Enforcer = 2400 ?

[Nick_C_S]

Hello folks.

For some time I've been out of 2400 and it's time to find a substitute. With some research and known availability, I bought a # of Ramshot Enforcer.

I was wondering if anyone has any experience with it in 357 Magnum? And whether or not to use magnum primers?

I opened my newly purchased canister of it to make sure it was good (smelled proper). It was produced in late '22 and the only previous experience I have with Ramshot propellants was a # of Silhouette I bought some years back, and it was the only powder I've ever had that went bad. I know one has nothing to do with the other, but my subconscious wouldn't allow that kind of rational thinking .

Anyway, upon looking at it, I was VERY surprised to see how fine of a ball powder it is. The granules are about the size of AA#2 (tiny), but they are round balls - like W296.

So it's a ball powder (probably says so on the label ), and it got me wondering if I should use magnum primers. So any input would be appreciated.

BTW: I have W296 and 300 MP. I do not consider either one to be a "substitute" for 2400. They're not the same. 2400 is a touch faster and is much better suited for lighter bullets and/or shorter barrels. I only use W296 with 158gn bullets, and only rarely do I shoot them through my shorter barreled revolvers - it's just too "boomy" for anything else IMO. And 300-MP is only suitable for my rifles (Henry 357, Marlin 44).

[totaldla]

Enforcer IS NOT 2400.

Think of Enforcer as faster than H110/W296 but slower than 2400.

AA9 and 2400 are very close as far as loads go, but 2400 is a flake and AA9 is a ball powder.

Enforcer is equivalent to AA4100. Enforcer is slower than 2400, and unlike 2400 works best with a magnum primer.

I use Enforcer for 44mag.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by totaldla

Enforcer is equivalent to AA4100.

They are the same powder.

[Nick_C_S]

Enforcer IS NOT 2400.

totaldla: I know it's not. I apologize for the title of my post - it's a bit misleading, now that I read it again.

Think of Enforcer as faster than H110/W296 but slower than 2400.

Thank you. Good to know.

AA9 and 2400 are very close as far as loads go, but 2400 is a flake and AA9 is a ball powder.

Thank you. Also good to know.

Enforcer . . . unlike 2400 works best with a magnum primer.

Excellent! That was my real question. I will use magnum primers (I don't with 2400). And yes, thanks again. And now, if we could ever get some decent weather here in the Twin Falls area . . .

They (Enforcer and 4100) are the same powder.

I was today years old when I learned that. So thank you to you (74A95) too. That's also good to know because my LGS has 4# containers of 4100. If these load work ups (w/ 125's, 140's, & 158's) pan out, I'll grab a 4-pounder.

[Name of One Who Uses]

I've used LOTS of 4100/Enforcer in my .30 Carbine loadings and as someone else mentioned, it's probably a tad faster than H110/W296. And yes, it is significantly slower than 2400.
While I've found no direct replacement for 2400, I Accurate TCM to be quite close. In my .41 Magnum's it takes about 1gr. more of TCM to achieve the same velocity as 2400. Best of all it can be had CHEAP. I bought a 5 lb. jug from www.wholesalehunter.com for $110, which works out to $22 per lb. Even after HAZMAT and shipping it was a steal.

[totaldla]

Originally Posted by Name of One Who Uses

I've used LOTS of 4100/Enforcer in my .30 Carbine loadings and as someone else mentioned, it's probably a tad faster than H110/W296. And yes, it is significantly slower than 2400.
While I've found no direct replacement for 2400, I Accurate TCM to be quite close. In my .41 Magnum's it takes about 1gr. more of TCM to achieve the same velocity as 2400. Best of all it can be had CHEAP. I bought a 5 lb. jug from www.wholesalehunter.com for $110, which works out to $22 per lb. Even after HAZMAT and shipping it was a steal.

That info on TCM is good to know as I never did know what TCM could be used for. And being cheap, I love finding5 those powders that aren't well known and thus cheaper.

[Unclenick]

When Western had the Ramshot line, they claimed they used a more modern deterrent chemistry that didn't require magnum primers. The St. Mark's formulas are older tech. However, if Hodgdon has consolidated 4100 and Enforcer, I don't know which one's source is being used, so be prepared to try it with both standard and magnum primers.

[jetinteriorguy]

Originally Posted by totaldla

That info on TCM is good to know as I never did know what TCM could be used for. And being cheap, I love finding5 those powders that aren't well known and thus cheaper.

Hmm, I wonder if TCM is for use in .22TCM. I haven’t totally given up on loading TCM yet and if that’s what this powder is aimed at it would be nice to know. Although the market for a specific powder for the.22TCM would seem pretty small to design a powder specifically for it makes this pretty unlikely.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by jetinteriorguy

Hmm, I wonder if TCM is for use in .22TCM.

What does the manufacturer/distributor say about it?

[Nick_C_S]

. . . so be prepared to try it with both standard and magnum primers.

I already loaded my first test batch using magnum primers. 5 rounds each @ 12.5gn, 12.8gn, & 13.1gn - using Everglades 158 JHP.

Test gun will be my 4" 686.

When I see a ball powder, I head immediately thinks magnum primers - it's Pavlovian .

That said, I'm willing to try standard primers a little farther down the work up process.

[totaldla]

Originally Posted by jetinteriorguy

Hmm, I wonder if TCM is for use in .22TCM.

Funny!

Western load data for 357mag, 41mag, 45 Colt - probably too slow for 10mm. Certainly would work for 44mag.

$126 to my doorstep for 5lbs - very good price.

[black mamba]

.22 TCM is exactly what TCM powder was created for. It just happens to have a great application for large bore magnums as well. Not sure why they have data for .41 mag and .45 Colt but none for .44 magnum, but I aim to find out if it works for the .44.

https://hodgdonpowderco.com/wp-conte...data_TCM-1.pdf

[Nick_C_S]

Spring is finally getting the upper hand here so I was able to test my first rounds using Enforcer. Just to recap: 158 JHP. magnum primers. 5 round samples. 686 4" test gun . . .

12.5gn: 1108 f/s
12.8gn: 1142 f/s
13.1gn: 1145 f/s

Small sample size of course. This was just the very starting point and I don't like pulling bullets - so I always start cautiously. These were weak - definitely - as one would expect at the beginning of the work up. No surprises are good.

The next step will be 10 round (maybe 12) samples at 13.1, 13.4, & 13.7. On following tests, I like to "overlap" the previous test's highest charge - just to see how consistent I'm dialing in my scale, etc.