Q On Conflicting Win 231 Data for 38 Spec

[David LaPell]

I use 3.8 grains of Winchester 231 with a 158 grain SWC and never had any issues with them as of yet, having shot them in all weather.

[Outpost75]

I have found 231 and HP38 more subject to lot-to-lot variations than similar powders such as Bullseye, 452AA, WST or TiteGroup.

When I loaded commercially in New Hampshire using Camdex machines every time the powder lot was changed charge establishment firings for pressure and velocity were repeated to determine the correct charge weight for a given bullet weight and velocity.

In below freezing weather all bets are off.
In below zero weather forget any consistency.

Today in my own personal loading using manually operated Star machines in .38 Special and .45 ACP I use either Alliant Bullseye, TiteGroup, or sometimes 452AA when I find small batches at estate sales. Olin WST also very good and consistent.

I don't have access to radial copper or piezoelectric pressure test equipment anymore, but load my .38 Special 148 HBWC to velocity specs 770 +/-25 fps and .45 ACP with H&G#68 to 870 +/- 25 fps and adjust charge as needed for each change in powder or primer lot. Tens of thousands of rounds yearly, no issues.

[Petrol & Powder]

WOW - talk about thread revival !

Outpost, thank you for the input.

In 38 Special, I've shot far more ww231/HP-38 than all of my other powders combined. That wasn't because it was a better powder but because it was available and it worked well. I'm beginning to think that Bullseye is the best in 38 Special at standard pressures.

As for loading to duplicate factory loads, I think everyone that attempts that is going to end up around the same place by default. There will be differences due to lot variations with powder, guns used, seating depth, bullet & lube types, etc., etc. ......but those differences will be minor.

[anothernewb]

4.0 231 under a 158 of various profiles, and over a dozen different revolvers has never failed to punch a hole right about where i've hoped to see it appear.

[Tatume]

Hodgdon data are reliable. They are also pressure tested. You can use them with confidence. The data are also free.

[Wayne Dobbs]

4.0 231 under a 158 of various profiles, and over a dozen different revolvers has never failed to punch a hole right about where i've hoped to see it appear.

I've shot the same 231 load for over 40 years in .38 Special with complete satisfaction. However, Outpost75 motivated me to circle back to 3.5 Bullseye a few years ago. Have to say I like it better and I'll likely try Titegroup and WST in .38 to see if there's any epiphany there!

[Outpost75]

I've shot the same 231 load for over 40 years in .38 Special with complete satisfaction. However, Outpost75 motivated me to circle back to 3.5 Bullseye a few years ago. Have to say I like it better and I'll likely try Titegroup and WST in .38 to see if there's any epiphany there!

I tried TiteGroup and WST when powder became scarce during the Obama years, not so much that I needed the powder, but to help educate the kids who were discovering their Dad's old cop guns.

Many years ago shot LOTS of 452AA in both .38 Special and .45 ACP wadcutter, loading exclusively with the Star machine. It's serendipity that if the powder slide in the Star machine meters a safe charge with Bullseye, you can refill the powder hopper with 452AA with no adjustments, but simply put aside the first 100 rounds of the change-over which will contain mixed powder, to use for indoor 50 foot practice.

Substituting 452AA for Bullseye on a volume for volume basis the 452AA will give a wee bit lower velocity, which may require a sight adjustment at 50 yards, but not 25 yds. 452AA was discontinued in 1991.

WST is the modern replacement and appears for all intents in purposes to be the same powder or very nearly so. I use the same trusted old 452AA data from 30 years ago substituting WST with fine results. Of course none of these are max loads, but standard pressure .38 Special, .44 Special, .44-40, .45 ACP, .45 Colt, etc.

Last year I picked up 20 pounds of old 452AA in caddies from the estate of a local trap shooter who passed. Nobody knew what it was. I pointed out to the auctioneer that the powder was discontinued in 1991 and wasn't improving with age. The auction closing and him packing up the leftovers I held out a $100 bill and went home with 20 pounds of powder which performs the same as it always did. I load 3 grains with .38 Special 148-grain HBWC, 3.7 grains with 158-grain SWC, 4 grains in .455 Webley and for 25 yards .45 ACP wadcutter with H&G#68, 5 grains with H&G#68 to make IPSC or IDPA "Major" or with H&G#234 to approximate hardball, 6 grains in .44-40 with Accurate 43-200QL 200-grain and .44 Special Rugers with #429421, and 7 grains with #429421 in .44 Magnum, #454190 in .45 Colt and Accurate 31-155D for .30-'06 gallery practice.

Great stuff and economical.
Something musical about 1000 rounds for a pound of powder.

[Walks]

I just gave up on W231, switched to Clays for .45Colt loads for Cowboy Shooting. Cleaner then 700x, so I started using for Trap/Skeet loads and Cowboy loads, one powder for both seemed a good compromise.

Finished it up, by loading 3.2grs under a 158grs; RNFP, SWC or RN. Still got 2-300 SWC left.

It's a good powder, but I got too many good powders as it is.

[smkummer]

My Lyman cast bullet handbook shows 4.9/231 as max std press. and 5.2 +P for the 158 rn bullet. I have shot a lot of the 4.9/231 load with the H&G 158 RN out of my k-38, I'm talking more than a 1000. It's very accurate and clocks right at 900 fps out of my 6" K frame, 939 FPS out of a 6" gp 100. My K frame is just slightly more accurate with 4.2 of Bullseye and the same bullet so that is my std 38 spl load, it is also right around 900 fps and max std pressure.

I have that same Lyman data and a couple of friends load it. It’s almost 1/2 a grain hotter than other sources. Indoor range shooting with detective specials and the new cobra with this load was on the warm side for sure. I stop at about 4.5 grains with lee’s 158 SWC-TL. I use unique for plus P but will switch to power pistol. Like others, these are manly shot in medium frame Colts in both 38 and 357.

[smkummer]

The poll didn’t have multiple options. I load mid range wadcutters with 3 grains bullseye. Standard with 4.5 W231 and plus P with 5.2-5.4 unique. They all have specific uses.

[FISH4BUGS]

I'm trying to develop a load to load up a quantity of 38 Specials.

But, Lyman Cast Bullet book shows for a 158 gr SWC Win 231 start @ 3.5/680 fps/10,400 press and max @ 4.7/885 fps/16,800 press. But for HP 38 shows start @ 2.8/642 fps/10,200 press and max @ 3.9/854 fps/16,300 press.


I've used all from 3.1 on up to 4.5 in my Ruger GP100 and SP 100 and, of course, no problems with any of them in these. I was going to load them up at 4.5 max but then became concerned if I wanted to use these in just any 38 Special. Based on the published data, I should be fine at a maximum of 3.7 as this is the lowest of all maximums listed for both powders.

I load 38 by the THOUSANDS. I would suggest standard velocity loads is around 4.0 gr ww231.
Getting up to 4.5 and up is in +p territory. I would not give smaller 38's (J frames, Detective Specials) a steady diet of those.
My standard load is a H&G #51 over 4.0-4.2 gr WW231
Never chrono'd but they work just fine and you can shoot them all day.

[Dale53]

I've had excellent results with 231 in the .32's and .38's as well as the .45 ACP/.45 Auto Rim over the years. A couple of years ago, my good friend Green Frog put me on to several pounds of HP38. Checking out the loading manuals showed me a great variance in data as mentioned in some of the posts above. As Outpost 75 has mentioned, there apparently is a sometimes serious difference in lot numbers. If a person has access to a chronograph, there is a safe and relatively easy path to good results with safety. I simply use a powder that I have data for that is similar in burning rate (not necessarily the same, but similar). I chronograph my "standard", then compare the other powder (s) with the chronograph. IF the standard gives me, say, 800 fps., then I just load the 231 and HP38 to the same velocity.

As an example, using my "standard" for .38 Special full charge wadcutter using the H&G #50 solid base wadcutter, I chronograph that load. Then I merely would use 231 and load to the same level, then repeat with HP38. Using the same bullet, seating depth and cases, I am assured of a safe charge. It is not the same as a pressure gun, for sure, but not trying to bust a speed record with these loads, they should be quite safe. Record that data with the lot numbers and comparison of that particular batch of 231 to my lot of HP38, I have really useful data for the balance of that powder. I tend to believe it is a good idea to do the chronographing of all three powders on the same day. Further, when another lot of powder is had, I just repeat the test.

If my particular lots of 231 and HP 38 are the same with my standard .38 Specials, I tend to rely on that info when loading other of my most used calibers. That is .32 S&W Long, .32 H&R Mag, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, etc...

FWIW
Dale53

[FISH4BUGS]

If my particular lots of 231 and HP 38 are the same with my standard .38 Specials, I tend to rely on that info when loading other of my most used calibers. That is .32 S&W Long, .32 H&R Mag, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, etc...
FWIW
Dale53

I use 2 powders for handgun and pistol caliber subguns - 231 for the "standard" loads.
380, 9mm, 38, 357 44 and 45.
296 for 357 and 44 magnum handgun loads.
Then only 748 for 223 and 308 for all rifles.
Keeps life simple.
And besides, at my age the guns shoot better than I can ever hope to.

[6bg6ga]

My only load in my 38 and 357 has been WW231 and the same goes for my 1911's. Never experienced any variations in my 231 loads in any of my guns. I attribute any problem experienced as operator error. I currently switched to 231 in my 9mm and I am happy with it.

[FISH4BUGS]

My only load in my 38 and 357 has been WW231 and the same goes for my 1911's. Never experienced any variations in my 231 loads in any of my guns. I attribute any problem experienced as operator error. I currently switched to 231 in my 9mm and I am happy with it.

My only complaint with 231 is it is DIRTY.
That said, the closer to max loads you get the cleaner it seems to burn.

[Dale53]

Some time ago, Ed Harris mentioned that he had decided to simplify the number of his powders. I thought that was an EXCELLENT idea. Over the years, being a serious competitor with both pistol and rifle as well as a serious shotgunner, i had accumulated a ridiculous number of powder types. I immediately made a real effort to get rid of all partial cans. Since I shot a lot, it started to happen. I was very nearly to the promised land, when a good friend mentioned that a local gun shop had bought a lot of powder from an estate sale. They apparently picked up the powder for nearly nothing as they were mostly interested in the guns. They offered the powder at a REALLY attractive price. My resolve crumbled, I bought several pounds and am nearly as bad off as I was before. The upside is, when the Obama shortages hit, i was not troubled...

However, I am slowly working my way back to minimal numbers.

Oh well, resolve dissolved at the face of a bargain.... the flesh is sometimes weak, huh?��

Understand, Harris was right IMO, and I am working towards reducing, again...

Dale53

[onelight]

Some time ago, Ed Harris mentioned that he had decided to simplify the number of his powders. I thought that was an EXCELLENT idea. Over the years, being a serious competitor with both pistol and rifle as well as a serious shotgunner, i had accumulated a ridiculous number of powder types. I immediately made a real effort to get rid of all partial cans. Since I shot a lot, it started to happen. I was very nearly to the promised land, when a good friend mentioned that a local gun shop had bought a lot of powder from an estate sale. They apparently picked up the powder for nearly nothing as they were mostly interested in the guns. They offered the powder at a REALLY attractive price. My resolve crumbled, I bought several pounds and am nearly as bad off as I was before. The upside is, when the Obama shortages hit, i was not troubled...

However, I am slowly working my way back to minimal numbers.

Oh well, resolve dissolved at the face of a bargain.... the flesh is sometimes weak, huh?��

Understand, Harris was right IMO, and I am working towards reducing, again...

Dale53

Ha , I am trying to do the same thing ,for hand gun , goal for me is , red dot , BE-86 and 300-MP
So a buddy just gave me 3lbs of 2400 , that put a pleasant delay in my plan .

[anothernewb]

I've shot the same 231 load for over 40 years in .38 Special with complete satisfaction. However, Outpost75 motivated me to circle back to 3.5 Bullseye a few years ago. Have to say I like it better and I'll likely try Titegroup and WST in .38 to see if there's any epiphany there!

someday I might try that too. but with 32# of 231 to go through at the moment- it might be my grandkids who actually get around to it.

[poppy42]

Attachment 302923Attachment 302924

I'm trying to develop a load to load up a quantity of 38 Specials. I've mostly shot them out of my own 357 mag - so was not as concerned about the actual upper limit. But, I'd like to comfortably pull them out and use them in any 38 Special as well.

I use the Lee 358-158-RF with LBT blue lube and seat to COL of 1.437" which crimps in the crimp groove. I use the Lee FCD.

I understand that Win 231 and HP 38 should be interchangeable. But, data is different.

Lee's book shows for a 158 gr lead bullet Win 231 start @ 4.0/747 fps and max @ 4.5/830FPS/15,800 press. But, HP 38 shows start @ 3.1/782 fps and max @ 3.7/834/14,600 press.

But, Lyman Cast Bullet book shows for a 158 gr SWC Win 231 start @ 3.5/680 fps/10,400 press and max @ 4.7/885 fps/16,800 press. But for HP 38 shows start @ 2.8/642 fps/10,200 press and max @ 3.9/854 fps/16,300 press.

Then, Hogdon's online data shows for a 158 gr LSWC Win 231 start @ 3.1/782 fps/11,900 press and max @ 3.7/834 fps/14,600 press.

So, it looks like Lee's HP38 data is exactly the same as Hogdon's Win 231 data. But, both Lee and Lyman show heavier loads of Win 231 than HP 38.

Has anyone chrono'ed any of these loads with the Lee 358-158-RF?

I'm looking for a max load for the shelf. Defensive, knock down steel, plinking. REasonable accuracy for the purposes but not worried about the most precise target loads.

I've used all from 3.1 on up to 4.5 in my Ruger GP100 and SP 100 and, of course, no problems with any of them in these. I was going to load them up at 4.5 max but then became concerned if I wanted to use these in just any 38 Special. Based on the published data, I should be fine at a maximum of 3.7 as this is the lowest of all maximums listed for both powders.

I don’t know what Version of Lymans Cast Boolets handbook or modern reloading by Richard Lee you are using but I attached pictures from Lymans fourth edition Cast Boolets handbook and Lee’s second edition reloading manual. 158 grn lead semi wadcutter listed in the Lyman hand book has no listing for HP 38 only for 231! The listing of 158 grain lead bullet in Lees book, has the exact same data for win 231 and HP 38! I don’t know which ones you’re referencing but I’m not seeing a difference or conflict! This is a quote from a Hodgdon senior technician” win231 and HP38 are the exact same powder. They come out of the same vat. The only difference is the label. The data is 100% interchangeable” I can Say this because I’m the one that called and spoke to the man. I’m only making this post because I’ve been interchanging the two powders for quite a few years and if you’re found data that shows the opposite of what I’ve been doing I certainly wanna know about it.

[rbuck351]

I load all my 38spl at +p with 5.2 grs under a 152 gr cast. 231 and hp38 are the same but like any other powder if two companies took a pound of powder and each tested half, the results would be somewhat different as they would be using different primers, cases, bullets and guns. This is why you need to start with staring loads and work up. You are not using the same components as the loading manual folks.
I started using W231 when I ran out of W230 and then found that HP38 was the same powder.