Lyman cast data 231 and 38 Spl +P - Help needed

[38SPL HV]

My Lyman cast data shows +P max with 5.2 grs 231 and 158 gr RN.

I have regular 158 gr lead round nose bullets and intend to load with 5.1 grs 231 to be used in a +P rated revolver.

I think the pressure would still be within +P parameters (20k psi max) and within Lyman's recommendation.

I tried 4.5 grs 231 with same bullets but velocity from 2 inch was just a little over 800 fps. 5.1 grs would get me near my goal of duplicating Rem/WW 38 Spl +P 158 gr LHP loads - I will chrono them also but beforehand need your thoughts and recommendations.

Appreciate any inputs. I think I'm ok going to 5.1 grs with 158 gr lead bullet in a m+P rated revolver...thoughts???

 

[H Richard]

I also think you will be O.K. but pay close attention to your OAL. This may make your hand a little more sore. You may be better off trying a little slower powder, like HS6 or AA#5 or 7, or even Unique.

 

[cowboy4evr]

I would also consider what the accuracy is ? As you start pushing any powder too hard expecting too much velocity from it the accuracy starts to fall apart . Your 5.1 gr load is already in " unique " territory which is a slower burn powder . I have loaded a boat load of 38's 158 gr cast bullets for my fiancé . That load is 4.5 grs. Of Ramshot zip which is about the same burn rate as W231. 4.5 of zip is the " sweet spot " combining accuracy and velocity .
I have used a lot of unique for 38's / 158 gr cast bullets in my own loads starting with 5.0 . If your wanting more velocity I suggest a slower burn powder such as Acc #5 , unique , herco . I believe any of those 3 will do a better for you .

 

[DWalt]

If you have a chrono, just keep adding enough 231 in small increments to arrive at whatever MV it is you think you need. No one can provide a recipe which will do what you want in your specific revolver. My feeling about using +P loads for any purpose other than "just in case" defensive use is well-known.

 

[rwsmith]

Accuracy is important.....

...but for close in defensive shooting, it's not quite as important as velocity.

I KNOW accuracy is important because I have some compact pistols that I'm plain not good enough with past 5 yards. I'm working on it.

I'm doing the same thing you are with Speer 135 gr. short barrels.

I have a 'J' frame and I've yet to try any stiff loads in it. I don't know if the recoil/control issue will come into play.

I agree with getting a slower powder. You won't be sorry because it's very useful in many applications.

<any years ago I got some really hot data from an old Sierra manual for 125 grain jhp which I loaded a starting load into my model 10. That was quite enough for me. In fact I thought that a real world load would be best at about .2 grain less than that.

 

[Wise_A]

Couple bits I think.

(1) What's the purpose of the cartridge? Are you just duplicating feel/POI for practice, or do you want to match the velocities closely?

(2) I would back off a bit further from the max, personally. I figure most charges dropped are going to be within +/-.1 grains, but .2- and .3-grain variances are easily within 1.5-2 standard deviations.

(3) I would chrono the WW/Rem loads you want to duplicate first, and then select a powder that produces those velocities comfortably. There's a corollary to "Never load over the book"--and that is, "Just because it's in the book, doesn't mean it's a good idea or that it will work well." There are full-pressure .44 Magnum loads for Alliant Bullseye--but we all know Bullseye's much happier at half that pressure, and than Unique would be a better fit.

 

[twodog max]

The Hodgdon online data shows +p 38 loads for 231/HP38. That is what I use and no problems with it but I use these loads in 357 revolvers and +p 38 are fairly mild in them.

 

[Ivan the Butcher]

250 ft. lbs. of energy is pretty good out of a snubby. If you want long barrel velocity, use a long barrel gun!

Lyman's #46 edition shows 956 fps from a 4" barrel with 5.2 of 231 @ 320 ft.lbs of energy. I know I didn't like that from my 4" 686, I would never begin to use that load in any of my 2" J or K frames. It may be "safe" to use, but I'll pass.

Ivan

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Lyman does their own pressure tests so if the list it I feel its safe. That said, like said above, I use HS-6 for my .38 Special +P ammo although W231 will do just fine.

I mostly use 3 handgun powders, my powder trinity. Even though the original powder trinity was Bullseye, Unique, 2400 mostly because there were no others my trinity is W231(HP-38), W540(HS-6) and W296(H110). I don't need others but because I like to play I do have about a dozen handgun powders lol.

 

[Toblerra]

I load 4.5 gr Win231 under a 158 SWC in a magnum cartridge in my 3" l frame. A very accurate and light load for me.

 

[alwslate]

Appreciate any inputs. I think I'm ok going to 5.1 grs with 158 gr lead bullet in a m+P rated revolver...thoughts???

Thoughts? Just one, you seem to worry WAY too much
about using W231 in the 38 spl and 357 mag. Your load will
be just fine.

 

[38SPL HV]

You're right! I'll also chrono some 5.1 grs loadings soon.

 

[Alk8944]

Eric,

Based on Hodgdon data the 5.1/231 extrapolates to ca. 22,000 PSI, 10% over +P standard. Hodgdon doesn't list +P data for 231, probably since it exceeds +P pressure to just get standard pressure velocity.

They do show HP-38 as +P, same powder, go figure! They list 4.5/HP-38 at 18,100 PSI. Again this extrapolates to just under 22,000 PSI at 5.1 gr. (21,900 PSI).

Not saying that this is dangerous in a .38 Spl, but you need to take reloading equipment/bullet manufacturers data with a grain of salt! I am satisfied the powder manufacturers, which indirectly includes Hodgdon, have well equipped laboratories and are fully capable of measuring pressure. The others tend to apply the "We didn't see any pressure signs and the loads seemed safe in our gun(s)" standard.

You want to duplicate +P velocities better powders are Unique, Herco, HS-6, Silhouette, Power Pistol, BE-86 and others in this range.

 

[38SPL HV]

Thank you, great advice. I had chrono'd same bullet using 4.5 grs HP38 sometime ago and averaged approx. 875 fps which is pretty close to WW 38 Spl +P 158 gr LHP loading. The 5.1 grs will go into the Mod 28 at this point.

 

[alwslate]

Eric,

Based on Hodgdon data the 5.1/231 extrapolates to ca. 22,000 PSI, 10% over +P standard. Hodgdon doesn't list +P data for 231, probably since it exceeds +P pressure to just get standard pressure velocity.

They do show HP-38 as +P, same powder, go figure! They list 4.5/HP-38 at 18,100 PSI. Again this extrapolates to just under 22,000 PSI at 5.1 gr. (21,900 PSI).

"Hodgdon data", "extrapolates", "probably", "exceeds +P
pressure just to get standard pressure velocity" ???? oh no
I don't hardly think so. Lots of arm chair theorizing here
but minus a few facts. I don't understand why those who
seem to look only to the net for load data and think
Hodgdon's huge web site is the be all, end all source for
load data, forget that Hodgdon MARKETS powder. Original
Win data for 231 shows 4.7 grs with a 158 gr SWC as barely
+P at 17,100 psi and 860 fps from a test barrel. Their max
listed charge for std pressure is 4.5 grs at only 15,800 psi
and 830 fps from a test barrel. Those who use 231 often
know that it only takes 4.0 grs to reach 800 fps from a 4"
38 spl revolver with a 158 gr cast bullet. Swaged bullets
will run a little slower as they always do.

 

[Wee Hooker]

Pushing the limits with a fast powder is bad Ju-Ju. Try 4.9 gr and be mindful of OAL. That gives you a good safety margin and is significantly stouter than your current load. If that doesn't get you close enough for your purposes, you should change to a slower powder.

p.s. Chances are that the factory +P loads your trying to get close to do use a slower powder.

 

[38SPL HV]

"Expended" the 5.1 grs (HP38/231) but my chrono priority was with my 357 mag. The 5.1 grs was just fine out of my Mod 28. I'm being better served with PP for my +P loads at this point.

 

[jimbo728]

Pushing the limits with a fast powder is bad Ju-Ju. Try 4.9 gr and be mindful of OAL. That gives you a good safety margin and is significantly stouter than your current load. If that doesn't get you close enough for your purposes, you should change to a slower powder.

p.s. Chances are that the factory +P loads your trying to get close to do use a slower powder.

I too like this recipe. I have been loading 4.8 gr of 231 with 158gr LSWC`s for a long time. Its good on steel and pepper poppers and very accurate. I chrony it regularly and it usually runs 850fps though a 4" 686.
Jim

 

[Alk8944]

"Hodgdon data", "extrapolates", "probably", "exceeds +P
pressure just to get standard pressure velocity" ???? oh no
I don't hardly think so. Lots of arm chair theorizing here
but minus a few facts. I don't understand why those who
seem to look only to the net for load data and think
Hodgdon's huge web site is the be all, end all source for
load data, forget that Hodgdon MARKETS powder. Original
Win data for 231 shows 4.7 grs with a 158 gr SWC as barely
+P at 17,100 psi and 860 fps from a test barrel. Their max
listed charge for std pressure is 4.5 grs at only 15,800 psi
and 830 fps from a test barrel. Those who use 231 often
know that it only takes 4.0 grs to reach 800 fps from a 4"
38 spl revolver with a 158 gr cast bullet. Swaged bullets
will run a little slower as they always do.

Obviously you are not aware of the basis behind load estimation, within reasonable limits, by extrapolation and interpolation of existing data! The various entities who publish loading data in manuals engage in this all the time!

Second point. Both HP-38 and 231 are actually manufactured by St. Marks Powders, a division of General Dynamics, at their St. Marks Florida facility. You make a big deal about "Winchester data". For the past several years Hodgdon has been the distributor for propellants sold under their own branding, IMR, and Winchester. In case you have not noticed, current reloading data for all three brands is available on the Hodgdon web-site. Where identical powders, such as 231/HP-38 and 296/H-110, are distributed under different brand names the data found for these duplicate propellants is identical. Why would you make believe that "Winchester" data is in some way more valid than that published for the Hodgdon numbers?

I suggest you do a bit of studying on the subject before getting "snotty" about another's post based on your own inadequate knowledge of the subject!

 

[alwslate]

Obviously you are not aware of the basis behind load estimation, within reasonable limits, by extrapolation and interpolation of existing data! The various entities who publish loading data in manuals engage in this all the time!

Second point. Both HP-38 and 231 are actually manufactured by St. Marks Powders, a division of General Dynamics, at their St. Marks Florida facility. You make a big deal about "Winchester data". For the past several years Hodgdon has been the distributor for propellants sold under their own branding, IMR, and Winchester. In case you have not noticed, current reloading data for all three brands is available on the Hodgdon web-site. Where identical powders, such as 231/HP-38 and 296/H-110, are distributed under different brand names the data found for these duplicate propellants is identical. Why would you make believe that "Winchester" data is in some way more valid than that published for the Hodgdon numbers?

I suggest you do a bit of studying on the subject before getting "snotty" about another's post based on your own inadequate knowledge of the subject!

Oh Alk you don't know how much I would like to let this post
slide by but I just can't. You consistantly cast yourself in the
role of the old guru and others as ignorant newbys but you
are just flat out wrong. Yes I do understand extrapolation
and interpolation of existing data and do it often myself but
you must have good data to begin with. You continue to go
with your assumption that everyone but you is nearly blindly
ignorant of everything in general. Yes "current" data for
Hodgdon's marketed powders is available on their website,
current published data by Hogdon that is. Can you even
possibly believe that Hogdon has retested all the data they
publish on their site rather than just selectively copying
original data with an emphasis on being conservative??
Yeah I believe in original Winchester data. Developed by
Winchester back when they marketed their own powders,
sold under the Winchester name and produced for them
by the St. Marks company. Do yourself a favor Alk, climb
down off your throne, do a bit more reading yourself than
"current data" as published on Hogdon's largely copied web
information. Lighten up and realize that a lot of older data
is very useful indeed.