Mixing HP-38 & W231
- Thread starter capreppy
- Start date
- Status
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,093
Exactly....just as RC said way back in post #2. Mixing two different lot numbers will actually decrease the variance between the two, altho in todays modern handgun powders that variance is already pretty slim. In other words, mixing the two aforementioned powders and using that mixture without starting again at minimum and reworking the load is safer than starting with the fresh can and doing the same. Altho every reloading manual tells you to start at minimum and rework your load whenever you change lot numbers of any powder, how many of us that do not load to max, do?
gamestalker
member
Yes, I have heard this time and time again. However, how do you explain loads that show two different charge weights, specifically 296 and H110? In the same manual loads are shown for those two powders with different weights and expected velocities. Also in this respect, some of the bullet weights will list 296 or H110 while not listing the other.
Speer #10 manual:
.357 magnum
110 grain JHP
Powder Charge Muzzle Velocity
296 21.0 grs. - 23.0 grs. 1554 - 1682
H110 21.0 grs. - 23.0 grs. 1557- 1705
140 gr. JHP
296 17.7 - 19.7 1316 -1460
H110 17.5 - 19.5 1340 -1446
146 gr. JHP
296 16.5 - 18.5 1351 - 1513
H110 16.2 - 18.2 1361 - 1465
140 gr. JHP
HP38 and 231 loads are: HP38 - 7.1 to 7.6 v.s. 231 8.0 to 8.5
This is directly out of my Speer manual and certainly doesn't look like these powders are identical. In addition to the variance of almost 15%. 231 data at both ends of the spectrum utilizes a magnum primer, HP38 doesn't.
Even more recently published data indicates a variance that is as clear as can be that they are not the same powders by any means. I'm actually nearly knocked out of my seat at the difference in listed data for those two powders. I'm not a qualified expert or anything of the nature, so all I can state is what I'm seeing in black and white. Why bother with using load data if it's OK to just make it up as we go? Cyanide is only fatal if you ingest enough to kill you too! But that doesn't inspire me to see how much I can take before it kills me. I'll take the experts word stating, it is poisonous.
I'm not new to hand loading, but I'm also not so over confident that I feel I can just start making up my own guidlines, especially ones that contradict everything
Speer #10 manual:
.357 magnum
110 grain JHP
Powder Charge Muzzle Velocity
296 21.0 grs. - 23.0 grs. 1554 - 1682
H110 21.0 grs. - 23.0 grs. 1557- 1705
140 gr. JHP
296 17.7 - 19.7 1316 -1460
H110 17.5 - 19.5 1340 -1446
146 gr. JHP
296 16.5 - 18.5 1351 - 1513
H110 16.2 - 18.2 1361 - 1465
140 gr. JHP
HP38 and 231 loads are: HP38 - 7.1 to 7.6 v.s. 231 8.0 to 8.5
This is directly out of my Speer manual and certainly doesn't look like these powders are identical. In addition to the variance of almost 15%. 231 data at both ends of the spectrum utilizes a magnum primer, HP38 doesn't.
Even more recently published data indicates a variance that is as clear as can be that they are not the same powders by any means. I'm actually nearly knocked out of my seat at the difference in listed data for those two powders. I'm not a qualified expert or anything of the nature, so all I can state is what I'm seeing in black and white. Why bother with using load data if it's OK to just make it up as we go? Cyanide is only fatal if you ingest enough to kill you too! But that doesn't inspire me to see how much I can take before it kills me. I'll take the experts word stating, it is poisonous.
I'm not new to hand loading, but I'm also not so over confident that I feel I can just start making up my own guidlines, especially ones that contradict everything
LiveLife
Member
gamestalker said:
The current load data showing on Hodgdon's website shows same charges for W231 and HP-38:
The 2010 Hodgdon Basic Reloading Manual also shows same charges for W231 and HP-38 with Winchester magnum primer out of 10" barrel at 1.590" OAL:
I believe before Hodgdon acquired the license to sell Winchester powder in 2006, W231 and HP-38 may have been of different formulation; but since 2006, as Hodgdon customer service confirms, these two powders are the same.
Last edited:
LiveLife
Member
BTW, Hodgdon's website and 2010 Hodgdon Basic Reloading Manual both show the same powder charge, velocities and CUP for W296 and H110.
Sport45
Member
I've been through that one before.....
H110 and Winchester 296 are the same. Straight from the horse's mouth.
Likewise HP-38 and W231 are the same powder.
Click on the links. If you can't trust Hodgdon to know, who can you trust?
Reloading data is gathered by humans using equipment that is not accurate to 4 decimal places. When you see different loads developed for W296 and H-110 it is only because it was tested in different barrels or the techician picked different end points. Or different technicians performed the test. Sometimes they stop at the top end because pressure/velocity etc becomes erratic. It doesn't surprise me that the same load of H-110 and W296 had a velocity difference of 20fps or so at the top end. How accurate was the chronograph, anyway?
H110 and Winchester 296 are the same. Straight from the horse's mouth.
Likewise HP-38 and W231 are the same powder.
Click on the links. If you can't trust Hodgdon to know, who can you trust?
Reloading data is gathered by humans using equipment that is not accurate to 4 decimal places. When you see different loads developed for W296 and H-110 it is only because it was tested in different barrels or the techician picked different end points. Or different technicians performed the test. Sometimes they stop at the top end because pressure/velocity etc becomes erratic. It doesn't surprise me that the same load of H-110 and W296 had a velocity difference of 20fps or so at the top end. How accurate was the chronograph, anyway?
Last edited:
Jaybird78
Member
This again. It's the same.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,093
Since Speer does not make HP-38/W231 and H110/W296 and Hodgdon does, I tend to believe Hodgdon
.....and yes, I too am one of those that personally e-mailed Hodgdon to confirm these powders are indeed.....identical.
Seedtick
Member
:banghead:
Yep, every time......
Seedtick
ArchAngelCD
Member.
The information I got from Hodgdon is that both powders were always the same. The difference in testing methods, powder charge weight, OAL, crimp, lot variations and barrel length easily accounts for the differences.
The data posted by gamestalker dis-proved his own theory of them being different. In the first listing there is only a difference of 3 fps from the starting charge of W296 and H110 and only 22 fps between the Max charges of W296 and H110. You can test 10 rounds made from the same jug of powder and get more of a variance in velocity from the two sets of five rounds fired than that!
No company in these litigious times would tell you both powders are the same unless it was absolutely true!
The data posted by gamestalker dis-proved his own theory of them being different. In the first listing there is only a difference of 3 fps from the starting charge of W296 and H110 and only 22 fps between the Max charges of W296 and H110. You can test 10 rounds made from the same jug of powder and get more of a variance in velocity from the two sets of five rounds fired than that!
No company in these litigious times would tell you both powders are the same unless it was absolutely true!
BeerSleeper
Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 688
I emailed Hodgdon for verification that HP38 and Win231 were the same powder. I received no response.ArchAngelCD said:
I have since then come to believe it anyway, based on circumstantial evidence, but I would prefer to hear it "from the horse's mouth". I take the fact that Hodgdon's own load book list HP38 and Win231 right next to each other in every loading, with exact same load data, to be strongly convincing they are the same, but I would love to see a page on hodgdon's website that says it.
Does anyone know the history on HP-38/Win231? They haven't always been the same powder, have they? If so, when did they become the same powder? Did HP-38 become the new formula for 231, or 231 the new formula for HP-38?
I thought I read that Ramshot took WAP and tweaked it to develop Silhouette, which if correct, in my opinion is the difference between "basically" the same powder, and "exactly" the same powder. If Silhouette is "exactly" the same as WAP, I'd be comfortable loading it with WAP data. Otherwise, if it's "basically" the same powder, I'd like to get Silhouette specific data.
As to the original question of mixing powders differently labeled, but known to be the same, I think it comes down to this. Mixing two different powders could have disastrous consequences. The most foolproof way to make sure you never mix incorrect powders is no make sure you never mix any powders. I think that's why some loading books say never to mix any powders (even the dregs of the last can of 231 with the next new can of 231). I think they write these books with liability in mind, and considering the fact that, unfortunately, some of their books will end up in the hands of fools.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
Hodgdon sometimes takes several days to get back to you. They get a lot of email. Yes, HP-38 and W231 have always been the same powders as stated by Hodgdon themselves. I hope you also asked them that question.
- Status
