Alliant 2400 ideal pressure range

[pipehand]

Al, I didn't know the reputation of Blue Dot acting weird in the cold was due to a report of use in MINUS 35 DEGREES Farenheit! It won't get that cold here in S.C. unless we have a pole shift, but I bet there are guys who won't use it hunting ducks when its 40 degrees out because they heard it doesn't work well in the cold. I've been out in ten below, but at 35 below the only thing I'm hunting is a place to get warm.

[DrCaveman]

9.3

Good points. You are probably dead right about the lawyer/liability aspect

I suppose I am better off just asking people about various specific loads and their results

Add to that I have no pressure testing equipment, and loads outside published data of course do not have published pressure data

I guess there are still too many factors to provide a very useful chart like I am proposing

[hottrodscars]

If I want the tightest pattern in 12 gauge 000 buckshot, I use 45 grains of 2400 powder. Makes that big BOOM sound, I call them my "cannon shells". - - Lance, Rockford, IL. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoJe5Z6u1_E

[Blackwater]

Some very excellent comments and observations. Only thing I can add is that, generally at least, the burning rate of the powders we choose tend to determine what kind of results we get, and that slower powders CAN, at least often, yield higher velocities with cast. It's a very old trick to, if we want to shoot higher velocities, to change to a slower powder. This has been described as giving the boolits a "longer, slower push," but ANY shot is PDQ, so this is a relative sort of statement.

Conversely, if we want a slower load for some reason, a faster burning powder will likely do that and still burn clean and give good accuracy. Lighter bullets generally do better with faster powders, at least relatively, and heavier ones generally like the slower powders, but again, this is in a relative sense.

It all goes back to the concept of a "balanced load," which was promoted during the old black powder days, but still has relevance as a good concept today with smokeless.

Getting a specific level of performance often starts at the beginning with our choice of powders. If we just want something that goes "pop" and lets us learn better how to handle our guns and make good shots, and recoil isn't a factor, then a faster burning powder and lighter bullet will be cheaper, probably satisfactory with a little load testing to get the best accuracy, and is easy on our lead and powder supply - not always small factors.

If we want a real boomer for deer, then a slower powder and heavier bullet are probably in order.

The "cat sneeze" loads seem to defy this general principle, however, by combining heavy bullets and fast powders at very minimal levels, but when you really think about it, it's very logical as well. The whole principle of the "cat sneeze" loads is simply that they be as quiet as possible, and the only way to get best performance in that regard is to use the fastest powder in the minimum levels that won't stick a bullet in the barrel due to insufficient charge/gas creation to push the bullet all the way out the barrel. This produced minimal pressure at the muzzle, and thus, the quietest report.

Reloading will always require some cogitation and good judgment in our choices of powder and bullet, AND must be confirmed on the target range and from a bench rest. When testing loads, we really HAVE to have a good rest and good bags to get really valid tests of the ammo. Once we know that, THEN we can start shooting from improvised rests, offhand, etc, but testing ammo is no time to allow outside factors intrude into our proceedures, lest we misinterpret the results' meaning due to extraneous variables.

It's the judgment part that's the slowest in coming, because it's based on a lot of reading, mainly, to get to a point where we understand what's going on with our loads, and why.

It also helps to understand why stick, flake and ball powders differ, and why most ball powders don't like being downloaded. With everybody and his brother wanting everything to be "easy" nowadays, and a quick learn, many just don't do the due diligence and read, or sometimes even BUY the loading manuals. Each one's front section has great and often differing info on different subjects that relate to what we do. I've read and re-read them many times, and I've got a good many manuals, too! Each time I re-read them, I refresh my memory, read things that remind me of lessons I learned that prove the rules, and just solidify and keep me mindful of what it is that we do, and why, and the consequences of taking it too lightly. That's a very GOOD thing!

[Doggonekid]

I don't worry about 2400 anymore. I haven't seen it on the shelf round here for a year or two. My guess the sweet spot would be on my shelf.

[Kosh75287]

I don't claim any "special knowledge" about 2400, but if memory serves, it was used/marketed for use in .22 Hornet, so it may be optimized for that cartridge's pressure range. I know that 2400 is MUCH more forgiving of being "underloaded" than H110, so it allows me to creep up on loads for my desired velocities using a more gradual approach. The most "thunderous" load I have used with any frequency is in a .45 Colt Ruger Redhawk, to launch a 250 grain RNFP to 1150 + 50 f/s in a 7.5" barrel. The 2400 didn't burn completely until I got over the 1000 f/s mark, but then it burned and worked wonderfully.

I also seem to recall that H110 was developed for use in the .30 Carbine round, which (IIRC) has a nominal chamber pressure of 46,000 p.s.I. This may explain its cantankerous behavior when lower pressure loads are attempted with it.

[Motor]

9.3

Good points. You are probably dead right about the lawyer/liability aspect

I suppose I am better off just asking people about various specific loads and their results

Add to that I have no pressure testing equipment, and loads outside published data of course do not have published pressure data

I guess there are still too many factors to provide a very useful chart like I am proposing

Where did you find your 2400 data for 45-70? I haven't been able to locate any.

Motor

[fecmech]

I also seem to recall that H110 was developed for use in the .30 Carbine round, which (IIRC) has a nominal chamber pressure of 46,000 p.s.I. This may explain its cantankerous behavior when lower pressure loads are attempted with it.

Yet it's very happy in .410 target loads at approx 11,000psi

[Blackwater]

Good point, and it's always seemed to me, though some will have more experience with it than I do in rifles, but it's always seemed that the bigger the case, the lower the pressure it'll burn well at. In other words, it'll burn decently in an '06 case at a lower pressure than in a .30/30 or .308. This is totally counterintuitive, but then, I haven't shot nearly as many rifle rounds as I have handguns, so that may be a factor as well?

[OldManMontgomery]

From experience and some reading of loading manuals, Lloyd Brownell's book Firearms Pressure Factors and some other stuff, like Hatcher's Notebook, then looking at the results of a Powley Computer, I have discerned some guidelines about powder use.

Yes. Every - EVERY - powder works best in a certain pressure range. By 'best', I refer to complete and uniform burn without 'spiking' or generating pressure excursions not subject to prediction or calculation. Generally speaking, the 'faster' the powder, the lower the 'certain pressure range' or 'sweet spot'. Generally, 'slower' powders have higher pressure levels for a sweet spot.

Heavier bullets demand slower powders for maximum velocity. This is also a relative matter. For instance, a 180 grain bullet in a .308 Winchester is 'heavier' - relatively - than a 200 grain bullet in a .44 Magnum. Which leads me to think bullets with higher sectional density demand 'slower' powders, generally.

Arms with large expansion ratios demand 'faster' powders. Expansion ratio is the ratio between the 'burning chamber volume' of a loaded round with the total volume of the chamber and barrel to the muzzle. Obviously, a 12 gauge shotgun has a higher expansion ratio than a .22-250 Remington. The internal area increases far more rapidly in each inch of payload (bullet, shot, wad, etc) in the 12 gauge than the .22-250. So the burn rate has to 'keep up' faster with the 12 gauge; whereas a 'fast' burning rate in a .22-250 would build up pressure too fast for the action's good.

The limits of the arm play into this. One can get some serious velocity and power from a .45-70 cartridge, but one finds overloading a Trapdoor Springfield far too easy. The original trapdoor loads were (by modern standards) fairly light. In a converted Siamese Mauser, .45-70 runs close to .458 Winchester Magnum velocities. (Please keep those rounds separate and identified!) This has also been noted with .38 and .44 Special vice .357 and .44 Magnum. No doubt there are others. Further, gas guns like the M1 Garand limit powder choices even in high end loads.

The last point is the desired result. One may have both a long range, precision rifle and a woods gun in one's collection. They serve different purposes and therefore the end demand requires different capabilities. However, one can use the same basic cartridge case for both. (I'm thinking of .308 Winchester.) However, they demand different bullet weights, probably different bullet designs and different powders for best results as needed.

What's the best powder for .45 ACP? For defense or hunting, perhaps Blue Dot or Power Pistol. For NRA 2700 shooting, perhaps Bullseye. The applications are different.

Happily, the loading manuals tend to remove much of the 'figuring' from our minds. But sometimes one needs to think outside the box a bit to achieve a goal. Like the late Elmer Keith using a small rifle powder in a handgun, for heaven's sake!

Do be careful.