44 Special +P data and report

[curioushooter]

Post messed up. See below.

[curioushooter]

I do not think the 16 grain load is "the Keith load." I think it represents the limit for 22kPSI level II loads that are acceptable in Colt SAs and clones according to Brian Pearce. Previously it was stated it was the limit for 5 chamber revolvers, too, but in the Handloader 312 issue these revolvers were not listed in the Level II table. I say stick with N-frames and Blackhawks.

I tested 17 grains of 2400 with 429421 and 18 grains with 429215 and got much higher velocities than I should have, 1250 FPS and 1350 FPS respectively. I backed off to 16.5 with the 429421 to get 1200 FPS as I am a believer in pressure = velocity. Also this load shot better, but not as well as the Blue Dot or Unique based loads did.

I too find Larry's tests to be much lower than I expected. They also don't make sense to me as if the Skeeter and Keith loads are nearly the same pressure I would think they would have much nearer velocity figures. They are about 200 FPS different in my 624, which represents a ~30% difference in energy. I realize there is nearly double the powder charge, but I've never found that to matter much. All testing I've ever done has confirmed the adage that pressure=velocity more than anything.

[Larry Gibson]

curiousshooter

"He has an asterix and it leads to a statement that it is "maximum" so I assume he means 22kPSI."

We should all be careful when we "assume". Pierce states in that article "the occasional use of loads that run up to 22,000 is safe". He does not say "the average pressure" or the "maximum pressure". What pierce says is "run up to".

The psi I gave in the earlier post was the average pressure of a 10 shot test. Average psi, like average velocities, will have a +/- or ES (Extreme Spread). The high psi in the before mentioned test was 21,100 psi......that comes close to a psi that "runs up to" the 22,000 psi Pierce mentions. I have no qualms with Pierce's Level II loads and actually agree with them. Moderns SAs such as Uberti's, Colts and Rugers are also chambered in 357 Magnum with a SAAMI MAP of 35,000 psi and many have a dual cylinder in 45 ACP which has a SAAMI MAP of 21,000 psi. I see no problem in using 44 SPL +P type loads in those firearms (as chambered in 44 SPL) that "run up to" 22,000 psi as Pierce suggests and certainly agree with you that "it represents the limit for 22kPSI level II loads that are acceptable in Colt SAs and clones".

In this thread I reference the 16 gr 2400/429421 load as a "Keith" load simply because it was you, in two different posts, that used "Keith" in conjunction with the 2400/429421 load. Pierce also mentions "Keith" in his article but does not list the 16 gr 2400 load or any other as a "Keith load". There is a wide discrepancy as to what is a real "Keith" bullet as there is also a wide discrepancy as to what the actual "Keith" 44 SPL load was or ended up being as Keith moved on the 44 magnum and rarely did any more work with the 44 SPL. My earlier post was probably incorrect on exactly what the "Keith" 44 SPL load was. That 16 gr load is max case capacity (100% load density) in Starline cases as 16.5 gr is in W-W cases all with the 429421 bullet I was using. However, I don't think what Keith's load was is germane to what you asked....you asked about the 16 gr 2400 load listed in Pierces article. The average psi I gave you is just that....the average of one test. Back to back tests of the same exact load will give different average psi's just as will back to back chronograph measurements give different average velocities. With a good consistent load both will be close in range but still not exactly the same.

BTW; the same test barrel has given numerous 10 shot test psi averages of the "Keith" 44 Magnum load of 22 gr 2400/429421 that run between 35,000 and 36,000 psi. The SAAMI MAP for the 44 Magnum cartridge is 36,000 psi. That load is well known to be a "maximum" load for the 44 magnum and some even say it is over "max". Many listed manual "maximums" are not based on an average pressure (MAP) remaining under the SAAMI MAP but of the highest psi measured in a test remaining under the SAAMI MAP. Many shooters and reloaders believe all factory cartridges are loaded to the SAAMI MAP or the MAP of military cartridges. It just isn't so. The SAAMI MAP for the 44 SPL is 15,500 psi. Measured average psi's for R-P and W-W factory 246 LRN runs 12,000 psi. Many would be very disappointed to learn what the psi of most 44 Magnum factory ammunition really is.

[Chill Wills]

I too find Larry's tests to be much lower than I expected. They also don't make sense to me as if the Skeeter and Keith loads are nearly the same pressure I would think they would have much nearer velocity figures. They are about 200 FPS different in my 624, which represents a ~30% difference in energy. I realize there is nearly double the powder charge, but I've never found that to matter much. All testing I've ever done has confirmed the adage that pressure=velocity more than anything.

I really don't have much of an opinion of handgun stuff. However, based on my overall rifle experience, this statement highlighted above really stands out!
I would offer vigorously that many examples show pressure and velocity are independent. I would not want to draw too much conclusion from pressure alone.

So far, a very interesting and informative read. Thanks.

[DougGuy]

I do not think the 16 grain load is "the Keith load." I think it represents the limit for 22kPSI level II loads that are acceptable in Colt SAs and clones according to Brian Pearce. Previously it was stated it was the limit for 5 chamber revolvers, too, but in the Handloader 312 issue these revolvers were not listed in the Level II table. I say stick with N-frames and Blackhawks.

22kpsi in a Colt SAA?? That's why they invented Rugers!

Yes it is probably safe and yes it has been done but like Joe B says "Just cause you can, don't mean you should."

[curioushooter]

If assuming that a particular load singled out as "maximum" isn't a safe assumption to make then might as well just forget about even discussing the matter. Words have no meaning than. It is literately the only load on the table singled out as such; it is the most energetic load probably because it generates the highest pressure on the table, which according to the publisher is under 22kPSI. Pearce gives no details on how he tests or any statistics. I have a lot of problems with this, but can't do anything about it.

Are you really getting an extreme spread so great that the average psi is 19K and you have an outlier that is 15% above the mean at 21k?! That is extremely noisy, probably near a 30% extreme spread.

[Larry Gibson]

Curioushooter

If assuming that a particular load singled out as "maximum" isn't a safe assumption to make then might as well just forget about even discussing the matter. Words have no meaning than. It is literately the only load on the table singled out as such; it is the most energetic load probably because it generates the highest pressure on the table, which according to the publisher is under 22kPSI. Pearce gives no details on how he tests or any statistics. I have a lot of problems with this, but can't do anything about it.

Did you note that in that same table the 16 gr 2400/429421 load that was asterisked as "maximum, accurate" in the Freedom Arms Model 1997 was not so asterisked or connotated when shot in the Colt Single Action Army? Yes, there are numerous discrepancies or inconsistencies in the article as we see. Whether or not those are Pierce's fault or the editor's we don't know but as you say there's not much we can do about it. Another problem I have is the table header states the "Category Two" loads are "22,000 psi or less". Yet, nowhere in the article does it say the loads listed in any of the tables were pressure tested for the article by Pierce or anyone else.

My "assumption" or take on that is that the loads were lifted from other sources with pressure levels listed. If that was the case, then probably C.U.P. "psi" was used along with piezo-transducer psi's. The two psi's are not the same as in 22,000 C.U.P. "psi" is not the same as piezo-transducer or strain gauge psi. The tables only list chronographed velocities of the listed loads from the two revolvers which apparently was done by Pierce.

\Notice also the statement in the tables in bold italics; "Be Alert-Publisher cannot accept responsibility for errors in published load data." Again, not much we can do about that either.
"Are you really getting an extreme spread so great that the average psi is 19K and you have an outlier that is 15% above the mean at 21k?! That is extremely noisy, probably near a 30% extreme spread."
The Extreme Spread of the 16 gr 2400/429421 load I pressure tested was 3,500 psi which is an 18% psi ES of the average psi. That ES of psi is actually well within the normal ES of psi for straight walled handgun ammunition, reloaded and commercial, which uses slower burning powders such as 2400.

I do not like to use the term “outlier” as it is most often misrepresentative of the actual situation. Noting the high psi reading of 21,100 as the outlier has led you to an erroneous assumption. Actually, there was one shot of the 10 in the test that “dropped out the bottom”, as I call it. That low psi was 17,600. I do not normally remove either velocity or psi measurements from tests or flyers from groups as they tell us something. Removing them most often leads us to false assumptions. In this case removing the low psi “outlier” then gives the test an average psi ES of 2,900 which is very good.

The majority of shooters/reloaders, probably 99.99%, have no idea of the true nature of actual pressure variation [the ES] of either their reloads or even of factory ammunition. If they did they would find it very “noisy” at the least or, at the most, scared enough go to Mass and confess…… I know I was also overly concerned when I first started pressure testing thinking something was very amiss with the measured data, particularly the ES of the psi. A lengthy conversation with Dr. Oehler informed me of the facts of the matter. I then understood why we never see the actual tests of pressure and in many instances even the average psi of any load is not listed. In most all loading manuals [Lyman being the exception] we are not shown the psi or C.U.P. of the listed loads. If we are it is only the average. Never are we shown the ES of the psi.

If we look and read the SAAMI manual you will see the allowance for the large ES of not only the psi but also of the velocity. You will also note that for any load to be acceptable by SAAMI standards there are 3 separate acceptable psi “standards” for any cartridge. The MAP (Maximum Average Pressure) is the most used term. However, it is the lowest psi standard. The other two are the MPLM (Maximum Probable Lot Mean) and the MPSM (Maximum Probable Sample mean). For cartridges in the 20 – 22,000 MAP range the MPSM can be upwards of 2,900 psi greater. That is what is acceptable with just one load. Thus we see the 19,300 psi I gave for the 16 gr 2400/429421 44 SPL load is well within the expected norm.

As I mentioned in an earlier post many incorrect assumptions are made regarding pressure, especially with factory ammunition. Take the 308W for instance. The majority would say the factory /milsurp cartridges develops 62,000 psi [if they have any knowledge or opinion on the topic] because either that was what the cartridge “was designed for” or because that is the SAAMI MAP. Truth is both commercial 308W and milsurp 7.62 NATO (US made) are loaded to a velocity level +/-. That +/- can be as much as 90 fps of the standard velocity for the cartridge/bullet. They develop those loads using a single lot of powder. The load is developed [“worked up” in our jargon] so the velocity is within that +/- fps of the standard velocity while maintain a MAP, a MPLM and MPSM at or, preferably, below the SAAMI/NATO standards for each. There are exceptions of course with “premium” ammunition for example. All this information is readily available in the SAAMI and Military manuals. The reading is very ‘dry” to say the least so most do not read it let alone understand it. I sure did not understand it until some years back when I decided to measure pressures. To say I was initially astonished would be an understatement. I just didn’t have any idea how “noisy”, as you call it, the actual psi measurements could be.

No need to get wrapped around the axle as it is what it is. This is just a good opportunity for further testing, especially pressure testing, wouldn't you agree?

[ddixie884]

Yes.................

[fcvan]

Ranchman:

I totally believe your perception and observation regarding 2400. I know Larry has studied it on his pressure equipment, but not to my knowledge in this situation--a lower pressure cartridge. All the tests I've seen have been in magnum category. Many people seem to agree Today's 2400 is faster than it was years ago. I also think the guns have something to do with it and maybe the brass.

I think in Keith's era the brass must have been thinner, while today I think 44 SPL brass is 44 Mag brass cut shorter and stamped differently. This reduces capacity somewhat, and that is the magic (I think) of 44 special. The reduced capacity is why it gets such impressive performance from such small charges of powder. In some cases to match the velocity with the same powder/bullet it takes ~20% charge weight in magnum.

Regarding VvN110--Hornady has extolled the powder in their load manual with the same praise you are giving it. It should be a touch slower than 2400 but a touch faster than H110/296. One of the things that is great about most Vitavouri powders is they are relatively bulky and single base, and these sort of powders always seem to be at an advantage in the consistency and cleanness department. 2400 has a pretty high nitroglycerine content from I've read. It's a pity it costs almost 2x what domestic powders cost. Don't know what's going on with Finland because right now the dollar is crushing the Euro, and Miha's molds are a bargain right now. The only powder I've ever used from those Finns is 3n38, which performs no better than Blue Dot in the load I used it in--9mm major loads.

I believe 4227 has been discontinued, thumbcocker. I haven't seen it on a shelf in years. IMO it is way too slow for the application. I think 2400 is too slow.

I think it would be great if there were a bulky powder between Unique and 2400. The only two I know of are Blue Dot and Herco. There is no (good) data that I am aware of for Herco in 44+P with these bullets. I found a little with Blue Dot. I have never had any Herco.

I have been buying 4227 by the 8 lb jug. H4227 is not available, IMR4227 is, identical powder made in Australia. It is currently in stock at Powder Valley for $193, 1 lb for $27.15, also in stock. I mostly use it for 223/5.56 and 308 W cast loads. I have tried it in a Ruger OM Vaquero in 45 C, and an H&R Classic Carbine, 20" barrel, also 45 C. I know this is kind of off topic, but I look forward to trying some in my Wife's Ruger SBH in 44 M. I will post results when I get to the task. Good luck

[Bazoo]

I have enjoyed this conversation and learning some things. Thanks. I'm interested in that dry info you speak of Larry, Could you offer the place to look for it or it's name?

[Drm50]

I haven’t done much experimenting with different powder in 44mag since I started loading for it 55 yrs ago. 2400 for mag loads and Unique for Target. I have just recently purchased a pound H110 because everyone’s claims for it in 44mg carbine.
The level 3 revolvers of S&W and Ruger are exactly the same as their 44mag models. 24/29, Blackhawks. Why wouldn’t they take +p loads?

[rintinglen]

https://saami.org/technical-informat...ami-standards/. I was inspired by Larry to read some of this stuff and was somewhat--make that greatly--surprised at the exceptionally large variances that were considered acceptable

[JAC43]

I'd be interested to see the velocity and cleanliness at the 15.5K psi level for Power Pistol and Longshot with a 429421.

[curioushooter]

Larry, what I don't get is why the actual pressure variation should be any different from velocity variation. If anything velocities should vary more since more variables are involved (barrel friction, lubricant/fouling accumulation, etc). The reason why pressure testing variation is so great is probably because the instrumentation is noisy, not because the pressure actually varies that much.

If I had anything close to a 10% variation in velocity I would suspect something is wrong with my scale, the powder...something. I do not like to see more than 25FPS variation shot to shot in velocity. This represents in a handgun about a 2% variation. I would expect actual pressure to vary withing that range if not less. It just doesn't make any sense any other way. The 8.5 grain of unique with 429215 load has about a 10FPS extreme spread on a given day (I usually chrono a cylinder full...six shots). This is less than 1%. How I am supposed to believe that the pressure is varying by double digits while the velocity is within 1%?

Given this I do not agree that pressure testing is worth pursuing. With variation in that degree it seems it is not very useful, except maybe as a ballpark figure. Something like quickload, while not actually measuring anything, seems to be more useful.

Another thing is I do not know why Pearce lists it as a max in the Freedom arms and not in the Colt. My suspicion is that he didn't pressure test using an actual revolver cylinder (I don't know how that could be rigged up without destruction of the cylinder). I bet what happened is the author sent ammo samples to a lab which ran it, and that loads were categorized after the pressure data was returned. They weren't worked up to a pressure limit like how a powder company prepares its tables. It is pretty clear that within a category they are loads that run higher and lower. Another possibility is that it is all a bunch of bunk.

I am a professional laboratory scientist and have been for 15 years. I am disturbed by the lack of forthrightness regarding testing methods in handloader magazine.

I am curious as to what quickload spits out for how much Unique and Blue Dot can be used up to a 25kPSI limit with the 429215 (220 grain LSWCGC) seated to .325" deep in a 1.15" 44 special case (1.495 OAL).

According to the Handloader date at least 18 grains of 2400 can be used.

[Thomas Traddles]

I have an NMBH Flat Top .44 special and have been reading this thread with interest. I have plenty of Blue Dot and thought I would try 11 grains of BD under a Saeco 429 240 RNFP bullet. This Pearce listed this load for a 240 grain Nosler bullet. I found this to be a very accurate load and a delight to shoot. I don't know that I would go up as far as the 12 -- 12.5 grain Blue Dot load curioushooter listed in the first post. But I am happy to have found a 900+ FPS load that was as accurate as my standard pressure loads using Unique and E3. I have a pound of Power Pistol that I ought to give a try under these same bullets.

[megasupermagnum]

I too have a pressure testing system, however I mainly use it on shotguns. One thing that is nice with these strain gauge systems, is they don't only spit out numbers, they graph the whole pressure curve. Provided you have them attached to your barrel properly, they are incredibly precise. Pressure and velocity is not a 1:1 relationship. I'll see if I have any saved that show this. What you can have is a pressure curve that is steeper, and one that is flatter. The steeper one can peak at a higher pressure, yet due to the shorter curve, provide nearly the same velocity as the lower pressure, but flatter curve. I believe I recently did a 16 gauge target load like this, with a 15 fps ES, yet the pressure varies from something like 6,000 psi to 8,500 psi.

Touching back on your earlier posts. I'm not surprised you like bluedot. It has always been my favorite powder. I have no idea why some try and smear it. In reality, bluedot is the most mild mannered, consistent, and versatile powder that has ever been made. Everyone always points to cold weather. Well, it came out in what, 1968? It is an old school powder! Compared to older powders, it is plenty consistent, and works fine in my realm that varies from about -20 to 95 F. Like anything, you can take it too far. In standard pressure 45 acp, bluedot is fantastic, especially with heavier bullets. Then the next guy comes along "I tried a 185gr at 700 fps with bad results, bluedot sucks".

One of my favorite loads is nearly identical to yours. In 44 magnum, I like 13 grains BD with the Keith bullet for about 1225 fps. I've had luck all over the chart though, anything from 11 to 17 grains shoots great in 44 magnum.

With 2400, it always has been a sootier powder. Many of us never cared about that at all, which is why you don't see it mentioned. Elmer Keith in particular lived through the change from black powder to smokeless. By comparison 2400 is clean. I do not know for sure why you would get leading though. I can only assume your bullet is not providing a good seal. I would try with a softer bullet. I never loved 2400, but always got decent results. I've never tried it in a lower pressure cartridge though. I am of the opinion that new 2400 is NOT any faster than old 2400. I believe it was Larry Gibson who managed to test them. The only thing that has changed is the SAMMI pressure specs.

[Bazoo]

MSM, thank you for your post.

So my question, is, if pressure curve variation accounts for differences in pressure but with little to no impact on the velocity, what is causing the different pressure curves? Is it the minute differences in brass (bullet tension and volume)? Maybe a combination of that and primer variation and bullet variation "stacking" together.

I wonder what the pressure curve and velocity ES would be if the same case was used for a string of measurements.

[megasupermagnum]

MSM, thank you for your post.

So my question, is, if pressure curve variation accounts for differences in pressure but with little to no impact on the velocity, what is causing the different pressure curves? Is it the minute differences in brass (bullet tension and volume)? Maybe a combination of that and primer variation and bullet variation "stacking" together.

I wonder what the pressure curve and velocity ES would be if the same case was used for a string of measurements.

I am not equipped to prove what causes what. In a shotgun, there are so many variables, it would take me forever to say for sure that it is crimp, or the wad, or ignition, etc. Also in the case of shotguns, the variations don't seem to much matter. In a handgun or rifle, they would show up on target. Again, I can't prove it, but I have to think this may be one reason why you can have a load with a 20 fps ES, yet shoots horrible groups. Then change the powder charge or primer, get 60 fps ES, and shoot tiny groups.

[megasupermagnum]

I have to apologize, because I can't seem to find said pressure trace file. Instead the best I can do is this example that came with the program. I have no idea what the velocities were, I did not shoot these. Let's pretend for our purposes that the velocities are reasonably consistent, and they probably were. The thing to take note of is while red and blue peak higher, they also fall off faster. On the other hand green and orange do not peak as high, but maintain pressure longer. This graph looks fairly typical of many shotgun target loads I've seen myself. While I have never tested 44 special or 44 magnum, I simply wanted to show how peak pressure variances can happen while still producing very consistent velocities.

[megasupermagnum]

A better way to say it is Velocity = Pressure + Time.

Beyond that, I can't give specifics. I'm just a guy who had the $600 to buy the equipment, and the ability to read the instructions.