Are these two powders the same?

Exactly the same and verified by Hodgdon/Winchester in phone calls and emails.

There are many threads covering this on this forum and other forums too. It's true...

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

Yes. Also, WW296=H110 and HS-6=WW540.

I think most of the list includes:
W231 = HP-38
W296 = H110
W540 = HS-6
W571 = HS-7
W760 = H414

And, one or two of the Ramshot powders are the same as something else but I can't remember which right now.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

I thought they were, but I notice in my 2nd edition of Lee's Modern Handloading for the same bullet, different starting loads are given for each of these powders. For example, for a 125 gr jacketed bullet in a .357 mag case the starting load for Win 231 is 7.5 gr and for HP38 it is 5.0 gr.

Whoever included that those data in the Lee manual was asleep at the switch. It is quite common for there to be slightly different charge weights given for identical powders, as a result of lot-to-lot variations. The difference between a 7.5 gr. and a 5 gr. starting charge is huge. I suspect a misprint; perhaps somebody left off "7." before the "5?"

Thanks, Arch; forgot about 571 and 760.

Data difference can be due to normal lot-to-lot variations , differences in test equipment , methods , weather , atmospheric differences (temp , humidity , elevation , etc) and the tester/publishers own safety factors.

From what I've read , powder manufacture is an 'inexact' science. A burn rate or pressure curve is targeted , and powder lot is coated , tumbled , blended , sampled and tested till it's 'close enough'. Recently Alliant published some warnings about their latest lots of Blue Dot. They warn not to use it with 125gr bullets in .357 mag and not to use it AT ALL in .41 mag.

Ironic to me as it has been my favorite magnum sixgun powder , especially in .41 mag for many years.

The mismatched data out there is the biggest problem when trying to put the word out there that these powders are the same. It's mostly due to old lots of powder still in circulation I think. As of 2008, W231 = HP38 and H110 = W296. Respectively they are the exact same powder from the same factory coming out of the same "spout" into different packaging. A look at Hodgdon's reloading center will provide you with the most up-to-date data.

The Lee book doesn't say anything about what type of 125gr jacketed bullet was used. That book is a collection of data published by the powder manufacturers, then consolidated by Lee. It does not represent Lee pressure-testing each load themselves. With the starting loads, it is just stating that Hogdon elected to start at a lower charge than Winchester did. Differences in max charges could be related to testing equipment used, C.O.L or bullet design as well.

Also, Ramshot Silhouette=WAP, something I was excited to learn. I loved WAP for the 9mm (went through 16 pounds of it) before it was discontinued. Almost no flash and good velocity. Next time I have to buy powder I'm getting some.

WAP lives on from Ramshot - said to interchange but with a flash hider coating. I'm sure this has been mentioned all over this board as well.

I think it matters mostly where Winchester once furnished good tested data in an oddball cartridge - my interest is the 9x23 - while WAP was still available from Winchester.

thanks for in the info on wap-silhouette. one of my favorite powders for the autos.

I think it is the same NOW. But a little faster than the old 231. Because I could not get 231 but now HP-38 is around, I'm glad I have moved on to better powders for what I shoot. More velocity with less pressure and just as good accuracy, if not better.

Now that Hodgdon has the distributorship for Winchester Ball Powders, they show IDENTICAL loads with IDENTICAL pressure and velocity for W231 and HP38. Obviously they are just running one set of tests to serve for both.

But in 1994, Lyman Pistol and Revolver 2nd ed. showed significant differences in the two, presumably shot with the same bullets out of the same P&V barrels. They did not pair them up in a lot of calibers but in those they did,
HP38 was in every case the "faster." Some examples are:
25ACP 50 gr FMJ maximum pressure with 1.1 gr HP38, 1.4 gr 231
.32 H&R 85 JHP, max CUP with 3.5 HP38, 4.0 231
.38 Super 121 gr cast, max CUP with 5.9 HP38, 6.5 231.
.38 Special 158 cast, max CUP with 4.3 HP38, 4.9 231 (only 6 fps apart)
.38 +P 158 cast, max CUP with 4.5 HP38, 5.2 231.

That is from 10 to 15% more 231 for the same maximum pressure as HP38, not counting the .25. Way more than the 3-5% commonly given as acceptable lot-to-lot variation.

The question is, which has changed for them to be listed IDENTICAL now?

One cynical poster has said there is no change, they spec it all as HP38 and just put 231 labels on what they get orders for. Nobody will see a difference without a supply of older powder and a chronograph.

My old metal can of 231 is only about 5% slower than my big jug of HP38. But that matters to me because I load .38 Special on a machine with fixed powder bushings. I can't readily adjust for the difference.

Your very first post, and you mention my favorite handgun cartridge! Cool! I carry a 9x23 daily. WAP does look like a good 9x23 powder, based on Dane Burns' data. Lately, I've loaded up a bunch of 9x23 with 125gr. Gold Dots and Viht N-350, for which I know of no duplicate. Getting good results, but now that I know that I can get WAP in the form of Silhouette, I may try it out.

Welcome aboard!

Jim Watson- as a long time user of hp-38, am also of belief it was slighty faster. Believe one of them had a coating, possibly some type of deterrent? Similiarly to 296/h-110

I have no authority for this but at the time Winchester moved from 230 to 231 there was great deal of informed speculation that HP38 was the now surplus 230 based on things like the Lyman data and others.

Similar suggestions were made in the past about 296 and H110 as being different lots sorted by burn rate bomb tests and the different lots have now become so consistent that sorting by burn rate no longer makes a difference.

I'd suspect therefore that HP38 has been slowed down slightly to match 231 as stocks ran out and QA improved without notice on the valid assumption that a little slower is most always safe if not always what the customer wants.

It's been suggested and I do not know that in the past powders were less consistent from one manufacturing lot to the next - factory loads with non-cannister being adjusted to use a little more or a little less as appropriate - and even that some cannister powders (maybe H205) were lucky lots discontinued when the next manufacturing lot came in a little too different.