H2400 vs a2400

[44MAG#1]

Does anyone know when 2400 was changed (if it was) and what happened to it in the change?
Does anyone have any actual proof it was changed, other than the normal changes all powder goes through from lot to lot being compared to the master lot and the difference between master lots whenever they run out and new master lots are gathered?
I am talking about an e-mail, letter etc. from someone that has been with Alliant and when it was Hercules for enough years to know what they are talking about. Not some young guy company timewise that may be guessing, going by word of mouth or anything some secretary sent.

[Shuz]

Larry Gibson did a very thorough comparison test several years ago, pitting Hercules 2400 against Alliant 2400. What he determined was that there was absolutely no difference between the two, except for what you would normally find in lot to lot variations.

[44MAG#1]

Larry Gibson did a very thorough comparison test several years ago, pitting Hercules 2400 against Alliant 2400. What he determined was that there was absolutely no difference between the two, except for what you would normally find in lot to lot variations.

Yes I know that and have the link saved. But that wasn't my question. So many people start squalling the 2400's have been change but no one has given any definitive proof of it. Just he said she said or they heard it third, fourth, fifth or sixth hand info.
Surely someone has the proof.

[Larry Gibson]

According to Alliant, who ought to know, the formula wasn't changed. Any variation between the two will just be because of normal lot to lot variation. There is lot to lot variation in all powders of all burning rates. That's why they track the different lots.

Keith's load of 22 gr 2400, either Hercules or Alliant, under a 240 - 255 gr cast 429421 or 44-250-KT is still an excellent load and one I use. Yes, it is a top end SAAMI spec 44 Magnum load (I have pressure tested it) but then I didn't buy the 44 magnums to not be 44 magnums......

Larry Gibson

[JSH]

I happened on a fair bit of H 2400 a while back, I would guess it to be from the late 70's. It shows different on target and in loads for sure. Being that old, it could be from age as much as anything.
I approached it with caution and worked up, all pistol cartridges.

I know this is not an answer your looking for, just a bit of my findings.

[winelover]

My experience with 2400, mirrors Larry's. I've been using it for magnum revolver loads since the mid 70's. Have burned up numerous 8# jugs, over the years. I too still use Keith's load....in fact with magnum primers, as was called for in the past.

Winelover

[44MAG#1]

My experience with 2400, mirrors Larry's. I've been using it for magnum revolver loads since the mid 70's. Have burned up numerous 8# jugs, over the years. I too still use Keith's load....in fact with magnum primers, as was called for in the past.

Winelover

I know all that wine lover. As I said above I know about Gibsons test and believe it. 2400 hasn't changed but with the exception of normal changes from lot to lot. I KNOW THAT.
I wanted to know where all these people that say it has changed (outside of normal lot to lot changes) have their proof. Either from an email, letter etc. from Alliant that it has changed but proof from the ballistic lab from someone who knows. Not from a secretary or a short timer that just doesn't know.
Notice no one has posted any proof that it has. I doubt they will from someone that has the credentials that can be believed.

[williamwaco]

I know all that wine lover. As I said above I know about Gibsons test and believe it. 2400 hasn't changed but with the exception of normal changes from lot to lot. I KNOW THAT.
I wanted to know where all these people that say it has changed (outside of normal lot to lot changes) have their proof. Either from an email, letter etc. from Alliant that it has changed but proof from the ballistic lab from someone who knows. Not from a secretary or a short timer that just doesn't know.
Notice no one has posted any proof that it has. I doubt they will from someone that has the credentials that can be believed.

Nobody has proof that it has been changed.
This is a perfect example of fake news being propagated by "cut and paste".

[mart]

I wanted to know where all these people that say it has changed (outside of normal lot to lot changes) have their proof. Either from an email, letter etc. from Alliant that it has changed but proof from the ballistic lab from someone who knows. Not from a secretary or a short timer that just doesn't know.
Notice no one has posted any proof that it has. I doubt they will from someone that has the credentials that can be believed.

Probably from the same place all firearms myths originate. Know it alls on both sides of the gun counters, internet experts with more keyboard time than trigger time and gun writers (some, not all) regurgitating myths without actually putting them to the test.

I don't have access to pressure testing equipment but I do have to echo Larry and winelover's comments. I've used 2400 for as long as I've been loading magnum handguns and hope to never be without it. Velocities have been consistent over the last 30 years in 357, 401 Powermag, 41 and 44 magnums as well as Keith's do it all 44 Special load of 17 grains under a 429421.

[Tracy]

I remember (as I'm sure many of you do) when the name changed from Hercules to Alliant, and there were quite a few published articles claiming that Alliant 2400 was a new, faster-burning formulation. Some people even claimed that the "new" 2400 is closer to Blue Dot than to the original 2400! Just goes to show that you can't believe everything you read, and just because one article is more "current" than older publications doesn't make it more true, or supersede the older.

About that Keith load: while some manuals and articles did specify magnum primers, Elmer himself used standard primers and recommended not using magnum primers in the load.

And by the way, a long-time member of this forum once blew a gasket over my mention of using the Keith .44 Mag load and accused me of abusing my revolvers in using it. Then went further and spouted the same nonsense about new vs old 2400 etc, ignoring the fact that Alliant didn't even exist yet when the Keith load was my go-to .44 Mag load.

[9.3X62AL]

During times of active shooting sport participation--like the past 40 years or so --2400 has been the most-used powder for me as measured by pounds-consumed-per-year. No other powder is even a close 2nd place. 410 shotshells, magnum revolvers, cast bullet rifle loads all get 2400 almost exclusively. None of my load weights have needed change over those 40 years. This isn't "absolute proof", but it runs real close to "Proof beyond reasonable doubt"--which was the standard at my old job site most of the time.

[lotech]

I started using #2400 in 1965 and have used a good bit of it until the last couple of years when I stopped loading magnum handgun cartridges. I believe the alleged changes in the formulation of #2400 were Internet changes only; powder was unaffected.

I have never tested handgun powders for lot-to-lot variations, but I doubt they are much different than variations in different lots of rifle powders. I checked two batches of H4831 in the last year or so in a rifle chambered in 7x61 Sharpe & Hart. Powder from one lot required one grain more powder to get the same velocity as powder from the other lot. That's a mighty small difference and would probably go unnoticed in the field unless shots were incredibly long.

[Larry Gibson]

Another excellent example of why some are "confused" regarding the burning rate of Alliant 2400 under a 44 "Keith" bullet; http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...e-Three-Keiths

The classic 22 gr load is safe under only one of those "Keith" bullets. Under the other two 22 gr of 2400 would indeed be "hot".

[Drm50]

I have been using H-2400 since 60s. Last 3lb was A-2400. Used same load of 22gr that I have been using in SBH since it was new. No difference as far as I can see. It's the only revolver I shot
hot, only because that's it's sweet spot. Have 1894 tuned with this load also, but am going to
try some 110 for carbine loads with 240XTP. for 94 & #3 Ruger. My S&Ws are only fed mild loads
and cast boolits. I don't believe in hot rodding a precision piece for no purpose. Split frame on DAs
not near as strong as solid SA frame.

[sixshot]

Brian Pearce has stated more than once that the new Alliant 2400 is a tick faster than the older Hercules 2400 & he, on more than one occasion in Handloader magazine has suggested dropping the old 22 gr standard to 21.3 grs.

Dick

[murf205]

Another excellent example of why some are "confused" regarding the burning rate of Alliant 2400 under a 44 "Keith" bullet; http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...e-Three-Keiths

The classic 22 gr load is safe under only one of those "Keith" bullets. Under the other two 22 gr of 2400 would indeed be "hot".

Larry, I have some recently manufactured 2400 and it seems to burn cleaner that the Hercules 2400. My lot of the older stuff was pretty nasty with 44 mag loads. I used a 429421 with 16.6 grs and 22 grs (H2400) with 240gr Hornady's and Speer's. I still load the exact loads with the new stuff and it seems cleaner. As I expected, the 22gr load was/is cleaner with old and new. Am I dreaming?

[Larry Gibson]

Are you dreaming.....probably not. I never got a "clean" burn with 16.5 or 18.5 gr loads under the 429421 in special and magnum cases either. Always was a bit of "unburned" kernels of powder. Weren't a problem in SAs but could get under the extractor of DAs and cause problems. I've also not really noticed either H or A 2400 being cleaner as they both leave little unburned powder kernels. I only use the full 22 gr load these days as Unique has filled the powder roll for "medium" level loads.

[GooseGestapo]

Well, I don't normally wade into this afray, but I've used #2400 since 1972.

I concur with Brian Pierce, that it is a tad faster than back in the early '70's. I base this on several anecdotal evidences. I first used it in .357mag and .22Hornet. I loosened up a S&W M28 with a couple of thousand 158gr Zero JSP using Jeff Weaver and Skeeter Skelton's load of 16.0gr. And, I used CCI magnum primers.

I traded it in on a M29 circa 1975. Shot several hundred 22.0gr with Lyman 255gr SWC but decided that 10.0gr Unique was more to my liking.

I didn't use much #2400 for a couple of decades. I then used some newer (but still Hercules) circa 1990-1. I found that 15.0gr with a 158gr Hornady or Remington gave me essentially the same performance that I got 20yrs earlier, but was a tad bit cleaner burning. I eventually shot up that 8lbs, and got some more, this time 4lbs of Alliant. It is waaayy over max with my .22Hornet. But just checking my Speer #2 vs Speer #8 confirmed what I saw with the Hornet.
I don't believe the "formula" has been changed, but MANY other things have. Source of materials used in mfg, equipment used to process materials, instruments used in testing, and improvements in formulating the materials. My best friend is an industrial chemist, and he concurs that #2400 has morphed a bit. So too has the S&W M29 and M66's used to burn so much of it!

I attribute it to what an engineer friend called tolerance stacking and tolerance drift.
I like the NEW #2400. Just bought an 8lb keg 6mos and it's already nearly half gone. Either 12.0gr in a Marlin .25-36, 16-24gr through a '03-A3, or Mk4#1, or 29.5gr in several .45/70's...

[44MAG#1]

Isn't a M28 an N Frame 357. The cheaper version of a M27???
Not saying you didn't loosen it up but it is hard for me to understand how a "couple thousand" rounds loaded with 16 gr 2400 and 158 gr jacketed bullets.
How was that accomplished?
There is no doubt the cylinder is more, more, more than thick enough around the chambers to withstand far more pressure than that load considering the same size gun is chambered in 44 Mag and 41 Mag.
There has got to be more too this.

[Blackwater]

The whole story is this: Some time ago, Alliant bought out Hercules' powder facilities, and H2400 because A2400, but the formula stayed the same. However, within that same time period, technology forged on, and ALL powders are more accurately formulated and made now, and some say they've become just a half click "faster" because of the refinement in the chemicals used now, but not nearly enough to be significant, and surely within the normal bounds of lot to lot variation. So essentially, 2400 is 2400 is 2400, and all else is just fodder for the forums and those who just want/need something to argue about. It's really just that simple.