Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns 2400 and 44 mag loads

Da winnah! You don't win anything, but you are the winner!

Yes you were correct. H110 is a great powder in the 44 maggie, especially with heavy bullets & max loads. Its more forgiving pressure wise. But, I'll stick with 2400 for 90% of my heavy loads because its worked great for over 4 decades. Hard to break old habits!

Dick

i had posted this observation in a thread a year or two back, and jwp475 commented along the line that he had noticed the sharper recoil as well--so that makes three of us who note this effect.

around the early to mid 1970's in one of the handloaders digests, i saw a graph of the burn rate on shotshell propellants, and the peak during the burn appeared to occur closer to ignition, which i believe might be the case with blue dot. i would speculate that 2400 is peaking in the barrel at a point much nearer to the cylinder as well, such that the cases often become stuck in the cylinder with higher end loads. by contrast, 110/296 appears to burn further on down the barrel--and subsequently, seems to produce greater muzzle flash and blast, with attending somewhat less felt recoil.

Elmer used 2400 with a very heavy crimp which he believed to help powder burn. I also agree with the sharper recoil at equivelant velocities with 2400 than with H110/296. The above explanation by Hi-vel seems to be as good an explanation as I have heard as to why this is the case.

I too switched to H110 years ago when I still shot full power loads most of the time and I'll bet (although I'm not pretentious enough to speak for him) that Elmer would have done likewise. If memory serves me, earlier loading manuals didn't seem to think that H110/296 was satisfactory for cast bullets, which of course has been proven many times over to be not true.

Elmer hated the "fine grained powder" in factory loads; didn't like the blast, and what he believed to be excessive pressure.

He also hated John Lachuck, who's 23gr. H110/296 240/250gr bullet load rivals the classic Elmer load and beats it for speed.

I'm a huge fan of Elmer Keith and have burned several pounds of both Hercules and Alliant 2400 through the 357 mag, 44 mag and 480 Ruger.

What that experience has shown me is that for top accuracy in magnum revolvers, the best fuel is H-110 sparked with a CCI 350.

While I'd like 2400 and swc's to provide the smallest groups, reality is H-110 and ogival wadcutters are what work best.

It would have been interesting to say the least if we could have Keith, Lachuck, Skeeter, and a few others on the Campfire. I can only imagine........

especially if colonel charles askins would offer to take a catcher's mitt and stand out at the 600 yard mark and catch those .44 mag pills that elmer was firing (if that statement was actually made, it is still hard to figure, given that askins was a very accomplished handgunner)...

i think dvdegeorge or fosteology would make some great videos of the various banter that would surely occur were they all here today as 'fire members.

you guys talking made me put some brass in the tumbler to load up tomorrow. I don't know why i am doing it, because just about everybody knows a .41magnum is a better round anyway.

The 41 is just about a perfect revolver round much like the 338/06 is about the perfect NA and plains game cartridge.

Just too much "bling" with bigger or faster rounds. When I had struggles keeping bears dead with my 357 mag in the early 80s I had to step up. To what? I did not hand load then. The 44 solved all the issues I had with relative ease.

Could just as easily gone to the 45lc. I wanted a double action. The red hawk was a perfect fit and a buddy had one to sell. Been shooting big stuff frequently with that .44 ever since.

I too also always liked 2400 in the .44 Mag. Used a 22 grain load for decades. In my younger, stupider days I tried 24 grains but kept getting stuck cases (wonder why). I liked 2400 because I used multiple calibers and 2400 was great in everything....38Spl, .357, .41 Mag., .44 Mag. and .45 Colt....with hard-cast lead loads.

In recent years I've made a few changes. My "main" .44 Mag. is an original 3-screw Flattop Ruger and I've backed off to 19 grains in deference to it's smaller frame size. Still kills just as well and is much nicer to shoot. I've also changed over to 296 for some full-power loads because of it's cleaner burn in the 10MM.

When comparing top ends loads to top end loads 2400 kicks more than 296/H-110 and IME will loosen screws that have a penchant for loosening.

For top end loads 296/H-110 is the way to go

Very interesting discussion.

DF

2400 definately has a sharper recoil pulse and the gun will snap back faster. I've noticed it with the 357, 44 and 480, and the bigger you go the more noticeable it is.

jwp475,

am glad you mentioned noting the same effect in 2400 powder--the sharper recoil--and it is apparent that others have noticed this as well...

i made the decision on 110/296 right out of the gate, and have always been most pleased with the results.

i really enjoy reading your very knowledgeable posts--a significant reservoir of experience that you have.

and, i also really enjoy DF's posts as well--a broad spectrum of very informing material...

this is the type of thing that makes the 'fire so valuable--sharing good information, observations, and experiences...

I guess I don't understand why anyone is surprised that a much faster powder like 2400 has a faster recoil impulse than a much slower powder like H110/296.

i would reckon that it is all in the discussion of our experiential observations and discoveries--nothing special, just something of note that might be of use to someone wanting to select between the two choices--110/296 vs 2400.

however, i would be hard pressed to figure that 2400 is a "much faster" propellant than 110/296--i would like to think of unique or hs6 as "much faster". 110/296 is right on the heels of 2400--say approximately about a 10% difference...

I just got another pound of 2400 and dont feel bad at all. I started loading it in 38/357 35yrs ago and never felt the need to change, till now of course. My 44 been shooting 2400 for 17yrs and loves 2400 and 240 XTP's. I just acquired a supply of 240 Missouri cast and 310 cast from the Lee mold and am absolutely ready to try some H110 or Winchester 296.

what is the main difference brtween the 2? Ball/stick/nitro base or not and is one a bit cleaner than the other? I see they ate about 6 numbers slower than 2400 on my burn chart and that isn't much different in my eyes, but just enough to make me want to try!

i am at 17.5gr 2400 for the 310's and i think 19 for the 240XTP's and don't feel the need to blow flames out and try to make it a 454. and I really like Hodgens powders.

Yes, we've been dissing 2400 but I still have three plus pounds of it and still find it very useful for those upper/moderate loads as it has always provided good accuracy in a wide variety of loads.

296 is best for the real top end loads but I rarely load that way anymore in handguns. 296 can't really be loaded down, it needs to burn at a certain pressure and there are warnings in the manuals not to go below a certain amount.

2400 at around 85% of max makes nice field loads that give reasonable velocity and are very accurate - that would be 18.0 in the .44 with 250 cast or 12.5 in a .357 with 158 cast. 10.0 grains in a .38 Special with 158 grain cast bullets is another very accurate load.

With H-110 light it off with CCI 350's. It is simply the powder for heavy for caliber big bore revolver loads. As mentioned it should not be downloaded, but when loaded to it's sweet spot it is likely to produce the top accuracy your revolver is capable of.