Herc 2400 V.S. Alliant 2400

[Skip Sackett]

Jessie,
What kind of standard primers where you using? I haven't used but a handful of CCI and none of them with 2400.

I have a theory as to why I got better results with magnum primers. My loads were less than full powder. I hadn't gotten to the place where 2400 was working optimally, generating enough pressure on it's own to "play nice".

Maybe not, just kinda thinking out loud here. What do you think?

 

[NKJ nut]

Jessie,
What kind of standard primers where you using? I haven't used but a handful of CCI and none of them with 2400.

I have a theory as to why I got better results with magnum primers. My loads were less than full powder. I hadn't gotten to the place where 2400 was working optimally, generating enough pressure on it's own to "play nice".

Maybe not, just kinda thinking out loud here. What do you think?

Skip I used CCI and Federal for those loads. They were full power loads.

I suppose that was what made the difference. With lesser loads with this powder I can understand your results. Of course there are many other variables that might enter the picture too.

 

[Paul5388]

I have only been using 2400 since 2004. I completely ignored it for close to 40 years, but that one can convinced me to get a 4# can!

I don't think I have ever used a magnum primer with it, regardless of caliber being loaded. I normally use CCI, but I have also used Remington and Winchester.

I normally don't worry about SD or ES, since handgun cartridges in a rifle will usually let me know what is accurate at a particular range and what isn't.

I shot this 25 yard target with a .357 Handi rifle and it isn't good results, unless you consider the 3.5 gr of Bullseye "target load" to be good. The .357 load with 2400 might be usable, but would need to be checked at 100 yards.

A good set of numbers might also produce this kind of results, if all factors aren't relatively close between a rifle and a handgun.

The keyholes are out of a different .357 Handi rifle, but it was the same loads as the non-keyholes out of a handgun. The bullets were Laser Cast and they were just too small and too hard for the rifle, especially with a micro groove barrel.

 

[Fla_Sun]

Gun 4 Fun


Year 1979, mister reloader buys some Herc 2400 and a then current Speer #10 manual. There is an asterisk that indicates magnum primers were used with the listed 2400 loads. Mr reloader uses magnum primers as indicated and all goes well.

Year 2008, mister reloader finishes his last blue and silver can of Herc 2400 and buys a bottle of Alliant 2400 and the now current Speer #14 manual. The manual lists standard primers for all 2400 loads. Mr reloader doesn't question the change and uses standard primers and all goes well.
...That is the simplest I can explain.

Now, it is very obvious that 2400 powder has not changed but the reloading data has, can you answer that?
Thanks...

 

[flat top]

This may be a topic for a whole nuther thread..........
I did a little research on "primers", and found that there are three classes of primers...A, B, C.

Class A primers are used for light charges of/or fast burning powder in rifles and pistols. (These are considered "standard primers" in both types of firearms).

Class B primers are used for medium burning powders in rifles. (These primers have a slight increase in burn time and briscance over the "standard primers")

Class C primers are used for heavy charges of slow burning powders in rifles and pistols. (these are termed Magnum primers in both types of firearms).

As we all know, primers have specific rifle and pistol designations, and are numbered as such. The interesting part of what I had found was that the pressure difference produced from Class A to Class C primers is 12%... If you are working at max charge and using a Class A primer (a "standard primer"), and change to a Class C primer (a magnum primer), you would get a 12 % pressure increase with that load providing all other things remained the same!!!

Some other interesting facts. Magnum primers are a better choice for sub-zero climate temperatures, and Benchrest or Competition quality primers "are" a better choice for extreme accuracy because of the high quality control of their manufacture, but as we all know there are many other variables in the accuracy equation.

Now, back to the topic at hand....2400 powder primer selection: Because of where 2400 sits on the powder burn rate chart...a bit below 296/110 and the even slower 4227....which would make 2400 an upper medium burning rate powder (in pistols), I would surmise that a standard primer would suffice....as would a magnum primer. 2400 seems to be at the tipping point were either/or could be used with good results. Because most of my load development/hunting is done in colder weather the choice for me would be the magnum primer, which I have always used.

This is just some basic info I wanted to share, and it seems that 2400 is perfectly suited for standard primers under normal shooting conditions.

As G4F had stated, there are many variables to consider when it comes to ballistic uniformity and accuracy, and the primer only plays a small part in that. I would caution only one thing here. The primer you use when starting load development, is the primer you should stay with until your tests have been completed. If you feel that a change of primer is necessary, be it from one class to another, or, from one brand to another reduce your charge (remember that 12%?), and work back up to maximum charge. SAFETY FIRST!!!!...................Merry Christmas everyone!!! FT

 

[Skip Sackett]

Several answers

Year 1979, mister reloader buys some Herc 2400 and a then current Speer #10 manual. There is an asterisk that indicates magnum primers were used with the listed 2400 loads. Mr reloader uses magnum primers as indicated and all goes well.

Year 2008, mister reloader finishes his last blue and silver can of Herc 2400 and buys a bottle of Alliant 2400 and the now current Speer #14 manual. The manual lists standard primers for all 2400 loads. Mr reloader doesn't question the change and uses standard primers and all goes well.
...That is the simplest I can explain.

Now, it is very obvious that 2400 powder has not changed but the reloading data has, can you answer that?
Thanks...

#1: It is no secret that data has been changing downward for a considerable amount of years. It is possible that "trend" is hitting this fine powder as well.

#2: Lawyers.

#3: Preference. "I want to do things just like Skeeter & Elmer & Sharpe &..................... (What usually follows this line of thinking is: "If you don't follow them you are wrong!" )

In this climate of component availability I think that may dictate what gets used in some folk's loads. I personally don't see the harm in that with one caveat, knowledge. If I have a full bore charge and switch to a different primer, what should I do?

Work the load up from minimum again. It is the safest advice.

I too am a newcomer to 2400, being only on my second pound. For magnum loads previously I used two powders. AA#9, which never needs a magnum primer & a MILSURP powder WC820 which loads like H110/W296 and always gets them.

Recently, and this is a serious thread drift, I started using H110/W296 with 45Colt and 44Mag loads, with good results. Magnum primers all around.

 

[Fla_Sun]

merry Christmas all...

I appreciate the great replies. Lots to be learned here.

Now I'll be looking at my boxes of primers to see what type they are. My guess A is regular and B is bench rest.

BTW, I like H110 too. Maybe has a little more performance potential than 2400. How about a new thread? I have some H110 to use up.

 

[flat top]

I still use 2400 for my standard 44 Mag loads...with240/250 grain bullets @ 1250...it always has been a performer. When I load the heavyweights (300 grains +), in my 44 Mags, at "top end" velocities, I find that 296 is my powder of choice, but, for midrange velocity loads with the heavyweights I have found again that 2400 does an excellent job. Like some have stated here..."the powder for the purpose". In all my 44 Mag loads be it midrange or top end (I do not shoot light loads), I also use Magnum Primers exclusively, but only because of the climate conditions I hunt under. I try to work up all my hunting loads at 30 to 35 degrees or so. This gives me a good temperature range for those loads to work within, and I have never had any inconsistancies with those loads from the mid 60's down to sub zero condtions.

 

[canoe on the yukon]

I began reloading over 40 years ago and soon afterwards,started reloading the 44 magnum.Per Keith's recommendations,I used 2400 from the get-go.Around 1970,or so,I read a piece written by Lee Jurras who stated that H110 was slightly better(pressure/velocity ratio)than 2400.For those that don't know,Jurras owned and ran "Super Vel",an ammo company (now gone under).He had at his disposal,a complete ballistic lab which Keith did not.I bought and used up a couple of cans of H110 and was pleased with it's performance.

In that time period,almost no one except for ammo and ammo component companies had a chronograph and so case extraction,primer condition,etc was relied on in conjunction with load manuals.

I owned and used three 44 magnum revolvers in those days.For full loads,I worked up to max with all 3 while using both 2400 and H110.I won't give any of the load data numbers here.It might cause some forum readers to have a seizure.The loads that I used and that were given the nod of approval by the manuals that were then current showed no signs of excess pressure in either of my revolvers.In that time period,I also used magnum primers with 2400.

As time passed,most manuals began a trend of toning things down.At present,much of the data available is quite mild compared to the data back then.

Most ballistic lab data shows H110/W296 to be slightly better than 2400 for full powered magnum revolver loads.(just as Jurras said it was).Redu ced loads have nothing to do with this.

I keep 2400 on hand and I will continue to use it however I also use H110/W296 and much prefer it for full powered loads.For the 44 magnum, bullets in the 240 grain range driven to the 1400fps range,H110/W296 is slightly better but 2400 is not far behind.However,better is better.For bullets heavier than the 240-250 weight range,W296/H110 are far ahead when using full loads.

Since I seldom use bullets much heavier than 250 grains in that caliber,I could quite cheerfully use 2400 exclusively.It all depends.As others have noted,2400 is more agreeable when reducing loads down to 240 grains at around 1200 fps or so.W296/H110 is not so agreeable with that.(which is of no concern to someone sticking with full power)

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

I began reloading over 40 years ago and soon afterwards,started reloading the 44 magnum.Per Keith's recommendations,I used 2400 from the get-go.Around 1970,or so,I read a piece written by Lee Jurras who stated that H110 was slightly better(pressure/velocity ratio)than 2400.For those that don't know,Jurras owned and ran "Super Vel",an ammo company (now gone under).He had at his disposal,a complete ballistic lab which Keith did not.I bought and used up a couple of cans of H110 and was pleased with it's performance.

In that time period,almost no one except for ammo and ammo component companies had a chronograph and so case extraction,primer condition,etc was relied on in conjunction with load manuals.

I owned and used three 44 magnum revolvers in those days.For full loads,I worked up to max with all 3 while using both 2400 and H110.I won't give any of the load data numbers here.It might cause some forum readers to have a seizure.The loads that I used and that were given the nod of approval by the manuals that were then current showed no signs of excess pressure in either of my revolvers.In that time period,I also used magnum primers with 2400.

As time passed,most manuals began a trend of toning things down.At present,much of the data available is quite mild compared to the data back then.

Most ballistic lab data shows H110/W296 to be slightly better than 2400 for full powered magnum revolver loads.(just as Jurras said it was).Redu ced loads have nothing to do with this.

I keep 2400 on hand and I will continue to use it however I also use H110/W296 and much prefer it for full powered loads.For the 44 magnum, bullets in the 240 grain range driven to the 1400fps range,H110/W296 is slightly better but 2400 is not far behind.However,better is better.For bullets heavier than the 240-250 weight range,W296/H110 are far ahead when using full loads.

Since I seldom use bullets much heavier than 250 grains in that caliber,I could quite cheerfully use 2400 exclusively.It all depends.As others have noted,2400 is more agreeable when reducing loads down to 240 grains at around 1200 fps or so.W296/H110 is not so agreeable with that.(which is of no concern to someone sticking with full power)

Amen, and right on!

Merry Christmas canoe.

 

[canoe on the yukon]

Tim,

Thank you and Merry Christmas to you as well.

ray

 

[Paul5388]

Back in the "old days", the manuals were pretty specific about H110 not being quite as good as other powders in loads up to a certain bullet weight. With the old Speer 225 gr HP in .44 Mag, H110 was an also ran that used more powder to accomplish what lesser amounts of other powders would do.

However, when you got to the 240 gr Speer, things changed somewhat, but an equal amount of 2400 was still faster than H110 (both with mag primers).

The Lyman 49th Edition lists pressures for it's loads and H110 isn't necessarily the lowest pressure for a given heavy bullet, like a 300 gr .44 Mag.

 

[Fla_Sun]

H110 quirks

I've heard of problems when using reduced loads or not using magnum primers with H110. Any expert comments on that?

 

[sonny]

Very interesting and informative thread. Thanks to all contributors.
I use WLP exclusively. I have some CCI and other stuff sitting around in ammo boxes that I would use if I ever ran out of WLP. Which I won't.
It has been surmised, by one awfully good retired gunsmith over in a different forum, that WLP is maybe 15% hotter than standard primers and 10% below magnum primers. I have seen some comparison photos of various standard primers going off, and the difference is remarkable. Same with mag primers. However, using the same moment of exposure may not be optimum for ignition comparison with all primer manufacturers, given different burning curves. Video would be a better indicator. And, primer burning curves affect the ignition efficiency of powders as well.
I had one 250gr cast bullet stuck in the forcing cone by primer force only, in hot Florida weather. The H110 was a large wad of unburned powder stuck to the base of the bullet. And I have read of others with the exact problem. Also, within the same time period, I was having a problem with jumping the crimp, by 0.030"-0.040" in a "light" Colt SAA New Frontier .45 Colt and 273 gr hard-cast.
How much crimp-jump does it take to reduce the pressure enough to cause H110 ignition failure? And then stick the problem of primer variability on top of that???
Perhaps a topic for another day...I need more coffee.
Hope all you guys had a good Christmas.
Sonny

 

[flat top]

Paul; You are correct, but, with the heavy weight bullets, from 300 grains on up, H110/W296 produces high velocities, but NOT the highest pressures to obtain velocities in that range. There are other powders that can top out the pressure chart, and only obtain the velocities of H110/W296, and the remainder of the powders produce sub-par velocities at lower pressures and maximum loads. The 44 Mag is rated at 36,000 psi, or 40,000 CUP. Even in my Redhawk I dont need to exceed the SAAMI standard (although some do with no ill results, but, when you get to those levels, the amount of gain for the amount of extra powder charge is so negligable, that I see no profit in doing so, ) to achieve top end performance with the heavyweight bullets, and W296 can give me that performance and still be within the SAAMI specs at max loading. As I said in a previous post, it is my "opinion" that its the "gun", not the load you run through it, that makes the difference. Choose the gun for the purpose (some are stronger than others.....Smith Tech says that a 300 grian bullet at 1000 fps is the max weight bullet/velocity that should be run through a Smith...The Redhawk, Dan Wessons, can handle the heavyweights at the max), maintain the SAAMI specs with your loads, and use powders that are suitable for the bullet weight that you are pushing, and you will have excellent performance at reasonable top end pressures, and, the most bang for the buck.

 

[flat top]

Fla Sun; Any slow burning powder will not give the desired results with reduced charges. Thats why the manufacturers have a "starting load" for any given bullet weight and powder. I always use mag primers with W296 (a slow burner), and have never had any problems using that powder for heavy bullets at top end loadings....but, that is all I use that powder for.

 

[rburg]

I'd like to make a few comments. I'm not attacking anyone. I'd just like to place in the public view some of my conclusions over the years. Way back, like in the 1960s and 1970s, I worried about the concept of working up loads. Of course I had better access to places to shoot then. But from my fathers teachings, I always started low, spent the time looking at my brass and my targets.

But what happened was my virgin brass and once fired stuff became a motley crew of items with different numbers of firings. Worse, the old advice of start over anytime you change a component was becoming a real pain.

So I took a different course. I couldn't understand why I should change a component. All I needed to do was invest a little in a long term supply of bullets, primers and powder. Note I don't consider reusing the same brass a change (it probably is because using the same .30-06 case for the tenth time isn't the same as the first or second use.)

Those with severe financial restraints probably can't do things my way. but buying primers and then not using them for other applications was pretty easy (when you could take your pick of primers.) Even powders that are only commonly seen in small cans can buy several at a time. Just check the lot numbers as you pick up 3 or 4 of them. Same for bullets. Just buy in bulk. Its actually cheaper. Much cheaper than buying 100 bullets and then expending 30 of them in load development each cycle. Just buy 300 or a thousand!

If you find experimenting to be fun, go for it. I don't really enjoy covering the same ground multiple times economical or fun. its just a waste. So I take the approach I need to buy in quantity.

 

[flat top]

rburg; Same here. Many years ago I bought in quanity. I shoot only a few calibers, and really dont intend to own any more. My loads are pretty well developed, standardized and loaded for the guns I have, and the guns that I need loads for are very few...two if I am not mistaken, but the powders and primers for those two have been in the loading cabinet for years. On very rare occasion, I will buy cast bullets, but, I also buy in a quantity that will last me the rest of my life. I also still have all my casting equipment, and tons of lead, wheel weight, tin, etc,, so, I can cast up what I need if sources dry up. I still have around 500, 250 Keiths that are weighed, sized and lubed and ready to go if the need arises. I cast them up years ago...... Other than hunting, and occasionally working up a load, I really dont shoot that much, so, what I have will last forever. If folks can afford to do that, "right now" is always the best time to do so, because, I dont think that anything is going to be cheaper in the future. One thing for sure, I am darn glad I bought all this stuff years ago...cause the prices have really skyrocketed...especially within the last year or so.

 

[canoe on the yukon]

It may be somewhat of a thread drift but the thread has become almost as much about H110 as 2400 and so I'd like to make a comment about it.

It's hard to miss the fact that some people choose any opportunity possible to so some H110 bashing.It's often,subtile and often,not so subtle.

H110 and W296 are NOT suited for reduced loads....period.It's not supposed to be and never was.If someone chooses to use it thusly anyway,the problem can be located by looking in the mirror rather than the powder can.

If someone wants a more versatile powder,they should avoid it and stick to something "versatile".H110/W296 is not versatile and it's not supposed to be.If one chooses to use a different powder,they should,by all means, do so.

Examples of bad performance when someone has "misused" H110 seem to pop up continuously.The solution is very simple....Don't misuse it.I've used H110 and W296 for years and have had exactly ZERO problems with it.So have thousands of others.Do we have the "magic touch"?Maybe it's because we follow instructions.When a hand is on the press handle,there is supposed to be a brain behind it.

Making an issue of a few grains less powder to acheive an X velocity has always seemed to be a pointless point to me unless large volumes of target ammo,etc are being discussed and in this case,it's not.It seems to be just another slippery way for someone to inject a snide comment about something.

Much of the powder's reputation is tarnished because someone has heard "negative comments"made about it.You should consider the source of those comments.I have and I'll continue to use it.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

I personally love both H-110, and 2400.

H-110 will do things in magnum rounds, especially the larger cased rounds, like the .454, .475 Linebaugh etc., that 2400 simply can't.

I get sick of all the comments about it being a flame thrower too. I have never had that problem, and I have fired more pounds of H-110/296 through more different guns, than any other powder, period. In fact, I have never read any other comments about it being a flame thrower, on any other board. It will give a muzzle flash off, but so will almost any other powder under the right conditions (or the wrong ones, if the load isn't correct for the bullet/cartridge combo). I get flash regularly with Unique and 231 on the indoor range. There is an excellent article in either one of my issues of Handloader, or Rifle on that subject. It was written by John Barsness.


I have never used it for reduced loads, nor have I ever tried to. I use it for what it was designed for, and in the amounts shown in the loading manuals, and by authors with good reputations, and have always been completely happy with it.


OP- Please excuse the drift.