W296

Status
Not open for further replies.
Plus, it seems to me that Richard Lee, or maybe it was Lyman, stated that lot to lot, powders can vary by a 5%? difference.
I'll have to go back and find where I read that.
 
kcofohio said:
I don't recall, what was their test barrel rifling measured at?
Click to expand...
.401" shown on page 362 and why some of their start charges are Hodgdon's max charges - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/40-s-w-load.852049/#post-11145208

index.php


Here's Lyman #49 40S&W load data which used .401" groove diameter test barrel.
  • 180 gr Jacketed HP W231 OAL 1.115" Start 5.0 gr (927 fps) 20,400 CUP - Max 5.6 gr (1015 fps) 22,800 CUP

And here's Hodgdon load data.
  • 180 gr HDY XTP W231 OAL 1.125" Start 4.1 gr (797 fps) 23,800 PSI - Max 5.0 gr (947 fps) 32,900 PSI
 
drband said:
Good to know! So... before that time, W296 and H110 were not interchangeable I assume?
Click to expand...

I will say two “I thinks” to that:

1) Yes, I think before that they were not the same powder composition.

2) Yes, I think a lot of us interchanged them anyway.

Books are guidelines, not gospel. Doing load workup for both, I usually ended up at the same point, so I treated them as interchangeable. Even better now to KNOW they’re exactly the same.
 
We are lucky that Hodgdon lists current data on their website, free of charge. It's easy enough to double-check older published data.

Using the .41 MAG as an example, the data is clearly identical with W296 and H110.

Again, using the .41 MAG as an example, there is no data that interchanges between H4227 and IMR4227... in fact, the lack of data for IMR4227 is a little odd.
 
Charlie98 said:
using the .41 MAG as an example, there is no data that interchanges between H4227 and IMR4227... in fact, the lack of data for IMR4227 is a little odd.
Click to expand...

It’s well known, and Hodgdon is very transparent that most of the IMR and H powders, despite sharing the same numerical sequence in their model name, are not the same. A handful of the powders which shared the same tags were, at one time, differentiated by the “extreme” label - the H powders were “extreme” powders, meaning less temperature sensitivity, whereas the IMR versions of the same number were not. And there was a corresponding gap between their respective reloading data for that compositional difference, and commonly, a performance gap. For example, when I was shooting a Garand for Service Rifle, IMR4895 shot notably smaller than H4895, but wasn’t as temp stable. In hindsight, the choice should have been easy - either shot small enough for the task, but temp stability was high value, but at the time, almost 20yrs ago now, I was torn between the two, and common logic dictated the smaller shooting of the two should win the day.

The gap between their powders of the same numerical tags seems to be closing, but it’s certainly not there yet. 4227 is an example - supposedly the IMR version was to be replaced with the H version product, then the H version discontinued, but I’ve never followed up with Hodgdon to confirm this switch was made - but H4227 HAS been discontinued. There was also speculation they would consolidate and absorb the IMR line into the H world (they keep two websites currently), but that too seems to NOT be playing out.

Hodgdon doesn’t “double box” every powder they make, but there are a few which do have two names for the same product. There are a lot more of their products where they have two similar names for two similar products which are NOT the same.
 
Mr_Flintstone said:
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.
Click to expand...

Varminterror said:
The gap between their powders of the same numerical tags seems to be closing, but it’s certainly not there yet. 4227 is an example - supposedly the IMR version was to be replaced with the H version product, then the H version discontinued, but I’ve never followed up with Hodgdon to confirm this switch was made - but H4227 HAS been discontinued. There was also speculation they would consolidate and absorb the IMR line into the H world (they keep two websites currently), but that too seems to NOT be playing out.
Click to expand...

I was replying to both the OP's question, and Mr. Flintstone's comment about H vs IMR4227. I never thought they were the same powder, but it does demonstrate the complexity of powder naming. For the life of me, I've never understood why, for example, Hodgdon would have 'H4227'... not H4226 or H4228, or something else, for their version of a slow pistol powder against IMR's 4227. The 4895's are another good example.
 
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...
Texas10, or course you are free to have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts. It doesn't matter what you THINK when hard core facts say otherwise.

Many of the members here, including myself have either called or written Hodgdon, St. Marks Powders or both. In every instance they told us they are the same exact powder and always have been.

Please stop placing doubt in new reloaded minds about this. You can contradict facts only if you contact them and you can provide proof they are different powders which of course in this case is not possible.
 
I contacted Hodgdon last year about IMR4227. They said on their recently manufactured powder that H4227 data was interchangeable with IMR4227
 
Last edited:
Jonesy814 said:
I contacted Hodgdon last year about IMR4227. They said on their recently officeholders that H4227 data was interchangeable with IMR4227
Click to expand...
I called them a year or so back, and they told me that H4227 and IMR 4227 were indeed two different powders in the past, even though they considered them to now be interchangeable; and that the new IMR 4227 was different from old IMR 4227, and to only use new IMR 4227 load data. As it was explained to me, apparently at some point in the past, for a short time IMR 4227 was changed to be the same powder as H4227. A short time later they phased out IMR 4227 to avoid confusion. Some time after that, they changed the name of H4227 back to IMR 4227. Now, whether that is 100% the actual truth, I don’t know, but according to Hodgdon, new and old IMR 4227 are indeed different. They then told me that if I was in doubt, to use the data only on their site, and work up from the minimum load, and it would be OK for either powder since they were very close, but not identical, to begin with.
 
ArchAngelCD said:
Texas10, or course you are free to have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts. It doesn't matter what you THINK when hard core facts say otherwise.

Many of the members here, including myself have either called or written Hodgdon, St. Marks Powders or both. In every instance they told us they are the same exact powder and always have been.

Please stop placing doubt in new reloaded minds about this. You can contradict facts only if you contact them and you can provide proof they are different powders which of course in this case is not possible.
Click to expand...

Right from the manual.

.357 Mag 148 gr WC.
231 2.8-3.3 gr, 634-731 fps
HP38 3.8-4.3 gr, 836-940 fps

.357 Mag 158 gr RN
231 4.9-5.4 gr, 905-952 fps
HP38 4.7-5.2 gr, 900-960 gr

.44 Spl 240 SWC
231 4.5-5.0 gr, 633-700 fps
HP38 4.4-4.8 gr, 665-741 fps

45 ACP200 gr SWC
231 4.5-5.0 gr, 719-811 fps
HP38 4.5-5.0 gr, 808-892 fps

45 Colt 250 gr FN
231 6.2-7.2 gr 696-816 fps
HP38 5.7-6.7 gr 735-852 fps


The ball is now in your court. Looking at those numbers I can't see how they are the same powders. Also in this same book you can see similar differences between W296 and H110.
 
Yet you still have not contacted Hodgdon and St. Marks. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Believe what you want but try to refrain from giving others inaccurate information.

I will not be answering any more of your posts so you can play tennis with yourself.
 
From Hodgdons web site
9mm
115 GR. SPR GDHP Winchester 231 .355" 1.125" 4.7 1075 25,300 CUP 5.1 1167 28,100 CUP
115 GR. SPR GDHP Hodgdon HP-38 .355" 1.125" 4.7 1075 25,300 CUP 5.1 1167 28,100 CUP

125 GR. LCN Winchester 231 .356" 1.125" 3.9 1009 25,700 CUP 4.4 1086 31,200 CUP
125 GR. LCN Hodgdon HP-38 .356" 1.125" 3.9 1009 25,700 CUP 4.4 1086 31,200 CUP


.38 Special
158 GR. HDY XTP Winchester 231 .357" 1.455" 3.8 661 12,600 CUP 4.3 779 15,900 CUP
158 GR. HDY XTP Hodgdon HP-38 .357" 1.455" 3.8 661 12,600 CUP 4.3 779 15,900 CUP

170 GR. SIE JHC Winchester 231 .357" 1.450" 3.8 683 12,200 CUP 4.1 752 15,800 CUP
170 GR. SIE JHC Hodgdon HP-38 .357" 1.450" 3.8 683 12,200 CUP 4.1 752 15,800 CUP


.45
200 GR. CAST LSWC Winchester 231 .451" 1.225" 4.4 771 11,000 CUP 5.6 914 16,900 CUP
200 GR. CAST LSWC Hodgdon HP-38 .451" 1.225" 4.4 771 11,000 CUP 5.6 914 16,900 CUP

230 GR. HDY FMJ FP Winchester 231 .451" 1.200" 4.2 751 13,800 CUP 5.3 832 16,800 CUP
230 GR. HDY FMJ FP Hodgdon HP-38 .451" 1.200" 4.2 751 13,800 CUP 5.3 832 16,800 CUP

Just a sample of some data I didn't check every possible combo.
So I would say from current data HP38 and W231 are the same and as I recall Hodgdon has confirmed this.

.357
158 GR. HDY XTP Winchester 296 .357" 1.580" 15 1418 28,600 CUP 16.7 1591 40,700 CUP
158 GR. HDY XTP Hodgdon H110 .357" 1.580" 15 1418 28,600 CUP 16.7 1591 40,700 CUP

.44 Rem Mag
Winchester296 .429" 1.600" 23.0 1,413 25,200 CUP 24.0 1,522 36,200 CUP
HodgdonH110 .429" 1.600" 23.0 1,413 25,200 CUP 24.0 1,522 36,200 CUP
looks like for current data H110 and W296 are also a match and as I recall Hodgdon has confirmed this as well.

Also interesting is that even though I don't know it, with the EXACT same numbers it looks like the same lot of powder for each of the two flavors or great lot to lot consistency if each of the 2 flavors didn't come out of the same barrel (bin, tub whatever)

In other manuals you see some minor differences that could be explained by lot to lot variations. (at least IMO)


Texas10mm what manual and how old? curious.
 
Last edited:
ArchAngelCD said:
Yet you still have not contacted Hodgdon and St. Marks. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Believe what you want but try to refrain from giving others inaccurate information.

I will not be answering any more of your posts so you can play tennis with yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't have to contact them. I can look at the data. You're the one with your head in the sand.

If they've always been the same powder then explain this.

45 ACP200 gr SWC
231 4.5-5.0 gr, 719-811 fps
HP38 4.5-5.0 gr, 808-892 fps


I'm not saying they aren't currently the same powder. But at some point there was a difference between them. That's about a 12% difference.
 
Texas10mm said:
I don't have to contact them. I can look at the data. You're the one with your head in the sand.

If they've always been the same powder then explain this.

45 ACP200 gr SWC
231 4.5-5.0 gr, 719-811 fps
HP38 4.5-5.0 gr, 808-892 fps


I'm not saying they aren't currently the same powder. But at some point there was a difference between them. That's about a 12% difference.
Click to expand...
Since this thread started, I’ve been doing some intensive searching of the internet for explanations. Several threads in various gun forums reference a Handloader magazine article about W-231/HP-38 and W-296/H-110. If all those threads are right (and I have no reason to believe they aren’t) sometime around 2012 W-231 and HP-38 became the same powder. Around the same time, W-296 and H-110 did the same. Apparently they were very close to start with (as in the answer I received from Hodgdon about H4227 and IMR 4227), so Hodgdon merged the powders into one recipe, but kept the individual names. So manuals from the early 2000s and back will have somewhat different load data for W-231/HP-38, W-296/H-110, and H-4227/IMR-4227. Newer manuals will have the same data since the powders are the same (except H-4227 is no longer made even though Hodgdon still lists the same data as IMR-4227).
 
If ya have Lyman #48 you'll find that the data between HP38 and W231 have similar gaps to what I posted.

I think Mr_Flintstone is correct.

The Lyman #48 from 2000, the RCBS book is from 1982. Later this week I'll dig into my stack of older reloading manuals and see what I can find. I'll also go through Pet Loads.
 
HHmm ok, so an older manual.
Maybe there was a difference back then but does not appear to be now at least from the data I see from Hodgdon.
Lyman 50 (current) lists HP38 and W231 in .45 with a 185 with different numbers/pressures as one example but that could be lot to lot.
(There may be more I just looked until I found one example, a lot of their loads list one or the other of HP38/W231 or H110/W296
I have to tend to believe what Hodgdon shows as they market the powders.

It is interesting that Hodgdons numbers are exactly the same, I suppose if you took the average of a large enough sample you might get identical numbers,
but I would think even with a large sample and two batches you would see some minor difference, but they don't even have 5 fps difference in their numbers.
Almost makes me wonder if Hodgdon tested one batch of ammo for each of the two powders (only two if we say HP38=W231 and H110=W296) and used the results for both listings.
2 tests generated 4 listings??
 
For anyone who cares there are more that 2 powders which are the same.

W231=HP-38
W296=H110
W540=HS-6
W571=HS-7
W760=H414
WAP=Silhouette
W680=AA1680

Both IMR4227 and H4227 are so similar the data is interchangeable even though that are not identical according to Hodgdon.

I think there are a few others but I just don't remember right now.
 
Last edited:
bds said:
And it would be nice if Lyman re-tested 40S&W loads using more typical .400' groove diameter test barrel.
Click to expand...

bds said:
.401" shown on page 362 and why some of their start charges are Hodgdon's max charges - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/40-s-w-load.852049/#post-11145208

index.php


Here's Lyman #49 40S&W load data which used .401" groove diameter test barrel.
  • 180 gr Jacketed HP W231 OAL 1.115" Start 5.0 gr (927 fps) 20,400 CUP - Max 5.6 gr (1015 fps) 22,800 CUP

And here's Hodgdon load data.
  • 180 gr HDY XTP W231 OAL 1.125" Start 4.1 gr (797 fps) 23,800 PSI - Max 5.0 gr (947 fps) 32,900 PSI
Click to expand...

bds, you’ve made a spurious correlation. And you've done so because of an assumption. It looks like you're assuming that Hodgdon used a 0.400" groove diameter barrel. Where does it indicate barrel groove diameter on their website? So, bds, what is Hodgdon's 40 S&W barrel groove diameter? Please point me to that information. Maybe it's the same.

The problem is that your claim cannot be supported. There are so many things wrong with your claim that it is . . . well, I don't know how to address this except to point out the facts.

1) SAAMI specs for a 40S&W barrel groove diameter are 0.4005”. Technically, a 0.400(0) barrel would be undersized. 0.401” is within spec since tolerances are + 0.004” meaning anything between 0.4005” to 0.4045” is within SAAMI specs.

There’s squat data showing pressure (or powder charge weight) differences in handgun rounds where bullets are undersized or oversized.

2) Your claim for the 180 grain bullet is flawed. While the 231 results (5.6 gr v 5.0 gr) are consistent with your claim, it is just the opposite for Universal (5.5 gr v 5.8 gr). All people have to do is look at the data for Universal and they’ll see that you’re wrong.

Plus, the manuals are using two different bullets, and at different overall lengths. Lyman uses a Sierra 180 grain bullet, while Hodgdon uses a Hornady XTP bullet. Don’t assume they will produce the exact same results.

Lyman is using, for many of their 40 S&W loads, the old fashioned CUP measurements, and you can’t easily translate that into PSI, so the actually max pressures are not likely to be the same.

3) Let’s compare data with the same bullet, 135 grain Nosler JHP. Here, Lyman has lower maximum powder charges with 231 (6.7 gr) and HS-6 (9.0 gr). Hodgdon’s max loads are 7.0 gr and 10.2 gr, respectively. But again, they are loaded to different lengths. The Lyman loads to 1.085 and Hodgdon loads to 1.125. Thus one would expect that Hodgdon could add more powder before reaching max pressure limits, and the results are consistent with that.

4) You’re also probably not taking into account that the powders are from different lot numbers.

5) Lyman uses Winchester brass, and Hodgdon uses Hornady brass. But at least they are using the same WSP primer. Have you taken different brass into account?

When taking all this stuff into account, it’s difficult to imagine how you’re drawing your conclusion based on one powder and different bullets. Seriously.

No two manuals will agree. That’s reality. But to claim there is a problem with using a barrel that is 0.001” different is probably not valid. Data to support that requires that it’s done in the same lab by the same people with the same components, same, same, same . . . etc., the only difference being barrel groove/bore diameter. And, as pointed out above, your claim is contradicted when looking at other powders and bullets.

Feel free to contact Lyman and tell them about their oversize barrel. And you might want to tell them that their 38 Special and 357 Magnum test barrels are the wrong size, too - at least according to you.
 
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