Anyone have chrono data New 2400

[TCLouis]

and 429421 and/or Ranch Dogs 44 Boolit.

18 - 22 grains of "New" 2400 and either or both of these boolits.

I'll be using 7 1/2 inch RedHawk

For those that have shot "old" and "new" 2400 side by side over a chronographdo you find any difference?

I sure seems like milsurp 4759 would work here also, but have not tried it . . .
Too bulky?
Too slow?

Nosey folks wanta know stuff.

[Bass Ackward]

and 429421 and/or Ranch Dogs 44 Boolit.

18 - 22 grains of "New" 2400 and either or both of these boolits.

I'll be using 7 1/2 inch RedHawk

For those that have shot "old" and "new" 2400 side by side over a chronographdo you find any difference?

I sure seems like milsurp 4759 would work here also, but have not tried it . . .
Too bulky?
Too slow?

Nosey folks wanta know stuff.

TC,

The Keith and 19 grains at 1300 fps and @ 26k psi. But this was before we took the endshake out of his gun. I would expect maybe 1300 fps now that the gap is consistent.

Yes on seeing a difference. I still have one pound of the old and although there ain't supposed to be a difference, the chrono says there is. I think this difference is attributible to normal (wide) batch to batch differences from years ago. Because Joe said the company claims it's the same stuff. I don't notice these differences in todays produced 2400.

4759 will work, but is an expensive powder for this use. I prefer to use it in rifle applications for the bulk advantage it provides.

[Larry Gibson]

and 429421 and/or Ranch Dogs 44 Boolit.

18 - 22 grains of "New" 2400 and either or both of these boolits.

I'll be using 7 1/2 inch RedHawk

For those that have shot "old" and "new" 2400 side by side over a chronographdo you find any difference?

I sure seems like milsurp 4759 would work here also, but have not tried it . . .
Too bulky?
Too slow?

Nosey folks wanta know stuff.

Since June I have been using 2 different lots of the new and had just finished up the last of my old 2400 in a new Ruger .44 50th Anniversary. Other than the normal lot to lot variation (as noted by Bass) I've not seen any difference. I've also run a few "standard" 2400 loads with a couple .30/.31 cal rifles and the chronograph and target says there's no difference.

In the .44 RFT (6 1/2" barrel) in winchester cases with WLP primers the RCBS Keith (429-250) over 22 gr 2400 (the classic "old" Keith load) runs 1331 fps.

My records show I chronographed (got my first Oehler for Christmas of '74) a Ruger SBH with 7 1/2" barrel in 1975 using the same load only with old 2400 and a Lyman 429421 Keith bullet and the velocity was 1412 fps. So I'd say the new 2400 is pretty much the same which is what Alliant says.

Larry Gibson

[lovedogs]

I'd been using some old 2400 for years and finally ran low. I bought some new 2400 but had heard some talk about differences in old and new. I called Alliant and asked them about that. They said they are the same formula and behave the same. Of course, the common warning about slight differences from lot to lot apply. If they changed their powder they'd be blowing up guns and getting sued left and right. I did run some old vs. new through a chronograph and found the difference was no different than what powders usually run from lot to lot. In fact, the 30 yr. old stuff and the new were only 7 FPS apart. That's darn good and consistent. Of course, it would depend on how it was stored, also. If stored improperly the old stuff could lose it's potency.