Ramshot ZIP vs Accurate No. 2 vs HP-38 / W231 comparison test results

Register to hide this ad
Nice! Thanks for sharing! I've found them all to be very similar based on 'feel', as I've not put them through the chrony. I was just using them for easy shooting loads for the family. They always "felt" the same!
 
Thanks for the info, Mark. I'll keep my eyes open for ZIP. Never heard of it before now. Looks like a good match for unobtainable 231. :)
 
Thanks Mark. I've been wondering what my 45 ACPs are gonna use when I run outta W231 (which looks like pretty soon). I'll have to look in Ramshot's load data for 200 gr. LSWC...
 
How well does Zip meter in comparison with HP-38? I've never had a powder meter as consistent as HP-38, which is part of the reason I use it for everything.
 
For me it measure pretty closely as far as accuracy and repeatability. Not saying that its density is exactly the same though. I think the volumes are slightly different. In general it is quite similar looking and the granule size appears similar. The most recent lot of HP-38 I have looks somewhat brighter silver colored than Zip. If you really like 231 and can't find any, I suggest getting 1 lb of Zip and giving it a try.

Mark in GA
 
Mark: I'm now loading what I think is the same 158GR (L)SWC from Missouri Bullet Company in .38 S&W Special, using what is now called Hodgdons HI-SKOR 800-X.

Your figures on post #2 show using 5GR WIN 231/HP-38 for a +P load using an OAL of 1.460".

Almost all the LSWC data I've seen for 800-X uses a considerably longer OAL, as in 1.155": I realize bullet design (especially with cast bullets) can have major significance vis-a-vis proper seating depth. Are you loading these to the crimp groove (cannelure) on these Missouri Bullet Company 158GR SWC's?

My info would lead me to believe that 5.4GR of the slower 800-X is roughly equivalent to 5.0GR of WIN 231/HP-38. The longer .357 Magnum load for a 158GR LSWC uses 8.9GR 800-X.

I'm hoping I'm not confusing the issue too much: seating this bullet at 1.550" OAL doesn't even look right, nowhere near the crimp groove.

I'll be shooting these test loads in a K-frame .357 Magnum so I'm really not too concerned with excess pressure: should I be? I see this as being somewhere in reasonable .38 S&W Special +P territory.

Thanks for your consideration!
 
Last edited:
Your test results are very interesting. For basic target use, I primarily load Dardas 158LSWC-BB, for .38spl / .357 S&W revolvers, & 200LSWC-BB, for .45acp Colt 1911's.

Generally speaking, I use magnum brass in the .357 revolvers - even for light, paper punching loads.

I notice that you don't make much reference to accuracy, in your posted results. Most would "expect" that the low SD / ES loads, would provide the most consistent accuracy results, but what have been your findings - in that regard?

Also, if I'm not getting too far off track, have you tried different diameter expander dies - for your 12BHN cast bullets?

I've been using the Lyman M (for ease of bullet seating), & as I got two in 38 / 357, have considered turning one down a few thousandths. Thinking a slightly tighter grip, might improve the burn consistency - for light target level, CB loads.

Just curious.
 
RV4driver said:
Just curious, why do you list the first powder in PSI, then the next powder in CUP?
Click to expand...

This was done because the pressure numbers are based off of the data as published by the Powder companies. Ramshot publishes all loads in PSI. The Hodgdon loads for HP-38/W231 are published in CUP.

Mark in GA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Accurate No. 2 Differences. Old vs. New
Replies
5
Views
798
243winxb
243winxb
sjmjax
32 S&W long test results:
Replies
10
Views
1K
SS336
S
38SPL HV
38 Spl +P with Lyman 358477 SWC - Test Results
Replies
13
Views
1K
38SPL HV
38SPL HV
G
S&W vs. Colt - 1892 Final Report & Recommendations - 1889 .38 cal revolver Army Tests
Replies
3
Views
544
gunbarrel
G
tcloud
.44 Mag 29-2 vs 500 Mag
Replies
12
Views
1K
tcloud
tcloud

Latest posts

Back
Top