Imr 4227 on 44 special /250 gr

Musket is dirty? What’s that?

I’m interested though in 4227 in 44 special as I have some. I think it’ll be most useful in the +p loadings and not at the standard pressure loadings of 15,500 psi.

I totally agree. Making do with components in hand not only is often a necessity but also builds a knowledge base for reloading that one doesn’t get when sticking to just the known classic loads.

savagelover said:

I see very few positive comments about this powder in the special. I have no doubt more appropriate powder but I have 3 lbs of the imr. So it's a little dirty,what's the difference of it shoots good? Musket is dirty. Thanks..

Click to expand...

If the powder manufacturer does not recommend the use of that powder in that cartridge it is best not to use it. So check that. The reason is, ballistic labs can real time measure perturbations in the pressure curve, and if the pressure curve looks loosey goosey, or spikey, with a certain combination, they no longer recommend that combination. Back in the day, they measured pressure with copper crushers and velocities with Le Boulenge ballistic chronographs. Copper crushers were not sensitive enough to measure real time changes in pressure curves.




I tested Blue Dot, and equally slow powder in 45 LC. What I saw over my chronograph were much higher extreme spreads for the same velocities as my standard loads with Unique.


5 1/2" USFA Rodeo 45 LC

255 LSWC (.452") 8.0 grs Unique thrown, lot 6/21/1993, Starline cases, WLP primers
25-Mar-07 T = 80 °F

Ave Vel = 864
Std Dev = 28
ES = 75
High = 898.8
Low = 800.1
Number Shots 24

255 LSWC (.454") 8.5 grs Unique thrown, R-P cases, WLP primers
12-May-02 T = 84°F

Ave Vel = 844
Std Dev = 33
ES = 117.8
High = 907.6
Low = 789.8
Number Shots 12


250 LRN (.452") 11.5 grs Blue Dot R-P cases, WLP
11-Sep-05 T = 85 °F

Ave Vel = 845
Std Dev = 48
ES = 183.6
High = 933.3
Low = 749.7
N = 18

shoots close to point of aim acceptable accuracy

250 LRN (.452") 12.0 grs Blue Dot R-P cases, WLP
11-Sep-05 T = 85 °F

Ave Vel = 904
Std Dev = 44
ES = 149.6
High = 955.6
Low = 806
N = 15

shoots close to point of aim good accuracy

Now my opinion is not based on any thing other than fears. I do not want excessive extreme spreads as I do not know if high pressure funnies will happen. Gunpowder does not burn like a candle, it is an extremely complicated, exponential process, and needs to be kept within reasonable boundaries. Conflicting pressure waves have blown things other than firearms, and I don't want to find out that firearms will also go kaboom. So that is the fear.

As for what happens when shooting slow burning powders at low pressures, I got a lot of unburnt powder residue, but the accuracy was acceptable out to 50 yards. So a nothing burger unless I get an accident. I don't want an accident, and I don't want to find out the hard way, that slow burning powders have more than just residue problems when used at low pressures.

Always wear your shooting glasses!

I use IMR 4227 almost exclusively as my cast bullet powder in a range of rifle cartridges and like it very much in @ 23,000 psi 45 Colt rounds. It does leave more residue than other powders. I don’t have a problem with that.

Don’t own anything in 44 special or 44 Mag, so can’t offer anything there…

I’m not advocating using powders that aren’t acceptable for an application. But just because a powder isn’t listed or tested doesn’t in itself mean it isn’t acceptable for an application.

Learning a powders personality, from reading about it, helps one determine if a powder will be safe in an application that it’s not listed for.

savagelover said:

If it ever warms up here in Pennsylvania I am definitely going to try 4227 in my 44 special to see how it works. It's one of the few powders you can get around here. One has to learn to get by with what he has..

Click to expand...

Well, the good news is, it’s really hard to fit enough IMR 4227 in a .44Spl case with any heavy weight lead cast bullet to exceed the maximum average pressure rating of a modern, medium-to-large frame revolver. The bad news is, the reason for that is the powder burns slow enough the bullet is long gone before pressures can spike. You will get a fair amount of carbon dust (graphite) and probably some unburnt powder, too. Use a heavier than normal crimp and a +.002” bore fit. It helps a lot. I don’t follow that rule of thumb with older medium-frame revolvers. I used a 14.7gr charge loaded under a 240gr JDJ white-wax lubed bullet that my 6” Taurus 441 (same frame as the .357Magnum 66-series) likes so much - in a Charter Arms Boomer. It wasn’t too pleasant. Wouldn’t do that again on a bet. But it wasn’t unsafe, either. The Boomer is ported. You can figure what happens.

Try it.It may work with upper level loads and heavier Bullets.I know with lighter Bullets in other cartridges its so dirty that it will tie the gun up I use it mostly in pistol cartridge rifles because of that.

IMR 4227 seems to work best at compressed or nearly so powder charges, all magnum loads. I am a big fan of that powder and follow the current editions of the popular manuals. If I had nothing else, I would wait until I found powder matching published loads. We more or less encourage experimentation here, but how many are really qualified to do that and have the necessary equipment to measure results in even a quasi-technical way?

savagelover said:

I see very few positive comments about this powder in the special.

Click to expand...

savagelover said:

I've found lots of loading data using 4227 on the 44 special,so it's basically nothing new

Click to expand...

I guess you answered your own question.

IMR4227 is a powder suited for heavy loads... period. Yes, you can use it in lighter loads, but, like everyone mentions, it will be dirty, and in my experience in both the .41 and .45 Colt, the accuracy was nothing to write home about.

Will it work? Sure. Will it be optimal? No. There's a reason you see very few positive comments about this powder in the Special.

4227 is very well mannered in loadings with low pressure. There will be a large amount of un burnt powder making it very inefficient in low pressure applications. I believe it's best in 30k plus pressure loadings. I do play and test in a low tech way, and a pile of left over powder is pretty conclusive for what I need to know.

AJC1 said:

4227 is very well mannered in loadings with low pressure. There will be a large amount of un burnt powder making it very inefficient in low pressure applications. I believe it's best in 30k plus pressure loadings. I do play and test in a low tech way, and a pile of left over powder is pretty conclusive for what I need to know.

Click to expand...

Back in the days before pressure-testing pistol cartridges was the norm - around the late 60's and very early 70's - ballistics experts used experience and performance to judge what was a good or bad load. If you look at the Lymans manuals from 1955-1970, you'll find loads listing IMR 4227 at some really ridiculous velocities - in the 500-750fps range - with charges as low as 7.0gr. for cast bullets in the 158gr.-195gr. weight range. I tried some of those way back when and came to the conclusion those were tested loads which no thinking person in their right mind would adopt as a regular, preferred loading but, if IMR 4227 and a bunch of hard cast #2 Alloy heavyweight bullets were all you had, they would do a job. Not well, but they'd get it done. 2400 and Unique were always (since 1935, at least) preferred for heavy Specials - .38 and .44 - and Bullseye, Red Dot or Unique in the same cartridges were more accurate with less fuss. Now, in the .44Special IMR 4227 *can* do some things Unique and 2400 can't - like push a big flat-point long-bodied bullet up to 1000+fps or more without going over pressure - but it needs a lot of barrel and some fine-tuning to get there. This is where having old data can be real useful; you get to see the evolution of load development, not just a modern retcon.

A lot of people look at Elmer Keith as the biggest visionary on .44Special performance but if you look up guys like J.D. Jones, Lee Jurras, Jack O'Connor and Bill Jordan, you'll find some real visionaries in the development of what we call "Duty Guns" and "Big Game Rifles."

Jones wrote about his and Jurras' work developing the Super-Vel line, "In those days, powder selection was quite limited compared to what is available today. Simply flying by the seat of our pants - we didn’t have a pressure gun - we used the 'shoot the hell out of it' method to see if the guns held up." I don't recommend this for anyone, ever.