So what loads do folks shoot with 2400 in a 44 mag? Never tried this powder before, educate me.

In my Redhawk I like a 240gr XTP and 21 grains of 2400.
If I feel the need for a bigger bullet I pull out a .45colt and It gets fed 2400 as well.

Unique for lighter loads and 296/H110 for max loads with heavy bullets.2400 for everything in between.

I've used 2400 in the 44 maggie for over 45 years, 99% of the time its been a 250 gr Keith & 21 grs, that load has taken deer, elk & bear with great results.

Dick

My load uses the old 2400. 22 grains and a 240 bullet.

unique and 2400 are somewhat i think traditional powders for 44magnum, depending on what you want to do.
i just did some, and about to do some more with the 310 grain Lee gascheck bullet and 13.5grains of 2400, which is backing off a lot from the first few i did.

Back when I used 2400 in the 44 mag I loaded 22 grains behind the 240 grainers

you might find the links useful

http://www.handloads.com/loaddata/default.asp?Caliber=44%20Magnum&Weight=All&type=Handgun

http://www.handloads.org/loaddata/d...dgun&Order=Powder&Source=Alliant

http://www.handgunsmag.com/2006/04/27/reloading-the-44-magnum/

http://www.reloadammo.com/44loads.htm
Ive personally found BLUE DOT was generally more accurate in mid range loads with lighter weight bullets and H110 gave a bit more velocity and better accuracy in both my 44 mag marlin carbine and 44 mag S&W revolvers, but 2400 certainly worked fairly well, but i can,t help but feel 2400 had noticeably more muzzle flash in dim light than either, and while thats hardly a major flaw, in a hunting load its a bit annoying in some indoor ranges

Elmer Keith's classic load was 22.0 grains of Hercules 2400 with his 250 grain cast bullet.

The Alliant 2400 available today is a bit faster so 21.0 grains is about tops for a 250 gr. cast or 240 gr. jacketed bullet. It will kick some butt on either end at that level.

The nice thing about 2400 is that it can be loaded down a smidge and still maintain good accuracy. I've loaded down to 18.0 or 18.5 grains for a bit less recoil but still maintaining top accuracy. It meters well and while it's not quite as clean as some newer powders it is still the classic .44 Magnum powder.

Use standard large pistol primers with it, no need to use magnum primers.

I love 2400 for two reasons. 20 grains gives me just the right cast lead load in my Ruger Flattop and 17 grains gives me a perfect load in my 8mm Mauser when shooting cast lead bullets for target work.

I like using 2400 as well in my .45 Colt for medium loads.....

240gr "Keith" from Missouri Bullet Company, 20gr 2400, standard primer = 1200fps from a 4" barrel.

I should of added that I use 14 grains with a 245-250 grain cast bullet, for a nice lite load. I never have had issues with egnition either.

2400 is very dirty, and that is an understatement in all pistols that I have shot it in. Cylinder and barrel looks like you dumped corn flake crumbs in there. I used up my supply in 3" mag 12ga loads.

Seems a bit cleaner, the hotter you burn it. But you're right, it is dirty.

I remember as a lad, handloading .38 spec. for my K-38. I don't remember the load, but you can believe it was pretty hot. I'd eject a cylinder of empties and there was enough residue that the ejector wouldn't seat fully and I couldn't close the gun. I had to get a tooth brush and clean the granules of residue from under the ejector before is would full seat, allowing the cylinder to close.

2400 is the only powder that caused that problem.

DF

I have had the same issue, worked up a hot 38 special load consisting of 12 gr 2400 and 160 gr lead flat nose bullet. However in my 44 mag 10 gr of 2400 and a 240 swc seems to burn much cleaner.

this is a very correct assessment in the usage of 2400 powder.

a little over 30 years ago, i had selected 296/110 as my specific choice for magnum loads. however, since "everyone who was in the know" said that 2400 was "the powder" for .44 mag, i listened to their advice and i decided to try it too, and immediately abandoned it due to various issues that i had discovered, one of which DF has noted above.

i had also briefly used hs6 for midloads in .44 mag (and .454 casull)--a fabulous powder, but those granules--if unburned--were like tiny ball bearings under the ejector star, making it very difficult--and in some cases impossible--to close the cylinder in the reloading sequence...

while 2400 can be a serviceable .44 mag powder--there is much better to be had. i would liken using 2400 to something like employing an old remington typewriter to draft a paper, when a computer with word is readily available.

I like your typewriter analogy...

Elmer made 2400 the .44 mag powder. He liked it, but don't you know, ole Elmer used smokin' hot loads. Maybe burning it "Elmer hot" resulted in less residue...

In the Ruger .44's, residue was less of an issue. It definitely could get critical, accumulating under an S&W ejector star.

It would be really interesting to see how the gun writers of old would take to all the new powders we now have...

DF

aside from granules under the ejector star, two of the things that really bothered me about full charge loads with 2400 powder were;

that when run at full throttle thresholds--i noted somewhat sharper recoil with the 2400, as contrasted to 296. in addition, at the edge of those "ain't no more" power levels, the cases would often stick--whereas i've never experienced that situation with 110/296.

for a brief time, i tried blue dot powder in magnum loads. in my experience, it is definitely not a full power .44 mag propellant--due to it's peculiar tendency to exhibit pms. when consulting manuals, i noted that there were very significant differences for full charge recommendations in those differing manuals--(if i recall correctly), from about 14 grains in one manual to around 19 grains in another. conversely, it can be an excellent powder for mid-loads in the .44 magnum.

like tetracycline or ampicillin when faced with severe bronchitis--heavy pills and high doses of 110/296 propellant are great medicine in .44 mags...

Interesting that you say that as I have noted it as well. 296 has a different burning profile and spreads the recoil out over a few more milliseconds. They both have some decent recoil but 2400 recoil always felt faster at same velocity levels.


Trivia question: Who knows how 2400 got its name? No fair googling.

I could be wrong but I heard years ago it produced 2400fps in a hornet with 45 grain reloads

now just out of curiosity Ill look for the real info......

bingo ! I was right!

http://www.lasc.us/taylorpaco22hornet.htm

http://www.handloads.com/loaddata/d...mp;Weight=All&type=Rifle&Source=

http://www.nosler.com/22-caliber

http://www.shootingtimes.com/2011/01/04/ammunition_22hornet_082306/

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.