testtest

Question about HP-38 / Win 231 powder?

R

RedGoat

Master Class
HP-38 and Win 231 have been around a long time, but I've never tried / used them in my revolver loads because I've always been able to get plenty of Unique, Bullseye and 2400 to load my 38 and 357 rounds with. Not so much any more. Yes, I'm REALLY old and those ol' faithful Hercules powders are what I've been accustomed to. However, Alliant's refusal/reluctance/inability to adequately supply the US market indicates that it is time to move on to other powder choices by other makers.

I ran a "load ladder test" yesterday using powder from a canister of HP-38 that I've had sitting around for a while. I went from the start charge up to .2 grains below listed maximum (per Hodgdon's data for generic 125gr cast lead boolits) in .2 grain increments, pushing Berry's plated 125 grain slugs. I was VERY disappointed in the results. Average velocities were significantly lower than expected (even from a 6" barrel S&W), but extreme spreads were HUGE (approaching 180 fps! Yikes!). The bullets, being copper plated, not jacketed, and having no crimp groove, were merely taper crimped firmly. Cartridge OAL was 1.450". Primers were CCI 500 small pistol. I fired the entire ladder test double action from two S&W revolvers, one a 642-2 and the other a 28-2. I was seemingly getting good ignition and experienced no misfires, so I don't think that I'm having an ignition problem.

Here are my questions: Should I give up on HP-38/Win 231, move on and try some other powders? Is it possible that I have a canister of HP-38 that has gone bad and should I buy a fresh canister and run my ladder test again with it? My current small supply of HP-38 is probably 10 years old and has spent some time in less-than-ideal storage conditions. However, it still seems to pass the "smell test" and I see no indications of decay/degradation when I pour it out to check.

I can accept that HP-38/Win 231 might not be the best powder for this application. What I am having a hard time accepting is that it performed that badly.
 
Win 231 has been my go to powder for non-magnum handgun calibers for many years. I've used it in everything from .32 S&W to .44 Special with excellent results. Other powders will likely produce more velocity, but 231 works well in so many different cartridges that I stick to it.
As far as your results, it could be that the powder is too old or maybe an inconsistent crimp. Were you using the same brand of brass for all loads or mixed brass? That can also account for varying results. I honestly can't say with any certainty.
 
Here I go replying to my own post (again):

Almost as an afterthought, I called Hodgdon's and spoke to one of their help line technicians. He was a nice fellow and seeming very knowledgeable.

He recommended a test using my top level charge to determine if the taper crimp on the plated bullets is heavy enough. I will load up a dozen or so of my top charge and fire them in the small revolver. I'll leave an unfired round (pre-measured for cartridge overall length) in the cylinder until all other test rounds have been fired, then measure overall length to see if the bullet has backed out any. If so, then the crimp is on the light side and needs to be increased somehow in order to increase consistency of the extreme spread.

An insufficient crimp is a primary suspect whenever extreme spread is all over the map, especially on plated bullets.

The second suspect is the powder itself. Per the info the Hodgdon's rep gave me regarding how to de-code the lot number, this canister was bottled up on June 14, 2016. It was opened in January 2019, so it is old enough that it MIGHT be problematic.
 
Grayfox said:
Win 231 has been my go to powder for non-magnum handgun calibers for many years. I've used it in everything from .32 S&W to .44 Special with excellent results. Other powders will likely produce more velocity, but 231 works well in so many different cartridges that I stick to it.
As far as your results, it could be that the powder is too old or maybe an inconsistent crimp. Were you using the same brand of brass for all loads or mixed brass? That can also account for varying results. I honestly can't say with any certainty.
Click to expand...
Yeah. HP-38/Win 231 has a great reputation, that's what flagged my disappointing test results to me.

I'm going to pursue the crimping question first using the test I just posted, recommended by the Hodgdon's rep.

The cases are all once-fired from Winchester white box "target" ammo, meticulously cleaned (including primer pockets) and trimmed to uniform length, so the case volumes should be consistent as well as the crimps. I used a 9mm taper crimp die to apply the crimp, closing the case mouth to be .001" to .002" less than the case body diameter behind the case mouth. I tried NOT to overly crimp those plated, non-cannelured bullets so as to cut through or damage the plating.
 
Grayfox said:
Win 231 has been my go to powder for non-magnum handgun calibers for many years. I've used it in everything from .32 S&W to .44 Special with excellent results. Other powders will likely produce more velocity, but 231 works well in so many different cartridges that I stick to it.
As far as your results, it could be that the powder is too old or maybe an inconsistent crimp. Were you using the same brand of brass for all loads or mixed brass? That can also account for varying results. I honestly can't say with any certainty.
Click to expand...
Second reply to your comment:

I also called Berry's and they also wish to pursue the crimping issue. I'm going to load a dummy round using the same bullet and same cases, applying the same seating depth and crimp. I'll then pull the bullet to see how deep of a mark the crimp leaves in the bullet and will send a pic to Berry's. They'll let me know if it appears the crimp is sufficient.

Stay tuned! Find out if "batman" escapes the evil ES trap laid by the riddler!
 
Annihilator said:
When I reloaded many moons ago, my favorite pistol powders were Win 232 and Hercules Unique, but I found the 231 was somewhat cleaner burning, just my input
Click to expand...
I still have a small amount of Unique left, it's been one of my favorite powders for handgun loads for my entire reloading "career". However, Alliant has essentially abandoned the U.S. market and I am seeking alternative loads. The Win 231 is the same powder now (literally, it's just a matter of container labeling, per Hodgdon) as HP-38. So I expected far more consistent results than what I experienced.
 
Status/progress update: I got my brass cleaned and prepped, ready to go again. I put together an "as is" dummy round using the seating die depth setting and taper crimp die setting same as for my first go 'round which yielded the crazy big Extreme Spread numbers. I pulled the bullet and then sent pics to the service rep at Berry's. I followed up by cranking down the taper crimp die in three increments, pulling the bullet after each iteration. I also sent those pics to the Berry's rep, asking for them to let me know which, if any, of the settings appeared to give an adequate level of crimp for their plated bullets.

Interestingly to me, at least, is that the fourth and "heaviest" crimp setting still did not show any indication of "breaking through" the plating layer, even though the crimp appeared to be really "biting down hard" on the bullet, judging by the "crease" mark left on the pulled bullet by the crimp.

I think my next move will be to load up about 4 cylinders worth of my top TESTED charge of HP-38 atop one (or more) of those crimp settings and return to the range to see if there is any improvement in the extreme spread value. I won't know for certain until I try it, no matter what a service rep from either Hodgdon's or Berry's tells me. I'll tweak one variable at a time until I can figure out which things make a difference and those which do not matter.
 
Last edited:
Way, way back in the 1980's-early 2000's I was shooting a lot of Hunter Pistol Silhouette games and my goto back then was Unique as was for most shooters in my .39spl and/or my .357mag. Whenever Unique was scare our goto was always W231. The two powders seemed to perform really close to the same, but even back then we found the perfect crimp was almost an impossibility. IIRC, it was somewhere in this time frame when the 'factory taper crimp' was introduced. Up until that time we mostly used the roll crimp. I really don't remember when or how we finally resolved the issues with crimping, it very well could have been the advent of the factory taper crimp (seems like late 1980's or early 90's iirc) as opposed to the roll crimp and we almost all used jacketed bullets rather than plated. I'm not even sure there were plated bullets back then. If there was, most of us probably didn't know or recognize the difference. Today I no longer shoot competitions, and generally my usual goto is either WinComp or CFEPistol mostly for 9mm and I'm almost always using plated bullets these days for paper punching. Never tried the HP38. And btw, I have one of "Lee's" Pro-Disk powder measures and two of the adjustable charge bars. I bought the first one back in the 1970's iirc, gave it to my yard son about 7 years ago. After about a year of no reloading, I started buying tools/equipment all over again.
 
jumpinjoe said:
Way, way back in the 1980's-early 2000's I was shooting a lot of Hunter Pistol Silhouette games and my goto back then was Unique as was for most shooters in my .39spl and/or my .357mag. Whenever Unique was scare our goto was always W231. The two powders seemed to perform really close to the same, but even back then we found the perfect crimp was almost an impossibility. IIRC, it was somewhere in this time frame when the 'factory taper crimp' was introduced. Up until that time we mostly used the roll crimp. I really don't remember when or how we finally resolved the issues with crimping, it very well could have been the advent of the factory taper crimp (seems like late 1980's or early 90's iirc) as opposed to the roll crimp and we almost all used jacketed bullets rather than plated. I'm not even sure there were plated bullets back then. If there was, most of us probably didn't know or recognize the difference. Today I no longer shoot competitions, and generally my usual goto is either WinComp or CFEPistol mostly for 9mm and I'm almost always using plated bullets these days for paper punching. Never tried the HP38. And btw, I have one of "Lee's" Pro-Disk powder measures and two of the adjustable charge bars. I bought the first one back in the 1970's iirc, gave it to my yard son about 7 years ago. After about a year of no reloading, I started buying tools/equipment all over again.
Click to expand...
If you used Win 231, you were using HP-38. They're the same powder, different labels, per Hodgdon's own statements. Regarding your comment about the similarities between Unique and HP-38/Win 231, yep, that's partly why I am trying it out as a substitute for Unique. Burn rates are fairly similar, the way it "scales" in 38 Spl and lower velocity 357 Mag is similar (according to published load data), charges are in the same ballpark, etc. etc., and it has a great track record for those who HAVE utilized it. What's not to like?
 
Last edited:
Biggfoot44 said:
I believe you that your results were your results , but they're the opposite of mine .

My pet .38Spl load with 231 & 158gr cast , give single digit extreme spread . ( Not std deviation, but actual spread ) , and sub 1.0 in groups at 25 yd .
Click to expand...
Nice! A single digit extreme spread is awesome. I'd expect that I could easily achieve the same results with Win 231/HP-38 if I were using either a lead bullet or a jacketed bullet with a cannelure where I could put an "uninhibited" crimp on it.

I'm wrestling with the "two variables at the same time" problem: 1) I'm new to regular usage of plated bullets with no cannelure, and 2) I'm switching to an unfamiliar-to-me powder. My load ladder test at the range the other day was my first cut at load workup for these new-to-me bullets using a new-to-me powder. Now that I have a baseline I can start tweaking one variable at a time to figure out what's what and try to reduce those ES numbers to something more reasonable.
 
Last edited:
RedGoat said:
If you used Win 231, you were using HP-38. They're the same powder, different labels, per Hodgdon's own statements. Regarding your comment about the similarities between Unique and HP-38/Win 231, yep, that's partly why I am trying it out as a substitute for Unique. Burn rates are fairly similar, the way it "scales" in 38 Spl and lower velocity 357 Mag is similar (according to published load data), charges are in the same ballpark, etc. etc., and it has a great track record for those who HAVE utilized it. What's not to like?
Click to expand...
I think I knew they were the same today, but didn't think they were back when. Actually thought that was a recent development. :oops::rolleyes:(y)
 
jumpinjoe said:
I think I knew they were the same today, but didn't think they were back when. Actually thought that was a recent development. :oops::rolleyes:(y)
Click to expand...
I'm uncertain about when Hodgdon "declared" that they'd be the same. It's been a while, however. Yes, I have a sizeable collection of older "vintage" reloading data manuals, and the two powders definitely show differing data "back when."
 
Anchorite said:
Try BE86.

I had a poor experience with plated bullets years ago, have never tried them again.
Click to expand...
BE86 is another Alliant powder, so that's a no-go for me. I notice that it IS available now from several sources, but until Alliant corrects/reverses its course, I am in search of alternatives to their products. Alliant has publicly given the entire US commercial market both middle fingers.

@Anchorite - What issues did you experience with the plated bullets?

My intention is to use them as a substitute for cast or swaged lead bullets for the bulk of my range / training / practice ammo. My current living situation will not permit me to operate my casting equipment, so I need an alternative. I could go with commercially cast bullets or swaged bullets, but thought I'd give the plated bullets a try. I'm angling for a pleasant-to-shoot load in lighter weight .38 revolvers with a 125 grain bullet. It's also a little tougher to reliably source commercially cast .38 slugs in that weight or close to it, and I've only been able to locate 140 grain and up slugs in the commercial swaged lead category. Although I enjoy shooting powder-puff full wadcutter loads, I am seeking either a flat-nose or semi-wadcutter shaped slug so that they reload in a fashion similar to my carry ammo. Full wadcutter slugs don't meet that criteria.
 
Last edited:
RedGoat said:
BE86 is another Alliant powder, so that's a no-go for me. I notice that it IS available now from several sources, but until Alliant corrects/reverses its course, I am in search of alternatives to their products. Alliant has publicly given the entire US commercial market both middle fingers.

@Anchorite - What issues did you experience with the plated bullets?

My intention is to use them as a substitute for cast or swaged lead bullets for the bulk of my range / training / practice ammo. My current living situation will not permit me to operate my casting equipment, so I need an alternative. I could go with commercially cast bullets or swaged bullets, but thought I'd give the plated bullets a try. I'm angling for a pleasant-to-shoot load in lighter weight .38 revolvers with a 125 grain bullet. It's also a little tougher to reliably source commercially cast .38 slugs in that weight or close to it, and I've only been able to locate 140 grain and up slugs in the commercial swaged lead category. Although I enjoy shooting powder-puff full wadcutter loads, I am seeking either a flat-nose or semi-wadcutter shaped slug so that they reload in a fashion similar to my carry ammo. Full wadcutter slugs don't meet that criteria.
Click to expand...
This was over twenty years ago, so I'm sure they are of better quality today. I bought an ammo can full at a gun show and I simply ran them too hard in my 44 magnum. Not full throttle but left a lot of fouling for my tastes. Haven't tried any since.

I'd be fine trying them in 38/9mm, but just not my thing in a magnum case.
 
RedGoat said:
I'm uncertain about when Hodgdon "declared" that they'd be the same. It's been a while, however. Yes, I have a sizeable collection of older "vintage" reloading data manuals, and the two powders definitely show differing data "back when."
Click to expand...
After thinking about this a little more last night, I have a question to those much smarter than I ... Isn't the H-38 the original military surplus powder, or a derivative of it that originally got "Hodgton" started in business? Don't know why I'm thinking that, but for some reason it seems I learned that long ago.
 
Anchorite said:
This was over twenty years ago, so I'm sure they are of better quality today. I bought an ammo can full at a gun show and I simply ran them too hard in my 44 magnum. Not full throttle but left a lot of fouling for my tastes. Haven't tried any since.

I'd be fine trying them in 38/9mm, but just not my thing in a magnum case.
Click to expand...
Yeah, in general most of the plated boolits still have a stated maximum of 1200fps "speed limit." Some are being made now with features (a thicker plating on the base for example) intended to withstand magnum speeds.

Doesn't matter to me, though. I'm looking for a softer shooting load to make and consume in quantity for practice and training and fun, not for a full house magnum level hunting load or self-defense load. Those are the applications that God made jacketed or hard cast bullets for.
 
Last edited:
jumpinjoe said:
After thinking about this a little more last night, I have a question to those much smarter than I ... Isn't the H-38 the original military surplus powder, or a derivative of it that originally got "Hodgton" started in business? Don't know why I'm thinking that, but for some reason it seems I learned that long ago.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, it was a mil-surp ball rifle powder that Mr. Hodgdon obtained and resold to bootstrap his company. Post WWII, the military was searching for the least-cost means of disposing of it and Mr. Hodgdon stepped up and said, "I'll buy it so that you don't have to dump it at sea," and he did so by the boxcar load. At least, that's what I remember about how the story goes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top