Unique question

[jhco50]

I have an older Hornady hand reloading book and one that is about 4 years old. While looking at the older book it gave me loads with unique powder that ran from 4.4 grs to 5.7 grs. In the newer book they said 5 grs was +P. even the velocities were a bit different. My question is, has Unique Powder changed in the last few years?

[kraigwy]

Hornady Lawyered up.

[rg1]

Unique hasn't changed except that it's supposed to be cleaner burning now. I had some 1982 Hercules Unique and compared it to early 2000's Alliant Unique and the velocity was only about 5-10 fps difference. Some of Hornady's bullets has a different profile compared to those from several years back but I agree, that some of the latest data is lawyer proofed. However a change in components or guns they used to test loads may cause slight differences in data.

[jhco50]

I had a feeling that was it, but took the safe route and loaded anemic.

[Doodlebugger45]

It's not just the Hornady manual or the Unique powder. ALL the suggested load ranges are much more conservative in the newer manuals than the older ones. Everyone is afraid of getting sued.

[Mike Irwin]

How old is the Hornady book you're talking about?

Over the years, in addition to concerns about liability, the methods used to measure chamber pressure changed, and this was a big factor in the redoing of loads.

[Slamfire]

Data from the 60's was even hotter.

My guess either lot to lot variation, a product change, or better measuring equipment.

[Loader9]

Yeah, it's changed. The Hercules powder is a hair slower averagely than the newer production wearing the Alliant name. When Alliant took over they turned up the burn temp on it to make it cleaner burning and there is a resultant quicker burn rate on it. You also have to consider how the accepted pressures have changed over the years. Take the 357 Mag for example. When new, the cartridge had an acceptable pressure rating at 47500 CUPs. Because of marginally made revolvers of time, namely, Smith & Wesson, they couldn't digest a steady diet of the full house loads without coming apart. So pressure was reduced to 42000CUP to accommodate the crappy pistols being made. Since then, the metallurgy from foreign nations and the import of some of these pistols had made for another dangerous situation. The 357 Mag is a popcorn puff in the wind as compared to it true "magnum" days with pressure limits now at 35000 CUPs. So between the minor burn rate change and the crap folks are buying for guns these days, you can't blame the situation on the powder makers or the data they give you. Blame the shooters buying the cheap crap guns.

[GeauxTide]

The data has changed, the powder has changed. Manufacturing has changed. Unique was my first powder. Working to book max, I locked up a M-19. Max for that piece was a full grain under the book.

[Doodlebugger45]

Nope, I don't "blame" the manufacturers at all. The industry has set "safe" pressure ranges for various cartridges and the powder makers just do their best to come up with loads that are in the safe range. To publish otherwise would just be begging for lawsuits.

There is a member of this forum who routinely ecperiments to see what the "real" pressure limits are for various guns and cartridges. If he gets case separation or the gun blows up, he knows he has found that limit. Some of the loads he has tried without failures are mind boggling. I won't ever try that myself, but it makes for interesting reading.

[Scorch]

Part of the issue with the reducing loads may also be the use of Piezo strain gauges for load testing instead of the older copper crusher methods, and the fact that SAAMI has lowered the pressure limits for several handguns over the past 10 years. Hornady has always been a bit conservative on their load recommendations.

[44 AMP]

Along with the already mentioned slight change to the powder, and the difference in pressure measurement, AND the liability factor, consider also the test guns used.

Every gun is an individual, to a greater or lesser degree. And the components used make a huge difference. Note the firearm used, the cases used, the primer, and bullet. For generations, the standard advice has always been, that when any change is made to any component, drop at least 10% and then work back up.

Book max is max with the ammo tested, in the gun tested. Period! It is a guideline, not a rule. Your gun/ammo combination may take a bit more, or may not be able to safely take as much!

A safe load with commercial brass might pop primers with GI brass. You simply cannot tell just by looking, and reading it out of a book or off the net only tells you what they got, with what they used.

I have been using Unique since the 1970s, and the loads I used then, in the guns I have used since, have been safe. But always, when getting close to top end, I develope loads for the indiviual guns, and don't use them in others, without working up.

[jhco50]

How old is the Hornady book you're talking about?

the older book is from the 1970s and the newer one is probably from the late 1990s.

There is a member of this forum who routinely ecperiments to see what the "real" pressure limits are for various guns and cartridges. If he gets case separation or the gun blows up, he knows he has found that limit. Some of the loads he has tried without failures are mind boggling. I won't ever try that myself, but it makes for interesting reading.

I had to laugh at that. At least he is gutsy.

Hornady has always been a bit conservative on their load recommendations.

Actually, the Lee handbook I have is pretty conservative as well.

[crowbeaner]

Last fall I opened a sealed metal can of Hercules Unique from the 60s. It looked, smelled, and shot just fine. I used 3.3 grains in 38 S&W loads under an RCBS 150 SWC sized .360".
The "newer cleaner burning" reformulated stuff requires 0.3 grains more for the same velocity. HMMMMMM.........

[MADISON]

Every time a powder manufacturer REFORMULATES/CHANGES their powders there are many updated reloading manuals. Use the new manuals!!!

[billcarey]

Every time a powder manufacturer REFORMULATES/CHANGES their powders there are many updated reloading manuals. Use the new manuals!!!

+1 on that. I wish the powder mfgs would add a revision number or letter with the name of the powder so there would be a way to tell the vintage and correct loading manual to reference. It would be easier and safer than chasing down the lot number date.

[Colorado Redneck]

I too have an old Hornady book and a newer book from the 90's. It is really interesting how the load data changed. One caliber that changed was the 270 Win. The 150 gr. bullet was pushed to 3000 fps by a couple of powders in the older book, but 2800 was about the limit in the newer book. A calibre that didn't change was the 25-06. In fact, in the newer book the 117 gr. BTSP was pushed to 3200 fps, which is well over all factory ammo. The latest load data I have seen from Hornady has down loaded the 25-06 to 3000 fps for the 117 gr. BTSP. Interesting, to say the least.

In my opinion, there were several factors that contributed to the evolution of published data. Lawyers were probably big, and newer insturments for measuring "strain." Slightly different forumlations of various powders. But another biggie (again in my opinion) was the business decision to market Hornady manufactured ammunition. If the factory ammo was not producing like the stuff handloaders can do in their basement, then the biggest competition is Hornady's own bullets.

[jhco50]

But another biggie (again in my opinion) was the business decision to market Hornady manufactured ammunition. If the factory ammo was not producing like the stuff handloaders can do in their basement, then the biggest competition is Hornady's own bullets.

I hadn't thought about that scenario. I will have to look at the Sierra manuals.

[Stumper]

Hah! If you are looking at Unique in the .38 special Sierra data is gonna make your jaw drop. ( I don't think Sierra data is "bad" but it is noteworthy that much of it over the years was not pressure tested.) Obviously "safe" and within SAAMI specs aren't always the same.

[Bruno2]

I had this argument on a thread I started. I have a shotgun reloading book from the same people that did "The ABC's of Reloading. This book has several green dot 20 ga loads in it . I have older Alliant manuals with the same recipes in them . I bought the green dot when I bought the manuals around the same yr. I have had this powder for 6-7 yrs in my garage. I went to look up some of the green dot 20 ga recipes and found that they dont reccomend green dot for 20 ga anymore. So I asked if it would be alright to use them. The responses I got was how foolish I was for wanting to use the recipes since they are now changed. I said well when I bought the powder it was alright and now it isnt? Then I asked if green dot had changed in the last couple yrs? Same response dont do it . They must have had bad data in those manuals. I still have around 2lbs of it and dont plan on throwing it out .

So here it is the million dollar question. Why shouldnt I use a powder that was purchased at the same time load data was available for it for my application? Did this 7yr old powder go through a metamorphosis in my garage? How could it be dangerous? I just dont get it .

I know companies reformulate their powders from time to time. I also know when I purchased it and what data was available for it. Did alliant publish dagerous data for their powder or was it formulated different?

Alliants rep was suggesting a new powder instead of green dot. I was starting to think it was just a marketing ploy. Oh , you need to buy some of this new powder we have.

[44 AMP]

And the sad world we live in today. IF they told you it was ok to use the Green Dot and the now superseded data, and something happened to you/your gun, your lawyer would get a crack at them. You might not win, but it will cost them money either way.

In a world without lawyers, if it was safe to do then, it is safe to do now. However, we no longer live in that world. Every problem, every accident is somebody else's fault and they must pay, even if it is your stupidity that caused it!

It could be that they found Green Dot to be erratic, or some other problem, and so no longer recommend it. IF they no longer recommend it, then telling you its ok to use leaves them liable, legally. And while you might not be sue happy, there are folks out there who are, and they just cannot take that chance.

[TXGunNut]

Should have loaded it 7 years ago when it was safe. Live and learn.

[Loader9]

Bruno2, I have probably gone thru 80 lbs of Green Dot in a 20 gauge when the family was all shooting country doubles every weekend. I still have and use Green Dot for the same shotguns using the same loading data from years ago. I've had zero issues in all these years. Load it just you you did years ago with the same data and components and you'll be fine. But I gotta ask, what kinda answer did you expect from a sales rep about having to buy more powder or use what ya have?

[Bruno2]

Should have loaded it 7 years ago when it was safe. Live and learn.

That was funny gun nut.

[Bruno2]

But I gotta ask, what kinda answer did you expect from a sales rep about having to buy more powder or use what ya have?

Well, most of the reloading companies are very customer service orientated. I was thinking (this may sound silly) that since I had already bought their products that maybe they would give me an honest up front answer.