HP-38 - Win 231 Identical ??

J

jdscholer

New member
HP-38 has pretty much become my favorite light pistol powder, even replacing Bullseye, as it seems to meter better with the light loads. HP seems to have a shiny, slick, probably graphite coating that makes it go through my measure very nicely.

It seems to be widely accepted that it is the same powder as Win 231 using same data, and I'd like to hear from folks who have used both, if they have the same appearance, metering characteristics and such. Are they in fact the same powders??

I've never handled 231, and right now it seems more easily gettable. jd
 
S

SHR970

New member
yes, they are the same powder. have been for quite a while.

check Hodgdon's load data...you'll see that the loads are identical for all cartridges and bullet weights.
 
U

Unclenick

Staff
Yes, both HP-38 and 231 are canister grade versions of St. Marks OBP231 (the bulk grade name). This fact was published in the MSDS sheets until 2009, but the reporting requirements were lightened and the information was dropped.

Other matches between Hodgdon and Winchester are:

H110 = 296
HS6 = 540
H414 = 760
 
N

Nick_C_S

New member
Even the Lot numbers

I know the question has been answered. But I wanted to add that I have personally verified - twice - that HP-38 and W231 can even have the exact same lot numbers. Same propellant - different label.

And it's one of my favorite too. And yes, it does meter slightly better than Bullseye with light drops (not that I have a problem with Bullseye - it meters plenty good enough for me).

HP-38/W231 runs cleaner than Bullseye too. I think that's the biggest difference between the two.

I believe that HP-38/W231 burns ever-so-slighty slower than Bullseye. So with super light loads, I'd give the consistency nod to Bullseye.

I use a lot of both. I use Bullseye exclusively for lead 38 Special and lead 45 ACP ammo. I use HP-38 for both lead and plated bullets for a few calibers. Bullseye is my primary range propellant. But when it comes time for competition with my 38 revolver, I usually (but not always) reach for the ammo loaded with HP-38/W231. Because it runs cleaner, I prefer to use it at competitions - not because it's better ammo, or anything like that. I just prefer a cleaner burn when I'm competitions. When I'm just range shooting and my gun and hands get filthy with powder residue, I can just leave. So Bullseye is just fine for that.

But if I had to give one up, I would have to say bye-bye to the Bullseye and run HP-38/W231 exclusively. I don't know any loader that doesn't like HP-38/W231. It has to be one of the all-time most popular pistol propellants - and for good reason. It's great stuff.
 
Last edited:
S

Signal-0

New member
I just picked up 5 pounds of HP-38... I've always been a W-231 fan so I was happy when I first learned these are the same...
 
G

g.willikers

New member
That's all I used to use before trying some of the other Hodgdon powders.
My favorite is Clays, for the extra cleanliness of it.
Although 231 seems a little more consistent.
Purty good stuff, for sure.
 
T

TMD

New member
Yes they are the same. Sadly I haven't seen either one on the shelves for over a year. Being it's my go to powder for .45acp and I have less than a pound left it has also become cause for concern.
 
N

Nick_C_S

New member
Sadly, I haven't seen either one (W231 or HP-38) on the shelves for over a year. Being it's my go to powder for .45acp and I have less than a pound left it has also become cause for concern.
Click to expand...

TMD, I was in your situation (go-to propellant for 45ACP, and had <1#) this time last year. I kept a watch on line, and finally in January, I was alerted by a TFL friend, that Cabela's had HP-38 available on line. I bought 4 #'s. I have since seen both HP-38 and W231 pop up on line a time or two since then.

So it's around. But you gotta check the websites and Gunbot more than daily. I don't know if you're into on-line powder purchases (I wasn't until desperation set in). But if you buy at least 4 or 5 #'s, the hazmat fee amortizes out to become a decent buy.
 
W

Will-j

New member
Unclenick:
I was aware of HS-6 and W540 being the same and was told years ago that HS-7 and W571 were the same. Any truth to it?

WILL
 
W

wpsdlrg

New member
The HP38/ W231 thing can be confusing for those with limited experience, because, oddly enough, it is still fairly common to find slightly DIFFERENT load data for these "two" powders. Evidently, that data is badly out of date and recalls the time when these were not the same powder. You'd think that all sources would have updated their data to eliminate this problem long ago, but apparently not.
 
W

Will-j

New member
WP;
I would imagine that even today, IF ALL the entities producing loading data were to use powders from the same lot [regardless of burning rate], they would ALL obtain different results in deference to the procedure, equipment and components used in the testing.
I don't think it will ever come to the point where all the data and end results will compare equally.

WILL.
 
P

passtime

New member
I have noticed a difference in load data also wpsdlrg and not always in old data either. An example is in the Hornady 9th edition under 45 auto, top of page 852 and 853.
 
Last edited:
G

GyMac

New member
My powder(s) of choice! While waiting for more to become available, I have laid away 4#s of BE, bought 1# at a time. I hope I never have to use it.
 
W

Will-j

New member
Passtime;
Sorry; I have the manual...I'm looking at the pages, and........I fail to see your point(s) of reference(s).
Can you explain, please?

[7/7/18:02hrs]. Never mind, pass....Put my specs on and reread everything after reading Unclenick's post under mine...
I see what you mean.

WILL.
 
Last edited:
U

Unclenick

Staff
Will-j,

I have a note to the effect that HS-7 and 571 were the same, however, I have it noted under "unconfirmed", because both powders had been discontinued by the time the 2009 MSDS sheets I used for the others was published.

Wpsdlrg and Passtime,

Keep in mind that canister grade powder is now held to ±3% of a nominal burn rate, but with older data the variation was often higher. For today this means that if the HP-38 and 231 tested were a slow lot of the one and a fast lot of the other, something like 0.2 grains of charge difference might be expected for a 185 grain LSWC load of around 4 grains. For the old days when variation was greater, it could be more.

Only Hodgdon has reference lots of their powders that are average burn rate values. This is as part of their QC system. It means only their data is certain to have been put together with average behavior for the powder.
 
J

jdscholer

New member
Bullseye will always have a place in my heart, and I'll always have it around. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if in a serious accuracy test that it still might come out on top.. Be interesting to see that test. jd
 
J

Jim Watson

New member
But since Hodgdon now distributes both W231 and Hp38, the only difference is the label. Brand to brand does not necessarily mean lot to lot.
If you happened to look at Hodgdon data, you would find it identical down to the last fps and psi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top