W296

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr_Flintstone

Mr_Flintstone

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2016
Messages
1,441
Location
Eastern KY
I found a 1# can of W296 at a local gun shop today for $15. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I thought I remembered it being the same as H110, so I bought it to use with .357 Mag and .30 carbine. Looking around the net, I find mixed opinions. Are these the same? Hodgdon shows the same handgun data for both in .357 magnum, but no 296 handgun data for .30 carbine. So, if they aren’t the same, can 296 be used with .30 carbine?
 
Well, I checked Hodgdon’s rifle data, and it was the same in 30 carbine for the two powders. So, I guess it would seem that they are the same, or at least close enough to use the same data. If I’m wrong, somebody let me know.
 
Mr_Flintstone said:
Well, I checked Hodgdon’s rifle data, and it was the same in 30 carbine for the two powders. So, I guess it would seem that they are the same, or at least close enough to use the same data. If I’m wrong, somebody let me know.
Click to expand...
They are one in the same. Somewhere out there on the net, either an interview with Chris Hodgdon, or a correspondence with him, reveals H-110/W296 are equals, as with HP-38/W231.
 
Thanks. I like Hodgdon/IMR/Winchester powders a lot, but I’m not really a fan of their habit of selling the same powder with different names, or similar names for different powders. I sat on some IMR 4227 for quite a while wondering which data to use before I finally figured it out.
 
Just because they behave the same, does not mean they ARE the same.

Its not unusual for multiple companies to develope products that behave very much like a competitor, companies like duplicating tried and true products then selling them as a replacement.
 
Varminterror said:
Hodgdon has been open about the double labeling of Winchester powders. H110 and W296 are the same. Not speculative, they’re stated such publicly and will confirm the same if you call to ask for yourself.
Click to expand...

For that I am grateful. They haven’t been real clear on IMR 4227 though. When they did away with H4227 you had some IMR 4227 on the market that was made in Canada, and some that was made in Australia. Then it was made in Australia for a while, then they switched back to Canada. Some was the the same as old H4227, and some was the old IMR 4227, but it was all labeled IMR 4227, and using data from anyone other than Hodgdon could get hairy. That’s mainly why I’m switching to H110/W296.
 
They are the same but many books have different data for the two.

Just goes to show you that you can’t always expect the same results with the same thing.
 
If you look at old reloading manuals, you'll see different loads listed for .44 mag. with H-110 and WW 296. The newer manuals show them as the same. They may have been different in the past before Hodgdon started buying out all the other companies.
 
jmorris said:
They are the same but many books have different data for the two.

Just goes to show you that you can’t always expect the same results with the same thing.
Click to expand...
I have seen that also. And considered that it may be different lots of powders that the publishers used. Just a guess on my part. :)
 
Years ago W296 and H110 were not the same, today they are. If you look at the date code on the can you just bought, it should have the production date built into the code.

As far as IMR4227, I don’t know about H vs IMR now or then, but I do know current production IMR4227 is excellent for its intended purpose and has a permanent spot on the bench. H110/W296 not so much; I consider them narrow-use powders. When my one can on the bench is empty, I’m done with it.
 
4227 is a powder that is difficult to overload. I have found that a slightly compressed usually yields the best results. 357 mag, 45 colt, 300 AAC and 7.62 x 39. And magnum primers give a better burn. You mentioned 30 carbine, loads for the 300AAC and 7.62x39 are similar. Follow the book dope for round and bullet and you will be okay.

Most of my W296 goes for 22 TCM. The round was designed around H110.
 
Jesse Heywood said:
Most of my W296 goes for 22 TCM. The round was designed around H110.
Click to expand...
As is mine! :cool:
The rest goes to full power .44mag.
However, the factory powder in .22TCM is not W296. It does not look the same at all. You are correct, though, that Fred Craig recommends hand-loading the .22TCM with W296.
 
It is useable in both .357 and .30 Carbine, as others have pointed out. I also liked it for hot .44 Mags, as drband mentions.
 
Ridgerunner665 said:
They're the same.... the difference between them in the books is just the difference between different lots of powder.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. In one older book I have the MAX charge for one is below the minimum charge for the other.

That's a HUGE difference for different lots of powder. We're talking 25-30% difference.
 
Texas10mm said:
I don't think so. In one older book I have the MAX charge for one is below the minimum charge for the other.

That's a HUGE difference for different lots of powder. We're talking 25-30% difference.
Click to expand...
How old is that book? Curious.
 
drband said:
Texas10mm said:
In one older book I have the MAX charge for one is below the minimum charge for the other.
Click to expand...
How old is that book? Curious.
Click to expand...
+1.

My Lyman #49 (print date 2008) still shows different powder charges for some W231 an HP-38 loads and W231/HP-38 has been the same exact powder for more than 10 years.

And Lyman #49 shows different powder charges for W296 and H110.
 
Texas10mm said:
I don't think so. In one older book I have the MAX charge for one is below the minimum charge for the other.

That's a HUGE difference for different lots of powder. We're talking 25-30% difference.
Click to expand...

It has been covered here already. Your book is out of date for the current (and not even really recent) status of these powders. Since Hodgdon took over Winchester’s canister powders business, W296 and H110 have been the same.

Therein lies the risk of using obsolete data for modern powders. Sometimes powder component recipes stay the same for generations, sometimes they don’t.

Call Hodgdon tomorrow, they’ll tell you they’re the same powder and only differ by the label on the bottle.
 
Wouldn't some of the older data using C.U.P. be hard to claim a consistance true reading?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
H110 vs W296 after 2008
Replies
7
Views
1K
cliffsgsr
C
303 hunter
  • Locked
Powder Question
Replies
5
Views
547
rcmodel
R
Palladan44
  • Locked
WIN 296. Vs. A-300 MP
Replies
23
Views
1K
WrongHanded
WrongHanded
Mr_Flintstone
List of 30 Carbine Powders
Replies
14
Views
1K
lightman
L
luzyfuerza
  • Locked
WC 820 versus W296
Replies
2
Views
2K
41 Mag
4
Back
Top