I remember reading an evaluation of W231 way back when it was first
introduced that might explain the discrepancies between 231 and HP38
charge weights and velocities found in different loading manuals. The
author worked for Winchester at the time I think and he was very
emphatic in stating that 231 was formulated to be consistant from
lot to lot when measured by volume not weight. It was expected that
231 being a small grained ball powder would be metered not weighed
by most handloaders and was designed to provide consistant balistics
between lots by volume not weight.

I do hope that someone from Hodgdon has a little chat with the folks at Hornady. Pretty bad information to be passed along by a preferred partner.

I remember doing the Busch Garden thing with my brother in the 80's. We swapped out hats and shirts, went through different lines, waited until shift changes and basically got quite hammered for free! Man, I miss him...

When Busch Gardens first opened there was two tasting stations

At the main part and then take a train ride around the Congo land to Stanleyville. Have a few till they kicked us out. Jump the train and go back to the main place, shift change!. Get kicked out, back on the train, you get the picture.

This was back when the drinking age in Fl was 18!

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

The guy said his boss was pretty close to someone at Hodgdon and he'd make sure his boss got the message. Now what happens beyond that is, .....

He also said that the differences in data were mostly historical due to different environmental conditions when the separate "brands" were initially tested and people just don't want to go back and redo them. It dates all the way back to the "Olin days" The powders have always been the same.

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?

__________________
Regards - GCF

If any of this is true lol, it would be pretty silly to ignore the fact that the volume one chooses most frequently is set by weight.

A volume one sets equals a weight. Adjust the volume for the weight you desire. Is there something complicated here?

My point, exactly. Hard to fathom how the powder could be more consistent when metered - then when weighed.

Thought maybe I'd been missing something all these years...

__________________
Regards - GCF

Complicated? No. The concept you describe is pretty basic, & one that most everyone here understands.

It's just the statement "The author worked for Winchester at the time I think and he was very emphatic in stating that 231 was formulated to be consistent from lot to lot when measured by volume not weight." seems a little odd.

It would seem, that what the original quoted author (Winchester employee?) was saying, is that the energy produced by a given volume of WW 231, remains consistent from lot to lot - regardless of weight variation for that given volume.

Kind of goes contrary, to the approach most of us take for setting a charge weight.

Might have been a bit of a mis-quote, or something taken slightly out of context from the original author. That, or I'm missing something. It's possible, as I can be a little slow some times...

__________________
Regards - GCF

Perhaps a point being made is that some powders meter better than others, and may result in inconsistent charge weights. Whereas if you weigh each charge, you guarantee consistency (at the price of more time). I use HP38, which meters accurately enough for me.

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!

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

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

That's the same guy I spoke to

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.

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.

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...

__________________
Regards - GCF

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.

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

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".

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

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"

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.