Finally shot that old can of 2400

[spacecoast]

Back in January I posted that I had found a really old can of Alliant 2400 that appeared to be in good shape despite the obvious age of the can, which looked to be post-WWII, maybe as "young" as the mid-1950s. I'm not advocating that anyone else should make the same decision, but since the powder looked to be in such good shape, and still smelled sweet, I decided to load up a dozen rounds and see if it would still shoot.

Alliant doesn't offer nearly as much information as Hodgdon, so I looked on various reloading sites for lowest level .357 loads I could find. I finally found a .38 sp +P charge for a 158 grain bullet that called for ~8 grains under a 158 grain JHP to yield around 920 fps. Alliant said that 14.6 grains would yield 1265 fps, so I went in between and used 9.0 grains under a 158 gr. plated Berry's bullet.

To be extra safe, I used my very stout N-frame S&W 28-2 to shoot these rounds. Happily, they shot just fine and I checked after each round to make sure I could find the bullet strike on the target. Accuracy was very good at 25 yards and recoil as as expected (pretty tame in the large gun). Like other light loads, there were some unburned powder grains that I noticed after bringing the gun down.

My next use of this powder will be some "standard" 158 gr. JHP loads with around 14.5 grains of powder. I've transferred it to Tupperware for dipping and the can now joins my collectibles.

Will standard primers do the job or should I go to magnum primers such as are recommended for H110?

[jepp2]

Will standard primers do the job or should I go to magnum primers such as are recommended for H110?

Why would you use the primer for H110/W296 for 2400 powder?

I only use standard primers for 2400, but it is your call. What primer was used in the load you are using in the manual?

[spacecoast]

Why would you use the primer for H110/W296 for 2400 powder?

I don't see a particular grade primer called out in my sources, and since H110 and 2400 are both used for higher-end .357 loads I was thinking maybe 2400 might appreciate the more energetic primer (like the H110 does).

[jepp2]

My experience is that 2400 NEVER needs a magnum primer.

H110/W296 ALWAYS need a magnum primer.

Your experience may vary.

[spacecoast]

Sounds good, thanks for the help.

[Nick_C_S]

I've got nothing to add.

Except that's such a cool story. It's neat that powders can stay preserved that long (under the right conditions).

[Salmoneye]

I find only one load using 2400 at .38spcl pressures...

I would not take 2400 that low, but I know people have and will...

Here is a copy of the old Alliant 2004 paper manual when they gave a lot more data than the website or current paper manual...

Start on page 42:

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachmen...7&d=1364769070

[chiefr]

Had an ancient can of Bullseye similar to yours I bought at a flea market half full. All of it worked as advertised.
Also have a full can of HS 5 that I need to use. Quit making HS 5 around 30 years ago from what I can tell. Powder looks new.

Another person I know inherited reloading supplies from his grandfather to include powder & primers. Primers were in wood & cardboard boxes. He said around 70 years old and ended up using every bit of it. No problems.

It is all about how powder is stored. Would have done the same thing, used it.

[Goatwhiskers]

Not to belabor a point, but that's Hercules 2400, not Alliant. Definitely old, but is the same stuff. I'm working on the last of mine. You can use Alliant data, usual rules- start low and work up. GW

[Airman Basic]

Put the empty can up for sale. Folks on here buy that stuff.

[WIL TERRY]

THAT is not ALLIANT, that is HERCULES !

[Salmoneye]

In retrospect, I suppose I should have posted a Hercules manual...

http://www.castpics.net/LoadData/Fre...rcules1992.pdf

Mea Culpa

[spacecoast]

Salmoneye -

Thanks very much for that load data. Whether Hercules or Alliant, the load data seems to be the same. I also plan to use it for .44 special and .44 mag. I won't push the envelope (~10% reduction).

[Mike Irwin]

Good to know you didn't blow up.

I would suggest moving it OUT of the plastic container, though.

Gunpowder and plastics can interact, especially if the powder is in the early stages of breaking down and releasing nitric acid.

Put it back into the original tin with a powder funnel, and pour it into a bowl or container when you are loading with it.


In the days when powder choices were a LOT narrower, 2400 was a standard .38 Special powder. My old Speer and Lyman manuals have quite a few recipes.

[Mike Irwin]

"THAT is not ALLIANT, that is HERCULES !"

It's the same powder, made on the same machinery, just by a company with a different name.

[Mike Irwin]

"H110/W296 ALWAYS need a magnum primer."

Not in my experience.

It just needs loading density and crimp. Lots of crimp.

[griz]

I didn't realize they called 2400 a Rifle powder back then. I guess the Hornet and maybe the 25-20 were more common than magnum handguns at the time?

[Mike Irwin]

2400 was introduced several years before the first Magnum handgun cartridge, the .357 Magnum (1935).

It seems to have been introduced around the same time as the .22 Hornet, which would have been 1929-1930 or so.

Cans of 2400 were still labeled "Rifle" powder into the 1960s, when the "push pop top" can was in use.


When it was introduced, Unique was also called a rifle powder.

[Mike Irwin]

Hey Spacecoast!

Just found a new advertisement that conclusively nails the date of your powder can...

This ad is from 1952, and shows the type of can that you have.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-HERCULE...item56613c3d82

Unfortunately that ad shows the SIDE of the can, not the front, which is a bit odd, but I guess they wanted to emphasize the cautions.

Be sure to click on it to zoom and read the descriptive text.

[spacecoast]

Mike -

Very cool, thanks! Your estimate of post-war to early '50s was right on target.

I bought the ad to have the documentation. Maybe I'll find some more cans of that vintage when I clean out that old reloading room this summer! That one happened to be sitting in plain sight on the bench.

Since the ad isn't visible any more, I will post pics of it when I receive it.

[Mike Irwin]

Excellent. I should charge a finder's fee!

[44flattop]

It's the same powder, made on the same machinery, just by a company with a different name.

Most believe the newer Alliant powder to be a tad hotter than the old Hercules. Which is why the old Keith .44Spl load is usually backed off a half grain.

2400 was introduced several years before the first Magnum handgun cartridge, the .357 Magnum (1935).

1932 to be exact.

[Mike Irwin]

"1932 to be exact."

I'm finding dates all over the place in different literature, from 1928 to 1934. The only date I've not come across is 1931.

But, I sort of doubt an introduction date any later than 1930. The .22 Hornet was introduced publicly in 1930, to replace the older .22 Winchester Center Fire. Winchester and Alliant worked closely together to develop what would become 2400 as there were no truly suitable powders for such a cartridge at that time.

I sort of doubt that 2400 is any hotter or colder than it's ever been -- but pressure testing equipment is more accurate than it's ever been, and lawyers are a lot more aggressive.

What most people don't know is that 2400, Unique, Bullseye, and several other powders made by Hercules/Alliant are the exact same powder base, all stemming from the original Infaliable shotshell powder of the late 1880s.

The differences between the powders are in the finishing -- the size of the flake, the thickness, and the deterrent coatings.

[44flattop]

I sort of doubt an introduction date any later than 1930.

According to Phil Sharpe's "Complete Guide to Handloading", it was introduced in 1932 and not released as a canister powder to handloaders until 1933. Being instrumental in the .357's development, he probably knew a thing or two about the premier magnum pistol powder of the era.

I sort of doubt that 2400 is any hotter or colder than it's ever been -- but pressure testing equipment is more accurate than it's ever been, and lawyers are a lot more aggressive.

I sort of doubt that John Taffin and Brian Pearce would've tested and written about it if there weren't some merit. Either way, half a grain less than Keith's .44Spl load yields the same velocity.

[Mike Irwin]

I've found errors in Sharpe's materials before, so I wouldn't go 100% with him, but that's another piece of the puzzle.

Regarding Taffin and Pearce, I'm not familiar with their material on the subject.

But, if you look at the general trend for almost all powders over the last 50 to 75 years, those that are still with us have pretty universally trended downwards in their loading data, with most of that coming in the last 25 years.