New 2400 vs. old?

Yep. I think so. As always, start low and work up.

Elmer's use of 2400 in .44 Special was for substantial overloads.
The modern guns will stand it... won't they?

Most powders are the same as older production powders of the same name. Even when they change production facilities they are supposed to be the same. If there were any significant differences they would have to change the name because of the real possibility of someone using old data and going over or under pressure.

Any differences youbwill encounter are probably due to the normal lot to lot variations common to all powders.

Be careful when using data from the "old timmers", they were um... adventurers lol.

I believe the powders are kept to within 4% of the "control" for the powder. So, 2400 offered in 2019 will be within 4% of the 2400 offered in 1970. But for me it's a moot point. I don't use any "celebrity" loads and my manuals are fairly up to date...

I have read Keith blew up a few revolvers with his experiments/load "development"...

Col. Harrumph said:

E.K. was using N-frames and Ruger single actions at the time. I doubt he'd have tried his warshots in a Charter Arms.

Click to expand...

Elmer worked up to a 250 gr SWC +17.5 gr 2400 in solid head .44 Special brass sometime prior to 1955. His guns were SAAs and S&W .44 Hand Ejectors from Triple Lock to 1950 models. There was no such thing as a Ruger .44 Special in Keith's day.

I used to have a book with H.P. White pressure and velocity data for such ammo.

I take everything Elmer wrote with a grain of salt. I used a taxidermist in the early '70s from Salmon, Idaho who knew Elmer and did his mounts. He said Elmer put things in print that others would be embarrassed to say in a bar. He didn't believe half of what Elmer put in print and nothing he said in person.

Patocazador said:

I take everything Elmer wrote with a grain of salt. I used a taxidermist in the early '70s from Salmon, Idaho who knew Elmer and did his mounts. He said Elmer put things in print that others would be embarrassed to say in a bar. He didn't believe half of what Elmer put in print and nothing he said in person.

Click to expand...

This too is hearsay so why should any one believe it?

Here's load data from Lyman's 44th, 1967, for 240-250 hard cast .44 Special. We can see EK's loads were canon for a long while. Informational purposes only.

The difference is not so much in the powder itself, although you'd have to expect some. The introduction of computer controlled manufacturing means powders made since ~1990 vary lot-to-lot by a much smaller degree than those made during Elmer's time.

No, the main difference is how chamber pressure is measured. The old CUP system, that takes one reading per shot, is vastly inferior to the new, fully instrumented testing system where computers take several million chamber pressure readings per shot.

When all the major data books were re-written about the year 2000, some loads dropped considerably. (Alliant was one of those powder companies.) Many shooters were very vocal that powder companies were simply "lawyering up" their data. It is much more probable that testing with better equipment simply showed that many "proven loads" were over the limit, or too close for comfort.

I say 2400 is still a valid powder, just be sure and use load data published during the 21st century.

rfwobbly said:

The difference is not so much in the powder itself, although you'd have to expect some. The introduction of computer controlled manufacturing means powders made since ~1990 vary lot-to-lot by a much smaller degree than those made during Elmer's time.

No, the main difference is how chamber pressure is measured. The old CUP system that takes one reading per shot is vastly inferior to the new, fully instrumented testing system where computers take several million chamber pressure readings per shot.

When all the major data books were re-written about the year 2000, some loads dropped considerably. (Alliant was one of those powder companies.) Many shooters were very vocal that powder companies were simply "lawyering up" their data. It is much more probable that testing with better equipment simply showed that many "proven loads" were over the limit, or too close for comfort.

I say 2400 is still a valid powder, just be sure and use load data published during the 21st century.

Click to expand...

+1

Few of my old reloading manuals have any pressure tested data. They just loaded until physical signs of over pressure manifested, and that is usually when pressures are way too high.

Take a look at page 13 of the Western Reloading Guide

https://www.accuratepowder.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/WPHandloading-Guide-7.0-Web-REV.pdf

You visually cannot tell the difference in pressures between a 6,000 psia , 21,000 psia or 36,000 psia load in the 45 ACP case. Everything looks similar. And probably extracts similar.

New vs old 2400.. Same, except for name & container. When 2400 was hard to find 2 years ago, a club member gave me an unopened container. Shot fine.

When there was a primer shortage, he gave me primers. They all went bang.