You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Question about Hercules 2400 powder
- Thread starter G.O. West
- Start date
This is a question for Alliant. They would have the correct answer.
https://alliantpowder.com/questions/default.aspx
https://alliantpowder.com/questions/default.aspx
The can is from the 50s-60s. By the 70s they changed to a round (taller) fiberboard "drum" can with a plastic cap. This was the standard for the next couple decades, then they changed to a black plastic (round) can of the same approximate size.
Alliant will almost certainly tell you not to use that powder with current data, for liability reasons if nothing else.
They may tell you not to use the powder at all, for the same reason.
The can appears to be in very good condition, and looks to be still sealed. IF so, I would consider offering it on the collector's market, rather than using it.
Alliant will almost certainly tell you not to use that powder with current data, for liability reasons if nothing else.
They may tell you not to use the powder at all, for the same reason.
The can appears to be in very good condition, and looks to be still sealed. IF so, I would consider offering it on the collector's market, rather than using it.
lll Otto lll
New member
I would scrap it and sell the empty can on eBay. Salvaging old powder isn’t my thing.
CAUTION: The following post (or a page linked to) includes or discusses loading data not covered by currently published sources of tested data for this cartridge (QuickLOAD or Gordon's Reloading Tool data is not professionally tested). USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.
If the can is new and sealed, I would think the collector's market is a good idea.
In the name of full disclosure, I have a can like that of Unique I just found at my dad's house, looking in similar condition on the outside, but it was not unopened. It had been partially used and then apparently misplaced on the back of a shelf and replaced with a new jar of Unique. The old powder looks and smells fine. No red fumes, no rust eating through the can. If I pour a little out on a white sheet of paper and shake it a little and slowly pour the powder back into the can, there is no red dust left behind. So no classic breakdown symptoms. But Unique has a couple of qualities I'm aware of that may not be applicable to 2400. Alliant has a 110-year-old sample of Unique from the first lot that they keep underwater. Periodically, they dry some out and test it, and so far, it is still good. Unique may be unique in this regard. I don't know. Also, Unique is a fast powder. Slow powders have deterrents that can break down ahead of the rest of the powder, speeding up the burn rate. With the Unique, I can try a small sample at a fast powder load level (three grains in a 45 Auto with a 185-grain lead bullet) and see if it fails to cycle one of my 1911s. I expect it will, and then I can work up to a normal load, comparing it to the velocity I get from the same load using a new(ish) can of Unique.
Looking at my 1967 Lyman databook for the same or close-to-same bullet weights, all my old book data has slightly lower charges than the current Alliant data. The Alliant data is pressure-tested, but a lot of old loads were developed by pressure signs using components that have changed or are no longer made. Also, they used production guns rather than the tight-chamber SAAMI test barrels, so you'd expect they would tend to overcharge rather than undercharge. So, taken together, those lower old data load levels may mean the old 2400 was faster, or it may just mean the cases in use at the time were thicker and had less space in them.
In your shoes, if I wanted to use the powder, I would first make the same deterioration checks I described above. Ideally, I would have some modern 2400 I could use to compare velocities with very reduced loads first. Even better would be to have a barrel I could mount a strain gauge to for my Pressure Trace instrument and try to see what pressure the test loads gave me from reduced loads of both lots of powder, but that's not an inexpensive option.
If the can is new and sealed, I would think the collector's market is a good idea.
In the name of full disclosure, I have a can like that of Unique I just found at my dad's house, looking in similar condition on the outside, but it was not unopened. It had been partially used and then apparently misplaced on the back of a shelf and replaced with a new jar of Unique. The old powder looks and smells fine. No red fumes, no rust eating through the can. If I pour a little out on a white sheet of paper and shake it a little and slowly pour the powder back into the can, there is no red dust left behind. So no classic breakdown symptoms. But Unique has a couple of qualities I'm aware of that may not be applicable to 2400. Alliant has a 110-year-old sample of Unique from the first lot that they keep underwater. Periodically, they dry some out and test it, and so far, it is still good. Unique may be unique in this regard. I don't know. Also, Unique is a fast powder. Slow powders have deterrents that can break down ahead of the rest of the powder, speeding up the burn rate. With the Unique, I can try a small sample at a fast powder load level (three grains in a 45 Auto with a 185-grain lead bullet) and see if it fails to cycle one of my 1911s. I expect it will, and then I can work up to a normal load, comparing it to the velocity I get from the same load using a new(ish) can of Unique.
Looking at my 1967 Lyman databook for the same or close-to-same bullet weights, all my old book data has slightly lower charges than the current Alliant data. The Alliant data is pressure-tested, but a lot of old loads were developed by pressure signs using components that have changed or are no longer made. Also, they used production guns rather than the tight-chamber SAAMI test barrels, so you'd expect they would tend to overcharge rather than undercharge. So, taken together, those lower old data load levels may mean the old 2400 was faster, or it may just mean the cases in use at the time were thicker and had less space in them.
In your shoes, if I wanted to use the powder, I would first make the same deterioration checks I described above. Ideally, I would have some modern 2400 I could use to compare velocities with very reduced loads first. Even better would be to have a barrel I could mount a strain gauge to for my Pressure Trace instrument and try to see what pressure the test loads gave me from reduced loads of both lots of powder, but that's not an inexpensive option.
I agree with doing the smell test and some powder on paper to check for red dust and rust on the can. I believe that Bullseye, Unique and 2400 have the same basic double base composition and probably store just as well as Unique. I think, and this is my own personal oping FWIW, that if that were my can of powder depending on the cartridge, .357 or .44 Mag. I'd check through all my manuals for the lowest level starting load and load maybe five of that load. I'd run them over a chronograph if available and compare speed with the published number. If all went well, I'd then do a careful workup to whatever maximum shows in in my revolver with the edge toward a reasonable work load and go from there. My point being, I believe double based powders like Bullseye, Unique and 2400 store quite well. Naturally, opinions differ but that's mine FWIW.
Paul B.
Paul B.
Powder "shelf life" depends on many factors, beyond the base formulas. How well that specific lot of powder was made, back in the day and especially what it has gone through in the decades since.
If the can is still sealed, I would not think of using it.
I would keep it in its current condition and look for a collector who wants it.
If you DO plan to use it, use Uncle Nick's and Paul B's advice, with the proviso that comparing the velocity you get with the published data as a means of determining pressure is a really ROUGH comparison.
100fps or MORE difference is not outside the normal possible variation range due to differences in components and test guns.
Less variation is common, but 100fps is not unheard of, I've actually personally seen it between three different .357 pistols with the same (listed) barrel length shooting the same ammo.
The velocity alone only tells you if you are higher or lower speed than the listed data. IT doesn't tell you what the pressure is, OR if it is more or less than what was the pressure in listed data. One can assume things, in general, but only actually pressure testing the load (not something most of us are set up to do) will tell you what the actual pressure is.
If the can is still sealed, I would not think of using it.
I would keep it in its current condition and look for a collector who wants it.
If you DO plan to use it, use Uncle Nick's and Paul B's advice, with the proviso that comparing the velocity you get with the published data as a means of determining pressure is a really ROUGH comparison.
100fps or MORE difference is not outside the normal possible variation range due to differences in components and test guns.
Less variation is common, but 100fps is not unheard of, I've actually personally seen it between three different .357 pistols with the same (listed) barrel length shooting the same ammo.
The velocity alone only tells you if you are higher or lower speed than the listed data. IT doesn't tell you what the pressure is, OR if it is more or less than what was the pressure in listed data. One can assume things, in general, but only actually pressure testing the load (not something most of us are set up to do) will tell you what the actual pressure is.
The velocity problem is why I suggested comparing to the same loads with a modern sample of the powder. Comparing to published numbers is awfully rough. I've had different M1 Garands I was testing shoot the same lot of match ammo with 120 fps difference in MV, despite carefully manipulating them to get the powder in the same position in the case for each shot. If you use different gun models, much less different barrel lengths, the variations can get bigger. But if the powder compares well with a new sample using the same load fired in the same gun, then you know you can use modern load data with it.
jetinteriorguy
New member
This would be my approach, is it really worth the risk for saving the cost of a pound of powder?
Jim Watson
New member
I would keep it in its current condition and look for a collector who wants it.
Are there powder collectors? I know there are powder CAN collectors but they don't usually want flammable goods on the shelf.
While I don't personally know any, I'm sure there are people who would want an intact sealed can in "cherry" condition.
IF all they want is the can, THEY can buy it and open it and dump the powder themselves...There are things that, once done cannot be undone. Collectors and "Funny" folks, and what is ho-hum to one might be the holy grail to another.
For example, some people will pay lots of money for a sealed bottle of old wine, whether they intend to drink it, or not. DO they pay that much for the old empty bottle??? Not that I've heard....
Ammo collectors, and other collectors pay the most for complete, unopened/unused items they collect. In some cases the fact that it is full and sealed is what makes it collectable....
My wife's dog (In his chew on everything stage) snagged a box of .350Rem Mag, I had left on a desk. Turned an $80 box of vintage ammo into $20 worth of cartridges and some trash.
Somebody would buy the can, I have a couple of those cans myself (long enpty) but the right guy will pay more for the sealed can (If, in fact that is what the op has), he just has to find him...
IF all they want is the can, THEY can buy it and open it and dump the powder themselves...There are things that, once done cannot be undone. Collectors and "Funny" folks, and what is ho-hum to one might be the holy grail to another.
For example, some people will pay lots of money for a sealed bottle of old wine, whether they intend to drink it, or not. DO they pay that much for the old empty bottle??? Not that I've heard....
Ammo collectors, and other collectors pay the most for complete, unopened/unused items they collect. In some cases the fact that it is full and sealed is what makes it collectable....
My wife's dog (In his chew on everything stage) snagged a box of .350Rem Mag, I had left on a desk. Turned an $80 box of vintage ammo into $20 worth of cartridges and some trash.
Somebody would buy the can, I have a couple of those cans myself (long enpty) but the right guy will pay more for the sealed can (If, in fact that is what the op has), he just has to find him...
Marco Califo
New member
There is a plethora of scanned old powder pamphlets for major manufacturers here:
http://www.castpics.net/LoadData/Freebies/default.html
http://www.castpics.net/LoadData/Freebies/default.html
I shot mine. See post #15. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/new-2400-vs-old.856674/
Good luck shipping a pound of powder.
Good luck shipping a pound of powder.
Pressure test 2400. Old vs new.
Test of Hercules vs Alliant 2400 in the 357 Magnum with 6 different primers
https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?381165-Test-of-Hercules-vs-Alliant-2400-in-the-357-Magnum-with-6-different-primers
Test of Hercules vs Alliant 2400 in the 357 Magnum with 6 different primers
https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?381165-Test-of-Hercules-vs-Alliant-2400-in-the-357-Magnum-with-6-different-primers
That test shows a clear difference in burn rates and an opposite ratio to what old versus new load data would suggest. Also interesting is that the A2400 seems to be more sensitive to magnum primers than the H2400 in that test. It would have been interesting if he'd brought the A2400 charges down to match the H2400 to see what the charge weight ratio looked like.
Electrod47
New member
Its a curiosity. Keep it. Great Conversation piece. If its unopened, all the better. Leave it that way.
Mike Irwin
Staff
What I refer to as a "push pop" can. Also push clamp, or just clamp top.
They replaced an earlier, similarly shaped composite can (metal top and bottom, heavy paper body) with a screw top.
They were introduced around 1961-1962 and were in use for about 10 years.
Apparently they were not at all popular.
They replaced an earlier, similarly shaped composite can (metal top and bottom, heavy paper body) with a screw top.
They were introduced around 1961-1962 and were in use for about 10 years.
Apparently they were not at all popular.