30-06 and 2400

[Hip's Ax]

Greetings, finally had enough time to sit down and prep some brass and prepare to load some cast in 30-06 for use in my 03 sporter. Was going to start with 311284 and 2400. Now I had done some searching on CB to find out what powder charge folks were using and found that a lot of folks like 16 gr 2400 and found others using 18, 19 and 20. I open up my Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook and find out that the start load for 311284 and 2400 is 19 grains and max is 24 grains. Now, I open the flyleaf of the book and see that the load data was probably written in 1980, has the burn rate of 2400 changed so much over the years that now no one goes above 20 grains? Or, is everyone on this board just into soft recoil loads that provide the desired accuracy? I'm not in the habit of going below min or above max on load data but I must say that I am use to having loading data that is quite a bit fresher than circa 1980. TIA

[Billwnr]

I shoot 16.5 grains of 2400 and a 180 grain bullet because of the accuracy. Velocity is about 1500 fps.

[Bass Ackward]

HA,

Accuracy is where you find it. If the combination of all your variables takes 20 grains to generate 1500-1800 fps, then 20 grains will be your load. If you can generate that velocity with 16 grains, then .......

Personally, I do better with powders between 4759 and 4198 for heavier bullets (>190) at what are considered normal cast velocities in an 06.

2400 might have some edge for <180 grains.

[NVcurmudgeon]

Ax, the burning riate of 2400 HAS gotten faster since the change from Hercules to Allliant. For example, some shooters are finding Elmer Keith's classic .44 Magnum load should be reduced a couple of grains. Another factor is C.E. Harris' recommendation of 16.0 X 2400 in any modern milsurp of 7mm, .30, .31, or 8mm calibers as a very accurate cast boolit load. I use 16.0 X 2400 in several calibers including .30/06. Muzzle velocity is not much over 1400 fps, but I seldom shoot farther than 200 yd. For longer ranges I would look seriously at 21.0 X 2400, mv 1688 fps, or 24.0 X 2400, mv 1838 fps, in order to avoid dropping into the transonic area. But for 99 44/100% of my shooting, the 16.0 grain load is hard to beat.

[Char-Gar]

The folks who write the handbooks have different goals than those of us who reload cast bullets in rifles.

The handbook folks are just worried about pressure and accuracy concerns are very much secondary.

There is also the specter of liability. The will take zero chance that anything they put in print might come back to haunt them in court. Therefore there are redundant safety margins built into their data.

The only risk in going lower than loadbook minimum loads is the possibility of sticking a bullet in the barrel. That risk is WAY below their minimums.

Powders like 2400 are great cast bullet powders, providing you dont try to use pressure that push the bullets much past 1.8K fps. There is no danger is going faster, just lousy accuracy. A slower powder will produce better accuracy at speeds above 1.8K fps.

When it comes to cast bullet shooting, loadbooks are of limited use. There are so many variables for published data to be anything but a general signpost pointing the way forward or back.

[Hip's Ax]

Thanks folks, I'll start at 16 and work up slowly and see how it goes.

[Larry Gibson]

Ax, the burning riate of 2400 HAS gotten faster since the change from Hercules to Allliant. For example, some shooters are finding Elmer Keith's classic .44 Magnum load should be reduced a couple of grains.

It would be interesting to get a difinative word on that from Alliant.
I have recently read posts (one on this forum) that Alliant was contacted and they said there was no change between the old and the new 2400. I recently used up the last of my old 2400 with Keith's load (22 gr 2400 under a 250 gr CAST bullet) in a new RBH 50th Anniversary. I then got a new can of Alliant 2400 and worked up a load. I found 22 gr of the neww exactly equaled the old in velocity, ES and SD. There were no indications of increased preasure. I have subsequently tried loads of new 2400 in other cartridges equal to previous loads of old with both jacketed and cast bullets. In every instance performance was equal between them. It is my belief from reading of this over the years that shooters whenloading fro .44 mags substituted a 240 gr jacketed bullet for the cast. In that case I have found 21 gr 2400 to be the "max" load. Though Keith used 22 gr with his 250 gr bullet the load was originall developed for use with 240 gr bullets, a careful reading of Keiths writings will reveal that. At any rate it is my finding so far that the new 2400 is the same as the old 2400. Further testing may prove different and I am open to that but so far I've not seen any difference as I ran a "side by side" comparison. Would be good to hear from others who have run a side by side comparison.

Larry Gibson

[Char-Gar]

Larry... When the new Alliant 2400 came out, John Taffin ran some side by side tests and concluded that Alliant was 6% faster than Hercules. This has not been published in magazine form but JT did post it on his web site.

I have also head that Alliant "quickened" 2400 a mite to make it up to specs for submission for a govt. contract.

Any number of folks have related how they have had to back their powder charges off with the new stuff. Then there are folks like you who see know difference. I take all of that to mean the differences in firearms.

[Larry Gibson]

Larry... When the new Alliant 2400 came out, John Taffin ran some side by side tests and concluded that Alliant was 6% faster than Hercules. This has not been published in magazine form but JT did post it on his web site.

I have also head that Alliant "quickened" 2400 a mite to make it up to specs for submission for a govt. contract.

Any number of folks have related how they have had to back their powder charges off with the new stuff. Then there are folks like you who see know difference. I take all of that to mean the differences in firearms.

Yup, I've heard all that to and read numerous times where the newAlliant seems faster than the old Hercules. But on the other hand I've also heard that Alliant says they've made no changes. I didn't pay all that much attention until recently when I finally was abut done with the last old 2400 I've had for some time and picked up a new jug of the Alliant 2400. Started working up loads for the new .44 and darned if I didn't find 22 gr under the Keith 250 to be almost exactly the same with both the old and the new. I loaded some .357s with 358156 bullets and darned if the same charge with both old and new 2400 didn't give within a couple fps of each other. Note of interest is that the old 2400 with both the .44 and .357 was a few fps faster than the new. No indication of any difference in pressures. I also loaded some 311291s in an '06 and '08 with both and found with equal charges velocity to be the same. Same with a favorite load with some 123 SPs in a 7.65 - same velocity with both using equal charges. I realize there is always some difference between lots of the same powder. Some like 4895 can differ as much as +/- 5%. I'm wondering if some have had a slow lot of old 2400 and compared it to a fast lot of new 2400. The 6% JT repoerts is within many lot to lot variations. I'm not saying I'm right here nor saying I'm wrong. I'm just asking for other input from those who have experimented.

Larry Gibson

[StarMetal]

AND THE WINNER IS? Larry Gibson!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Okay, what am I talking about. I called Alliant today and had a rather lenghty converation with an engineer. Here's what he said. First off there is absolutely positively no 2400 being made for any military or government project. Okay with that said he said that the current 2400 is made using the same original recipe. He said that the powder has to meet specifications of time of burn and energy and also that these requirements have to be met both by a weight charge and a volume charge. He said that there are definately a minimum and maximum leeway. With that said he said that anyone that loaded on the extreme edge of maximum with one of powder that was say on the minimum of energy requirement, then they bought a new can new lot and it was on the maximum side of the specifications, that their load would definately show high pressure signs or worse. He said that they hear this claim that new 2400 is faster not only from individual, but recognized authorities, one which he named, Hodgdons. He also said that he would talk to the chemist that brew up the stuff and ask them direct for me if there is any difference at all between the 2400 Elmer Keith used and todays and call me. He said that no slow pistol powder was 100 percent clean burning in that they left unburned granules in the gun, not as in carbon fouling. He also said the load had alot to do with how much is burned up and not. He went on to say that he thought 2400 was the cleanest burning of the slow pistols powders in the respect I just mentioned.

You're welcome
Joe

[NVcurmudgeon]

A friend of mine ran into definite pressure signs when he began loading Alliant in the same amount as he had been used to loading with Hercules. This was in an Early Ruger Super Blackhawk, with 22.0 gr. 2400 behind a 250 gr. Keith style PB SWC. Maybe with his combination of components, 22.0 was maximum, and lot-to-lot variation was the culprit in his overloads. Dunno, I shot the gun with both loads. The Hercules was OK, and the Alliant was hotter than I'm comfortable with. Anyhow, my Ruger owning friend and I agree that we didn't get this old by ignoring pressure signs. OTOH, in moderate rifle CB loads, the difference between Hercules and Alliant doesn't cut any ice. Maximum loads are another story, as Hollerman's super Blackhawk demonstrated.

[Larry Gibson]

Thanks Joe, guess that pretty much sums up why I'm getting the same results with the new as I did with the old. I'm taking off for NE Oregon on Wednesday for deer season. Was wanting to work up a load for the .35 Rem with the RCBS 200 gr FP bullet but I had to go to Camp Shelby< MS for a week and it really ate into my prep time. Looks like the only cast bullet I'll have on me is the 250 Keith over 22 gr 2400 in the new Ruger. Might get lucky and catch a close one.....if not I have faith in the '06.

Larry Gibson

[StarMetal]

Bill,

All I can say to that is maybe your friend had Hercules that was on the minimum side and the newer Alliant is on the maximum side just like the engineer told me.

Who's to know what changes take place in older powders too. Think of how many times that can has been opened and close. The moisture content might be different between the two. Before you say he weighed the charges of both the old and new, don't forget the formula they mix up is tested by weight, volume, burn time, energy released, who knows what else, we don't work there in their lab.

Joe

[robertbank]

Thanks Joe. You confirmed a long held belief of mine. If you want to know someting go to the source. Sure beats pounding the key boards with a 50% chance of getting it right.

Take Care

Bob

[Bass Ackward]

Joe,

Did he mention that they dropped the nitro content? This is another thing you here. Old was supposed to be 20% which was why it gained a lot of position insensitivity fame, but supposedly it was dropped to 10%. That would have to make some difference in energy value.

[StarMetal]

John,

He said it was the exact same formula for making it as it was from day one. We'll know more when and if he gets back to me. I'll keep hounding him for the answers. You know I was thinking, they did change almost all their powders to burn cleaner, so that can't be the SAME formula, right????

Joe

[unique]

The way Alliant made their powders cleaner burning was to better control the grain dimensions. By making them more uniform, they burned more consistent and hence were cleaner. The actual formulation of their powders did not change.

Think of it this way, if you have a batch of powder where the grain size varies considerably, the short grain will burn faster and more complete than the long grain. The burn rate of the powder is affected by the ratio of long to short grains.

A powder burns dirty when the combustion is incomplete which is pressure dependent. A longer grain requires higher pressure to burn as clean as a shorter grain.

Now if you make all the grains the same, then combustion is more efficient and hence cleaner burning and more consistent from lot-to-lot as one parameter (grain variation batch-to-batch) has been minimized.

I have examine old Hercule's and new Alliant 2400 under a microscope and noticed two things. One the Hercules powder has a much thicker graphite coating and two the grain dimensions for the Hercules powder vary much more than the Alliant powder.

The info about controlling grain length was supplied by Alliant in response to an email I sent inquiring about the change to my beloved Unique powder to allow it to burn cleaner. Same powder, tighter manufacturing tolerances.

[StarMetal]

So, in your opinion, do you think this change, changed the speed any at all?

Joe

[unique]

Since you asked for an opinion...

I think the Alliant 2400 ignites easier which I believe accounts for the descrepancy that people are seeing. Being easier to ignite, the initial pressure rise may be slightly faster for the Alliant powder.

I know Speer recommends to NOT use a mag primer with new Alliant powder which lends credibility to this theory.

Overall I treat the two 2400's as the same unless I am loading near max (rarely do) in which case I treat the Alliant as a tad faster.

[Larry Gibson]

Since you asked for an opinion...

I think the Alliant 2400 ignites easier which I believe accounts for the descrepancy that people are seeing. Being easier to ignite, the initial pressure rise may be slightly faster for the Alliant powder.

I know Speer recommends to NOT use a mag primer with new Alliant powder which lends credibility to this theory.

Overall I treat the two 2400's as the same unless I am loading near max (rarely do) in which case I treat the Alliant as a tad faster.

Heck Unique, Elmer Keith always recommended standard primers vs magnum primers with his 22/2400/250 SWC loads. I'd venture a guess that Elmer never shot a single load of Alliant 2400. I suppose I could run a test of magnum vs regular primers. I've been using WLPs for a number of years but I could pick up some CCI 300 and 350s and compare them against each other. Using magnum primers may very well cause pressures to rise faster.

Larry Gibson

[robertbank]

I went through a 1,000 Win Small Pistol Magnum Primers that I bought by mistake. I found no difference in velocities using loads of Unique between magnum and regular primers in my 9MM guns. Got the adice from this board to go ahead and use them up.

Take Care

Bob

[Newtire]

Greetings, finally had enough time to sit down and prep some brass and prepare to load some cast in 30-06 for use in my 03 sporter. Was going to start with 311284 and 2400. Now I had done some searching on CB to find out what powder charge folks were using and found that a lot of folks like 16 gr 2400 and found others using 18, 19 and 20. TIA

Hey Hip
Just finished shooting some RCBS 165 gr. Silhouette with 17 gr. 2400 (Alliant new stuff) in my .30-06's. Both a Sprinfield and a M70 were liking the 17 gr. load alot! Up around 20 gr. things began to spread out. I also found a range with H-4895 of 33-36 gr. Going up to 42 opened that load up. I was using 2-separate 175 gr. boolits with the H-4895. Plan on trying out those powders with a new 311467 mold that I won on E-bay that throws the bullets out at 191gr. with a check attached.
Will post results. Keep us up to date on your progress huh...

[Hip's Ax]

Thanks for the info New. I'm interested in your results with the 311467 as I have that mold too. It might be a while now before I get to the range, smallbore winter indoor league is starting a month early this year for no apparent reason, with luck I'll get out and shoot in the next two or three weeks. :Fire:

[Newtire]

Thanks for the info New. I'm interested in your results with the 311467 as I have that mold too. It might be a while now before I get to the range, smallbore winter indoor league is starting a month early this year for no apparent reason, with luck I'll get out and shoot in the next two or three weeks. :Fire:

OK Hip,
I loaded up some of the 311467's and they had to be seated with the base below the neck. I don't think that's the best situation but had great success doing that in my 30-30 Ackley. Due to the longer case/shorter neck, ended up having to do that to get them to feed. This was with the 311407 which is the exact same bullet as the 311467 but with a flat-nose and slightly shorter length. We will see. I would like to recover a few just to see if there is any flame-cutting going on. I had the same situation with the 311332, so am going to be trying both loads ina few weeks. Will let you know. Am going to try some RX-7, H-4895, and some good old 2400.

[Hip's Ax]

Thanks for the info New, wow, I didn't realize those bullets were that long. I have 1000 or so 311467's in #2 alloy sitting on my bench, guess there will be no magazine feeding for me. Thats ok, I'm a one shot at a time kind of guy anyway. [smilie=1:

[9.3X62AL]

Unique--

If you haven't been welcomed here before, WELCOME ABOARD!

Your statement stands to reason regarding observed behavioral changes in Alliant 2400 powder from the Hercules fuel. We do tend to "worry" things like fuel speed changes between lots while ignoring the largest potential variable of all--the plaform used to fire the cartridges. I think you and Chargar pretty much nailed the landing on this vault.

[unique]

Thank You for your Welcome. Although these were my first posts I have been reading and learning from you all for so long that I began to feel like an oldtimer here. This really is good place to learn and share ideas and I thank all members for that.

[Bret4207]

I'm still burning 2400, Unique, Bullseye and a bunch of other powders from the late 70's/early 80's that I've had on hand that long, since the gunshop closed in '85. IIRC I do have a new can of Unique opened and noticed no difference.

My intent in this post is to repeat and old adage that each can of powder is a law unto itself. Even powder from the same lot can vary from can to can, kind of like paint from the same mix. I'm wondering if this might account for some of the "differences" folks notice.

[Newtire]

I just put some 311467 together at 3.300" and they do feed thru my Springfield. They also will chamber. That is what limits me with the M70. They just don't fit and won't chamber. Guess it's a Springfield boolit.

[Paul B]

I've used 16.0 gr. of both the Hercules and Alliant version in a .308 Win. and several 30-06 rifles. I haven't really noticed a big difference in the rifles, but I have in my handguns. Bullets used have been Lyman's #311291, 311467, 311644 and the RCBS 30-180-FN and 30-180-SIL.
In the .308, accuracy at 200 yards has run right at 1.5 MOA from a Winchester M70, and at 2.5 MOA at 300 yards from a Savage 110S silhouette rifle. At least that's what they do when I do my part. The 30-06 hasn't done quite so well with groups running from 1.5 to 2.0" at 100 yards. More work needed there.
In my handguns, I had to freduce the load for my .357 mag. 1.5 grains and in the .44 mag., I had to drop Elmer's pet load by two grains in order to insure easy extraction. I do believe #2400 by Alliant is a bit faster, at least in my handguns.
One load I do like in the 30-06 is 25.0 gr. of IMR-4895. Accuracy runs about 1.5" when I do my part with #311644. I size all my bullets to .310" for 30 caliber.
Paul B.

[Newtire]

Thanks for the info New. I'm interested in your results with the 311467 as I have that mold too. It might be a while now before I get to the range, smallbore winter indoor league is starting a month early this year for no apparent reason, with luck I'll get out and shoot in the next two or three weeks. :Fire:

Sorry about taking so long to get back with results on the 311467. Seated at 3.055, using 27.7 gr. RX-7, they shot a 5-shot group of 5/8" at 50 yds. out of my Model 70.

[Willbird]

Guys..........................now I just have to ask..............for the sake of us 42 year old guys.............don't call data and powder from the EIGHTIES old................OLD powder that I have is marked between $1 and $3 per lb.................and it is still good powder :-).

the OLD 2400 they talk about as far as I know was REALLY old, so old it was middle aged when I was born in 1964 hehe


Bill

[TCLouis]

I use 13.5 grains of 2400 in my Enfield.

A lot of people use more but that is the sweet spot for that gun. Pretty slow as I remember the chrono data, either 1350 or 1550 fps.
Slow boolit is good is some ways, it teaches me to follow-through.

[Newtire]

I use 13.5 grains of 2400 in my Enfield.

A lot of people use more but that is the sweet spot for that gun. Pretty slow as I remember the chrono data, either 1350 or 1550 fps.
Slow boolit is good is some ways, it teaches me to follow-through.

I agree on the sweet spot with the 150 grainers being low on the powder. I found, in the .30-06, a very boring sounding 11.7 gr. charge of Unique With that little boolit to be a very accurate plinker. Any more and the groups open up. With the 170-175 gr. variety, I am using 12.5 gr. of the same powder (Unique). I was using 17 gr. of the Alliant 2400 and the 173 gr. group-buy 311407 with good results but will play with that a little more.