357 mag and that "loadmap" from midway, something seems off with 2400

[pukester]

So, I recently ran onto a loading data tool from midwayusa. Called Loadmap. It's new to me but was probably something they included with reloading components or something like that.
The data in loadmap is all in PSI. NOT cpu. I was looking over all the loads,. and see that they've derated 2400 wayyyyyyy down from the original 357 mag load. Seems like a 158 gr. gas check load is down in the range of 12 grains of 2400. The original 357 load is common knowledge,...I believe it was 15.3 or 15.5 of 2400 under a 158 gc. (It's still in lyman data as far as I know). So, I looked up the loadmap data on 44 magnum 240 grain,.. and the 2400 data is extremely anemic as well. Coming in around 20 grains (I believe even Elmer keith was running specials at over that amount). In both cases the current data was listed in psi.
So,.. I am wondering if they 1) got a fast batch of 2400???? or 2) 2400 has a weird pressure curve with a spike in it somewhere. I'm not terribly worried about a spike,..I'm sure when those guns for those cartriges were made originally, they tested them to the point of blowing up and then scaled back to a safe amount. If they were using cpu at the time, a pressure spike "that hasn't changed unless the powder has changed" means little except they now know it is there. Obviously, if it did mean something,...then their safety margin accounted for it.
Does anybody have a take on this.???? I generally do not use 2400 for 44 mag, just H110. So the 44 mag data doesn't matter much in my case,.. HOWEVER,..I have been loading 357 158 gr. gas checks @ 15.+ grains 2400 for many years,.. And this caught my attention. I do intend to keep doing it, but that particular data is unsettling. My 357 wheelguns are all ruger. I also have a rossi 92 lever in 357.
If this has already been discussed just point me in that direction.
One more thing,.. I have NEVER been able to find an "original" 44 mag. load, other than it was remington 240 gc, and stated velocity was 1570,..also 2nd year of 44 mag production, winchester started making 44 mag ammo and was over 1600 fps.? Since it's really just the 2400 that has me perplexed, and not all loads in general,..I'm not sure whether I can just chalk this up to CYA,..? Maybe that's the only explanation.
....Oh, 2400 is usually my go to powder for my 454,.. But I didn't mention it because the cylinder walls are so thick I do not think it would even be possible to blow up a 454. (Not that I would pack one full of bullseye).

[JBinMN]

First off... Welcome to CB.GL forum!


Alliant Load Data pages for 2400 as of today:
357 Mag. - http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloade...9&cartridge=28
{Note - 6 inch AND 10 inch test bbl.s}

44 Rem. Mag. - http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloade...9&cartridge=33
{Note - 7.5 AND 8.3 inch bbl.s}

454 Casull - http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloade...9&cartridge=37
{Note - 7.5 inch bbl.}

the Max. Charge recommended for a .357 Mag. 10 inch bbl and a 158gr Speer GDHP is 14.8 gr.

the Max. Charge recommended for a .44 REm. Mag. 8.3 inch bbl. and a 240gr. Speer GDHP is 21.0 gr.

Considering the bbl. lengths, if one has a shorter bbl, then the pressures will be less using the same powders & one can consider that when working up loads. Also consider the type" of projectile being used. ( In the testing above, they are "jacketed, & not cast lead) Other components, as well, may be part of it.

Older manuals will also usually have different & more "generous" powder amounts sometimes, but it is wise to take into consideration what changes may have been made to the powder being used from that time until now that may have an effect on the powder characteristics.

Load manuals of different sources may also have changes in them dependent on which test bbl. was used & the conditions in which they were tested.

Personally, I generally look up loads from a range of sources & then consider the source, how long ago it was, the condition of the firearm I am using, along with other factors that may be worth considering, then I choose a start load from that point & work up the load.

Manuals are a "reference" point. Not all hand/reloaders are going to have exactly the same components as listed in various manuals that were tested, and so, that is why it is recommended to start at the most modern recommended start load data & work up from there. The data in the manuals is not written in stone. The data is "recommended"..

It is "our" responsibility to work up loads safely as possible. The load manuals are "guides" to help us get to where we want to be safely. The components mnfrs put us on the right track & CYA is a part of what they release. There are a lot of unintelligent folks out there who do not even pay attention to the condition of the firearm they are using & just head for the Max. load data & go at it. They also have a tendency to skip the front of most manuals where safe practices are described , usually in detail. That lack of knowledge & patience to consider such things can result in some bad happenings.
Those unintelligent folks are also the ones who like to blame others for their stupid mistakes & sue/litigate to try to compensate for their stupidity. So, once again the mnfr.s try to mitigate any legal issues by be "conservative" with their load data it seems...

I reckon you know all or most of that, but based on my reading of your post, perhaps this sort of thinking escaped ya today in your surprise at what ya read & possibly frustration from not getting the load data you expected, or whatever.


Regardless, G'Luck! in using your new load manual & be safe & have fun shooting!

[JSnover]

Part of it is improved measuring equipment giving a more accurate reading. CUP is an outdated standard. If you haven't blown up a gun after many years you're probably not going to start now, so don't worry too much about it.
I was over cautious in the early days and loaded a few squibs using the Lee starting loads. Now I usually start about midway up the chart and work up or down, depending on what I want, regardless of who published the data.

[pukester]

Thank you, I am privy to most of that information. (I was hoping that someone involved with the loadmap data testing would chime in) . HOWEVER,. I am also privy to a rumor going around on every reloading chat board known to man that some powder burn speeds have increased. Seems like I talked to an Alliant Rep a long time ago (my brother used to test explosives for them) and other than batch to batch inconsistencies burn rates do not change. I would assume any self respecting lawyer would not allow them to formulate a new burn rate on a powder with the same old name/part number. There's not a chance they would EVER win the hundreds of lawsuits that would come their way. With 2400, unique, and even some really old H110, my chronograph has not noticed a velocity difference in a batch from current production,.. as compared to the early 1970s,. I have never had any powder from before 1970 so I do not have personal knowledge on burn rates before that). I've only used one very old container of H110 that was from the 70s, but many containers of 2400 and unique,. I can tell you that unless you are talking about the small differences in burn rates of different batches,..there's not much weight to be put on that rumor. I would suggest that anyone with questions give the mfgr. a buzz and ask them about your particular powder,. They "may" tell you lower numbers for loading, but I highly doubt they will tell you that they increased the burn rate.
I have heard of batches that were recalled after they found out the burn rate was faster than it should have been.
I do not know why the midway loadmap has weirdness with 2400,. But I do know, every firearm that has blown up (of people that I have been acquainted with personally)... has been small charges of fast powder. I.E...either detonation,..or a double charge of bullseye.). Seems like magnum powders with max charges can "wear a gun out" quicker, but usually don't blow guns up. Wasn't there a court case where a major mfgr (like buffalo bore) was blamed for blowing a gun up,..and in court testified they ONLY use H110, and that you cannot get enough powder in the (in this case 44 mag) cartridge to blow it up. I think it was a super blackhawk,..but it's been many years since I read that case. I wish I knew the same was true with 2400 and a security six. Oh,...by the way,..a bit of info here. The outside case walls on my security six's are slightly THICKER than the outside cylinder walls on my GP100s. I'm not sure why the rumor persists that the security six is not as strong (I'm guessing it might be because the GP is much heavier) as a GP100. I think that statement is only true if you are using it as a pry-bar or hammer.
Gotta go.

[JSnover]

I have a vague memory of a rumor that 2400 is being made at a different plant. "Same" powder, just comes from a different source. Don't know if it's true or not and don't much care, you'll have different data from different sources and even from the same source over time.

[pukester]

I just realized, with the 44 mag loadmap data,.. Cast boolits have data using 2400 that is not "weird". It has been so long since I have shot any thing but gas checks or just hard cast,..I had forgotten that jacketed data run's at higher pressures. The cast load limits on 2400 are determined by case space rather than pressure (in the midway loadmap),..pressure never get's much past 30k. That's a relief. I'm getting too old,. I should have caught that sooner. In the loadmap data for 357, they omit 2400 completely when referencing cast bullets,.Although they list it on about every jacketed bullet out there.

[Norske]

2400 was changed a few years ago to make it cleaner burning. The traditional Kieth load of 22gr 2400 under a 245gr bullet is now 20 grains of powder. Same velocity, 10% less powder. Primers can also make a difference. Elmer Kieth pointed out in an article about the 41Magnum that a magnum pistol primer required about 10% less powder, and (at least with higher intensity rifle loads) even changing from a CCI standard primer to a Winchester standard primer raises peak pressure by 3000psi (an old Western Powders reloading booklet).

[rintinglen]

Part of it is improved measuring equipment giving a more accurate reading. CUP is an outdated standard. If you haven't blown up a gun after many years you're probably not going to start now, so don't worry too much about it.
I was over cautious in the early days and loaded a few squibs using the Lee starting loads. Now I usually start about midway up the chart and work up or down, depending on what I want, regardless of who published the data.

My experience precisely! I also usually start in the middle (and usually stay somewhere near there.)

[Larry Gibson]

JSnover is correct; "Part of it is improved measuring equipment giving a more accurate reading. CUP is an outdated standard."

I just, this last week, completed part of a test of which the 44 Magnum loaded with a max manual load of Alliant 2400 for 240 gr jacketed bullets under 3 cast bullets of 240, 243 and 258 gr (fully dressed). The max charge of A 2400 was 21.2 gr (thrown) in Winchester cases with a WLP primer. Bullts were seated to their respective crimp grooves and a heavy roll crimp applied. The bullets were; a Laser Cast 240 gr SWC, a Lyman 429360 cast and a 429244 GC both cast of COWW + 2% tin. The seating depth was different for each bullet as was the weight.

The pressure was tested in a Contender test barrel with a strain gauge attached to the Oehler M43 PBL. The SAAMI MAP for the 44 Magnum is 36,000 psi (transducer). The Oehler M43 gives similar psi measurement. The test barrel was "calibrated" with "reference" ammunition at the beginning of the test. The average peak pressure results with each bullet are;

The Laser Cast 240 SWC; 35,000 psi
The Lyman 429360 SWC; 36,400 psi
The Lyman 429244 GC SWC; 36,300 psi

Those are right at the SAAMI MAP basically. Previous testing with the same lot of A 2400 give 34 - 35,000 +/- psi with 22 gr under the RCBS 44-250-K at 255 gr cast of the same alloy. I use that load all the time in my Ruger BHFT and Colt Anaconda. As to Alliant 2400 being "faster" than Hercules 2400 a previous extensive test comparing the two under the 44-250-K bullet demonstrated that they are essentially the same. Alliant factory reps report they did not change the formula of 2400. With any powder you can expect some lot to lot variation. That is common with all powders.

In measuring numerous factory 357 and 44 magnum rounds from various manufacturers it is rare to find a factory load for either cartridge that goes significantly over 30,000 psi. I would really like to pressure/velocity test and have been searching for some factory 357 and 44 Magnum ammunition that was made in the 50s or early 60s but to no avail so far.

[pukester]

I don't recall chrony'ing any 2400 44 mag loads,.. (at least the 240 grain gas checks.) I'd REALLY like to find THE original 44 mag recipe. It has to be out there somewhere,..and it is almost a foregone conclusion that it was 2400. In fact, Mr. Casull was only a few months behind the 44 mag with his 454,..and (correct me if I'm wrong),..my understanding is that they used a full charge of 2400 with a little Alliant Bullseye next to the primer... So they hadn't caught on to H110 yet. I should take my chrony out and check with 21 or 22 gr. and a 240 gas check..but unless someone has some 1956 or 7 load data,..what does it really mean other than 21.2 gr. is the current lawyer proof load...made for the current wimpiest 44 mag out there?. If SAAMI derated the 44 mag around 1970 like they did practically everything else,. Only an original cartridge,..or original load data,..will clear the air enough to see clearly. My opinion is the SAAMI derated everthing because a HUGE player in firearms started putting magnums in smaller framed guns....among other things. It's cheaper to make smaller framed guns that don't last as long,...but you can kind of hide that fact if you are firing watered down cartridges.

As far as SAAMI goes,.. I believe the original 44 mag was done with CUP. You can say all day that there is no crossover...HOWEVER,...you can NEVER state that the original 44 mag load did not have a psi,.. You can only state that no-one has yet measured it and published what it turned out to be. Once you do find out what the original psi was,...you will also know the original pressure (i.e. everyday load) the gun was designed to shoot at in psi.
The original 357 load is out there all over the place and in my guns velocity has always been very close to what they published it at back in the 1930s,. So I suspect,..when one does find the original load for 44, the PSI pressure will be known, and we will find out it does indeed have a MV of 1570ish fps. SAAMI did not develop the 44 cartridge or the 44 magnum. Remington made the first cartridges, and S&W made the first model 29.

Just for the record,..(was this in 1971?),..Bill Ruger was not one of the mfgrs. that stood to benefit from lower pressure cartridges with the same name on them.

[pukester]

Guess what I just found,. From a LOOOONNNNNGGGG time ago a friend of mine gave me some load data that was before "book' format was common. It was Sierra data (college notebook format) had 44 mag data for Sierra bullets. The 240 grain JSP shows 23.3 grains of 2400, 25.8 grains of H110, and 23.3 grains of H 4227. for their max loads. It also doesn't show much difference between H110 max load velocity and 2400 max load velocity. I cannot find a copyright on any of the pages,.. But the front of the notebook says SIERRA,..with an address in Los Angeles and it says they were a division of some Leisure Corporation or something like that. Each of the pages also has the sierra name printed in small print on the bottom. In the 357 section,.158 gr. jsp max is 15.0 2400, with 17.8 being the max for H110,..I don't think I've seen that 17.8 anywhere that I can remember.

[Larry Gibson]

Here is load data from Hercules Smokeless Powder Guide dated April 1968. Note in the 357 and 44 magnums with 2400 powder there is not much difference between loads then and now, particularly in the Lyman CBHs data for the same cartridges.

Attachment 237319

Attachment 237320

[pukester]

Thanks for listing that 1968 load data page. That one is one that I have never seen before. Although I sure have used a lot of those square containers of powder over the years.