Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > >

Reloading All Reloading Topics Go Here


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-10-2012, 06:48 PM
Rockets's Avatar
Rockets Rockets is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 249
Likes: 53
Liked 52 Times in 32 Posts
Default 2400 vs #9

getting ready to load some 44 magnums. 240 Keiths. I've used #9 in my 357m loads and I am very pleased with the results. I've never used 2400 before and I am curios on the differences between the 2 powders. Some say 2400 is really dirty. true ?

I'll be shooting my 629-2. ( waiting to get my hands on a Redhawk as well.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-10-2012, 07:02 PM
ArchAngelCD ArchAngelCD is offline
Moderator
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Northeast PA, USA
Posts: 6,424
Likes: 469
Liked 2,756 Times in 1,540 Posts
Default

2400 is not that dirty as long as you keep it up near the top of the pressure range, like most other powders.

If you already have and use #9 I see no reason to change over to 2400. You really won't find any advantage from one over the other IMO. W296/H110 and Lil'Gun will deliver slightly more performance over AA#9 but 2400 won't.
__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #3  
Old 07-10-2012, 07:03 PM
rck281 rck281 is online now
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Kansas City area
Posts: 1,069
Likes: 155
Liked 498 Times in 158 Posts
Default

I can't speak to #9 as I have never used the powder. Over the last 35 years I have loaded a lot of 44 Magnums with 2400 and W296. The older 2400 was quite dirty but it was changed a number of years ago to a much cleaner formulation. It also depends on loading density as to how much residue and unburned powder is produced. I like 2400 very much.
__________________
Dick
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-10-2012, 09:12 PM
venomballistics's Avatar
venomballistics venomballistics is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: between beers
Posts: 7,376
Likes: 3,737
Liked 4,835 Times in 2,428 Posts
Default

slinging 240g Keith styles ... thats cast and that means lube. so the cleanliness factor is a moot point.
I go through 2400 like its water. its the most honest of the powders in this burn rate range. #9 ... its a close second and I like the stuff well enough. I usually use it with jacketed bullets though.
__________________
it just needs more voltage
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #5  
Old 07-10-2012, 09:51 PM
Steve C Steve C is offline
Member
2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 727
Likes: 1
Liked 130 Times in 92 Posts
Default

The burn rate for 2400 and AA#9 is similar. The main difference between the powders is that AA9 is a ball powder that is relatively dense, ie. it takes up less volume in the case per grain of powder when compared to 2400 that is a flake type powder.
Of the two 2400 is perhaps a bit more versatile than AA9 and being a relatively old powder you will find data for more cartridges than AA9, esp if load lead bullets for a rifle.
I load both the .357 mag and .41 mag using 2400 and AA9. I find velocities are often faster than the book indicates with 2400 while H110 and W296 generally produce near predicted velocities. AA9 generates loads similar to 2400 with aproximately 1.0 grain less powder in the .357 mag.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #6  
Old 07-11-2012, 12:40 PM
BE Mike's Avatar
BE Mike BE Mike is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,872
Likes: 1,559
Liked 2,447 Times in 1,060 Posts
Default

How could you load a .44 magnum cartridge with a Keith bullet and not use Elmer's favorite, 2400?
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
  #7  
Old 07-11-2012, 01:07 PM
Rockets's Avatar
Rockets Rockets is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 249
Likes: 53
Liked 52 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BE Mike View Post
How could you load a .44 magnum cartridge with a Keith bullet and not use Elmer's favorite, 2400?
ok ok..I am getting a couple of pounds of each...
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #8  
Old 07-11-2012, 03:17 PM
mikld's Avatar
mikld mikld is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: May 2012
Location: S. Orygun
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 1,562
Liked 1,481 Times in 830 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BE Mike View Post
How could you load a .44 magnum cartridge with a Keith bullet and not use Elmer's favorite, 2400?
Or 10.0 gr. Unique?
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #9  
Old 07-11-2012, 08:12 PM
Engineer1911's Avatar
Engineer1911 Engineer1911 is offline
US Veteran
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Augusta, GA
Posts: 5,794
Likes: 6,083
Liked 5,580 Times in 2,460 Posts
Default

What's 2400? I'm on my third 8 pound jug of AA #9. I also loaded 13.0 grains of Unique with a 240 grain bullet using published data. AA #9 can light up the range with mid-range to near max charges.
__________________
S&WHF 366
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-12-2012, 12:30 AM
parabarbarian parabarbarian is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 299
Likes: 12
Liked 34 Times in 26 Posts
Default

I've never used #9 so I cannot comment. I've loaded a lot of 357 with 2400 but never noticed it being particularly dirty. It is certainly no worse than American Eagle which I use a lot of with no ill effects.

Lately I've been migrating my high end 357 loads to 300MP.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-12-2012, 12:46 AM
tennexplorer's Avatar
tennexplorer tennexplorer is offline
US Veteran
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Memphis, TN, USA
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 1,213
Liked 1,187 Times in 341 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by parabarbarian View Post
I've never used #9 so I cannot comment. I've loaded a lot of 357 with 2400 but never noticed it being particularly dirty. It is certainly no worse than American Eagle which I use a lot of with no ill effects.

Lately I've been migrating my high end 357 loads to 300MP.
Have you chronographed any of the 300MP loads?
__________________
S&WCA 1729
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-12-2012, 12:55 AM
GregG GregG is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 362
Likes: 80
Liked 97 Times in 43 Posts
Default

AA9 has less muzzle flash in my experience with .44 Magnum and .41 Magnum.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-12-2012, 01:04 AM
parabarbarian parabarbarian is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 299
Likes: 12
Liked 34 Times in 26 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tennexplorer View Post
Have you chronographed any of the 300MP loads?
So far, only from a Marlin 1894C:

Alliant's new 300MP powder in a carbine

Follow Up Report on Alliant 300MP
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #14  
Old 07-12-2012, 01:49 AM
ArchAngelCD ArchAngelCD is offline
Moderator
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Northeast PA, USA
Posts: 6,424
Likes: 469
Liked 2,756 Times in 1,540 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BE Mike View Post
How could you load a .44 magnum cartridge with a Keith bullet and not use Elmer's favorite, 2400?
Easy, when he was loading his ammo there was nothing other than 2400 available. Now there are many good choices, some may even be better than 2400!
__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #15  
Old 07-12-2012, 07:10 AM
336A 336A is offline
US Veteran
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 225
Likes: 6
Liked 65 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchAngelCD View Post
Easy, when he was loading his ammo there was nothing other than 2400 available. Now there are many good choices, some may even be better than 2400!
That is a rather broad statement. If by that you mean when he was developing his heavy .44 SPl load then yes that is true. However H110 is not a new powder and has been around for a while. Keith made mention of H110 being used in conjunction with his 220gr .41 bullet back in 1968 on the last page of this article that he wrote in 1969. He was well aware that 2400 was not the only powder suitable for magnum performance.
http://www.elmerkeithshoot.org/GA/19...orite_Load.pdf
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #16  
Old 07-12-2012, 11:19 AM
BE Mike's Avatar
BE Mike BE Mike is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,872
Likes: 1,559
Liked 2,447 Times in 1,060 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 336A View Post
That is a rather broad statement. If by that you mean when he was developing his heavy .44 SPl load then yes that is true. However H110 is not a new powder and has been around for a while. Keith made mention of H110 being used in conjunction with his 220gr .41 bullet back in 1968 on the last page of this article that he wrote in 1969. He was well aware that 2400 was not the only powder suitable for magnum performance.
http://www.elmerkeithshoot.org/GA/19...orite_Load.pdf
Great article! Too bad that there aren't those kind of authors and wealth of information available today in magazine articles. Now it is just a bunch of tacticool this and zombie that, with no meat. People are just lazy now and authors don't do in depth testing. Of course Elmer was from another era before lawyers and frivolous lawsuits. His articles, this included, is as relevant today as it was when it was written.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-12-2012, 12:18 PM
parabarbarian parabarbarian is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 299
Likes: 12
Liked 34 Times in 26 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchAngelCD View Post
Easy, when he was loading his ammo there was nothing other than 2400 available. Now there are many good choices, some may even be better than 2400!
I don't think it was so much that 2400 was the only choice, it was just the best choice at the time. Whether it the best choice today is debatable but it is still a good choice.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #18  
Old 07-12-2012, 01:03 PM
dla dla is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 997
Likes: 256
Liked 402 Times in 237 Posts
Default

2400 works very well with a standard primer. AA#9 benefits from a magnum primer in 44mag.

2400 won't leak out of a Lee Perfect but AA#9 will.

2400 won't erode the blast shield on a S&W329.

Neither will give you top velocities in 44mag - Enforcer, H110/296 & LilGun will do better.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #19  
Old 07-15-2012, 03:57 AM
ArchAngelCD ArchAngelCD is offline
Moderator
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Northeast PA, USA
Posts: 6,424
Likes: 469
Liked 2,756 Times in 1,540 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchAngelCD View Post
Easy, when he was loading his ammo there was nothing other than 2400 available. Now there are many good choices, some may even be better than 2400!
You guys are taking my words above way too literally. I know there were other powders around but back then 2400 was considered your only real choice because it worked well, for the times.

Remember, go back even further and the original "powder trinity' was used completely differently than today. Bullseye was the handgun powder, Unique was the shotgun powder and 2400 was the rifle powder and it said so right on the can. Today all 3 are considered handgun powders but they can still be used for their original intent. If you go back far enough 2400 was a rifle powder and Unique was also marked a rifle powder for small caliber cartridges.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #20  
Old 07-15-2012, 04:35 AM
jrhoney's Avatar
jrhoney jrhoney is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Boise
Posts: 134
Likes: 2
Liked 14 Times in 9 Posts
Default

I like 2400 because it is much cleaner than Unique when used for 357 Mag loads. that and 2400 doesn't leave any carbon for me.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-13-2021, 03:27 PM
Newtire Newtire is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Idaho
Posts: 7
Likes: 1
Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Default 2400 dirty?

I use 2400 in heavy handgun loads, .410 shotgun loads and medium cast bullet loads in rifles and donít find it to be the least bit dirty. I guess ď dirtyĒ might be a relative term. I just never have thought of it as being dirty. Now, the old AL8 is what I would call dirty!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-13-2021, 04:00 PM
ddixie884's Avatar
ddixie884 ddixie884 is online now
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Avery,Tx
Posts: 2,311
Likes: 2,415
Liked 1,575 Times in 803 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchAngelCD View Post
Easy, when he was loading his ammo there was nothing other than 2400 available. Now there are many good choices, some may even be better than 2400!
Blasphemy!
__________________
dd884
JMHO-YMMV
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-13-2021, 04:10 PM
daverich4 daverich4 is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 72
Likes: 73
Liked 14 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Don’t know if this matters to you but I load on a progressive press and AA #9 meters better for me than 2400. It also has less flash and drama compared to 2400.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-13-2021, 04:13 PM
daverich4 daverich4 is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 72
Likes: 73
Liked 14 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by parabarbarian View Post
Lately I've been migrating my high end 357 loads to 300MP.
Iíve tried loading 300MP but it fills the .44 cases so full itís hard to keep all of it in the case on a progressive press.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-13-2021, 04:17 PM
68Dave's Avatar
68Dave 68Dave is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 230
Likes: 396
Liked 184 Times in 106 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockets View Post
ok ok..I am getting a couple of pounds of each...
I wish it was still that easy. Just swing by the LGS and get a couple pounds of both..

I did recently pick up a pound of number 9 because I havenít seen 2400 in a long time.

David.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-13-2021, 04:46 PM
S&WIowegan S&WIowegan is offline
US Veteran
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 12,697
Liked 3,498 Times in 1,687 Posts
Wink

One thing you need to mention is your barrel length. If you're shooting 3 to 5" barrels there's no point in loading slow powders like H110/W296 because a large amount of powder will burn outside the barrel.

The other key point is amount of powder in the case. These slow powders DO NOT perform well at less than near full case levels. If you want medium velocity Unique is very good and many other powders fall into the same level. Depends on what you've got on hand.

Have fun!
__________________
Bob.
SWCA 1821
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-13-2021, 05:06 PM
Green Frog Green Frog is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Central VA
Posts: 7,127
Likes: 1,036
Liked 6,778 Times in 3,151 Posts
Default

For some people “flash and drama” are two of the biggest attractions to the 44 Mag. Don’t discount them out of hand!

OTOH, the bench rest crowd seemed to really like those fine ball powders for consistent metering. I liked it (or at least its non-canister equivalent) when I was shooting cast bullets in a custom single shot rifle (for “Schuetzen”j. I would assume it would be quite useful with the 44 Mag and cast bullets as well, based on its performance there.

Froggie
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #28  
Old 09-13-2021, 05:19 PM
BillBro BillBro is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Communist maryland
Posts: 257
Likes: 49
Liked 425 Times in 102 Posts
Default

A9 is one of my go to 10mm powders. 12.5gr under a 200gr Gold Dot will give me 1340fps, SDs in the single digits, low single digits and fantastical accuracy, and that's why I buy lots of it. I have loaded some 44 mag stuff with it and it performed fine but not like it does in the 10mm. 1343fpf, 7fps ES and 3fps SD with a 2.2" 8 shot group at 20yds is pretty fine in my book.
2400 I am completely unfamiliar with sadly. I have found that many of the oldies are still goodies, I just cant ever find any Alliant powders in stock anywhere. Must be a reason for that.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-13-2021, 09:19 PM
Rifleman200-10X's Avatar
Rifleman200-10X Rifleman200-10X is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: Papillion, Nebraska
Posts: 70
Likes: 34
Liked 221 Times in 55 Posts
Default

While it's true that the old 2400 was kinda dirty, the new stuff seems to burn pretty clean. And again, as in another post about 4895, it's one of just a few powders I buy in 4 or 8lb jugs. I bought my first 44 Mag in 1977, my Mom had to go buy it, I wasn't old enough, it was a Ruger Super Blackhawk that I still have. 2400 has always been my first choice, I have a RCBS "Keith" style mold that throws a roughly 245gr bullet with my alloy. The 2400 has always been my "go-to" powder, but that revolver has digested large amounts of #9, 231, H100, Blue Dot, and a few others with no complaints. I've shot lots of small and large game with the gun, have yet to hear any complaints from the critters about my powder choice. (If you need to see where you're going in the woods after dark, the H110 is an excellent choice, fire a shot in the air every now and then, you'll be able to see where you're going, quite the muzzle flash!) But it also seems to achieve peak velocity, if that's what you're after. All in all, enjoy your 44Mag, it seems to me one of the most forgiving, and versatile handgun cartridges ever. It will digest pretty much any halfway appropriate powder you can find. It won't care in the least. Mine seems to shoot pretty much anything accurately, from reduced loads with Trail Boss or Unique that barely clear the muzzle, to full throttle holy cr_p H110 loads that sting your hand.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-14-2021, 11:01 AM
mtgianni mtgianni is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SW MT
Posts: 5,196
Likes: 6,355
Liked 3,983 Times in 2,031 Posts
Default

I shoot a lot of AA9/WC820 and for me it likes heavy bullets, 240+ in the 44, and a strong crimp.
__________________
Front sight and squeeze
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #31  
Old 09-14-2021, 12:45 PM
BillBro BillBro is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Communist maryland
Posts: 257
Likes: 49
Liked 425 Times in 102 Posts
Default

My holy **** load, I I do mean HOLY ****!!! load is 17.4gr of H800x and a Hornady 300gr XTP. I've never experienced anything like that in any handgun that I've fired. The pressure wave actually distorted space and time. Made my ears ring behind the earplugs and muffs and scared the **** out of me and everyone else there that day. It also is quite accurate and as always using H800x, single digit SDs and low ES. I know the vast majority of folks dont like it because it meters like cornflakes and they have to trickle up each charge. I say big freaking deal, what's the hurry? I have had outstanding results all around with it, especially in 10mm and 44mag. Seems theyve discontinued it and that's too bad. I'm glad I still have 12 more lbs of it.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-14-2021, 04:29 PM
STORMINORMAN STORMINORMAN is online now
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 925
Likes: 525
Liked 489 Times in 316 Posts
Default

Factory Hornady 44 Magnum 300gr XTP claims 1,150 fps.

That "17.4gr of H800-X and a Hornady 300gr XTP" looks to be a (one of two possible) typo: 13.4gr of 800-X looks more like it...?

For 800-X, Hodgdons shows, for example, 15.2gr MAX for a 200gr JHP, and 14.2gr MAX (@ 39,600 cup) for a 240gr JHP: adding 25% more bullet weight and 3+ grains more powder just doesn't seem logical (or safe?) to me.

If it was meant to be a 200gr XTP (vs. 300gr) OR 13.4gr (vs. 17.4gr) 800-X powder, well...?

Cheers!

P.S. BillBro: Please advise me if I'm way off base here! Not trying to be a know-it-all.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-14-2021, 08:32 PM
Mike, SC Hunter Mike, SC Hunter is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In The Woods Of S.C.
Posts: 6,105
Likes: 7,980
Liked 8,478 Times in 3,072 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BE Mike View Post
How could you load a .44 magnum cartridge with a Keith bullet and not use Elmer's favorite, 2400?
True. My standard .44 mag load is my cast 250 gr SWC pushed by 20 grains of 2400) Elmer's bullet was 250 gr SWC with 3 equal sized square driving bands.
Not many molds out there that cast a true Elmer bullet. Cuz the square lube groves and square driving band are sometimes hard to eject from the mold.
Therefore the mold makers rounded of all the square corners and their front driving band is smaller than the other 2.
__________________
S&W Accumulator
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-15-2021, 12:22 AM
rwsmith's Avatar
rwsmith rwsmith is offline
Member
2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9 2400 vs #9  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 29,678
Likes: 38,893
Liked 27,497 Times in 13,085 Posts
Default I wouldn't say 'dirty'....

...but when I shoot a lot of 2400 my gun has a lot of golden yellow powder (like pine pollen) all over it.

At least it's a purty color.
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WHAT'S UP WITH 2400? TEXVET Reloading 57 04-19-2015 06:50 AM
No 2400? Iron Reloading 27 02-21-2014 12:36 AM
2400 and 158 xtp Gman56 Reloading 9 01-08-2012 12:50 AM
Does anybody use 2400 in the .45-70? David Sinko Reloading 15 12-24-2011 03:34 PM
Herc 2400 V.S. Alliant 2400 Viss Reloading 84 01-10-2010 09:48 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:00 PM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.42 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)