Maximum
Minimum
Middle
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!
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.
Collector and shooter of guns and other items that require a tax stamp, Lead and brass scrounger. Never too much brass, lead or components in inventory! Always looking to win beauty contests with my reloads.
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.
_________________________________________________It's not that I can't spell: it is that I can't type.
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.
When democracy becomes tyranny, those of us with rifles still get to vote.
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
"It's not how well you do what you know how to do,,,It's how well you do what you DON'T know how to do!"
www.buchananprecisionmachine.com
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.
"It's not how well you do what you know how to do,,,It's how well you do what you DON'T know how to do!"
www.buchananprecisionmachine.com
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.
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.
Last edited by rintinglen; 11-15-2023 at 09:41 AM.
_________________________________________________It's not that I can't spell: it is that I can't type.
BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
GC | Gas Check |