Old can of 2400

[Mike Irwin]

One of the biggest problems with early (infancy) smokeless powder production was that it was an entirely new manufacturing process and not well understood.

Some batches of nitro powders would start to decay within days of production, and sometimes resulted in fires.

Some years ago I read that it wasn't uncommon for the Army to reject 4 out of 5 lots of powder for the .30-40 Krag, primarily because the manufacturing process hadn't matured yet.

The Model 1894 Winchester was originally supposed to be rolled out with the .30-30 and .25-35 as smokeless companions to the black powder .32-40 and .38-55, but not enough of the new smokeless powder was available in 1894 due to the same kinds of production issues.


Not that long ago I, too, was quite dubious about the claims that smokeless would do anything other than get less powerful as it decayed.

Then Slamfire started posting from a multitude of resources, and I gave that a serious rethink.

[Slamfire]

Not that long ago I, too, was quite dubious about the claims that smokeless would do anything other than get less powerful as it decayed.

Then Slamfire started posting from a multitude of resources, and I gave that a serious rethink.

Well I am glad I am making a difference. On another website the “Ayatollah’s of Ignorance” have shouted me down concerning slamfires and primer sensitivities. Sometimes people just don’t want to know to know the risks. Also, this website has a higher concentration of technically, or even just College educated posters. On the other website where the average education is not much higher than "Monkey See, Monkey Do", big, dumb, Gorillas rule.

I, like everyone else thought that gunpowder went benign as it got older. But that is because our information sources are from the gun industry and they really don’t want us to get educated on things. They want us to buy, and buy without being picky about the age of the stuff we are buying.

It came as a shock to find that gunpowder not only ages, but the older stuff will blow up your firearm because of burn rate instability. As I found in my discussions with a Naval Insensitive Munitions expert, and then found DTIC documents which verified everything, old ammunition has its risks.

I have also been able to talk to people who provide flying targets to the military. These targets can be old aircraft and old, out of inventory missiles. The most common propellant used in missiles is solid propellant and it is based on the same stuff we use in gunpowder: Nitrocellulose. Unless you have direct contact with these guys you have no idea just how many of these old missiles malfunction. In September, the guy I was talking to, as a part of the tests he was involved with, one had gone short, one had blown up in flight, and one went long. These were all 100 mile plus trajectories so these were not bottle rockets. The missiles in question had been “certified” through inspection techniques, but guess what, there is considerable uncertainty about the quality of the propellant even after inspection. These missles were 30 years old.

From what I learned it is obvious that the turret explosion in the Iowa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion was due to old, decaying gunpowder that either self ignited, (because it was fuming), or the surface was sensitized due to nitroglycerine migration. Either way the turret explosion was due to old gunpowder. A little bit of education makes it obvious that the Navy's conclusion that the explosion was due to a gay Sailor (he was not) committing suicide (never proven) killing sixty some odd ships mates because he was depressed, somewhat ridiculous. http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO.../TWA/IOWA.html .

One should never take solid propellants for granted, especially in bulk. A gentleman I know was at a facility where the propellant for a new Peacekeeper missile went off. It is not really known if sawing through the chunks with a wire saw caused the propellant to self ignite, but that is the most likely cause, as no one was tossing matches or smoking in the test cell.


In 1982, a Peacekeeper stage 2 failed during a test at AEDC. This was a new booster being tested as a Production Assurance Quality Test. Ignition failure occurred during the burn test and approximately 60,000 lbs of unburnt propellant fell out of the booster into the bottom of the test cell. Aerojet, the booster maker, recommended that the unburnt propellant be cut with a wire saw and the chunks physically lifted out of the containment cell. Safety’s recommendation was to keep the propellant wet but this was not implemented. It is not known if keeping the propellant wet would have prevented the ignition of the last 30,000 lbs of propellant in the cell. Three Aerojet employees and one AEDC contract employee were in the cell when the propellant ignited.

This report confirms the accident but sort of dances around the issue of four dead people:

HAZARDS OF ALTITUDE TESTING AT AEDChttp://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a511703.pdf


Just a little static electricity can set a rocket off!

Technical Investigation of 11 January 1985 PERSHING II Motor Firehttp://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...f&AD=ADP005343

3 Gis Killed In Missile Accident:fuel Fireleaves 7 Injured
January 12, 1985|By James M. Markham, The New York Times

BONN — The solid-fuel motor of an unarmed Pershing 2 missile caught fire and burned during a training exercise in southern Germany Friday, killing three American soldiers and injuring seven others, the U.S. Army announced.
The accident was the most serious so far involving the American-built ballistic missiles, and it seemed certain to sharpen West German anxieties over the issue of nuclear weapons stationed in the country. The Pershings were first deployed in late 1983 after heated controversy in West Germany.

[joe45c]

can't be sure about the powder, but to can collectors, the can has some value.

[Mike Irwin]

Oddly enough, Slamfire, that bit about the missile propellant made me remember a scenario from Tom Clancey's Red Storm Rising, in which an Air Force pilot is told that the anti-satellite missile she's carrying under her F-15 SHOULD be OK.

She's told that the solid propellant has some microcracks in it, but when the propellant starts to decay the motor will just fizzle out.

When she gets back from her mission, she informs everyone that the rocket motor didn't fizzle out, it exploded and just about took out both her and her F-15...

[Jim243]

Sorry that I came to the party late, but that is not PISTOL powder, but old Herk 2400 RIFLE powder. It would not be a good idea to use it in 357 Mags - unless you have some of the old load data for a lever action rifle in 357 Mag.

Again "THIS IS NOT ALLIANT 2400 POWDER".

The pressure spike will be beyond what your revolver can handle.

Jim

[snuffy]

Sorry that I came to the party late, but that is not PISTOL powder, but old Herk 2400 RIFLE powder. It would not be a good idea to use it in 357 Mags - unless you have some of the old load data for a lever action rifle in 357 Mag.

Again "THIS IS NOT ALLIANT 2400 POWDER".

The pressure spike will be beyond what your revolver can handle.

Jim

Izzat right!??

Same stuff, whether it's Hercules or Alliant. When Alliant took over from Hercules, they made the same powder on the same machines to the same burn rate it had always been. See any words that say the SAME thing? 2400 powder is more versatile than you think it is. It's been used in .357, 41 mag, 44 mag .45 colt and many other handgun calibers. Yes, it works well in .22 hornet, .30 carbine and some other rifle cartridges.

I would at least try the O.P.'s powder in my ruger .357 mag, or 44 mag. At the lowest starting, IF it was fastER burning, it would not be dangerous.

[Mike Irwin]

"Sorry that I came to the party late, but that is not PISTOL powder, but old Herk 2400 RIFLE powder. It would not be a good idea to use it in 357 Mags - unless you have some of the old load data for a lever action rifle in 357 Mag.

Again "THIS IS NOT ALLIANT 2400 POWDER".

The pressure spike will be beyond what your revolver can handle."


Sorry, Jim, but that is incorrect.

You are correct that this is not Alliant 2400, but it is Hercules 2400, which is the same basic powder.

When 2400 was first introduced in the late 1920s or 1930s, it was intended first and foremost for small, modern smokeless rifle cartridges like the .22 Hornet and .218 Bee and also found use in .410 shotshell loads.

Cartridges like the .357 Magnum did not yet exist.

My Speer No. 3 reloading guide shows a picture of a can of 2400, which is clearly marked 2400 Rifle Powder.

However, in the propellant write up section it says: "Hercules 2400: This propellant is a good selection for small capacity rifle, large capacity pistol cartridges, and .410 shotshells."

No distinction is made between a 2400 rifle powder and a 2400 handgun powder, because there was none. It was the same propellant finding uses across a broad spectrum.

There are many powders that have had that capacity -- Red Dot, Unique, IMR 4227 (also developed specifically for the .22 Hornet), WW 296, and others as well.

In the loading data section, Speer Number 3 shows 2400 loads for not only .357 Magnum, but also .38 Special, .44 Special, .44 Magnum, and even the .45 Auto Rim.

[Pathfinder45]

What I noticed is that the back of the can mentions certain calibers, no doubt quite popular when the powder was sold. Not mentioned: 44 Magnum and 357 magnum. Makes me wonder if that can of powder is older than those two calibers. Pre-1935? I've used quite a bit of old powders and rejected a few. So far so good. Without actually examining the powder, I'd probably sprinkle that one in the garden. I've used some WWII surplus H-4831 and H-4895 recently that was in excellent condition and performed safely and well. I very much appreciate Slamfire's posts on this subject and intend to be discriminating about future purchases.

[Mike Irwin]

"Makes me wonder if that can of powder is older than those two calibers. Pre-1935?"

No, I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that it is post World War II.

John Taffin seems to describe the same type of can in an article here: http://americanhandgunner.com/web-blast-handloading/

But what Taffin doesn't describe is the art on the can.

Prior to World War II the graphics on the cans were significantly different than they were after the war, more like what is on this can of Unique: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Bull...-/221359529386

It appears that after the war the color schemes became simpler and less vibrant (the 1950s were the era of pastels), sort of like these early 1960s cans: http://www.ebay.com/itm/5-Vintage-Gu...-/321303351560

[spacecoast]

Mike -

I would have also guessed the can to be from post-WWII as the gentleman from whose estate I received it was born around 1920. Of course, there's no telling where he got it. He was a collector, a rifle builder of some local repute and a reloader.

The label is paper rather than being imprinted right on the metal can, however the can design (wide mouth) itself very much resembles the older can of Bullseye you found on eBay.

It also looks very much like the can mentioned in the John Taffin article, but that can appears to have the graphics printed directly on the metal rather than on a paper label.

The .22 Hornet mentioned on the label was "released" in 1930, so it must date from the '30s or later. However, it doesn't mention the .218 Bee, which was released in 1938.

[Unclenick]

I want to add thanks to Slamfire for his research efforts. I'd acquired a copy of the military powder deterioration study in the past, but not some of the other material.

Human beings tend to believe anecdotal evidence and hearsay because thousands of years of tribal life taught us that was how we learned things and got a better chance to survive. But tribes weren't millions of people, so that low probability events would never be experienced by any members in most of them. Now that we do things with large numbers of people able to communicate about it to one another, there shouldn't any longer be an excuse for not knowing, but old habits are hard to break.

Of particular interest to me was the link to the thread on N140. In the early 1990's, my dad got a 1/4 lb free sample container of N140 at Camp Perry, and gave half of it to me. That's about 20 rounds worth in .308; not enough to do serious load development with. I put it in a plastic bottle with a plated and painted steel cap with cardboard seal disc. I left it at the back of a high shelf in the basement where it was out of sight and soon out of mind. Some time later I bought a full pound of N140 to experiment with, but that original 1/4 lb continued to sit.

I finally re-encountered the bottle during some cleaning out activity. It looked like this:


The powder in it was not powder any longer. The grains were all stuck together. That was the result of the lid seal failing and letting humidity in. The acid fumes corroded the lid out. Rinse water put over it poured out yellow. At that point I cut the container open and buried the wet mass under the compost heap to let nature take its course.

Interestingly, the remaining 1/8 lb still at my father's place (also untouched) appeared to be in fine condition in it's original container. Shaking some out onto a white sheet of paper to look for traces of red dust showed no signs of any. Odor was normal. Nonetheless, with only that small amount left, we scattered it over the yard.

[Mike Irwin]

Spacecoast,

Wait a second... That can is metal with a paper label?

Are you sure it's not cardboard with a metal upper and lower plate?

[spacecoast]

Mike -

I think you're correct, the sides are stiff cardboard and the top and bottom are metal. However, the label does appear to be a separate piece of paper wrapped around the "can" and glued at a vertical seam near one corner.

Here's a bit of the powder - no dust that I can see, just a homogeneous mix of very consistent "flakes" or whatever you call them.

[Mike Irwin]

OK, this ad would have been produced no later than 1933, which is when Du Pont's IMR 17 1/2 was taken off the market.

At that time you can see how Hercules was packaging its powders, in flask-like containers (lower right corner).

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gun-Powder-W...-/150998912691

I'm afraid, though, that I'm at the end of what I can do on the internet. To pin it down exactly I'm thinking I would have to contact Alliant and see if they would tell me anything, or I'd have to go and research at NRA.

[Mike Irwin]

Oh, and if you ever want to get rid of that can, I have first dibs!

[spacecoast]

To pin it down exactly I'm thinking I would have to contact Alliant and see if they would tell me anything, or I'd have to go and research at NRA.

Good idea Mike, I will try to contact Alliant and see if they can tell me anything. I looked for a powder tin collecting group online but haven't been able to find anything organized yet.

The more I look at the Taffin article the more I think it might be the same container, as I think I see a couple of wrinkles in the paper near the bottom edge in that can he dated to "before the 50s".

[reloader28]

WOW I have 2 cans of that old stuff in Mikes picture. Had no idea it was that old.
I've shot out of both cans. IMR4198 and IMR4227. I had another can of 4198, but my uncle wanted it when I emptied it.

My 2400 is in the small square rifle powder canisters with the push/pop top lids. Price on it says $2.48 and it shoots fine. I'm using in my 44's.

[Mike Irwin]

"My 2400 is in the small square rifle powder canisters with the push/pop top lids."

Those appear to have been the next generation of can after the one that Spacecoast has shown here.

From what I can tell the push pop lids were used from the early to mid 1960s into the 1970s.

If you ever want to get rid of those two, talk to me.

[snuffy]

I have a couple of old Hercules cans that I just emptied;



Mike, let me know if you're interested, I'll ship them to ya.

[Mike Irwin]

Neat, Snuffy, yeah! I'll send you a PM later today and we can discuss particulars...

That H110 can is interesting.

I THINK it came out in the middle 1970s to replace the metal push pop cans, but only lasted a few years before they were replaced by the round printed paste board cans with the pull out plastic spout.

They look as if they would have been something of a pain in the butt to pour from if they don't have any kind of internal spout.

[Slamfire]

I want to add thanks to Slamfire for his research efforts. I'd acquired a copy of the military powder deterioration study in the past, but not some of the other material.

I appreciate the thanks. I thought it was important to fill a knowledge hole that is not being addressed, or is being addressed incorrectly in the gun media. The fight against false dogma from authority figures is a continuing and endless fight. I think education will help people from wasting their money, or worse, getting hurt. At least they have an idea of the risks and can decide for themselves.

I would like to have permission to use your N140 picture in the future. The more graphical examples I have will help prove the point that gunpowder has a shelf life, and that it varies considerably.

[Unclenick]

Slamfire,

You're welcome to use it! The more we can educate people on what really happens, the better.

[spacecoast]

Finally got an answer back from Alliant on my "When was this manufactured?" inquiry for that old can of 2400 -

From your photos I do not see anything showing a date code.
If there is still powder left in the can and looking at the can you should dispose of the powder in a safe manner. But, I'm sure you wish to keep the can for collecting. Safe ways to dispose of the powder is use it as a fertilizer in your yard/garden. Just spread it out thinly and not in piles. If this is not a possibly option call your local fire department and they most likely have a means of disposing.
It is an interesting looking old can though.

[F. Guffey]

Whole looking for something I looked through old cans of powder, some with paper labels, some with fiber bottoms and metal tops. The oldest cans were oval, red metal cans, those are the oldest with paper labels.

I will never understand the long lengthy threads that talk about 'it' but no one does any test. many years ago I hauled explosives, 45,000 pounds at a time, there was no talking, if the bombs were leaking out the plug in the nose "WE HAD A PROBLEM'. Then there was defoliant.

Back to gassing, again. I purchases 8 pound jugs of surplus powder, after that there were members of reloading forums scaring each other with horror stories. The jugs I purchased should have never been used for anything volatile. The plastic used in the jugs could not stand the changes in atmospheric pressure and temperature changes. The jugs fatigued and gassed out?, lost that new powder smell and got warm. I should have divided the 8 pounds of powder in smaller suitable containers.

F. Guffey

[Dufus]

An old thread, but what the heck?

I have old cans of powder like the pictures posted by snuffy.

I still use them. So far, the only one that has gone to the dust factory is a partial can of H4831.

I have no problem using any of them since I was the original purchaser, and therefore am fully aware of how they were stored over the years.....right at 50 of those years.

In regards to Mr. Guffey's post, I only bought one container that was larger than the standard size of 8 oz. or 1 lb, and that was a can of Green Dot that I got at Davis Hardware in Austin, somewhere around 1973. It was $32 for an 8 pounder, which was a price that I could not pass on. Still have some and still use it. It is a large cardboard container with a metal bottom.

I just finished off a 1 lb container of H2400 late last year that I bought in 1965. Could not tell the difference between it and some of the newer stuff.

H2400 or A2400 (whichever it is) is my favorite and go to powder for cast bullets in several suitable calibers. It shoots dirtier than I like, but I can live with it.

If I had the OP's can of H2400 in my possession, I would not hesitate to use it.