Range Report; 357; 158; Alliant 2400

N

Nick_C_S

New member
CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond or not covered by currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.

A few months back, I decided to make the move from W296 to 2400 for my full-throttle magnum (357/44) rounds. The primary reason being that I don't shoot my long barreled (8-3/8") wheelguns much at all these days. And it seems that W296 is just a bit too much (way too much, actually) for the shorter tubes. Furthermore, I'm not the recoil junkie that I used to be. A slightly tamer "full-throttle" round suits me just fine these days. Shortly after I made this decision, I just happened to run across some 2400 and picked up a #.

Bullet: Speer 158 JSP #4217; set about 3/4 deep in the cannelure; about .350" into the case - for those playing along with QL.
Brass: R-P (Remington) non-nickel; trimmed to 1.278".
Primer: CCI 500.
Gun: S&W 686; 4" bbl.
Chronograph (Chrony Master Beta); set 4 yards out.

Loads:

14.4gn; 14.6gn; 14.8 gn (Alliant and Speer #14 max); 15.0gn; & 15.2gn.
Sample size: 6 rounds each.

Results:

14.4gn; 1188 f/s; 27.73 SD
14.6gn; 1215 f/s; 15.71 SD
14.8gn; 1237 f/s; 28.67 SD (Speer #14 max)
15.0gn; 1243 f/s; 10.76 SD
15.2gn; 1263 f/s; 34.96 SD

For a comparison baseline, I also shot my full-power pet load of W296 . . .

16.6gn; 1247 f/s; 50.30 SD (Speer #14 max is a ludicrous 14.7gns)

None of the rounds tested showed any sign of pressure. Primers looked fine (but primers seat really deep in R-P brass); and there was no case extraction difficulties either. With a 6-round sample size, obviously little credence should be put in the Standard Deviations. This isn't the end of my load work up. That said, let me assure everyone, I will not be increasing the charge weights. Further testing will be around finding a charge weight that my gun likes (low SD's) with the use of 30 round sample sizes. And no further testing will be beyond Speer's max of 14.8 grains. I don't hotrod ammunition. I only went beyond to see where signs of pressure begin (which never happened in this case) to make sure my set round (whatever that ends up being) will be some level well below that point for safety "headroom."

The 1237 f/s with the 14.8 grain charge is plenty fast enough for me. If I need more energy than that, I'll grab one of my 44 Mags. Also quite noteworthy is the fact that all these 2400 rounds came off with far less recoil and report than the big booming W296 loads. 2400 is clearly the better propellant choice in shorter barrel applications. It's not even close. 2400 behaves in a much more "balance" fashion. Which is exactly the reason for the switch in the first place.
 
I love 2400. My go to load in my S&W model 28's (4" and 6") is a 158 gr homecast LSWC over 13.5 gr of 2400. I have shot this load for many moons.

It is accurate, manageable and satisfying. It is not punishing and I can shoot it all day.

And I have no doubt that it will take game up to deer size if needed.

I experiment with other powders but at the end of the day I always come back to the Holy Trinity: Bullseye, Unique and 2400.


Steve in N CA
 
I did some similar work with 125 gr. bullets in the 357. I was looking for something around 1200 fps or so from a 4" barrel with low blast/flash. I tried Unique, H110, W231, and HS6. All can be loaded to meet the velocity requirement, but W231 seemed to produce less blast/flash than the rest.

W231 will produce 1200+ fps from service length .357s with a little less than max loads. It has reasonably good consistency and velocity held up reasonably well in a shorter 2 3/4" barrel as well.
 
There's nothing wrong with WW296 when it's used for what is intended to be used for. It's a powder that produces excellent accuracy, and extreme velocity in magnum loads for magnum handguns. It simply works best in longer barrels and knowledgeable shooters/reloaders have been aware of this for a long time. The problem arises when someone looks at the loading data (if they even bother to look....now days it's easier to ask on the internet and take it for gospel) and sees what it's capable of. They then try to get the same results in a snub nose using very light bullets. At best, they put the book load in a snub nose and can't understand why they aren't happy with the results. I too use a lot more 2400 now days for the same reasons......I'm tired of the muzzle blast and recoil when 95% of my shooting doesn't require it. I learned quite a long while ago that even for medium sized game hunting (read deer) that it's not necessary to use the stoutest loads you can develop with 296 powder. A good load of 2400 will fit the bill quite nicely. In fact, so will Blue Dot and a number of other powders. Here's where I evaluate the accuracy of other powders. Accuracy will trump energy every time when it comes to harvesting white tails...or woodchucks. I still have seven pounds of 296 left in a keg I bought two years ago. I've shot more thousands of rounds with this powder than I can ever count. However, I've come to the conclusion that other powders will get the job done just as effectively as 296 and are much more versatile when it comes to reloading. The biggest problem with 296 is that it simply can't be safely loaded down for lighter loads. When you're young and have a bad case of "magnumitis" , 296 seems like the way to go. As you mature and learn a little bit more, you begin to understand that task management doesn't require the use of this powder to the exclusion of many other very good powders for the task at hand.
 
Accuracy

I didn't shoot them off a bench. I was (as always) shooting freestyle, double action.

At any rate, they all went right where I pointed them. In the 38/357 world at least, it's been my experience that accuracy is 99% a function of the bullet. They either shoot straight, or they don't - and propellant type or charge weight makes little difference. Speer 158's go straight.
 
There's nothing wrong with WW296 when it's used for what is intended to be used for. It's a powder that produces excellent accuracy, and extreme velocity in magnum loads for magnum handguns. It simply works best in longer barrels and knowledgeable shooters/reloaders have been aware of this for a long time.
Click to expand...

Well stated. Your entire post, actually.

I agree; W296 is an excellent propellant. It just doesn't suit my needs any more. My shooting style (i.e. shorter barrels) changed years ago, but my propellant choice never did. I finally made the switch.

2400 is still slow stuff and will only be used for my full-throttle 158's. Slightly tamer 158's will still be sitting atop Power Pistol or HS-6. And IMO, 2400 is too slow for 125's - unless I was going to shoot them through a lever action carbine. I have excellent results with Power Pistol under 125's - but that's for another post.
 
Thanks so much for this post Nick. I've been interested in what you'd do and perhaps find out with the 2400. I happened into a couple bottles of it over a year ago and for the most part it sat in the powder fridge untouched till I read your post. After reading about "the switch" I decided to give it a try.
So far I've only used it on Nosler 158 JSP and Bayou 240 L-SWC but I've found good loads for booming fun. I still need to try more loads out but it's been nice to find a good alternative to W296/H110.
 
Thanks so much for this post Nick.
Click to expand...

You're welcome. I'm quite pleased. 2400 is good stuff. Heh, well if it's good enough for Elmer Keith, it's gotta be good enough for me. It has a long reputation so I had little concern of being disappointed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top