Are Elmer Keith's loads still safe?

[336A]

I've been reading and re-reading a few articles written by Elmer Keith here Elmer Keith Memorial Website|Guns and Ammo Archives

After reading a couple of articles and taking note of his now famous loads, my mental juices statred to churn. In one of the articles EK states that he used 17.0gr of 2400 in his .44 SPL loads containing his 429421 bullet in modern solid head brass. This is pretty much common knowledge as solid head brass has less powder capacity than did the old balloon head brass. Now fast forward to the article that Brian Pearce wrote on the then new Ruger FT .44 SPL, one of the loads that he used was Elmer's load (except now with Alliant instead of Hercules 2400) with no problems what so ever.

So this is where I start thinking to myself. If Brian Pearce used the EK .44 SPL load (and I'm sure there more out there that have too) which posed no problems, are Elmers' other loads still safe? Loads such as 22gr of 2400 under the 429421 for the .44 mag, and 19-20gr of 2400 under the H&G 258 220gr bullet in the .41 mag. So what do you all think on this subject? Here is one of the articles that lead me to post this question
http://www.elmerkeithshoot.org/GA/19...orite_Load.pdf

 

[Iggy]

40 some years ago, I used 14 gr 2400 behind a 210 grn Sierra SJHP as a service load in my 41 Mag. M&P

I fired a round at a fleeing Ford Bronco and the bullet went through the spare tire,the tubing mounting device on the back of the tailgate. It continued on thru the tailgate and the back of the front seat and took out the radio in the dash.
I wanted loads that would enable me to deal with people in and behind vehicles.

That load did what I had in mind.

They durn sure weren't fun to shoot, but they did the job when I needed them. I used 15 grns for practice loads.

I have been doing a bit of shooting with Elmer's 38/44 loads in a pre-war Outdoorsman. They are hot and accurate and show no signs of over pressure.

 

[Leonard]

Some of the powder burn rates have changed and what was max then may be excessive today I believe some of this had to do with military surplus powders being replaced with newly manufactured powders. I would consult a couple of loading manuals and watch for pressure signs as different guns, chambers, throats react differently.

 

[Jellybean]

Some of the powder burn rates have changed and what was max then may be excessive today I believe some of this had to do with military surplus powders being replaced with newly manufactured powders. I would consult a couple of loading manuals and watch for pressure signs as different guns, chambers, throats react differently.

Leonard, if you happen to know what these powders are and when these changes took place, I'd like more details.

336A, define safe. The loads would be the same today as when he loaded them, but that doesn't mean they are any "safer" today than they were then. They worked in his guns, with his componenets, loaded on his equipment and with his techniques but that doesn't mean you will get the same results.

The load you listed above for the .44 spl. is lower than the max. listed by Ideal/Lyman in their manual no. 39, but that isn't an invitation for everyone with a .44 spl. revolver to load it up and shot it.

 

[BruceM]

Some of the powder burn rates have changed and what was max then may be excessive today

For those who believe this to be so, do you have any idea relative to the size of the product liability exposure changing the burning rate of a propellant would create? You cannot simply "void" all previously published load data. I think you'll find that both a change in pressure spec's for a round plus changes in testing equipment account for load data changes plus the "lawyer" factor.

Bruce

 

[steveno]

what make you think that Elmer's loads were safe in the first place? I believe he blew up several guns as trial and error

 

[Leonard]

I am not an expert but powders like 4831 and 4064 were originally military surplus when that ran out they were newly manufactured and are cleaner burning and using more nitro cellulose. Also a lot of the old loading data came from larger capacity balloon head cases.

 

[Skip Sackett]

Um, yeah, in some of Elmer's data, he makes mention of what goes in what cases. Balloon or regular.

Listen, loads are safe only in your firearms after you work them up. Always!

Thanks for the original post with the link. I will have a ton of reading to do now!

 

[Skip Sackett]

what make you think that Elmer's loads were safe in the first place? I believe he blew up several guns as trial and error

I will want to know what he blew up.

 

[steveno]

I believe the gun he blew up were 45 Colt SAA's but don't remember the loads. check his book "Sixguns"

 

[Skip Sackett]

That might be the reason he went to the 44Spl instead of the 45Colt. I do need to get that book!

 

[wewaslim]

In the 80's I thought everything I shot had to be "magnum". I shot hundreds of 44 magnums loaded with 22 grains of 2400 and magnum primers. All these in a 4" 29-2 (that I still have). Too much for me now, both in recoil and wear and tear. But, my 29 is still tight and still shoots better than I do. I don't think the factory .44 magnums are loaded as hot now as in the past. Maybe just me. Bill

 

[steveno]

I have shot two of Elmer's memorial loads.
1. I shot his 44 special load in a Charter Arms Bulldog and it was absolutely miserable. if it was shot in anything other than a Ruger it was too hot.
2. one of his favorite loads in the 45-70 was the 405 grain soft point and 3031. I think it was 56 grains but could have been 54. it was also very brutal in a Ruger #1S. I couldn't believe he was shooting them in an 1886 Winchester. the Winchester is a strong rifle but not that strong. nobody will help you shoot them up.

 

[OFT II]

I would not shoot those loads in my two 44 Specials. One is a second model HE and the other a third model. Both were made before FDR was president. I would not blink about shooting them in my model 29.

 

[brucev]

Loved reading Elmer's various books and articles. That being said, I do not consider him a qualified reference for loading. Even in his day, he had no access to any instrumentation by which to verify anything about the loads he developed. I appreciate his work, etc. But when it comes to reloading, there is no substitute for current information that has been pressure tested, etc.

 

[336A]

IIRC he talks about the Colt .45 SAA that he blew up in the article I posted a link to, if not it is one of the other ones. He blew that Colt SAA 45 up when he used a .458" inch bullet that he swaged down to fit in the .45 Colt case.
To the poster who asked what I call a safe load; A safe load to me is one that is within the specifications as set forth by SAAMI for a given cartridge.

I know EK loads may seem hot however some still exist in curent manuals. In the case of the .41 magnum 19gr of 2400 with a 210JHP is still listed as maximum in two current and well known manuals, and 20gr is listed as Max in another well known, current and respected manual with their 210gr JHP. If these laods are safe with a JHP which causes more pressure compared to cast bullets then they should also be safe with a like weight bullet.

 

[Jellybean]

I am not an expert but powders like 4831 and 4064 were originally military surplus when that ran out they were newly manufactured and are cleaner burning and using more nitro cellulose. Also a lot of the old loading data came from larger capacity balloon head cases.

While that has happened, it's not like that in every case. To make it easy on everyone the rule of thumb is, do not interchange data for Hxxxx powders with that for IMRxxxx powders. In some cases the data is pretty much interchangeable, while others may be safe one way, but not the other.

But even with these powders, as with all the rest, there may be changes made over the years for smoother flowing, less flash or etc., but changing the density/burn rates to the point that it negates all the old data sources is an invitation to disaster, both physical and ecomnomic. There is no way they could guarantee that everyone that has the old data is notified to not use it anymore, or that they will even listen to a warning at all.

 

[Marksman]

Elmer shot many fine old arms to destruction or near destruction in his quest for what became the .44 Magnum. Powder, cases and other elements have changed since Elmer's day. Why anyone would want to inflict such wear and tear on their firearm or themselves is beyond me. If power is what you are after shoot a .44 Magnum or one of the modern powerhouses like the .460 or .500 Magnum.

 

[Rule3]

40 some years ago, I used 19gr 2400 behind a 210 grn Sierra SJHP as a service load in my 41 Mag. M&P

I fired a round at a fleeing Ford Bronco and the bullet went through the spare tire,the tubing mounting device on the back of the tailgate. It continued on thru the tailgate and the back of the front seat and took out the radio in the dash.
.

Damn tourists must have been playing some of that RAP stuff!
That will teach them!

 

[Jellybean]

To the poster who asked what I call a safe load; A safe load to me is one that is within the specifications as set forth by SAAMI for a given cartridge.

Then the answer to your question is "No.".

Elmer didn't always follow SAAMI reccommendations because he was an experimenter. He was the driving force for the .357 and .44 magnums and did this by shooting hot loads out of the .38 and .44 specials.

SAAMI sets limitations on ammunition to make sure every factory load is safe to fire in every firearm chambered to take it. Handloaders will tailor loads to specific firearms and what may be safe in one firearm might blow another into shrapnel, even though they are chambered for the same round.