I can remember my first love but not what I had for lunch today. Are these two powders identical? Some where in my travels I think I came upon the fact. I use 296 for heavy 44 mag loads with a mag primer. They same is listed for H-110.
Jim

Probably are at lest equivilant if not equal. Do notice that H110 was often listed with a starting and a max. load, while WW's data often had a "do not reduce" warning in many cases.


I do use them more or less interchangiably...but even with 296, will start with the H-110 starting loads and work up.

When we've touched on this subject before, many of the responses were adamant that they were the say, often quoting conversations with the powder manufacturer. I don't know if they're the same, but some of my various loading books have slight variations between the two for loads, but as ribbonstone indicated, for all practical purposes, they can be teated as the same.

I've run tests with 44 mag loads and have found that equal velocities can result from as much as .5 gr. difference between the powders. But I've also found that same result between separate lots of H110 or W296.


Dan

I wrote to a powder company;think it was Hodgdon,and was told flat out that they are one and the same.
However,When I 'discovered' H110,it gave the best results,by far,with my 30Carbine cartrdge.When I looked up the data from several years ago,296 was not very accurate in it.
Maybe lot to lot differences are great with that powder.
Frank

They are "very near" one and the same but not identical. They are made by the same company. WW made there specifications a little tighter than Hogdon when it was "batched" is the only difference.
Both of them deserve much respect at the upper end of presure when reloading.
I have found WW-296 to be more consistant in my handloads.
Be careful in all that you do,
Cheeywan