I personally have never used Herco for any handgun loads. A now deceased friend loaded some 44 mags many years ago that I think were loaded with it...and they were very accurate. I just purchased 2-8 lb kegs of Herco(hey the price was as they say, right). Has anyone on the board used Herco for loads in the 44? Heck I'd even try it in the 41 and 357 mags or 45 Colt if you all have a good load. I had to buy the darn stuff($60 bucks for both). If I can't use it for handgun maybe in the 28 ga. Sometimes I think I am my own worst enemy buying stuff like this. I also got an 8lb 700X for 40 bucks..but I know what to use it for. Last time I used Herco it was for Heavy duck and goose loads with lead shot. I've seen some loads in manuals but not all that many..Looking for y'alls experiences
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
Loads using Alliant Herco for the 44's
- Thread starter Skeet 028
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
rockquarry
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,533
- Reaction score
- 10,483
I don't recall using Herco in the .44 Magnum, but the most accurate .44 Special load I've found to date uses Herco powder. It's a moderate load with a 200 grain cast bullet. You can likely find some magnum Herco loads in the Lyman books and perhaps other sources.
Herco is a powder that is useful in a number of handgun cartridges but is unknown by many that have only started handloading in the last twenty years or so. There used to be far more Herco data.
Herco is a powder that is useful in a number of handgun cartridges but is unknown by many that have only started handloading in the last twenty years or so. There used to be far more Herco data.
I looked at the Alliant site and the only useful load in calibers I use was for the 45 Colt. I remember seeing much more loading data in the past for Herco. For the price the buy was worthwhile but I'm going to have to search for the older data. I think the use of Herco really went the way of the buffalo when they cut out the use of lead shot for waterfowl. I used to sell quite a bit back in the day to duck and goose shooters who reloaded. Just talked to a friend who still has some of the loads I mentioned and he said it is a cast 240gr bullet with 10.5 gr of Herco. He has a container of a 100 rounds with the data still pasted to the lid. I guess I am going to have to hunt up some of the old Hercules reloading manuals
cowboy4evr
Member
I just checked the Alliant website and found no load data for Herco in 44 magnum or 44 special . I tried my current LEE loading guide and found nothing there . I have used Herco in 357 , 41 magnum and 44 magnum . In an older manual I found that for the 44 special , using a 240 gr cast bullet the loads were from 7.0-8.0 grs . For the 44 magnum , I would start @ 9.0 and work up to 10.0 . It burns just a bit slower than unique and is fairly fluffy , just like unique , yet it burns cleaner . I have gone to 10.0 in the 41 magnum using a 220 gr Keith (HG 258) bullet . I found 9.5 more to my liking in the 41 magnum . In my 357 loads , using a 158 gr cast bullet I used 8.0 grs with much satisfaction . I hope this helps , Regards, Paul
Last edited:
venomballistics
Member
Ive used it.
It never really thrilled me though.
It sat orphaned between worlds dominated by H110, 2400 and Unique
Where 2400 and H100 did all the high end work with jacketed bullets, Unique did everything lead to perfection.
Herco was either too wild for lead, or too mild for JHP.
With the advent of coatings, however, Herco might warrant a revisit
It never really thrilled me though.
It sat orphaned between worlds dominated by H110, 2400 and Unique
Where 2400 and H100 did all the high end work with jacketed bullets, Unique did everything lead to perfection.
Herco was either too wild for lead, or too mild for JHP.
With the advent of coatings, however, Herco might warrant a revisit
Older Alliant manuals had far more loads. Not sure why they stopped that practice.
http://www.castpics.net/LoadData/Freebies/RM/Alliant/Hercules_1987.pdf
from
Alliant Manuals
I loaded up some hot Herco 32 Long the other day and was pleased.
http://www.castpics.net/LoadData/Freebies/RM/Alliant/Hercules_1987.pdf
from
Alliant Manuals
I loaded up some hot Herco 32 Long the other day and was pleased.
Last edited:
I think some manuals from the 70s and 80s would be usefull
rockquarry
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,533
- Reaction score
- 10,483
I did a lot of work with cast bullet loads for 9mm about thirty years ago. With bullets in the 100 -125 grain range, I probably developed a greater number of accurate loads with Herco than other powders. It easily beat Unique, but I doubt Unique is a popular 9mm powder.
I only shoot a 150 grain cast round nose (Lyman #358212) in 9mm guns these days, but I have not tried Herco with this bullet. Generally, according to my notes, Herco loads in most of the popular handgun cartridges will equal or exceed Unique results for cast bullet accuracy. I don't know about jacketed bullets.
I guess we have far too many powders available today. For some reason, I got away from Herco for several years, perhaps in the quest to try powders I had not used previously.
I only shoot a 150 grain cast round nose (Lyman #358212) in 9mm guns these days, but I have not tried Herco with this bullet. Generally, according to my notes, Herco loads in most of the popular handgun cartridges will equal or exceed Unique results for cast bullet accuracy. I don't know about jacketed bullets.
I guess we have far too many powders available today. For some reason, I got away from Herco for several years, perhaps in the quest to try powders I had not used previously.
OK, went searching and found a 1980 Hercules guide. The following are listed Herco loads, THIS WAS BEFORE PIEZO ELECTRIC PRESSURE DETERMINATION. Reduce all loads AT LEAST 10% and work up with great caution.
.44 Magnum
225 gr JHP, 12.8 grains/1400 f/s
240 gr L gas check, 11.5 grains/1235 f/s
240 gr JSP, 12.0 grains/1305 f/s
250 gr L, 11.3 gr/ 1310 f/s.
.357 Magnum
125 gr JHP, 9.9 gr/1555 f/s
158 gr LRN, 9.0 gr/1405 f/s
158 gr JSP, 8.3 gr/ 1300 f/s.
.41 Magnum
200 gr HP, 10.1 gr/1320 f/s
210 gr JSP, 10.5 gr/1340 f/s
220 gr JSP, 9.3 gr/ 1220 f/s.
.44 Magnum
225 gr JHP, 12.8 grains/1400 f/s
240 gr L gas check, 11.5 grains/1235 f/s
240 gr JSP, 12.0 grains/1305 f/s
250 gr L, 11.3 gr/ 1310 f/s.
.357 Magnum
125 gr JHP, 9.9 gr/1555 f/s
158 gr LRN, 9.0 gr/1405 f/s
158 gr JSP, 8.3 gr/ 1300 f/s.
.41 Magnum
200 gr HP, 10.1 gr/1320 f/s
210 gr JSP, 10.5 gr/1340 f/s
220 gr JSP, 9.3 gr/ 1220 f/s.
Last edited:
Fishinfool
Member
I have never used it myself, but here is some data from the Speer Reloading Manual Number 10. It dates to 1979. Preface to the load table states "These loads are within the industry maximum pressure, 43,500 cup".
.429, 200 grain jacketed Speer hollow point- 15.8 grains Herco, 1492 fps. (Max load). 14.8 grains Herco at 1458 fps is the suggested starting load.
.429, 225 grain jacketed hollowpoint - 14.2 grains at 1455 fps, max, 13.2 at 1322 fps to start.
.429, 240 grain jacketed hollowpoint - 13.3 grains at 1270 fps, max, and 12.3 at 1241 fps to start.
A CCI 350 magnum primer was used with the above loads.
Just wanted to point out the differences between the Powder manufacturers recommended loads as posted above by WR Moore, and those of the Speer Manual, even though they were written in about the same 1980 time frame. Variation in testing protocols, components, and guns reflects that variations between loading manuals is nothing new, and why starting any new load at 10% below starting is generally a good idea.
Larry
.429, 200 grain jacketed Speer hollow point- 15.8 grains Herco, 1492 fps. (Max load). 14.8 grains Herco at 1458 fps is the suggested starting load.
.429, 225 grain jacketed hollowpoint - 14.2 grains at 1455 fps, max, 13.2 at 1322 fps to start.
.429, 240 grain jacketed hollowpoint - 13.3 grains at 1270 fps, max, and 12.3 at 1241 fps to start.
A CCI 350 magnum primer was used with the above loads.
Just wanted to point out the differences between the Powder manufacturers recommended loads as posted above by WR Moore, and those of the Speer Manual, even though they were written in about the same 1980 time frame. Variation in testing protocols, components, and guns reflects that variations between loading manuals is nothing new, and why starting any new load at 10% below starting is generally a good idea.
Larry
Last edited:
The Hercules data is out of a pressure barrel on a universal receiver. As I've repeatedly noted, the data reflects a barrel/chamber with minimum dimensions. The chances of you getting their velocities with the same powder charge are reeeeeeaaaaally slim.
Herco was used a lot in the early days of smokeless powder in
revolver loads.
It is close to Unique in make up and will work well with lead bullets.
My 1987 Hercules data for the 44 Magnum and Herco powder, full loads list.........
180 Jhc at 1495fps
240 LGC at 1235fps
265 JFP at 1255fps at 35,600 CUP , top pressure.
In the 38 Special it is in a dead heat with Unique powder and if
you load 9mm it just a few fps slower .
Have fun.
revolver loads.
It is close to Unique in make up and will work well with lead bullets.
My 1987 Hercules data for the 44 Magnum and Herco powder, full loads list.........
180 Jhc at 1495fps
240 LGC at 1235fps
265 JFP at 1255fps at 35,600 CUP , top pressure.
In the 38 Special it is in a dead heat with Unique powder and if
you load 9mm it just a few fps slower .
Have fun.
DWalt
Member
"OK, went searching and found a 1980 Hercules guide. The following are listed Herco loads, THIS WAS BEFORE PIEZO ELECTRIC PRESSURE DETERMINATION."
Not so. I worked for Hercules in the late 60s and 70s, and we were using piezo gauges for chamber pressure measurements (and other things) then. But the instrumentation was much more crude - very little in the way of solid state electronics was available, still in the age of vacuum tubes. I have made previous postings here about my Hercules experiences of that time. The Army was using piezo gauges for chamber pressure measurement in artillery pieces back in the late 1930s and I have an Army manual about how it was done.
The older Lyman reloading handbooks have many handgun recipes using Herco - although it is primarily a propellant for smaller gauge and magnum shotshell loading. As do the older Hercules reloading data sheets. I have quite a large library of elderly Lyman loading manuals plus old data sheets from the bullet manufacturers and Hodgdon, duPont, and Hercules. Very handy to have those when working with older propellants and calibers.
Not so. I worked for Hercules in the late 60s and 70s, and we were using piezo gauges for chamber pressure measurements (and other things) then. But the instrumentation was much more crude - very little in the way of solid state electronics was available, still in the age of vacuum tubes. I have made previous postings here about my Hercules experiences of that time. The Army was using piezo gauges for chamber pressure measurement in artillery pieces back in the late 1930s and I have an Army manual about how it was done.
The older Lyman reloading handbooks have many handgun recipes using Herco - although it is primarily a propellant for smaller gauge and magnum shotshell loading. As do the older Hercules reloading data sheets. I have quite a large library of elderly Lyman loading manuals plus old data sheets from the bullet manufacturers and Hodgdon, duPont, and Hercules. Very handy to have those when working with older propellants and calibers.
Last edited:
Well the best I can say is I got the powder and am going to use it. I was just given a whole bunch of Remington STS 28 ga hulls(about 4000) so will use it in them after doing a couple hundred round test on the load. I also have 2 or 3 pounds that I can use for the tests on all the loads. Yeah....I am cheep but as long as it works well I'll be happy. Thanks for all the help on this. I will report back on the loads I do try in the handguns...especially the 41 and 44. I think I may sell the 3 inch 29-3 round butt gun and buy a 5 or 6 inch 44. My longest is a 4 inch. Need to expand my horizons so to speak. The old load my deceased friend did up were good shooters out of the ol Ruger SBH I have had since the 60s.
Last edited:
I just have to post I have always been partial to Hercules/Alliant powders. One of the easier powders to get when young and I used a lot shooting shotgun. Have never had any H/A powder go bad...and I have some here from the 30's....umm...1930s...better clarify that! LOL
OK, that may well be, but the published pressures with the load data are posted as CUP. That suggests that you may have been measuring pressures that way, but not publishing that data. Possibly looking for any correlation (which seems not to exist at pistol pressures, per Speer) between PSI and CUP? That they weren't using the piezo system seemed a reasonable assumption since they weren't publishing anything but the old copper crusher pressure data. Had SAAMI established official standards in actual psi at that time? Could also have been recycled old data?
Possible changes in powder formulation over decades make older load data for some powders
suspect. At least at the upper end.
Speaking of which, here is Alliant Herco load data from 2000 with pressures listed in psi, presumably by the piezo system. There are changes from the 1980 data, possibly due to pressure indications now known from the different measuring system, since changes go in both directions.
.44 Magnum
225 gr JHP, 11.0 gr/1285 f/s (down 1.8 gr)
240 gr Lead Gas Check,12.5 gr/1330 f/s (up 1 gr)
240 gr JSP, 10.5 gr/1245 f/s (down 1.5 gr)
.357 Magnum
125 gr JSP, 9.8 gr/1590 f/s (down 0.1 gr.)
158 gr LSWC, 7.9 gr/1365 f/s (down 1.1 gr)
158 gr JSP, 8.2 gr/1305 f/s (down 0.1 gr)
.41 Magnum
200 gr HP, 10.1 gr/1320 f/s
210 gr JSP, 10.3 gr/1320 f/s (+ 0.2 gr)
220 gr JHP, 9.3 gr/1220 f/s
Somewhere, I have the drawings my father did for using a Wheatstone Bridge to determine pressures on Naval guns. Exact time frame unknown, but around/prior to WWII. They stayed with copper crusher at that time since the changeover was going to require massive retesting and new procedures and manuals. Besides massive costs, the looming war made those changes out of the question.
Last edited:
per post #16;
STS is a Great hull........
as you know, finding the BEST wad is what makes a good load.
Good luck developing a load, be it light trap or field loads.
STS is a Great hull........
as you know, finding the BEST wad is what makes a good load.
Good luck developing a load, be it light trap or field loads.
Nevada Ed... You are right. finding a load even in shotguns is sometimes challenging. That being said though..the STS hull is so much like the old original AA hulls in makeup I'll bet I can find one using that older data. It's kinda funny..Remington worked for decades trying to match the AA hull in quality...and when they finally did it...Winchester quit making the original compression formed case and went to an inferior design. And I have tens of thousands of different wads. I feel I'll be able to find one.
