I had loaded some .44 Special rounds with a 180 grain bullet and 14.5 grains of 2400 powder. The rounds contained, after firing, what I always called unburnt powder, as, within the round, are remnants of powder that did not completely combust. However, now that I think about it, it is more like powder that did not fully combust, but for which the physical composition has changed--e.g., it now has a blonde appearance, having, of course, previously been black-grey in colouration. Let's say I had not noticed this 'unburnt' powder and failed to remove it prior to reloading. How would that affect the reloads? To make the answer to this question easier, let's assume that I replicated the load above (which, of course, makes no sense, as if there is a fair amount of 'unburnt' powder left, it is a less than optimal load). Also, technically, what is the proper term for this, what I am calling unburnt powder?
Unburnt powder question...
- Thread starter orpington
- Start date
- Status
JimKirk
Member
That is fairly common even in my .44 mag ... I think it is just the way the powder burns or in this case does not burn ...
What you will find is that the higher pressure the load is .... the more complete the burn is ... I am no scientist, but I believe the gray coating is a form of graphite and it get burned off along with some of the volatile ingredients and what you are see is more or less ash of a grain of powder ... then aagin I may be totally wrong ...
But the fact remains that I've seen the same"blonde" particles in all uses of 2400 that I have used ....
What you will find is that the higher pressure the load is .... the more complete the burn is ... I am no scientist, but I believe the gray coating is a form of graphite and it get burned off along with some of the volatile ingredients and what you are see is more or less ash of a grain of powder ... then aagin I may be totally wrong ...
But the fact remains that I've seen the same"blonde" particles in all uses of 2400 that I have used ....
The operating pressure for .44 Spl are so low that you just aren't going to get a clean burn with 2400. Years back I had some SR4759 loads in .44 Spl that shot well, but had the same problem. Why did I use it? Because I was a poor married kid and I had some I picked up cheap ($2 a can) at a gun show and it would at least "work". I bought it to use in .44 Mag and it worked well there. I managed to use most of it up over the years.
The lighter weight bullet only adds to it.
If it shoots well, and you only get yellow flakes that don't jam the gun up, it will certainly work. It's not very efficient in .44 Spl, where fast to medium powders are better suited.
The lighter weight bullet only adds to it.
If it shoots well, and you only get yellow flakes that don't jam the gun up, it will certainly work. It's not very efficient in .44 Spl, where fast to medium powders are better suited.
243winxb
Member
The powder residue from 2400 is also left after firing 357 mag loads, using a mag primer. Just point the muzzle up when ejecting the fired brass. The residue can get behind the ejector star on a S&W , binding rotation of the cylinder.
The Lyman Reloading Handbook 49th Edition has the load for 2400 powder in bold, which means it is the recommended load, for a 180 grain jacketed bullet. This seems rather odd, given the proclivity for unburnt powder. Granted, the range is 14.0 to 15.8 grains, and at 14.5 grains, my load was at the lower end of the range, but, from what others have reported, it appears that unburnt powder is the norm with 2400. Or, maybe this is the most accurate load, independent of powder, unburnt or not.
However, I still seek answers to my 2 original questions: Is the correct term for this 'unburnt' powder? Perhaps a chemist could chime in to state how the chemical properties have changed, as it appears the physical characteristics have changed (now blonde in appearance). Also, how would this affect a reload if not removed? I mean, perhaps if a significant amount were left, and it truly is, chemically, 'unburnt', a load at 15.8 grains plus the 'unburnt' powder would then exceed the maximum recommended load.
However, I still seek answers to my 2 original questions: Is the correct term for this 'unburnt' powder? Perhaps a chemist could chime in to state how the chemical properties have changed, as it appears the physical characteristics have changed (now blonde in appearance). Also, how would this affect a reload if not removed? I mean, perhaps if a significant amount were left, and it truly is, chemically, 'unburnt', a load at 15.8 grains plus the 'unburnt' powder would then exceed the maximum recommended load.
243winxb
Member
The Manufacture of Smokeless Powders and their
Forensic Analysis: http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20Articles/McCord_gunpowder/
Forensic Analysis: http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20Articles/McCord_gunpowder/
Jesse Heywood
Member
There's a simple check to see if it is "unburnt" powder. It's called the match test. 
Ive had that problem with lower charges of slow burning powder. Why not just change to a faster burning powder and work in the upper end loads to get a clean burn. 2400 is a magnum powder. What kind of groups are you shooting with that load?
Ken
Ken
BSA1
member
"Unburnt powder" is the term I have always read in gun magazines and reloading manuals. A more correct term is "not completely burned" powder.
2400 is a slow burning powder that gives best performance at near maxImum charges. A heavy crimp helps with powder burning more completely along with using Magnum primers. IMHO it is a poor choice in 44 Special with moderate velocities.
I don't understand your comment about a fair amount of unburnt powder being left in the case as what I have encountered is the unburnt powder being mostly in the chambers and barrel. I always clean my brass before reloading.
2400 is a slow burning powder that gives best performance at near maxImum charges. A heavy crimp helps with powder burning more completely along with using Magnum primers. IMHO it is a poor choice in 44 Special with moderate velocities.
I don't understand your comment about a fair amount of unburnt powder being left in the case as what I have encountered is the unburnt powder being mostly in the chambers and barrel. I always clean my brass before reloading.
ljnowell
Member
44 special, like 45 colt, just doesn't achieve the pressure to completely burn well with 2400. It will still make good loads though.
My experience, going from load data and using a chronograph to compare is that 2400 really starts to burn clean at around 30kpsi.
My experience, going from load data and using a chronograph to compare is that 2400 really starts to burn clean at around 30kpsi.
Jim Watson
Member
I think the "blonde" appearance of the residue, which I have seen in low-end loads of other powders, is unburnt powder with the graphite glaze blown off. You are seeing naked nitrocellulose.
Whatever term you call it, why would it not be removed?
Cleaning the brass should eliminate it.
If there is a lot left, it may take up some case volume and change the pressure some, but it would have to be a lot.
lckdnldd
Member
I believe it is the nature of the beast when using 2400. It is known for leaving residual powder after ignition. I tried several ways to alleviate it in my 357 loads to no avail. Heavier crimp was one of them. I like the powder. I get good accuracy and good velocities for the 158gr. LSWC and 180gr LWNFP I use for hunting. The unburnt powder is no big deal IMO. After a session I just brush under and around the star ejector when I am wiping down the firearm.
Catpop
Member
If memory serves me correctly, IMR 4227 has the same issue, but it still a great substitute for 2400. Both great powders!
gamestalker
member
With the lower pressure 44 spcl., powders like 2400 will leave behind what is often referred to as skeletons, which is caused by a low pressure inefficient burn.
Provided the cartridges all fire with normal performance characteristics, there's really nothing to be concerned with. However, if performance characteristics are erratic, which would be evident by significant variations in velocity and pressure signs, then it could raise a concern of possibly experiencing squibs, which are always a serious concern.
GS
Provided the cartridges all fire with normal performance characteristics, there's really nothing to be concerned with. However, if performance characteristics are erratic, which would be evident by significant variations in velocity and pressure signs, then it could raise a concern of possibly experiencing squibs, which are always a serious concern.
GS
- Status
