June 10, 2011, 08:12 PM | #1 |
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:
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 |
June 10, 2011, 08:20 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 20, 2011
Location: Willamina, OR
Posts: 1,908
|
I'd say 1, 2 and 4 are correct.
Tony |
June 10, 2011, 08:28 PM | #3 |
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. |
June 10, 2011, 09:43 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2008
Posts: 949
|
Quote:
|
|
June 10, 2011, 10:02 PM | #5 |
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 |
June 10, 2011, 10:45 PM | #6 |
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. |
June 10, 2011, 10:49 PM | #7 |
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" |
June 11, 2011, 08:33 AM | #8 |
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. |
June 11, 2011, 09:16 AM | #9 |
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. |
June 11, 2011, 10:57 AM | #10 |
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. |
June 11, 2011, 12:18 PM | #11 |
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 |
June 11, 2011, 12:33 PM | #12 | |
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:
|
|
June 11, 2011, 12:55 PM | #13 |
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. |
June 11, 2011, 02:44 PM | #14 |
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 |
June 11, 2011, 03:00 PM | #15 |
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?
|
June 11, 2011, 03:20 PM | #16 |
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 |
June 11, 2011, 05:26 PM | #17 |
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.
|
June 11, 2011, 07:41 PM | #18 |
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. |
June 11, 2011, 08:41 PM | #19 | |
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:
totaldla, I just read your notes on the 329PD. Excellent, informative summary.
__________________
People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice. |
|
June 12, 2011, 12:55 AM | #20 |
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! |
June 12, 2011, 03:40 AM | #21 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 1, 2007
Location: Idaho
Posts: 2,282
|
John Wayne?
|
June 12, 2011, 05:29 AM | #22 | |
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:
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. |
|
June 12, 2011, 08:09 AM | #23 |
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|