Old Data

[Flinchrock]

I have a 1973 edition of the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook and it lists a Win 230 powder.
I am sort of assuming that the data can be used with Win 231, but I thought it might be wiser to ask around first.

So,,,I'm asking...:?:

[MakeMineA10mm]

The answer is sort-of, but not really. That powder is indeed close to W231 in burn speed, but there were a couple versions of it, including "230p". The fortunate thing is, 231 is slightly slower burning, so it probably would be safe to use the data.

Lot-to-lot variation being what it is, combined with the exact loading application you are using it for, I suggest going 5-10% below the start load to begin with, and forget about max loads, and work the load up as if you have no data (so going slow and careful until you find pressure indicators, and then bacling off 5-10% for the safe "max" load in your application.)

What caliber and boolit are you loading? It might be safer to just ask about the W231 load most of us use in that application...

Also, bear in mind that I've found some pretty wide swings in 231's burn rate over the years. One lot I had was as slow as Unique (although this is very rare).

[cajun shooter]

I would start with the lower loads and load just enough to see primer results.
I used 230 when it was made and then switched to 231. The powder is meant as a pistol type of target powder and therefore not a super powder that would raise your pressures to blown gun if you load the light loads first.
Just as the prior posting says use common sense and start low and work up.
You will find that the newer loading manuals have actually reduced loads from those posted in the 60's and seventies.
The reason is not weaker guns but more attorneys who file law suits.

[Rocky Raab]

The data you found was for an obsolete powder you don't have - and there is current data in abundance for the powder you DO have, so I suppose I fail to see the relevance of the question.

[1Shirt]

When it comes to reloading, data, powder, etc. don't assume or for that matter presume anything! To do so would be on the low side a big mistake, and on the high side just plain dangerous.
1Shirt!:coffee:

[blackthorn]

Get a new manual or go on line to Winchester's powder site.

[W.R.Buchanan]

I would just use the load data for W231. There is literally reams of data on that powder available from many sources.

You must keep your load data up to date. You can do this by either buying new manuals along the way or by picking up free load data booklets from powder makers at gun shops or just going on line and getting the manufacturers to send the booklets to you. All free!!!

You can also down load info directly from powder makers websites. Hodgdons makes W231 and it is identical to Hodgdons HP-38 so data for those powders can be downloaded from Hodgdons website.

Where the older manuals really come in handy is if you have some powder that is 30 years old. Using a manual for that time period will keep you safe. Powder formulations do change over time, and where as certain powders remain the same others do change slightly over the years, and the load data also changes. Using the data for the correct time period and cross refferencing it to current data will give you some idea if or how much the powder has changed and keep you out of trouble. This is especially true when making high end loads.

There is no one manual that is going to do it all for you. But you can get plenty of info for free with just a little research.

It is best (and I'm sure most here will agree) to use written data for your loading. Using word of mouth data can get you into trouble. If you do use word of mouth data then at least verify it from a reliable written source.

I have seen many instances on this site, as well as others, where people have quoted their favorite loads for a certain cartridge, and had decimal points in the wrong place or transposed numbers or even powder types. This is the exact reason you verify all loads with reliable written data.

In the end it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to MAKE SURE WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS SAFE !

Randy

[MtGun44]

I agree with Rocky. LOTS of W231 data out there, ignore the 230 data. If you were using a
powder that had no data available, like some milsurp non-cannister stuff, you HAVE TO do this
fiddling. With cannister powders, the info is out there.

Bill

[Mk42gunner]

The data you found was for an obsolete powder you don't have - and there is current data in abundance for the powder you DO have, so I suppose I fail to see the relevance of the question.

I agree.


I would just use the load data for W231. There is literally reams of data on that powder available from many sources.

You must keep your load data up to date. You can do this by either buying new manuals along the way or by picking up free load data booklets from powder makers at gun shops or just going on line and getting the manufacturers to send the booklets to you. All free!!!

You can also down load info directly from powder makers websites. Hodgdons makes W231 and it is identical to Hodgdons HP-38 so data for those powders can be downloaded from Hodgdons website.

Where the older manuals really come in handy is if you have some powder that is 30 years old. Using a manual for that time period will keep you safe. Powder formulations do change over time, and where as certain powders remain the same others do change slightly over the years, and the load data also changes. Using the data for the correct time period and cross refferencing it to current data will give you some idea if or how much the powder has changed and keep you out of trouble. This is especially true when making high end loads.

There is no one manual that is going to do it all for you. But you can get plenty of info for free with just a little research.

It is best (and I'm sure most here will agree) to use written data for your loading. Using word of mouth data can get you into trouble. If you do use word of mouth data then at least verify it from a reliable written source.

I have seen many instances on this site, as well as others, where people have quoted their favorite loads for a certain cartridge, and had decimal points in the wrong place or transposed numbers or even powder types. This is the exact reason you verify all loads with reliable written data.

In the end it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to MAKE SURE WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS SAFE !

Randy

The best argument for having more than one manual on hand is the fact that there have been typographical errors in published load manuals, too.

It is very easy to verify a load for Winchester 231, just go to Hodgdon's website and look in the data center.

Robert

[MakeMineA10mm]

The data you found was for an obsolete powder you don't have - and there is current data in abundance for the powder you DO have, so I suppose I fail to see the relevance of the question.

Hmmm. Said it better and shorter than I did/could have... See why you're a writer now... :mrgreen:

[Flinchrock]

The data you found was for an obsolete powder you don't have - and there is current data in abundance for the powder you DO have, so I suppose I fail to see the relevance of the question.

The relevance is my curiosity,,and I have lots of manuals,,and have been loading 231 for many years,,and I do know how to go to the manufacturers websites,,I didn;t mean to give the impression that I actually had some 230,,,was simply curious as to if anyone knew how the powders compared.

I have worked up a lot of loads over the years!

Was kinda taking a trip down memory lane looking in that old book...:smile:

[frnkeore]

From my comparison of the two powders, they are NOT close enough to enterchange data.

Frank

[Flinchrock]

From my comparison of the two powders, they are NOT close enough to enterchange data.

Frank

Thanks,,,much appreciated.