5744 vs 2400 powder

13K Views
Last Post 13 April 2008

CBA Member

billwnr posted this 06 April 2008

I spent a couple of hours over at the gun range testing out Accurate Arms 5744. I just don't get it. The Midwesterners seem to be the 5744 crowd in the military benchrest shooting. Seems most of them shoot it.

Out here in the PNW it seems to be the Alliant (or whoever makes it now) 2400 crowd.

I have an accurate load shooting 16.5 grains of 2400. It doesn't seem to matter much which bullet I shoot as I've had excellent results with the RCBS 180FN, RCBS 180SP, and the NEI pairs of the 311-190 and 308-190. All shoot good for me.

Today I shot 5744 from 19 grains up to 23 grains. No combos seemed like anything to write home about but if I had to select a range I'd say 22.0 and 22.5 grains seemed to shoot the best. But they had the oddball little flyer.

2400 has it's flaws too. It likes to have the barrel warm before it settles down and it seems (to me) that the bullet strikes start dropping out of the group about the 25th shot and keeps dropping down until cleaned.

Anyone else try 5744 and what's your results? Wally, would you like to educate one of the 2400 crowd.

I'm tempted to fire this next weekend's match with 5744 just to see how a 40 shot score of 5744 would compare with 2400 scores.

I did do one bad thing that messes with the results. I seated my bullet out further to the lands. Before I had it set back some.

Attached Files

23 Comments

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes

CBA Member

6pt-sika posted this 06 April 2008

I do not shoot military rifles and I do not shoot AA2400 !

But I must say I burn a pile of the XMP5744 every year in a bunch of lever rifles !

And I have been getting very good results in just about all the rifles I've tried it in !

Think I've used it in the 25-36 Marlin , 30-30 , 32 Special , 32-40 , 356 WIN , 375 WIN , 38-55 , 38-56 , 33 WCF , 40-65 , 444 Marlin and 45-70 .

Attached Files

CBA Member

billwnr posted this 06 April 2008

I corrected my typo. I meant AA5744 in the first line.

Attached Files

CBA Member

6pt-sika posted this 06 April 2008

I have about 3 pounds of Aliant 2400 that I have never gotten around to using !

But it's my intention to use that in places I would normally use H110 or W296 .

But whether you call it XMP5744 or AA5744 it's still good powder for my needs !

Attached Files

CBA Member

billwnr posted this 07 April 2008

Accurate Arms (AA) produced 5744. XMP as I know it is their designation for eXtruded powder.

I have some of the older 5744 when it was bigger and I think that powder shot better in my rifle than the new, smaller granule 5744.

Originally I bought 5744 for shooting in my .375 Winchester Big Bore and the accuracy requirements are more liberal for a lever rifle than a bolt action paper poker.

Attached Files

Standard Member

sundog posted this 07 April 2008

Billwnr, I've used both 5744 and 2400, and a bunch of others for military bench rest, and I keep going back to 21.0/IMR4227 with any 180ish-200 grainer. Only other powder I had come close was N120, and that stuff is a bit pricey. Years ago I had gotten a close out (read cheap) on 2 8-pounders of N120 from MidSouth, and it was GOOD stuff, but alas, now all used up. So, it's back to 4227, and that stuff is performing admirably - last month was a 100 yard 294/300 and a bunch of Xs on SR21 with an 'as issued' 03A3.

Attached Files

CBA Member

billwnr posted this 07 April 2008

That's good shooting with an Issue 03-A3. I'm not quite there with an Issue rifle.

Your results with 4227 are similar to me and 2400. I'm debating whether to shoot the next rifle match with my usual 16.5 grains of 2400 and a variation of my usual bullet which is run thru a bump die to true up the bullet, or to load up the “best” shooting charge of 5744 I shot yesterday. None of the charges jumped out at me as the one to use.

I'll probably end up shooting the trued up bullet and seeing how it performs.

Attached Files

CBA Veteran

Scott Merchant posted this 07 April 2008

Bill

Maybe your gun doesn't like 5744. But last I checked there are over 25 National Records held with 5744, how many are held with 2400 I don't know. With what little load information you provided its hard to tell why your not getting better results. What primer are you using.

The results that I have with 5744 are great. I have used it in about every thing from 6.5x55 to 50/70 no complaints here. One more thing it seems not to be as powder position sensitive or at all as some of the other powders used in the Military Shoots.

Attached Files

CBA Member

billwnr posted this 07 April 2008

There aren't many set with 2400. I've had 5 so far, with two still on the books. There were two other ones shot by the 2400 crowd, so we've had 7 from our ranks.

I will say there are differences in 5744. The old lot with the big granules was so clean burning in my rifle it wasn't funny. The new smaller granuled version isn't as clean.

How far out do you seat your bullets with 5744, to the throat, or do you let them run a little?

My 2400 loads are a “little” shy of the throat.... about 0.20” shy.

Attached Files

CBA Board

Wally Enga posted this 07 April 2008

Any of these powders in the 2400, 5744 and 4759 burning rate will work great for punching holes in paper at 100 & 200 yards in the 1600 to 1750 fps range.

The 4759 powder will show more powder position sensitivity and this can be a real problem in a straight pull rifle like the K-31 where you can't gently chamber a round like you can with a turn bolt rifle.

"How far out do you seat your bullets with 5744, to the throat, or do you let them run a little? My 2400 loads are a “little” shy of the throat.... about 0.20” shy."

I seat them out until they hit either the throat or the bore. Sierra Match Kings seem to like a .020” or .030” run at it but in these chambers only bad things happen to cast bullets that have a run at it.

Wally

Attached Files

Standard Member

CB posted this 08 April 2008

I agree with Wally.. You dont want to set your rounds up to “have a run” at the throat.. The best accuracy will be obtained by getting the bullet as close as possible to “in line” with the bore..

Of course if I let out all of the secrets, I wont be able to beat up on you fella at matches../images/emoticons/134.gif

Like I said to Bruce in another post, slug the throat.. Get a bullet to fit the throat.. I could go into a rather lengthy oration as to why to do this, I would rather not.

Instead picture this...

If you had a 1” tube and rolled a 3/4” marble down it, does it roll smooth or does it rattle and vibrate as it travels down the tube?

The same thing happens with your bullets if they do not fit the throat properly.

Attached Files

CBA Member

billwnr posted this 08 April 2008

Jeff Bowles wrote: I agree with Wally.. You dont want to set your rounds up to “have a run” at the throat.. The best accuracy will be obtained by getting the bullet as close as possible to “in line” with the bore..

Of course if I let out all of the secrets, I wont be able to beat up on you fella at matches../images/emoticons/134.gif

Like I said to Bruce in another post, slug the throat.. Get a bullet to fit the throat.. I could go into a rather lengthy oration as to why to do this, I would rather not.

Instead picture this...

If you had a 1” tube and rolled a 3/4” marble down it, does it roll smooth or does it rattle and vibrate as it travels down the tube?

The same thing happens with your bullets if they do not fit the throat properly.

"Hmmm...rifle shoots good with bullet .0.20 shy of lands. How much better will it do when seated to the lands...?" Warner mused.

I guess this is what I will do for the Saturday military match. I'll post my observations afterwards.

Attached Files

CBA Member

R. Dupraz posted this 08 April 2008

Well, I have just spent the last month or so and 200+ rounds trying to see if the accuracy of my Israeli 98-308 could be improved. I use the RCBS 180 and IMR 4227 with NM brass. The seating depths varied from being jammed up into the rifling to off the lead by probably .020” anyway. And I'm right back to where I started two years ago. This old soldier still shoots best with the bullet off the lead and 18.5grs. of IMR 4227.

The last fifteen rounds was with some NM brass that hadn't been formed to the chamber yet, so I just shot them up to get rid of them. And they went into a 1 1/2 “ at 100 yds even with some bullets that had been chambered before and pulled from the cases.

Once again, this confirms my belief that in this shootin game there are always going to be exceptions that fly in the face of “the conventional wisdom". And that the only way to find out is to try and see what works best.

Attached Files

Online CBA Member

RicinYakima posted this 09 April 2008

Bill,

I've been following this thread for a couple of days trying see where it is headed. I don't see that any powder is magical. If 9 out of 10 shooters are use 5744, given equal rifles and skills, 90% of the winners will use 5744.

All I can say is that 2400 has worked for me. When I set the 10 shot group national records for 100 yards and 200 yards with Modified Irons in 2006, even though Scott Merchant set new ones at the next match in 2007, I was well satisfied. 2400 is consistent over the long haul. It ignites easily with standard primers, is not position sensitive and meters very well. Its pressure curve works well with cast bullets, not to fast nor too slow.

To be honest, I have shot smaller groups with SR4759 than with 2400. But it is such a pain to measure and I have to be very careful how I place the round in the chamber. If the powder slides to the front of the case, it means a low shot.

I have never tried the new commercial 5744, but still have some of a two pound jug of the MP5744 surplus powder. It has never given me great accuracy in anything other than 218 Bee, 25/20 and 32/20. Will I try the new 5744? Maybe, someday, but first I have to use up the remaining 8 pounds of SR 4759 and six pounds of 2400 I have on hand.

My personal opinion is that there are probably a half a dozen powders that will shoot record groups in the approximate 1600 f/s range. Powder choice is far down the list of variables that I work with on military rifles.

Ric

Attached Files

Standard Member

Lefty posted this 09 April 2008

I have been watching this thread and waiting also. I raised a similar question regarding powder selection in the 308 about a month ago. Ric gave me the same advice. Since then I have tested several powders in my 308s. My experience seems to support everything Ric is saying.

2400 is not a popular powder in the midwest but I think that is simply by chance. This summer? I will shoot 2400 in one 308 for half the matches and 4895 in the other. This is a test of sorts but I don't expect any revelations. Last summer I shot 5744 in my military rifles. This summer I will shoot 4759. Why? I am out of 5744 and I have a full 8 pounder of 4759. I will be careful about position sensitity, however.

The more time I spend with my bullet molds rather than pouring over load data in the FS, the better I seem to shoot.

Just a rookies ramblings. Have fun.

Attached Files

Match Director

linoww posted this 09 April 2008

I have never tried the new commercial 5744, but still have some of a two pound jug of the MP5744 surplus powder.

I have shot 15.0 of MP5744 with the SAECO #315 in a 30-06 Springfield with Modified sights.It shoots as well as any other load I have used,but I have to use a Belding and Mull to measure it well.10 shot groups under 2” are common in calm weather with this load @ 100,but at 200 its not too good.I hadnt noticed the velocities being erratic with this powder when I chronographed it though.I didnt tip or elevate my muzzle either.

But......I still use 2400 as a standard for all the reasons others have stated.I have used 15-19g of 2400 for the last 15 years in my P17 Enfield and it is a favorite offhand load.

George

"if it was easy we'd let women do it" don't tell my wife I said that!

Attached Files

CBA Member

billwnr posted this 12 April 2008

I found out this morning that my rifle likes a bullet with a slightly fatter nose and also set back shy of the rifling approximately 0.20". I sure am glad I shot this in a regular match and didn't try these at the nationals.

The conditions were fairly easy and I had to work real hard to shoot a 390-10x.

I'm going to mike these bullets and note differences of the before and after. I had high hopes for these bullets because running them thru a bump die trued them up good. I couldn't notice any out of round differences when miking them, Nose and driving bands were uniformly round.

Attached Files

Standard Member

CB posted this 13 April 2008

So did you determine which powder worked the best? 5744 or 2400?

390 10X ain't nothing to sneeze at, in fact I find that pretty darn good!

I still have trouble understanding why this gun likes the bullet .020 off the lands... Unusual piece you have Bill, certainly not the norm.

From what you are describing in your response above it sounds like the throat is worn a bit and that could be why it likes bullets with a fatter nose.

This gun is one of those that the rules may not apply, but as I have said in other posts, you have to figure out what your gun likes. I guess you are pretty close.

Attached Files

CBA Veteran

Scott Merchant posted this 13 April 2008

I was wondering the same as Ric where this thread was heading, at first I had my doubts. I thought it was going to turn into a my toy is better than your toy. For anybody starting out in Cast Bullet Military Match's this thread holds a major clue. And that would be there is more than One powder that will perform in any given gun. The magical powder does not exists, but the powders listed throughout this thread is a good place to start.

On a more direct note I have shot against some the shooters on this thread that use powder different then what I use. Richard D uses IMR 4227 and Ric Bowmen uses 2400, to win a match against them you better not rely on magic, it will not work. I have also followed Bill W and Sundogs shooting results and what they are doing works very well for them.

I guess that I will continue to use 5744, it work well for me in the guns that I use. The other important thing is that I have a great deal of confidence in it, having shot well over 100 pounds since it hit the market, in a range of chambering from 6.5x55 to 50/70.

Scott

Attached Files

CBA Member

billwnr posted this 13 April 2008

Scott, the only place I want to do a “my gun is better than your gun” is at a registered match. Other than stirring the pot on some posts I try to keep my postings to where they may benefit shooters that are plowing the same ground I'm on.

Observations of results can be misconstrued or interpreted wrong. I didn't measure any of my 5744 groups as there wasn't anything that appeared what I wanted to shoot. I do know at yesterdays match my bullets did not display what I call “central tendency” and threw more 10's than X's and the 10's were towards the outsides of the ring.

The reason I wanted to find a load with 5744 was for how clean burning it shoots. With 2400 I need to clean at about the 25th shot, otherwise the POI drops down 1 bullet hole at a shot.

My first observations with 5744 was how clean burning it was and I figured the cleaning rule might not apply or at a minimum allow longer shot strings between cleaning.

One thought I'm struck with this morning is that I should re-do my testing with 5744 as my earlier testing was with the longer bullet seating of the tapered bullets.

It may be I find the combo shooting the fatter nosed bullets seated 0.20 off the lands. Might be seating depth is more important for my rifle than powder selections.

I think I will measure last week's targets and see where I'd like to test 5744 further.