Test of Hercules vs Alliant 2400 in the 357 Magnum with 6 different primers

[Larry Gibson]

This the result of a test I conducted in response to a discussion which posed several questions on the CBA forum. I thought it may be of interest here also.

Test of Hercules and Alliant 2400 powder (14 gr each) in the 357 Magnum with a 358156 GC’d cast bullet using 6 different primers.

All measurements were taken during testing conducted on 29 April, 2019. Data recorded with an Oehler M43 PBL using Contender 357 with 7.9” barrel. A 2 ½ power scope was used on the Contender.

Temperature ranged from 80 to 82 degrees.
Humidity was 30%.
Barometric pressure was 29.63.

H2400 = Hercules 2400 manufactured in ’92.
A2400 = Alliant 2400 of current manufacture (purchased 2 months ago)
Velocity in fps is at muzzle.
Velocity SD/ES is fps.
PSI is the pressure (pounds per inch) recorded via the Oehler M43.
PSI SD/ES is the pressure (pounds per inch) variation of the test string.
Group = target at 50 yards with ctc measurement of 2 widest shots.
All test strings were 10 shots.

The 358156 were cast in a Lyman double cavity mould.
Alloy was a soft one made of RL + Pb + tin.
Bullets were AC’d 10+ days before size/lubing and BHN runs 10 – 11.
Bullets as cast are .359+ and were size/lubed in Lyman 450 with .359 H&I die.
Lube used was BAC.
Hornady GCs were seated in the 450 with GC seater prior to size/lubing.
The bullet weight, fully dressed, was 162 gr.

All charges of both the Hercules and Alliant 2400 were 14 gr (+/- 0.1 gr).
All test charges were thrown charges with a Lyman 55.
Charges were verified between each 10 charges thrown on an Ohaus 10-0-5 scale.
Cases were Winchester brass cases.
Cartridges were loaded using RCBS dies on CH press.
Primers are as indicated.
Bullets were seated to 1st crimp groove (the 358156 has two) for an OAL of 1.597”
A heavy rolled crimp was applied.

Looking at just the H2400 data it would appear the old adage of “magnum primers not necessary” does apply. The average velocities between the various primers, standard and magnum, were found to be pretty consistent. The pressures are also consistent and all fall under the SAAMI MAP for the 357 magnum cartridge. However, the accuracy of the magnum primed loads was consistently better than the standard primers with the exception of the WSP primer with the A2400 powder.

Looking at just the A2400 data we see pretty much the same consistence except the Alliant 2400 does appear to be somewhat faster burning than the older lot of Hercules 2400. In my previous testing I was using a lot of Alliant 2400 I purchased about 12 years ago. There was not the difference between that older lot of A2400 and the H2400 that we see here. Note also that this lot of A2400 consistently produced better accuracy than the H2400 regardless of the primer used. Interesting the highest velocity (1607 fps) and highest pressure (41,600 psi) produced the smallest 10 shot group. Additionally with standard primers the CCI 500 and WSP primers produced psi’s right at the SAAMI MAP. The Federal 100 produced a psi 3,400 more than the SAAMI MAP.

Comparing this lot of A2400 to the old lot of H2400 shows a decided difference. This lot of A2400 is obviously faster burning giving 90 to 160 fps (+/-) difference depending on the primer used. The SAAMI MAP for the 357 Magnum is 35,000 psi and we see in Lyman CBH #4 the max load of 2400 with a CCI 550 primer is 14 gr. Looking at the test results the pressure with that load using H2400 is under the SAAMI MAP. But the pressure using this new lot of A2400 with the same load and same primer is 39,000…..well over the SAAMI MAP.

So let’s answer the questions;

“Would it make any difference using these primers with Bullseye, Unique, and Red Dot ?”

Based on the large increase in psi over standard primers in this test it would appear the use of the Federal magnum SP primer would probably increase the psi significantly. If you really want to use those magnum primers then I suggest you drop the charge of any of those powders by 2 gr and work back up the same velocity as produced with a standard primer.

“No Magnum primers with Hercules or Alliant 2400!” ………… “You are probably safe with Hercules 2400, but not Alliant 2400.”

Based on this test it appears neither of those statements are quite correct. The use of a magnum primer and the WSP consistently proved more accurate than the standard primers with the same load. The remaining question seems to be if the load of A2400 is reduced to the SAAMI MAP Using any of the magnum primers will the accuracy be as good? Remains to be seen.

---Primer---------Powder----- Velocity----SD/ES-------PSI-----------SD/ES---------Group

Federal 100--------H2400--------1425-------13/44-------31,000-------1500/4500-------5.45”
----------------------A2400--------1572-------16/46-------38,400-------1200/4000-------5.1”

CCI 500-----------H2400---------1452-------12/41-------29,200-------1800/5200-------4.95”
----------------------A2400--------1551-------15/39-------35,400-------1500/5100--------4.87”

Win WSP---------H2400---------1425-------16/60-------26,200-------2000/6900--------5.2”
---------------------A2400---------1536-------14/49-------34,800-------1200/4300--------3.75”

Federal 200------H2400----------1481-------11/38-------32,100-------2500/6600--------3.7”
Magnum---------A2400----------1566-------15/46-------38,900-------2000/5800--------3.15”

CCI 550----------H2400----------1457-------11/37-------30,300-------2500/8900--------3.6”
Magnum----------A2400----------1581-------17/51-------39,000-------2100/6400-------3.55”

Winchester-------H2400----------1446-------22/67-------29,500-------2300/7000-------3.9”
WSPM------------A2400----------1607-------12/37-------41,600-------2700/9000-------2.85”

[curioushooter]

Thank you very much for this data.

[Markopolo]

Very interesting conclusions... thanks so much... wanna go fishing?

[Outpost75]

Thanks for the update and clarification. Good work!

[onelight]

Wow great test !
Proves again any change in components we need to do another work up.

[scattershot]

Thanks for the tests. The pressure difference is a real eye opener.

[JBinMN]

Thanks for sharing your test results.

The following is not to debate or argue, but just for info purposes.

In the past , IIRC, you have posted that you checked the calibration of your Oehler M43 PBL using benchmark loads you have used since you began using the Oehler M43 PBL. ( I do not recall the details, but IIRC, it was a series of shots with a particular ammo to check for calibration)

In seeing the dates of recent testing you have been sharing, it appears you made a day of testing not just for this series of tests, but for some others involving primer flash hole sizes.

I was wondering if you did the "benchmark" calibration testing of the Oehler M43 PBL just one time, "for the day", prior to the testing, or checking calibration again before each series of testing?

If you did all of your shooting off the series of testing based off of just one verification of calibration, what do you think the possibility is of your having any erroneous results by not checking calibration again, before each series of testing?

If you did calibrate before each series of test, then my question would no longer need to be asked.

BTW, When I am asking, I do not mean checking calibration in between the series of 10 shots per primer for this testing described in the OP, but between tests for primer flash hole sizes & then any other type of testing, like the series of powder/primer relationship testing covered in this OP.

I-E.- Did you have to move the test equipment from a long distance range, to a shorter pistol range to do each series of testing & could that have an effect on the calibration of the Oehler M43 PBL?

Of course, if you did not move, it may have less of an effect, or no effect at all, and is moot.

One more question I have is, do you plan to repeat these tests in the future, in relatively similar conditions, to find out if the results you obtained with the series of testing here in this topic, are the same the next time you test, for comparison purposes? IOW, repeat the tests to see if they coincide with one another, or just test the one time & call it good?

Once again, I am not trying to debate, nor argue. I am just trying to find out some background info on the testing procedures being used, and I do not think it should be offensive/ "out of line" to ask such things.

I simply want to know, so I asked.


Thanks,

JB

ETA: My main reason for asking is that when I am testing with a chronograph & move from one range( long to short/ vice versa), I do verify the chrony with a series of shots to verify it is reading the same each time( calibration purposes). I also do the same when I am changing firearm calibers & load components. Others may not do such things & you did not mention any thing of the sort in the OP, so I asked about it to find out if you did anything similar & for your opinion of such methods.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I have vintage H2400 as well as some recent A2400, so this is very interesting test data for me, thanks for posting.

[Larry Gibson]

JBinMN

Thanks for sharing your test results.

You're very welcome.

The following is not to debate or argue, but just for info purposes.

In the past , IIRC, you have posted that you checked the calibration of your Oehler M43 PBL using benchmark loads you have used since you began using the Oehler M43 PBL. ( I do not recall the details, but IIRC, it was a series of shots with a particular ammo to check for calibration)

In seeing the dates of recent testing you have been sharing, it appears you made a day of testing not just for this series of tests, but for some others involving primer flash hole sizes.

I was wondering if you did the "benchmark" calibration testing of the Oehler M43 PBL just one time, "for the day", prior to the testing, or checking calibration again before each series of testing?

The M43 has several built in "checks". If all is not well it tells you or won't let you proceed with a test. The strain gauges are "calibrated" by the manufacturer and a gauge factor is entered into the data for the particular barrel used. The use of what you refer to as "benchmark loads" are actually called "reference loads" by SAAMI. I can not get those as I am not a manufacturer or a member of SAAMI (have to be a manufacturer and, anyway, I can not afford to be a member). Thus the initial testing (sometimes referred to as "calibration") for each barrel or if a new gauge is attached is done with factory ammunition of which I have obtained the factory measured MAP (transducer or strain gauge) for that ammunition. I then test that ammunition in the specific barrel and the difference based on 2 ten shot tests for rifles or 3 ten shot tests for handguns gives me an average MAP measured by my test barrel. I can then compare the factory MAP to the MAP I measured and derive an "offset figure" just as members of SAAMI do with reference ammunition. I then test and use a single lot of factory, milsurp or reloads to use to occasionally verify all is well with a particular barrel. I used to conduct a reference test before each test but have since found it unnecessary. Also keep in mind SAAMI members also may use their own factory ammunition as "substitute reference ammunition" using the same procedures. I am basically just following SAAMI test procedures.

If you did all of your shooting off the series of testing based off of just one verification of calibration, what do you think the possibility is of your having any erroneous results by not checking calibration again, before each series of testing?

Understand that each and every test of the same ammunition conducted will give different data (MAP, average velocity, SD, ES, Rise, etc.) even if several tests are conducted back to back under the same conditions. That difference may be great or it may be small depending on the quality and consistency of the ammunition. As stated previously the M43 has a series of checks it runs, so, if all is well I have no doubt the readings will be consistent. I also have tested enough loads over the last 12 years (2,500 +/- loads for 25,000 rounds +/- tested) to have an idea of what a standard load should measure. In the case of the 308W, the 44 Magnum, the 45 Colt and the 357 Magnum used in the tests you mention I used loads that were previously measured. Thus had there been any measurement out of the expected range of deviation I would have spotted it as I check the data measured after each round is fired. In the instance of this 357 magnum test, prior to actual testing I had several times tested my standard magnum load with the 358156 bullet and A2400 which was 14 gr in the Winchester cases with WSP primers. In this test that load came with in 15 - 20 fps and 400 psi of previous tests. Thus all was consistent with the test barrel.

Also let us keep in mind this test was comparative in nature. I did not use the reference factor and compute to a psi figure comparative to the factory MAP. Had I done so the psi's would have only varied a couple hundred psi. The comparative value of the converted psi figures would not have changed. Additionally in past testing I have had psi measurements of multiple tests of the same load actual overlap the factory MAP so for all intents and purposes the test barrel give an accurate representation of the psi.

One note of caution; if you delve into this topic and study the SAAMI site regarding the use of reference ammunition and suitable factory ammunition as a substitute you will probably notice the disparity of measurement taken between measurements of the same ammunition between different test fixtures. Also do not think that every round of factory ammunition is loaded to the prescribed SAAMI MAP because most of it isn't.

If you did calibrate before each series of test, then my question would no longer need to be asked.

It was a good question. As noted I did use, within the test, a "standard load" which proved to give a correct velocity a psi measurement. Thus a "calibration" check was made. Believe me, I am careful to either do a reference ammunition check up front or included one within every comparative test.

BTW, When I am asking, I do not mean checking calibration in between the series of 10 shots per primer for this testing described in the OP, but between tests for primer flash hole sizes & then any other type of testing, like the series of powder/primer relationship testing covered in this OP.

Understood.

I-E.- Did you have to move the test equipment from a long distance range, to a shorter pistol range to do each series of testing & could that have an effect on the calibration of the Oehler M43 PBL?

Since moving down here from Washington 6+ years ago I do most all of my testing, both rifle and handgun cartridges, on the local 100 yard range (Sara Park, LHC). I have, on occasion used the 300 yard range for rifle only. I also have gone out in the desert a couple times when the local range was not available (matches, repairs, etc) to my long range places and conducted testing there using my portable BR. The results there using reference ammunition were consistent with those at the range. I take great care during each set up to ensure consistency but, truthfully, set up of the M43 , the lap top and associated equipment is not difficult. Takes me about 30 - 40 minutes or a bit longer if additional screens are put out at 100 yards. Of course the ambient temperature, humidity and barometric pressure can have a small amount of effect but the data for those is entered into each test and accounted for. However, the "calibration", as such, is not affected. Location of the set up, as long as that set up is consistent, makes no difference.

One more question I have is, do you plan to repeat these tests in the future, in relatively similar conditions, to find out if the results you obtained with the series of testing here in this topic, are the same the next time you test, for comparison purposes? IOW, repeat the tests to see if they coincide with one another, or just test the one time & call it good?

No, I do not plan on another same test with the 357 Magnum. As I've stated before the test results are consistent and I think you'll have to agree this test was fairly comprehensive let alone time consuming. I may conduct another limited test using one or two different primers, if I pick up a couple different lots of A2400, just to see how consistent A2400 is lot to lot. If I conduct a similar test in the future it would be with the 44 Magnum.

Once again, I am not trying to debate, nor argue. I am just trying to find out some background info on the testing procedures being used, and I do not think it should be offensive/ "out of line" to ask such things.

I simply want to know, so I asked.


Thanks,

JB

No problem, I appreciate the interest.

ETA: My main reason for asking is that when I am testing with a chronograph & move from one range( long to short/ vice versa), I do verify the chrony with a series of shots to verify it is reading the same each time( calibration purposes). I also do the same when I am changing firearm calibers & load components. Others may not do such things & you did not mention any thing of the sort in the OP, so I asked about it to find out if you did anything similar & for your opinion of such methods.[/QUOTE]

With the shorter 1' screen spacing of Chrony and other chronographs with such a short screen spacing that is a good idea and procedure to follow. However, I have found with the accuracy of the Oehler M43's 4' screen spacing, having the proof screen in between, it is unnecessary. With the shorter 2' screen spacing of the Oehler M35P I sometimes shoot a "reference" load (usually from one lot of "white box" 22LR from the same rifle) but have never found it to give any false reading over 29 years of use. One thing that I always do, and recommend everyone do with a chronograph, is to be consistent in the placing the start screen from the muzzle. I use a tape measure and always set the start screen 15' from the muzzle regardless of whether using the M43 or the M35P. As I said earlier I strive to be consistent in the setup each time. If your set up is not consistent then you cannot realistically compare a measurement from a set yesterday, up last month or last year to one today if the set up si not consistently the same. I also recommend an annotation in the notes as to the ambient temperature during the test as a variation of temperature can have a large effect on pressure and thus velocity.

[Outpost75]

Great discussion and interesting read.

[onelight]

Looks to me the velocity is backed up by the psi . I still find it amazing people can do this outside of a ballistic lab.
I love this forum and the select group of OCD reloaders and testers that post here.
Again GOOD JOB!

[Walks]

Great info. Wonder what the test would show with 3 side by side 6" revolvers. S&W, RUGER and COLT.

[shooting on a shoestring]

Larry, a personal note, thank you sir. I appreciate you sharing your M43 results and a second thank you for taking the time to put them here for us to read and glean.

Very cool data! Great presentation!

[JBinMN]

Mr. Gibson,

Thanks much for taking the time to answer my questions in such a detailed & informative manner. It is much appreciated.

JB

[MostlyLeverGuns]

Enjoy your testing observationsand explanations. In this test your A2400 was much newer than the test that was comparing an older lot of A2400 to H2400. The results indicated differences in the A2400 that was compared to the previous A2400 used. I do not know how you can test whether a powder changes over time, assuming proper storage of course, 'aging chemicals', whatever else might take place just due to time. Would a perceptible change take place over time, 2 years, 4 years, 6 years. This would be difficult, the same lot, some opened and some unopened? There are 'accelerated aging' techniques, but results sometimes vary from actual time results. Just a curiosity understanding that heat, humidity, 'other stuff' can affect powder, even when stored 'reasonably' ? ? I am not even considering improper storage, or significant changes due to different lot numbers. I did not consider that the different cartridge would have that effect. Thanks for your work.

[megasupermagnum]

I've noticed a very similar odd pattern with Bluedot as well. Bluedot should not "need" a magnum primer, and chronograph tests have shown practically no difference between standard and magnum primers as far as consistency. The odd thing is though, on very accuracy guns, usually scoped, the magnum primers often show better accuracy. I normally run standard primers myself, but reminding me of this makes me think I may want to try magnums.

[Tim357]

Mr. Gibson, thank you for your generous support of this site. The work you do and have done is invaluable, and I appreciate it. Perhaps we will cross paths in Havasu. I'd like to buy you a beer.
Tim sends

[RogerDat]

A well done and informative write up. Myself and many others will find this of use in working up our own 357 magnum loads for accuracy. With A2400 being my goto for 357 magnum at full power loads this is directly relevant to my uses. I would have tried different loads and different powders but would not under normal circumstances tried reducing load by a bit and using a magnum primer. Thanks for a new and interesting option to explore.

[tazman]

Larry GIBSON--- As always, you have provided a great set of test results showing very useful data. Thanks for spending your time and resources to give us this information.

[LAH]

Thank you Mr. Gibson.