Titan ReloadingInline FabricationRotoMetals2StainLess Steel Media
Lee PrecisionGraf & SonsMidSouth Shooters SupplyADvertise here

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 56

Thread: Is This True Regarding 2400

  1. #1
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    63

    Is This True Regarding 2400

    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.

  2. #2
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    1,206
    What's a "well respected fella". That description means NOTHING. He might deliver pizzas for a living and never finished the third grade. I'd give this a two thumbs down......it's all BS. Not trying to say anything negative about the OP, it's just kind of meaningless without a reputable source and that source shouldn't be an anonymous person. If they're some kind of "expert" let us know their credentials.

  3. #3
    Boolit Master
    lylejb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    canby, or
    Posts
    897
    I think the truth in that statement ends with used in 22 hornet and 410 shotgun. Opinion, being passed as truth, begins thereafter. If any of that were true it would be WELL known in the almost 90 years it's been used. A few simple shot strings across a crono should debunk his idea of chamber temp making a radical change in burn rate. It would be obvious if this were the case, and 2400 has been crono'd plenty.
    I think this "expert" has a greatly exaggerated opinion.
    NRA life member

    LB

  4. #4
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    63
    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
    Last edited by Kawriverrat; 12-03-2017 at 10:26 PM.

  5. #5
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    481
    I have used 2400 in my 357 mags, rifle and revolver, for a long time.

    100 degrees in the summer, 30 degrees in the winter, never had a problem.

    If this guys opinion actually reflected reality then the reloading world would know it. It would have become a part of reloading lore handed down from old to young.

    A question you should ask yourself: If 2400 is so bad why is it so popular? Not just with revolver guys but cast bullet shooters in milsurp rifles.


    Steve in N CA

  6. #6
    Boolit Master

    imashooter2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    6,332
    I strongly disagree with the learned gentleman.
    My Straight Shooters thread:
    http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...raight-shooter

    The Pewter Pictures and Hallmarks thread:
    http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...-and-hallmarks

  7. #7
    Boolit Master
    rtracy2001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Blackfoot, ID
    Posts
    517
    Is he trying to "help you out" by taking that 2400 off your hands and disposing of it? Kind of sounds like it.

    I have not heard anything about 2400 being any more or less unstable than any other powder. I have and do use it 410 shotshells and 30 carbine. The 30 carbine at loads near maximum published data; and I have had no signs of instability or excessive pressures with small rifle primers, regular or magnum.

    Exercise normal caution when adjusting loading data and see how things work for you.
    My luck is so bad that if I bought a cemetery, people would stop dying.- Rodney Dangerfield

  8. #8
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by imashooter2 View Post
    I strongly disagree with the learned gentleman.
    Thank You!! I agree.

  9. #9
    Boolit Master JBinMN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Goodhue County, Minnesota
    Posts
    864
    I started using 2400 in 44mag & 357mag back in the mid 80's.

    As far as "unstable", I have 2400 that is about 13 years old and it still works just fine, although I have not been keeping track of the velocities by chrony for that powder to compare to some of the newer stuff I have.
    If it is "unstable" I have not found it to be that way myself. I only have about 200 loads of 44mag left to use it up, so I guess I will find out if it will "keep" for about 14 years in around next Spring( 2018) when it runs out.

    I also used magnum primers as per the Speer #11 reloading manual from that time, although they do allow for the use of regular primers in their data. I did not ever have issue using mag. primers, but I do not usually load at Max. powder loads, but try to stay at least a few grains below. Can't say any more than that, but the Alliant load data(online, but I can go look at the most recent manual I got from them for this year if need be.) says to just use regular primers. Then again, a lot of data has been changed in the last 30-40 years...
    [ Speer #11, to now]

    I would not say that the feller that was saying this stuff is "wrong" in what he said, as far as the "unstable" part, or the "magnum vs. regular" primers part, but would say that those two parts do not seem to be reflected in what "I" have experienced with 2400 in the 44mag & 357mag..

    I will also say that I do not plan to change the recipes I currently use.


    As far as some of the other stuff like "why" magnum primers were made for "2 reasons" & all that about the "pressures"... Waaalll... I just am not so sure about that, since I am not so sure about what he said about the other two parts I mentioned earlier...

    I don't believe everything I read on the internet, and in particular about our "craft". I do know what "I" have done & will do , and I also do as much research as I can ( Like you seem to be doing) before I do anything I have not done before. Good on ya for at least asking about this info in a place like this forum. Good Idea! More folks with a lot of "experience & credibility" here at CB/GL & I am sure more will be helping ya out in short order. At least I expect them to do it...


    G'Luck! & I hope ya find out what you are looking for!
    "If ya don't like my gate, ya don't have to swing on the hinges..." - L. Ackerman ( RIP)
    *------*
    "A man ought ta do what he thinks is best" - "Hondo" Lane.(John Wayne)

  10. #10
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    63
    The main reason for asking this question was in hopes of understanding why some one might believe this.
    While I've used 2400 for over 30 years I in no way way feel I know all there is to know about it.

    As long as it's been out maybe there has been an occurrence or situation that took place that I am unaware of that has since been rectified. If so I believe there are those here that would know about.

    I most certainly was not looking for an arguement as was suggested prior. Could have titled this thread differently as I do believe there is issue with the statements.
    I also dont know the rules, if any here regarding discussing this sort of thing & bringing the person's name into it when they moderate or did at another forum
    Last edited by Kawriverrat; 12-03-2017 at 11:32 PM.

  11. #11
    Boolit Master
    jrmartin1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Plantersville, MS
    Posts
    331
    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


  12. #12
    Boolit Man
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    146
    I'm with lylejb on this one. Everything after statement that it was designed in 1930 for 22 Hornet and used in 410 is a pure speculation. I, personally, didn't see any of the effects mentioned by the source. In my experience magnum primers lower ES and SD and I didn't see any difference on chrono caused by cylinder temperature. For me 2400 performs great in 357.

  13. #13
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    63
    jrmartin1964, Thanks for that info. This in fact was the sort of thing I was looking for .... Jeff
    Last edited by Kawriverrat; 12-03-2017 at 11:34 PM.

  14. #14
    Cast Hunter




    RugerFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Mat-Su, Alaska
    Posts
    1,931
    Quote Originally Posted by Kawriverrat View Post
    ...The reason why magnum primers were invented was twofold. First, there is more "mix" in the primer to help ignite slow burning powders.... Second, the cups for magnum primers are thicker to prevent ruptures at high chamber pressures affiliated with high velocity loads...
    Not entirely true. From what I understand, most brands of magnum primers only have the thicker primer cups, not a hotter mix. One notable exception is CCI which is also hotter. Winchester large pistol primers say on the box "For standard and magnum loads." One of the shooting mags did a primer study years ago. I guess things could have changed by now. If anyone finds this outdated, please correct me.
    Boone and Crockett Club member
    <<----------------<<<<<<
    Pope & Young Club member


    NRA write your reps link: http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-l...your-reps.aspx

  15. #15
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    1,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Kawriverrat View Post
    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 is how internet myths/rumors get started. I didn't start the thread, you did. It's your responsibility to lend credibility to it. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

  16. #16
    Boolit Master
    vzerone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,192
    Quote Originally Posted by RugerFan View Post
    Not entirely true. From what I understand, most brands of magnum primers only have the thicker primer cups, not a hotter mix. One notable exception is CCI which is also hotter. Winchester large pistol primers say on the box "For standard and magnum loads." One of the shooting mags did a primer study years ago. I guess things could have changed by now. If anyone finds this outdated, please correct me.
    Winchester does have a small pistol primer for magnum only though.

  17. #17
    Cast Hunter




    RugerFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Mat-Su, Alaska
    Posts
    1,931
    Quote Originally Posted by vzerone View Post
    Winchester does have a small pistol primer for magnum only though.
    True, but are they hotter or just a thicker primer cup?
    Boone and Crockett Club member
    <<----------------<<<<<<
    Pope & Young Club member


    NRA write your reps link: http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-l...your-reps.aspx

  18. #18
    Boolit Master
    vzerone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,192
    Quote Originally Posted by kayala View Post
    I'm with lylejb on this one. Everything after statement that it was designed in 1930 for 22 Hornet and used in 410 is a pure speculation. I, personally, didn't see any of the effects mentioned by the source. In my experience magnum primers lower ES and SD and I didn't see any difference on chrono caused by cylinder temperature. For me 2400 performs great in 357.
    I know some of the older reloading manuals say that 2400 and 4227 were made specifically for the 22 Hornet. Just what I read in the manuals. I didn't work at those ballistic labs so I don't know. So that part more than likely is true. I've used quite a bit of 2400 and never had any of the problems with it mentioned. I like both 2400 and 4227, but there are some better new powders today.

  19. #19
    Boolit Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Prineville, Oregon
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by RugerFan View Post
    Not entirely true. From what I understand, most brands of magnum primers only have the thicker primer cups, not a hotter mix. One notable exception is CCI which is also hotter. Winchester large pistol primers say on the box "For standard and magnum loads." One of the shooting mags did a primer study years ago. I guess things could have changed by now. If anyone finds this outdated, please correct me.
    You've got it backwards: they use the same cups for regular or magnum but the magnum does have more "stuff" to give a hotter flame. The magnum primers are needed with harder to ignite powders (usually slower ball powders with considerable deterrent coatings). You can make a fine magnum 357 or 44 mag load with regular primers using 2400 or 4227 or similar, but when you go to the H110 type ball powders you should use the magnum primers or risk having the occasional hang-fire or failure to ignite episode.

    Yeah, I learned this the hard way as per my usual.

  20. #20
    Cast Hunter




    RugerFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Mat-Su, Alaska
    Posts
    1,931
    Quote Originally Posted by earlmck View Post
    You've got it backwards: they use the same cups for regular or magnum but the magnum does have more "stuff" to give a hotter flame. The magnum primers are needed with harder to ignite powders....
    Harder what? Please explain that sentence.

    Do you have a source? I will try to find the study I was talking about.
    Boone and Crockett Club member
    <<----------------<<<<<<
    Pope & Young Club member


    NRA write your reps link: http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-l...your-reps.aspx

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check