Comparing Bullseye vs Win231

L

LBussy

New member
I have seen a good degree of support/recommendations for Bullseye, specifically when it comes to wadcutters in .38 rounds. I was wondering aside from being a relatively fast powder, what would I likely notice as a difference from my trusty Win231? For instance I originally chose the 231 because it was relatively clean and seemed perfect for all of my handgun needs (9mm, .38, .45 ACP). Bullseye also claims to be "perfect" for these rounds.

Would I notice anything aside from the different load weights? What would I likely notice? I thought being a faster powder it might be better for my shorter barrels.
 
Other than being cheaper to shoot due to the smaller charge weights of Bullseye required for a given velocity, and a resulting, almost certainly imperceptible, reduction in recoil, probably no different.

I don't think 231 or Bullseye have reputations for being clean-burning; Hodgdon Clays is the champ in that category, for mid-range .45 loads.
 
Both powders are top choices of competitors. W231 flows much better through my Uniflow powder measure.
 
The only comparison that matters is the burn rate. Bullseye is much faster than 231. Sits at #13 vs #29.
Win 231 is a bit bulkier than Bullseye. That's why its start load is 3.5 for a 148 grain WC. Vs the Max load of 3.1 for Bullseye.
Handed a revolver and ammo you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Barrel length is irrelevant.
 
Since Bullseye is less bulky, I'm guessing that means that metering is more critical / more likely to introduce inconsistencies due to weight?
 
Different charge weights when setting up your powder measure will be the most noticeable difference.

It's equally important to set up your meters correctly with either powder. I haven't ever had problems metering either in my Hornady LNL or Lee perfect powder dispenser.

Try both of them out if you are curious. A pound only costs $20 give or take. If you ask what's the best powder for any of the calibers you listed you will inevitably get people suggesting both. I'd guess Bullseye is the more popular of the 2, but I could be wrong.
 
What I mean about metering is - with less powder overall, a given inconsistency is going to be more impactful. For instance:

.45 ACP, 230 gn LRN using HS-6 = 7.0 gn of powder. A variation of +- 0.1 gn is a +-1.4% variation in total charge.

.45 ACP, 230 gn LRN using Clays = 3.5 gn of powder. A variation of +- 0.1 gn is a +-2.9% variation in total charge.

… therefore using a slower powder might (devoid of absolutely all other considerations) lend itself to greater variation shot to shot. Maybe that's not enough to make a difference?
 
Last edited:
Typically reloading manuals don't push the raged edge of performance (at least for handgun rounds...). Assuming you follow correct reloading procedures, you'll never notice the difference.
 
Have used lots n lots of both

The first round I ever loaded (6/4/'84) was a 158 LRN in 38 Special, using a modest 3.8 grains of Bullseye. I used Bullseye for my 38 Spl and 45 ACP target rounds (and above target level for 45) for some time thereafter. I tried W231 for 45 ACP in late 1985. Over time, I found myself using the 231 over the Bullseye (for both chamberings) more and more, until I stopped buying Bullseye entirely.

The great component shortage of 2013 caught me flat-footed (never again - but that's another post) and scrambling for propellant. I considered myself lucky when I procured two #'s of B'eye. Then two more #'s shortly after. I was flush with the stuff. Resurrecting its use made me remember how good it is. At target-level pressures, it's really hard to beat its consistent burn. It's great stuff. It does leave behind a lot of super-fine residue (resembling graphite lube) - at any pressure - it's not just an underloading thing. Being "residuey" is its worst trait. But it's nothing more than a minor nuisance out at the range, since I clean my guns afterward.

I was wondering aside from (Bullseye) being a relatively fast powder, what would I likely notice as a difference from my trusty Win231?
Click to expand...

Bullseye is a touch faster than W231. But I certainly consider them in the same burn rate range. Bullseye is a little more energetic and so it seems to run a bit hotter; but for the same reason, it's also a bit more economical (more energy per grain - not that I select propellants based on economics). The wheelhouse for both these propellants have a lot of overlap. Differences are subtle.

I have run into problems when trying to turn loads way down into the super light pooper popper range. W231 rears its head of relative slowness sooner by running grainy and sooty first. As you turn 'em down, Bullseye hangs in there with good combustions a little longer (as measured in terms of both bullet velocity and charge weight). That said, when loading in their wheelhouse - where they're designed to run - W231 is clearly a much cleaner burning propellant. And that is their single biggest difference in most load applications.

In terms of handloading, I'd give the metering nod to W231 - it seems to meter a little more consistently. But I don't consider the metering characteristics of either one to be an issue in any way. To me, the difference is nothing more than noteworthy.

W231 has a slightly better fill rate too. I don't know the density difference. It could just be that slightly more W231 (by weight) is needed to achieve the same velocity for a given application; so it fills the case more. Again, not a factor in propellant selection for me. So I don't give it much thought. Just an observation.

After the shortage of 2013 subsided (which didn't do so until well into 2015 here in California), I stocked up on W231. I have about 10 #'s of it. I also phased out Bullseye by loading it all up n shooting it - the ammo brought with it a lot of shooting pleasure - like I said, it's good stuff. But yeah, I'm back to having just W231 in my inventory. However, should the need arise (not likely), I wouldn't hesitate using Bullseye again. I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for it.
 
I've used both HP-38/Win 231 and Bullseye in 9mm, 38 Spl and 45 ACP. Never really experienced enough of a difference to really make an impression on me.

In the case of 38 Spl, both scare me because the charges are so small that it would be easy to double or even triple charge a case and not notice it, so my 38 Spl is always loaded with specific procedures designed to prevent that from happening.
 
LBussy wrote:
I thought being a faster powder it might be better for my shorter barrels.
Click to expand...

Be careful when selecting powders off of burn rate charts. There is no industry standard for determining burn rates. If you consult the burn rate chart on Hodgdon's website, you would see Bullseye coming in around #13 with HP-38/Win231 coming in at #28 and #29. But, if you consult the burn rate chart at the front of Vihta Vuori's Reloading Guide #12, it shows HP-38 faster than Bullseye and Win 231 the same "speed" as Bullseye. Different test protocols, different results.

Whose test protocol best matches what is going on inside the chamber of your 38 Special? Who knows? That's why you don't choose a powder off a burn rate chart.

Both Bullseye and HP-38/Win-231 will work well in 38 Special. The only way to know for sure which one will work better in your gun with the components you are using is to give them both a try and see which one provides the best overall experience for you.
 
I thought (Bullseye) being a faster powder it might be better for my shorter barrels.
Click to expand...

I'm curious your barrel lengths? (As an aside.)

All things being equal - and they rarely are - yes, the faster propellant will deliver a more "balanced" round for a short barreled gun. But what we're talking about here isn't velocity or terminal performance. By "balanced," I mean ammo tailored for shorter barrels by having a more tame recoil and muzzle blast - things that come about with slower propellants in shorter barrels (especially). I like to craft "balanced" ammo, tailored for the barrel length(s) of the firearm shooting them - to me, that's what handloading is all about. Tailoring ammo.

But . . .

The difference between these two propellants is so small that it is not a factor in this case.

Be careful when selecting powders off of burn rate charts.
Click to expand...

Great post all-around hdwhit. Especially your last paragraph.

Hodgdon's burn rate chart leaves me pulling my hair out in fits (not literally :p). It's garbage. Furthermore, I don't like "linear" charts anyway. They're deceptive. By far, the best burn rate chart I've ever seen is Accurate/Ramshot's - both in terms of its format and its accuracy (from my experience).

But . . . like hdwhit said, it's about your own personal experience and what works for you. Burn rate charts should not be used for anything more than just a very general guideline.
 
The difference in densities between W231 and bullseye is roughly 14%, with Bullseye being less dense. So for the same charge weight Bullseye will fill the case slightly more. However, to achieve the same velocity in suitable loads, W231 typically requires a greater charge weight. As a result, the actual case fill isn't much different between the two powders in most cartridges for the same performance.

When it comes down to choosing between W231 and Bullseye, I wouldn't make the choice based on burning rate, density/case fill, or charge. The powders are close in too close in those areas to make a significant distinction. Factors like accuracy, cost, availability, ease of dispensing, and cleanliness of burning are perhaps more popular reasons for choosing one over the other.

Many years ago when I started reloading, I bought my equipment used from a guy who had been competing (and winning) with his 1911 in 45 Auto. With the reloading equipment he threw in canisters of Bullseye and W231. The can of Bullseye was almost empty, while the can of W231 was almost full. He had tried both and got better accuracy with Bullseye.

When I tried both, I settled on W231 instead of Bullseye. If you are curious about Bullseye, give it a try yourself.
 
I use a lot of Bullseye and 231 in light 38, 357 and 44 mag cases. I find that there is no difference between the two in metering through a Hornady powder measure on a LNL press.
 
Bullseye has won more matches. Mainly because it has been around longer. I like it for my mouse fart loads in 45. It does run dirty but it is first generation from black powder to begin with.

W231/HP-38 I have found it not as fast. It is an OK powder for 9mm and 45 but it works better on the upper end of the recommended loads. This also cleans it up a lot. Not my fist choice for either of the calibers I shoot. A good back-up.

I have found powders I like better for both calibers.
 
Bullseye and win 231 are two of my favorite powders, especially for the three cartridges listed by the OP.

Both work very well for target loads, but I do tend to use bullseye more on the lower end and win 231 for slightly warmer loads.
 
Nick_C_S said:
I'm curious your barrel lengths? (As an aside.)
Click to expand...
Oh not all of my barrels are short, just a few of the guns have short barrels. Probably the shortest is the P938 with a 3" barrel. My Model 13 is right there alongside with a 4" barrel however it's magnaported which (I believe) shortens it up to 3" or so. Most of the rest of my pistols are 5" barrels.
 
I have used and love both W231 and Bullseye. I tend to use Bullseye for my .45 loads, only because "I always have", and since it works for me, I keep using it. Some folks are always chasing the perfect powder, and that is cool and fun, but for me, once I get a load that works, I focus on shooting so I just keep using Bullseye.

I do like W231 a lot however, and use it for some mouse fart 9mm loads that I use for Steel Challenges, and it always seems like a soft shooter to me for some reason.
 
"The only comparison that matters is the burn rate. Bullseye is much faster than 231. Sits at #13 vs #29."


Actually, you can't say much of anything about a powder's burn rate based on its position on a burn rate chart, and especially NOT that one powder is "much" faster because it's 15 places higher on the chart.

Burn rate charts don't actually provide figures for a powder's burn rate, which makes trying to compare one powder against another difficult.

An equally valid assessment could be made that Bullseye and 231 have very similar burn rates, but there are 12 other powders that also have very similar, but ever so slightly different, burn rates, that slot in between the two.

In reality, that would then leave you with 15 or so powders that have nearly identical burn rates.

But what they may NOT have, however, is nearly identical pressure curves and peak pressure points. And that information, to me, is FAR more informative than assigning a powder a position in a chart based on what is really an undefined and rather arbitrary "standard."



All that said, my very limited experience with Bullseye has never given me any reason at all to consider switching away from WW231.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top