Q On Conflicting Win 231 Data for 38 Spec

[Daryl]

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.

[S.R.Custom]

I didn't see a choice for "none of the above"...

I've experienced squibs in the .357/.38 in cold weather using light charges of 231, and have since stopped using it in large capacity revolver cases.

[fecmech]

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.

[9.3X62AL]

WW-231 is my primary 38 Special propellant. I don't deal with ultra-cold temps where I live or hunt/shoot, seldom if ever under 0* F. It can get pretty hot here--110* or more--but I've not seen that be a problem for the loads, just the operators. :)

Years ago, my agency's only authorized sidearm and load was the W-W 38 Special 110 grain +P, carried in 38 Special or 357 Magnum S&W/Colt/Ruger double-action revolvers. Through chrongraphy, I derived a duplicator load of 5.5 grains of WW-231 underneath bulk Winchester 110 grain JHPs. This load matched the factory fodder in all respects, including mediocre accuracy. This load is now out of print, and the agency has relegated the 38 Special to second-line status. Rem 125 JHP +P is the authorized carry load. For my usages, the 357 Magnum has wholly superseded the 38 Special as a social engagement accessory. Autopistols do the heavy lifting for CCW anyway.

This means that the 38 Special has become a sporting proposition for me. My 38 Specials range from somewhat delicate (Colt Detective Special/1933) to rather stalwart (S&W Model 10, Colt OMT). My "shelf" loads of 38 Special are all standard pressure concoctions, either #358477 atop 4.5 grains of 231 or #358429 under 4.0 grains of 231. Once in a while I get the notion to run the Model 10 at full-throttle, and I'll conjure up something warmer using Herco or 2400, 50 at a time and marked to keep them the h--l out of the little Colt. Red 'Hi-Liter' on the case heads is a good idea for such ventures.

[Houndog]

I didn't see a choice for "none of the above"...

I've experienced squibs in the .357/.38 in cold weather using light charges of 231, and have since stopped using it in large capacity revolver cases.

I've had the exact same experience with 231 in a 38 special. I do use it in a 9mm and a 380, but at maximum charges. For the 38 I use 5.0 grains of Unique under a 158 lead boolet, either a SWC or a RN. That's slightly on the warm side, but not up to +p pressures. I use that load in everything from a Smith 36 to a 19, and it does well in everything I use it in.

[Daryl]

This is very helpful so far. Basically, it looks like the Hogdon data is the out-of-date HP38 and unnecessarily conservative. fecmec's velocity data would seem to support the velocity data from the Lee and Lyman Win 231 data. The 4.5 or 4.7 seems a reasonable maximum load for modern guns.

[sixshot]

W231 & HP38 is exactly the same powder, comes out of the same spout, this was reported in a recent Handloader article by Brian Pearce.
I've shot many thousands of the 168 gr Keith slug using 5.2 grs of 231, this is a +P load & I only shoot it in my 357 maggie's. Its a little too much for a J frame gun.

Dick

[9.3X62AL]

Even if WW-231 and HP-38 are indeed the same stuff from the same vat at the factory, the data is inconsistent for some calibers--38 Special is a case in point. I've fired A WHOLE LOT of the fuel over the years--probably 20 lbs or more--so I do like it. I've sourced data from Winchester (the powder maker) and Speer (often the bullet maker), and I compare the data before starting out--opting for the lowest charges at the start and working up gradually to the performance level sought or data maximums--whichever comes first. WW-231 has never given me any surprises or excursions. I trust it, I suppose--but verify it first.

[Rodfac]

I've used 231 for 20 yrs or so too. For light to medium loads it replaced Bullseye and Unique for me primarily due to its smooth metering through my RCBS and Dillon measures. In .32 Long, .32 H&R, .32-20, .358 and .38 Spl, .41 Magnum, .40 S&W, 9 mm and the .44's as well as both the .45 ACP and LC, it's as uniform as I could wish. In all of the above listed calibers, it's produced several loads each that are way under 2" at 25 yds, (with the exception of 9 mm, in which it duplicates previous accuracy results). To say that I like it is an understatement.

When I could no longer find it, two yrs ago, I began the search for a substitute and HP38 is the answer. It's available sometimes...and not much of it at that...I'm buying in single pound lots now. I've chronographed my old 231 loads with equal charges of HP38 and can find no difference. Dealers have told me that it's the same powder but with a different factory label. A cursory inspection with the aid of a magnifying glass confirms the outward appearance. For me it's the same. While I don't now and never did load for high pressures or velocities using 231, I continue to use HP38 in the same manner.

HTH's Rodfac.

[Daryl]

Rodfac,

That's great info. So, do you run across the situation of conflicting data in the charts for Win 231 and HP 38? If so, do you go with the more conservative or less?

thanks

[dogbert41]

Rodfac,

That's great info. So, do you run across the situation of conflicting data in the charts for Win 231 and HP 38? If so, do you go with the more conservative or less?

thanks

I put them together and have a larger spectrum to work from. I actually do that with all my load books. Especially lead loadings because it seems there isn't a single bloody one that has the exact bullet weight I got, so I put together as much as I can of as close to as I got, search these boards and work from there.

That's why this place is so bloody good! You can bounce off of the board your thoughts and experiments/experiences and read about everybody else's. If you have to err, err on the light side. It's much better to squib than to explode. And I've been fortunate to have never squibbed, though I was with my buddy two weeks ago...And it was his first time shooting his own reloads, first magazine actually, poor bastard. Good thing I was with him. He was in the process of jacking another round in there not knowing what happened. That's an XD .45.

[S.R.Custom]

Heh. That would make an awesome avatar.

[dogbert41]

I never thought of that!!!!

[MakeMineA10mm]

I've loaded several hundred pounds of W231 (much of it as a commercial reloader), and can tell you that the reason for all the variation is lot-to-lot inconsistency. This is why the warnings are there to always work up your loads whenever you change a component, even if it is a new lot number of the same old component...

I've had W231 that burned so fast that 4.1grs was max in a 38 Spl. I've also had W231 that was so slow-burning that I couldn't get my 9mm's to cycle reliably until I went .4grs above my usual max load. What I've tried to do is buy in large quantity so when I work up a load, it's done for a long time...

That said, what I've found is that about 95% of the W231 I've loaded worked real good in 38s with 158gr LRNs with 4.3 to 4.4 grains. The 5.2gr "+P" load in the Lyman handbook never gets loaded by me. It's way too hot. They must have worked that up with a particularly slow lot of W231. My 38-44 load is 5.6grs of W231, and that's a weak 38-44 load, but it's WAAAAY over any 38 load no matter how many "+" signs you add...

Start at 3.5grs and work up to 4.4grs. Use a chronograph and watch for pressure signs. When you get around 850fps, you're there. No need to go higher. I'd bet that will be around 4.3 to 4.4grs if you get the normal W231/HP38.

[Bula]

I load on a lee Cast turret, I've settled on 4.2g (as determined by the disc size) as my all around .38 special load using either HP38 or W231. Both drop right at 4.2g EVERY time. I shoot that Lee RNFP 158 grainer as well, along with the 358429, same load. More accurate than me in J & K frames as well as my 1894C.

[Larry Gibson]

Daryl

All the different sourses you mentioned all use different test guns, different pressure test barrels, probably different psi methods (CUP is not the same as current psi (piezo), and different bullets ( different designs with different size driving bands and probably of different diamters) of different alloys (swaged, cast etc.). All of that makes for some differences in "data" as you've noted. If you've shot the 4.5 or 4.7 gr loads without problems that would seem to answer your question.

Larry Gibson

[Wheeler]

I've been using a 158gr SJFP or SJHP over 5.2 grains of 231 for several years. I've occasionally ended up with a split case but I tend to run through the same batch of around 500 brass regurally.

The last time I had the load chronoed it ran in the 850fps range. Plenty powerful enough to knock down steel or use for self defense.

I'm not quite sure how to calculate the pressures but I'm pretty certain that I came across some information that this load is in the +P range.

Wheeler

[subsonic]

There is no substitute for experimentation to find out what works best for your lot of powder, boolits, cases, guns, etc. If you want to use them in any .38 you are likely to encounter, it seems like erring on the conservative side is the wise choice.

Pressure and velocity are usually proportional when all other things are equal, so if you have a chronograph, load to reach a velocity between that shown for min and max charges in the manual. Be aware of the fact that most reloading manuals like to chronograph the .38 special in a buntline special - 2-6" revolvers are gping to show less velocity than the long barrels used in the manuals. Throat dimensions, barrel to cylinder gap, and other factors like case capacity, boolit design, seating depth, case length... may cause your results to vary.

[Hardcast416taylor]

I seriously couldn`t tell you how many pounds of both HP-38 and Win. 231 I have burned up using the same exact load of 3.5 gr. behind a Lyman #358495 wadcutter I have shot over 3 or more decades. I couldn`t see any change in accuracy or performance.Robert

[robertbank]

W231 and HP 38 are the same powder produced by Hogdons. Larry Gibson nailed it on the data variations. Try Clays in your 38spl. Clays is what I use for all my IDPA shooting now. Very clean burning compared to W231/HP38. My stainless Ruger GP-100 remains clean after an extended match now. Very economical as well.

Take Care

Bob

[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 . :bigsmyl2:

[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]

302923302924
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.

[JoeJames]

I ran tests awhile back on Win231 and Bullseye with various 4" Smiths. This is what I came up:

303104

[VariableRecall]

I ran tests awhile back on Win231 and Bullseye with various 4" Smiths. This is what I came up:

303104

What depth were your Wadcutters set in the cartridge? At the crimp groove, or completely flush? I've got some Lee 148gn Wadcutters and I'm far from brave enough to load my wadcutters flush. I seat my wadcutters in the upper crimp groove, leaving a little nub of the wadcutter poking out the top.

If you're seating them flush, I'd say 3.1 is going to be pretty spicy.

I use HP-38/Win 231 for .38 Special as well, so I'm interested in the results!

[JoeJames]

What depth were your Wadcutters set in the cartridge? At the crimp groove, or completely flush? I've got some Lee 148gn Wadcutters and I'm far from brave enough to load my wadcutters flush. I seat my wadcutters in the upper crimp groove, leaving a little nub of the wadcutter poking out the top.

If you're seating them flush, I'd say 3.1 is going to be pretty spicy.

I use HP-38/Win 231 for .38 Special as well, so I'm interested in the results!Same here - upper crimp groove.

[FISH4BUGS]

I have loaded tens of thousand of rounds with 231. 25-20. 32-20, 380, 9mm, 38, 357, 44 spl and 44 mag.
It is my go to powder for all light to mid-range loads with cast bullets and occasionally jacketed.
I have NEVER had an issue with it.
The only "issue" is that using keith style bullets, with a lube groove the size of the Panama Canal, it is kind of dirty.
Not sure whether it is the excessive lube, the powder, or a combination of both.
I find it burns cleaner the closer to max you get.
I have loaded jacketed +p level charges in it too with 231. Never a problem.
If I want full house magnums I go for 296.
Keep it simple.

[rintinglen]

I am a long time WW 231 user, back when I first started reloading in the early 70's. Bullseye was the accurate powder choice, but availability was spotty, especially in the larger 5 and 8 pound sizes. WW 231 was much easier to find, and a 4 pound suited my needs and pocket book much better. When I started shooting PPC, I began using RED DOT, simply because a local shotgun club had the 8 pound canisters for just a few dollars more than the 4 pound WW_231's, but I still kept 231 around and used it for just about everything except my wadcutter loads. I have loaded 32 ACP, 32 S&W long, 327 federal, 380, 9mm Luger, 38 SPL mild to wild, 40 S&W, 44 Spl., 45 Auto Rim, 45 ACP and no doubt a few others that I forget. It is a versatile, and useful powder that will handle any standard velocity or +P task and give excellent accuracy. I won't be without it.

[atfsux]

I think as long as your ammo gets used in a MODERN weapon chambered for .38spl., the max loading will not be a problem. HOWEVER,...should your ammo ever end up in a poorly made or ancient design,...then this question is a valid concern.

I am not proud of it, but I have on more than one occasion accidentally fabricated a few rounds of .38 that were SUPPOSED to be mild target loads, but accidentally over-charged them, turning them into essentially mid-range .357 power loads. I found this out the first time I did so by touching off one in a 1970's production Charter Arms Off Duty snub-nose 5-shot. Not a gun I would expect to stand up to .357 magnum power level,...but fortunately, it did, or I would be typing this with one hand now. The Charter Arms Off Duty was not rated for a steady diet of +P ammo, but unintended torture test showed it could handle max level .38spl. with no problem.

Would I have had the same result in a pre-WW1 S&W Hand Ejector model? I don't know, and I never want to find out. But I'm pretty sure one of those German cast metal frame Windicators or a Rock Island Armory imported Filipino bargain snubbie based on the Colt Cobra would not be a good candidate. I also would not use a max loading in one of the modern Italian reproductions of early Colt "cartridge conversions" based on cap & ball frames. Those are inherently weak due to not having a top strap.

So really, the answer to the question depends upon what type of .38 handgun you think your ammo may be likely to find its way into. If it is only likely to find its way into one of your own quality handguns,...there should be no problem with max loadings.

[W.R.Buchanan]

If you call Hodgdon's they will tell you w231 and HP 38 are the same exact powder, the only difference is the label on the bottle. Same with H110 and W296 which have always been the same, even though they always seem to have different results. There are others as well because Winchester buys it's powder from Hodgdon's.

I think Larry Gibson stated the most plausible reason for the different results in different manuals in his post on page 1 (different test barrels)

Should be noted that Elmer Keith invented the .357 Mag and .44 Mags by souping up 38 Special and .44 Special cases. (+P) The reason why they were produced in longer cases was to prevent the Hot Rodded or +P loads from being fired in older weaker guns.

This was all covered in an article about the new Kimber Revolver in the current Handloader Magazine

Randy

[txbirdman]

If you call Hodgdon's they will tell you w231 and HP 38 are the same exact powder, the only difference is the label on the bottle. Same with H110 and W296 which have always been the same, even though they always seem to have different results. There are others as well because Winchester buys it's powder from Hodgdon's.

I think Larry Gibson stated the most plausible reason for the different results in different manuals in his post on page 1 (different test barrels)

Should be noted that Elmer Keith invented the .357 Mag and .44 Mags by souping up 38 Special and .44 Special cases. (+P) The reason why they were produced in longer cases was to prevent the Hot Rodded or +P loads from being fired in older weaker guns.

This was all covered in an article about the new Kimber Revolver in the current Handloader Magazine

Randy

I was thinking Phil Sharpe and ???? Wesson were the .357 Mag guys

[Tall]

I load for accuracy; the power level is unimportant since I do not and will not ever use handloads for self-defense. So, I start with the minimum suggested charge and if that is not accurate, I move up until it is accurate. Normally this happens long before a maximum charge.

[W.R.Buchanan]

I was thinking Phil Sharpe and ???? Wesson were the .357 Mag guys

It was Sharpe, Keith, Doug Wesson, and S&W and Winchester coordinated the project. But it was basically Keith's project as he was the one Hot Rodding his .38 Specials to what we now call +P in his S&W 38/44 (N Frame Revolvers)

Randy

[billmc2]

I am not proud of it, but I have on more than one occasion accidentally fabricated a few rounds of .38 that were SUPPOSED to be mild target loads, but accidentally over-charged them, turning them into essentially mid-range .357 power loads. I found this out the first time I did so by touching off one in a 1970's production Charter Arms Off Duty snub-nose 5-shot. Not a gun I would expect to stand up to .357 magnum power level,...but fortunately, it did, or I would be typing this with one hand now. The Charter Arms Off Duty was not rated for a steady diet of +P ammo, but unintended torture test showed it could handle max level .38spl. with no problem.


I have no way of verifying their claim, but if you read the info from Charter, they claim their design is much stronger than most people give them credit for. I don't know about the older ones but they do say their current production guns will handle +P but they don't recommend it. They feel the shorter barrel doesn't allow for any significant gains of a +P load.

[rintinglen]

Stuff and nonsense. Elmer Keith had just about as much to do with the creation of the 357 as I did, and I was born 17 years later. Phil Sharpe and Major Douglas B. Wesson designed the round, first made by Winchester, using a "Sharpe" type boolit, which was very like the 358-477. As most of us know who have tried it, the Keith 358-429 will hang out the front of the cylinder of an N-frame 357 when crimped in the crimping groove. Keith had a hand in loading and publicizing what became the 38-44 loading of the 38 special, and was instrumental in getting the 44 magnum created. He also was one of the driving forces behind the 41 Magnum, along with Bill Jordan. But he was in Idaho 44'ing when the 357 was brought to fruition back east in Springfield, Massachusetts.

His later claims to the contrary came only after Sharpe and Wesson were dead.