TargetTalk

I got an old can of HP 38 from a friend about a year ago. The can is now very close to empty and I am looking for more. It is NOT ballpowder in this can, it's flakes slightly larger than Bullseye. Very thin flakes and doesn't work at all in a Lyman 55 but it's no problem in my Star so I have used it with much pleasure in my Pardini 32 s&w l. I get very nice groups with this powder at any chargeweight between 1.6 and 2.0 and I get no leading at all in the barrelthroat even with pbwc cast from pure lead.As comparison, leading occurs if I use WW 310 or Vectan ba10 for plainbase bullets of any kind. I do not have experience of anything else.
So, any suggestions of equivalent powders? What do you prefer?

HP38 AND WINCHESTER 231 ARE THE SAME POWDER IN DIFFERENT CANS. WE USED TO BUY IT FROM STAR BULLETS IN 30LB DRUMS.IT HAD BOTH IDS ON THE LABEL. IF YOU CHECK THE HODGDON WEB SITE FOR LOADING DATA THEY LIST BOTH POWDERS WITH IDENTICAL CHARGES AND RESULTS. JP

Thank you for answering. But I repeat; this is flakepowdwer. In an old can.
HP 38 and W231 were not the same before... some 10-20 years ago?

The "flakes" are flattened ball powder. I don't remember it ever looking like, say, H110.

Yes, HP38 and 231 are the same powder, but different lots (small variation.)

Be very careful, If it is indeed a flake powder, it is NOT HP-38. It is something else that was put in that bottle, DO NOT USE IT. You don't know what it is.
Gort

I don't know why some of you have such a hard time believing me, but:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aylISDrYYLc

I do believe that they are the same, nowadays.
But I see opinions vary strongly about the past. I see differences in old burning charts and reloaddata.
Anyway, what's the difference between flakes and flakes
made by flattening balls?
I tried to put a picture here but I failed. So...description;
The can looks like they do today." Quality propellants for over 50 years" is the only other thread on age.
The FLAKES are not equal to each other. Variations are between ca 0.4 -0.8 in mostly oval shape. None of them
thicker than 0.17. Measures are metric and color is grey as old lead.
W231 cans says "ballpowder".

I like this data base website for powders; you may also.

http://www.ilrc.ucf.edu/powders/index.php

Enjoy;
Clarence

Well, I didn't know for sure myself, so I dug up a couple of samples to compare.

I once used enormous amount of 230 and 231.. I have never used HP 38 but have an old cardboard can.
The 230 is very dark, but the same basic texture as the others.. The HP38 and 231 are almost indistinguishable, except for some very minor color variation which is probably normal lot to lot..

Ok. My powder looks like that. I' ll get a new can of flaky balls. Thank you. I will enjoy these pages.

I remember reading about color variations in different lots of a specific rifle powder; apparently it is common to tweak burn rates with coatings (often graphite) should the powder test a little off from spec. That's probably the difference between the 2 pics of 231 above.

jky

I used 230 then hp38 when 230 was discontinued. Then found 231 when hp38 was hard to find.

230 loaded more like Bullseye as I recall...

What do you guy think of this powder (HP38/W231) for 45 acp LSWC light loads? I ask because I have a full jug, and have not tried it yet.

In my experience, 231 is somewhat erratic (and dirty) in light loads. 231 was developed for 9mm service loads operating at 33,000psi, it is not uniform at 13,000psi as in a light .45 load. I have had much better results with WST, a similar burn rate but it was formulated as a shotgun powder (13,000psi), so it is very uniform and clean in a low pressure environment.
Gort

I spoke to a brand new frend of mine yesterday. His HP 38 is balls. Not flattened.

j danielsson wrote:I spoke to a brand new frend of mine yesterday. His HP 38 is balls. Not flattened.

Well, since the universally accepted answer is "they are the same"

and your friends HP38 has balls. I suggest talking to Hodgdon themselves and getting the real story from them.

National Center for Forensic Science says....