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/showthread.php?339085-The-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/showthread.php?339085-The-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.

[Shuz]

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.

Well said! AMEN!

[tdoyka]

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.

but, but, but everybody likes to argue:bigsmyl2:[smilie=l:[smilie=l:[smilie=l:

[Tracy]

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.

Cylinder wall thickness has nothing to do with it. It's more about the crane, frame, lockwork etc. Also, 16 grains under a 158 grain bullet is well over most book loads; even the older books.

Btw, several are referring to Hercules 2400 as "H-2400." Which reminds me that there actually was a powder from Hodgdon called H-240. It was similar to 2400, but faster. I have a Lyman book that shows .44 Magnum Keith (429421) bullet loads of 23.0 2400 at 1460 fps, or 22.0 H240 at 1509 fps. The same book shows .357 Mag loads with the 165 grain 358429 Keith bullet (crimped over the forward driving band) of 14.0 2400 for 1460 fps, or 13.5 H240 for 1475 fps. Also .357 with 158 grain 358156 Thompson bullet with 15.0 2400 for 1520 fps, or 14.0 H240 for 1530 fps.

[44MAG#1]

Cylinder wall thickness has nothing to do with it. It's more about the crane, frame, lockwork etc. Also, 16 grains under a 158 grain bullet is well over most book loads; even the older books.

Btw, several are referring to Hercules 2400 as "H-2400." Which reminds me that there actually was a powder from Hodgdon called H-240. It was similar to 2400, but faster. I have a Lyman book that shows .44 Magnum Keith (429421) bullet loads of 23.0 2400 at 1460 fps, or 22.0 H240 at 1509 fps. The same book shows .357 Mag loads with the 165 grain 358429 Keith bullet (crimped over the forward driving band) of 14.0 2400 for 1460 fps, or 13.5 H240 for 1475 fps. Also .357 with 158 grain 358156 Thompson bullet with 15.0 2400 for 1520 fps, or 14.0 H240 for 1530 fps.

Okay Ill give you that but isnt the "N" frame an N frame? What about the crane, frame, lockwork etc. that is different.
Remember I am almost 65 and have owned J, K, L,, N and X frames in my life. Still own L, N, and X frame Smiths. Still shoot them. Know the internals too.
Just explain the senario to us. I am sure others want to know too. A couple thousand???

[Tracy]

Okay Ill give you that but isnt the "N" frame an N frame? What about the crane, frame, lockwork etc. that is different.
Remember I am almost 65 and have owned J, K, L,, N and X frames in my life. Still own L, N, and X frame Smiths. Still shoot them. Know the internals too.
Just explain the senario to us. I am sure others want to know too. A couple thousand???
Can't answer that, since I'm not the one who posted it. But I do know that I have had difficulties with N frame lockwork in both .44 Mag and .357 Mag; difficulties that I didn't have with even warm-loaded (to .44 Mag energy levels) .45 Colt in a 25-5. I don't know for certain that it had anything to do with pressure, but it seems that way to me.

[9.3X62AL]

I have S&W L- and N-frame 357 Magnum wheelguns living in my safe, and they get shot quite a bit. For a lot of years, my shop's duty load was the W-W Super-X 158 grain JHP, which from my rather tight Model 686 x 4" yields about 1250 FPS. 13.5 grains of 2400 does a great imitation of that load with Lyman #358156 capping the case mouth. The 357 Magnum got neutered to some extent by SAAMI in the 1990s, as did the 44 Magnum. PSIs and CUPs don't speak the same language, it seems.

Nothing is as constant as change, though--and about 4 years ago the folks that sign my CCW decreed that 357 Magnums must carry the Federal #357B load, their 125 grain JHP that churns up about 1425 FPS from that 686 mentioned above. I scored about a thousand Rem 125 JHP bullets soon after that, and found that 17.5 grains of 2400 mimics the Federal loading pretty closely. 125s aren't as accurate as the 158s, but run to SAAMI ratings the lighter bullets push back a bit less.

More change happened about a year ago. Away went most of the rules governing retiree CCW platform and caliber specs. People in cubicle farms have a very different set of chromosomes than my issued allotment, obviously. When in Rome......

[GooseGestapo]

I should have stated "SEVERAL thousand" as in closer to 10,000 as I started casting with a Lyman 358477 mold I bought at a yard sale. I had a problem with mold and sent it back to Lyman, who returned a NEW mold, I still have. I've shot over 50,000 bullets cast from it, but switched to Lee 6-cav molds about 35yrs ago.

Indeed, it was the yoke (S&W's have "yokes", Colt calls it a "crane"), hand and index on extractor that lossened up. Subsequent owner returned it to Smith who repaired it under warranty. He still has it, and shoots it occasionally. 40yrs after...
Jeff Weaver and Skeeter Skeleton used 16.2gr and 16.0gr respectively. Newer manuals show 14.5-15.0 as max. I don't disagree.
However, I haven't shot a lot of .357mag reloads fo last 20yrs. But, based on primer purchases, over 1,000,000 .38spl over last 40yrs.

[oldblinddog]

Can't answer that, since I'm not the one who posted it. But I do know that I have had difficulties with N frame lockwork in both .44 Mag and .357 Mag; difficulties that I didn't have with even warm-loaded (to .44 Mag energy levels) .45 Colt in a 25-5. I don't know for certain that it had anything to do with pressure, but it seems that way to me.

I have owned 25's and 29's. 24's, 25's, 27's, 28's and 29's are ALL N frame guns. AFAIK the internal lockwork is essentially the same.

A 25-5 is not up to 44 Mag pressures in .45 Colt. Just sayin'.

[sharpshooter3040]

I have lots of both. I was wondering the same thing years ago. I loaded up several of each type and found no appreciable difference


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[trapper9260]

I use the same charge in my loads of H and A and I see no differents of how it shoots.It is my go to for 410 loads.

[Larry Gibson]

"The 357 Magnum got neutered to some extent by SAAMI in the 1990s, as did the 44 Magnum. PSIs and CUPs don't speak the same language, it seems. "

I have pressure tested quite a bit of factory 357 and 44 Magnum ammunition, old and new. Both older Remington and Winchester dating back to the mid 60s gives very close to the SAAMI MAP psi (transducer/gauge). The 357, with the shift of LE trainng in the late '60s and early '70s to the use of duty ammunition instead of wadcutters, it was found the S&W M19s (the most common 357 revolver used back then in LE) did not hold up to a steady diet of factory 357 loads. It was the factories that then "dumbed down" the loads. The 44 magnum factory loads were also dumbed down because the M29s began having problems (real or imagined?). The SAAMI MAP for both cartridges remained the same.

Most factory major manufacturors, excluding the high performance ones such as Corbon, 357 and 44 magnum loads pressures I have tested /measured Oehler M43 PBL with gauge) run from the mid 25K psi to the low 30K psi. The lessor velocities of such loads is also comensorite with the lower psi's.

[9.3X62AL]

Yup. And now we have J-frame 357 Magnums and Win '73 clones in 44 Magnum. NO THANK YOU to both.

The K-frame 357s apparently don't like the Federal #357B load that FBI recommends, either. Pressures are within modern SAAMI-specs, but still the K-frames object. Not an issue for me, since my 357s are L- and N-frames, Ruger, or Henry. I also have 44 Magnum short and long guns, so there is no need to make the 357 Magnum stretch its legs much, beyond a few "BECAUSE IT'S THERE" loads for the Bisley Blackhawk (enough 2400 compressed under a #358156 to evoke 1550 FPS from a 7.5" barrel). The brass mostly falls free when you open the gate--elevate the muzzle--and turn the cylinder. Primer pockets are fine. At those pressures, 2400 burns very clean, too. Ruger revolvers are BEASTS. (Kids, don't try this at home).

[Tracy]

I have owned 25's and 29's. 24's, 25's, 27's, 28's and 29's are ALL N frame guns. AFAIK the internal lockwork is essentially the same.

A 25-5 is not up to 44 Mag pressures in .45 Colt. Just sayin'.
I didn't say anything about .44 Mag pressures in a 25-5. .44 Mag energy in a .45 Colt occurs at about 20 percent lower pressure than a .44 Mag.
That was my point, in fact: in my experience (which admittedly includes only one 25-5 but several 29s and 629s as well as a 27 and a 28), even .45 Colt loads that equal .44 Mag energy levels seem to be below the pressure threshold that causes undue wear in an N frame.
.357 and .44 Mags loaded to current specs are probably below that threshold as well.

[Tracy]

"The 357 Magnum got neutered to some extent by SAAMI in the 1990s, as did the 44 Magnum. PSIs and CUPs don't speak the same language, it seems. "

I have pressure tested quite a bit of factory 357 and 44 Magnum ammunition, old and new. Both older Remington and Winchester dating back to the mid 60s gives very close to the SAAMI MAP psi (transducer/gauge). The 357, with the shift of LE trainng in the late '60s and early '70s to the use of duty ammunition instead of wadcutters, it was found the S&W M19s (the most common 357 revolver used back then in LE) did not hold up to a steady diet of factory 357 loads. It was the factories that then "dumbed down" the loads. The 44 magnum factory loads were also dumbed down because the M29s began having problems (real or imagined?). The SAAMI MAP for both cartridges remained the same.
Most factory major manufacturors, excluding the high performance ones such as Corbon, 357 and 44 magnum loads pressures I have tested /measured Oehler M43 PBL with gauge) run from the mid 25K psi to the low 30K psi. The lessor velocities of such loads is also comensorite with the lower psi's.
I finally gave up on N-frame .44 Mags after trying several times to no avail, to get one to last even a thousand rounds of published 240-250 grain loads before developing functional problems. Maybe those standard bread and butter .44 Magnum loads weren't too hot for them; perhaps they would have had the same problems with less than 1,000 rounds of factory .44 Special loads too. Who knows.

[44MAG#1]

Let's say the 44 Mag factory loads have been dropped down a hundred fps because of the junk M29's and junk M629's. If one had a big bull elk in his sights at 50 yards would that Hundred fps make much difference or would how good a shot you are and if you're using a proper bullet would make the difference or would that extra hundred fps more would make all the difference one would need?

[Larry Gibson]

44MAG#1

Were that the case I would have my Ruger FTBH in hand with full power 44 Magnum loads............thus the elk wouldn't notice any difference because there wouldn't be any difference........

If I wanted to carry a heavily loaded 44 SPL then that's what I would have. I carry a 44 Magnum because I want 44 Magnum performance.

[44MAG#1]

What 44 Special do you carry that is loaded within 100 fps of the Top end 44 Mag loads you are talking about in the same barrel length?
Let's say 1240 with a Keith in a 4 inch M629?
BTW that wasn't the question I asked. I probably would be carrying my 454 Casull but there again that wasn't the question.

[Larry Gibson]

As I said "heavily loaded 44 SPL" try the origional Keith 44 SPL load of 18.5 gr 2400 under a 429421.......however, I do not carry that because I carry full power 44 Magnum loads. BTW; 1240 fps out of any 4" revolver with a 240 gr bullet is close to top end 44 magnum loads. Most 240 gr factory loads (with a couple exceptions as previously mentioned) with only be pushing 1100 fps +/- out of a 4" revolver. I load, specifically, a 240 XTP over 24 gr H110 or a 429640 Devastator HP at 270 gr over 23 gr H110.......1450 and 1375 fps out of my Ruger FTBH. Those 2 loads are right at the SAAMI MAP for the 44 magnum, not guessing as I have measured the pressure.

As to your "question"...which one? You asked 3 questions in that one sentence. My answer referenced them all; "thus the elk wouldn't notice any difference because there wouldn't be any difference". The elk wouldn't notice any differenc because I wouldn't be carrying a 4" M629. As stated I would have my Ruger FTBH with a 6 1/2" barrel. Were I to carry a 4" 44 magnum revolver it would be my Anaconda which can handle full power 44 magnum loads without the problems the M629 has........thus there wouldn't be any difference there either.

No sense getting into a nutrole here as I never told you not to carry and use whatever floats your boat. You can use what ever you want. I simply stated the facts regarding factory 44 magnum ammunition power levels. I also simply stated what power level of ammunition I carry when hunting with a 44 magnum and why. Shouldn't I be able to use what I want and say why?

[44MAG#1]

The full load Keith 44 Special load was 17.5 2400 in solid head cases.
Do you honestly think a M29 or a M629 couldn't take your "full load" for hunting?
Do you actually believe you could tell the difference in killing power between 1400 or 1300 fps with your aforementioned bullet? I don't think for one second you do.
Good for discussion though and discussions are good.
As far as toughness... Ruger is hands down over a Smith. I own Rugers and have run loads in them I wouldn't attemp in a Smith.
But let's keep our feet on the ground okay. Just like you and I wouldn't but a half ton pick up to haul 2 tons of rock on on a regular basis neither we would buy a dump truck to haul the groceries in either.

[Larry Gibson]

The full load Keith 44 Special load was 17.5 2400 in solid head cases.

And it was 18.5 gr in balloon head cases.......same velocity for both and equal to some factory "44 Magnum" loads I've tested.

Do you honestly think a M29 or a M629 couldn't take your "full load" for hunting?

Yes, but not for long as many have reported/experienced.

Do you actually believe you could tell the difference in killing power between 1400 or 1300 fps with your aforementioned bullet? I don't think for one second you do.

Killing power means different things to different people. I have killed deer and a few other animals including elk with heavy 44 SPL loads, factory 44 Magnum loads and my own 2 loads mentioned (HP'd 429244 instead of the Devastator) and yes, I could "tell the difference". The full power 44 magnum loads killed them quicker.

Good for discussion though and discussions are good.

That it is. Question(s) for you for the sake of discussion; why do you suppose the 280 Rem is considered more powerful (kills better) than the 7x57, the 7 Rem Mag than the 280, the 308W better than the 300 Savage, the '06 better than the 308W and the 300 Win Mag better than the '06? There are many more similar comparisons but the answer is the larger the capacity per caliber the faster a given bullet can be pushed and thus a "difference". Certainly may not be needed or even wanted by some who are happy with the lessor powered cartridge. Yet to another shooter the more powerful cartridge is preferred.

If the factory 240 gr out of your 4" M629 is sufficient then why would you be found with a 454 Casul in your hand? I imagine for the same reason I prefer to have full power 44 Magnum loads in my revolvers.......because there is a difference.

As far as toughness... Ruger is hands down over a Smith. I own Rugers and have run loads in them I wouldn't attemp in a Smith.

Ain't that the truth.......

[44MAG#1]

Still don't believe you actually believe one can tell the difference in 100 fps. WHy, used to work years ago for a company that paid incentive on production. An operator would get on their machine and run it for a few minutes and then would be yelling my machine is running slow. I would time it and it would be running fast. I would put it on the prescribed time by time study people and may have slowed it down as much as five seconds on a 30 second cycle and tell them I set it on time. They thought I sped it up to put it on time when I actually slowed it down to put it on time. They were perfectly content in their mind. No more problems.
Very few shots on game is under the EXACT same circumstances. Was the deer or whatever the game excited, was one calm, was one not, was the shot exactly in the same place on the last 3 or 4 deer taken, was the deer the same size, was the game at the exact same range? Too many variables with a few head of game taken to make a concrete decision on small amounts of velocity.
Now you can make that decision if you want and you have. I will accept that as the operator in the aforementioned scenario made on their machine cycle.

BTW, funny how our minds work. That operator thought they would be making more money after I SPED up to put it on time. But alas I slowed it down to put on the approved cycle time.

Enough said.

[dwtroll]

OK, OK. I now am the proud owner of a bottle of 2400 RIFLE powder. Is this the OLD stuff and should it still be good.??? Times are HARD AND i WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A LOAD FOR 357 WITH A 158 swc plated X treem bullets.
Does anyone have a data sheet for this load.???

[Larry Gibson]

Old H2400 or new Alliant 2400 I would consider, based on actual pressure measurement, 14.5 gr to be a maximum load under any 158 cast bullet, lubed, plated or PC'd in the 357 magnum cartridge.

[Jtarm]

Another excellent example of why some are "confused" regarding the burning rate of Alliant 2400 under a 44 "Keith" bullet; http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?339085-The-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".

Sounds to me like the “different” claim got started by people who destroyed their guns and refused to admit they could have done something wrong.

[smithnframe]

The only thing I’ve seen changed are the powder charges!

[Larry Gibson]

Sounds to me like the “different” claim got started by people who destroyed their guns and refused to admit they could have done something wrong.

Happens more often than many believe as the tendency is to want to blame something other than "pilot error"........

[Jtarm]

Happens more often than many believe as the tendency is to want to blame something other than "pilot error"........

Yup.

Remember the old “Light charge of Bullseye will detonate” myth?

Undoubtedly double charges over .38 wadcutters, but people believed it.

[ddixie884]

OK, OK. I now am the proud owner of a bottle of 2400 RIFLE powder. Is this the OLD stuff and should it still be good.??? Times are HARD AND i WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A LOAD FOR 357 WITH A 158 swc plated X treem bullets.
Does anyone have a data sheet for this load.???

I would try about 13gr to start. You may work up or not as you please........

[Norske]

A man that volunteers at my range worked at Alliant's high explosive division at the time 2400 was becoming cleaner burning. He told me the chemical engineers working on 2400 admitted the burn rate changed, although they didn't change the burn rate of Unique when they cleaned that powder up.
Look at new and old reloading manuals. The new powder charge to match Elmer's velocity is now 20 gr 2400, no longer 10% more.

[Char-Gar]

When Hercules stopped making powder and Alliant took over, these was all kinds of stuff floating around about changes. Thing have settled down and Larry is 100% right.

[Norske]

My hands noticed a difference when my shiny cardboard container of 2400 was replaced by a black plastic bottle. Old vs. new. My SBH's recoil became hard to control with 21 gr of the newer 2400.

[Murphy]

The one email I wish I had saved.

Back when 2400 went from Hercules to Alliant, it took about 18-24 months before the internet spread the word that the NEW 2400 is hotter. One very well known writer who is still very active writing for magazines and writing books, even swore it was hotter. I decided to just email the fine folks at Hercules/Alliant. A couple of days later I received a reply stating emphatically that the formula for 2400 had not been changed, period. I've been using 2400 for 40 years like many others, and can't tell one bit of difference.

I've been through half a dozen (if not more) internet providers since then. I just wish I had been using an online email (yahoo,hotmail...etc) at the time. Instead, I was using Microsoft Outlook and a lot of my old emails are long, long gone.

Murphy

[Savvy Jack]

but then I didn't buy the 44 magnums to not be 44 magnums......

Larry Gibson

That's Awesome!!! LOL!!!!

[Drm50]

What Blackwater says. I got no instruments to measure difference but shooting several thousand 44s since 60s I’ve noticed no difference. When I was shooting a lot a 44mag I was shooting the Kieth bullet. The last 20 years I have shot 240 Jhp for deer with same load of 2400.

[Wooserco]

That's what I loved (back in the day) about 2400. I loaded the same 20.0 grains behind a Hornady 240 gr. XTP for my Ruger SBH (12" bbl.) as I did my Lever Action Rifle. I used the same load under a 165 grain cast boolit in my .308 at 200 and 300 yards with my bolt action rifle in competition. Ironically, the same sight settings for my 200 yard load were only one click off my 600 yard loads with Sierra 168 gr Match Kings. Good times back then.

[kreuzlover]

I shoot IHMSA silhouette, using Ruger 10.5" barrel Super Blackhawk. I use the RCBS silhouette bullet which is supposed to drop out of the mold at 245 grains. Using wheel weights, it comes out of my mold at a little over 250 grains. I chose a load out of the Lyman book, 20 grains. Over my Oehler chrono, it comes out of that Rugers barrel at average of 1496 fps! I would not want to try 22 grains in my Ruger. This powder was Alliant, not the old Hercules. I think the new stuff is HOTTER than the old Hercules formula, based on my chronograph results.

[Shuz]

kreuzlover--Larry Gibson dispelled the myth several years ago, that the new 2400 from Alliant is "hotter" than the old Hercules 2400 by performing tests on each powder with pressure testing equipment. He found that the difference was no more than one would see from normal lot to lot variations. Why the myth continues is because new folks don't do the research or ask the right people.

[Savvy Jack]

Interestingly my opinion is that because Alliant changed the writing on the can for selling appeal, folks just assumed it was hotter. What writing? The part where they changed the writing from a rifle powder to a handgun magnum powder.

Actually Hercules changed the name from a rifle powder to just simply a smokeless powder but then Alliant completely changed it to handgun magnum powder.

282265 282266

Pressures are pressures and if the formula changes enough to change pressures, it will be noted.

If you think forums are scared of being shut down because of "Issues", just think what the powder manufactures are thinking!!!

[1hole]

kreuzlover--Larry Gibson dispelled the myth several years ago, that the new 2400 from Alliant is "hotter" than the old Hercules 2400 by performing tests on each powder with pressure testing equipment. He found that the difference was no more than one would see from normal lot to lot variations.

I've seen a LOT of web guru posts claiming some old powder has been changed to make it hotter and therefore it's supposed to be foolish to use the old loading data for the "new" powder. But I've never heard or read a single comment about why any powder maker would sneekly change a canister powder burn rate without warning or reason! Lordy, that would be legal liability stupid and powder makers are not stupid!

IF our propellent makers wish to market a new powder they simply give it a new name and sell it for what it is. They sure won't trick their customers into buying something different - and therefore possibly dangerous - under an old established name! But, I suppose as long as inflated web gurus can find gullible people to frighten it won't stop.