Winchester 231 Powder

[JHTexas]

I like W231 and use it in 9mm and now 357 magnum target loads. However, for a long time now I’ve been convinced it was superior to CFE Pistol in my 9mm loads. After a fair bit of testing I found I was wrong. They’re about the same as far as I can tell. I’ve had a jar of CFE Pistol sitting idle in the shelf until on a whim I decided the compare them. At least now I won’t feel like I’m making lesser loads with the CFE P.

CFE Pistol has worked really well for me in all of my heavy loads 9mm & 45 acp, but I didn’t have good accuracy in light to medium in 45 acp. If I can’t find other options I may try it again.

 

[WeekendReloader]

Given the current availability I can’t get W231 or HP-38.
I can get WST and some of you may have compared these in the past.
I’ll be using it with 45 acp 200gr and 230gr using lead, plated, and FMJ.
Loads are light to medium velocities

I tried some Ramshot ZIP last summer. It performed very similar to Win231/HP-38 in 9mm for me. Bonus is that Zip has been available quite often, even when all other powders were sold out.
Warning: When out of the bottle, Zip looks just like 321/HP-38, so be careful not to mix them up on your bench. They are different powders and will likely require different charge weights.

 

[JHTexas]

I tried some Ramshot ZIP last summer. It performed very similar to Win231/HP-38 in 9mm for me. Bonus is that Zip has been available quite often, even when all other powders were sold out.
Warning: When out of the bottle, Zip looks just like 321/HP-38, so be careful not to mix them up on your bench. They are different powders and will likely require different charge weights.

I’ll check tomorrow to see if it’s in stock and try it.
Thanks

 

[Blue68f100]

Given the current availability I can’t get W231 or HP-38.
I can get WST and some of you may have compared these in the past.
I’ll be using it with 45 acp 200gr and 230gr using lead, plated, and FMJ.
Loads are light to medium velocities

I use WST for 200gr and 185gr mouse to mid range loads. Works just fine. WST gets a little moody at the top end, but shoots good. A lot of BE shooter use it for reduced loads. It burns clean even below starting min. Remember WST is a reverse temp sensitive powder. Temp goes up velocity goes down. Don't have to worry about it over cooking on a hot day. I use WSF for my heavier loads.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Don't have to worry about it over cooking on a hot day.

That's why it used to be popular down here with reloaders. I use it sometimes for 200gr. LRN loads. Like you say, it's not a Hi-Vel powder for .45ACP.

 

[JHTexas]

I use WST for 200gr and 185gr mouse to mid range loads. Works just fine. WST gets a little moody at the top end, but shoots good. A lot of BE shooter use it for reduced loads. It burns clean even below starting min. Remember WST is a reverse temp sensitive powder. Temp goes up velocity goes down. Don't have to worry about it over cooking on a hot day. I use WSF for my heavier loads.

That's why it used to be popular down here with reloaders. I use it sometimes for 200gr. LRN loads. Like you say, it's not a Hi-Vel powder for .45ACP.

Thanks for the information on how it changes with temperature.
That would be a good fit here in Texas!

 

[dannyd]

I use WST for 200gr and 185gr mouse to mid range loads. Works just fine. WST gets a little moody at the top end, but shoots good. A lot of BE shooter use it for reduced loads. It burns clean even below starting min. Remember WST is a reverse temp sensitive powder. Temp goes up velocity goes down. Don't have to worry about it over cooking on a hot day. I use WSF for my heavier loads.

Just started using WST with HBWC"s works good; had three pounds for loading shotgun slugs. Trying to look for powders that cover a wide range; cast bullets for pistol, rifle and loads for shotguns.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Above someone posted about a 2 power guy, W231/W296.
I almost agree but I'm actually a 3 power guy.
W231 - HP-38
W540 - HS-6 (W540 is of course discontinued)
W296 - H110

If by any chance W231 is discontinued I could use W244 and be happy.
If by any chance HS-6 is discontinued I could use W572 and be happy.

I also agree Ramshot Zip is a PO set that performs a lot like W231. It's a good powder IMO.

 

[Show Me]

I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve read over the years that HP-38 & W231 were the same powder so does someone have any idea why the current Speer manual treats them as separate powders in their 38 Special & 357 Magnum loads? For the bullets where both powders are listed Speer gives different starting and maximum loads which seems odd if the powders are the same.

It's been written many times. Just like h110 and 296. Testing powders isn't exact. Different days different lots different results.

 

[Bosn Ski]

I worked up my loads for W231 and found my pet load. Now I have HP-38. Since it is clearly obvious that both powders are the same... Can I use my W231 data for HP-38 and vice versa?

Thanks!

 

[black mamba]

As long as your pet load is not near max pressure, I'd load 5 each at .2 gr under, the pet load, and .2 gr over. If the pet load is close to max, I'd still back off 10% and work back up.

 

[Targa]

Since it is clearly obvious that both powders are the same... Can I use my W231 data for HP-38 and vice versa?

Thanks!

Yes

 

[SSN Vet]

I use W231 and HP-38 interchangeably....

4.3 to 4.5 gr. behind a 124 gr. pill for 9mm Luger
5.3 to 5.5 gr. behind a 230 gr. pill for .45 acp.
3.8 to 4.0 gr. behind a 158 gr. pill for 38 special

Clean, reliable, accurate.... may not max out velocity in either but close enough for my money.

 

[SSN Vet]

does someone have any idea why the current Speer manual treats them as separate powders in their 38 Special & 357 Magnum loads? For the bullets where both powders are listed Speer gives different starting and maximum loads which seems odd if the powders are the same.

I believe you'll find that the older data for one of the powders published the max. pressure in copper units of pressure (CUP), which is an older system that uses a standardized test rig that ports chamber pressure to squeeze a copper slug, with the resulting deformation of the slug corresponding to chamber pressure. The other powder had newer data that was recorded using a electronic pressure transducers that measures in psi and can plot chamber pressure over time very accurately.

Some will say you can convert CUP data to psi with a conversion factor, but I've read that the CUP does not correspond 1:1 over the full range of pressures and that you should not rely upon any conversion factors.

 

[daverich4]

I believe you'll find that the older data for one of the powders published the max. pressure in copper units of pressure (CUP), which is an older system that uses a standardized test rig that ports chamber pressure to squeeze a copper slug, with the resulting deformation of the slug corresponding to chamber pressure. The other powder had newer data that was recorded using a electronic pressure transducers that measures in psi and can plot chamber pressure over time very accurately.

Some will say you can convert CUP data to psi with a conversion factor, but I've read that the CUP does not correspond 1:1 over the full range of pressures and that you should not rely upon any conversion factors.

I don’t think that’s correct as they don’t publish two sets of data for any other powder. Why would they do that just for W231/HP-38?

 

[JDinFbg]

I don’t think that’s correct as they don’t publish two sets of data for any other powder. Why would they do that just for W231/HP-38?

What I have observed from looking at loading data in newer loading manuals and online data sources is that some older test data seems to have been repeated, particularly for some of the older 'classic' powders (e.g. W231) that have been around for eons and used in cartridges that have also been around for eternity. I have noted this often occurs for many of the Winchester powders which were originally tested and data published by Winchester decades ago. Loading data providers cannot feasibly test (re-test) every powder in every applicable cartridge every time they publish a new loading manual or online data source. I highly suspect the loading data you see for W231/HP-38 were not tested in the same time frame, using the same testing equipment, and by the same testing laboratory. You can look through one of the newer loading manuals like the Lyman 50th Edition and find a mixture of pressure data listed as P.S.I, C.U.P, and many cartridges where no pressure data is listed at all. Even for the same cartridge (e.g., 35 Whelen), the Lyman manual lists pressure data for some bullet weights in C.U.P. and others in P.S.I., thus this clearly tells me some older data was 'borrowed' for some bullet weights, and they only tested the newer bullet weights using current state-of-the-art testing equipment when they published the manual.

 

[SSN Vet]

I don’t think that’s correct as they don’t publish two sets of data for any other powder. Why would they do that just for W231/HP-38?

My observation comes from Lee's load manual, which is really just a compilation of public domain data from powder manufacturer's. They reference chamber pressures in CUP for W231. They have chamber pressures listed in psi. for HP-38, with slightly higher max. loads.

 

[mavracer]

Powder can vary from lot to lot.
Data from different sources use different lots so data and pressure can be different.
40 years ago when I started reloading Hodgdon blended several lots of powder Olin made for Winchester. Now Hodgdon manufactures the same powder and puts Winchester labels on some lots and Hodgdon labels on others.
And powder still can vary from lot to lot.
HP38 and WW231 are the same powder as much as HP38 is the same as HP38 with a different lot number.

 

[daverich4]

My observation comes from Lee's load manual, which is really just a compilation of public domain data from powder manufacturer's. They reference chamber pressures in CUP for W231. They have chamber pressures listed in psi. for HP-38, with slightly higher max. loads.

Speer doesn’t do their own testing? They simply publish data from other sources?

 

[SSN Vet]

Speer doesn’t do their own testing? They simply publish data from other sources?

I said Lee... Lee doesn't make powder or components and their Modern Reloading II is a compilation of public domain data.

my impression has always been that the bullet manufacturer's do their own testing and publish the results in their proprietary manuals.... so that data is copywrite protected... probably because bullets of equal diameter and weight are similar enough for the data to be used by competitors for their products..

Powder manufacturer's also do testing, but that test data appears to be released into the public domain, as it is specifically for their powders.