Old Hercules load data?

[SeabeeMan]

Long story short, I acquired quite a bit of sealed Hercules powder: a 15lb cardboard keg of Bullseye, 12+ lbs of 2400, and some others. Everything looks great from what I opened, and obviously I'll keep an eye on things as I use them. No smells, funny appearance, etc. I know this stuff isn't necessarily equivalent to the modern Alliant powder, but I'm not sure how to go about finding a starting point to use it.

My first thought would be to just find an old Hercules load manual from that era (the 2400 is dated on the containers 83 and 88) and do the normal load workup, starting on the low end. I haven't had much luck digging something like that up online. Does anybody know of any sources for a PDF along those lines before I hit up eBay for a "vintage" manual?

[MT Gianni]

BE has not changed in the last 100+ years. It is tested regularly. 2400 changed less than 1% when it changed manufacturers.

[imashooter2]

Current data is just fine for both powders. Use with confidence.

[Kosh75287]

The "start 10% under max." rule still applies, less because the propellants' formulations have changed and more b/c the conditions under which YOUR particular batch of propellant might have changed the chemistry. I doubt seriously that much would happen if you DID NOT start at 10% under max, but it only takes one adverse occurrence to make you wish that you had.

[Winger Ed.]

When they make a batch of powder, such as Bullseye- they run lab tests on it.
It has to come out within (I think) 5% of the 'Bullseye' specifications or they can't/won't call it Bullseye.
They'll sell it off to some commercial ammo maker to do their own tests and load a big run of factory ammo with it.

So, if your can says Bullseye, it is within 5% of being exactly the same as a new one, or a can left over from the early 1900s.

[P Flados]

The 2005 booklet was the last one before they got rid of a bunch of info. I consider this one to be a great resource.

http://marvinstuart.com/firearm/Manuals/Reloading/Vendor%20Supplied%20Load%20Data/Alliant%20Powder%20Reloaders%20Guide%20-%202005.pdf


I also have some of the older booklets that do not have pressure values in psi. I do not trust these at all.

[SeabeeMan]

Thank you all! I didn't realize those 2 in particular were so consistent across the years. There are so many threads on this topic that quickly devolve into a debate, it's tough to get solid info from them.

[Larry Gibson]

"I know this stuff isn't necessarily equivalent to the modern Alliant powder,"

So how is it you "know" that? I only ask because it is not a correct statemnt or assumption. Alliant did not change the formulas nor the specification of burn rate for either powder. If you read it on a forum or in a magazine it is just someone's conjecture. Alliant says they have not changed. I have compared through actual pressure testing older Hercules Bullseye, 2400 Blue Dot and a couple others with current Alliant powders. They are well within lot-to-lot pressure specifications with identical loads of each.

If you are basing your "know" on lower "max loads" in manuals today, then that is also an incorrect comparison. Many loads with all powders of all makes are most often lower in today's manuals because of the much better and much easier to use pressure measuring equipment used. Also, because today almost all manual loads adhere to SAAMI pressure standards. Where data is listed for a non SAAMI standardized cartridge the manual loads are usually conservative. Years ago, perhaps 30+ most manuals loaded the cartridges until "pressure signs" developed then they backed off a tudge and called that the "max load". Only a few actually pressure tested the loads and then because CUP testing is very time consuming and expensive. Due to liability and the availability of modern, easy to use pressure testing equipment most manuals, if they have developed their own loads, stick with SAAMI specifications. Alway be suspect of manuals with plagiarized load data as they don't say where it came from or if it was pressure tested.

As mentioned, the adage to always reduce to a 'start load" and work back up is always excellent advice and it should be followed.

Excellent find BTW regardless of what it may have cost (hopefully you got it for a good price) given the scarcity and cost of powder these days.

[Char-Gar]

Current data is just fine for both powders. Use with confidence.

My vote for best answer. It is short, to the point and accurate.

[Winger Ed.]

Thank you all! I didn't realize those 2 in particular were so consistent across the years.

They all are. If the formulation changes, so does the name.

[gumbo333]

If you are going to shoot cast boolits get a copy of Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook - 1973. New copies are available on eBay. You won’t be sorry.

[SeabeeMan]

"I know this stuff isn't necessarily equivalent to the modern Alliant powder,"

So how is it you "know" that?

Fair enough, I'm probably abusing the word "know" in that sentence. I "know" that repackaged powder, or that unsealed from any source other than what you purchased and have had in your possession, is potential for costly mistakes. There are also more examples of powder being renamed over the years without staying the same than I can keep track of. It's also very difficult to wade through the mixed opinions on what is chemically identical vs functional similar enough to use the same data. For example, H110/296 are identical as confirmed by the manufacturer, as far as I understand. But you can also find debate all around the interwebs, including this forum, that this old pulldown powder is the same as this canister powder, which is next to this on the burn chart, so use it with this data. Advice which is best taken with a healthy grain of salt.

Heck, I even have some powder called ETR-7, which seems to be CSB-2, that while supplied with pressure data, indicates that it is safe to use another powders data. The price was right during one of the first runs on reloading supplies, but I even treated that as suspect and was careful with it.



If you read it on a forum or in a magazine it is just someone's conjecture. Alliant says they have not changed.

I appreciate the input and stating that you've compared pressures. Keep in mind that to somebody trying to do it right and be careful, reading on a forum about somebody who heard about it from the manufacturer is equivalent to conjecture. I started initially searching for some sort of Alliant press release stating this, but have never been able to find it.



If you are basing your "know" on lower "max loads" in manuals today, then that is also an incorrect comparison. Many loads with all powders of all makes are most often lower in today's manuals because of the much better and much easier to use pressure measuring equipment used. Also, because today almost all manual loads adhere to SAAMI pressure standards. Where data is listed for a non SAAMI standardized cartridge the manual loads are usually conservative. Years ago, perhaps 30+ most manuals loaded the cartridges until "pressure signs" developed then they backed off a tudge and called that the "max load". Only a few actually pressure tested the loads and then because CUP testing is very time consuming and expensive. Due to liability and the availability of modern, easy to use pressure testing equipment most manuals, if they have developed their own loads, stick with SAAMI specifications. Alway be suspect of manuals with plagiarized load data as they don't say where it came from or if it was pressure tested.


That I'm aware of, but it always warrants saying. I always start low and work up. Typically with pistols I'm just plinking, so I stay low to conserve powder and barrel life.

Thanks for great advice and wording! The price was outstanding in normal times, but these were once in a lifetime kind of deals. Basically a couple of reloading setups that people were getting rid of. A couple of friends new some old timers who hadn't reloaded in years and wanted the stuff out of the way as they hadn't touched it in years. I worked out a price to purchase everything and in all cases, was very upfront about current prices and the market. No taking advantage of a grieving widow who didn't know what she had or anything like that. I offered to help them list and sell everything online rather than buy for myself, but they wanted it all gone to somebody they knew would use it. I let them set prices and threw extra in on top of it. I kept what I wanted, passed quite a bit on to a coworker who is just getting into reloading, and sold some locally to recoup my costs.