44 Special +P data and report

[curioushooter]

I've been on a consuming 44 Special +P binge and have done a lot of testing in a short period of time. Some surprises and some things what I expected. All the data I am working with comes from Handloader 236 and 312 articles by Brian Pearce which contain pressure data. He refers to standard loads as level I and 22K PSI loads or less as level II and 25K PSI or less as level III. S&W 24/624 (post-WWII N-frames) and Ruger Blackhawks are both level III capable revolvers, and probably the ones that most people shooting heavy 44 special loads will be using (I would not recommend these loads in any five-chambered revolvers (including the GP100) or Colts or Colt clones). I think it is easier to just call the loads 44 SPL, 44 SPL+P, and 44 SPL+P+.

One of the surprises was that I don't like 2400, which is the "go-to classic powder" for +P and +P+ loads. I don't know if it is the batch (Nov 2009 produced Lot X) I am using or something else I don't understand, but I have a hard time believing that THIS was the powder that started the whole magnum craze and that such knowledgeable re-loaders like it. It is horribly sooty and causes at least a little leading in basically every load I try. It causes leading that the exact same batch of bullets does not cause with different powders, even when the pressures are running about the same, and it never seems to burn completely unless driven very hard. My best time with 2400 has been in small capacity rifle cartridges--32-20 in particular--and it has proven useful to me in 30-30 for reduced loads, 357 Herrett for reduced loads, and it is pretty useful in 357 magnum for both rifle and revolver. But in the 624 it just looks like after one shot that I've been shooting all day. It stains up my pants too since I am doing a lot of sitting long range shooting. I am getting the expected velocities, so it isn't bad primers or something (CCI 300 Standard Large Pistol purchased during the scare back in '08). Accuracy no better than anything else...in some cases worse. I must say I am just surprised.

Another surprise was Blue Dot. Basically it does nearly what 2400 can do velocity wise, with less powder, leading, fouling, soot, blast, noise, no pants staining, recoil, flash...etc. For the ~25 FPS difference in respective max loads the choice is obvious to me. With the MP 429244 HP (~240 grain) 12.5 grains of BD returns a consistent 1200-1225 FPS from my 6.5" S&W 624. 16.7 grains of 2400 does 1225-1250 FPS. These are both +P+ loads (to 25k PSI) based on the solid bullet, so I expect that at 15 grains less bullet weight in the hollowpoint that these are running a bit less than 25k PSI. In either case 1200 FPS is pretty solid velocity and about as far as I care to take it velocity wise. Accuracy wise the Blue Dot is about equal at short range but superior once the distance gets greater mainly because it has a smaller deviation...about 10 FPS. Once I have proven out this Blue Dot load (I am toying with charge weights between 12-12.5 to see if I can find a optimal one) I will report back on the gel-testing. Let's just say I expect outstanding results from that HP when cast from 20:1 and with 240 grains of weight behind it. Can't really think of a better whitetail load to ~100 yards.

One thing that I was expecting is excellent performance from Unique! And boy it does deliver! With pretty much every bullet I've tried it gets what I expect or better and it is clean and consistent (I am using recently manufactured Unique 2019). In fact, 8 grains with a certain batch of Arsenal 429421s delivered about a 5 FPS variation in velocity! From 7-8.5 grains Unique will push a bullet 200-255 grains 900-1100 FPS or so with good accuracy and no drama. Just a good working load and isn't too bad on the hand/wrist. Up to 8.5 grains of Unique is a +P load.

Another winner is PowerPistol. 8 grains of it will match the classic 7.5 grains Unique/429421 "Skeeter-Keith" load and do it at standard pressure so it will be safe in all good condition 44 specials. It doesn't fill but half the case however, so it is somewhat of a double charge hazard. This seems to have no effect on accuracy. Except for the freakish 8 grain load of Unique above, PowerPistol has proven to be equally accurate as Unique or any other powder.

Now in case you thought I was an Alliant partizan, Tightgroup is a fine powder for standard "target loads." Despite filling only about 1/3rd of the case (a major double charge or even triple charge hazard) it is accurate and consistent and very economical. I have the same bottle of of TG I bought 12 years ago and I still think I have about 50% of it because you use so little of it, despite having thrown so many 3-4 grains charges. My feeling on target loads is kind of meh, however. If I want to shoot mouse fart loads 38 SPL has 44 beat any day. As accurate and uses a lot less metal. The Skeeter +P level loads have some authority to them. I wouldn't hesitate to use them on deer (at near ranges) for example and certainly everything lighter.

As far as bullets go I have the following molds:

Arsenal's clone of 429421 custom ordered to throw .432 bullets. Weighs ~254 grains with COWWs+2% tin. Closer to 250-251 when cast of 20:1. Plain base.

(borrowed) Lyman 429215 two cavity in good shape. Gas check.

MP Mold's clone of 429244 hollopoint. Ordered to throw .434. Gas check. Casts ~240 grains in 20:1 with large HP, ~250 with penta, ~245 with small HP, and ~255 solid. This mold features a modern (Lyman devastator) type cavities. Not only do such conical designs work better with antimonial alloys, they work better with binary too. I was very happy that Miha went with these design rather than the old school design proper to the 429244.

MP Mold's clone of H&G 503 hollowpoint. Ordered to throw .432. Plain base. Casts ~250 grains with small HP pin in an alloy of 93-6-1 (pb-sn-sb). I've never bothered with the other pins in this one as I don't like them. Long, narrow, round bottomed hollowpoint cavities don't expand at low velocities and or at angles much off perpendicular (cavity implodes). I've also not bothered with the solids as the 429421 is so similar.

I have not done any HP testing in 44 yet. I am basing this off testing done in 357/28 SPL. So my hypotheses could be wrong, but probably not.

My sizer is .431 (my 624 has .432 throats) and all size properly, though the 429215 barely sizes at all. I have one Lubeamatic and it is filled with Carnuba blue.

The big surprise here is my decided preference for the Ray Thompson gas check designs over the Keith plain base. I wasn't expecting this. But it is true. In my case at least the gas checks shoot cleaner for sure and seem a bit more accurate and faster. I was also surprised that my least favorite is that 429421 as it was the only one designed for 44 special and not for 44 mag.

The 429215 in particular I like. It has proven to be quite accurate and pleasant to shoot vs the heavier designs. The friend I borrowed it from has proven it extensively on whitetails. At 1100 FPS he never failed to recover a bullet (complete pass through) and every deer succumbed within reasonable time/distance (none lost). Claims to have shot at least ten deer with it over the years, but lost track of particulars.

I was wondering if they are any other heavy 44 special followers out there (NOT INTERESTED IN REDUCED 44 MAGNUM LOADS--if you not using a 44 special case it is not a 44 special load) and what they have found.

[onelight]

I am in the beginnings of working with the 44 special I have 2 now but have not had any time to do much load development . I need to get me a chronograph that wil work at the indoor range I go to.
But I much appreciate the information you have posted and look forward to results form others here.:popcorn:

[Win94ae]

Power Pistol is my favorite powder for 45acp and 38 special, good to see it will also work for 44 special!
Thanks!

[winelover]

Been doing this reloading thing for near on 50 years. Unique and 2400 are my go to pistol/carbine powders. I'd be satisfied with just those two powders if choices had to be made. I purchase both by the 8 pound jug and have gone though many of them. I load for 9 mm, 38 and 357, 44 Spl and Mag, plus (Ruger Only) 45 LC.

My performance loads in magnum revolvers/carbines, use 2400, sometimes with magnum primers. Moderate loads, I use Unique. I prefer 2400 because unlike 296/H-110, it can be downloaded effectively and safely. Thus it is more versatile. Never ever bought more than one pound containers of 296/ H-110..............never resulted any miraculous groups out of my guns.

Bluedot, I use to consume it by the 8 pound jug. My Python loved it with maximum doses and 158 jacketed bullets. Until it eroded the forcing cone, resulting in a new barrel.

Charter Arms Bulldog is my only 44 Special chambering. I do not shoot a lot of +P loadings. Mostly because of recoil. It will turn the first joint of my trigger finger from a blister to a bloody, mess in less than 25 rounds. When I practice with it, I put a band-aid on that joint, for it's cushioning effect. It's my bow hunting carry piece. It's loaded with 250 or 265 grain cast stoked with 2400 powder. It will dispatch anything found on my acreage. I have Power Pistol, I purchased for 9 mm. Never got around to trying it in the Bulldog. Maybe I should. Didn't impress me nor my CZ Scorpion carbine with cast.

Winelover

[RJM52]

Have not done any .44 Special loading since the 1990s but for +P loads SR4756 was my go-to powder... Unfortunately it has been discontinued.

Was wondering if you have tried H110...

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/ross-seyfried-lipseys-ruger-flattop-44-special-bisley-revolvers/

..just a wonderful cartridge... If I wasn't a .41 Shooter it would be a .44 Special...

[Thumbcocker]

Thanks for doing the leg work for us. Really like 8 grains of power pistol and Keith boolits. May have to grab some blue dot.

[DougGuy]

You may benefit greatly from researching some H110 loads under your heavier boolits. I did basically the same thing you are doing, loading to tier 2 pressures for a medium framed Vaquero (23,000psi 45 ACP+P pressure ceiling) in 45 Schofield brass. I was initially going to trim to 44 special length and call it a 45 Ruger Special but hey we are only talking .060" of case length, and there are already dies and brass made for the Schofield, My reasoning was that Ruger gave us a danged fine Tier 2 platform, let's make some Tier 2 loads for it!

I tried a lot of different boolit weights, but got my best results out of 3 of the LBT wide flat nose designs in the 250gr weight and H110 for powder. You used Brian Pearce's data, I used QuickLoad. I was able to get the LBT 250gr OWC to 1200fps at just under 23,000psi in QuickLoad and this load was fun to shoot. Snappy but not sharp at all, nowhere near what a 30kpsi load would be in a full size Blackhawk. NO knuckle bashing at all, and at 1200fps this would be an excellent hunting load for deer, black bear, or hog in the Eastern US. I seriously doubt I would ever recover one from a whitetail.

[ranchman]

If you're most interested in heavy loaded 44special data, and can find some Vihtavuori powder, VvN110 is a superb powder that I feel best's the old 2400. It burns just a tad bit slower, but burns clean and burns extremely consistent. And VvN110 has no great velocity swings due to temperature fluctuations either. It's a very stable powder. Become my favorite for maximizing my specials in 41 AND 44.

There isn't much for load-data out there though, I did my work-up with it by the seat of the pants while looking for a substitute for 2400 during years none was available. Probably be wise to start someplace around 15.5gr or so & increase til you hit the accuracy node (+/-1200fps) in your gun, depending on the guns tolerances. You may go as high as 17.5gr to find it, but I wouldn't venture much beyond that. My max load through a few different Colt single actions has been 17.5 & will shoot someplace between 1190 & 1240 through 5.5" barrels. The only bullet I've ever used has been 429421 variants weighing 250-260grains. And for ignition, primers have typically been Winchester large pistol.

But do work up to 17.5, don't just jump in head first. It IS a 44special-brass load, but a full house mag-special level load at that, which I'm sure would fall someplace up in that 25,000 +P+ listing if the charts were ever to be revised. Strong Colts, else Rugers & FA guns on special Grizzly occasions only far as I'm concerned. But an outstanding load nonetheless if you really want one like that... it's the single-one "business" load that I carry in 44specials when I'm in bear country

[curioushooter]

Lots of great sharing here. I wanted to share some more info and ask a few questions.

1) I did a lot of work with 296 and 44 mag years ago. In fact, it was about all I shot. And it was work. It was not fun at all. Almost all of it done with a 265 grain RNFP lee custom mold that I paper jacketed. Full charges of 26 grains of 296 in my superblackhawk and marlin. Extremely punishing in the blackhawk, but I kept banging away like an idiot. Eventually I just swore it off and sold both guns, one to my friend and one to my father in law. So I have a bit of a prejudice against that powder. I like 2400 better for a number of reasons. While I freely admit that 296/110 will generate greater velocities, I already think that 2400 is too slow for the application. 296 in my experience likes to be run at high pressures with a heavy-for-caliber bullet in front of it.

2) Regarding the skeeter type loads. I cannot emphasize enough how excellent these are. The 7.5 Unique/429421 is excellent, but really any cast SWC from 215-250 grains or so pushed by 7-8.5 grains of Unique works really well. I almost think that I prefer the Lyman 429215 with 8.5 grains of Unique most of all. It pushes it to ~1125 FPS and is entirely pleasant to shoot. Most accurate combo I've found in a revolver. Given the pressures (I do not have quickload) I wonder how far these loads with unique can be pushed? Would 9 grains with the 429215 still be under 25 kPSI? Ever run stuff like that Doug? In any case these loads are great all purpose loads with cast boolits. They have enough power and diameter to be effective on deer and anything smaller. They are very shoot-able, almost like target loads in terms of long term comfort and not causing fatigue/flinch. They are not deafening. They are clean (at least with newer Alliant Unique, I understand old Hercules Unique was dirty). And for the most part they shoot near the same point as a more powerful "Ketih" load. This is somewhat ticklish though. I found that in my 6.5" 624 that that this was not quite true, especially as ranges extend to 50 yards or farther. But at under 25 they are close enough for anything but real target shooting. It may be that with a 4" or 5" revolver that it works better.


3) I will say load data is not abundant, but it seems to be of good quality. I really wish the Lyman Manual had some more, but I sort of look at powder company data as rubbishy and untrustworthy in terms of velocity. So really, it is not so bad. Handloaders have long praised Unique and it is excellent. I have found that PowerPistol and Blue Dot are certainly deserving of some attention. I am just surprised at how disappointing 2400 has been...though admittedly it gets the velocity and the accuracy is there too.

Regarding the classic Keith load, ranchman. I worked up to 17 grains of 2400 from 15 in .2 grain increments. I found that 16.5 worked the best with the 429421 an even at this charge it was well over 1200 FPS (for whatever reason this is the fastest revolver I've owned. It consistently bests the data by 25-50 FPS). I only used standard CCI 300 primers and in starline's 44 SPL brass heavily crimped in the groove. This load was good but I have my criticisms:

In my 624 at least it is somewhat punishing, especially with a non-rubber grip. This is a Pachmayr only load for me.

It is filthy sooty and stains pants if you do sitting holds.

And I am not huge fan of the 429421, or at least the one I have. The one Arsenal makes has an almost exaggeratedly large grease groove. It takes nearly and entire spin of my Lubeamatic's handle to fill it. I'd esptimate it uses about 6x the lube that the 429215 uses. When I shoot it it never fails to leave a little leading and an abundance of crayon like smear in the barrel and chambers which is carnuba blue. The more you shoot the worse this fouling gets. After about a dozen rounds it's pretty nasty and I think accuracy starts to fall apart, though this could be because my hand is getting worn out. One of the unprovable ideas I harbor is that the size of the grease groove is not as important as the grease groove being packed absolutely 100%. My gel testing has show very consistently that only about 10-20% of the grease leaves a large groove and the smaller ones lose perhaps 50%. In no case have I ever observed a depleted groove. I think my 429421's groove is so massive it never gets fully packed and therefore when it gets compressed grease is not getting pumped out onto the barrel to do work. This is why why I get leading (I think) and why there is gobs of carnuba blue everywhere. Keith's thinking on the matter doesn't seem quite right to me. He seemed to like lots of "grease" and disliked gas checks. Maybe the lubes were different (probably much softer) then and it took more to get the job done. But I've found that you don't need much lube at all and that the gas check is has been helpful.

When I shoot the 429215 I can put 48 down range and the barrel looks basically like it did after the first shot. I am think I might do well to buy a 429421 iron mold with the round grease groves (oh my....the sacrilege!) to see if it works any better. I like iron molds best of all. But I understand many of these cast undersized bullets. I'm really after something that will cast at least .431 with 20:1 or COWW+2%Sn.

The only bears where I live are little black bears that can be subdued with whisky bottles, rocks, big sticks. I am pretty confident that the skeeter loads would be more than enough if it came to this highly improbable (for me) situation.

[ranchman]

16gr 2400 shoots about 1150 in my Colts.. and when I seen those kinda numbers registering on my chrony, I left the 2400 development right there. Some have written 2400 powders have changed since Elmers time, others say not, some say the guns and the machining since then is what's changed more ... whatever it is, I have never gone right to 17.5 2400 like Elmer favoured simply because it seems 16 is doing the same for his published old velocities, today.

And call me delusional, but in my guns, I feel a softer 1240fps recoil using VvN110 than I do shooting 16gr 2400 with the same 429421 bullet. I have NO pressure tooling or equipment to prove it, but I'd venture to guess 17.5N110 & the keith bullet may very well be a touch lower pressure load than what the old standby 17.5 2400 is, today. I would sure like to see Pearce put some trials into ink with Vihtavuori N110 for the heavies in special brasses.. I doubt it would lower pressure's enough to categorize as a 22,000 load .. but I don't doubt for a second it would fall some degree lower than the full house 17.5/2400 Elmer load which sits @approx 25,000psi.

Accuracy is on par or better than the Unique's & Power Pistol loads shoot too.. it truly is a fantastic heavy load powder for 44 special.

[Thumbcocker]

Has anyone tried 4227 for loads in this range?

[curioushooter]

Ranchman:

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

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

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

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

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

[Larry Gibson]

I have pressure tested the 44 SPL with numerous loads including Keith's load (16 gr 2400/429421) and Skeeter's 7.5 gr Unique with 5 different cast bullets [240 gr Laser Cast, RCBS 44-250-K, Lyman 429360, Lee TL430-240-SWC and a commercial cast 429421].

The Keith load ran 19,300 psi.

The Skeeter load ran 19,000 to 24,700 psi [Laser cast 19,000 psi, 44-250-K 23,000 psi, 429360 22,500 psi, TL430-240-SWC 24,700 psi, 429421 21,000 psi]

Seating depth was more a deciding factor of psi than was bullet weight.

I'm willing to conduct reasonable pressure testing of 44 SPL +P loads with components I have or you supply. Realize pressure testing properly is not a "load 'em up, run out and test 'em" preposition. It is a bit more involved. Thus I will entertain and consider any serious requests.

I have the following moulds;
429215
429360
429421
429640HP
44-250-K
429-200-RF
TL430-240-SWC

[curioushooter]

Did you test 17 grains 2400 with 429421? That is the "Keith load" that I've read about. Brian Pearce has 16 grains at 22kpsi, btw. Said it was a maximum level II load.

[Larry Gibson]

Might want to re-read Pierce's article (Handloader) as he does not state the 16 gr load 2400 under a 429421 or RCBS 44-250-K gives 22,000 psi. He just states the Level II 44 SPL loads "run up to 22,000 psi". Pierce lists numerous loads in his "Level II" load table. The table does not indicate the psi of any particular load. Many assume all the loads are at 22,000 psi but the range ran from 15 - 22,000 psi. Having pressure tested several 10 shot strings of 16 gr 2400 load under the 44-250-K and the 429421 none of which ran above 20,000 psi I'll stand by the 19,300 psi as a good "average".

Keith's original load was 17.5 gr 2400 in balloon head cases. He dropped that to 16 - 16.5 gr in solid head cases. I tested the 16 gr load in Starline cases having solid web construction. 16 gr of 2400 was 100% load density with both the 44-250-K and the 429421 cast bullets......and because that was the max load Pierce listed in his "Level II" table. That test was by request on another thread regards Pierces listed loads.

[Outpost75]

I am partial to 6 grains of Bullseye in the .44 Special and .44-40 and 7 grains in the .45 Colt and .44 Mag.

[GONRA]

GONRA suggests winelover try Blue Dot. Pretty sure you'll like it!

[curioushooter]

Might want to re-read Pierce's article (Handloader) as he does not state the 16 gr load 2400 under a 429421 or RCBS 44-250-K gives 22,000 psi. He just states the Level II 44 SPL loads "run up to 22,000 psi".

He has an asterix and it leads to a statement that it is "maximum" so I assume he means 22kPSI. And it certainly makes sense from looking at the other data, as the level III table starts at 16 grains and goes to 17.

This was from the Level II table from handloader 236.

262775

I am myself using new starline cases.

[MT Gianni]

I have 3 429241 molds and have been through at least 3 others, all Lyman brand. None has taken more than a 1/5th or 1/6th turn to lube it. It sounds to me like a poorly designed lube groove or one for a special purpose.

[ranchman]

Each of the Keith books I have state, by Elmer himself, 18.5 2400 was his balloon head load, and 17.5 2400 what he backed down to when solid cases came out for the same performance...

The 16gr load is most certainly a more recent load and observation tied to current cases, guns and powder manufacture. 16/16.5 had never been a published Elmer Keith load. It's a good load for sure, but not a charge Elmer championed. 17.5 was his Historical load.
And furthermore, was the basis for my own trials with VvN110 in mimicking the old 2400 load to compare differences*

Taffin quotes a lab pressure test in Book of the 44 with a 17.5 pressure number, but I can't recall it off the top of my head. 16.0gr@ 20,000 in Larry's tests is actually a good bit less than I expected it to be. All the more intriguing to see what the Vihtavuori powder would measure.

[curioushooter]

Post messed up. See below.

[curioushooter]

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

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

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

[Larry Gibson]

curiousshooter

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

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

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

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

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

[Chill Wills]

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

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

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

[DougGuy]

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


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

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

[curioushooter]

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

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

[Larry Gibson]

Curioushooter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ddixie884]

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

[fcvan]

Ranchman:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bazoo]

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

[Drm50]

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

[rintinglen]

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

[JAC43]

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

[curioushooter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Thomas Traddles]

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

[megasupermagnum]

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

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

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

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

[Bazoo]

MSM, thank you for your post.

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

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

[megasupermagnum]

MSM, thank you for your post.

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

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

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

[megasupermagnum]

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

262866

[megasupermagnum]

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

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

[Bazoo]

Thanks for the response MSM. I'm going to try to wrap my head around it.

[winelover]

Yesterday, I loaded Power Pistol with 7.0 and 7.5 grains under a Lyman 429667 (averages @ 250 grains dressed with my alloy).

Walked out to my backyard range, shot two cylinders full at 7.0 and one at 7.5 grains, in the Bulldog. Returned and loaded 50 with 7.5 grains. Recoil was brisk, SD accuracy was acceptable, revolver stayed relatively clean. I won't go up to the 8.0 grains (+P ) load in that particular revolver, though.

Winelover

[Larry Gibson]

curioushooter

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

Because that's the way it is is why. As mentioned, there is not a 1:1 relationship between velocity variation and pressure variation. As a "professional laboratory scientist and have been for 15 years" I would think you would have an open mind and not have a preconceived notion and then discount that which does not agree with that notion.

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

I would suggest to you that a 5 or even 6 shot test sample is not a large enough sample. A 10 shot test is the minimum acceptable SAAMI standard and also is standard industry practice. Even then, multiple 10 shot tests are used to validate the data. Your small ES of 5 or 6 shots as are those in the Pierce article more consistent with SDs of a meaningful sample. As to what you are to believe? As a scientist you are supposed to believe the results from test data, even though it disagrees with your notion of what it should be.

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

Hmmmm..a scientist that does not believe "testing is worth pursuing"...…. Quickload is nothing more than a computer model. As we've seen recently, the accuracy with the COVD-19 computer models, accuracy with those always has a +/- variation of predictied results. Those +/- variations are many times quite large. As a scientist I would think you would understand that. Quickload will give you a guestiment of the average psi, not what the psi will actually be nor will Quickload give you a +/- ES of pressure or velocity. Understand also that in any publication (even my own test results) a pressure value listed is simply an average. It is not what the exact pressure will be with every shot fired.

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

I also suspect, as I stated earlier, the actual loads listed in the table were not pressure tested for the article. I believe pressure data for those loads (that data is not listed in the article) was resourced from different publications and simply referenced by Pierce for the article table. You can measure pressures with some revolvers (there must be clearance between the top strap and the cylinder for the strain gauge) without destroying them, However, with the Oehler the cylinder would be marred as the bluing is removed to affix the strain gauge.

As to "it is all a bunch of bunk" we should remember that magazine reloading articles, even the better ones, are written to the lowest denominator of reader perception ability and reloading skill. I am of the opinion that Pierce's 44 SPL article is one of the better ones, even with it's apparent faults or discrepancies.

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

As are all of us who are of a more technical bent than the majority of readers of such.

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

Again, keep in mind when comparing Quickload's results with measured psi that older PSI may be based on C.U.P. measurement vs newer PSI measurements based on piezo-transducer or strain gauge measurement that the "psi" value is different. Also understand that what one test barrel measures the psi of a given load another test barrel can, and most like will, give a different psi. You might study the SAAMI information regarding "reference ammunition" use to understand that. Also understand, there are no hard and fast results that say "this load will give you exactly this much psi". There will always be a variation (ES) and it, obviously, is going to be larger than most think. Yes, that does go against your own notion of what pressure should be but that's the way it is.

Over the last 14 years I have pressure tested thousands of rounds in 7 different test barrels of 23 different cartridges with a multitude of loads. The equipment (M43 Oehler PBL) is not "noisy". Referring to it as such to assuage your own belief does not make it so.

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

Specifics?

[curioushooter]

Precision means nothing without consistency. A strain gauge that measures to the one-hundredth of one pound per square inch is precise, but is that useful when the next shot you take with what should be the same load turns out to be 2000 PSI different?


A better way to say it is Velocity = Pressure + Time. Amen! Time is pretty much determined by barrel length. Since revolvers usually have short barrels, the times are pretty close, so my heuristic velocity = pressure more than anything is basically true.

There are other variables of course. One of the more important that I think comes into play in this situation is bore diameter. Cartridges like 44 special have so much surface area on the base of the bullet for pressure to exert upon that they accelerate faster and therefore increase the volume of the pressure vessel rapidly. This is why they do so well with faster powders I think whereas cartridges like 357 do better with slower powders. 12 grains of Blue Dot will generate ~40% more energy in a 44 special +P vs 357 magnum despite the 44 running at lower pressures. Just compare 12 grains of BD with a 158 at 1200 FPS vs 255 grains at the same speed. Skeeter, Keith...those sages were all right about the superiority of 44 over 357 in this regard.

MSM...I think Blue Bot is a pretty useful and nice powder. I do have a mistrust of it though. Some 140 grains JHPs in 357 loaded with book loads that I shot through my marlin in cold weather displayed some extremely alarming pressure signs once. I worked up the load in normal weather and they were fine. I ended up breaking them down (and there were a lot of them) so I sort of hold a grudge there. What if I put one of those in my prized model 19? A lot of people have said that the Blue Dot warning is a bunch of bunk, but every one of these people that says this has come from a hot climate, not a cold one. I use my guns in cold weather more than hot, cold weather performance is an essential for me, which is why I am sort of hesitant with Blue Dot going forward in 44 special. I'd much rather find a way to make Unique work, which has a 120 plus year track record for cold weather performance behind it.

I really like Unique, which in the end may be my favorite powder, though Blue Dot does offer performance in rifles that Unique just can't. I am pretty sure Blue Dot = Unique + more retardant + blue dye. The flake sizes are very, very similar. All of the things that make Unique great (except doubts about cold weather performance) are present in Blue Dot...it's just slower. They are both originally shotgun powders that also found a home in handguns. They were both intended to be used in shotguns...which operate at low pressures in large diameter applications. People claim they do not meter well. I've personally never had a problem. I get the same .1 grain precision from my Hornady Lock-n-Load that I expect from any other handgun powder. The reason why I have so much Blue Dot is when I lived in Ohio my deer load was 50 grains of BD pushing a 12 gauge Lee slug. Yes, it was brutal.

2400 was never meant to be used in handguns or straight wall cartridges. It was designed to work in 22 Hornet which is a very unusual cartridge. I've never had or loaded a 22 Hornet, though if I ever found a 10" contender barrel in it for a reasonable price I would snap it up. I do have 32-20 contender and 2400 is very good in that cartridge (though my go-to powder has been 1680 for a while). It doesn't get quite the velocity than 296 or 1680 does, but it is more consistent in my testing. I use small rifle primers in 32-20, and it is my contention that this is part of the reason why 2400 works so well. 2400 is hard to "get lit" (though 1680 and 296 are both worse in this regard IMO). When you have a large capacity straight wall case like 357 mag or 44 special and are using standard pistol primers I think a lot of the 2400 just doesn't get lit. The bullet jumps out too fast and it just doesn't combust well. This explains the unburnt powder and snootiness. It also explains why when you use a heavier bullet it can go away. When you use a rifle primer and cork it up with a heavy for caliber bullet (130-150 grain) and run it at higher pressures (like into the 30k Plus) as I do in my 32-20 contender 2400 preforms very nicely indeed.

[curioushooter]

A 10 shot test is the minimum acceptable SAAMI standard and also is standard industry practice.

That's because it's so noisy. Please explain to me how 10% let alone 20% pressure testing variation is possible when velocity variation is 1-2%. I could do ten or twenty or two hundred shot string, and the variation would still be ~2%. You only need to collect data until your variation is in acceptable limits. When you have noisy data you end up with huge sample sizes that remain of poor significance. When you have clean data, they can be small, yet significant.

I realize it may be impossible to do any better, but in this situation it just doesn't matter that much. If somebody wants to undertake testing by all means. I have absolutely no opposition. I just doubt it is worthwhile, for me. All I am after is maximum safe loads because I don't want to damage anything.

If it has been established that 25k PSI is the average safe limit for a S&W 624. This is a discrete limit, as the yield strenght of the weakest part of the cylinder is a certain amount. It doesn't matter that the average is. One shot that is beyond the limit and it lets go. This means that pressure testing equipment could only tell me something that may be within ~20% of that limit, since that is what you reported. With variation like that I have basically no confidence in it. Others may, and that's fine.

Almost every day I am approached by people who complain that a given instrument isn't working right, and I am usually the one who fixes it and re-runs the work. When I do it's usually fine and so is the instrument. The instruments I work on collect samples in the millions and automatically do all the statistics and put data points into nice little Gaussian distributions. A 20% extreme spread is not unusual in many tests involving living cells. Perhaps more than anything I am shocked to the point of quasi-disbelief that the state of the art in pressure testing is so noisy and this is acceptable in the industry, as non-living things are usually less variable. My $100 Chrony sure is.

If I had a tape measure and measured a piece of wood and it returned the results over 10 measurements of 8, 7, 6, 9, 10, 8, 7, 6, 9, 10 feet I would not average them and call the piece of wood 8 feet long. I would get another tape measure and or get my eyes checked. If the piece of wood measured 8.1, 7.9, 8.0, 8.0, 8.0, 8.1, 7.9, 8.0, 8.0, 8.0 feet then averaging for 8 would be fine, but I could have just measured it once and would have had a good enough answer.

As for data (from handloader 321) see 429215 data:

262893

[Larry Gibson]

On reflection, no sense beating this dead horse any longer.

Have a good day.

[cowboy4evr]

Mike Venturino had an article in Handloader magazine a yr or two back of +P loads in 44 special . Using the Lyman 429421 , their version of the Keith 245 gr swc , he recommended using 6.0 grs of a fast powder like Bullseye , red dot etc . His favorite was 700X . I rarely reload the 44 special . I mostly load for the 41 magnum , but if not the 41 , then my preference would be the 45 Colt . Regards Paul

[curioushooter]

Everything I read over at SAAMI (https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ANSI-SAAMI-Z299.3-CFP-and-R-Approved-2015-12-14-Posting-Copy.pdf) indicates that their standard variation is 5%, which is much more confidence inspiring. But when they actually set standards, what a shock!!!!

For a "44 SPL +P+" at 25,000 PSI MAP the Maximum Sample Probable Mean would be 26200 PSI--this figure is three standard errors above the mean. This was what I expected would be operational range where readings would fall. The Maximum extreme variation would be +/-6500 PSI!

When looking at the examples it is true that huge pressure variations are observed, in the order of ~1500 PSI or so and apparently this is acceptable. Call me shocked! Basically pressure testing equipment is very, very inconsistent. It is interesting to note that velocities are magnitudes lower in the deviations. Typically ~20 FPS which amounts to 1-2%. With pressure testing deviations of ~10% or more are normal! It is not until variations exceed 2500 cup/psi that they are discarded and tests re-run. With most rifles this would represent under a 5% deviation, but for for lower pressure cartridges (like standard 44 special) this is can be ~15%! I am even more surprised that such small sample sizes (10) are considered acceptable for pressure testing. While this sample plenty for something like velocity testing, it seems to me imprudent with pressure testing. But I suppose there are economic constraints on the rigor of the testing.

In a way to the typical handloader a chronograph is a very useful and inexpensive tool provided you have Maximum Average Pressures (MAP) from the lab. It is accurate and easy to use and cheap. Given the extremely detailed and complicated procedures outlined in the document I believe it would be nearly impossible for the typical DIYer (Larry must be superhuman) to obtain data as good as obtained by good lab, and even that lab's data is not very good compared to a chronograph. It seems that the means of testing pressure is just not very good compared to our ability to measure velocity or load ammo, unfortunately.

I apologize for any exasperation I may have caused. More than anything though I am surprised at how easily we obtain very good data from chronographs (relatively) yet pressure testing is so much more involved. I thought it was mainly cost of the equipment that was a barrier more than anything. Truly it is just the technical difficulty involved.

[megasupermagnum]

On reflection, no sense beating this dead horse any longer.

Have a good day.

Uff Da. It's like working with engineers at work. "but it must fit, this print says it does"

[Don Purcell]

And the effect of bullet hardness was little talked about in this thread.

[ddixie884]

curioushooter, ranchman and Larry Gibson you all make good points and good sense. I believe old and new 2400 is within lot to lot tolerances but I too think .44spl brass is thicker with less capacity and I'm not sure that primers are not hotter today. This a very good discussion. I am enjoying it and I am impressed with the manners shown by everyone involved. JMHO-YMMV

[ddixie884]

Pearce states in the Lipseys .44 flattop article that the original Keith load was 18.5 in Baloon cases reduced to 17.5 in solid head cases and reduced to 17.0 by him for faster A2400. I still believe that older cases were thinner. I remember Rem-Umc cases were so thin they were fragile and Federal was the first to make a sturdy .45Colt case.

[Larry Gibson]

curioushooter, ranchman and Larry Gibson you all make good points and good sense. I believe old and new 2400 is within lot to lot tolerances but I too think .44spl brass is thicker with less capacity and I'm not sure that primers are not hotter today. This a very good discussion. I am enjoying it and I am impressed with the manners shown by everyone involved. JMHO-YMMV

Yesterday I loaded up the 44 SPL test rounds. I loaded 10 shots each of 16.0, 16.5, 17.0 and 17.5 gr Alliant 2400 in both WRA cases and new Starline 44 SPL cases. The bullet was the RCBS 44-250-K cast of COWW + 2 % tin. They were sized .430 and lubed with BAC. OAL is; 1.565".

Surprisingly the WRA cases were only 0.5. gr less weight than the Starline cases. The WRAs also had a much larger ES of weight than did the Starlines.

The WRAs were primed with some old Remington 2 1/2 LP primers as those may have been used by Keith. The Starline cases were primed with WLP primers as they are readily available today.

I also loaded 10 shots each of both WRA/2 1/2 cases and Starline/WLP cases and 16.0 gr of 27 year old Hercules 2400 for a comparison to the same loads with Alliant 2400. However, 10 shots of 17.5 gr Alliant 2400 were also loaded in WRA cases with WLP primers for a direct comparison of case to case pressures.

Range is busy on weekends so maybe Monday or Tuesday morning I can get the testing done(?).

Test results at; http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?404080-44-SPL-pressure-test-of-2400-and-44-250-K

[Bazoo]

Thanks Larry for your testing.

Have you ever done any testing with the effect of various amounts of crimp?

[ddixie884]

Yesterday I loaded up the 44 SPL test rounds. I loaded 10 shots each of 16.0, 16.5, 17.0 and 17.5 gr Alliant 2400 in both WRA cases and new Starline 44 SPL cases. The bullet was the RCBS 44-250-K cast of COWW + 2 % tin. They were sized .430 and lubed with BAC. OAL is; 1.565".

Surprisingly the WRA cases were only 0.5. gr less weight than the Starline cases. The WRAs also had a much larger ES of weight than did the Starlines.

The WRAs were primed with some old Remington 2 1/2 LP primers as those may have been used by Keith. The Starline cases were primed with WLP primers as they are readily available today.

I also loaded 10 shots each of both WRA/2 1/2 cases and Starline/WLP cases and 17.5 gr of 27 year old Hercules 2400 for a comparison to the same loads with Alliant 2400. However, 10 shots of 17.5 gr Alliant 2400 were also loaded in WRA cases with WLP primers for a direct comparison of case to case pressures.

Range is busy on weekends so maybe Monday or Tuesday morning I can get the testing done(?).

Larry, I for one really appreciate your labor and expense in doing this testing. I am pleased with your choice in bullets for the test and choice in loads for comparison. Thanx.................

[Bazoo]

I am appreciative of the testing you do and share as well Larry. Thank you.

[44MAG#1]

These threads on ballistics are a very important part of any Forum. It give everyone a chance to give their opinion, no matter what that opinion is based on, which makes them feel good about about themselves.
We have people from newbies in ballistics to people who have 50+ years of shooting bullets and choreographing loads since '72.
The discussion goes from calm, to less calm, to intense, to argumentative and beyond.
All this on something that is forever changing, that no one in their right mind would want to bet their house on being correct over the long haul of time because of the variables involved in the components and the people conducting the tests.
I say go for it.

[Cosmic_Charlie]

Those will be some stiff loads Larry. I fired exactly one round of that same Keith boolit over 17 of 2400. Took the rest apart.

[Larry Gibson]

Test results posted in new thread; http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?404080-44-SPL-pressure-test-of-2400-and-44-250-K

[Larry Gibson]

In a previous post curioushooter asked; "Larry, what I don't get is why the actual pressure variation should be any different from velocity variation. If anything velocities should vary more since more variables are involved (barrel friction, lubricant/fouling accumulation, etc). The reason why pressure testing variation is so great is probably because the instrumentation is noisy, not because the pressure actually varies that much.". I did not give a very good answer, my apologies for that. Further discussion via PM another member offered this explanation which is very close to correct so I will just quote him here (my thanks to him for the simplified answer with less technical jargon...:drinks);

"Pressure is affected by many things which you know so I don't have to list them for our discussion. The combination of various things results in the variation.

The reason that doesn't affect the velocity is that pressure does not drive the bullet all the way out of the barrel. Pressure starts the bullet moving, but at some point the pressure starts to drop and stops driving the bullet forward. What continues to drive the bullet is the expanding gas itself not the pressure being generated.

A variation in pressure causes the initial bullet push to vary in speed and probably the amount into which it's pushed into the throat/barrel. But that variation is overshadowed by the friction involved between the bullet / barrel interface and is minuscule from shot to shot.

The volume of gas generated will be consistent from shot to shot (in loads with a smaller velocity ES) because nearly an identical amount of propellant is in each case whether weighed or measured. Nearly the same volume of gas being generated in nearly the same space will drive the bullet the same speed.

In instances where a rise in pressure coincides with a rise is velocity it's due to the increased bullet push caused by the initial pressure being greater."

We have not yet determined a way to measure the time sequence via a "trace" in actual firearm barrels. We can measure the time sequence of the volume of gas generated in special "pressure bombs" but that does not account for the variables of a bullet moving down the bore of a barrel. In firearm barrels what we do is measure the peak pressure via a C.U.P. device or with piezo-transducers or strain gauges. We also have not devised a practical way to get inside the cartridge to measure the pressure. With all measuring systems we measure a secondary effect [the crush of a copper pellet or the strain put on a transducer/strain gauge]. Measuring the "secondary effect" or "indirect measurement" is very common in many things we measure; temperature, speeds, etc.) Thus the various shot to shot measurements with C.U.P., piezo-transducers or strain gauges may seem "noisy" to some, in fact, they are not. They are simply the best we can do [at this time perhaps?].

[44MAG#1]

What continues to drive the bullet is the expanding gas itself not the pressure being generated."

Does the gas expand at a rate no faster than the bullet accelerates and makes room for it or does the expanding gases expand at a faster rate than the bullet accelerates which would infringe on its room for expansion?
If it expands faster than the bullet accelerates making room for it then pressure would be generated would it not? Correct or not correct?

The reason that doesn't affect the velocity is that pressure does not drive the bullet all the way out of the barrel."
If pressure doesnt drive the bullet does the bullet only move down the barrel by inertia once it gets booted in the rear? Can muzzle pressure not be measured? If it can't be measured than no pressure exists. If it can pressure exists.
I am just wondering. Could a small paper tube be placed on the muzzle of the gun and when the bullet exists if there are is no
pressure then the paper tube will be unharmed since there would be no pressure or would it be blown outward and destroyed by the pressure and gasses or would maybe the bullet moving so fast that the tube would be sucked in on itself or would the recoiling of the gun bending the tube of paper be the only damage. Correct or incorrect?
I am wondering.
I am a wondering machine.

[Bazoo]

It was I who messaged Larry about the pressure descrepencies. I believe I can answer your questions though I'm not a ballistician.


What continues to drive the bullet is the expanding gas itself not the pressure being generated."

Does the gas expand at a rate no faster than the bullet accelerates and makes room for it or does the expanding gases expand at a faster rate than the bullet accelerates which would infringe on its room for expansion?
If it expands faster than the bullet accelerates making room for it then pressure would be generated would it not? Correct or not correct?. The gas' expansion rate depends on the powder used mostly. Some have a rather constant rate of expansion while others expand at a progressive rate until consumed. The gas pushes the bullet at increasing speeds until the volume of gas no longer generates the pressures required to overcome the friction of the barrel.

The reason that doesn't affect the velocity is that pressure does not drive the bullet all the way out of the barrel.
If pressure doesnt drive the bullet does the bullet only move down the barrel by inertia once it gets booted in the rear? The expanding gas pushes the bullet most of the way out of the barrel. There is no way for the bullet to gain velocity once the gas stops pushing it. That is pressure, but it takes a much less amount of pressure to keep the bullet moving than it does to make it begin moving and accelerate it. If the barrel is long enough the expanding gas loses enough of it's force that the bullet will slow in the barrel.

Can muzzle pressure not be measured? If it can't be measured than no pressure exists. If it can pressure exists. The peak pressure is from a combination of factors, the primer concussion, the initial powder burning, and probably of primary influence, the bullet jamming into the lands of the rifling. Once that drops, the pressure itself no longer is driving the bullet as the pressure wouldn't be able to overcome the friction of the bore. Evidenced by firing a primer alone, or a primer and a very small charge of powder. In either instance the pressure drives the bullet into the bore but it stops dead in it's tracks. There is still some pressure at the muzzle but it's not enough to drive the bullet. (How much I don't know as I don't have pressure testing equipment). The expanding gas alone drives the bullet most of the way, even though some pressure is present most of the way.
I am just wondering. Could a small paper tube be placed on the muzzle of the gun and when the bullet exists if there are is no
pressure then the paper tube will be unharmed since there would be no pressure or would it be blown outward and destroyed by the pressure and gasses or would maybe the bullet moving so fast that the tube would be sucked in on itself or would the recoiling of the gun bending the tube of paper be the only damage. Correct or incorrect? A paper tube would not be destroyed by the expanding gas but rather moved. I doubt there would be enough gas or pressure to destroy it. It would also be disrupted by the pressure bow in the air caused by the bullet itself. You can see close to peak pressure vs gas expansion in a revolver, by placing a sheet of paper over the barrel cylinder gap and firing vs a piece of paper around the muzzle and firing.
I am wondering.
I am a wondering machine.

[ddixie884]

If you don't think there is still gas pressure at the muzzle, shoot a hot load in high grass. a .44 Magnum will leave a triangle of flattened grass. You can also hold a sheet of paper in front of the barrel and shoot a hole through it. I believe it will cause more than a .43 hole in it.

[rking22]

I think quick load outputs muzzle pressure. I suspect it to be at least 5000psi. I may tape a tolit paper cardboard tube to my 44special and do an experiment. Haven’t blown anything up since, well Saturday :)
I can say for certainty that the barrel cyl gap on a RSBH 44 mag will cut bluejean denim and bruise a leg! Even when the leather pad was where it was supposed to be, it was a notable impact! That was a book max load of 2400 and a cast 250 gr, but a 22 will shred a sandbag in short order.

[44MAG#1]

Really it doesn't matter whether there is negative, zero or positive muzzle pressure. Everyone is going to believe what they want to believe and will search until they find someone to back up what they believe regardless if the person they choose knows what they are talking about or not. Most want confirmation on what they believe regardless if it is wrong, partially wrong and right or right. That is human nature.
As long as a load is safe and the bullet goes to the target with the desired results is what matters. The minutiae is not really worth it.

[onelight]

How do you separate expanding gas in a tube plugged with a bullet from pressure , that is the point of burning powder , the longer the tube the more powder you can burn and you can use slower burning fuel to keep more pressure on the bullet longer and you can vent some of that pressure off to cycle an action or even control recoil , what am I missing ? Won't be the first time my common sense was flawed. :-P

[Larry Gibson]

"Does the gas expand at a rate no faster than the bullet accelerates and makes room for it or does the expanding gases expand at a faster rate than the bullet accelerates which would infringe on its room for expansion?"

44Mag#1 essentially answered the first part of his question with the second part of his question (answer in bold). The expanding gas accelerates (expands) at a faster rate than the bullet....that is where the pressure on the bullet to move faster (accelerate) comes from.

As to muzzle exit pressure; it is the exit pressure and velocity of the gas that creates the muzzle blast. If the bullet exits the muzzle then there will be "muzzle blast" from the pressure of the powder behind the bullet. with very low end "cat's sneeze" loads sometimes not much but it's still there.

[ddixie884]

That is what I think too...........

[rking22]

Well, I remembered to blowup the paper roll today. Plenty of gas left at the muzzle to shreds the tube. Turned everything in front of the muzzle to stuff too fine to find. This gas and the pressure it creates is why muzzle brakes work, and are loud! And why suppressors work.
Before and after pics, Skeeter load in 5 inch gp100
264775
264776

[onelight]

I know that the gas escaping magna port style vents will seriously damage a hand if the gun is gripped over the ports and require multiple surgeries to fix . This happened to LE friend at the insistence of a defective trainer in a weapon retention course.
The gas generated by the powder charge can't go faster than the bullet allows it until it has away around the bullet or another path of exit. There is a reason a contact wound is much worse. It would be interesting to see a slow motion video of a contact wound on a gel block compared to that same load at a few feet.
We also talk all the time about flame cutting on undersized bullets another example of the same thing.

[44MAG#1]

I think you have proven what most of us have known for ages. New ideas pop up from time to time. Sometimes old knowledge is still good. Nothing wrong with that. Good job.

"Well, I remembered to blowup the paper roll today. Plenty of gas left at the muzzle to shreds the tube. Turned everything in front of the muzzle to stuff too fine to find. This gas and the pressure it creates is why muzzle brakes work, and are loud! And why suppressors work.
Before and after pics, Skeeter load in 5 inch gp100"

[rking22]

I know it’s no surprise to most, but came up and sounded like a fun “looky here”. With all the none sense out there on the web, it might prove informative to someone doing a search, down the road. Besides, I had the roll ....
Having my hand over a magnaport when fired gives me the willies, hope the “trainer” was duly educated and removed from that role!

[ddixie884]

Thanx for posting that rking22. It is very enlightening. I wish I had been there to see the confetti..............

[black mamba]

Four decades ago I worked at a gun store where we had a bullet trap in the back room, facing the doorway, so we could stand out in the store and shoot into the trap from about 10 yards away. On the left hand wall were the long gun cabinets, with nice, heavy sliding glass doors. We had done this many times, but not with a powerful handgun. I fired a round of factory 220 grain 41 mag hunting ammo through a six inch model 57 and . . . CRASH!! The glass door exploded! The handgun was about 2 feet away from the glass when fired, so we assumed it was the blast from the barrel-cylinder gap that popped it. Quite a shocker.