W231 = HP38 since when?

[MikeS]

Hi All.

I know that W231 is the same powder as HP38, but I'm wondering was this always true? If not, when did they become the same? I'm asking, as I just bought some HP38, and looking at the chart for my Lyman Accumeasure (which I'm assuming is fairly old), it shows W231 and HP38 as having different loads for the same rotors. As it works out, neither set of data is correct for the lot of HP38 I have, it seems to be denser than weights listed for either powder. So, I'm just asking this out of curiosity.

Interestingly the data for H110 & W296 also varies, but generally is closer to each other than the other powder pair.

[finishman2000]

same for 231 and bullseye. same setting, different weight but same performance.

[NuJudge]

WW231 has always been the same as HP38. You will find differences in data, based on source. They are small, based on lot differences.

[Forrest r]

Hodgdon bought & resold a lot of their powders.

From the 25th edition Hodgdon reloading manual with a 1986 copyright date(Powder data manual) burn rate chart on page 62.

2-3 231-hp38
8-9 452aa-trap100
20-21 571-hs-7
25-26 296-h110
27-28 imr4227-h4227
30-31 imr4198-h4198
38-39 imr4895-h4895
45-46 760-h414

[Rocky Raab]

That list is a bit misleading. While the 4227, 4198, and 4895 pairings have essentially the same burn rates they are NOT th exact same powder with different labels.

The actual H/W pairings of the same powder are/were:

HP38/W231
H110/W296
Hs6/W540
Hs7/W571
H414/W760

I'm not sure about the 452/T100 pairing, but it is possible.

[MikeS]

Ok, Maybe I'm not explaining it correctly. What I'm talking about is not load data, but rather a difference in the quantity powder a given rotor will hold. Here's the chart in question:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/33510159/Lyman%20rotor%20chart.pdf

[MikeS]

same for 231 and bullseye. same setting, different weight but same performance.

This brings up another interesting issue. When using a powder measure that uses rotors (or charge bars, etc.), how many combinations of powders can be used with the same rotor to get the same results, regardless of what the weight of the charge is? In other words, if I have a #6S rotor installed, which is nominally 4.8gr of 700X, or 5.6 of Bullseye, or 5.8 of HP-38, would all those loads say in a 45ACP give about the same performance? I guess this is really another way of asking, if I have some BE on hand, is there any reason to buy 700X or HP38, etc.?

[geargnasher]

Hi All.

I know that W231 is the same powder as HP38, but I'm wondering was this always true? If not, when did they become the same? I'm asking, as I just bought some HP38, and looking at the chart for my Lyman Accumeasure (which I'm assuming is fairly old), it shows W231 and HP38 as having different loads for the same rotors. As it works out, neither set of data is correct for the lot of HP38 I have, it seems to be denser than weights listed for either powder. So, I'm just asking this out of curiosity.

Interestingly the data for H110 & W296 also varies, but generally is closer to each other than the other powder pair.

Much of the data Hodgdon lists for the powders Rocky mentioned are just copies. Makes you wonder which one they really did their testing with, and how long ago. Look at any rifle data for H414/win760, they give copper crusher data and list it the same for each. Every lot of powder is different, some of it drastically so. I can't really answer your question so you could determine the cutoff age for when to consider them the same exact powder, but regardless of data you have, evaluate each lot differently.

I still think that Win 748, H335, H380, and Ball C-2 are just variations of the same theme, and judging by how screwy the burn rates of 748 have been in the last three lots I tested I'm wondering if one isn't just the garbage disposal for a flunked batch of the other. The powders that aren't even close get turned into Promo.

I say all this just to reiterate what you already know, that the can of powder on your reloading bench isn't the same can of powder used to develop the data in your book, and not the same powder someone else used to develop data in another book. It's close, but you have to adjust for lot-to-lot variations yourself.

Gear

[MtGun44]

HP38 and W231 have always been made in the St Marks powder plant. Some was sold
to Hodgdon and marketed as HP38. Some was sold to Wincheseter and marketed as
W231. They have always been the same powder with only lot-to-lot variation making up
any difference seen.

Now that Hodgdon actually packages Winchester powders, I would guess that a bottle of
either could/would come out of the same lot of St. Marks powder.

The 4227 and 4198 and 4895 pairs are NOT (as Rocky said) the same powders. IMR
(originally Dupont, then IMR, now owned by Hodgdon) made IMR 4227, 4198 and 4895
for years. Hodgdon has had powders made which will WORK IN THE SAME CARTRIDGES
and are made to have very similar burn rates, but NOT at exactly the same charges.
These are very similar, but have to be treated as different powders, because they ARE.

W760 and H414 are another pair that ARE the same powder.

Bill

[Rocky Raab]

Ahhhh, MikeS. That's a whole different urn of urchins.

What you are talking about still could have two meanings. One is related to density, where the same volume (charge bar hole, dipper, drum measure setting etc) holds the same WEIGHT of different powders...OR, the same hole, dipper or setting delivering the same PERFORMANCE with different powders.

And that's a very interesting question!

I'd have to search my records for precise examples, but I know from memory that I've gotten the same velocity from several different powders using a single Lee dipper (all other components being the same.) So whether or not the powder charge weight was the same, the performance did indeed match.

To learn if a given volume matches weight, we'd only have to turn to the Lee book, which lists powders by gram/cc. Any powders with the same weight per volume would deliver the same charge from a given fixed measurement device. Whether they would deliver the same performance as well is the flip side of the previous paragraph.

[finishman2000]

This brings up another interesting issue. When using a powder measure that uses rotors (or charge bars, etc.), how many combinations of powders can be used with the same rotor to get the same results, regardless of what the weight of the charge is? In other words, if I have a #6S rotor installed, which is nominally 4.8gr of 700X, or 5.6 of Bullseye, or 5.8 of HP-38, would all those loads say in a 45ACP give about the same performance? I guess this is really another way of asking, if I have some BE on hand, is there any reason to buy 700X or HP38, etc.?

well i'll put it this way....25 or so years ago the guy with the star press who did all the loading for the team used the same powder bar and could go between 231 and bullseye without any difference in point of impact. in bullesys it would throw 2,8grains and in the same bar would throw 3.1 of 231. i stll swap that load/powder in my loads.

[fredj338]

WW231 has always been the same as HP38. You will find differences in data, based on source. They are small, based on lot differences.

Older lots were not the same, just look at any data form say 20yrs ago. Diff data yielding diff reults means they were not identical. Since Hodgdon bought out Win, they are now identical. Same data, same vel & pressures. FWIW, BE & W231 are not & never were the same powders.

[Rocky Raab]

Nope, fred. HP38 and W231 have always been the same powder. You'd expect different charge weights to give different results, wouldn't you? You can give the same lot of powder to three labs and there's a good chance you'll get three different max loads at three different velocities. Different lots just adds to the variation.

They aren't saying that Bullseye and W231 are the same powder. They're saying that you can use one charge bar and get similar performance using either powder. (I'd assume that is with a given set of components, of course.)

[runfiverun]

you'd be basing a given volume of powder giving off the same amount of gas, to get similar performance.
the issue is when one burns so much faster than the other that pressure rises very quickly with it,
and produces all it's gas right at the start.
some powders use flake size to control burn rate, others use coatings,and others use the powders internal make-up.
a same load [10grs] of say 800-x,unique,herco,blue-dot,and steel powders will give semi the same performance.
but the pressures will be vastly different.
but if you use a volume of powder they would be different enough performance wise to make a difference.

i would think that using the same powder charge in different cases would be another way to look at it.

[MtGun44]

The testing equipment from years ago was probably the difference that is showing
up on the old books. Different barrel lengths, brands of cases, primers, methods
of measuring pressure, etc. All was very loosey-goosey in the old days and lots of
data was NOT ACTUALLY PRESSURE TESTED except by measuring case head expansion
which is just one step ahead of voodoo.

Believe that they were always the same powder except lot variations - this is directly
to my in person from the people that were selling it in those days, not from some
internet source or some book or something. I know the people personally and this is
what they have told me.

Bill

[Moondawg]

You have to realize that when using a a fixed volumn rotar, that with any given powder, each lot number of the powder is likely to show some slight difference in density or weight per unit of volumn. In other words, differing lot numbers of the same powder say Red Dot, or 231 will each be different. One lot# of a powder is not exactly the same as a different lot# of the same powder.

[olafhardt]

I have gotten flamed for this before but here goes agian. The piezo and strain gauge methods of measuring pressure are little more than wild guesses. There are no primary standards to calibrate pressure measuring equipment in these ranges. I am a retired chemical engineer, I have made tons of chemicals in batch operations. Not only do they vary batch to batch but the batches themselves may not be homogenous. This is why I start low and avoid max loads.

[felix]

"HP38 and W231 have always been made in the St Marks powder plant." Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!

HP38 was especially ordered by Hodgdon from a Scotland plant using 231 specs. ... felix

[Rocky Raab]

Felix, I think it's safe to say that they've both been made at St Marks for the past 40 or so years, though. While that isn't exactly "always" it is certainly longer than anybody's existing samples of the stuff.

This isn't a flame, olafhardt. But there's a gap between what an engineer might call "calibrated" and what the other 99% of us would call it. Ballistic labs use very closely controlled reference ammo to "calibrate" their piezo and/or strain gauge setups. While you may be correct in saying that such is not a primary standard, it is at least a very consistent standard. Comparing ammo results to ammo results might even be thought of as a better way to "calibrate" instruments that read such complex and short-interval events as shooting. It's a whale of a lot better than a "wild guess."

[felix]

That's true, Rocky. I have no idea when the Scottish plant was no longer used. Like you say, prolly back in the 70's. ... felix

[C.F.Plinker]

I thought that 231 was originally made in the Olin plant at East Alton, Ill. and sent next door to the Winchester plant where it was loaded into ammunition and also packaged for sale to reloaders. Since process of making the ball powders involves doing some of the manufacturing underwater. This was not done during some of the winter months because of the low outdoor temperatures. To get year round production, Olin built the St. Marks plant in Florida. This was later sold to Primex and then to General Dynamics.

My understanding is that Winchester sold powder that was leftover from their production runs to Hodgdon and did not want Hodgdon to say it was the same as 231. I don't know if they did any other blending so that it was a little faster than what they sold as 231 or not but the older reloading books ofthen showed HP38 as being faster than 231. If it was just lot to lot variances I would expect to see 231 faster than HP38 as often as HP38 is faster than 231. In the data I have looked at for 357 Magnum, 41 Magnum, and 45ACP this just isn't the case.

So while I think they came from the same barrels, I think they were blended by either Olin or Winchester to tighter specifications for Winchester's use

Anyway, according to Hodgdon, both powders are identical today. We will probably never know if todays powders are the same as the old 231 or the old HP38. If you are basing your loads on tests you made prior to March 2006 it might be worth your time to run the tests again to see of things have changed. When I have done this I found that my best accuracy with the newer (round container) powder is with loads that are slightly lower that my old loads.

[olafhardt]

Nope, fred. HP38 and W231 have always been the same powder. You'd expect different charge weights to give different results, wouldn't you? You can give the same lot of powder to three labs and there's a good chance you'll get three different max loads at three different velocities. Different lots just adds to the variation.

They aren't saying that Bullseye and W231 are the same powder. They're saying that you can use one charge bar and get similar performance using either powder. (I'd assume that is with a given set of components, of course.)

Rocky Rabb, if I need to prove that ballistic labs provide little more than wild guesses here are your own words to prove it. Engineers like traceable primary standards because we cannot tolerate receiving different results from different testers because things break.

[Wal']

I might humbly suggest that some of the changes in Hodgdon powders might have come about when Mulwex, an Australian, French owned powder company, started supplying powder from here to Hodgdon.

Not sure on times & dates when, but this can be checked out on the revalent websites.

[felix]

Wal, your suggestion is appropriate for the discussion, but Aussie powders did not come here until long after the Scottish plant was no longer used. CFPlinker is entirely correct in the transgression of Olin's powder system. Go back far enough in time and you can see that DuPont was the sole powder operator in this country. That company was the FIRST company listed on the NYSE. ... felix