Smith And Wesson Forums banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,421 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have yet to unpack my reloading manuals from the move, but I am trying to find what Elmer Keith's loads for the .44 Magnum, the 250 grain cast bullets and 2400 powder.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
570 Posts
origional listing is as follows..

-44 MAGNUM: Keith settled on 22.0 grains of #2400 with his #429421 bullet for 1225 fps. out of a 4" Smith, 1400+ fps out of a 6 1/2" Smith or 7 1/2" Ruger. These are hunting handloads pure and simple, with this load taking big game all over the world.

also keeping in mind that 17.0-17.5 grains of #2400 with a #429421 is also listed as the Keith Heavy load for the .44 special..

Keep in mind that modern manuals would now list these loads as +P loads

AND.......newer manufactured #2400 has been reported as having a faster burning rate, there by having a higher pressure rateing...
best idea would be to start at a lower starting load and work up watching for signs of pressure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
When I first got into reloading back in 1965, the Keith load then was 22 grains of 2400 and his 250 grain bullet. I found that 18 grains of 2400 would shoot just as accurate in my Ruger Super Blackhawk as the 22 grain load, and with alot less stress on myself and my revolver. I have used this load to take quite a few Texas whitetail deer, and the results were always satisfactory. When I joined IHMSA in 1980, most of us shooting .44 magnums in Revolver class quickly found that Hogdons H-110 or Winchesters 296 was a much better propellant for that sport, giving much better groups and velocity. I still like to use 2400 in my .357 handguns as I dont have to use Magnum primers with this propellant, and like one of the fellows above said, it does seem to be a little faster burning than it used to be.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
732 Posts
Just 2 cents worth.

It's always been my experience that H110/W296 is a better propellant for full power .41 & .44 magnum loads than 2400-no if, ands or buts. The key word is full power. It's not to be used in charge weights less than 3% of maximum.

Secondly, with all the published data for decades regarding 2400 , it would astound me if the burning characteristics have been changed, regardless of whether the designation has an "A" or "H" prefix. It would be equivalent to a death wish for any manufacturer to do this. Uniformity is what canister grade propellants are all about and manufacturers cannot just disavow all previously published data. Lane Pearce just did a feature article on this subject in the September 2009 Shooting Time. For the life of me, I wish he'd used 2400 as the example powder but, at any rate, this "reformulated burn rate revision" is bunk IMHO. kijnbfa Did Hodgdon change the burning rates of H110 and H4831, etc. when they went from surplus to newly manufactured powders? Why?

OK. Let the floggings begin.

Bruce
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
668 Posts
I was one of those the IHMSA craze of the early 80s provided the impetus to become a 'reloader guy'.....

I tried for a couple years to find a Keith load for the 44 Mag that would reliably take down the 200 yard rams.

Regardless of the recipe, hot 2400 loads produced little for me but lead and/or copper fouled barrels and more than enough recoil and muzzle blast.

Eventually I migrated to other powders, other calibers and other shooting disciplines. It slowly dawned on me the problems I encountered may not be *just ME* .....for a while I thought it was normal to have wads of metals left in the bore....and I spent LOTS of time cleaning after each match.

I did buy a new can of 2400 about 5 years ago....still got most of it.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top