Bullseye, WW231(HP-38) or CFE Pistol?

[Petrol & Powder]

Here are the parameters: 38 Special, Standard pressure (not +P), 155-160 grain lead bullets and a decent 3" or 4" barreled revolver. Of the three listed powders: Bullseye, 231 & CFE Pistol - what are your
Opinions, experience, thoughts......

For many years WW231 was my 38 Special powder of choice. Mostly because it was available and metered well. For whatever reason I tended to confine Bullseye to full wadcutter loads and used 231 with SWC bullets. Not sure why I favored 231 over Bullseye but Bullseye was always my second choice powder. I used it but not as much as 231.
When 231 and Bullseye became more difficult to obtain, I started using CFE Pistol.

Now I'm wondering if there's a good reason to favor one over the other. Bullseye has the longest track record and lots of folks claim it produces the best accuracy in 38 Special.
CFE is new but seems to work well. It takes up a little more space in that big casing and it meters beautifully.

What say you?

[NC_JEFF]

You can't go wrong with 231 or Bullseye. I have not used CFE. Just let the pistol tell you which one it prefers. My swc's and hbwc's are both loaded with 231 with very good accuracy.

[clum553946]

been using 231 for years. I have no experience with CFE, but use 231 for many different calibers including 38 spl. It's easy to work with, meters well, accurate, & it's very consistent.

[shoot-n-lead]

I love W231 and Bullseye...but I have really developed a fondness for WST since those 2 have been largely unavailable to me for nearly 2yrs. The WST works well in any application that 231 and Bullseye work in and it meters as well.

[Petrol & Powder]

I've heard a lot of people say that Bullseye produces slightly better accuracy. I don't know if that's true or just a function of 100+ years of use.
If I had a Ransom Rest I would test the three against each other.

Back when 231 was common, it was always cheaper than Bullseye. Not much difference these days and the lower charge weight of BE may even give it the edge now.

[thegatman]

I use Bullseye and have no regrets. Have not tried CFE. A friend uses W231 and has had good results with it.

[fecmech]

Depending on the bullet or firearm in question I get different levels of accuracy between BE and 231. I use both but tend more towards BE in the .38 Spec and that is because my K-38 prefers BE over 231 with both the 120 tc and 158 rn and my Rossi octagon likes it best with the Lee 120 also. OTOH my Ruger GP prefers 231 and the Lee 125 RF as does my Rossi carbine over BE. I'm not talking a big difference here as any of the loads are accurate in any of the guns but when shooting groups you can see the difference. If I had to pick just one it would be BE but I don't, so I use both. My .45 wad gun has a slight accuracy edge with BE also. No experience with CFE.

[popper]

231 is my normal go to for 40SW but I did load some of the CFE for plated, haven't shot them yet. Takes more powder, the copper fouling elimination coating?

[Dave C.]

Bullseye is my choice in auto pistols enen my 38 spl.
And ww231 seems better in revolvers.
Why? Who knows.

[tazman]

For me the accuracy is the same with all three. The difference is, I can get more velocity with CFE pistol if I run max loads.
The data on the Hodgdon site is right on as far as velocity on the loads I tried.
I use Bullseye for target because I can use less powder. I use CFE for max loads and carry loads because of the power. I can't find Win231 anywhere anymore so I use what I can find.

[35remington]

There is no reason to prefer one powder listed above over another in terms of metering consistently. All do well due to favorable powder shape for metering.

Since Bullseye is capable of standard velocities in the .38 and gets it done with lower charge weights and slightly less cost per shot over the other two, it is my choice for most .38 work. As mentioned, it takes a back seat to nothing in terms of accuracy. It usually has a lower cost per pound than the other powders....the Hodgdon badged stuff, which is what W231 and CFE are these days, seems to bring a premium in cost I see as unwarranted.

[Petrol & Powder]

When I started reloading 38 Special many decades ago, 231 was cheaper by the pound and available locally. For reasons I cannot remember, I favored 231 over Bullseye. (probably because Winchester powders were available) I used Bullseye, just not as much.
When you factor in the lower charge weights used with Bullseye it is clearly less expensive per round.
During the recent powder panic I never completely ran out of 231 but turned to CFE as an alternate. CFE was a good powder for 38 Special.
tazman provided some loading advice and I agree that CFE has its place and I'm now considering dropping 231 from my supply.
Bullseye has an incredible following and many claim that it can produce better accuracy. I'll probably shoot up my existing stock of 231 and fall back to Bullseye and CFE to simplify my logistics.

[Sea Bear]

I've been using CFE Pistol quite a bit lately, but mostly in 38 +p loads. I get 912 ft/sec from a 150 grain round nose bullet with 5.4 grains. I don't think it burns as clean as Titegroup, but it is very versatile powder. I use it in 44 special & Mag loads, as well as .357 magnum. CFE does meter very well, and you can load it down quite a bit. I have shot a lot of 3.5 grain loads with the same 150 grain cast bullet. Works good.

Btw... I've used a lot of Longshot in my 38+p loads. Not a bad choice if you have the gun for it.

[Petrol & Powder]

Sea Bear, I'm using 5.1 grains of CFE behind a 158gr SWC and that seems to be a good load. Hodgdon's data shows that as a non +P load but it's probably getting close to +P velocities. What length barrel are you using to get 912ft/sec with that 150gr bullet? I don't have a chronograph and I'm trying to get a benchmark. Thanks.

[tazman]

I'm not Sea Bear, but I can give you the data from my records on that boolit/powder combination.
Taurus Tracker model 627 6.5 inch barrel
Lyman 358477 CFE Pistol 5.0 grains 950 fps
Lyman 358311 CFE Pistol 5.0 grains 945 fps
Lyman 358311 CFE Pistol 5.2 grains 960 fps
Velocities taken with an older model Chrony at 8 ft from muzzle.
All of these loads produced excellent accuracy in my gun.

[40-82 hiker]

I've been using Bullseye for decades with target loads in .45ACP, and now recently with .38 Special wadcutter loads. It's been many decades since I decided on Bullseye for the .45 after doing some testing (I can't remember what I tested it against), but that was my decision then and I have stayed with it. The one thing I have noticed is that it does not seem to matter whether I use CCI or Winchester primers with Bullseye, the accuracy of my loads don't change. I don't know if this is the experience of others, but it makes it easier for me to get primers. Been this way for ever with the .45...

[Petrol & Powder]

I'm not Sea Bear, but I can give you the data from my records on that boolit/powder combination.
Taurus Tracker model 627 6.5 inch barrel
Lyman 358477 CFE Pistol 5.0 grains 950 fps
Lyman 358311 CFE Pistol 5.0 grains 945 fps
Lyman 358311 CFE Pistol 5.2 grains 960 fps
Velocities taken with an older model Chrony at 8 ft from muzzle.
All of these loads produced excellent accuracy in my gun.

I'm using 5.1 grains of CFE behind a RCBS SWC (very similar to your 358477) that drops at around 159 grains and shooting that out of a variety of 4" barrels.
I could probably drop that by 1/10 of a grain to be inline with your 5.0 load and be in the 875-900 range in a 4" barrel.

Thanks tazman, that's good info.

The more I look at Bullseye and CFE the more I think that I'm going to stop buying ww231.

[Petrol & Powder]

I've been using Bullseye for decades with target loads in .45ACP, and now recently with .38 Special wadcutter loads. It's been many decades since I decided on Bullseye for the .45 after doing some testing (I can't remember what I tested it against), but that was my decision then and I have stayed with it. The one thing I have noticed is that it does not seem to matter whether I use CCI or Winchester primers with Bullseye, the accuracy of my loads don't change. I don't know if this is the experience of others, but it makes it easier for me to get primers. Been this way for ever with the .45...
Years ago when I had access to a chronograph I did some testing with standard primers vs. magnum primers and one brand of primer vs. another. I learned that below maximum loads, primers aren't very critical. I did find that below max. pressures, magnum primers had NO significant effect on velocity but the use of magnum primers did sometimes reduce the velocity deviation between rounds. I wouldn't play that game near max pressures but with middle of the road target loads, just about any primer that would go off would produce the same velocity as the next brand with all other factors being the same.

[Sea Bear]

Sea Bear, I'm using 5.1 grains of CFE behind a 158gr SWC and that seems to be a good load. Hodgdon's data shows that as a non +P load but it's probably getting close to +P velocities. What length barrel are you using to get 912ft/sec with that 150gr bullet? I don't have a chronograph and I'm trying to get a benchmark. Thanks.

I'm shooting a Ruger Blackhawk .357 with 4 5/8" bbl. The bullet is a Lee round nose 150, but I think they are dropping a few grains heavier. I only use 38's for plinking, and the accuracy has been good. I like plus p loads so they have enough recoil to make it fun. I will have to chrono up some loads & dial it in. The SD for this load was 25.42.

I also loaded 5.5 Longshot +P for 905 ft/sec - SD 21.30

Hope this helps.

[tazman]

That Lee 150gr 1r round nose is an accurate boolit. It works well in both of my revolvers. I never tried it with CFE though.

Petrol--- When I was testing CFE with the 358477 I started at 4.5 grains and worked up. When I got to 5.0gr, the accuracy was so good I just stopped right there.
With the 358311 I was getting good accuracy but not really any better with CFE than with other powders. However, the 358311 is just a very accurate boolit and very forgiving of velocity/powder changes.

[runfiverun]

weird how things work.
when I started working with 231 and the 358477 in 38 special cases I hit 4.1grs and locked it down.
it also does well enough with the 125gr rnfp [magma engineering] mold I have that I use it to shoot squirrels out of the trees, and head shoot grouse with either combination.
the 125 boolit shoots holes right on top of the 477's holes at 25 yards.

[tazman]

That is a bit unusual. My 125 grain boolits, as well as my 148 wadcutters, print slightly below my 150 grain boolits and well below my 158 grain boolits. The difference between the 125 and 158 grain boolits is almost 2 inches at 10 yards. The difference between the 148 wadcutters and the 158 rf boolits is around 1 inch. The difference between my 148 wadcutters and my 150 grain semiwadcutters is about 1/2 inch.
You wouldn't think you could tell but if you look at group centers it becomes obvious over time.

[Petrol & Powder]

Thanks for all of the feedback. This info is very helpful.

runfiverun - 4.1 gr of 231 behind a 158 SWC is a load I shoot a lot but I've got one model 64 with a 4" barrel that requires 4.4 grains of 231 to shoot point of aim, not sure why.

I've always liked 231 but CFE pistol is looking good. Bullseye has a very good reputation as well. I think it's going to come down to which powder meters better in my Dillon 550B and right now I would say they're dead equals in that department.

[TXGunNut]

CFE powders do seem to be the wave of the future, I've talked to a guy that did some Beta testing on CFE Pistol and he was pretty excited about it. I have little use for the CFE technology but the other properties sound good to me. I've burned more pounds of 231 than most folks can carry, I used it for PPC match ammo because one (outdoor) range I fired at was poorly ventilated and 231 put out less smoke than BE. On a still day I would happily trade target acquisition over a tiny but of accuracy.