The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 10, 2011, 08:12 PM   #1
frumious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 13, 2009
Location: Carrollton TX
Posts: 521
Elmer's 44mag load

I am reading "Letters from Elmer Keith". Several times he mentions his favorite 44mag load - 22 grains of 2400 under his 240 grain bullet. That's 1.4 grains over max listed in both of my reloading manuals (Lyman 49th and Lee 2nd). What's up? Is it:
  • Lawyered-up reloading manuals these days
  • 2400 was different in the "old days"
  • Guns were stronger in the "old days"
  • Elmer Keith just didn't give a damn
  • Something else

I must admit, that when I read his statement "I don't mind recoil of 44 at all shoot it same as 22 but lot of lillie fingers gents do almost cry when they shoot it", I decided to up my 44mag load one batch at a time from 18 grains to of 2400 to 19, 20, and finally 20.5. My momma didn't raise no girls (although she wanted one).



-cls
frumious is offline  
Old June 10, 2011, 08:20 PM   #2
Geezerbiker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2011
Location: Willamina, OR
Posts: 1,908
I'd say 1, 2 and 4 are correct.

Tony
Geezerbiker is offline  
Old June 10, 2011, 08:28 PM   #3
wncchester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2002
Posts: 2,832
Elmer not only was an excellant hunter and innate writer. He was a very experienced, knowledgable and careful reloader. Most other people are not, so anyone going straight to his max loads - or anyone elses - as if the same loads will be safe for the rest of us would be a bad mistake.

Within the normal narrow burn ranges of cannister powders, neither 2400 or any other powder is 'different' today. Not only is that unnecessary but it would be foolish for the powder makers to slip in a new powder under an old name. If/when the makers wish to introduce a new powder they give it a new name an label it as such.
wncchester is offline  
Old June 10, 2011, 09:43 PM   #4
Loader9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2008
Posts: 949
Quote:
Within the normal narrow burn ranges of cannister powders, neither 2400 or any other powder is 'different' today. Not only is that unnecessary but it would be foolish for the powder makers to slip in a new powder under an old name. If/when the makers wish to introduce a new powder they give it a new name an label it as such.
With all respect, you've never been more wrong. Unique is a different formulation and the old data is no longer valid. As I found out last week, AA#9 has also been changed with a 4% increase in nitro in the formulation. All of the old powders have pretty much under gone reformulations to make them cleaner burning and more stable. Old data is just that, old. If you are still using Hercules powders, you can use the old data but if it's Alliant, you'd better be using new data. But I'll be the first to agree that if the formula changes, they should change the name.
Loader9 is offline  
Old June 10, 2011, 10:02 PM   #5
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
I think Unique is the same as it's always been (just a little less graphite now) but Alliant 2400 is a little different (faster) than Hercules 2400.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth
zxcvbob is offline  
Old June 10, 2011, 10:45 PM   #6
reloader28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2009
Location: nw wyoming
Posts: 1,061
I have a friend that has a Lyman book, like #8 or #10 (or somewhere in there).
If you compare the loads in that book to the new books you would see a HUGE difference.
Some of the older minimum loads are over the modern maximum loads.
Its a good idea to keep some fairly new manuals.
There IS some differences in the powder, even from batch to batch. Thats why I like to use 8lb kegs of powder instead of 1lb canisters. That and I dont have to run to town all the time to get more.

Last edited by reloader28; June 10, 2011 at 11:08 PM.
reloader28 is offline  
Old June 10, 2011, 10:49 PM   #7
WESHOOT2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 1999
Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country)
Posts: 14,324
gassing off

Mr. Keith was immune to recoil (because he said he shot 600 rds the first year).

2400 is different today.

Lawyers do not develop load data.

And the ever-true ".....in MY gun....."
__________________
.
"all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"
WESHOOT2 is offline  
Old June 11, 2011, 08:33 AM   #8
Rifleman1776
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 3,309
Reloading manuals are only a guide. You must test loads in your gun and not assume those loads are fine in every gun. Middle of the road moderate loads are OK to switch but not max.
I load for my .44 mag. Ruger Redhawk.
Some 'book' max loads show signs of excess pressure.
Some loads fire very well even when pushed considerably beyond 'book' max.
What Elmer Keith did is only significant for what HE did.
Work up your loads carefully and test with each increment increase.
Rifleman1776 is offline  
Old June 11, 2011, 09:16 AM   #9
Sarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 5,453
I used to shoot the 'Elmer load' (remove cowboy hats, kick dirt with toe of boot and light cigar now, heathens) pretty regularly.. It's rather noticeable in a 4" model 29, but certainly no worse than 300's at 1250-1300. The simple fact is that his 250 grain .44 Special load was capable for the vast majority of heavy sixgun needs.

The development of powders like H110 and W296 made it possible to attain 'Elmer load' performance at lower pressures. It also meters better. 2400 is and was an excellent powder, though.

Elmer used what he had at his disposal, to bring us the first factory-produced big-bore magnum handgun round. He also fiddled with 45-70 bullets in the Colt SAA, and wrecked a few in the process. This branded him as a nut in certain circles but it's important to remember his ultimate goals-

1. bigbore sixgun loads which could be counted on to break the shoulders down on heavy game

2. which could be used in packable revolvers, in indefinite numbers, without wrecking the gun

Elmer didn't give a damn about anything but results.
__________________
People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice.
Sarge is offline  
Old June 11, 2011, 10:57 AM   #10
wncchester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2002
Posts: 2,832
" But I'll be the first to agree that if the formula changes, they should change the name. "

Note that I didn't mention 'formulation"changes, if the burn rate is the same it's effectively the same powder even if they switch from nytroglicerin to nytromethane, high or soot vs. low soot. For cannister powders, it's all the same burn rate it's always been, why should the makers change it?

Changing the front sign on the St. Marks plant from Hercules to Alliant had no effect on the powders they produce.
wncchester is offline  
Old June 11, 2011, 12:18 PM   #11
moxie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 513
I've reloaded a lot of Bullseye, Unique, and 2400 in both Hercules and Alliant dress. Never noticed any difference between the old and new.

FWIW, 20.0 grs. 2400 under 240 JHP was always enough for me, even out of a Redhawk.

Most of the changes in the newer manuals are due to better ways of measuring pressure and velocity, not to changes in the powders themselves. Developers have a much more accurate handle on the amount of powder it takes to push a given bullet at a given speed, out of a given gun; and, what the resulting pressure is. So, the latest loads are likely to be more precise.
__________________
If you want to shoot...shoot...don't talk! Tuco

USAF Munitions 1969-1992
RVN 1972-1973
moxie is offline  
Old June 11, 2011, 12:33 PM   #12
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,486
There have been some changes not related to powder manufacture.
Elmer loaded a 250 grain cast SWC, not a 240, not a JHP. With his wide front band and big nose, it probably still had as much powder space as a 240, if not more.
Elmer loaded with standard primers, not the magnums Speer and some others say.

Quote:
Changing the front sign on the St. Marks plant from Hercules to Alliant had no effect on the powders they produce.
I always thought the St Marks plant was built by Olin/Winchester to make Ball powders. Now owned by General Dynamics. (Same as IMR in Canada.)
Jim Watson is offline  
Old June 11, 2011, 12:55 PM   #13
wncchester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2002
Posts: 2,832
"I always thought the St Marks plant was built by Olin/Winchester to make Ball powders. Now owned by General Dynamics. "

May be, now. Last time I went across US 98 and passed the plant just east of Wakulla Springs the sign said Hercules but I guess that was maybe 45 years ago.
wncchester is offline  
Old June 11, 2011, 02:44 PM   #14
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,274
wnnchester,if you want to convince yourself,use the load data from the old
po Ackley books of the 60's for say,4895 in a 30-06.
But,don't hold the rifle,you might get hurt.Same with H-4831 ,say 70 gr in a 7mm Rem mag(danger,don't load70 gr).That used to be my 160 Sierra load,and it was published.
The recipe changes as they improve powder.Sometimes that means the same pressure with less charge.I recall old 2400 as being a dirty powder.Good,but it left coal in your gun.Is it cleaner now?How much did the dirt weigh?
Anyway,its hard to beat H-110/296
HiBC is offline  
Old June 11, 2011, 03:00 PM   #15
totaldla
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 10, 2009
Location: SW Idaho
Posts: 1,280
If Elmer wiped his butt with a pine cone, would you follow suit?
totaldla is offline  
Old June 11, 2011, 03:20 PM   #16
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
Not the same pine cone
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth
zxcvbob is offline  
Old June 11, 2011, 05:26 PM   #17
Joker0370
Member
 
Join Date: August 24, 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 19
I think i read somewhere, that books publish data that is safe for most guns, so my question is what kind of gun was he using with that load? I belive the thinking was that some guns were a bit tougher than others, and would be able to handle a stronger load, but if they published the max load for those guns, people would get confused and have a ka-boom with a 'published max load' that wouldn't be safe for their pistol. As with anything else, some people like to push it a little farther than what others consider safe, and get away with it forever. Other's try it once, an it ends in a problem. Like any other experiment, work up your load carefully, look at your results, make adjustments, repeat, and keep good notes.
Joker0370 is offline  
Old June 11, 2011, 07:41 PM   #18
hooligan1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2010
Location: Independence Missouri
Posts: 4,582
Elmer shot 4 running jackrabbits with one shot from that 44 mag,, at one hundred yds!!!! yeah if he said pine cone I'd doit!!!
__________________
Keep your Axe sharp and your powder dry.
hooligan1 is offline  
Old June 11, 2011, 08:41 PM   #19
Sarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 5,453
Elmer used the basic S&W Model 29, with 4 and 6 1/2 inch barrels, for the vast majority of his .44 Mag shooting. I never heard the four jackrabbits tale but Ross Seyfried wrote the best account of Keith's shooting ability in the forward to Gun Notes, Volume I:

Quote:
" Keith was the best shot I have ever known. He was perhaps the only man who ever existed that was a complete master of all three shooting disciplines. Keith could push a rifle, shotgun or handgun to its limits. To those who wonder if his feats were fact or fiction, I can say without reservation they were fact. I watched him shoot. Even as an old man, he expected to be able to make the difficult or impossible shot. While sitting on his horse at eighty yards distant, I saw him shoot a porcupine offhand with his 44 magnum. Many men I know could have made the shot, but only one would not bother to look back at the result. Elmer Keith knew the bullets had hit when the hammer fell. Elmer Keith "was there". "


totaldla, I just read your notes on the 329PD. Excellent, informative summary.
__________________
People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice.
Sarge is offline  
Old June 12, 2011, 12:55 AM   #20
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,274
One of my treasures,a memory.My former spouse and I were visitind a friend of hers in Salmon,Idaho.I mentioned Elmer's name.This woman was an old family friend of Elmers.She called him.and soon I was with Elmer in his trophy room,drinking coffee with Elmer.In my experience,he was a gracious host,and a great man to talk guns with.
When boys are not initiated into being a man by older men,they remain boys who resent old men.
This is my understanding of those who trash our founding fathers,John Wayne,Jeff Cooper,and Elmer Keith.Sux to be you,boys.Read "Hell.I was There" to get some idea of what that man lived.
Elmer,I remember you!
HiBC is offline  
Old June 12, 2011, 03:40 AM   #21
salvadore
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 1, 2007
Location: Idaho
Posts: 2,282
John Wayne?
salvadore is offline  
Old June 12, 2011, 05:29 AM   #22
PawPaw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2010
Location: Central Louisiana
Posts: 3,137
I'm afraid that in my pistol I would find Elmer's load a bit stiff. I load 19.0 grains of 2400 under a 240 grain bullet and find it quite acceptable at 1350 fps for my purposes.

What I shoot the most of is a .44 Special load I call Skeeter's Load. I found it in an old 1969 article from Shooting Times and ... well.. I"ll let Skeeter tell you.

Quote:
Because the 429421 plain base has never given me any leading problems in my .44 guns, I choose it over the 429244 and save the trouble and expense incurred by the gascheck. Since the introduction of the .44 Magnum, I have quit using heavy handloads in the .44 Special, and now put together a mild, but hotter-than-factory combination of the Keith bullet, sized .429”, over 7.5 gr. of Unique. Velocity runs around 940 fps, a definite improvement over the cream puff factory round. I use only solid head .44 Special cases, since the old balloon head versions are wont to stretch erratically, making trimming a requisite before a bullet with a crimping groove may be effectively used.
My updated version of this old load uses 7.5 grains of Unique under my 240 grain Lee TL430-240-SWC. I load them as-cast, with a coat of liquid alox and find that in my revolver, they run over the chronograph at 970 fps. I've found that this load is sufficient for about 95% of the big bore shooting I want to do, so I shoot a lot more of it than I do the magnum load.

Many thanks to the owners of the Dark Canyon.net website for making Skeeter's writings available to the world. I see that the owner, Bill Roser, has been diagnosed with a brain tumor, and don't see any updates on his site since his wife posted in October 2010.
__________________
Dennis Dezendorf

http://pawpawshouse.blogspot.com
PawPaw is offline  
Old June 12, 2011, 08:09 AM   #23
hooligan1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2010
Location: Independence Missouri
Posts: 4,582
I second , third, fourth, and fifth, that HiBC!!!! +1000 "Hell I wished I would of been right there also"!!! Great book and a great read!!! I'm going straight down to my mothers and get my dads copy and read it again for the fifth or sixth time!
__________________
Keep your Axe sharp and your powder dry.
hooligan1 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.11600 seconds with 8 queries