2400 vs #9

Rockets · Jul 10, 2012

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.

ArchAngelCD · Jul 10, 2012

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.

rck281 · Jul 10, 2012

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.

venomballistics · Jul 10, 2012

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.

Steve C · Jul 10, 2012

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.

BE Mike · Jul 11, 2012

How could you load a .44 magnum cartridge with a Keith bullet and not use Elmer's favorite, 2400?

Rockets · Jul 11, 2012

BE Mike said:
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...

mikld · Jul 11, 2012

BE Mike said:
How could you load a .44 magnum cartridge with a Keith bullet and not use Elmer's favorite, 2400?

Or 10.0 gr. Unique?

Engineer1911 · Jul 11, 2012

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.

parabarbarian · Jul 12, 2012

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.

tennexplorer · Jul 12, 2012

parabarbarian said:
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?

GregG · Jul 12, 2012

AA9 has less muzzle flash in my experience with .44 Magnum and .41 Magnum.

parabarbarian · Jul 12, 2012

tennexplorer said:
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

ArchAngelCD · Jul 12, 2012

BE Mike said:
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!

336A · Jul 12, 2012

ArchAngelCD said:
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/1969_01_Elmer_Keith_Favorite_Load.pdf

BE Mike · Jul 12, 2012

336A said:
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/1969_01_Elmer_Keith_Favorite_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.

parabarbarian · Jul 12, 2012

ArchAngelCD said:
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.

dla · Jul 12, 2012

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.

ArchAngelCD · Jul 15, 2012

ArchAngelCD said:
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.

jrhoney · Jul 15, 2012

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.

2400 vs #9

Member

Moderator, SWCA Member, Absent Comrade

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

US Veteran

Member

US Veteran

Member

Member

Moderator, SWCA Member, Absent Comrade

US Veteran

Member

Member

Member

Moderator, SWCA Member, Absent Comrade

Member

Similar threads