A couple of days ago I took my 4” and 6 ½” 29-2 .44 Magnums to the range. I’ve been trying to get respectable accuracy using my Lyman 429421 cast bullets. All bullets were cast from wheel weights and sized at .429. I had been using 18.0 grains of 2400 but I wasn’t pleased with the accuracy. I tried 18.5, 19.0, 19.5 and 20.0 grains. The primers were all Winchester WLP. I started with the 6 ½” and worked my way up through the loads. I didn’t notice any appreciable increase in recoil as I moved upward through the loads. When I hit 20.0 grains I think I found a winner. I put up a fresh target and after 3 shots I decided not to press my luck. This doesn't happen too often, at least, to me. I’m showing a pic of my target and the 3 shot ½” group @ 25 yards using:

Lyman Keith 429421 CSWC
20.0 grains 2400
Winchester WLP Primers

The 4” seemed happy with most of the loads except the hottest at 20.0 grs. of 2400.

I realize this isn't earth shattering, cutting edge news, but there may be some info in here that someone can benefit from.

I gotta ask if you were shooting offhand, 'cuz if you was, I want you alongside of me in a gunfight.

Very good and I like the gun to. Don

__________________
"Don't worry be happy"

A great gun and an excellent group. I bet you'll be saving that one. I have had similar good results with 2400, I'm not always looking for that much recoil, but man is it accurate in the 44.

I guess if I had enough lead and enough time I could eventually shoot that group offhand. But, I have to confess, I rested my arms on a nice comfortable shaded bench. Now that I know I have a load that works, I can do the offhand stuff.

I'd like to do steel plates or bowling pins. The paper gets a little boring after a while. However, the .44 is a little bit of an overkill for those.

That's some mighty fine shooting
Dave

As I recall, Elmer used 22 grains with his bullet, so backing off and finding as accurate a load as you have is a good thing. Steady and repeated Elmer loads would eventually play havoc on your 29.

Elmer used 22.0 grs...of OLD 2400. Currently mfgd 2400 is a tad faster than the older powder.

To the OP... Try sizing at .430" and try those slugs over 7.5 grs of UNIQUE, std primer. A load that has ALWAYS shot well for me in most every 29 I have ever owned. No a true magnum load, but a good field load.

FN in MT

Don't feel bad about using a rest, better to test the load than how steady your hold is. I have also found that the hotter the load of 2400, the more accurate it is. However, there just has to be a trade off with recoil, leading of the barrel, and wear on the revolver. 19.0 to 20.0gr is the sweet spot in my Redhawk, and I bet in a lot of 44 magnums. It's like 2400 was made for the 44 mag cartridge.

Years ago, the last time I was trying to work up .44 mag loads, I ended up using Hodgdon H110. That was with jacketed bullets.

Now I have time to cast and a lot of people have had good luck with 2400. I agree that the hotter loads seems to be more accurate. The recoil with 18.0 grs. of 2400 and a cast bullet was worse than 19.0 grs and a JSP. I couldn't really feel any greater recoil when I went up to 19.0 and 20.0 grs. with a cast bullet. Maybe, I was so happy I was shooting better I didn't notice.

thedane,

Congrats for this great target-picture! This results pays
for all the work and "trouble" at the reloadingbench.....
..and let you looks good by your shootingrange-buddys
and by the members here!

Swissman

Great looking revolver and awesome group.

Yes, the powder has changed, and so has the recommended max load. Also remember that Elmer was a very, very bold handloader...

__________________
You're shy a few manners.

thedane,

Great group and good story.

My question relates to Jack Flash and that would be the pressure generated and do you have an idea of the amount?

__________________
I am a sheep dog!
1601 (ret)

"Currently mfgd 2400 is a tad faster than the older powder."

I don't think so!

The recommended charge weights may have fallen as they have with all propellants. That said, with the absolutely huge volume of older data out there, it would be product liability suicide to change the burning rate of a propellent!



Bruce

pawncop,

I don't know what the pressure generated by 22.0 grs of 2400 is. I do know that in Speer's Volume 13 Reloading manual, the maximum average pressure for the .44 magnum is listed at 36,000 psi. Speer lists the maximum load for a 250 gr. CSWC at 20.0 grs. of Alliant 2400. Therefore, I would assume that the pressure has to be less than or equal to 36,000 psi. I had no evidence of high pressure in any of my handloads. No flattened primers or sticky cases.

It's interesting that the newer manuals have lowered the maximum loads for 2400 and removed the recommendation for magnum primers.

For example, I had a load of 14.2 grs of 2400 for Speer's 146 gr JHP in .357 magnum. In an older manual, that was the starting point. In manual 13, the "maximum" load is 14.1 grs for that bullet.

I don't know why they've lowered the recommended loads. They changed the pressure measurement from c.u.p to p.s.i. They may have set a standard (e.g. 36,000 p.s.i. for .44 mag) and then realized that they had to reduce some loads to meet the standard.

Dan

2400 today is a slightly faster burning powder than that of elmer keith's day. that is one reason for the calling of less powder than years ago. the other is liability related. the slightly faster burning speed is also why they say to use std. primers these days instead of mags. powders are not always the exact same speed. they are made for use within a range of pressures and may be on slow side or the fast side and still be within specs.

I shoot 19.o gr of 2400 behind a Keith bullet and like it alot. I save the H-110 for the "full bore" loads. It doesn't work well in walking around loads. The H-11o needs the extra pressure generated in hot loads for a consistant burn. The 2400 is more forgiving in working up a walking around load. I also use a standard LP primer. Some manuls say to use the magnum primers and I have used them before, but have not noticed any difference in performance.
The 2400 works well in all my magnums.......357, .41, and .44.

Nice grouping thedane. Very impressive.

That's a right purty target ya got there, nice revolver too! Good job.

__________________
Stay safe people!

Sorry I've been gone a couple of days and just now saw this. Can't really understand what you're asking though. Obviously, I could look in my reloading manuals to get an idea of the presures generated by a given load. But keep in mind that each individual gun is a law unto itself. Unless you have your own pressure testing lab, you can not know precisely what pressures you are getting.

May I just say that I'm a very cautious handloader and any suggestions I make are in that vein. I don't mean any disrespect and don't want to start arguements.

I remember reading articles by Elmer Keith in which he rather casually mentions "blowing up" various revolvers in the course of his handloading experiments. This is why I called him a "bold" handloader. I would never do what he did. No disrespect intended.

Powder companies tell us that there are variations in their powders from lot to lot, so it is seems rational to conclude that the powder of today does not have precisely the same characteristics as the powder of the same name made 40 years ago. As well, much more precise instrumentation is now available to measure pressures. Someone else has alluded to this already so I will not say any more on that subject.

__________________
You're shy a few manners.

Congratulations on finding the right load!

I have two favorites from cast WW.

For the 429421 I like 7g W231 for a "useful special". I load it in a magnum case and like you I use WLP for all my loads, magnum or otherwise.

When I want a magnum, I like the 429244 over 22g W296. I find it to be accurate and hard hitting, penetrates like nothing else. Not a maximum load, more like a 1200fps moderate magnum.

Feel free to try them, you might like them too.

I would take that target and frame it, then place it over the fireplace...

Excellent group. Now you have to shoot a 5 shot group and see what it will do. You may find out that its still very accurate.

__________________
Have guns...will shoot'em.

Are you sure you didn't mean to say 6 shot group at 100 yards offhand????

Course it do look like you pulled it a bit right though-don't worry, I'm sure you will get better with practice

__________________
Forum consigliere

I would do that, for sure, but the long arm guys with all their fancy scopes and rangefinders get all annoyed when I outshoot them...