Looking for some help. I am about to start loading for 240 grn lswc 44 magnum, and trying to only run 1200 fps. Does anyone have a recipe to reach this with 2400?

18.5 gr of 2400 gets about 1101 out of a 4" universal receiver and 20.6 grains gets about 1258 fps. Extrapolate what you know of your barrel to get what you want. "Ballistics by the inch" website is good info.

Don't take my word for it. In fact PLEASE don't take my word for it and verify the data. Get a Lyman 49th (cheap) if you want to shoot lead. It has data for jacketed and a lot of lead loads.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

The first thing I tell a new reloader is,, Buy a reloading manual and read it. ( a couple times ) Lyman 49 is one of my favorites.

The second thing I tell a new reloader is, Never use information posted on the internet about reloading unless you verify it in a reloading manual ,, or two..

I agree 100% with what Mr. Smith said,, 'PLEASE don't take my word for it and verify the data'.
Very good advice.

the LEE reloading book also has a lot of useful info. it's good to have a few reloading books.

By all means get some books.

My two go-to books are Speer and Lyman. Lyman has the best data for cast lead bullets by far.

I als like the Sierra, Nosler and Hornady books. And the on-line Alliant and Hodgdon/IMR/Winchester sites. And others.

Lee doesn't do independent load development and doesn't have ballistic labs. Its book is a compendium of cherry-picked loads from other sources. It's also a bit out of date with regard to newer powders, since last update was 2003.

__________________
USAF, 69-92
Vietnam, 72-73

If you want to load at a certain fps in your gun the first thing you need is a chronograph. Loading manuals tell you the fps of their barrel and not what the fps will be in your barrel. Two any length barrels of the same brand will not shoot the same fps and when you change brands of barrels and shell cases you really open a keg of worms. Here are 4 barrel lengths and 3 brands. 240 gr. SWC and 18 grs. 2400. 3 in. 1079 fps. 4 in.1196 fps. 6 in. 1210 fps. 7 1/2 in. 1311 fps. The fps difference from 3-4 in. is 117 fps 4-6 in. is 14 fps and 6-7 1/2 is 111 fps. This chronograph information leads me to believe that my first statement about using a chronograph is correct. Larry

Thank you all for the replies. I guess I should have been more specific. I have been reloading for 357 for a while, I am new to 44. I have a shelf full of reloading manuals including the ones mentioned, I also have a chronograph (that helped prove CFE pistol was **** in 357). I am trying to get 2400 to down load to 1200 fps. The starting data is usually for 1300 fps not 1200, I was hoping someone would have a starting point. Rwsmith thank you for the help, I will look into the website. I guess I really should have pulled my head from my other end and just downloaded 10% to start.

then your set.
use the starting load and reduce it till the chrono reads 1200.
It should make it there without any issue.

__________________
it just needs more voltage

I use 19 grs of 2400 under a 240gr cast SWC in 44 magnum cases for 30 plus years. Doesn't rip my hand off.

After reading the manual you'll like loading 2400 as this is a fine powder for the 44 mag. I've used this powder with my .250 grain cast bullet SWC with standard CCI primers. My loads started at 18.5 and worked up from there as I don't worry about fps only group size. Enjoy your .44 and don't beat your self up if your shooting paper and if you hunt deer bullet choice is important and shot placement.

To start with, what gun and what barrel length and which
primer are you using. 1200 fps using 2400 and standard
primers from a 4" mod 29 and 1200 fps using 2400 and
magnum primers from an 8 3/8" mod 29 are obviously going
to be two entirely different loads. You seem to be looking
for a specific answer so you need to ask a specific question.

6 1/2" mod 29. I appreciate all the help. After digging through all the manuals when I got home today, (including the dreaded Speer #8 for grins) the lyman cast 4th edition had what I have been looking for. Man, should have started with it instead of the Alliant website, Andlee manual and what ever else I had in front of me that day. On a side note Speer #8 has a loading for it, but to be safe I'll stick with the lyman data.

IMO, you can't beat 2400 for the .44 mag. I've shot a bunch of powders in my (present count, 8) .44s, including Unique, 4227, Blue Dot, 2400, AA-9, H-110/WW-296, and probably some others I've forgotten. 2400 and AA-9 are my favorites. 2400 will perform well at the velocity you are looking for. Find the right load, chronograph it if you can (only way to know for sure what you're getting).

You are going to find that the farther down from maximum loads you go with 2400, the "dirtier" and less completely it burns. Personally, I don't care for 2400 even though I've used a fair amount over the years. I detest the hard, unburned kernels it leaves behind. They are especially nasty when they get under the extractor. You are probably going to be better off using a slightly faster powder in this application.

Bruce

Hi Bigblockbill, A datapoint for you. The only load I use in a 629 with 6 1/2 inch barrel is a 250 SWC, WLP, 19 gr 2400, OAL 1.71 which averages 1240 fps. 1005 fps in a 3 inch 29. I have records at home with <19 gr of 2400 and will locate and share when time allows. I really like 2400 for the range it is good and safe for. Sure it can be dirty but is way more forgiving than say W296.

This statement is pure, unadulterated bunk-plain and simple.

Bruce

Well please do enlighten us on why that is?

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

Well with 2400 you can lower powder charges with no real problem 296 IS a great powder but there is a reason why you can't really drop powder charges by more than 2-3%. I know there is a lot of lawyer type reasons but ballistically 296 does not work so well with 10% lowered starting loads. Never blew a gun up but did try it years ago. Really nasty burning stuff...lotsa variation in vels too

I would like to be enlightened on the facts of the "drive by statement" of why it is:

"pure, unadulterated bunk-plain and simple."

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

Also worth having the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook , 4 th Edition now out and full of new data for new cartridges with new powders that are out. If you can get the older #3 Edition, lots of time tested data in there, These 3 manuals are my first go-to when looking for cast data.
Gary

Not at all. I can get 2400 to burn well off the 10% recommended reduction for H110/W296 & w/o a mag primer. W296 is a great full power choice but if you want something upper midrange, 2400 is a far better choice, especially if using bullets under 240gr & temps near freezing. Ask me how I know.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

This statement is pure, unadulterated bunk-plain and simple.

where does this come from???

throughout the charge weights from 11.8 to 14.5 grains for a 357 - bullet holes are all inside a 2" group at 25 yards

I get fairly low extreme spreads, low SD's, close to the same POI compared to the same POA, steadily and slowly increasing, predictable velocities


Heck, I even get similar results using magnum primers or standard primers

of the 15 different powders I have and use ---- none are more a "forgiving" powder

Alliant says "Legendary for its performance in .44 magnum and other magnum pistol loads."

I agree

__________________
I'd like to agree with you BUT

Hi,Steve here. Have been using 2400 for over 30 years. And i cant recomend it enough. The first thing is to get a current reloading manual or two. I have noticed that maximum loads change over the years. Have noticed velocitys at 1400 FPS.The powder is bulky ,safer against over charging . Some say it is a dirty powder,but with that said.You have to clean your gun any ways .

There are 3 powders that will work for many larger cases 2400 Unique and even though some don't like it IMR 4227. Can you actually overload 4227? LOL yeah yeah I know! Clean guns??...We don't need to clean no steenking guns. As you get closer to max with 2400 it cleans up considerably in my opinion.

Generally "dirty" powders are just not running at the optimal pressure levels to burn completely & you get soot. Many complain about say Unique but they are running it below midrange, same for 2400. My local guy just got some 1# in so I think I am a buyer tomorrow. I haven't seen any in 2-3yrs.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Man, I stoped looking at this thread and it blew up. Thank you all for your comments. I do have the lyman cast 4th. I've been on the look out for the third. Maybe I'll find one at the big gun show on Sunday. Ostlund thanks for the data. Everyone have a safe weekend.

The reason is because this statement implies that there is an elevated level of/exposure to danger when using H110/W296 as compared to A2400. This is factually false!

H110/W296 requires three things to burn correctly:

1. A minimum 90% load density.
2. Very high bullet pull (neck tension).
3. Very tight and uniform roll crimp.

For those capable of executing the basic reloading skills necessary to provide all three things, H110 will deliver accuracy better than or equal to A2400 in most guns. At equivalent velocities, H110 will develop lower chamber pressure and less perceived recoil than A2400. Maximum velocities are usually attained with H110/W296 and not A2400. 30 or 40 fps doesn't mean much in rifle loadings but handgun loadings are a different animal. Uneven ballistics when using H110/W296 can almost always be traced to one or more of the three requirements being lacking. Further, I do not believe that you can put enough H110/W296 in a .357. .41 or .44 magnum case with a properly seated bullet to cause a kaboom event. Undercharges will produce a squib and not a kaboom. I do not feel that is the case with A2400. It is true that H110/W296 has a narrower range of effective charge weights than many other propellants so users must be able to pay attention, read and follow instructions. If the previous requirement makes you feel uncomfortable, possibly an endeavor other than handloading should be in your future.



Bruce

I am always amazed that people can make up their own definitions to things they read or see. More forgiving, in the context of a powder, doesnt mean safer, it means broader load range w/o special care or handling.
H110/296 doesnt download well. It often needs a mag primer for best tesults with bullets lighter than 250gr. I used to shoot #s of it in metallic sil, & its great for top end loads but if that isnt where you want to play, 2400 is a better tool. I've had hangfires with w296, never wirh 2400. Nothing to do with reloading skills, the powder is what it is.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Yeah..I love it when someone thinks they know more than the companies that produce a product. I read an article by Ed Matunas in the distant past...Ballistician for WW. About the possibility of pressure excursions with 296. I know it may have been lawyerese also. But Winchester was adamant about the possibility of detonation with low charge weights. Low odds on it happening I am sure...the same with slow powders like H4831 in rifles. But things do happen that can't readily be duplicated...or maybe even explained. I think if I want a less than top end load there are always much better powders than 296/H110. 2400 has stood the test of time and is an outstanding powder. Yep you can go to low with it also.. Which means it is time to go to another powder that is a bit faster. I have dealt with a few blown up guns over the years. Not mine..Just sent a Mossberg that I considered fired out of battery. We are talking a factory load 2 3/4 inch field load. What?? pressure..about 11,000 PSI? Destroyed that gun. I personally thought it was partly the fault of the owner as it was incredibly dirty. But mag handguns are approx. Triple that pressure and see what happens. And pressure with a detonation is probably much much higher. I am not saying the poster up the line a bit was wrong. Just that there is usually a reason for most things.

I just find it so interesting that Lyman cast speaks so highly of 2400.? Page 273 Lyman Cast "One of the Best"

The Elmer Kieth design bullet Lyman 245 gr #429421 has the best accuracy (in their test)

They get 1248 fps with 20.6 grs and a regular primer when H110 gets a whole 50fps more with 25 gr of powder and more pressure.

Accuracy loads are also better with several other bullets

But that is just Lyman, what do they know?

I also believe that 2400 powder was THE powder for the 357 Mag back in the day,

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

What do you mean by "WAS"

It "IS"

and "BACK IN THE DAY"
DO YOU MEAN YESTERDAY?

Is there something better?

__________________
I'd like to agree with you BUT

IMR 4227 might not make all the speed, but it can dominate 2400 with accuracy

__________________
it just needs more voltage

Regardless of what Ed Matunas may have said in the distant past, technicians at Hodgdon will currently tell you that undercharges of H110/W296 will produce a squib load and not a detonation. Nobody has ever been able to produce an undercharge detonation in a pistol cartridge under lab conditions. Squibs with undercharges of H110/W296 are relatively common occurrences in the real world. Small charges of slow burners in rifle cases is a different situation.

I'm amazed also! I wasn't aware that the ability to read data in a manual and accurately dispense those charge weights constituted "special handling". Then again, I make up definitions on the fly or so it's said. I don't see the definition of forgiving in the dictionary as reading: "see versatile".

Once this modus operandi become SOP, all bets are off because it means anything can happen at any given time no matter what the circumstance. You can't have things both ways!

The operative words in this quote are "in their test". Everybody who actually develops loads for their guns know that each is an individual and the same goes for test barrels.

50 fps doesn't mean much when dealing with 2,800 fps rifle loads. In 1,300 fps handgun loads, it's an entirely different issue. At identical upper end velocities, H110/W296 will usually develop lower chamber pressures and less perceived recoil. To me, a couple of grains of powder and the difference in cost between a standard and magnum primer are a non-issue if I get better performance.

Actually, I do believe that 2400 has a slight edge in the .357 magnum with some bullets in my guns anyway. Unfortunately, this thread is concerning .44 magnum loads.

2400 is an excellent propellant. That said, it doesn't mean that better ones are not out there. The "test of time" has zero to do with it. I've been using H110 for 40 years-it was a surplus powder back then. Keep in mind that even Elmer Keith admitted that H110 was better than 2400 in his later years when working with the .41 magnum. His fallback and powder of choice was still 2400 because that is what he was comfortable and experienced with as much as anything. Keep in mind that he blew up a few revolvers also. Ive never heard of a kaboom when using H110/W296 and would be eager to see a documented case. In view of that, which propellant is actually safer?

This is true but it doesn't relegate H110/W296 to the dangerous category. Conversely, there are better choices for mid range loads in the .44 magnum than 2400. A subject for another thread in this regard would be the properties of Blue Dot when approaching maximum loads or at temperature extremes.

Just a couple of more thoughts on Ed Matunas and W296. There was a time when although the load data for H110 and W296 was for all intents and purposes identical, they were different propellants. H110 was a surplus powder re-packaged and sold by Hodgdon. W296 was newly manufactured by Olin. They even smelled different when you opened the container. Also, Winchester's load data for 296 was provided with the admonition that all charges were to be used exactly as noted with no increase or reduction in charge weights.

Bruce

P.S. the last name of the gentleman who designed H&G #503 and Lyman #429421 is spelled "Keith" and not "Kieth".

No, I meant when it was first developed.

Quote:
P.S. the last name of the gentleman who designed H&G #503 and Lyman #429421 is spelled "Keith" and not "Kieth".

About the only thing I got out of this thread was that I made a tying error, very important,dyslexic typing, thanks for the clarification.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

Unfortunately, that is no big revelation.

Have a good one.

Bruce

Well is that so? With lead?
I hit upon 2400 early with the 357 and 158 swc's and really liked it....so much I haven't tried other powders since.

I have found IMR 4227 more accurate than 2400 in my light 30-30 loads.
I'll have to give it a try.

__________________
I'd like to agree with you BUT

Some time ago, someone here started a thread around the 4227 load.
This was when availability was near its worst and the guy probably tried it out of desperation.
Lo and behold, he had his 357 revolver thinking it was a rifle with that load. It was a death ray.

since I keep some around for reduced loads in some rifles, I took it for a test drive myself. It does seem to have merit.

__________________
it just needs more voltage

A good powder and I'm not sure you can easily overload handgun loads with it. It has been much easier to get than 2400..although I still have a few pounds of that also. Try it in mag handguns. Won't get the highest vels but usually close and usually accurate. May be wrong but with 4227 loading density is very high and that may help make it more accurate.

And also..there we have it.. Bruce knows more than Ed Matunas and every one else here. Just ask him. LOL He is right on the H-110 and the original matching powder(Actually W-295 and H-110 were essentially the same). Hodgdon was surplus and Winchester was original military...a type of WC-820. Used many pounds of that in the 80's for 410 loads.

So much wrong in Bruce's tirade, don't know where to start. 50fps in a magnum load means nothing in the field. If you think it does, you don't shoot enough.
Again, it's not about following data, it's about load range & h110 is narrower than 2400, making 2400 more flexible, not safer. The special handling is the cold weather aspect, light bullet aspect, mag primer aspect of w296. Come on B, know one cares what you load, but you don't get to make up your own facts, which is what everyone is pointing to.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Perhaps if you said anything factual or worthwhile,all a bunch of gibberish over "more forgiving" the OP wanted to load some 44 Mag with 2400.
Not many agree with you, so carry on.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

I stopped using 2400 because I don't load hot, ( necessary to reduce the build up ) and the unburnt grains of powder caused extraction problems. Also "cocking" the gun, the grains caused rotation issues with the cylinder.

It was accurate however, with lswc in my .44 mag.

__________________
JIM
NRA Pistol Instr

2400, or any of the slower powder, want to be loaded up not down. 2400, run at upper midrange levels, burns fine. Dropping to midrange & lower, you get a lot of unburned powder. H110/W296 has a narrower range, why it's not as flexible. So you are better off with medium burners, like Unique, PP, etc, for lower vel loads, in the 240gr/1000-1200fps range from a 6" bbl.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

And then there's Blue Dot...

__________________
Dave
SWCA #2465

Blue Dot --- "more forgiving" --- this should be fun!!

Flaming Dirt! Even at max lots those pretty Blue Dots are all over. Plus it's spiky on pressure. With all the powders out there now why use it.

OK go make Popcorn

I am sure some gun magazine writer likes it and wrote a article how wonderful it is.

Maybe it works well in shotguns, I don't know

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

For what it's worth:

The above are quotes from another reloading forum.

Bruce

I use IMR 4227 in a 357 mag marlin 1894. I get great accuracy and although I haven't chrono'd the loads I'm happy with what I get. I really don't like small charges of powder in cases. So in effect its sort of like a safety factor as well. The charges I use along with 357 jacketed soft points can be depended to give consistent accuracy with little unburned powder kernels. Frank

Bigblockbill, looks like there is a wealth of data on several powders posted in this thread, as well as some arguments not pertaining to 2400 but rather other powders and the way they perform as compared to 2400. And in this day of often-scarce powder availability, it's good to talk about other choices besides the one you are most comfortable with.

As for H110/296 possibly having pressure excursions in straight wall pistol cartridges, I have my doubts. I haven't come across one documented case of this happening with much reduced loads in pistol cartridges. And as it being less forgiving in load density than 2400; well all the modern data points that way. But if you look at older data books, you will see posted data with load ranges as wide as for 2400. Specifically, Hornady 3rd Edition and Sierra published around 1978. To give examples:

Hornady 3rd: 240 JHP,
H110 - 20.9 to 25.0
296 - 21.5 to 24.9
2400 - 18.9 to 22.4

Sierra 1978: 240 JHP
H110 - 21.1 to 25.8
296 - 21.2 to 24.7
2400 - 19.5 to 23.3

I'm not advocating the use of this old data; merely pointing out that H110/296 can and has been loaded down quite a bit more than what Hodgdon's data shows nowadays. As for hangfires, I've never experienced one with any pistol powder in any caliber I load. But I don't doubt that they can and do happen and I've sure they are quite disconcerting to say the least. But, I always use Magnum primers with any H110 load in any caliber I run it in because I know it likes a hot spark to get it running. And to whoever posted about using regular vs magnum primers because of cost, well they are priced the same around here so that is a non-issue.

As for me, right now I rather H110 over 2400. Not that 2400 is not a great powder, but rather it is like Unobtainium around here! I have 14 lbs or so of H110 though, so it is what I run along with Accurate #9 in my higher velocity loads. BTW, A #9 might also be another powder you might want to look at for your 44 Mag loads with your 240 grain lead swc bullets. The starting load listed in the new Western powder data off the Accurate site shows 18.1 grains with a 240 grain LSWC bullet yielding 1255 fps with an 8 3/8" barrel. So that is in your ballpark range at least. Another thing I like about A #9 over 2400 or 296 is it is much less "flashy" and doesn't throw big old fireballs like those powders.

@ Rule3,
What do you have against Blue Dot? And I've seen various people post about pressure excursions with it, but I've never noticed it myself. I haven't loaded it a whole bunch in 44 Mag, but have loaded it with lighter JHP bullets in it such as the 180 XTP and some factory overrun 165 grain Sierra JHP stuff that Midway was selling a few years ago. I also use to load it extensively in 357 Magnum back in the late 70's and 80's and for me it ran much cleaner than 2400 did in my 5" 27-2 and got more rounds per pound. I also never had a problem with BD in my old Rossi 92SRC either. Is it low temp sensitive perhaps? That's not an issue where I live as it rarely gets into the 30's in S Louisiana.

I usd to use BD quite a bit when I lived in Md. Temps didn't get all that bad and I never shot in the winter anyway. I was out hunting till the end of January. Since I have lived here in Wy I have found BD to not work well in cold weather. So I just quit using it in handgun.

in the late 70s 296 was fairly new as it replaced the earlier iterations of 295 and the early 296 with calcium carbonate? as an ingredient. It was normal to reduce loads in loading data. Winchester came up with a reason not to do so. I don't know what it was but even with mag primers I had some squibs with reduced 296 loads I had one where the bullet was barely stuck in the nd of the bbl of a SBH 44. With a chunk of powder attached to the bottom..and it was not a compressed load

Skeet 028, thanks for posting your experiences with both powders. I've never had problems with H110/296 with squibs, but then I've never tried downloading it to the lower limit like what I showed in my previous post either. If I was using H110 or 296, it was always for hot loads in both 357 and 44. If I was downloading to lower power loads, I would use a different powder such as Unique or 231. And thanks for posting up about your BD experiences in Wyoming. If I were to go up to a colder state I guess I would leave BD alone too then. As it is, there are other powders to use nowadays that meter better for me than good old BD. I still have a few cans of BD I bought a few years ago when powder of any kind was so hard to find.

BTW, for mid range loads in 357 and 44 I have been loading Longshot lately and liking it. It meters well and has decent loading density for a quicker powder, so that a double charge would be immediately noticeable. And it's burning clean for me too when running Hy-tek coated lead bullets. It will also run in 9MM, which is another caliber I load for. It is also available, which is a big plus nowadays. Unique is also on the Unobtainium list around here too.