HP-38 identical to 231??

C

condor bravo

New member
During past discussions on the subject of HP-38 and 231 being identical, I think that most reports were that they were the same powder, but renamed. The Lyman manuals use 231 often in their loads but HP-38 only just a few times. With .45 ACP loads both are included with a 185 gr bullet. However:
with 231 the starting and max loadings are 4.4 gr and 6.1gr
and
with HP the starting and max loadings are 3.5 and 5.8,
with pressure from the 5.8 considerably higher than the 6.1

Seemingly those differences would tend to support that they are in fact different powders.

Which brings up the subject that I have HP-38 I want to use up with .40 S&W loads. Lyman provides 231 data but not for HP. It seems the HP load should not be equivalent to the 231 since the 231 figures are higher and you would be replacing a lower load with a higher one.

Your thoughts on this? and
Are the two powders one and the same?
 
Last edited:
Now here's something I can speak to....and I've joined in here and elsewhere with the same question about HP-38 v W231. I've noticed the same information gap from one manual to another, and I've also seen several discrepancies that I'd be anxious to resolve. But honestly with my level of experience I'm not sure it matters for me.

I have used HP-38 for 40cal loads in both 165gr and 180gr Xtreme HPRNFP. At the time I was tempted to use 231 data universally for HP-38 loadings and I just couldn't bring myself to do it.

It seems to me as I study various published loads that they are different somehow. So.......are they the same?
 
The variances could easily be lot to lot. So if the lots are different between the HP-38 and 231used to build the load data (extremely likely) then they will be slightly different. Any time you switch lots within the same powder you still need to start a bit low and verify that your original load (from a previous lot) is still performing as expected. I've used the data interchangeably, with the same start low, work up slow procedure I always use anyway. No problems or surprises.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
 
I'd first ask was there any differences in test equipment or components from the different manuals . We do know that the one source that manufactures them both and test them with the same equipment and components has there data being identical in 9mm , 40s&w , 38sp and 45acp respectively . That to me seems to be a rather large indicator that they are in fact the same .

I for one would not have a problem using ones data for the other in initial load development . I have had concerns about simply replacing 231 in a load I've already worked up with HP-38 . Which I will run into in the near future . I have 2.5lbs of HP-38 left and recently bought a 4lb jug of 231 . So at some point I will be asking my self "do I just throw the same charge of 231 that I was using of HP-38 or drop down and work back up" ? Not sure yet and it will likely be at least another year before that comes up maybe 2 or 3 do to the fact I use a few different powders .
 
They are the same powder according to Hodgdon. They should know. They're the experts.

Differences in charge weights in manuals is likely due to different lots.

As with any powder, you have to work your loads up from starting loads.
 
If you looked at the CURRENT data from Hodgdon, you would find that HP38 and W231 are EXACTLY the same down to the last psi and fps. Because they are just running one set of test loads. Because the powder comes out of the same barrel and is packaged with label for whichever they have orders for.

Hodgdon has told callers that they are the same.

Now, why does your Lyman manual show different loads? Because they are carrying over old data from when Winchester handled their own distribution and you could get the lot variation and test equipment differences mentioned above.
 
HP-38 and win 231 are identical, the only difference is the label on the can.

My brother had bottles of HP-38 and win 231 that had the same lot number on them.
 
Just saying. IMHO
I don't believe any canister powder is exactly the same as some another. Two reason why.
Both powders would be sharing the same number on burn charts. Similar yes but not exactly the same.
Slight difference in Hodgdons powder I've noticed when comparing it to a identical (so said) Winchester powder. W-485/H-450. I did at the time believe Hodgdon's powder appeared to have a more noticeable or pronounced coating of graphite which undoubtedly slows burn speed. The Winchester powder had a more polished shiny look and with-out-doubt burned cleaner. Just my HO y'll.
 
I don't believe any canister powder is exactly the same as some another. Two reason why.
Both powders would be sharing the same number on burn charts. Similar yes but not exactly the same.
Slight difference in Hodgdons powder I've noticed when comparing it to a identical (so said) Winchester powder. W-485/H-450. I did at the time believe Hodgdon's powder appeared to have a more noticeable or pronounced coating of graphite which undoubtedly slows burn speed. The Winchester powder had a more polished shiny look and with-out-doubt burned cleaner. Just my HO y'll.
Click to expand...
But then in reference to HP-38 and 231, there is this: "...Hodgdon has told callers that they are the same." As I understand it, Hodgdon makes HP-38 and sells 231 to Winchester. So we must weigh Sure Shot MaGhee's opinions against what Hodgdon is telling callers.
 
HP-38 identical to 231??
Click to expand...

Yes, at least anything manufactured recently. Email Hodgdon and they will tell you the same. Go to Hodgdon's reloading web page and you will see the recipes they give for both are identical. Only legitimate difference is the label on the can.
 
I don't believe any canister powder is exactly the same as some another. Two reason why.
Both powders would be sharing the same number on burn charts. Similar yes but not exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Sureshot, it is the same stuff, attested by the distributor who gets them both out of the same barrel. Burn charts are notoriously unreliable, not to mention easily outdated by change in manufacture or manufacturer.

As I understand it, Hodgdon makes HP-38 and sells 231 to Winchester.
Click to expand...

Sorry, dahermit, that is almost exactly bass ackward.
Winchester Ball powder and Hodgdon Spherical powder both come out of the same plant in St Marks, Florida, originally built by Olin (Winchester.) It is now owned by General Dynamics. (As is the IMR plant in Canada.)
Hodgdon does not MAKE any smokeless powder, they are a distributor.
 
The guys at the power factor show have occasional interviews with the folks at Hodgdon.
During a recent one, the CEO of Hodgdon said the two powders are the same.
Lots of other very interesting information about powders and powder manufacturing, too.
 
231 and HP-38 are the same powders. As stated they are both manufactured in the same batch and then relabeled. Look at loads for either in different books and you will find different powder charges for the same powder in every manual. If you look in manuals that list both powders (other than Hodgdon manuals) they will list different loads because conditions change. The data is interchangeable between them as long as you start low and work up. Any change in components used will require reworking the load.
 
Well the preponderance of evidence appears to support that they are the same. Back to the .40 s&w with HP powder, the Lyman shows 5.3 to 5.9 with 231 and a 155 bullet, while the Hodgdon label on the HP cannister shows 6.0 HP with a 155. So those figures seem to balance out OK so 6.0 gr HP will be it for starters with a 155 bullet.
 
This subject is always fun.

My brother had bottles of HP-38 and win 231 that had the same lot number on them.
Click to expand...

I have, on two separate occasions, viewed W231 and HP-38 having the exact same lot numbers. This being, because they are the same.

OP, use the W231 data to load for your 40 S&W, using your HP-38 (observing all load work up safety protocols, of course). I can't count how many times I've done this myself.

I stopped contemplating this issue years ago.

W296 is H-110
W540 (obs) was HS-6
W571 (obs) was HS-7 (obs)
W572 is ?? . . . W572 is new, but there is no Hodgdon equivalent - yet. HS-8? :p
 
Instead of asking us, call Hodgdon. This is not a secret. The Win brand costs more as people like Win name and Hodgdon has to pay a licensing fee to use the Winchester name.
Different load data should immediately tell you: Hey, there really is a difference in lot numbers of powder.
Several of Hodgdon's powders are rebranded ADI powders.
Consider that the powder companies you know only DISTRIBUTE powder, they don't make it. So, is it so hard to believe that two companies could buy the SAME powder and distribute under their own names?
I know that when I worked for a pickle factory, we ran the same pickles on the same lines and had our brand and several "generic" brands being packed at the same time. Sometimes the generic really is the same--you just don't usually know who the maker was.
 
Lyman shows 5.3 to 5.9 with 231 and a 155 bullet, while the Hodgdon label on the HP cannister shows 6.0 HP with a 155.
Click to expand...

The Hodgdon canister states to reduce by 10% to start - which would be 5.4 (corrected) grains.

Speer #14 shows (W231) from 5.8 to 6.5 grains.

So those figures seem to balance out OK so 6.0 gr HP will be it for starters with a 155 bullet.
Click to expand...

With the info at hand, most would start a little lower than 6.0 grains. Just sayin'.
 
Last edited:
OK, I'm convinced they are the same. Not that I thought otherwise, just that I hadn't given it that much thought at all. What caught my attention were the differences in starting and max loads as set forth in the opening post. For .45 ACP loads and the same bullet the 231 loads are shown as 4.4 and 6.1, while directly following the 231 data, the HP loads are shown as 3.5 and 5.8. Still somewhat of a mystery there. I guess Lyman had cans labeled as 231 and HP-38 and reported what developed from each.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top