Alliant 2400 question

[MCgunner]

I've been told that when Alliant bought out Hercules, 2400 changed such that it's hotter now and one shouldn't rely on old 2400 data pre Alliant. Now, I'd think if this were true, it'd set alliant up for some major liability and I'd also think that thousands of .357s across the country would be fraggin' from overcharges as my old 14.5 grains behind a 158 SWC is an old standby load for lots of folks. I have noticed NO odd chronograph data with that load and I've tested it in several firearms quite recently. Is the guy full of it that's telling me this? I STILL get 1850 or so out of my Rossi carbine and about 1470 from my 6.5" blackhawk with that load, same as I was getting 20 years ago when I bought that chronograph.

Just don't make sense to me. This guy is very condescending telling me I don't have the right attitude for reloading, yadda, yadda. Well, I've been reloading for most of my life. I've never read anything about Alliant significantly changing the formulation of 2400 and logic would dictate they would NOT want to do that for liability reasons in the first place. Why not just drop 2400 and come out with another trademark for the powder if it's that danged different? I don't think 14.5 grains of 2400 and a 158 cast SWC is anymore an overcharge than it was under the Hercules name since I've been loading and firing this concoction non-stop for 30 years now without incident. But, I'm soliciting opinions and more knowledgeable folks than me on this subject.

 

[MMCSRET]

I have old and new 2400, i don't perceive differences in my usage. but I usually only load to the 95th percentile anyway. My load data from the 50's works well with both powders, and I only use my cast bullets. For paper comparisons, look into a Lyman 46th edition and the new Lyman 49th. You will see differences, but in my opinion it is the lawyers that make the difference.

 

[The Bushmaster]

I have two cans (yes tin square cans) of Hercules 2400. One of the cans has been opened (by me) and the other remains sealed. I ran experiments with the Hercules and a brand new canister of Alliant 2400. According to my chronograph the older 2400 was 25 fps (on average) slower the the new 2400. I would attribute that to age only...I doubt that 2400 (a fine powder that needs no improvment) has been changed...

 

[MCgunner]

Yeah, load data has a way of dropping over time and with the rise in power of the tort lawyer. I've noticed that. 14.5 grains behind a 158 grain bullet isn't full power according to my Speer N0 11 and the number 8, IIRC suggests 15.5 as a max. Lots of folks shoot 14.5 2400 and a 158 cast.

I got this Ruger only .45 Colt load out of a magazine, once, for 2400 and a 300 grain bullet. Now, that one's pretty hot and there is not really an SAAMI pressure for "+P .45 Colt loads. They said it was at 25,000 CUP. As always, I worked up from lower charges and documented. 17 grains of 2400 was so weak, I got lots of unburnt powder grains from the cases. It pushes a 300 grain XTP to a bit over 1200 fps from a 7" contender barrel with 18.0 grains and I stopped there as that was the listed load in the article. I don't shoot it a lot, but this is the load he jumped on me about. The article was in one of the Zines on Ruger/TC hot .45 Colt loads and it shows absolutely no signs of pressure. In my Ruger, about half the brass falls out of its own weight without using the ejector. Now, Iimit its use to hunting, not a utility load like that .357 load is, so I continue with it. I've not chronographed it lately, but I have shot it and loaded it and it shows no more pressure sign than it ever did and my contender and my Blackhawk are still in one piece. LOL I actually BOUGHT .45 Colts over buying .44 mags at the time first because I just like .45 Colt, but also because I think it'll do anything a .44 mag can do in the field and the Ruger loves 255 flat point cast bullets at 900 fps powered by 8.3 grains of Unique, very accurate utility load in that caliber. I still don't really want a .44 mag. This guy was claiming that Hornady lists 17.5 grains 2400 as max for a 250 grain bullet, well, Speer lists 19 grains for a 260 cause I looked it up and I found an article that says (I don't have a hornady manual) that Hornady actually lists 19.9 grains for that 250 grain XTP, so I think the guy is full of beans, but I just wanted other folks opinion on the deal. He's telling me that old data does not relate to post Alliant buy out. You'd think if there was that much difference in old and new that it'd be a liability problem for Alliant. If I were going to change a powder by that much, such that it would cause problems with old data, I'd just drop the powder's name and call it something else and come out with new data for it. That would eliminate a lot of liability problems, you'd think.

Anyway, thanks and thanks to all for any input on this subject.

 

[rcmodel]

I think it might be very slightly faster then it was 45 years ago.

But maybe I've just got more sense now?

My standard load back in the 60's was 15.5 under a 160 grain Keith bullet.

I don't do that anymore.
But I don't have a Ruger flat-top either.

rcmodel

 

[bluetopper]

I'd tell him to mind his own reloading business and you'll mind yours.

 

[Steve C]

What has changed over the years is the primers have got hotter. With 2400 you should use standard pistol primers as magnum's will push the pressure up. I've got pierced and cratered primers using CCI magnum's with less than 14.0 grs behind a 158gr jacketed bullet in the .357 mag but 14.0 grs with a standard primer gives me a factory equivalent load at 1,247 fps out of my 4" S&W M66 without any signs of over pressure.

 

[MCgunner]

With 2400 you should use standard pistol primers as magnum's will push the pressure up.

Good to know. I've been using WSP for quite a while, have seen no problems with ignition. I got away from the magnum and CCI stuff a while back when I had a Rossi 971 that didn't like hard primers. I found out I didn't need no stinkin' magnum primers, so I quit buying them. LOL

 

[GooseGestapo]

Also, with improvements in technology, the testing/pressure measuring equipment has gotten much better and more accurate.

Most data has been "watered" down a bit. Not a bad thing either as some "old" data is very, very, hot indeed!.

With the normal lot-to-lot variation, along with unknown "usage" conditions, it's better to err on the side of reason.

A load that is "fine" when its cloudy and in the '60's, can strain things or blow primers when it Sunny and high '90's.

BTDT...

 

[rfwobbly]

Yeah, load data has a way of dropping over time and with the rise in power of the tort lawyer.

That's because there's a rumor in lawyer circles to the effect that an attorney can out run a bullet as long as it's not loaded to its max.

 

[35 Whelen]

I've been told that when Alliant bought out Hercules, 2400 changed such that it's hotter now and one shouldn't rely on old 2400 data pre Alliant.

Yes, it is true that it was changed, but I think it's now slower. I first discovered it a few years ago when I had a 357 Blackhawk. I was loading "Balls-to-the-wall" loads in it with 2400. My load development began with a can (cardboard!) of 2400 my dad had bought probably in the late '70's. When that ran out I opened a new can (now a plastic jug) and found my chronograph readings quite different, being somewhat lower than with the old 2400 with all other things being the same. Sometime later I read, I believe at the Cast Boolit website, that the powder had indeed undergone some changes.
I'll try to remember to look at my Blackhawk loads next time I'm out in the shop because I'm certain I made a note of the velocoty differences when I changed cans of powder.
35W