Herc 2400 V.S. Alliant 2400

Paul,
Proverbs.

Added:

Paul, we have been all around this ole' tree several times. "Did they use pressure instruments or not" yada, yada, yada. I for one figure if they had it they used it for every load in the book. No reason not to, especially in the loads that are published in previous manuals of their own with that data in the records. That to me meant that they had the tools several years before the Speer #8 was even thought of.

Here is where my previous comment plays into this thought pattern. In the book of Proverbs we are admonished to give soft answers to turn away wrath. You have done that and the responses have been given in kind, softly. We are also admonished not to "spin our wheels" (Skip paraphrase) once we detect that folks aren't going to change their minds. If someone is going to hold to the notion that Speer had the equipment and didn't use it, I think that is where I would stop trying to convince them otherwise. Proverbs 26:4 & 5. The words don't exactly match up to what transpires on a shooting forum but the "jist" can be applied. When you notice you aren't making any headway in the discussion, just back off. Without a personal "epiphany" enlightening someone, we are just wasting our time and theirs.

I for one think it is absolutely ridiculous to believe any other way than what I do on the subject. That doesn't mean I think opposer's are stupid or ignorant or any such thing. I just think our/my position is more tenable. They simply used what they had.

Oh, by the way, I was reading my Lyman #49 the other day and guess what? Page 61 gives information on "reading primers." It seems that somethings never change! ;)
 
Last edited:
Again, I would agree with this, except on page 332 of the #8, under the sub-title heading of how to use the data it says the following-
"The loading data printed on the following pages were all tested in the Speer ballistic Labratory using standard handguns. The loads shown are safe in these particular test guns."
That is certainly what it says, but the interpretation of that isn't to exclude the pressure test barrels they used too. Every introductory page to a cartridge has the test gun listed and it is a factory gun. To understand that to exclude test barrels they had been using since at least 1961 is to miss the point of the data they published. Since they didn't list pressures, there was no need to mention test barrels, even though we know they existed and were used (see page 83 in Speer #8).

The data that was published was for velocities that could be expected with a certain load in a production gun, which is actually more meaningful than data from a gun no one has, except a ballistics lab. It would be much the same as publishing data for a common revolver cartridge, but testing it in a T/C Contender. It's like this data, "Max load of H-110 under a 125 JHP=19 grains @34,200 CUP= velocity of 1822 FPS" that no one has ever duplicated out of a revolver.
 
I get all that Paul, but maybe you didn't read my entire post? I mentioned that they must have certainly has some pressure testing equipment for at least the most popular handgun calibers at the time. The pressure testing equipment pictured on page 83 appears to be for a rifle, since I can see a rail gun, and it is listed as you mentioned before, in the rifle section.

I don't wish to seem argumentative with you, but there does seem to be an awful lot of confusion over this particular topic regarding #8. Many years ago, when reading through #10 when I first bought it, I read the same info that I posted above, and having also noted that their loads listed for the .340 Weatherby were always at .338 levels, I called Speer to ask why. Their answer was, "We simply don't have pressure testing equipment for many of the less popular cartridges listed. The pressure barrels are extremely expensive, and we just haven't been able to justify the cost."

They also said that much of their load data had been worked up in regular production firearms for the reasons that you stated above, but also because that is what they had to work with, and gave a true indication of what their listed loads would do in a handloader's own gun. I am sure that by now, they must have almost all, if not all, of the pressure barrels they need. I was hesitant to post the above info regarding my call, because I obviously didn't record the conversation, and can't varify it for anyone.


The referrence to the hodgdon data above had to be taken from a 10" test barrel, or possibly a contender. I simply posted it to show that there are no two manuals that show the exact same pressures for any given load due to variances in machining tolerances of different test guns. The velocity never means much to me other than an indicator of what I might expect, since no two production guns will be indentical either.
 
For those that don't have a Speer #8, here's page 83 that shows the pressure test equipment.

aaj.jpg


In Speer #7, my first manual, there is pressure data for .38 Special, .357 Mag, .44 Special and .44 Mag. 15.0 gr of 2400 with a 160 gr .357 Mag half jacket produces 1342 fps out of a 6 1/2" M27 at 29,000 cup (it doesn't say cup, but I assume that was the pressure they read). 13.0 gr of Alcan 8 produced 1367 fps at 28,000 cup out of the same gun. That's more velocity from less powder and at less pressure. That was one reason I used Alcan 8 and I suppose that use of a flake powder is another reason my guns have very little flame cutting on the top strap.

I'm well aware of Alliant's use of unrealistic barrels for their pressure and velocity data. That's one reason people are continually thinking they have achieved the unachievable.
 
Paul-

Do you know what year that the #5 came out? I don't have that one, but I'm betting there is some good reading in there, being from a different mentality time frame.

I was mainly wondering if it was from the time frame just after the .44's introduction, and if so, what comments did they make regarding the new round?
Thanks!:)
 
The images I have say it's a 1961 publishing. This pressure data on the .44 Special is the only portion I have on the .44

aaa.jpg


I think I got this image from Mike (hoptob).

BTW, I'm pretty sure this is the Proverb Skip was referring to. :)

Pro 22:28 Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

Well, I guess I should have read Skip's edit before I said that, but I think it's still a valid concept, even in reloading pursuits.
 
Last edited:
Paul, thanks for the picture and reply. I appreciate it. It is easy to reply politely when I am treated with equal respect and politeness.

As for what he meant about Proverbs, I took it to be about a fool not listening, and a wise man heeding advice. If not, then I am wrong, but I still believe that was his original intent based on other comments subtly directed at me (and some not so subtly) from him in other posts, like the cheap shot about reading to many magazines, not actually shooting as much as claimed (which is basically calling me a liar) and spending too much time on gun forums.

Yea, I knew who he was taking the cheap shot at, whether or not he will admit it now, but chose not to respond then, but feel it necessary now. I am sick of all the bullying and bs and being told I'm wrong if I disagree on a subject. This is a public and open forum, and all opinions are welcome, or at least should be, yet many are made to feel less than welcome if they have a different opinion here. Lots of fellows here with lots of experience, and it should all be welcomed without being questioned by one guy all the time. No one will respond politely to abusive or abrasive posts, that question their truthfulness, or integrity.

I apologize to the OP for getting so far off topic. I am done here.
 
Paul,
Here are copies of what I have on the 44Mag from the Speer #5, #6 and #7. 1961, 1964 and 1966 respectively. All of my older Speer manuals are from the first printing and are in pretty good shape. I got a real bonus when I bought them online. One of them came chocked full of calender pages, like the one day at a time thing from long ago, with load data on them! Many were reduced lead loads for rifles using Unique powder. I have never used them but they were pretty cool to get.

At any rate, here are the pictures of the manuals.

Speer #5
44magSpeer51961.jpg


Speer #6
44magSpeer61964.jpg


Speer #7
44magSpeer71966.jpg


I like your interpretation of that little piece of Proverbs. I'll have to apply that next time we talk about the Speer #8.

I see there are some ignored posts in this thread and will only try to imagine what is being said. I appreciate you Paul for posting these old articles/data pages. I know that there have been several people that have had a hard time with the thought that Speer #8 actually used their pressure guns to make sure that their loads were still in specifications before publishing their data. As stated above, no one is going to be convinced otherwise, not here, not anywhere. I came to my conclusions using logic, I'm sure they attempted the same. I'll reiterate what I stated earlier, no use beating your head against the wall with something that will never happen, that's all.

I could have used any number of illustrations to show the futility of trying to convince others of a certain way of thinking. I thought this was the kindest way, and they aren't my words, to accomplish that goal.

One thing I appreciate about your posts Paul, I know you have actually tested the loads you espouse. Such as "THE LOAD" and others that others only gasp about. When someone asks about the actual performance of these old loads, I know you have 40+ years actually testing them in your firearms. It isn't from some article or memorized from a web page, it is real life data, run over your chronograph from the same firearm that you have been using them in for years.

If I wanted to get a gun magazine's take on an issue, I'd subscribe to it and read it, then I'd go do my own testing, in my firearms with my loading equipment with my chronograph to see if those results are "real world" results.

Of course, if I did all of that reading, and work and school stuff with the kids and be a husband and be involved in the community and shoot competition and, any number of other things, I would have mighty little time left for actual shooting.

I would rather take an older manual, a time tested load, yes, even an article and take the loads to the range and run them myself than be a walking encyclopedia of things that have been written by others.

In my mind, Paul, you are a perfect balance of both and I appreciate it.

Thank you for your insight.
 
Skip.

You know and I know there is only One who is perfect. My feet are made of clay, just like everyone else.

I also find the supposed repositories of knowledge are much like me and have a small niche where there is much that is noteworthy.

In closing. let me remind you of this:
Mat 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
 
Paul,
I know you aren't perfect, that wasn't the point of my comment about you, the balance of information was.

How is this, "Your balance in both is appreciated."

Thanks again for the reminder. I am the first one that needs to be reminded of such things.

When I let my light shine before men, would it be like Paul did with Peter? I remind you of Galatians 2:11.

Thanks!
 
I'll send them too

Let's see what these look like.
 

Attachments

  • Speer 5  44mag pg .jpg
    Speer 5 44mag pg .jpg
    86.8 KB · Views: 149
  • Speer 6  44mag pg .jpg
    Speer 6 44mag pg .jpg
    90.4 KB · Views: 195
  • Speer 7  44mag pg 1.jpg
    Speer 7 44mag pg 1.jpg
    82.6 KB · Views: 184
  • Speer 7  44mag pg 2.jpg
    Speer 7 44mag pg 2.jpg
    85.7 KB · Views: 125
Your Speer #7 looks almost as ragged as mine. :)

I got your emailed versions, but I haven't posted the updated images yet. I must have gotten sidetracked with some H&G #68 clones. #2 son-in-law likes to shoot "free" bullets, so I try to oblige him with a few every time he visits, like tomorrow. He did bring me a 5 gallon bucket of wheel weights that made 95# of ingots,
smiley32.gif
so they aren't exactly free.

I suppose you've noticed there's never any pressure data for the cast bullets. I guess that's mainly due to lead generating less pressure with the same load with the same weight bullet.

Peter was wrong in spiritual matters. Reloading isn't the same magnitude as your example. ;)
 
Paul,
I just don't separate things at the same point. I believer Paul would have confronted Peter in the same manner even if it wasn't a spiritual matter. But, alas, that is certainly not a discussion for a shooting forum!
God Bless, brother!
 
Some good information

I found this article on another forum. It would seem that the gentleman that posted it has access to some pretty cool equipment. I'm not attesting to it's validity, just trying to report about one individual's findings. FWIW

2400; Hercules vs Alliant

Sometime back I stated I would conduct a pressure test comparing the old Hercules 2400 with the newer Alliant 2400. Alliant, since taking over manufacture of the Hercules powders, says they have not changed the formula of 2400 yet most reloading manuals show a decline of around 1 gr with maximum loads. The question of whether or not there is a difference between old Hercules 2400 and Alliant 2400 most often comes up with the .44 magnum, specifically with 429421 and the classic "Keith" load of 22 gr under that bullet. Lyman's Cast Bullet Manual lists a maximum load at 23.4 gr of 2400 with the 429421 cast bullet, their "Keith" bullet. Some say 21 grains is the max with the newer Alliant 2400 and others still shoot 22 gr of the newer Alliant 2400 the same as they did with Hercules 2400. This begs the question; is there a difference between the older Hercules 2400 and the newer Alliant 2400? This test will focus on the pressure difference between the two powders if any. Though I will mention accuracy in a couple places let us remember we are concerned about pressure here and what is a "safe" load, not what is an accurate load.

As an after thought I also decided to throw in a test string using magnum large pistol primers to test whether there is an internal ballistic difference between their use and the normal use of a standard large pistol primer in the 44 magnum with the classic "Keith" load.

I have conducted this because I have the equipment not only measure the velocity but also the psi of many cartridges, the 44 magnum included. I also decided to include a test of a popular load using 2400 with a 160 grain cast bullet in the 30-30.

I conducted the test yesterday, the 7th of January 2010. The test was conducted at Tacoma Rifle and Revolver Club on the main range. There are very solid cement benches there and I use the same bench when conducting pressure tests with the screens, equipment set up in the same position and locations. The test instrument is the M43 Personal Ballistics Laboratory made by Oehler Research. The test firearm was the Thompson Center Contender; a 8.4" barrel for the .44 magnum and a 21" barrel for the 30-30. The 44 magnum barrel has a 1.5X Bushnell scope mounted on it and the 30-30 barrel has a Weaver K4. The 30-30 barrel is in carbine form with a Brown thumbhole rear stock.

It took a while to locate an old can of Hercules 2400 but a forum member, Shuz, came across with one. He lives in Spokane so it took some coordination to get it transported to me on the other side of the state. Many thanks should be given to Shuz and his daughter who made this test possible.

The cardboard cylindrical "can" of Hercules 2400 was unopened and I cut the plastic end off the little plastic spout. The bottom of the can was marked "Shift 1", 02400 066, 12693. The plastic "can" of Alliant 2400 has a lot # of CE0519 on it and was purchased last year before the rush.

The 44 magnum bullets were cast of WWs+2% tin in a RCBS 44-250-K double cavity mould. Bullets were inspected for complete fill out and other defects but other than that were non selected. The bullets fully dressed weighed 254 grains. The bullet lube used was Javelina and bullets were sized .430 in a Lyman 450. Cases were new, unfired, Winchester WW Super manufacture. Primers were Federal 150s and CCI 350s. Cases were sized and loaded in RCBS dies. A heavy roll crimp was applied in the bullets crimp groove as a separate step. AOL was 1.705". Powder charges were weighed on a Redding scale.

The 30-30 bullets were cast of the same alloy in a Lyman 311466 double cavity mould. The bullets were visually inspected only for defects. The Hornady gas checks were pre seated then the bullets were sized and lubed with Javelina in a Lyman 450 with a .314 H die. The bullets were then pushed through a Lee .311 sizer. The fully dressed bullets weighed right at 160 gr. The .311 sized bullets when loaded in the FC 30-30 cases gave a very tight slip fit in the chambers neck. Cases were full length sized in an RCBS X-die die with a Lyman .31 M-die used to expand the case mouth and a 7mm seating die used to seat the over diameter bullets. Primers were Winchester WLRs. The bullets were seated with the front diving band just off the lands putting the GC right at the base of the case neck. AOL was 2.45".

Test; the test strings for the 44 magnum consisted of 10 shots each for 20.5, 21, 21.5 and 22 gr of both Hercules and Alliant 2400. At 21 gr I also fired the additional test string of 10 shots using the CCI LP magnum primer. The target for the 44 magnum was at 50 yards. The start screen was 16 feet from the muzzle. The 30-30 test strings were also of 10 shots each and consisted of 16 gr of each of the 2400s. The target for the 30-30 test was at 100 yards. The start screen for the 30-30 test was 15 feet from the muzzle.

The temperature during the test range from 39 to 43 F. There was no wind to speak of. As is my usual practice when I set up the M43 I fired a 5 shot test string with a specific .308W rifle and one lot of M118SB as "reference ammunition" to ensure the M43 set up is good. This same specific rifle is used with a clean bore and the same lot of very uniform ammunition each time I set up the M43 for a test. In this case the reference ammunition test velocity and psi data readings were well with in norm for the 39 F temperature. All was good with the M43 set up so I conducted the test. At the conclusion of the 44 magnum test I cleaned the barrel and also ran 2 jacketed loads through it as a reference. This was a factory load and another standard load with a jacketed bullet. The ballistic information on these is also included for reference.

Data and remarks; I will list the data for each charge as; H2400 (Hercules 2400) or A2400 (Alliant 2400) /velocity (adjusted to muzzle)/SD (Standard Deviation)/ ES (Extreme Spread) and under that will be the MAP (Mean Average Pressure)/SD/ES. All velocities, SDs and ES are in feet per second. All MAPs, SD and ES are in psi(M43). Keep in mind that pressure data and velocity data are not absolutes. There are expected variations between test strings of the same lot of ammunition and also between lots of components, especially powders. Alliant, of course, does not reveal the variation between lots of any powder. I do know that it was acceptable for a +/- 5% variation (10% variation possible) between different lots of IMR 4895. This is why some lots shoot 'faster" or "slower" than other lots of the same powder. Also keep in mind that factory published psi and SAAMI psi are maximum allowable average pressures for specific cartridges. That does not mean every one of those cartridges are loaded to that psi level. Quite the contrary most factory and arsenal ammunition are well below those published figures, a "fudge factor" if you will.

The 44 magnum cartridge has a SAAMI MAP psi, using piezo-electric measurement, of 41,000 psi or 36,000 C.U.P. (Copper Unit Pressure). Also keep in mind that I am not using a SAAMI spec test barrel. I am using a production barrel with more than likely specs that are not at minimum like the SAAMI specs. Thus we can expect somewhat less velocity and attendant less pressure out of the Contender barrel than we would get with identical loads out of a SAAMI spec test barrel. For that very reason I would not load to the SAAMI max of 41,000 psi in this barrel. In my experience with the M43 and psi measurements in production barrels I would consider 35,000 psi(M43) to be a maximum load for the 44 magnum in a production barrel such as the Contender's.

20.5 gr
H2400; 1365/17/56
25,700/900/2,700

A2400; 1425/13/41
26,000/600/1,900

21 gr
H2400; 1436/18/53
28,900/1,100/3,100

A2400; 1466/14/47
27,200/600/2,200

21 gr with CCI 350 magnum primers
H2400; 1438/17/51
27,100/1,000/3,000

A2400; 1474/19/60
27,300/1,100/3,200

21.5 gr
H2400; 1455/18/55
26,500/900/2,400

A2400; 1468/18/58
27,000/800/3,000

22 gr
H2400; 1493/20/57
27,000/700/2,000

A2400; 1515/14/47
27,900/700/2,400

Magtech 44 magnum factory ammunition; 240 HHP, 17.2 gr flake powder
1376/24/72
25,100/1,700/6,100

Hornady 240 gr XTP/24.5 gr H110, R-P cases, WLP primer
1540/16/46
31,200/1,500/4,700

From the above data, with the exception of the 21 gr data, we see that the Alliant 2400 appears to be "hotter". However, the difference is less than 2% which is probably well within acceptable lot to lot variation. The 21 gr load where the Hercules 2400 is "hotter" is even less that 2% variation. Note that the 21.5 gr load of Hercules 2400 has 2,400 less psi than the 21 gr load but still has a slightly higher velocity….such are the variances and why there is an acceptable variance. It is also why the "fudge factor" is built in. Were all the loads of Alliant 2400 "hotter" than the Hercules 2400 we could safely say, at least from this test, that this lot of Alliant 2400 is "hotter" than this lot of Hercules 2400. However that is not the case. With this test it appears both powders fall within lot to variation of a specific powder.

The Magtech factory ammunition is fairly indicative of current factory velocities and pressures. The Hornady XTP load is a popular load for that bullet and you can see the velocity and psi is up there. Lyman lists 23.4 gr of 2400 as a max load with their 429421 in the 3rd edition of their Cast Bullet Handbook. I can not disagree with that psi wise given the results of this test.

As to accuracy I have found with PB'd cast bullets used loaded in revolver cartridges and shot in other Contenders, revolvers with 6"+ barrels and rifles that accuracy starts to go above 1400 – 1450 fps and so it was with this test. The 21.5 gr load of both Hercules and Alliant 2400 with the CCI magnum primers proved to be the most accurate load on target even though the standard Federal primer load had slightly better internal ballistics. A repeat of the test could very well reverse that as the difference between the two powders internally or accuracy wise wasn't enough to consider remarkable. I would use either load in this Contender barrel for hunting.


30-30
The 30-30 test was rather straight forward with only one charge of each powder tested. I will list the data in the same format;

16 gr
H2400; 1861/19/53
42,400/5,600/15,600

A2400; 1873/11/41
42,000/1,400/3,800

Remarks; 2400 is reputed to be a fine powder for midrange cast bullet loads with a filler not being necessary. It also is supposed to non-position sensitive. I will agree with that to the extent if heavy for caliber cast bullets are used such as 190 – 220 gr bullets. My experience of years ago with medium weight bullets was born out again by this test. The first 3 shots were foulers and no effort was made to position the powder in the case. The ES was from 1688 fps to 1822 fps. That was unacceptable. I thus conducted the Hercules 2400 test by raising the muzzle about 45 -60 degrees before shooting to position the powder to the rear of the case. Even then ignition was not what I would call consistent with the Hercules. With the Alliant I raised the muzzle to 90 degrees before shooting and the ES of the psi improved dramatically. There were also pressure spikes both up and down when the bullet was about 2/3s down the barrel. The pressure spikes were not any where near the MAP pressures but it showed uneven ignition and burn of the powder. Note also that the Alliant 2400 gave a lower MAP than the Hercules 2400 even though the velocity was slightly higher. Even with the large psi ES of the Hercules 2400 the average pressure of the 2 powders is so close that they again, in the 30-30, fall well within lot to lot variation of a specific powder.

Conclusion; Alliant says they didn't change the formula for 2400 and you can't prove by me otherwise. With cast bullets I shall to use 22 gr of Alliant 2400 under this bullet as that load shoots very nicely in my Ruger 50th Anniversary BHFT at 1350 fps.

Caveat; I did not conduct any test with Alliant 2400 and jacketed bullets of 240 grain weight and the results of my test are not to be inclusive of them. It is expected that the pressures would be higher but since I have not ran a test all I can say is stick with current published dat when using jacketed bullets and Alliant 2400.


Larry Gibson
 
Thanks dixie!

I was browsing my favorite gun forums and saw that thread and about dropped off of my chair!

I know that the method of mounting the transducer is questionable. Although there are pressure transducers mounted on metal working presses to monitor tonnage that are mounted nearly the same way.

The ones I am familiar with are made by Wintriss Controls and they are a Honeywell company. The transducers mount onto the side of the press parallel to the moment of stress. The transducers come calibrated. You simply mount them to the sides of the press and record the metal stretching, for lack of better terminology! ;)

This in no way means that this type of reading is the same as in chamber pressure testing. What it is great for is comparison. Take a known load, one that has been tested to be within specifications, say any factory ammunition, just like the original poster did, and compare it with your loads. If you are under the factory ammunition, it would seem to reason that there is less pressure than factory ammo. No factory ammunition manufacturer is going to send out ammo that is over the SAAMI standard, none.

If they did, the company would now be called "Smith Crazy Industries" or you can put your name in there as they would have been sued so badly it would make sense just to give the company over to the complainant! ;)

The reason any credence can be put to this type of testing is in his post. Look at the Magtech load. Look at the 240gr XTP load. While not in the post, data from Hodgdon would corroborate his findings.
 
No factory ammunition manufacturer is going to send out ammo that is over the SAAMI standard, none.

This Winchester .22 LR didn't split because I didn't reload it right.

agm.sized.jpg


Factories do make mistakes and they don't always sell a product that's within SAAMI specifications.
 
This Winchester .22 LR didn't split because I didn't reload it right.

agm.sized.jpg


Factories do make mistakes and they don't always sell a product that's within SAAMI specifications.

Let me change that statement to "knowingly", Paul.

They aren't going to knowingly send out over specification ammunition. Of course, that is just my opinion. They may do it all the time just to test guns for folks! ;)
 
Back
Top