HP-38 identical to 231??

Yes, there's lots of "mysteries" with load data.

Last week, I wanted to start a work up for 357 Mag, 125 XTP's, and AA#7.

When I started poking around with load data, I ran into a huge disagreement. Since I'm using an XTP, it would be logical to start with Hornady's manual.

Hornady shows it from 10.5 to 11.5
Speer shows it from 12.0 to 13.5
Sierra shows it from 12.5 to 13.7
Accurate (on line) shows it from 10.5 to 12.1
QuickLoad showed numbers in alignment with Speer.

Anyway, Hornady's data seems very conservative - which is common; but this is really conservative.

I rather lacked the energy to sort out the conflict, lost interest and decided to play Fallout 4 instead :D I don't shoot a lot of 125's; and have good recipes using Unique and Power Pistol already. So the urgency just isn't there. Furthermore, AA#7 is on my "cut list" (not buying more - simplifying inventory) and it works fantastic for 180gn 10mm - so I'm not in much hurry to use it for other stuff.

The moral of the story is: you don't need a powder sold under two different labels to find conflicting data. ;)

And in case anyone wants to know: Joking aside, since the data is so all over the board, prudence dictates that I start with a very small quantity, just to get a baseline (or risk pulling bullets, which the arthritis in my elbow won't allow). Someday, I'll load a half dozen at 11.0 grains and chronograph them. I'll start an actual ladder work up based on that info.
 
Yessir,
Trust no-one.
It's always better and safer to use the published data as more of a guide, rather as an absolute.
Human error abounds.
Remember the Hubble telescope?
 
I hadn't loaded any .40s for some time so before proceeding with my proposed 6.0 HP-38 load, I checked what powder charge I had previously used and it turned out to be 6.0 HP with a 170 gr SWC cast bullet. I must have got that load from the Hodgdon powder can, except that the Hodgdon data was with a 155 gr. So will continue with the 6.0 and 170 to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Seemingly those differences would tend to support that they are in fact different powders.
Click to expand...

Propellant manufacturing is not an exact science. You can read about the manufacturing process in George Frost's book: Making Ammunition. Given the thermochemistry and the kinetics of the reaction, each lot made has a different burn rate. I was told that propellants will come out within 20% of each other before any blending. Accurate Arms told me they blend their gunpowders to within 5% and the industry standard is 10%.

What we buy as over the counter gunpowder is blended. Just like your Whiskey's, wines, grape juices, orange juices, olive oils, etc. Single malt whiskey's, for example, are blended from several stocks to a consistent brand flavor, though single malt scotch drinkers think that is only done to Canadian Whiskey's.

The differences in burn rates between different lots of the same brand name have allowed gunwriters to shill away for decades for one brand name but not the other. I have a Handloader magazine article by Ken Warner on the 45ACP. In testing the 45 ACP he praised to high heaven HP-38 but in the article, says he had "given up" on W231. Now we know these are the same powders, so it calls into question whether Ken knew this, and therefore was shilling for Hodgdon, or whether Ken was able to shoot straight enough to see a difference. Ken never ever identified the group sizes or shots fired down range in any of his pseudoscience articles, but it was probably three shot groups which are meaningless for accuracy determination or comparisons. Regardless, I am certain the gun literature of the past 50 years is loaded with comparisons of these powders, one article Hodgdon beating the same powder in a Winchester can, and another article, the Winchester beating the same powder in a Hodgdon can.

To me it is just another example of the lack of credibility for the whole gun writing community.
 
To me it is just another example of the lack of credibility for the whole gun writing community.
Click to expand...
With the internet, I thought that the "gun writing community" and gun magazines were a thing of the past. I have not bought or read a gun magazine for years. I started reading them when Mike Venturino was a young man and Elmer Keith, Skeeter Skelton, Jack O'Conner were all still alive.
 
There are still plenty of gun magazines out there and Montana Mike has some three or four articles appearing on a monthly basis. I always jump to them first even if not that interested in the particular subject matter, but because of his writing style. His book, Lever Guns of the Old West, is certainly a favorite.
 
Good grief! How many times does this topic need to be beat to death!:eek:

Dead horse is deader than dead.

Now lets discuss H110 and W296:D
 
Well I recently did try H110 instead of 4227 since it seems to be so popular but the fineness of the granules would become lodged between the sliding surfaces of the Dillon 550 powder measure and would require a shutdown to clear the jam. I ended up burning a partial can to get rid of it and went back to 4227. With the same loadings of 14.5 gr of either for the .30 carbine, the powder level of the 4227 can be observed where the powder level of the 110 cannot.
 
Just one of a gazillion. Not sure if we can link to other forums here?? I am shelled shocked from "rules" on other forums:confused:

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=470152

It is all not going matter eventually anyway.

Both powders are made by St Marks Powder (General Dynamics) here in Fl.

The technology/chemistry is "old school" too much waste "downstream" the old chemistry is going to be phased out and new "stuff" made. This is per Hodgdon.

You know, New and improved:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I think it was one of the Hodgdons who said that 231 et al were too popular to discontinue but because of cost and environmental burden would be rather deemphasized.

I don't understand or believe that because the powder distributors have been getting powder of the same nominal grade from different sources all along.
If Hodgdon and St Marks/Gendye wanted to, they could undoubtedly use the current "clean" process to make a powder indistinguishable from 231. Just like they are getting the powders in the Clays lineup from IMR/Gendye.

I bet Titegroup and CFE Pistol are cheaper to make than 231 but will handle much of its application. They could make 231.1 by splitting the difference in burn rate.
 
Yes, I agree with you on the above. It was a while back that they said that. HP38 and W 231 are very popular (I use a lot of it)

Would seem to be a poor business decision to eliminate one of the most used powders without having a direct replacement.

Kinda like Alliant pushing BE 86 like it's the next miracle powder.:confused:

Would they dare eliminate Unique??
 
HP38 and W 231 are very popular (I use a lot of it)
Click to expand...

Me too. I have over 11 #'s of it in my stock right now.

Would seem to be a poor business decision to eliminate one of the most used powders without having a direct replacement.
Click to expand...

The stuff (W231/HP-38) flies off the sporting goods' shelves - even in times of non-shortage. I don't see it being discontinued any time soon.

Would they dare eliminate Unique??
Click to expand...

I have almost 2 #'s of Unique, and have no particular use for it. Not likely I'll ever buy any more of it. But . . . your point remains. It is indeed very popular.
 
Yes, yes they would.
452AA was eliminated.
All old powders with downstream waste issues will be eliminated at some point.
Why do you think there is so much effort for equivalents to Unique and Bullseye being released in the last 5 years--all crowded in the same burn rate area.
 
I think it was one of the Hodgdons who said that 231 et al were too popular to discontinue but because of cost and environmental burden would be rather deemphasized.
Click to expand...

I have heard similar. Cost of disposal of bi-products in manufacture resulting in high production costs. Still, if it sells and they are making a profit, not an issue. I think Hodgdon realizes reloaders have brand loyalty and that eliminating either 231 or HP-38 may mean they folks would consider another product instead of their identical twin. The fact that this question comes up all the time from experienced reloaders on gun forums, shows that many folks still do not know they are the same.
 
FWIW if anything:)

Here is what "Hodgdon" said in a e mail (this was in 2015)


"Winchester 231 certainly has been hard to get. The plant that makes Winchester powders does not want to make 231 as well as a few other powders. These older technology powders have different chemistry than the new powders and this older chemistry makes it much slower to make powder: basically, you can make about 2.5 times as many pounds of new chemistry powder in the time it takes to make 1 pound of old chemistry powder. During the process of making the old powders, the waste stream created is huge compared to the waste stream of the new chemistry powders. Chemical waste is very expensive to get rid of. So, the plant wants to phase out the old chemistry powders and replace them with new chemistry powders. While they are still making 231, the amount is being reduced and the amount of new powder such as Titegroup and Longshot is being increased.
Now, we are kind of stuck in the middle. The market is demanding 231 but the maker is not wanting to produce the powder. The result is, over time, 231 is going to go away. Shooters should begin using other powders as they can.
Mike Daly
Hodgdon Family of Fine Propellants
Hodgdon Smokeless Powder
IMR Powder Company
Winchester Smokeless Propellants
GOEX Blackpowder"
 
As a long time user of 231 and HP-38 I am switching to TiteGroup for the accuracy, higher velocity, and lower pressures. It is simply a better powder for my 38 Special and 9mm ammo.
 
It wouldn't surprise me if someday the mfgr. will (if not already) produce a new process powder with the same characteristics as 231/38 and just put it in the same old canisters and never say anything. If it shoots the same, etc. I wouldn't care.
 
Precisely.
Not like it hasn't been done before.
The AA Powders have been sourced from all over the world.
Israel, China, and USA that I know of, but they still have the same label and load data.
Hodgdon themselves are now getting Clays etc. from IMR Canada instead of ADI Australia, and 700X, 800X from Alliant instead of IMR. But they call it the same thing.
IMR moved from New Jersey to Canada years ago.

I doubt all these different powder mills are using the same equipment and process, but they still offer the same grade of powder from wherever.
 
W231 vs. TiteGroup

As a long time user of 231 and HP-38 I am switching to TiteGroup for the accuracy, higher velocity, and lower pressures. It is simply a better powder for my 38 Special and 9mm ammo.
Click to expand...

I bought my first # of W231 in 1985 and haven't been without it in my inventory since. I currently have about 11#s.

A about three years ago, I bought 5#'s of TiteGroup untested (during the shortage; desperation purchase). I have a little over a # left, and don't plan on getting any more. Don't get me wrong, I found it to be a very consistent performer. It is an excellent propellant for plated bullets. But for lead, not so much. It runs really hot and leads up my barrels. W231 doesn't do that.

As far as accuracy goes, I have found that bullet selection is the primary factor in accuracy. If the bullet fits the barrel, it's gonna go straight. I've never thought of one propellant being more accurate than another. (We're talking handguns here - rifles are likely a different story.)

As far as velocity goes, when I'm using either W231 or TiteGroup, velocity won't be much of a factor in the application. When velocity becomes an issue, a slower propellant is likely getting the call.

IMO, anything TG can do, W231 can do. But not the other way around, necessarily. W231 doesn't melt my lead slugs like TG does. TG runs blazing hot.

TiteGroup makes excellent range shooting ammo; and it does it economically and all that. It's good stuff. But W231 it is not.

If W231/HP-38 was discontinued, I'd likely turn to AA#2 as the substitute; not that there actually is a substitute for it. In its burn rate range, nothing is better than W231/HP-38. With 11#'s in inventory, it'll be a while before I'll have to worry about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top