I load the vast majority of my pistol ammo with 231.
380, 9mm, 38 Spl, 44 Russian, and 45 ACP all get max performance with it. Don't need another powder.
357 Mag, 10mm, 44 Spl., 44 Magnum all get loaded with it, but these are range-loads for the most part, and a slower powder is used for max performance loads.
Still, that's a pretty wide swath of loading usefulness, isn't it?!?
I've noticed that it leaves a little ash or residue behind, but all this talk about cleanliness of powder-burning kind-of mystifies me. No one ever complained about how dirty the old Unique was until the cleaner-burning version came out, remember? Or how about 2400? It was and still is a filthy-burning powder. Most people adore it... All this talk of "clean-burning" was started by VihtaVouri in the early 90s. Before then, no one really cared about how dirty a powder burned... VV started it all, because they had such tight quality-control that their powders were (and are) clean-burning, but it was really a marketing gimmick, because no one else's powders burned as cleanly...
I couldn't care less that there's a little ember of ash left in the bore of my pistol. Now, how smokey 231 burns, especially in combination with lead bullets (and their lubes), is something that I think should be worked on. There have been times, especially at IPSC matches or shooting the MP-5 with 231 loads that the targets became obscured. This is exacerbated in humid conditions even more. If St. Marks Powder could do something about 231 I'd rather they worked on it's smokey-ness rather than cleanliness. (Perhaps the problems are related... If so, maybe they could kill two birds with one stone.)
I'll just leave the metal cases to rust away.
