Is This True Regarding 2400

[Shiloh]

CCI SR primers are not supposed to be used in 223. They are 22 hornet PSI only. That is why lots of people out there punch a primer using them. The CCI mag primers do have a thicker cup and a hotter compound. They are the same thickness as Win SR primers. That is why you hardly ever hear of a pierced Win primer. But I am still using the nickle plated Win primers I have had stashed for a while so the newer non plated may be thinner.

Here is a article with primer thickness listed. http://www.jamescalhoon.com/primers_and_pressure.php


CCI primers while I like them have given me more problems than Win, Fed, Wolf, S&B, Tula. I have never had a dud in these primers like I have had with CCI. The Wolf and Tula primers were the cheapest I have ever paid and they gave more consistent SD ES than all of the others. Even GMM from Federal.

I have used plenty of CCI primers in .223.
You may be confusing with Remington 6 1/2 primers which is for the .22 Hornet. Remington 7 1/2 are fine for .223.

Shiloh

[Shiloh]

I confessed on this board years ago, that I am not a science guy. I am just a reloader with 50 years of experience with 2400 powder, both the Hercules and Alliant versions. When folks start to throw around data, charts, waves etc. I just drop out.

I will say there is nothing in my experience that validates what the fellow says about 2400 as true. Maybe I have had my head up my wazoo for the last half century, but I am calling BS on this guys powder punditry.

Agreed.

Shiloh

[Shiloh]

I have used 2400 in .357 mag, 8mm Mauser, and 30-06 with fine results.

SHiloh

[richhodg66]

Probably beating a dead horse at this point, but 2400 has been around forever, load data abounds in all kinds of things and many of us have used it extensively in many different capacities. If anything this "expert" had to say had any truth to it, the stuff would have been discontinued decades ago.

[ascast]

I have an early (1937) edition of Phil Sharpe's "Complete Guide to Handloading" with the following handwritten notation in the loading data section:

"Don't use any Hercules Powder regardless of all arguments to the contrary, as I have sadly found the terrific variations in #2400 and no warnings published by Herc."

This previous owner's name is not known to me, nor the date this notation was made, and so it likely falls into the realm of "opinion". but (I assume) this same previous owner had pasted-in loading data pamphlets from various powder manufacturers, including Hercules, and there is a space where a 2400 pamphlet had evidently been pasted in at one time but was later removed. Also, in the loading data section for .22 Hornet there is an additional notation made warning not to use 2400. Also with the .22 Hornet data, several of the published powder charges with 2400 have been marked out, and lower charges written in, with the additional notation:

"Above changes due to increase of power in new 2400 powder. Thickness of cases *illegible* reducing air space of new mfg. cases."

Again, without more information this likely falls within the realm of opinion, but at the least points out that there was some problem associated with the use of 2400 noted by a reloader of the past. It is also interesting to note that, in 1937, 2400 was not among the recommended powders for any pistol or revolver cartridge - including .357 Magnum.

That's all I've got on the subject...

Jim

Phil Sharpe -- strikes again I have a copy of his book and find the talk on period tools a great read. However, I believe he is the guy who started the rumor about .303 Savage rifles being a .331-.312 groove diameter.

Some years ago some guy started an on-line survey regarding this. As I recall, not 1 instance of anything other than .308 nominal was found.

[uscra112]

I also think Sharpe started that rumor. (My 1900 Model 99 slugs .309, for what that's worth, so no matter who it was they were wrong.

Also FWIW, some of our modern-day Schuetzen competitors are using 2400 for light loads (1450 fps) in the .32-40 cartridge. Myself I prefer AA #9 or AA 4100. Most of us use PISTOL primers, too. Hotter rifle primers open up the velocity variance. Magnums are never seen except by mistake.

[azrednek]

From what I recall reading in a gun rag (so it has to be true). The article's author claimed mag primers don't burn hotter meaning a higher temperature but burn for a very slightly longer duration. Keep in mind it was one author's opinion and I don't recall the article saying anything about tests or where he derived it from.

[303Guy]

2400 is one of 4 powders I've used a lot of. The comments below come from a well respected fella. However I cant say that I've heard some of what is said here accepted as general knowledge about 2400. It certainly hasnt been my experience with this powder. I would like to hear comments on this.... Jeff


Here's some data on 2400 powder. It was designed in 1930 for the 22 Hornet and later was used in commercial 410 shotgun ammo. Though the formula changed slightly since it first came out, it is still the most unstable handgun powder on the market. All powders change characteristics a little when different bullet weights, bullet seating depths, or magnum primers are used. 2400's burn rate changes radically with the above. It is also way more temperature sensitive than any other hand gun powder. As the revolver's chamber temperatures heat up, 2400 will burn way faster than the first shot. The most serious issue with 2400 is primers. The reason why magnum primers were invented was twofold. First, there is more "mix" in the primer to help ignite slow burning powders. 2400 doesn't like magnum primers because the extra mix speeds up ignition and makes chamber pressure skyrocket. Second, the cups for magnum primers are thicker to prevent ruptures at high chamber pressures affiliated with high velocity loads. 2400 DOES need the thicker cups as a safety margin .... but can't use them. It's a fact that many other powders do a much better job than 2400 with magnum loads. "Better job" doesn't mean 2400 can't be used but it does mean other powders have more consistent velocities, not as temperature sensitive, lower risk of a primer blow out, and equal or better accuracy .... all with lower chamber pressure and a better safety margin. 2400 behaves much better in 44 Mag loads than it does in 357 Mag loads. Personally, I would not recommend using 2400 powder in a 357 Mag, especially for a newbie.

I read an article just this morning on how 2400 blew up a Contender in .475 JDJ. Detonation was blamed. Large case (45-70), small charge, heavy boolit (.458), fireforming for the .475.

I knew from years of reading and reloading that mixing 2400 with large cases was not the intelligent thing to do.

Pointing the barrel straight down while releasing the hammer I turned to answer. I then raised my Contender and just knew that this time I was going to bust the pigeon.

Pulling the trigger my Contender exploded. Reeling and dazed by the violent explosion, I just stood there stupidly looking at what was left.

http://www.reloadammo.com/liteload.htm

Read the article and make of what you will.

[Bent Ramrod]

Anybody’s loading data is certainly of interest and value, but should be combined with one’s own experience and the factory recommendations and loading manual starting and maximum loads. Elmer Keith’s comments on the tactics of such approaches have always stuck with me, and have been very valuable.

I have a copy of the first edition of Robert’s and Water’s The Breech-Loading Single-Shot Match Rifle. All over in the “Loadings” chapter are pencilled-in comments. Two, typical of all the rest, are, “ALL OF THESE LOADS ARE TOO D—N HOT!!” and “DO NOT USE BULK SHOTGUN POWDER IN RIFLE CASES!! GET RID OF SHOTGUN BULK!!” And I have to say, the previous owner was not wrong, although judicious downward adjustments, of what were, no doubt, Robert’s maximum loads which worked well in his rifles, produced at least acceptable results, with moderate pressures.

Sharpe was in at the beginning for powders like 2400 and 3031, and his load recommendations are a mix of factory recommendations and the findings he got in his own ballistic lab, with the cases and primers available at the time. He also cites other individuals as sources. In a lot of cases, he gives the crusher-gauge pressures of the loads. I myself would not use any of these loads as a starting point, any more than I would use Internet advice on loads from unknown individuals, except as an idea of what is possible and a level to sneak up to gradually.

It is interesting that the notations for 2400 were pencilled in around the .22 Hornet section. The Hornet was the first cartridge I reloaded for, and, like many a beginning handloader, I was determined to get .220 Swift ballistics, at least, out of it, by one way or another. Maximum 2400 loads worked very well for several reloadings, and then primers falling out and other signs of overpressure showed up. I could have blamed the powder, of course, as a nascent handloading expert, but, being a print junkie, I continued reading about others’ handloading experiences. Some more of this background research indicated that max loadings tended to lengthen this case into the leade of the chamber, gripping the bullet and raising pressures. Trimming the cases back allowed the max 2400 loadings to continue, until the thinned and worn out brass finally failed somewhere else. I’ve never had any other trouble with recommended 2400 loads. I have never blown out a case using a bullet, though. Cream of Wheat for that application.

I thought it was Townsend Whelen who first said the .303 Savage was an actual .303 caliber with a .311” groove diameter. And I remember that epic “discussion” of what it actually was on the 24Hr Campfire site. Thirty-five pages of bitter invective, name-calling, ancestry aspersions (none flattering), and contumely, over a difference of three one-thousandths of an inch! I loved every line of it, and tried to register so I could inject a post reading “Jerr-ry, Jerr-ry, Jerr-ry” in there, but I couldn’t get the password they sent me to work.

[Chill Wills]

This thread brings some good things to light.
Bent Ramrod has a well written post.

OT - 303guy, each time I read one of your posts and I see the footer about your son, it gives me pause. I have two kids. I don't know you but I think about it...

[JBinMN]

This thread brings some good things to light.
Bent Ramrod has a well written post.

OT - 303guy, each time I read one of your posts and I see the footer about your son, it gives me pause. I have two kids. I don't know you but I think about it...

I thought the same thing about both of your observations & I too have given pause to that footer...

[Ballistics in Scotland]

This is from some one who is well known for his gunsmithing knowledge on Ruger guns. I was not asking about any ones credentials. My post was asking about thoughts on this statement. Regardless who made it. I was attempting to be respectful.

If it's truely meaningless, please state your experience or any other info about 2400 that you have. Other wise your post above falls into the same catagory as your own accusations....

Jeff

This reminds me of an article in "The NRA Gunsmithing Guide Updated" by the armorer to a US military pistol team. Somebody in that situation has to be good - at gunsmithing or a pistol team. His advice came close to advising the amateur to do no gunsmithing whatsoever, which seems odd in that context. He also said it was important to be able to recognise the various powders by their appearance, although I should have thought advice on how to avoid that necessity would have been more useful.

A person can have a most elevated ability and understanding in all aspects of shooting, while knowing next to nothing about gunsmithing. Also the reverse.

[LAH]

I confessed on this board years ago, that I am not a science guy. I am just a reloader with 50 years of experience with 2400 powder, both the Hercules and Alliant versions. When folks start to throw around data, charts, waves etc. I just drop out.

I will say there is nothing in my experience that validates what the fellow says about 2400 as true. Maybe I have had my head up my wazoo for the last half century, but I am calling BS on this guys powder punditry.

You can add me to this. Plus if you following Larry's link it is well worth reading the thread. He put much work into just the typing let alone the tests.

[hornet112]

I shot a lot of 2400 in 357 & 44 mag with powder sitting around for years never had a problem.

[mfraser264]

As with so many other comments, we still have 30 year old 2400 and it is performs perfectly. Shot shot thousands of .357 Magnums with cast lead alloy bullets and have not had issues. We do use Small Pistol Magnum primers. One reason we like this load is that the fired cases can be removed for the cylinder with a slight push of the ejector. A large amount of loading data has been published about listing 16 grains as a universal charge in the .30 Caliber rifle loads too.

[derek45]

2400 is one of 4 powders I've used a lot of. The comments below come from a well respected fella. However I cant say that I've heard some of what is said here accepted as general knowledge about 2400. It certainly hasnt been my experience with this powder. I would like to hear comments on this.... Jeff


Here's some data on 2400 powder. It was designed in 1930 for the 22 Hornet and later was used in commercial 410 shotgun ammo. Though the formula changed slightly since it first came out, it is still the most unstable handgun powder on the market. All powders change characteristics a little when different bullet weights, bullet seating depths, or magnum primers are used. 2400's burn rate changes radically with the above. It is also way more temperature sensitive than any other hand gun powder. As the revolver's chamber temperatures heat up, 2400 will burn way faster than the first shot. The most serious issue with 2400 is primers. The reason why magnum primers were invented was twofold. First, there is more "mix" in the primer to help ignite slow burning powders. 2400 doesn't like magnum primers because the extra mix speeds up ignition and makes chamber pressure skyrocket. Second, the cups for magnum primers are thicker to prevent ruptures at high chamber pressures affiliated with high velocity loads. 2400 DOES need the thicker cups as a safety margin .... but can't use them. It's a fact that many other powders do a much better job than 2400 with magnum loads. "Better job" doesn't mean 2400 can't be used but it does mean other powders have more consistent velocities, not as temperature sensitive, lower risk of a primer blow out, and equal or better accuracy .... all with lower chamber pressure and a better safety margin. 2400 behaves much better in 44 Mag loads than it does in 357 Mag loads. Personally, I would not recommend using 2400 powder in a 357 Mag, especially for a newbie.