The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 15, 2005, 03:46 PM   #1
tjhands
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2005
Posts: 1,708
Is H-110 and W-296 really the same stuff?

Hi guys. I've been using H-110 for my .44 Magnum and will probably continue to do so when I get my next gun - a .41 Magnum. I was disappointed that my supplier doesn't have H-110 in any bigger kegs than 1 pounders. They do have W-296 in larger kegs at discounted prices. If it's the same as H-110, I will obviously buy it, but wanted to double check with y'all first. Thanks.
__________________
"If the sole purpose of handguns is to kill people, then mine are all defective." - Uncle Ted Nugent
tjhands is offline  
Old June 15, 2005, 03:55 PM   #2
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,694
The safest thing to say is that it's very similar.

It's manufactured by the same plant, to the same primary specifications.

The secondary specifications requested by Hodgdon may, however, be different, which is probably why you see the differences in loading data.

The bottom line is that you can't substitute 110 for 296, or vice versa, without going back to the loading manuals.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old June 15, 2005, 03:58 PM   #3
Mal H
Staff
 
Join Date: March 20, 1999
Location: Somewhere in the woods of Northern Virginia
Posts: 14,482
Yes, W296 and H-110 are extremely close to each other in their characteristics. If they're not exactly the same, they are at least identical twins. But, don't make the mistake of intermixing load data from the various manuals. Use W296 data only to be on the safest side.

[Added]
Mike was faster on the 'Submit' button. We agree that the load data is not interchangeable.
Mal H is offline  
Old June 15, 2005, 04:24 PM   #4
tjhands
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2005
Posts: 1,708
Thanks a bunch, fellas.
__________________
"If the sole purpose of handguns is to kill people, then mine are all defective." - Uncle Ted Nugent
tjhands is offline  
Old June 15, 2005, 04:43 PM   #5
mtnbkr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2000
Location: Manassas, Virginia
Posts: 911
Also...

If you're using the same powder, but from different batches, work your loads back up to whatever level you want. I've heard there's quite a bit of lot to lot variation with these two powders. I haven't experienced this myself, I've been using the same 8lb keg for the past 6 years.

Chris
mtnbkr is offline  
Old June 15, 2005, 05:45 PM   #6
Leftoverdj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2004
Posts: 934
Hodgdon and WW take different approaches to reloading data. Hodgdon gives a range of weights for H 110. WW gives a single charge for a given bullet with 296 and tells you to stick to it. Every time I have checked, the 296 load has been within the range of loads for H 110. I'm not interested in ragged edge maximums so I go with the 296 data whichever powder I am using. Still check to see that charge is within the H 110 range, though.
Leftoverdj is offline  
Old June 15, 2005, 07:34 PM   #7
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,187
From the QuickLoad specifications:

................................WW296.........H110
Heat of Explosion / Potential ..4300..........4110...... kJ/kg
Ratio of Specific Heats.........1.235.........1.2200
Burning Rate Factor, Ba.........0.6300........0.7941.... l/s
Progressivity Factor, a0........9.0970........5.2172
Progressive Burning Limit, z1...0.285.........0.275..... x 100%
Factor, b.......................2.2416........1.8392
Propellant Solid Density........1.620.........1.620..... g/cm³


If these come out of the same plant to the same specification, this is sloppy replication of effort, given that the density is the only matching element. Both powders are in the same class and tend to produce similar ballistics, but are not a true match. Adjust your loads accordingly.

Nick
Unclenick is offline  
Old June 15, 2005, 11:11 PM   #8
Steve in PA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 1999
Location: Northeastern PA
Posts: 602
Some people claim they are the same powder, however I'm not one of them.

First, this sounds silly but when I open a pound of H-110, it has a very different smell that a pound of W-296.

Second, when I was working up loads for my SRH .44mag, I bought a pound of each. Using the same grain measurements I loaded up several rounds of each. I got better results from H-110 and have been using it ever since (something like 10-12 years).

To me, they are different. I'm sure one was made to be similar to the other.
__________________
Steve
Steve in PA is offline  
Old June 16, 2005, 01:02 AM   #9
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,694
"If these come out of the same plant to the same specification, this is sloppy replication of effort, given that the density is the only matching element."

The density tells you something VERY important...

That the base powder is the same composition.

You can, however, do amazing things to the burning characteristics of identical powders (without changing density) with the coatings that are tumbled on in the finishing steps.

Burn inhibitors, flash inhibitors, etc., can vary the burn rate of a powder pretty dramatically.

That's why I made the point about primary and secondary specifications.

Last edited by Mike Irwin; June 16, 2005 at 07:53 AM.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old June 16, 2005, 10:15 PM   #10
Big Yac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 422
I've been looking and it seems that with Win 296 I can get some pretty high velocities out of my .454 Casull. I also hear with 296 you get more muzzle flash
__________________
"...and that's the bottom line, because Big Yac said so."
Big Yac is offline  
Old June 17, 2005, 06:07 PM   #11
WESHOOT2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 1999
Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country)
Posts: 14,123
long long ago and far far away............

H110 was rumored to be W295.
__________________
.
"all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"
WESHOOT2 is offline  
Old June 17, 2005, 06:52 PM   #12
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,694
Isn't WW 295 nothing more than the non-cannister number?
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old June 17, 2005, 08:15 PM   #13
WESHOOT2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 1999
Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country)
Posts: 14,123
that's a very good question

No definitive answer from this quarter, but I'd like to know meself.
Know, vs guess........


I guess I don't know.....
__________________
.
"all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"
WESHOOT2 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13107 seconds with 9 queries