.44 Magnum and 2400

[David LaPell]

I have yet to unpack my reloading manuals from the move, but I am trying to find what Elmer Keith's loads for the .44 Magnum, the 250 grain cast bullets and 2400 powder.

 

[Ron H.]

Sir, in the second edition of "Sixguns" (the 1961 version), Keith lists 22.0 grains of 2400 with a cast 250 as his preferred .44 magnum load.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

The "Keith load" was originally 22 grains of 2400 powder, standard LP primer and his 429421 Ideal bullet.

That load is now recommended at 20.5 - 21 grians of 2400 to reach the same velocity.

2400 is faster burning than it used to be. I know a lot of guys disagree with that, but Brian Pearce of Handloader, almost always mentions it in any article in which he talks about a load using 2400. I believe that he has written that he has pressure data to back it up too. One reason so many don't believe it has changed is because the change in burn rate took place back in the early '70's long before a lot of guys who disagree on the change ever started using it. It was also before those who were around then and using it had access to a chronograph.


Edited to add- sorry for the repeat post. I see that Ron H. and I posted at the exact same time.

 

[Homesteader]

44 Magnum and 2400

20.5 with 2400 is all you're gonna need or want.

 

[USAF385]

I use 21 grains of 2400... my uncle still uses 22 I believe.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

I use 21 grains of 2400... my uncle still uses 22 I believe.

This. I tried 22 grains, and found I didn't need none of that.

 

[USAF385]

This. I tried 22 grains, and found I didn't need none of that.

Well my uncle has this thing where he wants anyone who uses his loads to be in awe. Me personally, I don't see the appeal. 22 grains is fun, but that's all.

 

[Duke426]

Well my uncle has this thing where he wants anyone who uses his loads to be in awe. Me personally, I don't see the appeal. 22 grains is fun, but that's all.

Precisely why I don't shoot any ammo that is not factory or from my own press.

I'm at the age I no longer wish to be in "awe" of anything.

 

[Skip Sackett]

Straight from the horse's mouth!

Here you go!

I have had run some of those 45AR loads. Not for the week at heart!

 

[USAF385]

Precisely why I don't shoot any ammo that is not factory or from my own press.

I'm at the age I no longer wish to be in "awe" of anything.

One would think my uncle is too... but at 57 he's still a kid at heart.....

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Well my uncle has this thing where he wants anyone who uses his loads to be in awe. Me personally, I don't see the appeal. 22 grains is fun, but that's all.

For my uses (hunting and for those MEAN targets), there is nothing 22 grains will do that 21 grains won't, and it seems recoil increases a good bit with that extra grain.

 

[canoe on the yukon]

I've owned and used around 20 or so 44 magnum revolvers over the years and so I tend to lean towards something somewhat generic.A couple of 44 mag sixguns gave excess pressure signs with 21 grs. of 2400 behind the Lyman 429421 (and standard primer).I've not yet experienced any such signs with 20 grs. in any of the revolvers I've tried with it so far.I've since used that as a standard when using that powder and bullet.

About modern 2400 burning faster than older 2400,I find it rather suspect.I used an older lot from the early 70's compared to a lot from the 90's and with all other aspects of the load identical,the average difference was about 15-20 fps which is very well within the variance that one would normally expect with different lots.

 

[Skip Sackett]

Good input!

I've not yet experienced any such signs with 20 grs. in any of the revolvers I've tried with it so far.I've since used that as a standard when using that powder and bullet.

About modern 2400 burning faster than older 2400,I find it rather suspect.I used an older lot from the early 70's compared to a lot from the 90's and with all other aspects of the load identical,the average difference was about 15-20 fps which is very well within the variance that one would normally expect with different lots.

This is good infor folks. Someone that has been there, done that.

Just a couple of questions though, canoe.

At the 20gr level did you experience more unburnt powder in the barrel?

Was accuracy any different? What about from gun to gun? Some like it hot, others like it cold, type of thing?

Have you ever tried your favorite load over a chronograph? What about with magnum primers? Bring the numbers closer together?

I know a lot of the old timers pooh-poohed using magnum primers with 2400 but I have found that I got better ES and SD when using them.

Just some questions that I think will help all involved.

p.s. I too would think that changing the chemistry/burn rate to something faster intentionally would be asking for litigation.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

I've owned and used around 20 or so 44 magnum revolvers over the years and so I tend to lean towards something somewhat generic.A couple of 44 mag sixguns gave excess pressure signs with 21 grs. of 2400 behind the Lyman 429421 (and standard primer).I've not yet experienced any such signs with 20 grs. in any of the revolvers I've tried with it so far.I've since used that as a standard when using that powder and bullet.

About modern 2400 burning faster than older 2400,I find it rather suspect.I used an older lot from the early 70's compared to a lot from the 90's and with all other aspects of the load identical,the average difference was about 15-20 fps which is very well within the variance that one would normally expect with different lots.

Why don't you write Pearce? He seems to be a nice guy, and will probably respond personally too you. He isn't the only writer who is making that claim. Taffin does too. I have read that same claim from quite a few guys who are in "the business", that do this for a living and have access to pressure equipment that the rest of us don't.

I'll trust them on it, since they can verify it with more scientific testing/evidence than I have access to.

 

[canoe on the yukon]

Why don't you write Pearce? He seems to be a nice guy, and will probably respond personally too you. He isn't the only writer who is making that claim. Taffin does too. I have read that same claim from quite a few guys who are in "the business", that do this for a living and have access to pressure equipment that the rest of us don't.

I'll trust them on it, since they can verify it with more scientific testing/evidence than I have access to.

.............................................................................................................................

Since I don't have sophisticated pressure testing equipment,I can only go by what the chronograph told me in reference to velocity.When compared in the manner that I did,the very minor difference in velocity indicated a great similarity between the two.I also wonder about the wisdom of a powder company changing burning characteristics of a powder without changing the name.Sounds like something a lawyer would salivate over.

It's somewhat of a moot point with me anyway since I only use 2400 with less than full throttle loads these days,prefering a different powder when going all the way.Maybe someone else will investigate furthur.

 

[canoe on the yukon]

This is good infor folks. Someone that has been there, done that.

Just a couple of questions though, canoe.

At the 20gr level did you experience more unburnt powder in the barrel?

Was accuracy any different? What about from gun to gun? Some like it hot, others like it cold, type of thing?

Have you ever tried your favorite load over a chronograph? What about with magnum primers? Bring the numbers closer together?

I know a lot of the old timers pooh-poohed using magnum primers with 2400 but I have found that I got better ES and SD when using them.

Just some questions that I think will help all involved.

p.s. I too would think that changing the chemistry/burn rate to something faster intentionally would be asking for litigation.

............................................................................................................................



I didn't notice any difference in unburned powder granules nor accuracy.Naturally,load "A" will be more accurate in one gun than another.Using different guns for the same cartridge tends to water down the desire to fine-tune to a specific gun.

About magnum primers...The loading manuals used to suggest magnum primers for 2400 while Keith warned against it.I adopted the practice of using standard primers with it but during that period,I didn't have access to a chrono.I was merely following the advise of Keith.The company that makes the powder advises standard primers with it and recent testing with Speer indicates the velocity/pressure ratio with it to be much better with standard.If someone gets better performance with acceptable pressure with magnum primers,I don't see any reason for them to switch....I wouldn't.

You made reference to my "favorite load"...it's not.....I was simply responding to the subject of the thread....2400 and keith cast bullets......I don't wish to stir up any "Yeah it is...No it ain't"type of fencing matches with forum members but I don't put either the Keith bullet nor it's use with 2400 on a pedestal (as some seem to)....I am not inviting a flaming contest with anyone about the matter.

Having said that,one particular load which I found very accurate in a number of guns is the following.....

44 mag brass
Lyman 429421
18.5 gr of 2400
WLP primer

It's medium hot,accurate,cases practically fall from the chambers.is less stressful on the gun than a full load and is more useful for serious use than my regular practice load (8.5 gr of Unique)....When I go hotter,I generally use jacketed bullets these days...imagine the heresy of that.

 

[canoe on the yukon]

To clear up any possible misunderstanding from a previous post,the 20 gr load mentioned was what I settled on as my personal choice for top-end use with that bullet and powder.

 

[Skip Sackett]

Not intening a flaming contest!

44 mag brass
Lyman 429421
18.5 gr of 2400
WLP primer

Thank you for your response, canoe. I have no intention of starting a feud over the 2400 load. I have an H&G #503 mold and dearly love it BUT have never developed a load with 2400 and it. In fact, I hadn't used 2400 until last year, no powder allegiance here. Merely asking for clarification for those that do use it.

Using the Winchester primer answers the magnum primer question though. When I do use 2400, I usually use Winchester primers as they are rated for both types of loadings, standard and magnum. The only exception would be when I use my new Wolf magnum primers with it. I tried Federal standard primers but found the numbers just didn't recommend them for future use with 2400.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

.............................................................................................................................

I also wonder about the wisdom of a powder company changing burning characteristics of a powder without changing the name.Sounds like something a lawyer would salivate over.

While I agree with that statement 100%, the change came back when personal responsibility was considered the norm. There wasn't all the litigation that there is today. If you tripped over your untied shoestring you didn't sue Nike.....................

My own personal experience lies somewhere in the middle. I have owned an Oehler 35P Since they first came out, and had another cheaper one before that. I first started using 2400 in the mid '80's. The first cans I bought were an old lot from the late '70's, and I could shoot 22 grains of it under 240 grain cast bullets without any trouble what so ever in my M-29. I was getting just over 1400 FPS. Not anymore! That load will cause sticking brass with the 2400 I have bought since about 1990, and pushes the same bullet to over 1500 FPS according to my load data log.

I have gone down to 20.5 - 21 grains of 2400 under any 240-250 grain cast bullet, and get right at 1400 FPS depending on whose bullet I am shooting, and if it is the 240, or 250 grain version. The cases eject like they used to, too. IHTH


BTW, I have never used anything but standard primers with 2400, and I have had pretty good luck with low SD's and ES's. I watch them, but don't worry too much about them. I know they are supposed to be signs of a good load, but things aren't always black and white. I have had some fairly high spreads with loads that turned in amazingly tight groups, (both rifle, and handgun) so I try to take it all into account when determing whether or not I want to keep using a particular load. My main goal is accuracy combined with the speed I'm looking to reach with rifle loads, and accuracy with handgun loads. The velocity issue is far more important with rifles, since they tend to be zeroed for much longer range shooting than will be done with a handgun, and knowing the velocity makes proper zeroing in easier. Especially when you don't have access to a long distance range.

 

[canoe on the yukon]

Thank you for your response, canoe. I have no intention of starting a feud over the 2400 load. I have an H&G #503 mold and dearly love it BUT have never developed a load with 2400 and it. In fact, I hadn't used 2400 until last year, no powder allegiance here. Merely asking for clarification for those that do use it.

Using the Winchester primer answers the magnum primer question though. When I do use 2400, I usually use Winchester primers as they are rated for both types of loadings, standard and magnum. The only exception would be when I use my new Wolf magnum primers with it. I tried Federal standard primers but found the numbers just didn't recommend them for future use with 2400.

............................................................................................................................


I should probably clarify something which I should've made clearer in the first place.I'll try to stick to the saliant points.Otherwise,my post may go on forever.

I've been handloading since the late 60's and during the early period of it,I cast the Lyman 429421 in large numbers and seldom used anything else.I also turned to 2400 for my magnum loads and so the subject of Keith loads was a lot more relevant to me then.I found 22 grains a bit much with sticky extraction and settled down to 21 grains.A short time later,21 grains proved to be a bit too much in a couple of revolvers and therefore I reduced the load to 20 grains which as I stated earlier,I've had no excess pressure signs from any revolver using it so far.This made the 20 grain load somewhat of a standard with me for several years when using a heavy load with that bullet.

About the primer...I initially used magnum primers with 2400 as that was what the manuals advised but eventually switched to standard.My memory is a bit fuzzy about this but I believe that I was only using CCI primers during that period.They seemed to be the easiest to come by in my neck of the woods.At any rate...for a long time,I used CCI primers almost exclusively (300-standard....350-magnum).When I switched,it was from 350 to 300(not the Win primer).Again...at the very start,I used magnum primers with it.

Times change and so did I.Over a period of time I found myself gravitating more towards jacketed bullets with full loads and used cast for everything "under" full steam.This caused me to reduce the 2400 load a bit with the Keith bullet.I also found myself stocking up on Winchester primers more than most others,hence,the WLP that you noted.

If memory serves me correctly,I was still using the CCI#300 (standard)when I still loaded hot with 2400.Later,I generally reduced my loads just a bit when using 2400 and the 18.5 gr load I mentioned gave good results.The Winchester,rated for standard and magnum as you noted has served very well.I don't recall if I ever used the Win primer with the full load when using 2400.

Didn't mean to be so long winded but also didn't want to misrepresent anything.