New VS Old Unique

[BC38]

I have a couple of pounds of the old Hercules Unique - still factory sealed in the metal cans.
From what I had read I was of the impression that the new Alliant Unique and the old Hercules Unique powders are slightly different in terms of their granularity and density, but that they were formulated so that they could be used interchangeably as long as the charge weights (not volumes) are kept the same.

However, when I came across some links to the old Hercules manuals in this thread ?'s on Herco and from what I am seeing the old Hercules manuals recommend higher charge weights than anything I have seen for the Alliant version of Unique. And I'm not talking just a little bit either - they are a LOT higher - like 25% more powder. For example in the Hercules manual it shows 10gr for a 110 gr 357 JHP and the load data for the same bullet with Alliant's version of Unique says to use 7.4gr!

Unless I'm somehow confused and reading the info wrong (someone please correct me if that's the case) if had taken what I had read on face value and loaded up some rounds with the Hercules powder using the Alliant recipe I'd likely have ended up with a batch of squibs!

So once again, the vast knowledge that is available and so freely shared around here is greatly appreciated!

[Bruce51]

The new Unique is supposed to burn cleaner but I really believe that only applies when used in shotgun shells.

Using much smaller amounts in pistol loads seems to make no difference that I can tell.

However Unique burns the best when the optimum loading density is reached in a given caliber.

An example of this is a load I tried of 5.5 grains with a 185 PFP in the .45acp.

I had unburned powder until the load reached 5.8-5-9 grains and then all the powder appeared to have completely burned.

Old load data tends to be much higher but I never blew anything up using said data.

Differences in pressure testing may be the cause of the reduced data we see in today's reload manuals.

Unique today is supposed to be as close as possible to the original formulation. There is still some keep sealed under laboratory conditions that occasionally is tested.

Remember that the gun you are loading for may be the biggest variable
when working up loads.

BLM

[X Ring]

I think you will find many powders that are in the same boat. Old data will show higher loads for most powders. The manor in which testing is preformed and pressure is measured will account for most of the discrepancy.

[Warren Sear]

A lot of the old data was developed with nothing more than guesswork and trying to interpret subjective "signs o'pressure".

Your gun should not blow up using this data, but it might. Most likely it will just loosen up from the abuse.

There is no need to use this old data anymore, or use loads that are over maximum. If you want more power, just buy a bigger gun.

[deadin]

5.5 grains of "old" Unique pushing a 200gr SWC was my favorite .45 ACP target load. I would assume that I will have to start over if I use the new powder. (I usually tweek my loads with any new batch of powder anyway.)

[Alk8944]

Just a few observations about Unique that you can take any way you want. I have been using Unique for over 50 years, both new and old. I can't even recall when the "new" Unique was introduced, but I believe it is something around 20+/- years now.

For most of this time loading data for Unique as published by Alliant was identical to the data that had been published by Hercules for years. It is only the past very few years that published data has become more conservative. The same is true of all the powders which have been manufactured for an extended period of time, it is not peculiar to Unique!

I have been using a chronograph for over 25 years. I have chronographed similar loads with Unique, both old and new, and there is no discernable difference in performance between the two types! Same cartridge, same bullet, same charge weight, same velocity! There is no more difference than would be expected from normal lot-to-lot variation!

I cannot say that the "new" Unique is any cleaner than the original. I certainly cannot see any noticeable difference when used in any form of handgun! The only difference is visual, the granules are larger with "new" Unique, and it doesn't meter worth a damn in many powder measures because of this. This is the only reason why I use less Unique than I did at one time. I will often use other powders in the same burning rate range such as SR 4756, WSF, etc. simply because they meter more consistently. At one time probably 90%+ of my handgun loading was with Unique, with most of the rest being Bullseye or 2400!

I am somewhat of a reactionary (Look it up!). When using any of the Hercules/Alliant powders I continue to base my loads on what has been published in the past. This is because the data has been proven to be safe for several decades (Since at least the 1930s.) and hundreds of millions of rounds loaded by millions of reloaders. I see no reason to modify this simply because a purely arbitrary pressure level specified by SAAMI is now exceeded due to a change of measurement method!

[BC38]

So then the old Hercules Unique and the new Alliant Unique really ARE the same charge weight for charge weight? Seriously? They have actually reduced the recommended charge weights THAT much over the last 25 years?

REALLY? They actually used to recommend charges that were 33% higher - or they've reduced them 25% - whichever way you want to look at it? That absolutely floors me!

To my way of thinking that pretty much means that the current "max" charge recommendations don't really mean diddly squat. Either that or the charges they used to recommend were totally unsafe!

[Alk8944]

Originally Posted by BC38

So then the old Hercules Unique and the new Alliant Unique really ARE the same charge weight for charge weight? Seriously? They have actually reduced the recommended charge weights THAT much over the last 25 years?

REALLY? They actually used to recommend charges that were 33% higher - or they've reduced them 25% - whichever way you want to look at it? That absolutely floors me!

To my way of thinking that pretty much means that the current "max" charge recommendations don't really mean diddly squat. Either that or the charges they used to recommend were totally unsafe!

As I said above, that is pretty much my take on it based on over 50 years of reloading experience, and I act accordingly. I have absolutely no reason to believe that a load that was published by not only Alliant, but Lyman and others, since the 1930s, with no problems that could be attributed to the data, is suddenly "Dangerous" because the method of measuring pressure changed! A good example is .38 Special. 5.5 gr. Unique with a 158 gr LSWC and standard SP primer was very common since the 1930s. Literally millions of rounds with this load have been fired successfully and safely over the past 80 years. The idea that it is suddenly dangerous simply because published data has been recently changed is assinine.

[BC38]

GEEZ! And here I've been fussing over a variance of 2/10 of a grain loading to the CURRENT minimum recommendations - because (as you said) the Alliant large-flake Unique doesn't meter worth a darn!

[Nemo288]

Until the disappearance of Universal (clays) (along with many other powders),
I had switched to it from Unique mostly because it metered better and burned somewhat cleaner.
I still have both the old and new Unique and also don't notice any difference between them.
I mostly use them in shotshells now or near full power magnum 44 loads.

===
Nemo

[X Ring]

To my way of thinking that pretty much means that the current "max" charge recommendations don't really mean diddly squat. Either that or the charges they used to recommend were totally unsafe!

No, it means that that is the maximum charge the publisher of the data recommends. It is not the maximum charge an older firearm will handle.
Remember one thing, years ago NO ONE would even think of making a gun with a plastic frame, now it is done all the time.

[silentflyer]

More lawyers in the equation of liability now than years ago?

[rg1]

I chronographed identical loads, same brass, same lot of primers, same bullets, of old 1984 Hercules Unique and Alliant Unique from early 2000's. I finally ran out of my old Unique and wanted to test old versus new. In my one test velocity was within 5 or so feet per second comparing 1984 versus 2000's Unique. Virtually identical results. There is supposed to be a supply of the original Unique that is kept and all new Unique is compared to the original by the manufacturer before it is ever sold? I've read the story about this.

[Nemo288]

They used to show the jar with the original sample under liquid in some of their advertisements.
Can't quickly find an image right now.

===
Nemo

[Mad_Charlie]

Originally Posted by Nemo288

Until the disappearance of Universal (clays) (along with many other powders),
I had switched to it from Unique mostly because it metered better and burned somewhat cleaner.
I still have both the old and new Unique and also don't notice any difference between them.
I mostly use them in shotshells now or near full power magnum 44 loads.

===
Nemo

I too save my Unique for shot shells, powders I use for target work these days are 231 and Bullseye with a little Titegroup and Tin Star thrown in. The small amount of new Unique that I have used in my .45 Colt wasn't any cleaner or otherwise different over the chrono than Unique purchased in 1975.

Full power loads in my magnums I use H110, N110, or 2400.
I have a few lbs of 300MP and L'il Gun, mostly for if I can't get anything else, but I haven't done much work with them.

[Vulcan Bob]

Originally Posted by rg1

I chronographed identical loads, same brass, same lot of primers, same bullets, of old 1984 Hercules Unique and Alliant Unique from early 2000's. I finally ran out of my old Unique and wanted to test old versus new. In my one test velocity was within 5 or so feet per second comparing 1984 versus 2000's Unique. Virtually identical results. There is supposed to be a supply of the original Unique that is kept and all new Unique is compared to the original by the manufacturer before it is ever sold? I've read the story about this.

I did the same as rg1 with the old and "new" Unique with the same results, may have been a marketing ploy on their part. Back in the day measuring pressures was not as precise as it is now and as mentioned guns were not blowing up all over the place. However, I bet a lot of "tier one" revolvers were shot loose with a few early first gen Colt SAA's missing top straps.

[Warren Sear]

Some of the load data in the older Speer and Sierra manuals is dangerous. Most (all?) loads were not pressure tested, but if anyone wants to continue to use them, please be my guest.

[Imissedagain]

I am new at it compared to the really really old guys and gals but in 35 years with Unique it shoots the same. I scoop and weigh.
You're as young as you feel.

[Bob T]

IMHO the biggest reason for the difference between old and new data: Litigation.

[Ole Joe Clark]

Yesterday I shot some .357's that were loaded with 7 gr Unique on Dec 24, 1988, almost 27 years ago. Was a 158 gr SWC with GC and WW primer. They all fired, smelled like Lyman lube, and the pistol cleaned up easy today. :-)

[BC38]

OK, well if the general consensus is that the old and new are the same charge weight for charge weight, I'll use modern load data even when I start using the old powder.

When I saw the data in the old manuals I figured that I needed to load using that data once I started using the old powder. I guess that really isn't necessary or even the right way to go...

[Nemo288]

Manufacturers and distributors actually try really hard to keep a powder's performance stable even if the formula and/or process changes.
There have been a few occasions, especially with powders that started out as surplus, where this was not the case.
Also confusing is where you have 2 powders with almost the same name that ARE different.
Example I experience would be IMR and H 4198
H4198 is denser and burns a little slower, even looks different.
Then there is the plethora of 4350 powders....

Considering Unique is one of the early canister powders (Laflin & Rand 1900) I think they have done a good job keeping it stable.
I wonder if this is the case with say IMR 3031 (1934).

===
Nemo

[Alk8944]

Originally Posted by Warren Sear

Some of the load data in the older Speer and Sierra manuals is dangerous. Most (all?) loads were not pressure tested, but if anyone wants to continue to use them, please be my guest.

The discussion is specifically about Unique. You cannot support your contention that "Most loads were not pressure tested" as it simply is not true! If you will consult Hercules/Alliant, Winchester, IMR, much (Not all!) of Hodgdon data, and some others you will find they have published published pressure data! You can take it to the bank that this information was derived by some pressure measurement system at some time! They did not simply pick numbers out of the air.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by Warren Sear

Some of the load data in the older Speer and Sierra manuals is dangerous. Most (all?) loads were not pressure tested, but if anyone wants to continue to use them, please be my guest.

I can neither conform nor deny these statements. However, FWIW, the 33% higher charge weight data I was referencing was not from Speer or Sierra - it was from the powder manufacturer's manual (Hercules 1987 & 1992).

While I can't speak to how accurate the data is - or how the numbers were derived - it DOES give pressures for each load and they are below the SAAMI standards as far as I can see/tell/recall...

[Nemo288]

The problem we are encountering here (warning: thread drift!) is pressure measured by copper crusher vs. piezo peak.
Crushers are a measure of total energy and no one at the time had any real idea of the instantaneous peak pressure.
Now we do and this is why loads have been reduced.
Whether or not they really needed to be is yet another question that will be debated forever.

===
Nemo

[BLUEDOT37]

Originally Posted by BC38

FWIW, the 33% higher charge weight data I was referencing was not from Speer or Sierra - it was from the powder manufacturer's manual (Hercules 1987 & 1992).

Don't forget that the old SAAMI max pressure standard for the 357 Magnum was 45,000 CUP vs the current standard of 35,000 PSI. That's approximately 10,000 PSI different between them.

However, looking at the 1983 Hercules Guide vs the 2000 Alliant Guide (pressure given in kCUP vs kPSI respectively) I don't see that big of a percentage difference in the powder weights for the 357 Mag in their data. Do you have an example of that 33%> difference?

.

[DWalt]

Until at least 1970, CUP was about the only chamber pressure measurement method existing, at least in wide use. Starting then, the use of electronic piezo gauges became more common. I did some of the first piezo gauge pressure measurement work in the mid-late 1960s when I worked for Hercules. In those days, we had to use an oscilloscope and a Polaroid camera to take a picture of the pressure trace on the screen. Very tedious, but the data was good. CUP and piezo PSI data are not comparable. I have discussed that in some detail in other postings, so I won't do it here.

By the way, does everyone know that Unique and Bullseye use the same formulation? The difference is in the granule thickness.

[Nemo288]

I had read that in a history of Laflin & Rand I came across.
L&R-Smokeless-History
Fascinating stuff.
There were also a couple of other versions that have disappeared.
BTW this document also has a copy of the ad showing the original Infallible/Unique sample referred to above.

Also recommended is "The Chemistry Of Powder & Explosives"

Amazon.com: The Chemistry of Powder and Explosives (9780913022009): Tenney L. Davis: Books

 

Amazon.com: The Chemistry of Powder and Explosives (9780913022009): Tenney L. Davis: Books

This was written during WW2 and published about the time I was born but remains one of the most detailed
tretises on nitro-organics and other propellant processes.

I agree about the difference between CUP and PSI.
I have seen a couple of modern tests that used both methods simultaneously.
They were custom tests of double rifle rounds to try to establish what would be safe modern equivilents.
The word from them was that the CUP crusher buttons are not going to be available forever making all that old data even more of an orphan.

I also had the pleasure of trying to capture those scope traces with a Polaroid.
In my case it was for certifying bandwidth and harmonics (and other functions) of broadcast equipment.
This is one area the computer certainly has made things way easier.
Remember the competing, totally incompatible, data busses of HP and Tektronix?
My first attempt at resolving some of this was using a VIC20 which had raw FET gate I/O you had to make your own boards to interface.
Ahh the nostalgia!

===
Nemo

[DWalt]

I once taught a course in explosives chemistry and the Tenney Davis book was my textbook as there was nothing else like it available, at least then. Problem was that there were many newer explosives developed during and after WWII which are not mentioned in it, so I had to develop course coverage materials for those separately.

The only oscilloscopes we had were Tektronix, and they were huge at the time. Seems like they weighed a ton and had to be moved around on wheeled carts. The Polaroid camera back fit in a mounting over the face of the tube. Also needed to integrate the area under the P-T curve using a planimeter on the picture for explosive shock wave analysis. That was also tedious, as we generally did it several times and took an average.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by BLUEDOT37

...However, looking at the 1983 Hercules Guide vs the 2000 Alliant Guide (pressure given in kCUP vs kPSI respectively) I don't see that big of a percentage difference in the powder weights for the 357 Mag in their data. Do you have an example of that 33%> difference?

Sure, its in the very first post of this thread - to quote myself...

...the old Hercules manuals recommend higher charge weights than anything I have seen for the Alliant version of Unique. And I'm not talking just a little bit either - they are a LOT higher - like 25% more powder. For example in the Hercules manual it shows 10gr for a 110 gr 357 JHP and the load data for the same bullet with Alliant's version of Unique says to use 7.4gr!

The Hercules manual that shows 10gr for this bullet is the 1987 manual, and IIRC it was the Lyman 48th that showed 7.4 gr of modern Unique for the same bullet weight and type. Unfortunately Im not where I can get to my Lyman's manual right now to confirm...

[BLUEDOT37]

Oops! Sorry, guess I'm blind in one eye & can't see out of the other.

Using that example in the two Hercules/Alliant powder manuals I referenced, 1983 & 2000, they are the same in both, 10.0gr/Unique with 110gr JHP, in a 357Mag case.

In Speer #9 (1978) it's 10.0gr also. Speer #13 (1998 & before they merged with ATK) & Speer #14 (2007 & ATK partner) it's 9.7grs, as it is in the current Alliant manual. Lyman #45 (1978) & #49 (2008) both have 10.0gr. I can only surmise that the year you saw the 7.4grs in (1992?) was a typo.

.

PS: It's 10.0grs also in the 1992 Hercules manual.

.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by BLUEDOT37

Oops! Sorry, guess I'm blind in one eye & can't see out of the other.

Using that example in the two Hercules/Alliant powder manuals I referenced, 1983 & 2000, they are the same in both, 10.0gr/Unique with 110gr JHP, in a 357Mag case.

In Speer #9 (1978) it's 10.0gr also. Speer #13 (1998 & before they merged with ATK) & Speer #14 (2007 & ATK partner) it's 9.7grs, as it is in the current Alliant manual. Lyman #45 (1978) & #49 (2008) both have 10.0gr. I can only surmise that the year you saw the 7.4grs in (1992?) was a typo.

Well, now I'm going to have to pull out my manuals tomorrow and figure out where I got that from....

[Gatorbaiter]

The reason max loads are lower in modern manuals than in older manuals is because the lawyers did not proof read the older manuals before publishing.

[Warren Sear]

Originally Posted by Alk8944

The discussion is specifically about Unique. You cannot support your contention that "Most loads were not pressure tested" as it simply is not true! If you will consult Hercules/Alliant, Winchester, IMR, much (Not all!) of Hodgdon data, and some others you will find they have published published pressure data...(blah, blah, blah)...

My comments were regarding the old Speer and Sierra manuals. I can't prove a negative, nor do I give a damn about it one way or the other, but there was not a word in the old Speer and Sierra manuals about pressure testing the loads, and no pressure data was provided. I remember reading statements like, "These loads did not show evidence of excessive pressure in our test firearm", or something to that effect. Later on, both manuals began to state pressures (in CUP). It would seem to me that this is credible evidence that the earlier data was not pressure tested on laboratory ballistic equipment.

I did not say a word about the other powder manufacturers you mentioned, even though the discussion is specifically about Unique.

[metalman60]

I keep up to date RCBS manuals on reloading. I also keep the manuals I got in 1977..... I compare old vs new. This way I double check if a new powder formulation requires that I use the latest manual.
Funny thing is, there is not much difference in pistol charges when you compare old vs new. Maybe .10 grain.

You can obtain old load books at garage sales etc.

Regards
Metalman60

[sniper]

Originally Posted by Alk8944

As I said above, that is pretty much my take on it based on over 50 years of reloading experience, and I act accordingly. I have absolutely no reason to believe that a load that was published by not only Alliant, but Lyman and others, since the 1930s, with no problems that could be attributed to the data, is suddenly "Dangerous" because the method of measuring pressure changed! A good example is .38 Special. 5.5 gr. Unique with a 158 gr LSWC and standard SP primer was very common since the 1930s. Literally millions of rounds with this load have been fired successfully and safely over the past 80 years. The idea that it is suddenly dangerous simply because published data has been recently changed is assinine.

I agree completely. 5.5 gr. Unique is/has been my IPSC/go to load for 50 years, I deisremember where I got the load...the infamous SPEER #8 is a real possibility. This, in 357 Magnum brass, standard primer of whatever make I could find, cast RCBS 150 gr., or 158 Gas Check. Chronoed 860 fps.

[venomballistics]

a LOT has happened between then and now.
One of the key things that has changed has been the use of direct pressure measurement replacing copper crusher measurement.
That change in standard made a lasting mess of things.
while our current PSI data is better, it eliminated loads and lowered standards in many cartridges. It's not as evident as it was early on, but bread crumbs remain.

[GypsmJim]

I started using Unique back in the 1970's. Shortly afterwards I upgraded my powder dispensing tool to a Lee Auto Disc. Then, I calibrated my measure with each type of powder I was using and plotted the data on Excel. All the curves showed a 99+% confidence factor.

Many batches of Unique went thru the system over all these years. Just last week I loaded a different formula, and went back to my calibration to set the measure. First drop, spot on.

I don't know about performance differences, but I can say for certainty that the density has not changed.

[pantannojack]

I would not expect a squib from a "reasonable" loading with powder as fast as Unique. But I had a fail to ignite using Blue Dot 40 years ago. The slow powders can be trouble if you only utilize one reloading data source. In experimenting with 7mm rem Mag, I found differences of 5 gs for same load from different books. I discontinued my interest in 7 Rem Mag. Start low and increase slowly every time you acquire a new lot of powder., is the common sense rule.

[gwpercle]

Get a New up to date reload manual(s) ...I like to have 3 or 4 manuals and use the data to load either old or new Unique .
From my loading I don't see much difference in the burn rate of old and new Unique .
The Data in the New Manuals has better testing ... I don't think the powder has changed that much since the 1970 Speer #8 manual ... the pressure testing has . I simply use the new data to load the older powder after doing some testing ... start low and work up slow to hot loads .
Target and mid-range handgun loads , using New Data , seem to be about the same with new or old Unique ( I still have a big cannister of old Unique that I load with ) I use the new data and see similar results ... I don't know if the new Unique is even that much cleaner ... seems about the same to me .
Gary

[BC38]

ZOMBIE!
Interesting how a thread can be resurrected after being dormant for nearly 8 years, but still be pertinent enough to revive the discussion.
That's one of the things I love about this forum. Good topics never really die.

[WR Moore]

I never had an actual Hercules manual, but they did used to put out load data information sheets that you could pick up free at your LGS. When the 125 gr .357 bullet was the great new thing, a buddy picked up a box and asked me to do some load development. I snagged one of those sheets as the manuals of the day didn't cover 125 gr bullets.

Sitting at the loading bench, I studied the max load for Unique. After I pulled my eyebrows back down, I checked the max load for .44 Magnum and compared that to my data books. After some math, I cut the max .357 load. Then I cut it again. Still cratered primers.

My next visit to the LGS provided me with a revised data sheet with the maximum charge reduced at least 25%. IIRC, that data is still current.

[BLUEDOT37]

Originally Posted by WR Moore

I never had an actual Hercules manual, but they did used to put out load data information sheets that you could pick up free at your LGS.

I hate to throw anything out.

.



.

[Nemo288]

Originally Posted by BLUEDOT37

I hate to throw anything out.

I agree!
Especially reloading manuals or any printed shooting material for that matter.
My buddy gave me one of the first manuals I acquired after I got the bug.
It's a Hornady 3rd which is pretty tattered by now and has my firearms records and
notes in the back where they thoughtfully provided several blank pages.
Been picking up, buying, and hoarding those manuals ever since (the early 1980's).
I also have an overflow library in the basement and a couple of manuals at the loading bench.
When loading I usually write down the recipe on a sheet of paper or
the journal I keep chrono records in and have that on the bench to refer to.

[Model19man]

Back when Alliant announced they were going to make a change in Unique I stocked up because I didn't dislike anything about the Hercules version. I still have close to 5 pounds left. I still use my Speer #8 reloading manual.

[WR Moore]

Originally Posted by BLUEDOT37

I hate to throw anything out.

Have a similar issue, however, remembering where you put stuff is another matter.

[Skeet 028]

As I posted on another thread I just found 3 lb of Unique 2 in plastic cans one in the square metal can. They will all get used with no changes. Alliant/Hercules changed a bit of the formula to make it burn cleaner...nothing else changed...I didn't think it was cleaner either..or not marked so. They stated at the time that nothing else was changed... Including the loading data. Supposedly the powder we use now is always within a 1/2 percent of the original lots of the powder. Data has changed to reflect better testing abilities