unhappy with w-231

[Frosty Boolit]

So I could not find my favorite powder at any stores I go to so rather than pay a hazmat fee through the mail, I just bought a jug of 231 instead of the usual AA#5. The label says "BALL", just like 296 which I knew was a nicely metering spherical powder. Well I open it up to use it and it looks more like bullseye. Needless to say, it does not meter as well AA#5. For example, I wanted 4.5 grains and throughout the loading of 250 rounds, I got powder drops from 4.3 to 4.7. I was using a hornady L-N-L measure on an automatic press. These types of variations are the reason that I got away from bullseye in the first place. Is this to be expected?

[mdi]

Hmmm, that's not how my bottle of W231 meters. I use it in 45 ACP a lot and find I can hold +- .05 grain (half a tenth), and sometimes less. Perhaps the weather or static in your area make a differance?...

[Carolina Cast Bullets]

Since Hogdon took over the Winchester powder business, several Winchester and Hogdon powders are now identical but still packaged under both numbers.

WW231 = HP38
WW760 = H414
WW296 = H110

This can be confirmed by contacting Hogdons.

As to WW231 being unreliable in metering, I have used both it and HP38 for many years in 45 ACP and 38 Special mid range loads and have been totally satisfied by the almost monotonous reliability in metering, almost no variance from load to load.

With that in mind, I cannot see any reason why you are having such problems with it, other than as has been pointed out, atmospherics/static in your area.

One other thing, I've used both 231 and AA5 and they are not interchangable. AA#5 is more the speed of Unique, a slower powder than 231. Please double check your data to not use identical charge weights.

[35remington]

W231 is widely lauded for its accurate metering.

Perhaps something is wrong with your technique.

Bullseye meters very well; its small, fine granule size aids this greatly. Both of these powders have the shape to produce good consistency.

If you can't get either Bullseye or W231 to meter well, I'd suggest the problem is definitely you.

W231 meters more than accurately enough for any pistol loading, small to large charge weight.

I'd suggest trying again. If we can make it work, if the vast majority of pistol shooters can make it work, you can make it work.

Yours is probably the first post I've ever seen complaining about how well it meters. Which makes it very atypical.

Believing that only a true spherical or round shape measures well while a rolled ball powder (W231) or a fine granuled flake powder (Bullseye) cannot is a mistaken belief, especially since so many others, the vast majority, can do very well.

[Frosty Boolit]

Well than I guess the problem is obvious. Maybe I'll try tapping the measure a bit to get it to settle before starting again. As to using #5 and 231 interchangably, I have started load devlopment all over again with the 231.

[9.3X62AL]

This is a surprising read, after my years of time with WW-231 and the RCBS Duo-Measure that is close to 30 years old. Technique and/or the measure itself may be flawed.

[ReloaderFred]

Winchester 231 is a flattened ball powder and I've never had a problem with it metering. I used to buy it by the 32 pound case and I've lost track of how many cases of 231 I've gone through.

I also don't have a problem with Bullseye, either. I also use the Hornady LNL press and powder measure and find it to be very, very accurate with both of those powders.

Hope this helps.

Fred

[C.F.Plinker]

Two thoughts. The first is to install a baffle in your powder measure if it doesn't have one and the second is to run 30-40 charges through the measure before you set the charge. The baffle will keep the pressure of the powder column steady and running charges through the measure first will settle the powder within the columm. When I run the charges through my Dillon the column will usually settle down by about 3/8 inch so there is come compaction taking place.

[Hardcast416taylor]

I am currently into the 8 lbs. of 231 I bought last fall by about 6 lbs. loaded in .38 spcl 148 gr. WC loads. My load is 3.5 grs. I scale about every 10th drop of my Hornady powder measure on my old Hornady Pro-Jector and Dillion electric scale. I made a powder baffle from the little plastic center that comes in a pizza box. I trimmed the 3 legs on it to about 5/16", then cut 3 small wedges out for the powder to drop thru and slid it down in the measure. My loads hardly vary .05/.1 of a gr. weight. I can`t begin to put a figure on the many 8 lb. jugs I`ve used of 231 over the last 30+ years. I use AA #5 for other cartridges and bullet weights, but not in .38 spcl loads.Robert

[sagamore-one]

Try wiping down the powder system with a fabric softner sheet, especially inside the hopper.

[Gunsmoke4570]

Try wiping down the powder system with a fabric softner sheet, especially inside the hopper.

This is good advice. I've loaded 38s and 45s for years with primarily Bullseye and HP38 and have never had an issue with metering. Once my powder measure is set up, RCBS, every charge I check is right on the money with both powders. I use the Pro2000 with primer strips, so I check the charge weight every time I load a new primer strip to check for consistency.

[Lee]

I'm in NE OHIO. I'll be proud to take that bad widdle powder off'n your hands:kidding:

Seriously, what they said about fabric softener. I've used jugs of that powder, it's a favorite of mine. With our weather in Ohio lately, I suspect static could be a BIG part of your issue....;)

[Rocky Raab]

I used to always get hooted down when I suggested running a thin copper wire from your powder measure and scale to a good ground -- until folks tried it. It works to dissipate static better than anything else. Really.

W231 is indeed a flattened Ball™ powder. Flattening is used to control burn rate, BTW. It increases surface area. It measures like a small, dense flake powder, which is to say pretty well. But if it gives your measure fits, the solution is to use a baffle, reduce static, and develop a consistent technique.

[Longwood]

One on the gun in your bead blaster will keep you from getting zapped.
I am on my 3rd 8 lb can of 231 and have never had a problem till I tried it in my automatic Lee measure. Spraying with scotch guard helped but I finally replaced the measure with a RCBS measure.

[-06]

Have a hopper full of 231 right now to load a batch of 38s. Just ran some 9mms with same. Used about 1 1/2 lbs in the last month and totally satisfied with its metering. I check every 10th rd. I did find one 9 with a half charge when inspecting before "boolitizing"-lol. Dumped and recharged and checked the two on either side of the loading tray--no problems.

[Hardcast416taylor]

Friend of mine in Fl, yes I do have a friend, called me tonight. We discussed the variation of dropping 231. Some years back his Frau got him a RCBS Little Dandy powder dispenser. He had the same disparity on dropped charges. He stripped the dispenser down and cleaned all surfaces with a bore cleaner, then wiped all surfaces again with alcohol and let air dry over night. He reassembled it the next day and from then on got exactly to the grain weight what he was supposed to get.Robert

[Frosty Boolit]

Thanks guys, I am definateley going to get or make a powder baffle before I continue. I remember reading about wide variations in powder drops with flake powder on Shotgunworld and the guys saying to ground the press. I will try your input because I do like how clean this stuff burns and would like to keep using this powder.

[Roundnoser]

I was just reloading 45 Auto this a.m. on My C-H Autochamp. The powder measure does not have a baffle, and it meters the powder the old fashion way (bushings). After reading this thread, I checked the charge weight every 5 rounds and found it was dead on....No variations.

[fecmech]

Ahh, another Auto Champ user. I've got 2 and love them. Both 231 and Bullseye are dead nuts no variation at all.

[Roundnoser]

Ahh, another Auto Champ user. I've got 2 and love them. Both 231 and Bullseye are dead nuts no variation at all.

I'm not gonna hijack this thread, so I'll keep it short! -- I love my CH also! Recently acquired a beautiful Star Universal in 38. Would like one in 45, but would hate to "abandon" my Autochamp. Its like having to choose between one of your children!:confused:

[ColColt]

As others indicate, I've had zero problems with this powder in my Ohaus DU-0-Measure, an ancient design by some standards. It meters like water and nary a variation of more than .1 grain.

[Flash]

It is my powder of choice when it comes to light to medium handgun loads.

[Trapaddict]

WW-231 has been my go to powder for 45 ACP and 38 Special for a lot of years. Economical and clean and meters very well. Watch Graf's. The often sell cannister powders with the prefix SMP. SMP = St. Marks Powder (Primex Technologies in St. Marks, FL) They are the OEM manufacturer of WW-231. SMP 231 is WW-231. SMP-289 is the Old WAP discontinued a few years ago. Sure miss that powder.

Jeff

[ReloaderFred]

Just for information, WAP is available as Ramshot Silhouette powder. I've compared data for both and they're the same, and Western Powders says they're the same powder.

Hope this helps.

Fred

[Hardcast416taylor]

About 2 1/2 weeks back I loaded up some 40 S&W cases with 5 1/2 grs. 231 and a 180 gr. "J" word bullets for a friends M 35 Glock. After shooting the 25 rounds I had loaded - no bullseye area left on the target from shooting at 20 yds.Robert

[mpbarry1]

"Since Hogdon took over the Winchester powder business, several Winchester and Hogdon powders are now identical but still packaged under both numbers.

WW231 = HP38...

This can be confirmed by contacting Hogdons."

I thought this was pretty cool info. One question though, I use the Lazer-
cast Reloading manual and they show different loads for the same velocities with these two powders. For example, 4.8 gr of 231 pushes the 200 gr SWC at 796 fps, while they have HP-38 at 4.4 gr yielding 798 FPS with the same bullet. Makes me wonder to trust the data if they are the same powder. any thoughts?

[ReloaderFred]

It depends on the test conditions at the time. I test my loads over my chronograph and only use the manuals as guides for developing loads. The readings from the screens tell the real story, and I've found H-110 and Win. 296 to be the same.

Hope this helps.

Fred

[DJ1]

I've used 231 for over 10 years and never had a metering issue. HP38 is same stuff, only reason to change up is a SALE somplace. Just never mix the lots......

[Swede44mag]

I have run 231 & HP38 for years in my Dillon 550b presses with no metering problems. I do not recommend using the load data interchangeably. I use several reloading manuals and cross reference. The amount for my Lead Light magnum .357 (1000fps) data is slightly different between Hp38 and 231.

BTW I have noticed the static problem and the idea of grounding in something I am going to check into.
A further explanation of how to do this would be interesting maybe on a new thread.


Good Luck and use safe reloading practices.

[Duckiller]

MPbarry: different lots of the same powder will give slightly different results. H110 -W296 have been rumored to be the same for years. Most manuals list slightly different loads and speeds.