44 mag with 2400 powder present and past

[thub]

I have been using 22 grains of 2400 in my 44 mag recipe now for about 25 years per my Sierra 240 grain loading manual from the late 1980's . When I go to my newer manuals they post that 21 grains of 2400 is max load. I realize that Herco was bought out by Alliant but there evidently was a change in thought of the max load. I have been told that 2400 Herco and 2400 Alliant powders are the same but I just have seen the new manuals and have realized that I am about a grain of powder past the new Max on Alliant 2400. I have fired several shots and don't see any pressure on the primers but I wanted to get some wise input on this matter. Does anyone know about this?

 

[Charlie98]

Instrumentation and methodology to measure pressure has changed over the years, I would be more inclined to follow the most recent published data. Granted, you look at 5 different sets of data, you will likely have 5 different answers to your question, too, so it's not all cut and dried. Powders, too, have been reformulated, so there may be something to that as well.

 

[AJC1]

I would be inclined to keep on. You haven't changed anything in the same gun in 25 years does a new test change that. Barring a reformulated powder I would not be changing a load that has been safe, functions properly and is accurate. I can't find two books that agree on the same charge, and data is exactly that data. If your curious maybe download grt and see what it says....

 

[Y-T71]

Instrumentation and methodology to measure pressure has changed over the years...

This is true

I would be inclined to keep on. You haven't changed anything in the same gun in 25 years does a new test change that. Barring a reformulated powder I would not be changing a load that has been safe, functions properly and is accurate.

But also this.

I still use data from my old Speer #11 that I've been using 30+ years.

 

[Blue68f100]

About the only time I change a load that I've been using for decades is when I move to newer mfg powders. Another words use current data with current powder.

 

[PapaG]

I still have a half dozen sealed metal pop top cans of Hercules 2400 and use my old data with it. I did drop to 21 grains with the 250 grain gas check bullet.

 

[Y-T71]

In the interest of full disclosure, I should have added that I do not load anything near or at full power.

That, I feel, gives me a margin of safety should there be any minor changes in powder performance.

I've found personally, more often than not, I get my best accuracy a couple of tenths above or below the middle of the data I choose to use.

If I felt the need for more power, I've had the luxury of using a bigger gun; if the 9mm wasn't enough I'd grab a .40, .45, 10mm, .357....

 

[black mamba]

Someone on another forum ran loads with both Hercules and Alliant 2400 over a transducer pressure guage setup on a single shot pistol and found no discernible difference between the two. Of course, different lots of either or both powders could change that, but they are very, very close.

Start low and work up.

 

[Charlie98]

I still use data from my old Speer #11 that I've been using 30+ years.

I was thinking about that as I wrote my reply above.

My first manual was the Speer #11. In it, I found my .45ACP 230grn load... 6.9grn Unique. I loaded that load for years. Then I picked up the Speer #14... that same load changed to a max of 6.5grn Unique... all else being relatively equal. Why? I don't know, but I'll take their word for it. It's interesting to note, with the same load/bullet, the data for RedDot and W231, for example, stayed the same... but the Unique load did not. Again... I'll take their word for it.

It's funny... you take my Speer #11, set it on it's spine and let go... and it flops open to the .45ACP data. That's how much I referenced it in The Early Days.

 

[Y-T71]

I was thinking about that as I wrote my reply above.

My first manual was the Speer #11. In it, I found my .45ACP 230grn load... 6.9grn Unique. I loaded that load for years. Then I picked up the Speer #14... that same load changed to a max of 6.5grn Unique... all else being relatively equal. Why? I don't know, but I'll take their word for it. It's interesting to note, with the same load/bullet, the data for RedDot and W231, for example, stayed the same... but the Unique load did not. Again... I'll take their word for it.

It's funny... you take my Speer #11, set it on it's spine and let go... and it flops open to the .45ACP data. That's how much I referenced it in The Early Days.

The only thing I can think is they did, supposedly, re-formulate, Unique to be cleaner burning.

I have no idea when this was done but I suppose it's reasonable to conclude that changed its performance characteristics in some manner,

**I have absolutely no facts to support this theory, just a WAG**

or maybe it was simply an improvement in testing/equipment.

However that's a good example of what I said in my earlier post: I don't load to max, my 230gr load for years has been 5.5gr Unique (if I wasn't using 231, which I prefer in .45ACP)

IMO, well within any margin of safety with a change in that powder.

 

[BushMaster-15]

I have been using 22 grains of 2400 in my 44 mag recipe now for about 25 years per my Sierra 240 grain loading manual from the late 1980's . When I go to my newer manuals they post that 21 grains of 2400 is max load. I realize that Herco was bought out by Alliant but there evidently was a change in thought of the max load. I have been told that 2400 Herco and 2400 Alliant powders are the same but I just have seen the new manuals and have realized that I am about a grain of powder past the new Max on Alliant 2400. I have fired several shots and don't see any pressure on the primers but I wanted to get some wise input on this matter. Does anyone know about this?

WHY a Chronograph is SO IMPORTANT . Velocity speaks volumes ,as the vast majority of us have NO pressure Test barrels .

 

[Charlie98]

As I mentioned... not all data is cut and dried. Without pressure listed in anyone's data (Speer, specifically, does not list pressure,) you don't know if they decided to test to max pressure, or just call it quits when they reached a velocity or accuracy node. I also mentioned... and it has been said umpteen times before even here at THR... one book's max is another book's starting load, etc, and that printed data is not the end-all in load development... but it is prudent to consider published data. I have a few loads that are over published max, I arrived at them using reasonable handloading techniques, and I assume all risk when using them. I suppose if I dug around on the internet,I could find published data somewhere to validate my load... but I'm not that gullible.

I don't think the OP is in trouble with his load of 2400. He's been loading it for years, the fact that he has raised the question tells me he is not careless. His shooting observations, looking for pressure signs, seems reasonable. BUT. He is the one assuming the risk. Personally, I would go to Sierra to see what data they have for their bullet, unfortunately, they do not post their data online. Comparing notes, Nosler's max for 2400, with their 240grn JHP, matches Speer's at 21grn. Hornady's 7th lists 21.2grn 2400 with their 240grn bullets.

My conclusion:

Comparing Speer's #11 to #14 (1987 vs 2007) and looking at all the data for .44MAG and 240grn bullets... ALL of the data has been changed, so it's pretty obvious they retested it. Speer's #14 data matches, or is very close to, two other reliable data sources. I circle back around to my comment above... it is prudent to consider published data.

 

[Palladan44]

Old Herco 2400 was a dual purpose rifle and pistol powder....even having uses in 30-30, 30-06, and others.

Today, alliant 2400 is strictly a pistol powder(for the most part) because of all the other powder options available for specific niches.....

I still believe that the Old Hercules 2400 was a touch slower burning (more similar to H-110) than the 2400 made today, which is really like no other powder out there.... I'd say it has more in common today with Blue Dot, Longshot, or AA#9 than it does with W-296 or H-110.....
Whether this difference was on purpose or unintended by the makers, I don't know.
Whether this was the result of the powders age by the time I used it....I'll never know.
The new Alliant 2400 downloads easier with into the medium to low ranges of charges with better results. The Old Hercules 2400 didn't do that as well, with more erratic results and unburned powder in the cases at medium to lower levels.

But again, these are just casual observations I've gotten about having used both over the years.
We're talking about 2 separate batches of the same named powder, made 50 years apart, made by different companies.
It's like comparing coca-colas from mid century to today.... of course they're different!!!!

 

[Charlie98]

I'd say it has more in common today with Blue Dot, Longshot, or AA#9 than it does with W-296 or H-110.....

...and IMR4227. W296/H110 are in a behavior class by themselves.... in my experience.

 

[Palladan44]

...and IMR4227. W296/H110 are in a behavior class by themselves.... in my experience.

Absolutely.

 

[Y-T71]

As I mentioned... not all data is cut and dried. Without pressure listed in anyone's data (Speer, specifically, does not list pressure,) you don't know if they decided to test to max pressure, or just call it quits when they reached a velocity or accuracy node. I also mentioned... and it has been said umpteen times before even here at THR... one book's max is another book's starting load, etc, and that printed data is not the end-all in load development... but it is prudent to consider published data. I have a few loads that are over published max, I arrived at them using reasonable handloading techniques, and I assume all risk when using them. I suppose if I dug around on the internet,I could find published data somewhere to validate my load... but I'm not that gullible.

I don't think the OP is in trouble with his load of 2400. He's been loading it for years, the fact that he has raised the question tells me he is not careless. His shooting observations, looking for pressure signs, seems reasonable. BUT. He is the one assuming the risk. Personally, I would go to Sierra to see what data they have for their bullet, unfortunately, they do not post their data online. Comparing notes, Nosler's max for 2400, with their 240grn JHP, matches Speer's at 21grn. Hornady's 7th lists 21.2grn 2400 with their 240grn bullets.

My conclusion:

Comparing Speer's #11 to #14 (1987 vs 2007) and looking at all the data for .44MAG and 240grn bullets... ALL of the data has been changed, so it's pretty obvious they retested it. Speer's #14 data matches, or is very close to, two other reliable data sources. I circle back around to my comment above... it is prudent to consider published data.

Good post IMHO.

Well thought out.

 

[Palladan44]

Here in Wisconsin where I may be shooting in 95 degrees, or at Zero...... there can be more variation within the same load than there is between different loads....

A safe load when fired under a different temp extreme can wind up being a +p+++.
This is one of the reasons I prefer milder data.

 

[Charlie98]

Here in Wisconsin where I may be shooting in 95 degrees, or at Zero

I do a lot of my shooting out in NV... where I've documented some of my chrono readings at temperatures in the low 50's, and as high as 118F. FACTORY ammo shows temperature variations at those extremes, let alone handloads...

7.62mm surplus, for example, shows an average deviation at those temperatures of about 50-70fps, the same as most of my equivalent handloads, but one factory load (Hornady TAP 110grn) was 150fps.

Also... at 118F, in the heat of the day, fired brass does NOT cool off... I had to wear gloves when I recovered my brass.

 

[BushMaster-15]

Here in Wisconsin where I may be shooting in 95 degrees, or at Zero...... there can be more variation within the same load than there is between different loads....

A safe load when fired under a different temp extreme can wind up being a +p+++.
This is one of the reasons I prefer milder data.

Lessor temperature sensitive powder is what's needed not milder data . When the Manuals say use a Magnum primer USE ONE .

Palladan 44 ; Not directed at You .

It never ceases to amaze ME ,how so many people attempt to rewrite published data ,when manufacturers have spent Decades and Millions of $'s loading testing researching repeat repeat and repeat again and again ,those experiments to verify SAFE LOADS within parameters ,so mere mortals such as ourselves don't perish .

What may work in one firearm may NOT work in another or be safe and as smokeless firearms powder has been around over a hundred years , manufacturers MUST take that into consideration on the WHOLE Spectrum of published data .

Why serious handloaders start lower and work up ,noting excessive pressure signs ,all the while searching for the perfect load node .

I believe the BEST WE can do ,is load as carefully as possible ,running our loads over a measuring device ( Chrony or Radar ) and using published data as a Bench mark of sorts . There are always going to be exceptions to any rule ,except Rule#1 concerning firearm safety ,that Rule is ABSOLUTE .

 

[WrongHanded]

Whether a good idea or not, people go off-book all the time. If you know the load, know your guns, and nothing is different than it was; even if the load is technically over-pressure by modern testing methods, it doesn't seem to be enough to matter.

 

[AJC1]

A thought: when a lot of powder does not act right that manufacturer puts out a recall and notices are everywhere. If it was discovered our loading practices were dangerous we'd keep it a secret unless you buy our new manual and then bother to check a load you've made for three decades... I'm not buying it.

 

[Charlie98]

A thought: when a lot of powder does not act right that manufacturer puts out a recall and notices are everywhere. If it was discovered our loading practices were dangerous we'd keep it a secret unless you buy our new manual and then bother to check a load you've made for three decades... I'm not buying it.

I know something close to that…. blueDot in the .41MAG. I’ve loaded it, I have a lot of .41 data with BlueDot, I have ALLIANT data with BlueDot… but they issued a notice to discontinue BlueDot in ANY .41 load (and one specific .357 load, too.). No, I didn’t self-destruct when I fired those BD .41 loads, but, again, I’ll take Alliants word on it… no matter how absurd it appears.

As far as the OP’s question… is the world going to tilt off axis if he drops 1grn 2400 off his pet load? Unless he just hits an off-node or something, I don’t see a problem. I dropped that .4grn off my favorite .45ACP load… and I haven’t been asked to turn in my Man Card.

 

[Y-T71]

A thought: when a lot of powder does not act right that manufacturer puts out a recall and notices are everywhere. If it was discovered our loading practices were dangerous we'd keep it a secret unless you buy our new manual and then bother to check a load you've made for three decades... I'm not buying it.

I think this is absolutely correct.

In the days before the internet there were recalls/warnings in all printed material and, now, with the internet, you get warnings about various issues as soon as you "click" on a website.

A quick click on Accurates website right now produced this:

 

[Onty]

Excellent posts! Years ago I came to a following conclusion; if I need top loads like 180-200 grains from 357 magnum, pushing pressure at 35 000 psi, going to 41 Magnum using 180-220 grains, I will get same or somewhat higher velocities for 20-35% less pressure. In addition being on a safe side regarding pressure, I will get less muzzle blast, and erosion of barrel forcing cone and cylinder front face will basically stop, especially when using single base powders.

As soon as I realized above, I sold 357 Bisley and purchased same revolver in 41 Magnum.

And for the same reasons, for handgun hunting, using same heavier bullets (260-320 grains), I prefer 45 Colt over 44 Magnum. FYI, I have 3 Ruger 44 Magnum revolvers, however, plan is to keep SBH, 5.5", now Bisley, sell Redhawk, and if I manage to snatch 45 Colt Bisley, 7.5", next one to go will be 44 Magnum Bisley, also 7.5".

 

[Palladan44]

Excellent posts! Years ago I came to a following conclusion; if I need top loads like 180-200 grains from 357 magnum, pushing pressure at 35 000 psi, going to 41 Magnum using 180-220 grains, I will get same or somewhat higher velocities for 20-35% less pressure. In addition being on a safe side regarding pressure, I will get less muzzle blast, and erosion of barrel forcing cone and cylinder front face will basically stop, especially when using single base powders.

As soon as I realized above, I sold 357 Bisley and purchased same revolver in 41 Magnum.

And for the same reasons, for handgun hunting, using same heavier bullets (260-320 grains), I prefer 45 Colt over 44 Magnum. FYI, I have 3 Ruger 44 Magnum revolvers, however, plan is to keep SBH, 5.5", now Bisley, sell Redhawk, and if I manage to snatch 45 Colt Bisley, 7.5", next one to go will be 44 Magnum Bisley, also 7.5".

Only after being a 357 and a 44 guy for years.....do I wish I had gotten into the .41