It seems to be the current conventional wisdom that Winchester 231 and HP 38 are one and the same powder. If that be so, how is it that in one of my older loading manuals (Hornady perhaps...I saw it a few days ago and don't remember for sure), there is a reference where the very same case, primer, bullet, cartridge, has two distinct starting and maximum loads listed for those powders? At some point were the powders different and then changed?
231 vs. HP 38
- Thread starter dahermit
- Start date
g.willikers
New member
Interesting question.
Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?
It might not be a difference in the powders, but rather errors in the manual.
It wouldn't be the only example of printing errors in a reloading manual.
I've run across more than few contradictions in them.
Everyone makes mistakes.
As always, common sense rules.
Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?
It might not be a difference in the powders, but rather errors in the manual.
It wouldn't be the only example of printing errors in a reloading manual.
I've run across more than few contradictions in them.
Everyone makes mistakes.
As always, common sense rules.
If you look at the loading data on Hodgdon’s website today, you’ll see the same data for W231 and HP-38. Same charge, same velocity, same pressure.
Variations exist in all powders, so it’s not unreasonable that each batch of powder will produce slightly different results.
Errors are possible, but minor differences in loads using the same case, primer, and bullet are to be expected since all of those components have some variability as well.
Hodgdon could have a say in, or control of, the variability of W231 and HP-38 they produce/sell. So they might know the parameter limits. If that is the case, unlike the bullet makers, they can choose a given batch of powder (at the limits they choose) to develop their reloading data. And they can then publish that same data for both powders knowing that every batch they produce/sell should meet their criteria in their test equipment.
Variations exist in all powders, so it’s not unreasonable that each batch of powder will produce slightly different results.
Errors are possible, but minor differences in loads using the same case, primer, and bullet are to be expected since all of those components have some variability as well.
Hodgdon could have a say in, or control of, the variability of W231 and HP-38 they produce/sell. So they might know the parameter limits. If that is the case, unlike the bullet makers, they can choose a given batch of powder (at the limits they choose) to develop their reloading data. And they can then publish that same data for both powders knowing that every batch they produce/sell should meet their criteria in their test equipment.
When Hodgdon first started out they would blend several lots of Winchester powder, supposedly this made Hodgdon powders more consistant lot to lot.
Now they are the exact same.
Variations come from different lots, different guns, different components and/or different weather conditions. that's why every manual tells you to work up loads.
"...They put load data for the gun they use for testing..." No, they give the firearm used for testing the load data. Manufacturers usually don't uses or care what firearm is used. Most use a universal receiver with a particular barrel length and rifling twist for the range of velocities they want.
"...Never understood this..." Hodgdon didn't ALWAYS own/market Winchester powders. Hodgdon developed H110 because they wanted a .30 Carbine powder all their own.
"...different lot numbers of the same powder..." Happens all the time with all powders. And different lots are slightly different burn rates. Makes the Benchrest Guys crazy.
"...Never understood this..." Hodgdon didn't ALWAYS own/market Winchester powders. Hodgdon developed H110 because they wanted a .30 Carbine powder all their own.
"...different lot numbers of the same powder..." Happens all the time with all powders. And different lots are slightly different burn rates. Makes the Benchrest Guys crazy.
Am a betting man and gonna guess hodgen just does one test and prints results for both powders now.
Why I can't statistically prove it at all, believe 231 was slightly slower burming years ago. A lot of the older manuals had 231 slighter slower than hp-38. Years ago when I compared the two, the shades were different and 231 produced slightly slower velocity's for same charge. Very rough testing conditions, but consistent with several manuals at the time. Maybe a slightly different coating on one of them?
Why I can't statistically prove it at all, believe 231 was slightly slower burming years ago. A lot of the older manuals had 231 slighter slower than hp-38. Years ago when I compared the two, the shades were different and 231 produced slightly slower velocity's for same charge. Very rough testing conditions, but consistent with several manuals at the time. Maybe a slightly different coating on one of them?
In 2006, Hodgdon was licensed to sell Winchester powders and load data for W231 became same as HP-38. 2005 and prior load data from Winchester and Hodgdon showed different start/max charges for W231 and HP-38. If your HP-38 was manufactured after 2006, it is the same exact powder as W231 - https://www.hodgdon.com/history.htmldahermit said:
Having said that, some reloading manuals still show different start/max charges for W231 and HP-38 which would indicate they either used older than 2006 powders to conduct their testing or they are reprinting old test data in newer editions like Lyman #49 but only some load data show different start/max charges (Hopefully Lyman #50 will show same start/max charges for all W231/HP-38 loads).
Jim Watson
New member
News to me.
I thought Hodgdon got started selling surplus powders and H110 was surplus carbine powder, soon found to have uses in magnum revolvers and .410 shotguns.
I recall sales of H111 and H108 as lots too different to blend into H110 were sold as is.
Before the cat was officially out of the bag, I figured out that H110 and W296 were the same thing. Tests I conducted in my 44 Magnum lever action, the only difference in components was the powders, and the velocities were so close that I concluded there was no difference between the powders.
Does anyone think that the Technicians who were creating data for the reloading manuals did not notice that these powders looked and performed identically? Of course they did. But, and this is the important point, how were these companies going to increase profit by informing us? Our ignorance is a primary source of profit for all sorts of industries. We live in society where advertising bureaus have convinced us that water in green bottles is somehow better, and of course is more expensive, than water in blue bottles.
The great thing is, now with the internet, we can compare experiences without having to go through corporate intermediaries.
Does anyone think that the Technicians who were creating data for the reloading manuals did not notice that these powders looked and performed identically? Of course they did. But, and this is the important point, how were these companies going to increase profit by informing us? Our ignorance is a primary source of profit for all sorts of industries. We live in society where advertising bureaus have convinced us that water in green bottles is somehow better, and of course is more expensive, than water in blue bottles.
The great thing is, now with the internet, we can compare experiences without having to go through corporate intermediaries.
There are so many variables when reloading I wouldn't even throw the techs under the bus, especially with H110/WW296 they are quite sensative to crimp and neck tension, I've seen more than one reloader run into problems using book data with H110/WW296 and not using a firm crimp and getting poor ignition and eratic pressure.