ADvertise hereStainLess Steel MediaTitan ReloadingInline Fabrication
RotoMetals2Graf & SonsMidSouth Shooters SupplyLee Precision

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 76

Thread: Is This True Regarding 2400

  1. #21
    Banned

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,478
    Quote Originally Posted by RugerFan View Post
    Harder what? Please explain that sentence.

    Do you have a source? I will try to find the study I was talking about.
    You know there are some special primers with harder or thicker cups such as CCI's military primers. Don't know if you remember but Wolf has a small rifle primer standard, then a magnum primer, then a magnum primer with a thicker cup. They even tell you the plain magnum primer has a standard cup.

    I think the only way to really know is to have worked at a primer plant or two or more.

    Believe nothing that you hear, nothing that you read, and only half of what you see!

  2. #22
    Cast Hunter




    RugerFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Mat-Su, Alaska
    Posts
    1,943
    Quote Originally Posted by vzerone View Post
    You know there are some special primers with harder or thicker cups such as CCI's military primers. Don't know if you remember but Wolf has a small rifle primer standard, then a magnum primer, then a magnum primer with a thicker cup. They even tell you the plain magnum primer has a standard cup.

    I think the only way to really know is to have worked at a primer plant or two or more.

    Believe nothing that you hear, nothing that you read, and only half of what you see!
    Yes, I am aware of military use thicker cups (to guard against slam fires). My point was that some brands of magnum primers are not necessarily hotter. Some merely have the thicker cups.
    Boone and Crockett Club member
    <<----------------<<<<<<
    Pope & Young Club member


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

  3. #23
    Banned

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,478
    Quote Originally Posted by RugerFan View Post
    Yes, I am aware of military use thicker cups (to guard against slam fires). My point was that some brands of magnum primers are not necessarily hotter. Some merely have the thicker cups.
    I'm not buying that for the simple fact that magnum primer use is for igniting hard to ignite powders such as many ball powder and other extremely slow buring stick powder; and extreme cold temperature use. Are you eluding to the cup is thicker for the purpose of handling the high pressure better? That's not true because standard primers handle high pressure just fine. Now rifle primers both large and small have thicker cups then the pistol primers.

  4. #24
    Boolit Master


    tomme boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Clinton, Iowa
    Posts
    4,124
    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.
    Last edited by tomme boy; 12-04-2017 at 04:53 AM.

  5. #25
    Boolit Master
    JBinMN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Goodhue County, SE Minnesota
    Posts
    1,432
    Apparently this topic has been sidetracked/hijacked to be about primers. I am not the OP, so I don't give much of a hoot, but I will certainly add some info to those who may be interested & then I am not going to contribute any more to the off topic discussion...

    Some reading for ya about primers if you are interested:
    http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/am...motaip_200909/

    http://www.castingstuff.com/primer_t..._reference.htm

    A chart showing SRP & LRP & their dimensions[Note that there is a difference in thickness of the cup(A) in the SRP(Std & Mag.), but not in the LRP(Std. or Mag.) ]
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	calhoonprimers02.png 
Views:	36 
Size:	18.5 KB 
ID:	208854
    Chart source:http://www.accurateshooter.com/techn...sure-analysis/

    Don't have/didn't find any similar pistol primer data like the chart on rifle primers. You are gonna have to search on your own if ya want more..


    G'Luck!


    -----------------------
    Back to the subject of the OP...

    As far as the "source" & "quote" used in the OP, I am not concerned about that persons identity, myself. My concerns are only in regard to passing correct & truthful info about our casting & reloading "craft". I would suggest that you may want to go ask this person for their "source(s)" for this statement they made, or to show you the results of the testing done to show where this info is correct & true, or both options mentioned. [< source(s) & testing results].

    Seems to me that, like you, if ya don't want to ask this person for this sort of thing there, then I would not be taking what they say as being true & correct until it can be verified by others. ( which you are trying to do here, it seems) So far, I have only seen one example in agreement, and that was an anonymous one from approx. 1937 and although it is kind of cool that it was found & shared, I do not know that the 2400 powder used today is the same "recipe" as the 2400 used in subsequent years & even today. So, just how much of a comparison can one make on anonymous observations 80 years ago? And does one accept that single observation by one reloader as "gospel" rather than a larger spread of opinion & observations? I wouldn't...

    Perhaps you should contact Alliant & ask them about the same as ya asked here in the OP? Then you are basically getting an answer "from the horses mouth." & one that is likely backed by legal authority & also real testing of the powder. Asking if there is some sort of historian in their company would not hurt either. Just tell them you are doing research & I would be surprised if they do not help you out.


    Once again, G'Luck!
    2nd Amend./U.S. Const. - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    "A man ought ta do what he thinks is best" - "Hondo" Lane.(John Wayne)

    "If ya don't like my gate, ya don't have to swing on the hinges..." - L. Ackerman ( RIP)

    Enforce the Immigration laws & deport the illegal immigrants. Quit fooling around.

  6. #26
    Boolit Master Eutectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    607
    Quote Originally Posted by RugerFan View Post
    True, but are they hotter or just a thicker primer cup?
    They are hotter yes. But I'd argue the thicker cup part. The case of WW Small Pistol Magnum I have display very soft/thin cups. It's competitor the Remington 5 1/2 does have a stouter cup very similar to the Remington 6 1/2 small rifle primer.

    Eutectic

  7. #27
    Boolit Master

    Wayne Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia
    Posts
    10,095
    I'm guessing it's a confabulation of at least three different subjects.

    1) there was a problem with the 22 Hornet with the brass made heavier and nobody being notified.

    2) 2400 was named because it got the Hornet to 2400fps. Thus the confabulation of the inadvertent overloads of the Hornet using 2400.

    3) There was some testing with the 44Mag and mag primers and finding that the mag primers caused pressure excursions in the 44 Mag. and 2400 was one of the powders used. 44Mag. loads now list regular primers.

    Combine these three historic truths and leave out (forget) the details and one gets garbage.
    Wayne the Shrink

    There is no 'right' that requires me to work for you or you to work for me!

  8. #28
    Boolit Mold
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Prairie Dog town
    Posts
    3
    Hard to imagine believing this one guy's opinion or "facts" when almost every loading manual shows 2400 being used exactly for the purposes he says are no good. I would expect if that were true, the ballistics tests run by the manual producers would have shown that and they would note as much in their manuals.

    In short...believe the manuals not some "expert"!

  9. #29
    Boolit Master
    JBinMN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Goodhue County, SE Minnesota
    Posts
    1,432
    RE: 2400 & the use of magnum primers

    Found this if anyone wants to read it. It is an email exchange between a customer & Alliant powder company representative about 2400 powder & the use of std. or mag. primers.:

    **********************************************

    Reply from Alliant on 2400 w/mag primers
    OK, here's the exchange of email I had with Ben Amonette at ATK/Alliant. He pretty much confirmed what I thought, though he kinda said it between the lines in the last section. What it boils down to is, like he says, follow the data in the manual.



    > -----Original Message-----
    >
    > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:30 AM
    > To: Alliant Reloading
    > Subject: Alliant Powder - Ask the Expert Form
    >
    > Years ago when using 2400 I used mag primers for heavy loads. Now I'm
    > told I should use standard primers. Many of the manuals still show the
    > use of magnum type. Which is it, and if no longer recommending mags,
    > why not? This is for heavy loads in .357, .44 spl/mag, .45 Colt.
    >
    > John
    --


    -----Original Message-----
    > From: Amonette, Ben
    > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 3:04 PM
    > Subject: RE: Alliant Powder - Ask the Expert Form
    >
    > I shoot 2400 in my 357 and 44 mags and choose to use standards. This
    > is what we recommend. If you want to, you can go by what your data
    > source recommends. As always, we recommend starting with the minimum
    > charge wt and go from there. Thanks for your note.
    >
    >
    On 5/9/2012 2:16 PM, Amonette, Ben wrote:
    > I had an interesting conversation with the writer Brian Pearce just
    > moments ago. We touched on mag primers with 2400 and he said that in
    > his testing, he got much more consistent results with standard primers.
    > He said the mag primers not only increased the pressure, but caused
    > the loads to be inconsistent. I have a lot of respect for him and his
    > testing, so based on his opinion, I recommend standards. I have
    > always used the standard primers myself with very good results.
    >
    > Thanks again.
    >
    > Ben Amonette
    > Technical Service Manager
    > Alliant Powder Company


    -----Original Message-----

    Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 5:49 PM
    To: Amonette, Ben
    Subject: Re: FW: Alliant Powder - Ask the Expert Form
    Importance: High

    Thanks for your reply. I should have been more specific in my question.
    I've read Brian's recent articles in Handloader, and can't say I agree
    with all of his conclusions. I've been reloading for 45 years give or
    take and everybody I knew 35-40 years ago who used 2400 used mag
    primers. None of us ran loads that were excessive pressure-wise (not
    the guys I hung around with anyway), and I've not seen any of the things
    he alludes to in his article. (Were his conclusions about pressure
    based on actual pressure tests, or the type of signs most of us look
    for?)

    What I really want to know is has the 2400 of today, under the Alliant
    label, been reformulated in comparison to the 2400 sold under the
    Hercules label 40 years ago? I'm not talking about variations due to
    normal differences from lot to lot, but actual differences chemically.
    I know that some of the other old standby Hercules powders are enough
    different today that loads I used for better than 20 years have had to
    be adjusted for the newer Alliant versions. For example, a safe load of
    Blue Dot from my days of combat match competition 30+ years ago, had to
    be reduced a full 10% using the Alliant version for the same velocity
    with the same bullet and primer combo. (It's still my favorite load, by
    the way!)

    I'm not making a judgement here either way, but since many people use
    the older manuals or come across recommended loads from those days, if
    there is a problem with pressure using mag primers it would be more than
    a little helpful to know the reason why. The subjective conclusions of
    gunwriters, no matter how good they might be, are not a substitute for
    specific reasons coming from the manufacturer. I just want to be able
    to report factual information to the other users in the forum where this
    issue came up. We have a LOT of newbies to reloading coming into the
    forum asking for advice from all of us old timers, and we want to be
    able to give them solid, safe advice when this sort of thing comes up.

    Thanks for your consideration.

    John

    --------------------------

    Recvd May 11, 2012

    We are still making 2400 to the same specifications but I have received
    comments during my time here wondering if 2400 is a bit faster than many
    years ago. I am aware that mag primers were recommended at one time,
    and have watched data become more conservative over the years since I
    started reloading in the late 60's. Some of this is no doubt to the
    greater concern for liability, and pressure measuring equipment is
    better. My recommendation on a regular basis is to use current
    reloading data because it is the result of the latest testing with the
    latest components...so it just makes sense.

    As for Brian, I do know that some of his statements are based on actual
    pressure testing, but since he does not have his own pressure measuring
    equipment, some opinions are also based on observations. Whatever the
    case, I have always been somewhat conservative in my approach to
    reloading and that is what I encourage.

    Thanks for your return note.

    Ben Amonette
    Technical Service Manager
    Alliant Powder Company




    Source:https://www.shootersforum.com/handlo...tml#post619495
    ***********************************************
    2nd Amend./U.S. Const. - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    "A man ought ta do what he thinks is best" - "Hondo" Lane.(John Wayne)

    "If ya don't like my gate, ya don't have to swing on the hinges..." - L. Ackerman ( RIP)

    Enforce the Immigration laws & deport the illegal immigrants. Quit fooling around.

  10. #30
    Banned

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,478
    Quote Originally Posted by JBinMN View Post
    RE: 2400 & the use of magnum primers

    Found this if anyone wants to read it. It is an email exchange between a customer & Alliant powder company representative about 2400 powder & the use of std. or mag. primers.:

    **********************************************

    Reply from Alliant on 2400 w/mag primers
    OK, here's the exchange of email I had with Ben Amonette at ATK/Alliant. He pretty much confirmed what I thought, though he kinda said it between the lines in the last section. What it boils down to is, like he says, follow the data in the manual.



    > -----Original Message-----
    >
    > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:30 AM
    > To: Alliant Reloading
    > Subject: Alliant Powder - Ask the Expert Form
    >
    > Years ago when using 2400 I used mag primers for heavy loads. Now I'm
    > told I should use standard primers. Many of the manuals still show the
    > use of magnum type. Which is it, and if no longer recommending mags,
    > why not? This is for heavy loads in .357, .44 spl/mag, .45 Colt.
    >
    > John
    --


    -----Original Message-----
    > From: Amonette, Ben
    > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 3:04 PM
    > Subject: RE: Alliant Powder - Ask the Expert Form
    >
    > I shoot 2400 in my 357 and 44 mags and choose to use standards. This
    > is what we recommend. If you want to, you can go by what your data
    > source recommends. As always, we recommend starting with the minimum
    > charge wt and go from there. Thanks for your note.
    >
    >
    On 5/9/2012 2:16 PM, Amonette, Ben wrote:
    > I had an interesting conversation with the writer Brian Pearce just
    > moments ago. We touched on mag primers with 2400 and he said that in
    > his testing, he got much more consistent results with standard primers.
    > He said the mag primers not only increased the pressure, but caused
    > the loads to be inconsistent. I have a lot of respect for him and his
    > testing, so based on his opinion, I recommend standards. I have
    > always used the standard primers myself with very good results.
    >
    > Thanks again.
    >
    > Ben Amonette
    > Technical Service Manager
    > Alliant Powder Company


    -----Original Message-----

    Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 5:49 PM
    To: Amonette, Ben
    Subject: Re: FW: Alliant Powder - Ask the Expert Form
    Importance: High

    Thanks for your reply. I should have been more specific in my question.
    I've read Brian's recent articles in Handloader, and can't say I agree
    with all of his conclusions. I've been reloading for 45 years give or
    take and everybody I knew 35-40 years ago who used 2400 used mag
    primers. None of us ran loads that were excessive pressure-wise (not
    the guys I hung around with anyway), and I've not seen any of the things
    he alludes to in his article. (Were his conclusions about pressure
    based on actual pressure tests, or the type of signs most of us look
    for?)

    What I really want to know is has the 2400 of today, under the Alliant
    label, been reformulated in comparison to the 2400 sold under the
    Hercules label 40 years ago? I'm not talking about variations due to
    normal differences from lot to lot, but actual differences chemically.
    I know that some of the other old standby Hercules powders are enough
    different today that loads I used for better than 20 years have had to
    be adjusted for the newer Alliant versions. For example, a safe load of
    Blue Dot from my days of combat match competition 30+ years ago, had to
    be reduced a full 10% using the Alliant version for the same velocity
    with the same bullet and primer combo. (It's still my favorite load, by
    the way!)

    I'm not making a judgement here either way, but since many people use
    the older manuals or come across recommended loads from those days, if
    there is a problem with pressure using mag primers it would be more than
    a little helpful to know the reason why. The subjective conclusions of
    gunwriters, no matter how good they might be, are not a substitute for
    specific reasons coming from the manufacturer. I just want to be able
    to report factual information to the other users in the forum where this
    issue came up. We have a LOT of newbies to reloading coming into the
    forum asking for advice from all of us old timers, and we want to be
    able to give them solid, safe advice when this sort of thing comes up.

    Thanks for your consideration.

    John

    --------------------------

    Recvd May 11, 2012

    We are still making 2400 to the same specifications but I have received
    comments during my time here wondering if 2400 is a bit faster than many
    years ago. I am aware that mag primers were recommended at one time,
    and have watched data become more conservative over the years since I
    started reloading in the late 60's. Some of this is no doubt to the
    greater concern for liability, and pressure measuring equipment is
    better. My recommendation on a regular basis is to use current
    reloading data because it is the result of the latest testing with the
    latest components...so it just makes sense.

    As for Brian, I do know that some of his statements are based on actual
    pressure testing, but since he does not have his own pressure measuring
    equipment, some opinions are also based on observations. Whatever the
    case, I have always been somewhat conservative in my approach to
    reloading and that is what I encourage.

    Thanks for your return note.

    Ben Amonette
    Technical Service Manager
    Alliant Powder Company




    Source:https://www.shootersforum.com/handlo...tml#post619495
    ***********************************************
    I'm laughing, not because what you posted isn't true, but because it's really true. I know you're telling the truth about the Alliant employee because I have spoken to Ben myself on other matters!

  11. #31
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Prineville, Oregon
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by tomme boy View Post
    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.
    Thanks for that link tomme boy. Very interesting... I stand somewhat corrected. That said, if CCI sr primers were only built for 22 hornet pressures they couldn't sell very many: how many folks are shooting 43k psi loads these days? And I do have a couple of rifles that will give pierced primers before reaching full pressure, but that is because they have oversized firing pin holes in the bolt. But for them I had to abandon small pistol primers (my preference for small rifles) and go to the small rifle primers, which for me are mostly CCI's.

    And while I was looking for my "sources" for my opinion I noticed that the old (yeah, old as in Speer #9) for .357 mag they specify the magnum primer for not only H110 and W296 but also for 2400 and 4227. I'm pretty sure recommendations have changed as well as max loads been reduced a bit over the years, but I have personal experience that H110 can occasionally remain unignited even though the regular pistol primer was powerful enough to drive the bullet a couple of inches into the barrel of the revolver. That particular event gives me the heeby jeebies thinking about what could happen in rapid double-action firing. I had two of those "failures to ignite" with Winchester small pistol primers but have never had another since going to small pistol magnum primers (I've used both CCI and Federal here) for the H110 loads.

  12. #32
    2400 is my main stay. i use it in 500 linebaugh, 45-70, 44 mag, 30-30, 30-40 krag, 30-06, a whole host of mil surplus and much more. i used it in my 444 marlin and 280gr lfn gc, which i had deduce how much(24.0 gr to start with, i use 26.0gr but it will go more). i've done 26.5gr of 2400 in my 444 but i like the 26.0gr

    heres a shot of 25.5gr(on the left), 26.0gr(center) and 26.5gr(right) of 2400 in 444 marlin with 280lfn gc. the primers weren't flattened, the cases look like they should and the 26.0gr will go approx 1700fps.

    Last edited by 500Linebaughbuck; 12-04-2017 at 10:57 PM.

  13. #33
    Banned

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,478
    Quote Originally Posted by tomme boy View Post
    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.
    Tomme not disagreeing with you or the article link you posted. Here's CCI's primer useage chart. Why don't they say anything about that if it's true? I would be concerned if I was CCI.

    http://www.cci-ammunition.com/produc...imer_chart.htm

  14. #34
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    southern Ohio
    Posts
    235
    I use what works for me and 2400 has worked for me for years, so I am not changing because some so called expert says so.

  15. #35
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    379
    Kawriverrat, 2400 is my go-to powder for .357, among other calibers, as well as reduced cast loads in rifles. The .357 mag "duty" loads I use are at maximum in my carbine. If it had a habit of occasionally spiking pressures, it would show up in enlarged primer pockets and other signs, none of which I have experienced in a decade of using it. I find it to be reliable and consistent in performance year-round. I'm not sure why this "source" said what he did about 2400, but I haven't found it to be true. I never used mag primers with it and have not noticed any difficulty. The quote claiming 2400 was formulated for use in the .22 Hornet brought to mind an article I read years ago in which was a warning about the author experiencing dangerous chamber pressures when switching between cases from different manufacturers, to the degree that European cases were exhibiting blown primers and enlarged pockets with loads developed in American made brass. He later found that the problem cases were considerably heavier, resulting in reduced internal volume. My speculation is that someone may have had this or a similar experience and attributed the problem to the propellant when there may have been other factors involved.
    Last edited by yeahbub; 12-11-2017 at 07:51 PM.

  16. #36
    Boolit Master DonMountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Mid-Missouri
    Posts
    758
    Since Hercules #2400 was introduced 85 years ago to the handloader in 1932, I suspect all components of handloading have evolved along with the resulting pressures, velocities and results. We have evolved from balloon head cases to solid head cases of different powder volumes. Cast projectiles of different designs and gas checks. Jacketed bullets of different barrel friction coefficients due to different lengths of the jacket surface. Chemically different primers of different pressures and effects. And possibly different chemical compositions of Hercules #2400 powder itself giving evolving pressures in the vast ranges of cartridges it has been used in. Hence, a lot of mistakes have happened when using old powder and loads in newer cases, primers and bullets, and visa versa. So, whats the solution? Use powder, primers, and bullets from the same era loaded to info published from the same era. And use the correct bullets listed in the reloading manual. And you will probably be safe. Of course with modern high strength metals in modern firearms, and the vast experience of most of those reading this forum, those reloading manuals are only the start for some well performing cartridges with knowledgable and observant reloaders.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by NSB View Post
    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.
    I could have have done a much better job of giving this thread a title & explaining what I hoped to achieve by posting it. I have over the years on rare occassions while at a range or the gunshop heard fellas with some miles on them make disparaging comments regarding 2400 being unsafe. While it was a rare thing to hear this I always wonderd what if anyhing started it.
    Never in over 30 years of using large amounts of this powder in revolvers have I experienced anything in the comment I posted regarding 2400.

    I was hoping some one could give a circumstance or situation from the past as some have, that may have contributed to some thinking this way... Jeff

  18. #38
    Boolit Master Hannibal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    40 miles from nowhere and plum out in the sticks
    Posts
    950
    To the OP, perhaps you should ask the person who gave you this information what it is based off of. Perhaps he can give first-hand and/or concrete examples?
    Missing the target is not the worst thing you can do.
    Not taking the shot is.

  19. #39
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    593
    Quote Originally Posted by Hannibal View Post
    To the OP, perhaps you should ask the person who gave you this information what it is based off of. Perhaps he can give first-hand and/or concrete examples?
    I was thinking the exact same thing after reading the thread. 2400 is one of the top magnum powders and has been for decades. Surely if any of this were true there would be some evidence of these negative traits.

  20. #40
    Moderator



    JonB_in_Glencoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    10,259
    I haven't found 2400 to act as this "well respected fella" states.
    I have used Herc 2400 and Alliant 2400 for 22 horn as well as some pistol calibers, I haven't noticed any difference. But I will admit, my reloading experience/expertise isn't anywhere near that of many on this forum, let alone other's (not on this forum) that have been doing this for decades upon decades, so my claim is more anecdotal.

    As has already been stated in this thread, if the "Data" this fella states is actually true, It sure would seem that it would have been written about extensively, and warnings from Alliant in their manuals...or simply pulling it off the market entirely.
    that's my 2

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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