Has Alliant 2400 been reformulated?

[wombat13]

My FIL hasn't reloaded for his .44mag (Ruger Blackhawk) in many years. His 2nd edition Sierra manual (1978) lists the max load of Alliant 2400 as 23.3 grains for a 240 grain JHP. Alliant's website lists the max load for 2400 as 21 grains for a 240 grain JHP.

When he developed the load for his RBH, he settled on 22 grains of 2400 and has fired many those loads. Is it safe to buy a new bottle of 2400 and use the same load or has 2400 been reformulated?

 

[ranger335v]

I don't know if 2400 has been reformulated or not but, if it has, it will still be in the same burn range as always. Not only is there no valid reason to change an existing powder without telling us, there are some really serious potential legal problems if they did. Fact is, loading books are no more than 'best guess' guides, not gospel truth for all users in all guns with all components and for all time. If all books had the same info we would only need one book.

The book makers simply tell us what they got in their rig, they can't tell us how it will perform for us. The differences we see in book reloading data reflects a lot of things, perhaps the greatest is the test gun the new data was developed in, and ours is different from theirs. That's why ALL books tell us to start low and ONLY work up to book max UNLESS we encounter excess pressure signs earlier. There's nothing to be gained if we are going to load at book max, willy-nilly, no matter what else happens. ??

That said, a RBH will surely handle 22/2400 under a 240 bullet.

 

[Ol` Joe]

1st Alliant is using a Speer bullet where Sierra used one of theirs in the old manual. The powder even if not reformulated is definitely a new lot, and the primers and likely the brass are different too.
Add in new pressure measuring methods and it`s a surprise the data jives as close as it does.
BTW the #10 Speer published in 1979 lists 22.2gr of 2400 as max with a 240gr jacketed bullet. That data was developed very close to if not at the same time frame as the Sierra book your FIL has. The components used makes a difference

 

[helotaxi]

It is pretty well publicized that 2400 was reformulated a few years ago. The burn rate is extremely close but the density has changed. The older load data is no longer good.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Like mentioned above, load data from different sources will vary due to all the variables when doing the tests. Different brass, different bullets, different primers and OAL and barrel lengths will all effect the outcome. Temperature, humidity and elevation will all figure into the mix too.

If you have a favorite load using 2400 that has proven safe in your revolver in the past there's no reason to think it's no longer safe when loading the same powder.

 

[Galil5.56]

My FIL hasn't reloaded for his .44mag (Ruger Blackhawk) in many years. His 2nd edition Sierra manual (1978) lists the max load of Alliant 2400 as 23.3 grains for a 240 grain JHP. Alliant's website lists the max load for 2400 as 21 grains for a 240 grain JHP.

When he developed the load for his RBH, he settled on 22 grains of 2400 and has fired many those loads. Is it safe to buy a new bottle of 2400 and use the same load or has 2400 been reformulated?

One variable to throw into the mix that has changed over the lifespan of .44 Mag, is its SAAMI max allowable avg pressure value has changed. For example, my Speer #10 shows 43,500 C.U.P. as the max allowed standard, newer manuals show the revised 40,000 C.U.P. SAAMI max.

Some of my favorite full power .44 Mag data that not all that long ago changed, was published by Winchester. It stated;

"Do Not reduce powder charges with 296 powder. These loads must be used exactly as shown".

I did exactly this, and used 24 grains for 240 grain jacketed; 25 for my 240 cast bullet loads... Nice and stout over the chronograph, rated for 37-38k C.U.P. I'm sure an email to Alliant asking about 2400 will result like it has for me concerning their other propellants; that they are ballistically the same as they always were within their prescribed lot-to-lot tolerance.

 

[bluetopper]

It is also a know fact that published magnum handgun data from the 1960's and 70's were just more powerful than the attorney proof tested data of today.

 

[mrbro]

Wombat, the old load is fine if he uses all the same variables. T

It is pretty well publicized that 2400 was reformulated a few years ago.

Can you quote a source for this? As far as I know Alliant verified to some members on Handloads.com that they did not change the formulations and some test data presented by a poster supports that.

It is also a know fact that published magnum handgun data from the 1960's and 70's were just more powerful than the attorney proof tested data of today.

I think this is mostly internet lore. Pressure testing methods and equipment have improved since a lot of the old data was published. In some cases the old data was not pressure tested and the load data was developed by reading the traditional pressure signs.

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

I heard that 2400's burn rate was increased by 10%. I don't know if it's a fact, but we loaded some .351 rounds with the newer stuff and it was hotter than the older 2400.

 

[wombat13]

Thanks for all of your posts. I guess we'll stick with the old load unless he decides to change bullets, in which case we'll work our way up again.