HP-38/Win-231 What are they good for? And they are not the same.

[blujax01]

I just called Hodgdon and the guy said this is FALSE. The two powders are identical (as are 110 and 296 and a list of others he rattled off too fast for me to write )

I told him what Hornady had replied and he said he'd "pass it along"!!!!!!!

And your phone conversation backed up in writing in an email I received today 7/2/2013:


HP-38 and Win. 231 are the same powder. H110 also = Win. 296.

Dave Campbell
Customer Service
Hodgdon Powder Co.
6430 Vista Drive
Shawnee, KS 66218
913-362-9455 Ext. 117
[email protected]


Short and to the point!

 

[johngalt]

I'll concede the point but I woulda thunk that if they were identical, Hodgdon would have called theirs H231. You know, like their H4831, H4350, etc.
I thinkI'd like to stick with W231, if for no other reason than just for old times sake. But since I haven't seen either one for sale locally it doesn't matter.

Not quite. The Hxxxx and IMRxxxx powders are different, even though they have the same numbers. Close, but still different.

 

[smokindog]

That's the same guy I spoke to

And your phone conversation backed up in writing in an email I received today 7/2/2013:


HP-38 and Win. 231 are the same powder. H110 also = Win. 296.

Dave Campbell
Customer Service
Hodgdon Powder Co.
6430 Vista Drive
Shawnee, KS 66218
913-362-9455 Ext. 117
[email protected]


Short and to the point!

 

[rwsmith]

Therein lies the problem. Things change. My Speer #9 doesn't even list 231, only the older 230. Nowadays, 231 and HP-38 are one and the same.

I have and use a Speer #9. But man that is one OLD book (1974) and a lot of powders used in that one aren't even made any more.

 

[hotrod150]

I would then suggest not using them.
My old Speer #10 is my go-to book. Assuming the available powders are the same now as they were then, ditto bullets, what's wrong with using an old book? Pressures and velocities should be the same. There's just a lack of today's fear of ridiculous lawsuits and the resultant dumbing-down of suggested handloads.

 

[alwslate]

Interesting concept that I'd never considered - but having a little trouble with.

I sometimes meter, & sometimes weigh. For example, I might work up a 45acp load in weighed increments, & then come back later to load a large quantity of the best load - using the Dillon 550 powder measure.

Obviously, I would set the metered charge up by weight initially.

Is it possible that more consistent ammo would be produced w/ the auto measure - then the weighed charges during initial work up? Or worse yet, is it possible that the best weighed load (during work up), MIGHT NOT be the best metered load??

Any thoughts?

A few points; obviously load work up will be by weight.
Working up in small increments by volume with a measure?
No one is suggesting that. Working up or down in .01gr
increments provides exactitude a measure cannot match.
Nothing was said about more consistant ammo observed by
charging by volume rather than weight altho this has been
observed by some testers with various loads and published
in magazine articles. The author of the evaluation's point
was simple and clear; consistancy between lots by volume
rather than weight. The implication for the handloader seems
simple enough. If you have your measure set for a prefered
load there is no need to restart load development when
opening a new can of powder with a different lot number,
just open the can, pour powder into the measure and keep
loading. Getting back to your question, obviously it is
theoretically possible that you could by chance find THE load
for your gun by testing with slight load variations by volume.
Try if it makes you happy. But the evaluation author didn't
say that and neither did I.

 

[GCF]

A few points; obviously load work up will be by weight.
Working up in small increments by volume with a measure?
No one is suggesting that. Working up or down in .01gr
increments provides exactitude a measure cannot match.
Nothing was said about more consistant ammo observed by
charging by volume rather than weight altho this has been
observed by some testers with various loads and published
in magazine articles. The author of the evaluation's point
was simple and clear; consistancy between lots by volume
rather than weight. The implication for the handloader seems
simple enough. If you have your measure set for a prefered
load there is no need to restart load development when
opening a new can of powder with a different lot number,
just open the can, pour powder into the measure and keep
loading. Getting back to your question, obviously it is
theoretically possible that you could by chance find THE load
for your gun by testing with slight load variations by volume.
Try if it makes you happy. But the evaluation author didn't
say that and neither did I.

Sir -
My original comments were not intended as an offense to you personally, as you were only quoting some one else. However, as you appear to have taken offense, please accept my apologies.

The statement "...231 was formulated to be consistent from lot to lot when measured by volume not weight" can obviously be taken two ways - by two different people.

Simple & clear to you, perhaps, but the "not weight" qualifier on the end, begs clarification. At least it does for me.

Again, I was not trying to get nasty. Only attempting to explore an interesting concept. Thought that's why we were all here...

 

[alwslate]

Sir -
My original comments were not intended as an offense to you personally, as you were only quoting some one else. However, as you appear to have taken offense, please accept my apologies.

The statement "...231 was formulated to be consistent from lot to lot when measured by volume not weight" can obviously be taken two ways - by two different people.

Simple & clear to you, perhaps, but the "not weight" qualifier on the end, begs clarification. At least it does for me.

Again, I was not trying to get nasty. Only attempting to explore an interesting concept. Thought that's why we were all here...

Well GCF it seems to me that you are saying the same thing
I am regarding lot to lot consistancy, it's just that you chose
different words than I did. I admit to being a lazy typist who
tries get the most from the least number of words. Since
we're talking about powder it seems to me that "consistancy
from lot to lot" shouldn't require a detailed explanation to
handloaders. Maybe I assume too much. Your version does
seem to provide clarity and if you prefer the term "energy
produced" over "ballistics", ..fine. If you find the term "volume
not weight" confusing I don't know what to tell you since it's
rather difficult to use both at the same time when it's obvious
that one approximates rather than determines the other. But
it's silly to fret over different styles of expression. The fact is
that loading manuals and handloaders work with charge
WEIGHTS and will continue to do so and will continue to
wonder why they see conflicting data in different manuals.
And life goes on. Enjoy your loading and shooting.

 

[zeke]

1-currently 231 and hp-38 are the same. At one time they were same in bulk , but one processed more.
2-There are a lot of loads in manuals that have not been updated for quite some time. If you asked about a charge weight that was developed when hp-38 was slightly faster than 231, that may explain the difference in answers between Hornady and Hodgen

 

[smokindog]

Per Hodgdon, these powders have always been identical, back to the original resale agreement they had with Olin. Any difference in manuals is simply a difference in testing conditions when the powders were tested separately by the "reporter".

http://smith-wessonforum.com/reload...at-they-good-they-not-same.html#post137307233

1-currently 231 and hp-38 are the same. At one time they were same in bulk , but one processed more.
2-There are a lot of loads in manuals that have not been updated for quite some time. If you asked about a charge weight that was developed when hp-38 was slightly faster than 231, that may explain the difference in answers between Hornady and Hodgen

 

[zeke]

And the date of that agreement? 13 years ago there was a consistent and noticeable difference between the 2 powders. Burn rate and visually. 231 was slightly slower. The charges in a lot of reloading manuals appeared to reflect this, pretty consistently.

Personally, I think they are interpreting the word 'same"

 

[Jboutfishn]

Using HP-38 for 45ACP, 45 Colt, and 357. When I run out of HP-38 I will buy which is ever one is available. Not an issue.