2400 and lead bullets??

4

.45mtngun

US Veteran
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
253
Reaction score
130
Location
CO
Gentlemen,
This question pertains to .357 Mag loads. I normally use H-4227 with my lead cast (wheel weights) bullets in my 28-2. The accuracy is very good! I was going to play around some 2400 loads in a 585 no-dash I just picked up and remember hearing years ago that due to the burning rate that plain base cast bullets tended to lead with that powder and that you were better off with gas checked bullets with 2400. Is this still true to the best of your knowledge? Thanks for your time.
Jim
 
Register to hide this ad
Since they use no exact alloy that i know of , bullets cast from straight wheelweights might be a bit soft. I use some linotype or scrap 60/40 solder with mine for magnum use. Water quenching helps too. But 2400 and bullets cast from Lyman #2 alloy or harder are great together.
 
I have been shooting 13.5 grains of 2400 for years with cast bullets and have never had an issue with leading. The bullets I use are commercial cast offerings from various companies and have all been labeled as "hard cast".
I don't think you will have an issue with leading, I know I don't in any of my model 27's or 28's.
 
I shoot lead over 13.0 gr of 2400 and likewise there is very little leading in my 27 and 28...... They shoot great too!
 
Its more about the softness of the bullet than anything. I use a couple of different bullets in my .357's like #358429 and #357446 and those have no leading at all with some hotter loads of 2400. I cast them from wheel weights and water quench them. No leading.
 
I recently loaded some 158g hard cast bullets with 14.5g or 2400. I have shot these previously without unusual leading issues. But I would not shoot this load with soft lead bullets.
 
+1 to David's post (#6). Those loads never leaded my 6.5" Blackhawk or my 4" M13, or my 20" Rossi Puma. Water-quenched wheelweights and 2400 (and Alox-beeswax) are just made for each other. Try it, you'll like it !

Larry
 
Have had no leading problems, the main thing is to not use magnum primers as this along with 2400 powder causes a lot of pressure, so advise using large pistol primers.
 
Gentlemen,
Thanks for your replies. On Veral Smith's BHN tester, my 156 grain bullets (RCBS 150-K SWC), cast of wheel weights, test out about 12.5. I use Veral's LBT standard Blue lube. So they are not really "soft" per se. From your comments, I would guess a load from 13.5 grains to 14.5 grains of 2400 would with standard primers would be a good area to work in for that load. With the 4" barrrel i'm guessing around 1150 to 1200? All comments welcome fellows. I've been reloading for about 44 years but just not with this combination for this caliber. Thanks for your time and any suggestions for a load for this gun with this bullet weight. Thanks.
Jim
 
I've been poushing 100 gr wheelweight bullets out of my Marlin .32 H&R carbine with 2400 loads (some max) and have had NO leading at all. It's all about fit, lube, and matchup of the charge to whatever alloy you use.
 
With 2400 remember to use a good firm roll crimp, this helps a lot with uniform ignition and velocity spreads.
 
I also have never had issues with 14.0 gr 2400 and .357 Magnum loadings with plain hardcasts and magnum primers (I know that not everyone likes those with 2400) - I use Tennessee Valley Bullets .358 LSWCs.
 
This issue of magnum primers and 2400 seems to be fairly recent. I
have a Hercules manual,rev. 4-88, that shows 15.3 grs 2400, 158 gr
LSWC and Fed. 200 primer at 34,000 psi. Newer data shows 14.8 grs
with a std. primer at similar pressure? I get higher velocity and lower
ES with magnum primers with 14 grs or so than with heavier charges
over a std. primer, especially with a 4" barrel revolver. Some older data
went as high as 15.5 grs 2400 with a magnum primer. I know the
max. pressure for the 357 has been revised downward but as long as
powder charge weight is held to about 14.0 grs I would like to know
how magnum primers can be a problem if anyone has some factual
information to share.
 
If you size the bullet right at or .001" over chamber diameter there shouldn't be any leading with a 158 gr bullet and 13-14 gr of 2400. At least, I haven't had the problem. Cast at a BHN12-15 and sized properly, unless there's a restriction at the barrel to frame junction, you should be good to go. There's no need in a magnum primer with 2400 and it's not recommended.
 
2400 and cast bullets a problem? Nobody must have told Elmer Keith because that's about all he used with a bullet of 20:1 (lead to tin). That's a soft bullet but as other's have said "bullet fit is king"
 
ColColt,
I just miked some of my bullets and the are .357 and are a very tight fit in the 586 as well as my old 28-2. The only one of my .357's that is a true .358 is an old model 3-screw Ruger. My 19-5 is also a snug fit with the .357 bullets. txbirdman, if i'm not mistaken. Elmer used a 1 and 15 mix. According to his article is the #3 Handloader on his .44 Mags, he mentions to never go softer than 1and 16 which 1 and 20 certainly would be, i use that in my Sharps and am going to try it also in my pre-model 14 (same bullet). Thanks for all your input on this thread fellow shooters! It's all food for thought as they say!
Jim
 
.45mtngun,
You may be right about that alloy but both 20:1 and 16:1 are softer than clip-on air cooled wheel weights.
 
I think you can cross a threshold where too hard a bullet will give a much leading as a too soft one. I never go over BHN15 and mostly shoot ww's with a dab of tin which yields about BHN11-12 most times. This does well with the 357 as well as 245-260 gr bullets in the 44 Magnum.

As mentioned size does make a difference and if you size to chamber diameter or slightly over(know what your groove diameter is) and use a proportionate alloy in your bullet with the right powder for it's weight/velocity you'll be on the road to having little if any leading. If you do have some leading, no big gig. That's what Chore Boy is all about.:)
 
I think you can cross a threshold where too hard a bullet will give a much leading as a too soft one.
Click to expand...

Not really. The current en vogue line of thought is that the bullets need to obturate in order to prevent leading. As George C. Scott said in "Patton", that's a pile of horse dung. I've shot pure linotype H&G #68 style bullets @ 750 FPS cast from the lino pigs, not the slugs from the linotype machines with zero leading. If that theory were correct, I should have had a smooth bore in short order. The fact is that bullets which need to obturate in order to fill & seal the bore to prevent blow-by are undersized by definition. Bullets can be unnecessarily hard but not "too hard". Size and lube are ABSOLUTELY king and hardness is pretty much down the line in leading prevention. Get the lube & size correct and you're good to go with anything reasonably hard.

;)

Bruce
 
I literally wore out a Model 29 over 30 years ago with nothing but hard cast lead bullets (#429421), about 245 gr. I melted lots of linotype, burned lots of 2400 (I loaded 22 gr, but that is too hot now with a slightly faster 2400 these days).

I use it exclusively in the .41 and .357 as well. In the latter, I burn 15 grains and have never had extraction problems and brass life is normal. This obturation business is pure ****. The thing that prevents leading is hard bullets.

2400 is fine with cast lead bullets.
 
"The thing that prevents leading is hard bullets." I respectfully disagree with this statement. If you shoot a hard undersized bullet it can lead worse than a soft bullet. Certainly you need to match the alloy to the application but just because something works for you in your application doesn't mean that's the only way to avoid leading.
 
I don't have any complaints loading 2400 and straight wheel weights. Done it for years. Slower burning powder than WW296 ball powder and a little dirtier, but I still like it.



_____
James
 
I used to think every bullet had to be hard. I have wasted a lot of lino in my life. The thought of "if a little is good, a lot is better" just aint so.

DSC_0004-5.jpg
 
If you shoot a hard undersized bullet it can lead worse than a soft bullet.
Click to expand...

The key word in this sentence is "undersized", not "soft" or "hard". Hardness or lack of it by itself has almost zero to do with this as long as the alloy is reasonably hard.

This obturation thing is brought on by people who have way too much time on their hands. What makes me chuckle even more is the notion that a mathematical formula must be used in order to determine the correct brinnel hardness of an alloy based on velocity.

The easiest thing to control is size and it just so happens that it's the most important. The only time you should really need to get into the math trick bag is if you have a revolver with a gross bore diameter to chamber throat diameter mismatch. Even then, with a vexing gun like that, you may either have to find a new cylinder if the throats are too big, open the throats if too small or relegate the gun to jacketed ammo only.

Lets not overthink this & re-invent the wheel. About 98% of the time, the easy things which need attention will solve your problem.

;)

Bruce
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
357 magnum Chronograph data for Ruger 77/357 rifle and S&W revolver
Replies
7
Views
3K
Jebus35745
Jebus35745
4
Your favorite and most accurate 158 gr. LSWC loads for your 4" 586??
Replies
12
Views
6K
GF1
G
Snapping Twig
Magnum loads for K frames
Replies
20
Views
3K
Snapping Twig
Snapping Twig
J
357 mag loads for a 8in bbl?
Replies
18
Views
2K
txbirdman
T
S
Lyman 358429 Keith style SWCBullet
Replies
3
Views
3K
David LaPell
David LaPell

Latest posts

Back
Top