HP-38 identical to 231??

[condor bravo]

During past discussions on the subject of HP-38 and 231 being identical, I think that most reports were that they were the same powder, but renamed. The Lyman manuals use 231 often in their loads but HP-38 only just a few times. With .45 ACP loads both are included with a 185 gr bullet. However:
with 231 the starting and max loadings are 4.4 gr and 6.1gr
and
with HP the starting and max loadings are 3.5 and 5.8,
with pressure from the 5.8 considerably higher than the 6.1

Seemingly those differences would tend to support that they are in fact different powders.

Which brings up the subject that I have HP-38 I want to use up with .40 S&W loads. Lyman provides 231 data but not for HP. It seems the HP load should not be equivalent to the 231 since the 231 figures are higher and you would be replacing a lower load with a higher one.

Your thoughts on this? and
Are the two powders one and the same?

[BZimm]

Now here's something I can speak to....and I've joined in here and elsewhere with the same question about HP-38 v W231. I've noticed the same information gap from one manual to another, and I've also seen several discrepancies that I'd be anxious to resolve. But honestly with my level of experience I'm not sure it matters for me.

I have used HP-38 for 40cal loads in both 165gr and 180gr Xtreme HPRNFP. At the time I was tempted to use 231 data universally for HP-38 loadings and I just couldn't bring myself to do it.

It seems to me as I study various published loads that they are different somehow. So.......are they the same?

[Astocks2622]

The variances could easily be lot to lot. So if the lots are different between the HP-38 and 231used to build the load data (extremely likely) then they will be slightly different. Any time you switch lots within the same powder you still need to start a bit low and verify that your original load (from a previous lot) is still performing as expected. I've used the data interchangeably, with the same start low, work up slow procedure I always use anyway. No problems or surprises.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[Metal god]

I'd first ask was there any differences in test equipment or components from the different manuals . We do know that the one source that manufactures them both and test them with the same equipment and components has there data being identical in 9mm , 40s&w , 38sp and 45acp respectively . That to me seems to be a rather large indicator that they are in fact the same .

I for one would not have a problem using ones data for the other in initial load development . I have had concerns about simply replacing 231 in a load I've already worked up with HP-38 . Which I will run into in the near future . I have 2.5lbs of HP-38 left and recently bought a 4lb jug of 231 . So at some point I will be asking my self "do I just throw the same charge of 231 that I was using of HP-38 or drop down and work back up" ? Not sure yet and it will likely be at least another year before that comes up maybe 2 or 3 do to the fact I use a few different powders .

[74A95]

They are the same powder according to Hodgdon. They should know. They're the experts.

Differences in charge weights in manuals is likely due to different lots.

As with any powder, you have to work your loads up from starting loads.

[Jim Watson]

If you looked at the CURRENT data from Hodgdon, you would find that HP38 and W231 are EXACTLY the same down to the last psi and fps. Because they are just running one set of test loads. Because the powder comes out of the same barrel and is packaged with label for whichever they have orders for.

Hodgdon has told callers that they are the same.

Now, why does your Lyman manual show different loads? Because they are carrying over old data from when Winchester handled their own distribution and you could get the lot variation and test equipment differences mentioned above.

[mikejonestkd]

HP-38 and win 231 are identical, the only difference is the label on the can.

My brother had bottles of HP-38 and win 231 that had the same lot number on them.

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

Just saying. IMHO
I don't believe any canister powder is exactly the same as some another. Two reason why.
Both powders would be sharing the same number on burn charts. Similar yes but not exactly the same.
Slight difference in Hodgdons powder I've noticed when comparing it to a identical (so said) Winchester powder. W-485/H-450. I did at the time believe Hodgdon's powder appeared to have a more noticeable or pronounced coating of graphite which undoubtedly slows burn speed. The Winchester powder had a more polished shiny look and with-out-doubt burned cleaner. Just my HO y'll.

[dahermit]

I don't believe any canister powder is exactly the same as some another. Two reason why.
Both powders would be sharing the same number on burn charts. Similar yes but not exactly the same.
Slight difference in Hodgdons powder I've noticed when comparing it to a identical (so said) Winchester powder. W-485/H-450. I did at the time believe Hodgdon's powder appeared to have a more noticeable or pronounced coating of graphite which undoubtedly slows burn speed. The Winchester powder had a more polished shiny look and with-out-doubt burned cleaner. Just my HO y'll.

But then in reference to HP-38 and 231, there is this: "...Hodgdon has told callers that they are the same." As I understand it, Hodgdon makes HP-38 and sells 231 to Winchester. So we must weigh Sure Shot MaGhee's opinions against what Hodgdon is telling callers.

[buck460XVR]

HP-38 identical to 231??

Yes, at least anything manufactured recently. Email Hodgdon and they will tell you the same. Go to Hodgdon's reloading web page and you will see the recipes they give for both are identical. Only legitimate difference is the label on the can.

[Jim Watson]

I don't believe any canister powder is exactly the same as some another. Two reason why.
Both powders would be sharing the same number on burn charts. Similar yes but not exactly the same.

Sorry, Sureshot, it is the same stuff, attested by the distributor who gets them both out of the same barrel. Burn charts are notoriously unreliable, not to mention easily outdated by change in manufacture or manufacturer.

As I understand it, Hodgdon makes HP-38 and sells 231 to Winchester.

Sorry, dahermit, that is almost exactly bass ackward.
Winchester Ball powder and Hodgdon Spherical powder both come out of the same plant in St Marks, Florida, originally built by Olin (Winchester.) It is now owned by General Dynamics. (As is the IMR plant in Canada.)
Hodgdon does not MAKE any smokeless powder, they are a distributor.

[g.willikers]

The guys at the power factor show have occasional interviews with the folks at Hodgdon.
During a recent one, the CEO of Hodgdon said the two powders are the same.
Lots of other very interesting information about powders and powder manufacturing, too.

[ShootistPRS]

231 and HP-38 are the same powders. As stated they are both manufactured in the same batch and then relabeled. Look at loads for either in different books and you will find different powder charges for the same powder in every manual. If you look in manuals that list both powders (other than Hodgdon manuals) they will list different loads because conditions change. The data is interchangeable between them as long as you start low and work up. Any change in components used will require reworking the load.

[condor bravo]

Well the preponderance of evidence appears to support that they are the same. Back to the .40 s&w with HP powder, the Lyman shows 5.3 to 5.9 with 231 and a 155 bullet, while the Hodgdon label on the HP cannister shows 6.0 HP with a 155. So those figures seem to balance out OK so 6.0 gr HP will be it for starters with a 155 bullet.

[Nick_C_S]

This subject is always fun.

My brother had bottles of HP-38 and win 231 that had the same lot number on them.

I have, on two separate occasions, viewed W231 and HP-38 having the exact same lot numbers. This being, because they are the same.

OP, use the W231 data to load for your 40 S&W, using your HP-38 (observing all load work up safety protocols, of course). I can't count how many times I've done this myself.

I stopped contemplating this issue years ago.

W296 is H-110
W540 (obs) was HS-6
W571 (obs) was HS-7 (obs)
W572 is ?? . . . W572 is new, but there is no Hodgdon equivalent - yet. HS-8?

[noylj]

Instead of asking us, call Hodgdon. This is not a secret. The Win brand costs more as people like Win name and Hodgdon has to pay a licensing fee to use the Winchester name.
Different load data should immediately tell you: Hey, there really is a difference in lot numbers of powder.
Several of Hodgdon's powders are rebranded ADI powders.
Consider that the powder companies you know only DISTRIBUTE powder, they don't make it. So, is it so hard to believe that two companies could buy the SAME powder and distribute under their own names?
I know that when I worked for a pickle factory, we ran the same pickles on the same lines and had our brand and several "generic" brands being packed at the same time. Sometimes the generic really is the same--you just don't usually know who the maker was.

[condor bravo]

Well the forum replies bring out other tidbits of information that you wouldn't get by calling or emailing Hodgdon.

[FrankenMauser]

Same powder. It has been verified many, many times over.
I have gotten that word from Hodgdon, myself.

[Nick_C_S]

Lyman shows 5.3 to 5.9 with 231 and a 155 bullet, while the Hodgdon label on the HP cannister shows 6.0 HP with a 155.

The Hodgdon canister states to reduce by 10% to start - which would be 5.4 (corrected) grains.

Speer #14 shows (W231) from 5.8 to 6.5 grains.

So those figures seem to balance out OK so 6.0 gr HP will be it for starters with a 155 bullet.

With the info at hand, most would start a little lower than 6.0 grains. Just sayin'.

[condor bravo]

OK, I'm convinced they are the same. Not that I thought otherwise, just that I hadn't given it that much thought at all. What caught my attention were the differences in starting and max loads as set forth in the opening post. For .45 ACP loads and the same bullet the 231 loads are shown as 4.4 and 6.1, while directly following the 231 data, the HP loads are shown as 3.5 and 5.8. Still somewhat of a mystery there. I guess Lyman had cans labeled as 231 and HP-38 and reported what developed from each.

[Nick_C_S]

Yes, there's lots of "mysteries" with load data.

Last week, I wanted to start a work up for 357 Mag, 125 XTP's, and AA#7.

When I started poking around with load data, I ran into a huge disagreement. Since I'm using an XTP, it would be logical to start with Hornady's manual.

Hornady shows it from 10.5 to 11.5
Speer shows it from 12.0 to 13.5
Sierra shows it from 12.5 to 13.7
Accurate (on line) shows it from 10.5 to 12.1
QuickLoad showed numbers in alignment with Speer.

Anyway, Hornady's data seems very conservative - which is common; but this is really conservative.

I rather lacked the energy to sort out the conflict, lost interest and decided to play Fallout 4 instead I don't shoot a lot of 125's; and have good recipes using Unique and Power Pistol already. So the urgency just isn't there. Furthermore, AA#7 is on my "cut list" (not buying more - simplifying inventory) and it works fantastic for 180gn 10mm - so I'm not in much hurry to use it for other stuff.

The moral of the story is: you don't need a powder sold under two different labels to find conflicting data.

And in case anyone wants to know: Joking aside, since the data is so all over the board, prudence dictates that I start with a very small quantity, just to get a baseline (or risk pulling bullets, which the arthritis in my elbow won't allow). Someday, I'll load a half dozen at 11.0 grains and chronograph them. I'll start an actual ladder work up based on that info.

[g.willikers]

Yessir,
Trust no-one.
It's always better and safer to use the published data as more of a guide, rather as an absolute.
Human error abounds.
Remember the Hubble telescope?

[condor bravo]

I hadn't loaded any .40s for some time so before proceeding with my proposed 6.0 HP-38 load, I checked what powder charge I had previously used and it turned out to be 6.0 HP with a 170 gr SWC cast bullet. I must have got that load from the Hodgdon powder can, except that the Hodgdon data was with a 155 gr. So will continue with the 6.0 and 170 to begin with.

[Slamfire]

Seemingly those differences would tend to support that they are in fact different powders.

Propellant manufacturing is not an exact science. You can read about the manufacturing process in George Frost's book: Making Ammunition. Given the thermochemistry and the kinetics of the reaction, each lot made has a different burn rate. I was told that propellants will come out within 20% of each other before any blending. Accurate Arms told me they blend their gunpowders to within 5% and the industry standard is 10%.

What we buy as over the counter gunpowder is blended. Just like your Whiskey's, wines, grape juices, orange juices, olive oils, etc. Single malt whiskey's, for example, are blended from several stocks to a consistent brand flavor, though single malt scotch drinkers think that is only done to Canadian Whiskey's.

The differences in burn rates between different lots of the same brand name have allowed gunwriters to shill away for decades for one brand name but not the other. I have a Handloader magazine article by Ken Warner on the 45ACP. In testing the 45 ACP he praised to high heaven HP-38 but in the article, says he had "given up" on W231. Now we know these are the same powders, so it calls into question whether Ken knew this, and therefore was shilling for Hodgdon, or whether Ken was able to shoot straight enough to see a difference. Ken never ever identified the group sizes or shots fired down range in any of his pseudoscience articles, but it was probably three shot groups which are meaningless for accuracy determination or comparisons. Regardless, I am certain the gun literature of the past 50 years is loaded with comparisons of these powders, one article Hodgdon beating the same powder in a Winchester can, and another article, the Winchester beating the same powder in a Hodgdon can.

To me it is just another example of the lack of credibility for the whole gun writing community.

[dahermit]

To me it is just another example of the lack of credibility for the whole gun writing community.

With the internet, I thought that the "gun writing community" and gun magazines were a thing of the past. I have not bought or read a gun magazine for years. I started reading them when Mike Venturino was a young man and Elmer Keith, Skeeter Skelton, Jack O'Conner were all still alive.