Is This True Regarding 2400

[Kawriverrat]

2400 is one of 4 powders I've used a lot of. The comments below come from a well respected fella. However I cant say that I've heard some of what is said here accepted as general knowledge about 2400. It certainly hasnt been my experience with this powder. I would like to hear comments on this.... Jeff


Here's some data on 2400 powder. It was designed in 1930 for the 22 Hornet and later was used in commercial 410 shotgun ammo. Though the formula changed slightly since it first came out, it is still the most unstable handgun powder on the market. All powders change characteristics a little when different bullet weights, bullet seating depths, or magnum primers are used. 2400's burn rate changes radically with the above. It is also way more temperature sensitive than any other hand gun powder. As the revolver's chamber temperatures heat up, 2400 will burn way faster than the first shot. The most serious issue with 2400 is primers. The reason why magnum primers were invented was twofold. First, there is more "mix" in the primer to help ignite slow burning powders. 2400 doesn't like magnum primers because the extra mix speeds up ignition and makes chamber pressure skyrocket. Second, the cups for magnum primers are thicker to prevent ruptures at high chamber pressures affiliated with high velocity loads. 2400 DOES need the thicker cups as a safety margin .... but can't use them. It's a fact that many other powders do a much better job than 2400 with magnum loads. "Better job" doesn't mean 2400 can't be used but it does mean other powders have more consistent velocities, not as temperature sensitive, lower risk of a primer blow out, and equal or better accuracy .... all with lower chamber pressure and a better safety margin. 2400 behaves much better in 44 Mag loads than it does in 357 Mag loads. Personally, I would not recommend using 2400 powder in a 357 Mag, especially for a newbie.

[NSB]

What's a "well respected fella". That description means NOTHING. He might deliver pizzas for a living and never finished the third grade. I'd give this a two thumbs down......it's all BS. Not trying to say anything negative about the OP, it's just kind of meaningless without a reputable source and that source shouldn't be an anonymous person. If they're some kind of "expert" let us know their credentials.

[lylejb]

I think the truth in that statement ends with used in 22 hornet and 410 shotgun. Opinion, being passed as truth, begins thereafter. If any of that were true it would be WELL known in the almost 90 years it's been used. A few simple shot strings across a crono should debunk his idea of chamber temp making a radical change in burn rate. It would be obvious if this were the case, and 2400 has been crono'd plenty.
I think this "expert" has a greatly exaggerated opinion.

[Kawriverrat]

This is from some one who is well known for his gunsmithing knowledge on Ruger guns. I was not asking about any ones credentials. My post was asking about thoughts on this statement. Regardless who made it. I was attempting to be respectful.

If it's truely meaningless, please state your experience or any other info about 2400 that you have. Other wise your post above falls into the same catagory as your own accusations....

Jeff

[sghart3578]

I have used 2400 in my 357 mags, rifle and revolver, for a long time.

100 degrees in the summer, 30 degrees in the winter, never had a problem.

If this guys opinion actually reflected reality then the reloading world would know it. It would have become a part of reloading lore handed down from old to young.

A question you should ask yourself: If 2400 is so bad why is it so popular? Not just with revolver guys but cast bullet shooters in milsurp rifles.


Steve in N CA

[imashooter2]

I strongly disagree with the learned gentleman.

[rtracy2001]

Is he trying to "help you out" by taking that 2400 off your hands and disposing of it? Kind of sounds like it.

I have not heard anything about 2400 being any more or less unstable than any other powder. I have and do use it 410 shotshells and 30 carbine. The 30 carbine at loads near maximum published data; and I have had no signs of instability or excessive pressures with small rifle primers, regular or magnum.

Exercise normal caution when adjusting loading data and see how things work for you.

[Kawriverrat]

I strongly disagree with the learned gentleman. Thank You!! I agree.

[JBinMN]

I started using 2400 in 44mag & 357mag back in the mid 80's.

As far as "unstable", I have 2400 that is about 13 years old and it still works just fine, although I have not been keeping track of the velocities by chrony for that powder to compare to some of the newer stuff I have.
If it is "unstable" I have not found it to be that way myself. I only have about 200 loads of 44mag left to use it up, so I guess I will find out if it will "keep" for about 14 years in around next Spring( 2018) when it runs out.

I also used magnum primers as per the Speer #11 reloading manual from that time, although they do allow for the use of regular primers in their data. I did not ever have issue using mag. primers, but I do not usually load at Max. powder loads, but try to stay at least a few grains below. Can't say any more than that, but the Alliant load data(online, but I can go look at the most recent manual I got from them for this year if need be.) says to just use regular primers. Then again, a lot of data has been changed in the last 30-40 years...
[ Speer #11, to now]

I would not say that the feller that was saying this stuff is "wrong" in what he said, as far as the "unstable" part, or the "magnum vs. regular" primers part, but would say that those two parts do not seem to be reflected in what "I" have experienced with 2400 in the 44mag & 357mag..

I will also say that I do not plan to change the recipes I currently use.
;)

As far as some of the other stuff like "why" magnum primers were made for "2 reasons" & all that about the "pressures"... Waaalll... I just am not so sure about that, since I am not so sure about what he said about the other two parts I mentioned earlier...

I don't believe everything I read on the internet, and in particular about our "craft". I do know what "I" have done & will do , and I also do as much research as I can ( Like you seem to be doing) before I do anything I have not done before. Good on ya for at least asking about this info in a place like this forum. Good Idea! More folks with a lot of "experience & credibility" here at CB/GL & I am sure more will be helping ya out in short order. At least I expect them to do it...
:)

G'Luck! & I hope ya find out what you are looking for!
:)

[Kawriverrat]

The main reason for asking this question was in hopes of understanding why some one might believe this.
While I've used 2400 for over 30 years I in no way way feel I know all there is to know about it.

As long as it's been out maybe there has been an occurrence or situation that took place that I am unaware of that has since been rectified. If so I believe there are those here that would know about.

I most certainly was not looking for an arguement as was suggested prior. Could have titled this thread differently as I do believe there is issue with the statements.
I also dont know the rules, if any here regarding discussing this sort of thing & bringing the person's name into it when they moderate or did at another forum

[jrmartin1964]

I have an early (1937) edition of Phil Sharpe's "Complete Guide to Handloading" with the following handwritten notation in the loading data section:

"Don't use any Hercules Powder regardless of all arguments to the contrary, as I have sadly found the terrific variations in #2400 and no warnings published by Herc."

This previous owner's name is not known to me, nor the date this notation was made, and so it likely falls into the realm of "opinion". but (I assume) this same previous owner had pasted-in loading data pamphlets from various powder manufacturers, including Hercules, and there is a space where a 2400 pamphlet had evidently been pasted in at one time but was later removed. Also, in the loading data section for .22 Hornet there is an additional notation made warning not to use 2400. Also with the .22 Hornet data, several of the published powder charges with 2400 have been marked out, and lower charges written in, with the additional notation:

"Above changes due to increase of power in new 2400 powder. Thickness of cases *illegible* reducing air space of new mfg. cases."

Again, without more information this likely falls within the realm of opinion, but at the least points out that there was some problem associated with the use of 2400 noted by a reloader of the past. It is also interesting to note that, in 1937, 2400 was not among the recommended powders for any pistol or revolver cartridge - including .357 Magnum.

That's all I've got on the subject...

Jim

[kayala]

I'm with lylejb on this one. Everything after statement that it was designed in 1930 for 22 Hornet and used in 410 is a pure speculation. I, personally, didn't see any of the effects mentioned by the source. In my experience magnum primers lower ES and SD and I didn't see any difference on chrono caused by cylinder temperature. For me 2400 performs great in 357.

[Kawriverrat]

jrmartin1964, Thanks for that info. This in fact was the sort of thing I was looking for .... Jeff

[RugerFan]

...The reason why magnum primers were invented was twofold. First, there is more "mix" in the primer to help ignite slow burning powders.... Second, the cups for magnum primers are thicker to prevent ruptures at high chamber pressures affiliated with high velocity loads...

Not entirely true. From what I understand, most brands of magnum primers only have the thicker primer cups, not a hotter mix. One notable exception is CCI which is also hotter. Winchester large pistol primers say on the box "For standard and magnum loads." One of the shooting mags did a primer study years ago. I guess things could have changed by now. If anyone finds this outdated, please correct me.

[NSB]

This is from some one who is well known for his gunsmithing knowledge on Ruger guns. I was not asking about any ones credentials. My post was asking about thoughts on this statement. Regardless who made it. I was attempting to be respectful.

If it's truely meaningless, please state your experience or any other info about 2400 that you have. Other wise your post above falls into the same catagory as your own accusations....

Jeff

This is how internet myths/rumors get started. I didn't start the thread, you did. It's your responsibility to lend credibility to it. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

[vzerone]

Not entirely true. From what I understand, most brands of magnum primers only have the thicker primer cups, not a hotter mix. One notable exception is CCI which is also hotter. Winchester large pistol primers say on the box "For standard and magnum loads." One of the shooting mags did a primer study years ago. I guess things could have changed by now. If anyone finds this outdated, please correct me.

Winchester does have a small pistol primer for magnum only though.

[RugerFan]

Winchester does have a small pistol primer for magnum only though.

True, but are they hotter or just a thicker primer cup?

[vzerone]

I'm with lylejb on this one. Everything after statement that it was designed in 1930 for 22 Hornet and used in 410 is a pure speculation. I, personally, didn't see any of the effects mentioned by the source. In my experience magnum primers lower ES and SD and I didn't see any difference on chrono caused by cylinder temperature. For me 2400 performs great in 357.

I know some of the older reloading manuals say that 2400 and 4227 were made specifically for the 22 Hornet. Just what I read in the manuals. I didn't work at those ballistic labs so I don't know. So that part more than likely is true. I've used quite a bit of 2400 and never had any of the problems with it mentioned. I like both 2400 and 4227, but there are some better new powders today.

[earlmck]

Not entirely true. From what I understand, most brands of magnum primers only have the thicker primer cups, not a hotter mix. One notable exception is CCI which is also hotter. Winchester large pistol primers say on the box "For standard and magnum loads." One of the shooting mags did a primer study years ago. I guess things could have changed by now. If anyone finds this outdated, please correct me.

You've got it backwards: they use the same cups for regular or magnum but the magnum does have more "stuff" to give a hotter flame. The magnum primers are needed with harder to ignite powders (usually slower ball powders with considerable deterrent coatings). You can make a fine magnum 357 or 44 mag load with regular primers using 2400 or 4227 or similar, but when you go to the H110 type ball powders you should use the magnum primers or risk having the occasional hang-fire or failure to ignite episode.

Yeah, I learned this the hard way as per my usual.

[RugerFan]

You've got it backwards: they use the same cups for regular or magnum but the magnum does have more "stuff" to give a hotter flame. The magnum primers are needed with harder to ignite powders....

Harder what? Please explain that sentence.

Do you have a source? I will try to find the study I was talking about.

[vzerone]

Harder what? Please explain that sentence.

Do you have a source? I will try to find the study I was talking about.

You know there are some special primers with harder or thicker cups such as CCI's military primers. Don't know if you remember but Wolf has a small rifle primer standard, then a magnum primer, then a magnum primer with a thicker cup. They even tell you the plain magnum primer has a standard cup.

I think the only way to really know is to have worked at a primer plant or two or more.

Believe nothing that you hear, nothing that you read, and only half of what you see!

[RugerFan]

You know there are some special primers with harder or thicker cups such as CCI's military primers. Don't know if you remember but Wolf has a small rifle primer standard, then a magnum primer, then a magnum primer with a thicker cup. They even tell you the plain magnum primer has a standard cup.

I think the only way to really know is to have worked at a primer plant or two or more.

Believe nothing that you hear, nothing that you read, and only half of what you see!

Yes, I am aware of military use thicker cups (to guard against slam fires). My point was that some brands of magnum primers are not necessarily hotter. Some merely have the thicker cups.

[vzerone]

Yes, I am aware of military use thicker cups (to guard against slam fires). My point was that some brands of magnum primers are not necessarily hotter. Some merely have the thicker cups.

I'm not buying that for the simple fact that magnum primer use is for igniting hard to ignite powders such as many ball powder and other extremely slow buring stick powder; and extreme cold temperature use. Are you eluding to the cup is thicker for the purpose of handling the high pressure better? That's not true because standard primers handle high pressure just fine. Now rifle primers both large and small have thicker cups then the pistol primers.

[tomme boy]

CCI SR primers are not supposed to be used in 223. They are 22 hornet PSI only. That is why lots of people out there punch a primer using them. The CCI mag primers do have a thicker cup and a hotter compound. They are the same thickness as Win SR primers. That is why you hardly ever hear of a pierced Win primer. But I am still using the nickle plated Win primers I have had stashed for a while so the newer non plated may be thinner.

Here is a article with primer thickness listed. http://www.jamescalhoon.com/primers_and_pressure.php


CCI primers while I like them have given me more problems than Win, Fed, Wolf, S&B, Tula. I have never had a dud in these primers like I have had with CCI. The Wolf and Tula primers were the cheapest I have ever paid and they gave more consistent SD ES than all of the others. Even GMM from Federal.

[JBinMN]

Apparently this topic has been sidetracked/hijacked to be about primers. I am not the OP, so I don't give much of a hoot, but I will certainly add some info to those who may be interested & then I am not going to contribute any more to the off topic discussion...

Some reading for ya about primers if you are interested:
http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/ammunition_st_mamotaip_200909/

http://www.castingstuff.com/primer_testing_reference.htm

A chart showing SRP & LRP & their dimensions[Note that there is a difference in thickness of the cup(A) in the SRP(Std & Mag.), but not in the LRP(Std. or Mag.) ]
208854
Chart source:http://www.accurateshooter.com/technical-articles/primers-and-pressure-analysis/

Don't have/didn't find any similar pistol primer data like the chart on rifle primers. You are gonna have to search on your own if ya want more..
;)

G'Luck!
:)

-----------------------
Back to the subject of the OP...

As far as the "source" & "quote" used in the OP, I am not concerned about that persons identity, myself. My concerns are only in regard to passing correct & truthful info about our casting & reloading "craft". I would suggest that you may want to go ask this person for their "source(s)" for this statement they made, or to show you the results of the testing done to show where this info is correct & true, or both options mentioned. [< source(s) & testing results].

Seems to me that, like you, if ya don't want to ask this person for this sort of thing there, then I would not be taking what they say as being true & correct until it can be verified by others. ( which you are trying to do here, it seems) So far, I have only seen one example in agreement, and that was an anonymous one from approx. 1937 and although it is kind of cool that it was found & shared, I do not know that the 2400 powder used today is the same "recipe" as the 2400 used in subsequent years & even today. So, just how much of a comparison can one make on anonymous observations 80 years ago? And does one accept that single observation by one reloader as "gospel" rather than a larger spread of opinion & observations? I wouldn't...

Perhaps you should contact Alliant & ask them about the same as ya asked here in the OP? Then you are basically getting an answer "from the horses mouth." & one that is likely backed by legal authority & also real testing of the powder. Asking if there is some sort of historian in their company would not hurt either. Just tell them you are doing research & I would be surprised if they do not help you out.
;)

Once again, G'Luck!
:)

[Eutectic]

True, but are they hotter or just a thicker primer cup?

They are hotter yes. But I'd argue the thicker cup part. The case of WW Small Pistol Magnum I have display very soft/thin cups. It's competitor the Remington 5 1/2 does have a stouter cup very similar to the Remington 6 1/2 small rifle primer.

Eutectic

[Wayne Smith]

I'm guessing it's a confabulation of at least three different subjects.

1) there was a problem with the 22 Hornet with the brass made heavier and nobody being notified.

2) 2400 was named because it got the Hornet to 2400fps. Thus the confabulation of the inadvertent overloads of the Hornet using 2400.

3) There was some testing with the 44Mag and mag primers and finding that the mag primers caused pressure excursions in the 44 Mag. and 2400 was one of the powders used. 44Mag. loads now list regular primers.

Combine these three historic truths and leave out (forget) the details and one gets garbage.

[Richard Boone]

Hard to imagine believing this one guy's opinion or "facts" when almost every loading manual shows 2400 being used exactly for the purposes he says are no good. I would expect if that were true, the ballistics tests run by the manual producers would have shown that and they would note as much in their manuals.

In short...believe the manuals not some "expert"!

[JBinMN]

RE: 2400 & the use of magnum primers

Found this if anyone wants to read it. It is an email exchange between a customer & Alliant powder company representative about 2400 powder & the use of std. or mag. primers.:

**********************************************

Reply from Alliant on 2400 w/mag primers
OK, here's the exchange of email I had with Ben Amonette at ATK/Alliant. He pretty much confirmed what I thought, though he kinda said it between the lines in the last section. What it boils down to is, like he says, follow the data in the manual.



> -----Original Message-----
>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:30 AM
> To: Alliant Reloading
> Subject: Alliant Powder - Ask the Expert Form
>
> Years ago when using 2400 I used mag primers for heavy loads. Now I'm
> told I should use standard primers. Many of the manuals still show the
> use of magnum type. Which is it, and if no longer recommending mags,
> why not? This is for heavy loads in .357, .44 spl/mag, .45 Colt.
>
> John
--


-----Original Message-----
> From: Amonette, Ben
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 3:04 PM
> Subject: RE: Alliant Powder - Ask the Expert Form
>
> I shoot 2400 in my 357 and 44 mags and choose to use standards. This
> is what we recommend. If you want to, you can go by what your data
> source recommends. As always, we recommend starting with the minimum
> charge wt and go from there. Thanks for your note.
>
>
On 5/9/2012 2:16 PM, Amonette, Ben wrote:
> I had an interesting conversation with the writer Brian Pearce just
> moments ago. We touched on mag primers with 2400 and he said that in
> his testing, he got much more consistent results with standard primers.
> He said the mag primers not only increased the pressure, but caused
> the loads to be inconsistent. I have a lot of respect for him and his
> testing, so based on his opinion, I recommend standards. I have
> always used the standard primers myself with very good results.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Ben Amonette
> Technical Service Manager
> Alliant Powder Company


-----Original Message-----

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 5:49 PM
To: Amonette, Ben
Subject: Re: FW: Alliant Powder - Ask the Expert Form
Importance: High

Thanks for your reply. I should have been more specific in my question.
I've read Brian's recent articles in Handloader, and can't say I agree
with all of his conclusions. I've been reloading for 45 years give or
take and everybody I knew 35-40 years ago who used 2400 used mag
primers. None of us ran loads that were excessive pressure-wise (not
the guys I hung around with anyway), and I've not seen any of the things
he alludes to in his article. (Were his conclusions about pressure
based on actual pressure tests, or the type of signs most of us look
for?)

What I really want to know is has the 2400 of today, under the Alliant
label, been reformulated in comparison to the 2400 sold under the
Hercules label 40 years ago? I'm not talking about variations due to
normal differences from lot to lot, but actual differences chemically.
I know that some of the other old standby Hercules powders are enough
different today that loads I used for better than 20 years have had to
be adjusted for the newer Alliant versions. For example, a safe load of
Blue Dot from my days of combat match competition 30+ years ago, had to
be reduced a full 10% using the Alliant version for the same velocity
with the same bullet and primer combo. (It's still my favorite load, by
the way!)

I'm not making a judgement here either way, but since many people use
the older manuals or come across recommended loads from those days, if
there is a problem with pressure using mag primers it would be more than
a little helpful to know the reason why. The subjective conclusions of
gunwriters, no matter how good they might be, are not a substitute for
specific reasons coming from the manufacturer. I just want to be able
to report factual information to the other users in the forum where this
issue came up. We have a LOT of newbies to reloading coming into the
forum asking for advice from all of us old timers, and we want to be
able to give them solid, safe advice when this sort of thing comes up.

Thanks for your consideration.

John

--------------------------

Recvd May 11, 2012

We are still making 2400 to the same specifications but I have received
comments during my time here wondering if 2400 is a bit faster than many
years ago. I am aware that mag primers were recommended at one time,
and have watched data become more conservative over the years since I
started reloading in the late 60's. Some of this is no doubt to the
greater concern for liability, and pressure measuring equipment is
better. My recommendation on a regular basis is to use current
reloading data because it is the result of the latest testing with the
latest components...so it just makes sense.

As for Brian, I do know that some of his statements are based on actual
pressure testing, but since he does not have his own pressure measuring
equipment, some opinions are also based on observations. Whatever the
case, I have always been somewhat conservative in my approach to
reloading and that is what I encourage.

Thanks for your return note.

Ben Amonette
Technical Service Manager
Alliant Powder Company




Source:https://www.shootersforum.com/handloading-procedures-practices/78633-primer-types.html#post619495
***********************************************

[vzerone]

RE: 2400 & the use of magnum primers

Found this if anyone wants to read it. It is an email exchange between a customer & Alliant powder company representative about 2400 powder & the use of std. or mag. primers.:

**********************************************

Reply from Alliant on 2400 w/mag primers
OK, here's the exchange of email I had with Ben Amonette at ATK/Alliant. He pretty much confirmed what I thought, though he kinda said it between the lines in the last section. What it boils down to is, like he says, follow the data in the manual.



> -----Original Message-----
>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:30 AM
> To: Alliant Reloading
> Subject: Alliant Powder - Ask the Expert Form
>
> Years ago when using 2400 I used mag primers for heavy loads. Now I'm
> told I should use standard primers. Many of the manuals still show the
> use of magnum type. Which is it, and if no longer recommending mags,
> why not? This is for heavy loads in .357, .44 spl/mag, .45 Colt.
>
> John
--


-----Original Message-----
> From: Amonette, Ben
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 3:04 PM
> Subject: RE: Alliant Powder - Ask the Expert Form
>
> I shoot 2400 in my 357 and 44 mags and choose to use standards. This
> is what we recommend. If you want to, you can go by what your data
> source recommends. As always, we recommend starting with the minimum
> charge wt and go from there. Thanks for your note.
>
>
On 5/9/2012 2:16 PM, Amonette, Ben wrote:
> I had an interesting conversation with the writer Brian Pearce just
> moments ago. We touched on mag primers with 2400 and he said that in
> his testing, he got much more consistent results with standard primers.
> He said the mag primers not only increased the pressure, but caused
> the loads to be inconsistent. I have a lot of respect for him and his
> testing, so based on his opinion, I recommend standards. I have
> always used the standard primers myself with very good results.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Ben Amonette
> Technical Service Manager
> Alliant Powder Company


-----Original Message-----

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 5:49 PM
To: Amonette, Ben
Subject: Re: FW: Alliant Powder - Ask the Expert Form
Importance: High

Thanks for your reply. I should have been more specific in my question.
I've read Brian's recent articles in Handloader, and can't say I agree
with all of his conclusions. I've been reloading for 45 years give or
take and everybody I knew 35-40 years ago who used 2400 used mag
primers. None of us ran loads that were excessive pressure-wise (not
the guys I hung around with anyway), and I've not seen any of the things
he alludes to in his article. (Were his conclusions about pressure
based on actual pressure tests, or the type of signs most of us look
for?)

What I really want to know is has the 2400 of today, under the Alliant
label, been reformulated in comparison to the 2400 sold under the
Hercules label 40 years ago? I'm not talking about variations due to
normal differences from lot to lot, but actual differences chemically.
I know that some of the other old standby Hercules powders are enough
different today that loads I used for better than 20 years have had to
be adjusted for the newer Alliant versions. For example, a safe load of
Blue Dot from my days of combat match competition 30+ years ago, had to
be reduced a full 10% using the Alliant version for the same velocity
with the same bullet and primer combo. (It's still my favorite load, by
the way!)

I'm not making a judgement here either way, but since many people use
the older manuals or come across recommended loads from those days, if
there is a problem with pressure using mag primers it would be more than
a little helpful to know the reason why. The subjective conclusions of
gunwriters, no matter how good they might be, are not a substitute for
specific reasons coming from the manufacturer. I just want to be able
to report factual information to the other users in the forum where this
issue came up. We have a LOT of newbies to reloading coming into the
forum asking for advice from all of us old timers, and we want to be
able to give them solid, safe advice when this sort of thing comes up.

Thanks for your consideration.

John

--------------------------

Recvd May 11, 2012

We are still making 2400 to the same specifications but I have received
comments during my time here wondering if 2400 is a bit faster than many
years ago. I am aware that mag primers were recommended at one time,
and have watched data become more conservative over the years since I
started reloading in the late 60's. Some of this is no doubt to the
greater concern for liability, and pressure measuring equipment is
better. My recommendation on a regular basis is to use current
reloading data because it is the result of the latest testing with the
latest components...so it just makes sense.

As for Brian, I do know that some of his statements are based on actual
pressure testing, but since he does not have his own pressure measuring
equipment, some opinions are also based on observations. Whatever the
case, I have always been somewhat conservative in my approach to
reloading and that is what I encourage.

Thanks for your return note.

Ben Amonette
Technical Service Manager
Alliant Powder Company




Source:https://www.shootersforum.com/handloading-procedures-practices/78633-primer-types.html#post619495
***********************************************

I'm laughing, not because what you posted isn't true, but because it's really true. I know you're telling the truth about the Alliant employee because I have spoken to Ben myself on other matters!

[earlmck]

CCI SR primers are not supposed to be used in 223. They are 22 hornet PSI only. That is why lots of people out there punch a primer using them. The CCI mag primers do have a thicker cup and a hotter compound. They are the same thickness as Win SR primers. That is why you hardly ever hear of a pierced Win primer. But I am still using the nickle plated Win primers I have had stashed for a while so the newer non plated may be thinner.

Here is a article with primer thickness listed. http://www.jamescalhoon.com/primers_and_pressure.php


CCI primers while I like them have given me more problems than Win, Fed, Wolf, S&B, Tula. I have never had a dud in these primers like I have had with CCI. The Wolf and Tula primers were the cheapest I have ever paid and they gave more consistent SD ES than all of the others. Even GMM from Federal.

Thanks for that link tomme boy. Very interesting... I stand somewhat corrected. That said, if CCI sr primers were only built for 22 hornet pressures they couldn't sell very many: how many folks are shooting 43k psi loads these days? And I do have a couple of rifles that will give pierced primers before reaching full pressure, but that is because they have oversized firing pin holes in the bolt. But for them I had to abandon small pistol primers (my preference for small rifles) and go to the small rifle primers, which for me are mostly CCI's.

And while I was looking for my "sources" for my opinion I noticed that the old (yeah, old as in Speer #9) for .357 mag they specify the magnum primer for not only H110 and W296 but also for 2400 and 4227. I'm pretty sure recommendations have changed as well as max loads been reduced a bit over the years, but I have personal experience that H110 can occasionally remain unignited even though the regular pistol primer was powerful enough to drive the bullet a couple of inches into the barrel of the revolver. That particular event gives me the heeby jeebies thinking about what could happen in rapid double-action firing. I had two of those "failures to ignite" with Winchester small pistol primers but have never had another since going to small pistol magnum primers (I've used both CCI and Federal here) for the H110 loads.

[500Linebaughbuck]

2400 is my main stay. i use it in 500 linebaugh, 45-70, 44 mag, 30-30, 30-40 krag, 30-06, a whole host of mil surplus and much more. i used it in my 444 marlin and 280gr lfn gc, which i had deduce how much(24.0 gr to start with, i use 26.0gr but it will go more). i've done 26.5gr of 2400 in my 444 but i like the 26.0gr

heres a shot of 25.5gr(on the left), 26.0gr(center) and 26.5gr(right) of 2400 in 444 marlin with 280lfn gc. the primers weren't flattened, the cases look like they should and the 26.0gr will go approx 1700fps.

https://i.imgur.com/axq96Lq.jpg

[vzerone]

CCI SR primers are not supposed to be used in 223. They are 22 hornet PSI only. That is why lots of people out there punch a primer using them. The CCI mag primers do have a thicker cup and a hotter compound. They are the same thickness as Win SR primers. That is why you hardly ever hear of a pierced Win primer. But I am still using the nickle plated Win primers I have had stashed for a while so the newer non plated may be thinner.

Here is a article with primer thickness listed. http://www.jamescalhoon.com/primers_and_pressure.php


CCI primers while I like them have given me more problems than Win, Fed, Wolf, S&B, Tula. I have never had a dud in these primers like I have had with CCI. The Wolf and Tula primers were the cheapest I have ever paid and they gave more consistent SD ES than all of the others. Even GMM from Federal.

Tomme not disagreeing with you or the article link you posted. Here's CCI's primer useage chart. Why don't they say anything about that if it's true? I would be concerned if I was CCI.

http://www.cci-ammunition.com/products/primers/primer_chart.htm

[hanleyfan]

I use what works for me and 2400 has worked for me for years, so I am not changing because some so called expert says so.

[yeahbub]

Kawriverrat, 2400 is my go-to powder for .357, among other calibers, as well as reduced cast loads in rifles. The .357 mag "duty" loads I use are at maximum in my carbine. If it had a habit of occasionally spiking pressures, it would show up in enlarged primer pockets and other signs, none of which I have experienced in a decade of using it. I find it to be reliable and consistent in performance year-round. I'm not sure why this "source" said what he did about 2400, but I haven't found it to be true. I never used mag primers with it and have not noticed any difficulty. The quote claiming 2400 was formulated for use in the .22 Hornet brought to mind an article I read years ago in which was a warning about the author experiencing dangerous chamber pressures when switching between cases from different manufacturers, to the degree that European cases were exhibiting blown primers and enlarged pockets with loads developed in American made brass. He later found that the problem cases were considerably heavier, resulting in reduced internal volume. My speculation is that someone may have had this or a similar experience and attributed the problem to the propellant when there may have been other factors involved.

[DonMountain]

Since Hercules #2400 was introduced 85 years ago to the handloader in 1932, I suspect all components of handloading have evolved along with the resulting pressures, velocities and results. We have evolved from balloon head cases to solid head cases of different powder volumes. Cast projectiles of different designs and gas checks. Jacketed bullets of different barrel friction coefficients due to different lengths of the jacket surface. Chemically different primers of different pressures and effects. And possibly different chemical compositions of Hercules #2400 powder itself giving evolving pressures in the vast ranges of cartridges it has been used in. Hence, a lot of mistakes have happened when using old powder and loads in newer cases, primers and bullets, and visa versa. So, whats the solution? Use powder, primers, and bullets from the same era loaded to info published from the same era. And use the correct bullets listed in the reloading manual. And you will probably be safe. Of course with modern high strength metals in modern firearms, and the vast experience of most of those reading this forum, those reloading manuals are only the start for some well performing cartridges with knowledgable and observant reloaders.

[Kawriverrat]

This is how internet myths/rumors get started. I didn't start the thread, you did. It's your responsibility to lend credibility to it. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

I could have have done a much better job of giving this thread a title & explaining what I hoped to achieve by posting it. I have over the years on rare occassions while at a range or the gunshop heard fellas with some miles on them make disparaging comments regarding 2400 being unsafe. While it was a rare thing to hear this I always wonderd what if anyhing started it.
Never in over 30 years of using large amounts of this powder in revolvers have I experienced anything in the comment I posted regarding 2400.

I was hoping some one could give a circumstance or situation from the past as some have, that may have contributed to some thinking this way... Jeff

[Hannibal]

To the OP, perhaps you should ask the person who gave you this information what it is based off of. Perhaps he can give first-hand and/or concrete examples?

[reddog81]

To the OP, perhaps you should ask the person who gave you this information what it is based off of. Perhaps he can give first-hand and/or concrete examples?

I was thinking the exact same thing after reading the thread. 2400 is one of the top magnum powders and has been for decades. Surely if any of this were true there would be some evidence of these negative traits.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I haven't found 2400 to act as this "well respected fella" states.
I have used Herc 2400 and Alliant 2400 for 22 horn as well as some pistol calibers, I haven't noticed any difference. But I will admit, my reloading experience/expertise isn't anywhere near that of many on this forum, let alone other's (not on this forum) that have been doing this for decades upon decades, so my claim is more anecdotal.

As has already been stated in this thread, if the "Data" this fella states is actually true, It sure would seem that it would have been written about extensively, and warnings from Alliant in their manuals...or simply pulling it off the market entirely.
that's my 2¢

[Char-Gar]

I confessed on this board years ago, that I am not a science guy. I am just a reloader with 50 years of experience with 2400 powder, both the Hercules and Alliant versions. When folks start to throw around data, charts, waves etc. I just drop out.

I will say there is nothing in my experience that validates what the fellow says about 2400 as true. Maybe I have had my head up my wazoo for the last half century, but I am calling BS on this guys powder punditry.

[Larry Gibson]

This all I've got to say about that.......

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?72355-B-2400-Hercules-vs-Alliant-B

[Jeff Michel]

And that settles that. Thank you Mr. Gibson

[Grmps]

http://www.cci-ammunition.com/products/primers/primers.aspx?id=29

CCI Magnum primers

Some real-world shooting conditions require more aggressive initiation than provided by standard primers. Large cases, cold weather, and certain propellants often require a hotter primer flame and a longer burn. CCI Magnum primers offer you that edge, plus you get all the attributes that make all CCI primers so great.

23 percent hotter flame than standard primers
Increased flame duration
Initiator compound engineered to ignite
ball/spherical propellants
Improved sensitivity for “critical-need” loading
View Usage Chart

Large capacity cases
Heavily-deterred propellants
Ambient firing temperatures below 20° F
Usage Note: Use Magnum primers only where
called for in published reloading data

[unique]

I'll add my two cents. I have compared Hercules 2400 to Alliant 2400 as well and found them very similar when tested in the 357Mag and 30-06. This was based upon chrony results. Accuracy-wise I find that the Alliant has a slight edge and think that has to do with ignition.

I find that Alliant 2400 has a certain percentage of uncoated (no graphite) grains which helps ignition but doesn't really change the overall burning rate.

What I find with 2400 is that below a certain point (pressure-wise) 2400 does burn inefficiently and gives lower than expect velocities. If you are working up a load from lower levels to higher levels you might experience this jump but once it is burning efficiently I find it is linear. Almost like there are two burning rates. There may also be a non-linear portion at higher pressures but I never went there to find out.

I have a Hercules pamphlet from the 1930's showing load data & pressure for a number for rifle cartridge loaded exclusively with 2400 and a quick perusal thru that show some very linear behavior.

After burning many jugs of 2400 I have develop the opinion that 2400 is a very stable & dependable powder and I'll end by asking rhetorically what does this gentleman think about BlueDot powder?

[Eddie Southgate]

Sounds like load of **** to me . Like and use 2400 and have for years . Never had any problems with it .

[ScotMc]

Sounds like a load of **** to me too.. I have used 2400 for over 40 years. .38 spcl, 357 mag, 44 mag and special. Numerous cast rifle loads. 30-30, 308, 30-06. I like it because you can download it, not super temperature or position sensitive. Burns clean, ignites well with a large pistol primer in most cases, and the accuracy is very good.
Its a great all around powder.

[tomme boy]

vzerone. That what CCI told me a few years ago when I was having problems with primers piercing. I asked them why they don't tell people about this. They said it is not a problem for 90% of the people they sell primers to. And that the primers were made for the Hornet. I switched to the mags and they never pierced again.

[trapper9260]

I go with Mr. Gibson on what he had tested. Also I have used for all my use and on the 410 al.so and cast and yes i use both H2400 and A2400 at one point in my test ammo and seen no different.Mr. Gibson show that and I go with that

[vzerone]

vzerone. That what CCI told me a few years ago when I was having problems with primers piercing. I asked them why they don't tell people about this. They said it is not a problem for 90% of the people they sell primers to. And that the primers were made for the Hornet. I switched to the mags and they never pierced again.

Tomme I don't like CCI primers. I've just recently have had problems with them, but it's a problem of them not going off on the first strike. I've had to resort to cleaning the primer pockets spotless and seating the primers firmly. That helped some, but didn't solve the problem totally. I bought them during the big buying spree or normally wouldn't have bought that brand. They were all that were available.

[Lloyd Smale]

yup ive used it for over 40 years now. Ive lit it off with every primer made. Ill say it probably does a bit better on average with a standard primer over a mag but its not an across the board statement. Some loads do better and some do worse. Ive shot it in temps from 10 below zero to a 100 degrees and never noticed and temp problems with it. Any powder will produce slighty higher pressures in hot weather. 2400 isn't any worse then the rest of them. 4227 for an example is much more temp sensitive then 2400. As are 110/296 and aa9. bottom line is if I could have only two powders for all my handgun loading they would be unique and 2400. Id like something a bit faster for the little cases like the 9mm but unique would get it done and on the tope end 2400 will get you to 95 percent of the hottest possible loads in any magnum. Do it with less powder then the others and do it with any primer and is a MUCH better powder to download then any of those ball powders

[aspangler]

I have used H2400 and A2400 for years in 357 as well as 30-30,30-06, 8MM, and a lot of others. My goto load in 357 is 12.5 gr. under a 158gr.swc. 25 grains under the Lee 405fn in 45-70.
I call bs on the info in the original post. His opinion and it stinks.

[Jack Stanley]

I would not agree with the "ex-spurt" . I've used a lot of 2400 from Hercules and Alliant in several different cartridges . Recently was gifted a large can of the Hercules variety from a long time ago . It worked as well as what you get off the shelf today .

Jack

[David2011]

Tomme I don't like CCI primers. I've just recently have had problems with them, but it's a problem of them not going off on the first strike. I've had to resort to cleaning the primer pockets spotless and seating the primers firmly. That helped some, but didn't solve the problem totally. I bought them during the big buying spree or normally wouldn't have bought that brand. They were all that were available.

Jimmy Mitchell (gunsmith from Breckenridge, TX) was at an Area 2 USPSA match a few years ago and we had a conversation about primers not feeding well in my Dillon 650. He convinced me to try CCI primers. I did and they fed more smoothly than any brand I had used- Federal, Winchester and Remington. I had been crushing about 2 out of every 100 on average until going to CCI. I shoot a .40 S&W STI in USPSA matches. I load the brass until it cracks and have never cleaned a primer pocket in that cartridge. I have had exactly no misfires with CCI or any other brand in that cartridge. In fact, the only misfires I have had were in my Colt Trooper MK III after installing lightweight Bullseye springs. It would only ignite Federal primers 100% with the Bullseye mainspring. I switched to a Wolff mainspring that was between the power of the Bullseye and a factory spring and it has been good with any brand of primer. Back to the subject, with a factory level mainspring in my STI Edge (it does get replaced every few years) I have had 100% ignition over 90,000 rounds, about half of which were with CCI primers and uncleaned primer pockets.

[vzerone]

Jimmy Mitchell (gunsmith from Breckenridge, TX) was at an Area 2 USPSA match a few years ago and we had a conversation about primers not feeding well in my Dillon 650. He convinced me to try CCI primers. I did and they fed more smoothly than any brand I had used- Federal, Winchester and Remington. I had been crushing about 2 out of every 100 on average until going to CCI. I shoot a .40 S&W STI in USPSA matches. I load the brass until it cracks and have never cleaned a primer pocket in that cartridge. I have had exactly no misfires with CCI or any other brand in that cartridge. In fact, the only misfires I have had were in my Colt Trooper MK III after installing lightweight Bullseye springs. It would only ignite Federal primers 100% with the Bullseye mainspring. I switched to a Wolff mainspring that was between the power of the Bullseye and a factory spring and it has been good with any brand of primer. Back to the subject, with a factory level mainspring in my STI Edge (it does get replaced every few years) I have had 100% ignition over 90,000 rounds, about half of which were with CCI primers and uncleaned primer pockets.

You bring up some interesting notes. Ironically I only have feed problems with CCI is my RCBS hand primer. All other brands feed perfect. Also too I have lot of no first strike fires with dirty primer pockets with CCI but not other brands. Talking to the CCI technician he told me it crucial that the primer pocket is clean. After starting to clean them more often the failures dropped, but didn't totally go away.

[robg]

I'll stick with 2400 ,worked well for me for 35 years I'd suggest you ignore the idiot "expert" .empty vessels make the most noise.

[DAVIDMAGNUM]

Harder what? Please explain that sentence.

Do you have a source? I will try to find the study I was talking about.

Speer Reloading manuals speak of a hotter flame of a longer duration concerning magnum vs standard primers.

[derek45]

That's funny

:roll:
2400 is one of the all time great magnum powders

[Alcast]

2400 was used extensively by Elmer Keith and Skeeter Skelton.If it was good enough for these two gentlemen,it is good for anybody else I guess.Now if that ''expert'' will pit his reputation up against that of these two,I don't think that he'll come out on top.I'll keep using 2400 and sleep tight at night.

[Don Purcell]

One would think that if 2400 in either company's production was that unstable they would have been sued out of business long ago. The "expert" doesn't happen to work behind the counter of a sporting good's store does he?

[Shiloh]

CCI SR primers are not supposed to be used in 223. They are 22 hornet PSI only. That is why lots of people out there punch a primer using them. The CCI mag primers do have a thicker cup and a hotter compound. They are the same thickness as Win SR primers. That is why you hardly ever hear of a pierced Win primer. But I am still using the nickle plated Win primers I have had stashed for a while so the newer non plated may be thinner.

Here is a article with primer thickness listed. http://www.jamescalhoon.com/primers_and_pressure.php


CCI primers while I like them have given me more problems than Win, Fed, Wolf, S&B, Tula. I have never had a dud in these primers like I have had with CCI. The Wolf and Tula primers were the cheapest I have ever paid and they gave more consistent SD ES than all of the others. Even GMM from Federal.

I have used plenty of CCI primers in .223.
You may be confusing with Remington 6 1/2 primers which is for the .22 Hornet. Remington 7 1/2 are fine for .223.

Shiloh

[Shiloh]

I confessed on this board years ago, that I am not a science guy. I am just a reloader with 50 years of experience with 2400 powder, both the Hercules and Alliant versions. When folks start to throw around data, charts, waves etc. I just drop out.

I will say there is nothing in my experience that validates what the fellow says about 2400 as true. Maybe I have had my head up my wazoo for the last half century, but I am calling BS on this guys powder punditry.

Agreed.

Shiloh

[Shiloh]

I have used 2400 in .357 mag, 8mm Mauser, and 30-06 with fine results.

SHiloh

[richhodg66]

Probably beating a dead horse at this point, but 2400 has been around forever, load data abounds in all kinds of things and many of us have used it extensively in many different capacities. If anything this "expert" had to say had any truth to it, the stuff would have been discontinued decades ago.

[ascast]

I have an early (1937) edition of Phil Sharpe's "Complete Guide to Handloading" with the following handwritten notation in the loading data section:

"Don't use any Hercules Powder regardless of all arguments to the contrary, as I have sadly found the terrific variations in #2400 and no warnings published by Herc."

This previous owner's name is not known to me, nor the date this notation was made, and so it likely falls into the realm of "opinion". but (I assume) this same previous owner had pasted-in loading data pamphlets from various powder manufacturers, including Hercules, and there is a space where a 2400 pamphlet had evidently been pasted in at one time but was later removed. Also, in the loading data section for .22 Hornet there is an additional notation made warning not to use 2400. Also with the .22 Hornet data, several of the published powder charges with 2400 have been marked out, and lower charges written in, with the additional notation:

"Above changes due to increase of power in new 2400 powder. Thickness of cases *illegible* reducing air space of new mfg. cases."

Again, without more information this likely falls within the realm of opinion, but at the least points out that there was some problem associated with the use of 2400 noted by a reloader of the past. It is also interesting to note that, in 1937, 2400 was not among the recommended powders for any pistol or revolver cartridge - including .357 Magnum.

That's all I've got on the subject...

Jim

Phil Sharpe -- strikes again I have a copy of his book and find the talk on period tools a great read. However, I believe he is the guy who started the rumor about .303 Savage rifles being a .331-.312 groove diameter.

Some years ago some guy started an on-line survey regarding this. As I recall, not 1 instance of anything other than .308 nominal was found.

[uscra112]

I also think Sharpe started that rumor. (My 1900 Model 99 slugs .309, for what that's worth, so no matter who it was they were wrong.

Also FWIW, some of our modern-day Schuetzen competitors are using 2400 for light loads (1450 fps) in the .32-40 cartridge. Myself I prefer AA #9 or AA 4100. Most of us use PISTOL primers, too. Hotter rifle primers open up the velocity variance. Magnums are never seen except by mistake.

[azrednek]

From what I recall reading in a gun rag (so it has to be true). The article's author claimed mag primers don't burn hotter meaning a higher temperature but burn for a very slightly longer duration. Keep in mind it was one author's opinion and I don't recall the article saying anything about tests or where he derived it from.

[303Guy]

2400 is one of 4 powders I've used a lot of. The comments below come from a well respected fella. However I cant say that I've heard some of what is said here accepted as general knowledge about 2400. It certainly hasnt been my experience with this powder. I would like to hear comments on this.... Jeff


Here's some data on 2400 powder. It was designed in 1930 for the 22 Hornet and later was used in commercial 410 shotgun ammo. Though the formula changed slightly since it first came out, it is still the most unstable handgun powder on the market. All powders change characteristics a little when different bullet weights, bullet seating depths, or magnum primers are used. 2400's burn rate changes radically with the above. It is also way more temperature sensitive than any other hand gun powder. As the revolver's chamber temperatures heat up, 2400 will burn way faster than the first shot. The most serious issue with 2400 is primers. The reason why magnum primers were invented was twofold. First, there is more "mix" in the primer to help ignite slow burning powders. 2400 doesn't like magnum primers because the extra mix speeds up ignition and makes chamber pressure skyrocket. Second, the cups for magnum primers are thicker to prevent ruptures at high chamber pressures affiliated with high velocity loads. 2400 DOES need the thicker cups as a safety margin .... but can't use them. It's a fact that many other powders do a much better job than 2400 with magnum loads. "Better job" doesn't mean 2400 can't be used but it does mean other powders have more consistent velocities, not as temperature sensitive, lower risk of a primer blow out, and equal or better accuracy .... all with lower chamber pressure and a better safety margin. 2400 behaves much better in 44 Mag loads than it does in 357 Mag loads. Personally, I would not recommend using 2400 powder in a 357 Mag, especially for a newbie.

I read an article just this morning on how 2400 blew up a Contender in .475 JDJ. Detonation was blamed. Large case (45-70), small charge, heavy boolit (.458), fireforming for the .475.


I knew from years of reading and reloading that mixing 2400 with large cases was not the intelligent thing to do.


Pointing the barrel straight down while releasing the hammer I turned to answer. I then raised my Contender and just knew that this time I was going to bust the pigeon.


Pulling the trigger my Contender exploded. Reeling and dazed by the violent explosion, I just stood there stupidly looking at what was left.

http://www.reloadammo.com/liteload.htm

Read the article and make of what you will.

[Bent Ramrod]

Anybody’s loading data is certainly of interest and value, but should be combined with one’s own experience and the factory recommendations and loading manual starting and maximum loads. Elmer Keith’s comments on the tactics of such approaches have always stuck with me, and have been very valuable.

I have a copy of the first edition of Robert’s and Water’s The Breech-Loading Single-Shot Match Rifle. All over in the “Loadings” chapter are pencilled-in comments. Two, typical of all the rest, are, “ALL OF THESE LOADS ARE TOO D—N HOT!!” and “DO NOT USE BULK SHOTGUN POWDER IN RIFLE CASES!! GET RID OF SHOTGUN BULK!!” And I have to say, the previous owner was not wrong, although judicious downward adjustments, of what were, no doubt, Robert’s maximum loads which worked well in his rifles, produced at least acceptable results, with moderate pressures.

Sharpe was in at the beginning for powders like 2400 and 3031, and his load recommendations are a mix of factory recommendations and the findings he got in his own ballistic lab, with the cases and primers available at the time. He also cites other individuals as sources. In a lot of cases, he gives the crusher-gauge pressures of the loads. I myself would not use any of these loads as a starting point, any more than I would use Internet advice on loads from unknown individuals, except as an idea of what is possible and a level to sneak up to gradually.

It is interesting that the notations for 2400 were pencilled in around the .22 Hornet section. The Hornet was the first cartridge I reloaded for, and, like many a beginning handloader, I was determined to get .220 Swift ballistics, at least, out of it, by one way or another. Maximum 2400 loads worked very well for several reloadings, and then primers falling out and other signs of overpressure showed up. I could have blamed the powder, of course, as a nascent handloading expert, but, being a print junkie, I continued reading about others’ handloading experiences. Some more of this background research indicated that max loadings tended to lengthen this case into the leade of the chamber, gripping the bullet and raising pressures. Trimming the cases back allowed the max 2400 loadings to continue, until the thinned and worn out brass finally failed somewhere else. I’ve never had any other trouble with recommended 2400 loads. I have never blown out a case using a bullet, though. Cream of Wheat for that application.

I thought it was Townsend Whelen who first said the .303 Savage was an actual .303 caliber with a .311” groove diameter. And I remember that epic “discussion” of what it actually was on the 24Hr Campfire site. Thirty-five pages of bitter invective, name-calling, ancestry aspersions (none flattering), and contumely, over a difference of three one-thousandths of an inch! I loved every line of it, and tried to register so I could inject a post reading “Jerr-ry, Jerr-ry, Jerr-ry” in there, but I couldn’t get the password they sent me to work. :mrgreen:

[Chill Wills]

This thread brings some good things to light.
Bent Ramrod has a well written post.

OT - 303guy, each time I read one of your posts and I see the footer about your son, it gives me pause. I have two kids. I don't know you but I think about it...

[JBinMN]

This thread brings some good things to light.
Bent Ramrod has a well written post.

OT - 303guy, each time I read one of your posts and I see the footer about your son, it gives me pause. I have two kids. I don't know you but I think about it...

I thought the same thing about both of your observations & I too have given pause to that footer...

[Ballistics in Scotland]

This is from some one who is well known for his gunsmithing knowledge on Ruger guns. I was not asking about any ones credentials. My post was asking about thoughts on this statement. Regardless who made it. I was attempting to be respectful.

If it's truely meaningless, please state your experience or any other info about 2400 that you have. Other wise your post above falls into the same catagory as your own accusations....

Jeff

This reminds me of an article in "The NRA Gunsmithing Guide Updated" by the armorer to a US military pistol team. Somebody in that situation has to be good - at gunsmithing or a pistol team. His advice came close to advising the amateur to do no gunsmithing whatsoever, which seems odd in that context. He also said it was important to be able to recognise the various powders by their appearance, although I should have thought advice on how to avoid that necessity would have been more useful.

A person can have a most elevated ability and understanding in all aspects of shooting, while knowing next to nothing about gunsmithing. Also the reverse.

[LAH]

I confessed on this board years ago, that I am not a science guy. I am just a reloader with 50 years of experience with 2400 powder, both the Hercules and Alliant versions. When folks start to throw around data, charts, waves etc. I just drop out.

I will say there is nothing in my experience that validates what the fellow says about 2400 as true. Maybe I have had my head up my wazoo for the last half century, but I am calling BS on this guys powder punditry.

You can add me to this. Plus if you following Larry's link it is well worth reading the thread. He put much work into just the typing let alone the tests.

[hornet112]

I shot a lot of 2400 in 357 & 44 mag with powder sitting around for years never had a problem.

[mfraser264]

As with so many other comments, we still have 30 year old 2400 and it is performs perfectly. Shot shot thousands of .357 Magnums with cast lead alloy bullets and have not had issues. We do use Small Pistol Magnum primers. One reason we like this load is that the fired cases can be removed for the cylinder with a slight push of the ejector. A large amount of loading data has been published about listing 16 grains as a universal charge in the .30 Caliber rifle loads too.

[derek45]

2400 is one of 4 powders I've used a lot of. The comments below come from a well respected fella. However I cant say that I've heard some of what is said here accepted as general knowledge about 2400. It certainly hasnt been my experience with this powder. I would like to hear comments on this.... Jeff


Here's some data on 2400 powder. It was designed in 1930 for the 22 Hornet and later was used in commercial 410 shotgun ammo. Though the formula changed slightly since it first came out, it is still the most unstable handgun powder on the market. All powders change characteristics a little when different bullet weights, bullet seating depths, or magnum primers are used. 2400's burn rate changes radically with the above. It is also way more temperature sensitive than any other hand gun powder. As the revolver's chamber temperatures heat up, 2400 will burn way faster than the first shot. The most serious issue with 2400 is primers. The reason why magnum primers were invented was twofold. First, there is more "mix" in the primer to help ignite slow burning powders. 2400 doesn't like magnum primers because the extra mix speeds up ignition and makes chamber pressure skyrocket. Second, the cups for magnum primers are thicker to prevent ruptures at high chamber pressures affiliated with high velocity loads. 2400 DOES need the thicker cups as a safety margin .... but can't use them. It's a fact that many other powders do a much better job than 2400 with magnum loads. "Better job" doesn't mean 2400 can't be used but it does mean other powders have more consistent velocities, not as temperature sensitive, lower risk of a primer blow out, and equal or better accuracy .... all with lower chamber pressure and a better safety margin. 2400 behaves much better in 44 Mag loads than it does in 357 Mag loads. Personally, I would not recommend using 2400 powder in a 357 Mag, especially for a newbie.

https://i.imgur.com/cc7HdLT.gif