2400 load data for my 57

[HTreinen]

I have been using 2400 in my 57, loading 215 grn Laser Cast bullets.Great groups and low recoil for 1250 + fps. I am looking to work up a lead Elk load and picked up some Cast Performance 250 grn WNFPGC. As the 2400 has been such a great powder for my 57 and all my 357's, I was hoping someone had some load data for this bullet. I have seen data for similar 44 mag loads, but the 250 grn seats fairly deep in the 41 case. I do not like H110 or Blue Dot for mag loads so my choices are extremely limited for anything over 1200 fps. If I can't find data for 2400 I was thinking Lil'Gun. Any help out there?

 

[SuperMan]

It is too bad you don't like H110... I have found it has the highest velocity with lowest pressure signs with heavy bullets, especially in S&W revolvers.

I use a Cast Performance 250 with 20 grains of H110 and their 255 with 22 grains... Both run way over 1200 fps....

Bob

 

[DGNY]

Good to check out 2400, a fine powder. Have never used any bullet over 215 gr, so no loads to suggest. Others will be along shortly, no doubt. Until then, perhaps a call/email to Cast Performance?

Regards and best of safe handloading to you,

Dyson

 

[HTreinen]

Thanks for the responses:
I take back all previous statements regarding this post-I stand corrected

 

[GregG]

I use AA #9 instead of 2400.

 

[HTreinen]

I have seen that listed for a similar bullet but have never used it.What velocities do you run using a similar weight bullet?

 

[358156hp]

Thanks for the responses:
Looking at the plethera of loading information out there, H110 shows a lot of Do Not Reduce loads when using heavy for caliber bullets. I like to work up SLOW so I get real nervous using powders I can't ease into. If 296 is identical powder (according to numerous forum "experts") then that takes it off the table too. With most powders I have found that 1 grn of powder gains very little velocity but increases pressure and recoil substantially, another reason I am not a big H110 fan. Lots of guys use it and swear by it so I am not knocking it. 2400 was a Keith standard when developing the 41 and 44 so what's not to like. Back to the 296; that also was a Keith go to powder so why no Do Not Reduce warnings if it is identical powder?

Ask Hodgdon if 296 & H110 are the same powders. They package and market both powders. They literally come from the same containers, from the same plants on the same train cars. Some goes into Hodgdon containers, some goes into Winchester containers. It's that simple. Jacking around with the charge weights of this powder changes the specific loading density, which must be maintained within specified parameters for the powder to ignite properly. Too little powder, and you get squibs, too much powder, and the powder doesn't ignite properly. 296/H110 is intended for top end performance loadings only. You are wise to avoid using it if you are unwilling to follow the manufacturers directions, for whatever reason. Don't take my word for it, contact the experts (no parenthesis) at Hodgdons for full information.

 

[HTreinen]

Fair enough.

 

[GregG]

I have seen that listed for a similar bullet but have never used it.What velocities do you run using a similar weight bullet?

I haven't chrono'd the two.

I decided to try the AA9 at the suggestion of a few avid .44 shooters. The 9 has less muzzle flash (not a problem for you because you're hunting), and a LOT cleaner burning. No 2400 *snow* on the shooting bench after a couple of cylinder fulls like 2400 does. I don't like the thought of any of those granules working their way into the action of an N -Frame.

I have also shot better groups with AA9, but I never did flog 2400 to see how good it would group.

The data for the two powders (charge weight and velocity) is usually very close in the manuals I have.