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

[mkk41]

Why no love for the red dot? Feeds most of my pistols and all my shotguns.

I used to use 5.0grs Red Dot and a 200gr H&G bullet for many , many years. However , I found that the smaller flake W-231/HP-38 flowed better thru my powder measure of my Dillon.

And even though they are the same powder , it always seems the Winchester-brand package is marked $1-$3 a pound higher that the Hodgdon.

Same with W-296/H-110 and H-414/W-760.

 

[Harrison]

Except for availability, I am curious as to why people would use 231 over HP38. Where I live and/or ordering on line HP38 is generally cheaper, and they are the exact same powder. They even come in the same bottle. Hodgen just slaps a different label on HP38. Hodgen admits they are the same powder. I guess putting on a label that says Winchester makes 231 worth a couple $$ more a pound.

 

[hotrod150]

I question the statement that W231 & HP38 are exactly the same powder. My old Speer book #10 generally shows .1 gr less charge of HP38 than of W231 for about the same velocity in 38 spl loads. For the 357 with 158 gr swaged SWC, it shows max 5.4 gr W231 for 989 fps but only 5.0 HP38 for 932. Also the charge chart for my RCBS Little Dandy powder measure shows a .1 grain difference in charge weight between the two for some (but not all) of the rotors.
I have used W231 for most of my handgun reloading, in 38 spl 9mm & 45 acp. I used Unique for most of my 45 colt loads. 231 seems cleaner and easier to measure, I would prefer to keep using it but have considered switching to the "identical" HP38 based on what I've read here. Unfortunately I haven't found either powder for sale locally- called three gun shops & Wholesale Sports and went to a gun show yesterday--no luck.

 

[Rule3]

I was so much younger when this thread was started

Over and Over again.

THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME POWDER!

 

[Bkreutz]

I question the statement that W231 & HP38 are exactly the same powder. My old Speer book #10 generally shows .1 gr less charge of HP38 than of W231 for about the same velocity in 38 spl loads. For the 357 with 158 gr swaged SWC, it shows max 5.4 gr W231 for 989 fps but only 5.0 HP38 for 932. Also the charge chart for my RCBS Little Dandy powder measure shows a .1 grain difference in charge weight between the two for some (but not all) of the rotors.
I have used W231 for most of my handgun reloading, in 38 spl 9mm & 45 acp. I used Unique for most of my 45 colt loads. 231 seems cleaner and easier to measure, I would prefer to keep using it but have considered switching to the "identical" HP38 based on what I've read here. Unfortunately I haven't found either powder for sale locally- called three gun shops & Wholesale Sports and went to a gun show yesterday--no luck.

I watch the internet sources constantly. Friday I received 10# of 231 which I had ordered the week before from here http://www.natchezss.com/Category.cfm?contentID=productDetail&brand=WP&prodID=WP2318&prodTitle=Winchester%20231%20Powder%20-%208%20Pounds

They're out of stock now, but you have to keep a constant watch until you find what you want. I don't think I have to look as often now (feel I'm set for a while at 4.8gr per round). I'll casually look to keep a feel on what's available and where the pricing is going on components but I don't feel as concerned as I was. Keep looking, it's out there, it pops up when you least expect it.

As an aside, Natchez has over 2 pages of "in stock" powder. http://www.natchezss.com/category.cfm?category=6&outOfStock=0&orderBy=&startRow=51

 

[mkk41]

I question the statement that W231 & HP38 are exactly the same powder. My old Speer book #10 generally shows .1 gr less charge of HP38 than of W231 for about the same velocity in 38 spl loads. For the 357 with 158 gr swaged SWC, it shows max 5.4 gr W231 for 989 fps but only 5.0 HP38 for 932. Also the charge chart for my RCBS Little Dandy powder measure shows a .1 grain difference in charge weight between the two for some (but not all) of the rotors.
I have used W231 for most of my handgun reloading, in 38 spl 9mm & 45 acp. I used Unique for most of my 45 colt loads. 231 seems cleaner and easier to measure, I would prefer to keep using it but have considered switching to the "identical" HP38 based on what I've read here. Unfortunately I haven't found either powder for sale locally- called three gun shops & Wholesale Sports and went to a gun show yesterday--no luck.

The manufacturer , St. Marks Powder Co* div of ATK says so.
Data differences are due to normal lot to lot variations and differences test equipment and methods , atmospheric conditions and publishers safety factors.

* - used to be owned by Olin Chemical Co , Winchesters parent company.

 

[Nevada Ed]

At least the HP 38 bottle gives you a few loads on the
front of the bottle.

Its, got to be better !!

 

[Rule3]

Since around 2006, they are the same other than you pay more for the Winchester name

H110=W 296

As are:
W540 = HS-6
W571 = HS-7
W760 = H414

(borrowed from Arch from the other hang out)

 

[SMSgt]

I question the statement that W231 & HP38 are exactly the same powder. My old Speer book #10 generally shows .1 gr less charge of HP38 than of W231 for about the same velocity in 38 spl loads.

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.

 

[TAROMAN]

I have always only used 231/HP38 for 38 Special loads.
Recently tried 5.0 gr under a 200 LSWC in .45 Auto.
OMG is it accurate in my 625!
May make me give up on Bullseye.

 

[smokindog]

Response from Hornady:

The data is correct and the "old saying" that those two powders are the same if about 1/2 true. The powder that we know as HP-38 is reported to be W231 with graphite added to adjust or slow the burn rate. This is why the data is very close but you still different. There are several cases like this in the loading world another is H110 and 296.​

Thanks,​

I sent an email to Hornady questioning the data I found in their manual. IF I hear anything back, I'll post!

I've also got WSF and Power Pistol that I'll be working with!!! It's all about availability right now I'm set up to load 9, 40, 45 and 45LC

 

[hotrod150]

I don't really load and shoot that much so I'm only looking for a one-pound can. What special handling fees (hazmat, etc) do they charge when shipping powder?

 

[Jim026]

Response from Hornady:

The data is correct and the "old saying" that those two powders are the same if about 1/2 true. The powder that we know as HP-38 is reported to be W231 with graphite added to adjust or slow the burn rate. This is why the data is very close but you still different. There are several cases like this in the loading world another is H110 and 296.​

Thanks,​

This is a significant statement from Hornady. Seems to contradict what Hodgdon has said. I assume that if the plant was adding graphite to one brand the distributor would know about it.

 

[blujax01]

This is a significant statement from Hornady. Seems to contradict what Hodgdon has said. I assume that if the plant was adding graphite to one brand the distributor would know about it.

Significantly suspect. I will write to Hodgdon and ask them.

 

[blujax01]

At least the HP 38 bottle gives you a few loads on the
front of the bottle.

Its, got to be better !!

But - but...the W231 gots a pony on it! That makes it faster.

So there!

 

[smokindog]

WOW, wished I dun thunked of that

Wonder if either of us will get a response?????

Significantly suspect. I will write to Hodgdon and ask them.

 

[Bkreutz]

I don't really load and shoot that much so I'm only looking for a one-pound can. What special handling fees (hazmat, etc) do they charge when shipping powder?

Most vendors charge $27.50 per order (no matter how much you order). I'm sure there are exceptions if you order huge amounts but the most I've ordered at one time was 5000 primers and 16# of powder.

 

[smokindog]

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"!!!!!!!

Significantly suspect. I will write to Hodgdon and ask them.

 

[Rule3]

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"!!!!!!!

We already knew this. Hodgdon must have answered this question a million times. The other powders are listed above.

Maybe I will take a drive tomorrow over to St Marks where that make the stuff and actually ask the Chemists for a tour. Maybe they give free samples like Busch Gardens

 

[hotrod150]

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.

 

[alwslate]

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.

 

[blujax01]

We already knew this. Hodgdon must have answered this question a million times. The other powders are listed above.

Maybe I will take a drive tomorrow over to St Marks where that make the stuff and actually ask the Chemists for a tour. Maybe they give free samples like Busch Gardens

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...

 

[Rule3]

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!

 

[smokindog]

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.

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...

 

[GCF]

... 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 ballistics between lots by volume not weight.

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?

 

[Twoboxer]

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?

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.

 

[SMSgt]

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

 

[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.

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...

 

[GCF]

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

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...

 

[shield]

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...

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.