New vs. Old 2400 numbers

[parson45]

Back from my so-called vacation and trying to catch up.

As promised previously, here are the numbers from the old vs. new 2400 test. There are flaws in the test. I started using mixed brass, which normally causes me no trouble, but there were some Remington cases in the can that were shorter than all the others, therefore, their crimp wasn’t as good and my extreme spreads widened. When I used Starline brass only, and the ES numbers improved immensely. Also, I started with my 4 5/8ths inch 50th Anniversary Flattop, but when I decided to test the original Keith/Lyman bullet, I found it was too long for the chamber. I then went to a 4 5/8ths inch Blackhawk. I also used the Blackhawk for testing Elmer’s original load of 15.5 grains, which every manual published today says is too stout. The 14.0 load is my standard load and is considered maximum by my more modern manuals.

This is what happened in my guns. All the loads were safe. None showed excess pressure. In MY guns. Work up slowly in YOUR guns. I DO NOT recommend the original Keith load. Use any of these data at your own risk.

168 grain Keith from Leadhead, 14.0 New 2400, mixed brass
Flattop
1206 fps ES 194.9
Rossi 20” Carbine
1676 fps ES 97.37

Same with Starline Brass
Flattop
1265 fps ES 64.98
Rossi
1722 fps ES 51.25

168 Keith 14.0 Old 2400, Starline Brass
Flattop
1289 fps ES 35.32
Rossi
1667 fps ES 80.95

168 Keith 15.5 Old 2400, WSP, Starline brass
Blackhawk
1392 fps ES 52.14
Rossi
1843 fps ES 36.43

173 grain Keith 358429 from Western Bullet Co.
15.5 New 2400, WSP, Starline brass
Blackhawk
1387 fps ES 58.14
Rossi
1869 fps ES 34.43

I’ve seen lot-to-lot differences that were greater than the Old vs. New. I’ll do the same with Unique when time allows. I actually expect to see a greater difference in Unique. This was just a chrono session, and no group testing was done, however, my normal load, the 14.0 with Leadhead 168, groups 2 1/2" at 25 yards from the bench in the 4 5/8ths Blackhawk. For younger eyes, it would probably group even better.

[Deleted]

Interesting results. I appreciate the data. If I recall isn't the old 2400 a little slower burning than the new?

[parson45]

Sept 17, 2009 11:17:57 GMT -5 @bigbore454 said:

Interesting results. I appreciate the data. If I recall isn't the old 2400 a little slower burning than the new?

From these results, I would say apparantly not. I would say there is very little, if any, difference. I've had more difference in lots and in comparing chrono session to chrono session.

[J Miller]

parson45,

Are you going to do any old vs new 2400 in .45 Colts? I'd really like to see what Elmer Keith's 18.5grs w/ a 265 or so grain K SWC would be with the powders.

Your chronograph results with the .357s pretty much coincides with my seat of the pants shooting results. I can't tell any difference.
Well, yes I can but not in the loads performance. The three differences I found was the old 2400 I had ( small square metal can vintage ) was a bit dirtier, and it took more of it to reach the same weight as a weighed charge of the new powder, and it produced a bigger brighter muzzle flash.
None of those are anything to be concerned over.

Thanks for taking the time to do this, I'm gonna stay tuned for the Unique tests. My seat of the pants shooting has shown me the same things as the 2400 powder did.

Joe

[parson45]

Joe, I used up my last little can of 2400 for this test. All I have now is the new. I really wouldn't expect any difference in 44s or 45s.

[Deleted]

So what is supposed to be the difference? I always heard the old 2400 had a slightly slower burn rate.

[parson45]

The real difference is cleaner burning and less muzzle flash. It still needs a firm crimp, however.

[J Miller]

Sept 18, 2009 9:19:33 GMT -5 parson45 said:

The real difference is cleaner burning and less muzzle flash. It still needs a firm crimp, however.

This is absolutely a fact. I've coached a couple shooters who had much dirt left over from 2400 to tighten up the case tension and use a really firm crimp.
When they did the dirtiness reduced to almost nothing.

Unique is the same way.

Joe

[bigmuddy]

Parson

Interesting test for sure. I like everyone probably keep reading that the "new" 2400 needs to be backed off from the "old" loads.

A friend of mine and I have been comparing load data with 2400, 250 gr Keith bullets, and Lipsey's 44 specials. His 2400 is "old" and mine is "new". My velocities are higher than his by quite a bit, with the same loads. Of course this is in different guns, different chronographs, etc.

We have planned a camping trip the first weekend of October, and were going to do some side by side testing. We will even compare our Chrony's as that can be an issue too.

That is a couple weeks away, but I can post the results of our little test.

[parson45]

Also make sure you're using the same amount of crimp (Elmer insisted on a FIRM crimp with 2400) and the same primers. I never use magnum primers with pistol cartridges. Years ago, I used mag primers with 2400 because the Speer manual indicated them. My load results were very disappointing. When I read that Elmer Keith didn't use them, I tried the loads again with standard primers, and the performance began to equal what Keith said they would do.

I've also had differences in the same gun with the same load made at the same time but chrono'ed at different times. Check out the thread Quick Chrono Session. That day my 14.0 w/168 load gave me 1285 fps average, on the session for this thread, my first try was 1206 with the same mixed brass of the 1285 of a few days before.

[bigmuddy]

Here are my results comparing the old and the new 2400 in 44 Special. This is with 17.0 gr 2400 and 250 gr Keith bullet.

New:

1206 fps with ES 47

Old:

1105 fps with ES 55

I did not load the rounds myself with the old 2400, but the crimp looked similar in both. The bullets were the same 250 gr Keith style.

The only other variable was the primer. Those loaded with the old 2400 were with WW primers, and mine with the new were with Federal 150's.

These are out of my 5 1/2" gun. The same loads out of the 4 5/8" were around 30 fps slower, but the same results...about 100 fps different between the old and the new 2400.