet, hungover, or in my underpants.
Last edited:
mkk41
US Veteran
So what if I use up all my H-110 , then pour W-296 into the H-110 can. Would I get the same results?
Dragon88
Member
Nah, it works better if you use up half the can of H110, then pour half a can of W296 into it, shake it up (not stirred
), and use it. You could develop data for this "new" powder and sell it as W210, or maybe H196.
semperfi71
US Veteran
It would be HW110296.
Which might make for an interesting experiment.
Testing the accuracy of: H110, W296, and HW110296.
As an add-on one could also load one half the amount necessary for H110 and then load the other half of W296...a duplex load.
Or vicey-versey. Which means 5/FIVE load possibilities with only two powders.
Seriously, don't anybody try this.
Which might make for an interesting experiment.
Testing the accuracy of: H110, W296, and HW110296.
As an add-on one could also load one half the amount necessary for H110 and then load the other half of W296...a duplex load.
Or vicey-versey. Which means 5/FIVE load possibilities with only two powders.
Seriously, don't anybody try this.
BruceM
Member
It's funny but you can qualify your statements in such a way that it can be argued that they can mean anything to anybody.
Bruce
Bruce
semperfi71
US Veteran
I would have made a great lawyer. But since I am right I'll stay the course.
Last edited:
ArchAngelCD
Moderator, SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
I'm wondering if I loaded 20 rounds of .357 Magnum with H110 but told you 10 were with H110 and 10 where with W296, what would happen? I have a feeling the ones you thought were loaded with W296 would shoot 1.5" groups while the ones you were told were made with H110 would shoot 4.5" groups even though all were loaded with H110. I'm not even accusing you of doing anything consciously but I'm betting it would happen.
semperfi71
US Veteran
ArchAngelCD,
If you wish to argue at least do so intelligently and with something more solid than that comment.
If you wish to argue at least do so intelligently and with something more solid than that comment.
BruceM
Member
"I would have made a great lawyer. "
Well, I guess that there was a time when most everybody would think that this statement would be a good one to have on your resume'. These days, not so much.
B.
Well, I guess that there was a time when most everybody would think that this statement would be a good one to have on your resume'. These days, not so much.
B.
