H 110

[nvreloader]

Daryl,
As we both know, due to the DIFFERENCES in everything involved, bbl's dimension, chambers, shooting conditions etc, etc,
there are bound to be differences.

My concern was that a NEW reloader may read this info, and figure that just because a certain powder is listed, that another powder that is real close, in burning rate can be used at the same amount of XYW powder etc, creating a Dangerous situation for the unknowing.

My info is based on QL, and as a comparison to the data you posted,
here is what QL suggests, (since you did not list the bbl length) I used 24" as a standard>

22 Hornet
30gr Barnes solid,
WIN 296- 11.1 - 2,805 (QL states this load is below the minimum 75% of powder amount, to STAY out of the SEE arena)
Win 296--12.3 - 3,150fps - 39759PSI

H110-----11.1 - 2,812 (QL states this load is below the minimum 75% of powder amount, to STAY out of the SEE arena)
H-110----12.3 - 3,126fps - 39,909PSI

Ql suggests a minimum start load of 11.6 grs for H-110= 2942 fps

Ql suggests a minimum start load of 11.7 grs for Win 296= 3014fps

Tia,
Don

Originally Posted by Daryl

Different lot testing, perhaps, Don. As I said, ALL of Lee's loading that lists both, has one over the other, identical loads, velocities and pressures.
for example:
.22 Hornet 30gr. Barnes X solid;

WIN 298 11.1 - 2,807======12.3 - 3,150fps - 41,500CUP
H110----11.1 - 2,807======12.3 - 3,150fps - 41,500CUP

This sort of thing carries with other small cased rifles as well as all the magnum handgun data form .357 to .454 Casull that lists both- all identical numbers.

I have seen different loads listed in other manuals and can only surmise it was due to testing in different climates, times of the year during compiling data or even at different times in the life of the ctg. Hornady noted in one manual, that during the load testing of the 7mm mag. barrel, after a certain # of rounds, 1,500 or 2,000 I think it was, the velocities had fallen off by 200fps compared to identical loads tested earlier in the program. Interesting.

In a way, it's kind of like the way, before buying Olin, they purchased the last 3 tons of W680 powder from Winchester and re-canned it as H116. That stuff never made it to Canada.

[Daryl]

Putting all of one's trust in a program might not be the best solution, rather than actually developing the loads might be?

I merely copied what I saw in a loading manual & going by what the powder developer/owner says about the products it sells & what is printed in quite a comprehensive loading manual.

The powder burning rate chart in Lee's book also shows H110 and W296 as being EQUAL.

Are you saying your computer program is correct and the loading manual incorrect?

[Daryl]

Originally Posted by nvreloader

Daryl,

My concern was that a NEW reloader may read this info, and figure that just because a certain powder is listed, that another powder that is real close, in burning rate can be used at the same amount of XYW powder etc, creating a Dangerous situation for the unknowing.

Tia,
Don

It appears that the QL computer program disagrees with the loading manuals as well as the powder making and marketing companies. Oh well.

Hornady's manual starts Hornet loads with the 35gr. Vmax, at 9.9gr. W296 = 2,600fps and maxes at 12.0 at 3,000fps.

Their 110 data starts at the same 9.9gr. at the same 2,600fps speed. but shows 11.9gr. as also producing 3,000fps.


What did QL say about reducing that powder's loads below 11.1gr.?

[nvreloader]

Daryl

"What did QL say about reducing that powder's loads below 11.1gr.?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This has been happening for the past 45 years or so, usually with relatively slow burning types propellants in light charges, in rifle and pistol cases. The usual suspects over the years have been 630, 630P, 296, H-110. There is enough anecdotal evidence that both Winchester and Hodgdon (296/H-110) have finally published advice to only load these at the recommended maximum charges and or not reduce more them 3% by weight.

They are recommended for magnum cartridges (.357/.41/.44 etc) which have a SAAMI MAP of 36,000 PSI.
Reducing these by 3% would still produce pressures in the 33,500 PSI range.
They are not, therefore, suitable for .38 Special or other cartridges having SAAMI MAP specifications less than the above 33,500 PSI or close.

This has been duplicated in the laboratory, but infrequently.
It is extremely hard to reproduce in a controlled environment and for quite a few years the manufacturers vehemently denied that it was happening, or could.

There have been several terms invented to describe this,
among which are Secondary Explosion Effect, Pressure Excursion Effect, Detonation, etc.
I have not yet seen an adequate explanation, just several theories, none of which has satisfactorily explained the situation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Are you saying your computer program is correct and the loading manual incorrect?"

No,
I am saying QL is correct, in the info it has advised to not go below a certain amount of powder etc, I know that the inventor of QL KNOWS more about the burning rate of powders and related items etc, than you and I put together.

When this program suggests NOT going below a certain amount of XYZ powder, there has to be a reason, would you not believe?

I will stick with QL, untill there is a BETTER method.

Tia,
Don

[Daryl]

Originally Posted by nvreloader

Daryl



No,
I am saying QL is correct, in the info it has advised to not go below a certain amount of powder etc, I know that the inventor of QL KNOWS more about the burning rate of powders and related items etc, than you and I put together.

When this program suggests NOT going below a certain amount of XYZ powder, there has to be a reason, would you not believe?

I will stick with QL, untill there is a BETTER method.

Tia,
Don

Yes you are - you are saying QL is correct and the powder mfgr's and loading manual writers are incorrect. You are saying we need to follow the computer program and not the books - pertainig to the lower loads suggested by BOTH Lee and Honady.

I am well aware of the supposed explosions caused by reduced charges of certain powders. I am aware they are/were also happening with very fast pistol powders and that si why powders such as Tin Star and Trail Boss were invented. I've never had a problem with any loads I've used from either Lee nor Hornady and I'll bet I never do.

I've been following the manuals for over 40 yards and will continue- you go ahead follow your computer program. I'm sure we'll both be safe.

[Ackman]

Originally Posted by reed1911

Don,

If you call Hogdon and ask, they will tell you the same (they are the same powder). They always have been the same powder, just now that they are the same company they admit it.

In the 80's I was shooting handgun silhouette. The powder to use in 44 and 41 magnum was W296. Then guys started switching to H110, same load but it seemed to be less temperature sensitive. Matches were in summer and it was hot out there. I called Hodgdon and spoke with a tech. He told me they're almost the same but not exactly. I believe it had to do with coating. He said compared to W296, H110 would be about like W295 if there was such a thing.

[Johnny C. Kitchens]

Back in time 296 and H110 were different. Hodgdon was dealing in surplus powder. Today there is not so much surplus powder and Hodgdon is selling mostly newly manufactured powder. The powders with his old designation such as H110 have too big a following just to get rid of the number so now they share designation. Any variations that come up between the two are just about what you can expect between manufacturing variations between batches. I've come to accept that H110 and WW296 are the same now. An old can of H110 is bound to turn up once and awhile, so being careful with those is something to consider...

[Daryl]

TKS Johnny - had a feeling that was the situation with the newly mfg powders. Same goes for the H414 and W760.