Has Win 231 Changed Recently?

[AZ Slim]

Hello All,
I’m new to the forum and I have some questions and I figure this is the best place to get some answers. The question is: Has Winchester changed the formulation for their win 231 powder recently? I was in Cabela’s the other day and looking through the newest Horandy reloading manual and looked up the 115 gr loads for the 9mm and found the W231 loads greatly reduced from what I use.
My load from Horady Handbook #3(1980) W231, 5.2grs= 1150 fps with a max load of 5.4 grs=1200 fps The manual calls for federal 100 primers I typically use WSP primers instead. Been using this for years.
The new Hornady manual showed W231, 4.7 grs=1100 fps and this was the max load using, WSP primers. Would the primer make that much difference? I found I similar situation in a few other manuals I looked at.

[WESHOOT2]

The bullet make the difference......

[rclark]

No, I doubt W231 has changed. Shoots the same in my guns as it always has. Use your chronograph for verification! From what I see, the manuals are dumbing down for 'sue' purposes. It is also been said, testing measurements are more precise now, so the numbers are changing to fit SAMMI pressures more closely. While that may be true, we certainly didn't have a problem with the loads then .... so why dumb down the loads now? My answer is 'lawyers'. Better 'ultra-ultra-safe' than worry about something that has never happened seems to be the name of the game..... That's IMHO of course .

[AZ Slim]

After taking a closer look at the older mamual, it looks like in the new edition they droped the max load to 4.7 grs from 5.4 grns. In both cases the velocity listed is the same (4.7 @1100fps). Like rclark said dumbing down the load.

[FrankenMauser]

They probably changed the test firearm.

Did you check to see if that was the case?

[Mike Irwin]

Remember, the new manual was likely developed with completely different lots of powder from the old manual, and you can get variations like that.

Powder manufacturers try to keep those variations in check, but it's not possible to achive identical performance lot to lot.

It's one of the primary reasons why using loading data from old manuals can be dicey.

[243winxb]

Olin Win. = St. Marks



Win. Olin powders were being made by Primex Technologies inc. in 1999. General Dynamics (St. Marks) Acquired Primex Technologies, Inc. Nov.2000. Then St. Marks & Alliant (ATK) formed the American Powder Company.

[joneb]

Has Win 231 Changed Recently?

Maybe it changed into HP-38 ?

[Mike Irwin]

231 and HP-38 always were the same powder. At one time there's speculation that Hodgdon customized the coatings a little bit, but they were, at their very base, the same powder.

[AZ Slim]

I did not know that Win 231 and HP 38 were the same powder. Interesting.

Thanks

[GP100man]

My speculations are ya got some good info , same place of manufacture & formulas just different names !

Probably when the WW packaging runs out you`ll see the WW dropped ?? from the Hodgdon`s line up .

WW231= HP 38
WW296=H-110
WW748=BLC2
WW760=H 414

[Brian Pfleuger]

BLC2 is the same as 748?

[Jim Watson]

Close but not identical, unlike 760 and H414 which are the same stuff.

[GP100man]

760 is somewhat slower than H414.

According to Hodgdon`s burn chart .

I had to check myself as CRS kiks in from time to time

[Mike Irwin]

"BLC2 is the same as 748?"

It may be now days, but originally I'm pretty sure that 748 was developed specifically for Winchester's 5.56 ammunition (the non canister version) while BLC-2 was developed earlier, originally for the 7.62 NATO round.

[Jim Watson]

760 is somewhat slower than H414.

According to Hodgdon`s burn chart .

In the first place, Hodgdon SAYS they are the same, and second, their own load data is IDENTICAL.

In the second place, if you are going to make a rank order list, then something has to come first, I have not seen a burn chart with ties.

[Mike Irwin]

If they're identical, just different labels, of course you could have ties.

In fact, I think they SHOULD redo the powder burn rate charts to recognize that a number of powders that are now sold under different names/labels ARE identical and should be treated as such for reloading purposes.

[5R milspec]

its fuuny this has come up about some powers being the same.I have always been told that w231 and HP38 are the same.even the data on their web page shows it being the same.BUT QuickLoad shows the two being a little different,making W231 a little slower.but not much

[rclark]

.BUT QuickLoad shows the two being a little different,making W231 a little slower.but not much

Who you going to believe ... the manufacturer .... or a fallible computer program .

[SL1]

Who you going to believe ... the manufacturer .... or a fallible computer program

The "fallable" computer program uses actual data on at least one lot of each powder, and is probably based on two different lots of powder, which may or may not have been "the same" for each of the pairs of powder that are now supposed to be "identical."

I take the differences in QuickLOAD results for supposedly "identical" powders to be a real-world indication of the variability we can expect from different lots of powder, even with the same name on the canisters. That makes it a little more eye-opening.

Mike Irwin: If 231 has not changed, and the max load dropped from 5.4 to 4.7 grains, that is an 8.7% decrease. That seems like more than the 5% that SAAMI specs say should be the limit between lots of the same canister powder. It seems to back-up the old rule about reducing your load by 10% and working-up again when you change any component.

SL1

[5R milspec]

I wasn't saying that at all.I just wanted to make a point.the point was that some one or something does think its different.I too just load up to the same for the both.the main thing to keep in mind here is safty.so when we post like we do sometimes someone will one day take it for what its worth to them alone.so pointing out little things at times can and will pay off.thats the biggest reason when I post a load I try to mention that it's my load for my rifel/pistol.that they need to take caution when wanting to use my load or even yours for the matter.

no bones being picked here just pointing out a point.