W-296 - what changed?

[ArchAngelCD]

Back in 1977 when I started handloading H110 was a surplus powder sold by Hodgdon and W296 manufactured and sold by Olin/Winchester. Although load data for the two was for all intents and purposes identical, I do not believe they were exactly the same. As a matter of fact the two powders smelled noticeably different when you opened the container. It seems that I read somewhere that W296 was the next iteration of a non-canister propellant called "295". At any rate, while both H110 and W296 are identical now, I do not believe that this was always the case.

Bruce

Not to be too blunt but, what you "think" or "believe" means nothing in the face of facts.

I'm only going to make this post once and I'm done. Back when Olin was distributing Winchester powders they did not tell anyone they were selling the same powder as H110 under the W296 label made by St. Marks Powder. Now that Hodgdon is distributing Winchester powders they don't mind telling everyone the truth.

I wrote both the Hodgdon and Winchester sites and asked them about H110/W296 and the combined answer was they are identical and have always been identical. I then asked St. Marks Powder and they told me the powders are poured from the same exact spigot with different labels. (slightly paraphrasing since I don't remember the exact text)

Why in the world would both the powder distributor and powder manufacturer lie? It would be no big deal if the said they were similar and now the same. They have no reason to lie so I believe them over any one else or their feelings.

 

[elpac3]

Not to be too blunt but, what you "think" or "believe" means nothing in the face of facts.

I'm only going to make this post once and I'm done. Back when Olin was distributing Winchester powders they did not tell anyone they were selling the same powder as H110 under the W296 label made by St. Marks Powder. Now that Hodgdon is distributing Winchester powders they don't mind telling everyone the truth.

I wrote both the Hodgdon and Winchester sites and asked them about H110/W296 and the combined answer was they are identical and have always been identical. I then asked St. Marks Powder and they told me the powders are poured from the same exact spigot with different labels. (slightly paraphrasing since I don't remember the exact text)

Why in the world would both the powder distributor and powder manufacturer lie? It would be no big deal if the said they were similar and now the same. They have no reason to lie so I believe them over any one else or their feelings.

Brand loyalty in short. If branding were not such a big deal they would drop one of the powders. Chevy/Ford, both are cars, do the same thing, some just think one does it better than the other.

 

[BruceM]

Not to be too blunt but, what you "think" or "believe" means nothing in the face of facts.

Well, it took me a little time to run this down but here it is.

In 1962 Olin released and then discontinued a pistol propellant called W295P.

In 1962 Hodgdon began marketing a surplus propellant they named H110. The cans were actually marked noting the fact that the powder was in fact surplus. Around 1980, the stock of the surplus powder was exhausted and the subsequent H110 containers noted this by being labelled "newly manufactured".

In 1973, Olin reformulated W295P and marketed it under the new name W296.

In light of the above, in the late 1970's when I began using it surplus H110 was actually W295P while W296 was the new reformulated W295P. While they were very similar in burning characteristics, they were not the same powder.

So there are my facts ARCHANGELCD. Between 1962 and 1973 while H110 was being sold there was no W296. Therefore they could not have been the identical powder. As a matter of fact they did not become identical until the "newly manufactured" H110 was sold by Hodgdon around 1980 or so.

So hereth the lesson ends.



Bruce

 

[cfplinker]

Bruce M - did something similar occur with respect to W231 and HP38?

 

[MichiganScott]

After reading BruceM's post I decided to check some of my old manuals. The WW first edition, circa 1974, lists 16.6 grains of WW296 with a 158gr JHP as max. Hodgdon #21 from the same era lists 14.5gr of H110 behind a 160gr JHP as max. That is definitely not simple lot to lot variation, but highly suggestive that you have two different powders. The first 125gr load I found used 21.0gr of WW296.

In the mid-1980's, the manuals showed loads that were only a tenth or two different between the Hodgdon and Winchester manuals. Now we have simple lot to lot variation. About this time, the max load of either powder was raised to 22gr. of WW296/H110 behind a 125gr. bullet. That would suggest that the burn rate was slower in the newly formulated powder sold by both companies.

These original loads were definitely hot. I found that the 16.8gr 296 load behind a 158gr bullet caused sticky ejection in my M28. I had to reduce the load by 0.5gr before ejection became easy. I have stayed with 16.3gr, but I would guess that I could go back to the 16.7gr currently listed as max without stickiness.

 

[BruceM]

Bruce M - did something similar occur with respect to W231 and HP38?

I don't know exactly what that situation is. What I can tell you is that St. Mark's Powder was formally Olin's smokeless powder operation which was moved to Florida from Olin's East Alton, Illinois complex. It is now owned and operated by General Dynamics. I do not believe that HP-38 was ever "surplus" powder. Rather HP-38 is a Winchester Ball Powder (W231) licensed to Hodgdon and sold by Hodgdon under the name HP-38.

Many Hodgdon propellants started as surplus such as BLC (2) and H4831 but some did not. BLC was a ball powder manufactured by Olin during WWII for use in loading .303 British rifle ammo here. When supplies of the original surplus powder were depleted, Oilin reformulated it and the new Hodgdon designation became BLC (2). When surplus H4831 was gone, Hodgdon had new supplies manufactured in Scotland. It was labelled as "Newly Manufactured" on their containers.

Bruce

 

[cfplinker]

Bruce - the reason I asked is that there used to be a Winchester 230 powder. Olin changed the deterrent coating on it and it became Winchester 231.

Now one story I heard was that back in the days before Hodgdon the folks at the Winchester ammunition plant would blend different lots of the Olin bulk powder to get the exact characteristics they needed for the ammunition they were loading. When they started selling cannister grade powder to reloaders they sold the same powder they had blended for the factory ammunition line.

The story coninues that Bruce Hodgdon offered to buy any overage from Winchester. Winchester did not want another company selling the same powder that they were selling. So they blended in more of the faster lots to make a similar but still different enough powder that the loading data would be different. Thus HP38 was born.

Still later Hodgdon had Olin (later St. Marks) provide them with the faster powder instead of buying all of it from Winchester.

With the change in distributorship in 2006 Hodgdon had St. Marks provide the HP38 powder (which after all is the same bulk powder as W231) and then packaged it with both the HP38 and W231 labels. This accounts for the same loading data for both powders.

I would imagine that Winchester considers what they do to powder after it arrives at the factory to be a trade secret so we will not be able to confirm that Winchester did blend lots of Olin or St. Marks powder to get what they needed for the production line. But, if true, it could account for the difference in loads that were published years ago.

It's a moot question today since all of the powder goes from St. Marks to hodgdon where it is packaged for us to use.

 

[MichiganScott]

I don't have any inside information, just old loading manuals. Hodgdon #21 from 1970 does not list HP-38 but Winchester from the same era lists WW231.

Interestingly, Winchester lists both WW231 and WW230, with a warning that the powders are not interchangeable. The data is such that it is obvious that 231 is slower than WW230 by maybe as much as 5-7%.

The first manuals that I have that list both WW231 and HP-38 are Hodgdon #23 from 1977 and WW#3 from 1976. Using the 158gr LRN:

Hodgdon HP-38 3.7gr 14,600 CUP 834 FPS
WW231 4.3gr 15,500 CUP 865 FPS

This would indicate that WW231 and HP-38 have always been the same. The differences in charge weight, velocity, and pressure could easily be lot to lot differences or testing conditions, i.e., temperature, testing procedures, barrel manufacturer, etc.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Well, it took me a little time to run this down but here it is.

In 1962 Olin released and then discontinued a pistol propellant called W295P.

In 1962 Hodgdon began marketing a surplus propellant they named H110. The cans were actually marked noting the fact that the powder was in fact surplus. Around 1980, the stock of the surplus powder was exhausted and the subsequent H110 containers noted this by being labelled "newly manufactured".

In 1973, Olin reformulated W295P and marketed it under the new name W296.

In light of the above, in the late 1970's when I began using it surplus H110 was actually W295P while W296 was the new reformulated W295P. While they were very similar in burning characteristics, they were not the same powder.

So there are my facts ARCHANGELCD. Between 1962 and 1973 while H110 was being sold there was no W296. Therefore they could not have been the identical powder. As a matter of fact they did not become identical until the "newly manufactured" H110 was sold by Hodgdon around 1980 or so.

So hereth the lesson ends.



Bruce

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Of course H110 and W296 could not be the same BEFORE W296 was on the market. What does that prove? Saying that was condescending.

One big point here, Winchester did not formulate W296 when they discontinued W295. The contracted St. Markes to sell them the powder being sold as H110 by Hodgdon but under the W296 label.

When W230 was discontinued Winchester started selling W231 which is also the identical powder as HP-38.

Instead of arguing a point where there is no facts to back it up why not ask both Hodgdon and St. Marks Powders? Like I said, I along with many others already asked them and they have no reason to lie.

Be careful when you mock someone by telling them you are giving them a lesson before you check with the source.

Just a note, besides the two above W540=HS-6, W571=HS-7, W760=H414 and WAP= Silhouette... All fact, not conjecture.

 

[bluetopper]

This just seems so fitting and proper to the former responses.

 

[BruceM]

One big point here, Winchester did not formulate W296 when they discontinued W295. The contracted St. Markes to sell them the powder being sold as H110 by Hodgdon but under the W296 label.

I guess a fact lost on you is that at the time I'm talking about St.Mark's was Olin. The facility's name didn't change until General Dynamics took complete control from Olin. The original St. Marks facility was built and operated by Olin under the Olin name. Until all surplus lots of H110 were exhausted, it was actually W295P and there was a time in the late 1970's when availability of both overlapped and both were different. Why you cannot grasp this concept mystifies me in view of the fact that it's a simple one.

When W230 was discontinued Winchester started selling W231 which is also the identical powder as HP-38.

This is true but W230 is not the same as HP-38. W630P isn't the same as W630.

At any rate, I refuse to "wrestle with the pig any further". I'm done here. ARCHANGELCD, my may infer anything you wish from my statements.



Bruce

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Now that's funny Bruce. You have argued and partly insulted for 3 pages and then say you're done here. Precious!

Have a good day...

 

[bluetopper]

Let's have urination matches on private messaging.