alliant 2400

gary rice · Post by **gary rice** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:51 am

it's been quite a few years since ive loaded 2400. whats the difference in the burning rate verses the old hercules 2400?

Ravenman · Post by **Ravenman** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:54 am

Seems to burn a little faster now.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:55 am

I think Alliant bought out the entire Hercules line, and IIRC the powders were unchanged.

Let's wait though for better opinions/knowledge - I'm interested too!

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:57 am

From what I can tell from shooting the stuff, not much.
Near as I can figure if they'ld of changed 2400 that much they'ld call it 2500

There has been a seriuous lowering of acceptable pressures in the 357 and some othersin the newer load data, but the powder shoots the same in my guns as it has for a looooongg time.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:18 pm

From my experience the new stuff seems to leave behind less unburned kernels, and it produces a bit more flash.

As for how it performs I can't tell the difference.

As always when changing powders start low and work up.

Joe

gary rice · Post by **gary rice** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:31 pm

yeah, sounds like it might be a tad faster than it used to be. 25-30 years ago i used to load 22-23 grains of it behind a 240 grain bullet in both 44 mag and 45 colt in ruger revolvers. i just loaded a batch using 17.5 grains. im hoping it will burn a little cleaner than imr 4227.

mac45 · Post by **mac45** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:34 pm

So far I've only been using it in .357's, but yes, it seems to burn cleaner than IMR4227

Papa · Post by **Papa** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:48 pm

Jessie Clark, http://www.tennesseevalleybullets.com/ and I did some test on this very subject earlier this year. We were using 3 different Smiths in 357 and comparing like loads in both 38 spl and 357. The biggest difference in velocity on one revolver was 80fps faster for the new powder, but to be honest we found more variance between revolvers for the same load than we did from new and old powder loads.

Papa

jdad · Post by **jdad** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:25 pm

When I can afford it I use VV N110 because it will give almost the same exact velocities per grain weight, but without the flash, blast, and mess.

........but 2400 is still my go-to powder for pistol calibers. I've noticed no difference over the years.

jd45 · Post by **jd45** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:39 pm

I had heard the newer was different in burn rate, but I seem to recall a thread on Sixgunner.com on this subject. I guy talked to an Alliant tech, who said there was no difference, IIRC. Might be a good idea to contact Alliant Powder & ask, for the peace of mind. jd45

PPpastordon · Post by **PPpastordon** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:18 pm

Burning rates as compared to older 2400, well, I just do not know. However, I am certain the max loads for the .44 mag have been reduced twice in the years I have been using it in my .44's - since the mid 1960's. Once was when the recommended max pressures for the mag was cut and again when it was reported to have been changed to a faster burning powder.

I once read the powder was not faster. However, the change to pezio (spelling) sensors for pressure in psi (instead of cup) showed that even the reduced pressure was too high. Bad part is I do not remember where I read that.

Became a moot point for me as I rarely need the power levels produced by max 2400 loads. Wrist problems/wrist surgery cured me.

Marlin .35 · Post by **Marlin .35** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 1:16 am

Recently loaded up some .45 Colt, with the Cast Performance 265gr WFNGC, and 2400. I can detece no difference at all!!! Art