Ruger T/C load in New Model Super Blackhawk

[Doug.38PR]

I loaded. Handful of loads using my hornandy manual taking a sjhp 240 gr bullet with up to 22.4 grains of 2400 to use in my new model super blackhawk. Since the blackhawk are much sturdier than the average .44 magnum (able to handle Ruger contender in .45 LLC and buffalo bore +p+ in .44 magnum. And the fact that hornandy used NM super blackhawk in 7 inch barrel with these TC loads as a comparison in the TC .44 magnum chapter

After a few rounds I did notice a difference in recoil. The gun held up good. But I have noticed a tad of resistance when ejecting a few of the cartridges. So I think that's an indication to back off a bit.

 

[Enigma]

If you started with clean chambers and had stiff ejection, I'd drop the powder charge at least 1/2 grain and try again. The difference in velocity will be negligible. If things are still sticky, drop another 1/2 grain.

 

[Bucks Owin]

I would forget about using 2400 for top end .45 Ruger loads. I did. You will be far better off with W-296/H-110. More velocity than 2400, nice steady ballistics with no spooky surprises...

If you want to use 2400 in your particular case, from what you've described I would back it off substantially. Say to 20 grs...

Just my two centavos

PS. I notice you are possibly in west TX. Did those sticky rounds heat soak in the sun by any chance? 2400 doesn't like 115 degree days here either. Also, different cannister lots can throw you a curve. Also more sensitive to seating depth than W-296...
Personally, I have put 2400 on the same shelf as Unique...obsolete.

 

[Tellico]

+1 on what Bucks said. Especially the obsolete part!
Fred

 

[Doug.38PR]

PS. I notice you are possibly in west TX. Did those sticky rounds heat soak in the sun by any chance? 2400 doesn't like 115 degree days here either. Also, different cannister lots can throw you a curve. Also more sensitive to seating depth than W-296...
Personally, I have put 2400 on the same shelf as Unique...obsolete.

No. They've just been sitting in a box in my air conditioned reloading room upstairs for a few months. I'm wondering if it wasn't because the cylinder was a tad dirty that it was sticking. Because I had shot half that box 6 months ago with no noticeable issues (actually this sticking wasn't all that noticeable, no real force, it just wasn't falling out with barely a bump like a few lower end 18.5 cartridges were.)

Of course my barrel is 10 inches long, but I don't see the whole "OMGsh I can't handle the .44 magnum" fear. Yes it kicks a bit, but it's not unmanageable. Now the T/C loads are a noticeably hard, but a medium end .44 Magnum load? Nothing to get nervous about.

 

[gramps]

I don't agree with the posters that claim 2400 is obsolete. You can do things with it that you cannot do with 110/296. I like both, but for different applications. 22.4 grs of 2400 is above max. Once upon a time 22 grs 2400/250 gr LSWC was a Keith standard load, but powders change. I too shot it x 10 rounds ( all I had loaded) from a Redhawk 4 inch barrel. All 10 were difficult to extract, plus the recoil was severe. I quickly learned to not beat up myself or the gun. I have since settled on 20 grs 2400 or 24 grs 296 with a 240 gr LSWC. Good luck.
gramps

 

[greenmtnguy]

Does sound higher on the loading scale than I generally go - what manual did you use? Bearing surface of the bullet design factors into it as well, but my Hornady manual shows the 250 gn XTP at 21gn max for 2400, and I usually load 20... has all the thump I need for deer hunting and reasonable flat trajectory.

I also have plenty of uses for Unique and 2400 - not obsolete in my book, either

 

[Doug.38PR]

Standard .44 magnum chapter lists 19.5 as maximum loading. However I'm using .44 magnum T/C loading chapter in latest Hornandy manual.

 

[Chuck 100 yd]

I also am one of those who find 2400 to be useful. I also burn a lot of 4227. In the last 20 years I have loaded at least 20 lb. of those two to every pound of H110.
I like H110 but I have little need to push velocity to the max. And find 2400 and
4227 to be accurate and more versatile for my needs.

 

[don44]

I like 2400, it has always worked for me.

 

[Rick Courtright]

Hi,

Unique and 2400 are as obsolete as the manual typewriter sitting next to my desk!

Funny thing about a thing being "obsolete" is that it means there may be new jobs it won't do, but it will still do the job it was designed for just as well as it always did. So it's true I can't watch videos on my typewriter, but when I need a single label, it's much faster and easier to set up than to fiddle about with the computer. As such it gets plenty of use to this day. I don't see it, or Unique/2400, being totally replaced for quite some time!

Back to the OP, I'd be backing off those loads some... but then I don't subscribe to the idea that someone who did NOT make the gun knows more about it than someone who DID, so when Ruger says stick to SAAMI spec ammo, it's probably good advice. They know what they build...

Rick C

 

[Bucks Owin]

Funny thing about a thing being "obsolete" is that it means there may be new jobs it won't do, but it will still do the job it was designed for just as well as it always did.

Rick C

Yep, I reckon you can still use it to get 2400 fps with a 45 gr .22 Hornet...Hence the label. :wink:

I'm not dissing 2400 or Unique, burned plenty of both in my 50 yrs at the bench. I've simply moved on to powders I feel are better suited depending on the objective of the load. And there are plenty of powders I haven't played with yet. That's the fun of handloading for me, always in a quest for "better"...

Getting back on track, looks like I was in the ballpark with the 20 gr notion...