Powder equivalents

[Harry]

I'll try to keep this as short as I can. I have my dad's old EZ Loader and molds and dies. He used, and I have the Lyman #39, 40, and 41 handbooks. The powders listed that I want to use are 2400 for a cast 311413 30/06, Hi-Vel for jacketed 150 gr 30/06, 3031 for cast 311291 30/30. Also, for H&G #50 wadcutter for the 38/357 it lists Bulleye (no number), No. 6, 5066, and Unique (no number). These will be used in an old S&W Highway patrolman. I was cautioned by S&W not to use and +p. My question: What current day powders are equal to these listed in the old handbooks? I would presume todays powders have been refined and improved, possibly changing pressures and burn rates??
Thanks in advance for your help.

[wiljen]

I would suggest a visit to
http://data.hodgdon.com
or
http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloaders/Index.htm

I would not use those old manuals with todays versions of unique, bullseye, or 2400. The other powders you list have since been discontinued.

[Alchemist]

I suggest you get a new manual....the Lyman 49th is just that, brand new & awesome. I think it's the best one yet.

Wil also has good advice....on-line data from a MANUFACTURER is free and readily available. Don't use load data "some guy" who seems to know a lot gives you....mistakes happen.

[Harry]

Thanks Wiljen and alchemist. My main concern is the age of the firearms I'll be using. They are also of the old vintage. The 30/06 is a Springfield 1903 bolt action that was my dad's. I know for a fact that he used it for deer hunting in the '30s. The 30-30 is mine and is a model 94, new in 1956. Just had some concern about modern powders. I will get the new handbook and go to the manf. web sites.

[carpetman]

Harry---My experience has been if the data worked in the old books--it will work today. Most those powders still around and had been for a long time when the books were written. Certainly doesn't hurt to have new books--but keep the old ones. For 150 grain jacketed bullets in the 30-06 I use IMR 4064 and have done so for 40 years and it had been around a long time when I started reloading. I have used a bunch of unique in a 1963 S&W Highway Patrolman.

[Jim]

Like C'man said, NEVER throw out old manuals. Add to your collection as they are published. I've found old data that is no longer in print that served the purpose well. If not for that old stuff, I'd still be looking for it.

[Harry]

Jim & Carpetman,
I would never throw out these old Lyman handbooks. #40&41 were my dad's who passed away in 1969. He used these back in the late 50s and early 60s. I since bought #39 on ebay, so you can see that I have a nostalgic purpose in this. I have dad's equipment, and some of his powder, which is still good. I will be getting the latest Lyman handbook, also.
Thanks for your inputs.

[cajun shooter]

I don't know why S&W would tell you not to use the Highway patrolman with +P loads. It's a N frame mdl28 and is the vanilla copy of a 27 which was King in the 60's for shooting hotter loads. My first revolver was a mdl 28 SN 4211. Bought for $135 at the sporting goods store. Shot many of Lee Juras's Super Vel with it without a problem. I have Lyman 1 and Speer 1 and love to flip those pages. When I first came home in 67 from my tour with UNCLE SAM I bought the mdl 28. Most stores had the Winchester or Remington 38 spl 158 RN or WC and that was it. Some would even sell you the 38 in 200gr. Boy was that one bad a---- load. Only joking. When tested by Juras, they would not even go through the butterfly window on car doors. Unless something is wrong with your 28 you can shoot medium to upper range loads. I would not feed it a steady diet tho, keep it and pass it down. Todays powders are said to be much hotter than the old ones. I do know that in Speer 8 there was aload listed that darn near broke my wrist. I don't load hot rounds anymore. Like the rest of me I prefer a slower approach to all things on this earth.

[smokemjoe]

Save these old loading books, I took a pile of them and put them on a table at a gunshow for $3.00 each, They were gone before they hit the table, Found out one old speer was worth $30.00 . A wildcat manual from the 60s.

[Harry]

Cajunshooter,
Don't know why S&W told me not to shoot the +P. Maybe that the Highway Patrolman is an early to mid 50s version, before the sub letter models (no stamps in the yoke groove).

[cajun shooter]

If it is before the mdl 28 then I understand. The early Highway Patrolman was not the same gun that I had. When you stated that about your dad and the 60's I just assumed it was the same as that which I had. We all know what the word assumed means. I attended several S&W schools in Springfield and sometimes what they state in public and what they say behind closed doors are two different things. I think this has something to do with people called lawyers. I will still say that unless the weapon has a serious problem such as failing a range rod test, severe end shake, timing problems and other test that can be run that it will fire +p loads. I would not feed any gun a steady diet of these as I enjoy shooting the more mild manner loads myself.

[HangFireW8]

If you look at the SAAMI specs for 38 Spec +P versus standard, the difference in pressure is so trivial that it almost doesn't matter. Any gun that is going to shake loose on 38 +P will do so on standard ammo almost as fast.

The old 38/44 load, now that is another matter entirely. It is most of a .357 Mag, and will shake loose any .38 not made for it.

-HF

[MtGun44]

If the "old Highway Patrolman" is the big N frame Smith that goes by that
name (mod 27 or 28 don't remember) it has the strongest frame and thickest
cyl walls of any S&W .357 and should be fine for any load ever published
for the .357 mag. The first .357 Mags were on the big N frame and had the
thick cylinders walls - this gun DEFINED the .357 mag loads in the 30s, how would
it be somehow unsafe - unless as has been mentioned - it is not in safe and
sound condition due to some sort of abuse or extreme wear.

The K-frame guns (Model 19, Mod 66, Mod 65, etc) are a bit marginal for lots and
lots of hot .357, but they do not blow up; just wear at an accelerated rate, maybe
crack a bbl forcing cone with enough really hot loads, develop end shake and
bad timing, etc. Higher than desirable wear rate, yes - actually dangerous, no.

Bill

[454PB]

I agree. My first .357 magnum was a S&W Highway Patrolman (model 28). These were a less polished version of the model 27, and everybit as strong. I put 30K heavy loads through mine before I foolishly sold it because it was cutting the top strap.

Years ago my Grandad gave me some cans of 5066 and pistol#6 that I used up. As I recall, they are both rather quick burning for anything but light loads in .357.

[Harry]

I'm pretty sure it is a Model 27, based on what I'm reading here, and due to my dad having it in the mid 50s.

[twotrees]

It had Pachmyer grips on it and was fed a steady diet of Hot 357 loads. Skeeter Skelton's load of the "OLD!!!" 2400 and both hollow and flat pointed Thompson 158 gas checked boolits. When, in a fit of stupidity I sold it, the guy at the gun store tried the trigger and gave me $50 more than a new one, for it.

It was smoother than my Python and much more accurate, but I had to keep that Python.

After 1000's of hot loads it was as tight as it was when I first got it.

Enjoy your "Dad's gun and shoot it. I don't know of a Mdl 28 that was 38 only, but then there is a lot I don't know.


If you want a S&W test firers opinion, I have a friend that will give me the True answer. All you need to do is ask here and I will ask Keith. He shoots more in a week than most of us do in a year.

Good Shooting.

[jh45gun]

Them old manuals are worthwhile as some of the new ones do not list loads that they did. wether it be due to newer and better powder choices I do not know but I rely on the older lyman books for some of my cast load info.

[MaxHeadSpace]

Old manuals are worth keeping just for their historical value.

[JW6108]

Some may remember the ad from Hercules a few years ago with a photo of a jar of Bullseye powder stored in some liquid to preserve it, kerosene I think the ad said. This sample at the time was 100 years old. They stated that periodically a small amount of it was removed, dried and tested to compare it with the currently available product to assure consistency. Their point was that the Bullseye powder (and data) from way back then is just as relevant today. I'm sure that all the manufacturers keep reference batches set aside for this purpose. There may be better powders coming along for some applications, but I believe that old data (unless indicated otherwise by the powder maker) used with the same powder today will give comparable (and safe) results.

I also am at a loss as to why S&W would make such a caution regarding the use of .38 Special +P loads in such a strong revolver chambered in .357. I had one many years ago (and foolishly sold it), and found it would easily accommodate any safe .357 load as recommended in any manual I had. The 28 was simply a plain-finished version of the Model 27 that was aimed at the law enforcement market. I believe the commercial success vastly outweighed the interest it got from the LE segment of buyers. That big cylinder seemed to get up a good bit of momentum in double action, and the whole outfit was just really a nice handling gun.

I miss mine, although a 686 keeps me from dwelling on it too much!

[mpmarty]

Yeah, the old manuals had higher load levels for some cartridges. In the eighties they started backing off due to fears of law suits. Then Vitavouhri (sic) came to the USA and listed some bodacious loads. Captured a big chunk of the USPSA market and lo and behold the domestics started inching up their loads as Vitavouhri reduced theirs a bit to reduce the complaints from unhappy customers.

I still yearn for some good old HiVel #2 best darn powder I ever loaded.

[HangFireW8]

I also am at a loss as to why S&W would make such a caution regarding the use of .38 Special +P loads in such a strong revolver chambered in .357.

S&W needs you to buy their new wonderguns, that's why, and forget about their sellout of our rights and forget that their, um, primary creditor and majority debt holder is their old owner who sold us out.

-HF

[madsenshooter]

Just out of curiosity I bought a small Hercules pamphlet from 1935 for the 30-40 Krag. Anyone know what modern powders might approximate the burning rate of Hi-Vel No.2, Hi-Vel No.3, Lightning, and Sharpshooter?

[Ricochet]

The HiVel powders were double based. I know of no modern equivalent. Don't know about the others.

[oleguy74]

hi-vel was replaced by reloader#7,11,21.#7&11 was hivel #2&3.so said hercules.the last hi-vel #2 i bought was in 1964.paid 2$ a pound.1962 was last year they made it i belive.that was a 10lb can.

[w30wcf]

Madsenshooter,

I have tested the following older powders in my .30-30's and found that they compare closely in burning rates to the following:
HiVel #2 - 3031
HiVel #3 - RL-7
Lightning - 4198
Sharpshooter - 2400

Sincerely,
w30wcf

[pdawg_shooter]

Try, http://www.gsgroup.co.za/burnrates.html best burn rate chart I have found so far.

[madsenshooter]

Thanks John, that's around where I had roughly figured things. The old data for Sharpshooter was 22.8gr with a 169GC gaving 2220fps @ 34000PSI. Pdawg, I've had that burnrate chart bookmarked for quite awhile now, but it doesn't have these old powders I was curious about.

Thanks guys!

[w30wcf]

Madsenshooter,

You are most welcome. LIGHTNING is the powder for the 22.8 gr. charge you referenced. That would be a definite overload with Sharpshooter. In a Hercules 1936 powder pamphlet, the load for Sharpshooter with a 169 gr. G.C. bullet is 17.1 grs, giving 1,935 f.p.s.

A "Hercules 2400 Rifle Powder" pamphlet from 1935 shows 18.4 grs at 1,940 f.p.s. with the same bullet.

Interestingly, Hercules published a "Unique Powder For Rifles" pamphlet in the same era. 10.9 grs. gives 1,600 f.p.s. with the same 169 gr. g.c. bullet.

Most folks don;t know that Unique was initially developed for "low power or gallery loads for all caliber rifles" according to Hercules info.

All of the above loads are shown at 32,000 p.s.i. in the .30-30.

Interesting history.

w30wcf

[tom barthel]

I'm looking for some russian powder. They have a russian 4198 type powder used in the 7.62x39 and a russian unique. I don't recall the sources or, proper names. I've seen a lot of good write ups on both and, thought I'd order some to try. I think the russian unique is salut. Not sure what the 4198 is called or who has them.

[RayinNH]

Tom, Salut available here, don't know about the other...Ray

http://www.patsreloading.com/patsrel/prices.htm

[Rocky Raab]

There are a couple of issues here, so I'll make a couple of comments.

Old manuals are interesting to read, but the data in them is dubious. Some companies didn't even use pressure-measuring equipment until the 60s. Some manuals (most notably the Speer #8) contained errors due to mistakes in pressure recording. There are always typos, also. Their value lies in the historical more than in their data. The exception is when somebody today finds a stash of powder no longer made and needs data for it. There are still good amounts of the Alcan and Herter's powders around, for instance. New manuals don't list them.

Today's powders are definitely not the same. Some powders made by the early DuPont were split off into the Hercules company. Then when Hercules itself became Alliant (ATK) some years back, the production of those powders was shifted to a different plant, different people and used a different recipe (which they advertise as "cleaner" but is also faster-burning). As a result, none of the classic old recipes using Unique, 2400 or other former Hercules powders should be used today - unless you are using Hercules-made powder.

That holds at least partially true for IMR powders. They also are made in a new plant by different people, and probably are not exactly the same as before.

The simple rule is to use current data with current powders. In any other situation, let caution be your guide and don't use old load recipes blindly.

[MtGun44]

I absolutely do not buy the "new powders under the same name are different"
and "you can't use the data for old powders" story. No question that some old
data was not done with proper pressure equipment, but that is totally different
than the powder has changed enough to be a greater worry than normal lot to
lot variation.

There are and always have been lot to lot variations in powder. I guarantee that
if you test two lots made in the last 5-10 years and a non-deteriorated sample from
30-40 yrs ago, you will see variation - but of the same magnitude. Read
the manuals; they say to always back off and retest max loads when you change
lots. Usually it's not a problem, but it can happen.

Now, comparing data for old milsurp 4831 to cannister IMR4831 or H4831 is
not safe - they are not the same powders and the powder companies say this
clearly. I believe old milsurp 4831 was all one huge lot of noncannister powder.
But Alliant Unique and Hercules Unique are fully as interchangable as any lot
variation, same for Dupont IMR 4350 and current (Hodgdon owned) IMR
4350.

There are plenty of real safety worries in reloading. No need to see problems
where they don't exist. :-D

Bill

[Rocky Raab]

Well, that is certainly an opinion.

But actual shooting results from reliable reloaders would indicate that Hercules/Alliant powders are farther apart than the usual 3% lot allowable variation.

Unless someone can show me that there is a danger in using old data with older powder and new data with newer powder, I'll stick to that practice. Making blithe assumptions otherwise seems to be less than prudent to me.

[MtGun44]

Be safe the way that makes you comfortable. I'll just go ahead and step
in the cracks in the sidewalk and not worry if I break a mirror, either.

I load 30 yr old Unique and plastic bottle Unique, can't tell any difference
more than two plastic bottles, same with 2400 and a few IMRs. Used to
sweat it, don't any more.

If you are worried, you should not do this, I am not saying you are wrong
to be very safe. Each guy sets his own standards.

:bigsmyl2:

Bill

[madsenshooter]

Madsenshooter,

You are most welcome. LIGHTNING is the powder for the 22.8 gr. charge you referenced. That would be a definite overload with Sharpshooter. In a Hercules 1936 powder pamphlet, the load for Sharpshooter with a 169 gr. G.C. bullet is 17.1 grs, giving 1,935 f.p.s.

A "Hercules 2400 Rifle Powder" pamphlet from 1935 shows 18.4 grs at 1,940 f.p.s. with the same bullet.

Interestingly, Hercules published a "Unique Powder For Rifles" pamphlet in the same era. 10.9 grs. gives 1,600 f.p.s. with the same 169 gr. g.c. bullet.

Most folks don;t know that Unique was initially developed for "low power or gallery loads for all caliber rifles" according to Hercules info.

All of the above loads are shown at 32,000 p.s.i. in the .30-30.

Interesting history.

w30wcf

No, the 22.8 was Sharpshooter, Lightning went up to 30 in this old manual. This old manual had pressure figures, back then they were going to 42000psi in the Krag.

[Rocky Raab]

w30wcf, do you have a copy of those pamphlets - and if so, would it be possible for you to scan them and get a PDF or similar to me? It's exactly what I've been looking for in some research I'm doing now. Reply here or back channel, please.

[w30wcf]

Madsenshooter,
My apologies. I reread your original post and see that the loads you referenced were for the .30-40. I was thinking .30-30 and had .30-30 on my brain. Duh! :confused::drinks:

w30wcf

[w30wcf]

Rocky Raab,
Yes, thankfully, I have the pamplets. Picked them up about 15 years ago from a cartridge collector. It would be much easier for me to make a copy of the pamphlets and mail them to you than to scan them (approx 25 pages ea.)

Are you looking for data on a specific cartridge or cartridges?

w30wcf

[Rocky Raab]

What I'm actually interested in are those descriptions of the powders' intended uses. I'm writing a book on reloading, and as a sidebar/subchapter I'm including a discussion of gallery loads using what are nominally thought of as shotgun/handgun powders. On other websites, there are heated and repeated arguments about such loads, with the "antis" claiming those powders were never intended for such use.

And then along comes your post, and those WRITTEN descriptions!

I'll PM you.

[felix]

Those old Hercules HiVel powders used too much nitroglycerin, like greater than 40 percent. The old cordite was the same. They were discontinued for that reason. I think the self-imposed limit by the manufacturers is more like 30 percent now. Other ingredients make up for the loss of energy. Nitroglycerin just burns too hot for the energy developed. Historically, DuPont was the designer of these, surely in cahoots with Nobel, or vice-versa because of the interest in dynamite which is the energy application for nitroglycerin in the first place. The nitro application was naturally brought down to gunpowder apps, and when so is about when DuPont started up Hercules for their manufacure. Something like that. DuPont was the VERY FIRST company on the New York Stock Exchange. ... felix

High performance powders have limited nitrogylcerin because of the generated heat. Most, if not all, are limited to about 10 percent of the formulation. High performance powders are meant to operate at very high pressures. Faster ignition is another characteristic of nitroglycerine, and that is why you see it as a higher percentage in low pressure formulations. ... felix

[Rocky Raab]

It is unimportant trivia now, but it was anti-trust legal action that caused DuPont to split into two organizations. DuPont/IMR kept all the single-base (nitrocellulose only) propellants, and all the double-base (NC plus nitroglycerin) propellants became Hercules.

Hercules also got the dynamite business along with the NC/NG propellants and that's where they made most of their profits.

[Maven]

All, I asked about the following powder several years ago, but no one knew a thing about it. With our larger membership, I'm hoping someone can help me. The powder is packaged by Ensign-Bickford in Connecticut, and is called EB-11R, but was manufactured by Bofors* in Sweden. It is a short-cut extruded propellant that looks like a black version of IMR 4227. Something tells me it was designed for the 5.56 NATO cartridge, but that's just my surmise. I've used it in the .243Win. with #245496 (87gr.) and got these results:

19.5gr. -> 1,684 fps +- 64 fps

20.5gr. -> 1,714 fps +- 88 fps

21.5gr. -> 1,746 fps +- 68 fps

Any help you can give me will be appreciated!


*Looked at Bofors' site, but I don't understand Swedish. I also e-mailed them about EB-11R, but they never bothered to respond. Btw, I also telephoned Ensign-Bickford, but no one there seemed to know much about it either.

[Ricochet]

Nearly all Ball powders contain 10% or less nitroglycerine. Then with the added deterrent (commonly dibutylphthalate) it ends up burning cooler than typical single base stuff.

Some of the European powder makers have used cooler burning nitroesters like dinitrodiethyleneglycol instead of nitroglycerine. Gives nearly as much energy boost in a double base powder, because it makes more molecules of carbon monoxide that take up space and build pressure, instead of burning more of the carbon to carbon dioxide and making fewer, hotter molecules. It's cheaper to make it from natural gas, too.

[MtGun44]

Neat info on Euro powders!

Bill