The other day someone mentioned Bob Hagel’s 1981 article in Handloader on fast versus slow powders in short barrels.

Mr. Hagel was addressing the perception that slow burning powders were wasted in short barrels and produced lower velocities than fast powders.

He did some testing with his Dan Wesson revolver and it’s interchangeable 2.5”, 4”, 6” and 8” barrels.

I dug up that 40 year old magazine to review it because what the other gentleman remembered and took alway from it was different than what I remembered and took away from it.

The other gentleman’s perception was the now common internet wisdom that the same slow powders that produce maximum velocity in long barrels also produce maximum velocity in short barrels.

My take away from that article was two fold:
- medium burn rate powders produce nearly identical
velocities with light bullets in the .357 Magnum, with a lot less recoil; and
- Unique is an excellent .357 magnum powder, particularly for the lighter 110-125 gr bullets.

——-

In short, after re-reading the article, Bob Hagel corrected the misperception about slower powders producing slower velocities on average, but there are some significant caveats we need to review.

Bob Hagel had a reputation for posting some really hot load data from time to time, but in this case working with a revolver he took care to control for pressure across loads and used a factory control load in a marked cylinder. He used the CCI-Speer 158 gr JHP Lawman load as the control as it was a typical full power self defense load. The pressure ring on the case was measured with a micrometer and the other loads were worked up until they each produced the same diameter pressure ring.

Hagel noted that the H110/Win 296 load was about 1 grain below max and that the Unique load was about a half grain below max. However he adhered to the pressure ring diameter as a control based on its relevance to “full power” factory loads in the .357 Magnum.

As a bit of an aside, my experience with the .357 Magnum over the last 30 or so years left me with similar conclusions, but based on cases ejecting cleanly from K and L frame revolvers. In order to get non sticky ejection, I’ve found max loads for both H110/Win 296 and Unique need to be reduced by those same amounts.

For brevity in typing I’ll post the data he developed below in image form from Handloader 92, July-August 1981.

Beginning with 160 gr bullets Mr. Hagel clearly demonstrated the advantage of slower powders with heavy bullets in the .357 Magnum.

- Win 296 has a 368 FPS advantage over Bullseye and a 224 FPS advantage over Unique in the 8” barrel.

And

- Win 296 has a 226 FPS edge over Bullseye and 136 FPS over Unique in the 2 1/2” barrel.




With the 140 gr bullet the story is similar, but note the decreasing difference in the 2 1/2” velocities between Win 296 and Unique:

- Win 296 is 453 FPS faster than bullseye and 188 FPS faster than Unique in the 8” barrel; and

- Win 296 is 185 FPS than Bullseye but only 39 FPS faster than Unique in the 2 1/2” barrel.




Now let’s look at the 125 gr data:

- Win 296 still maintains a very significant 465 FPS edge over Bullseye, but only a 133 FPS advantage over Unique in the 8” barrel; and

- Win 296 still has a 275 FPS lead over Bullseye, but only a 59 fps advantage over Unique in the 2 1/2” barrel.



Finally, let’s look at the 110 gr data:

- Win 296 still has a 461 FPS advantage over Bullseye and a 135 FPS advantage over Unique in the 8” barrel; but

- While Win 296 is still 220 FPS faster than bullseye in the 2 1/2” barrel, Win 296 is 33 FPS *slower* than Unique in the 2 1/2” barrel.



——-

The 110 gr data isn’t all that surprising as some companies, like Hornady, no longer bother publishing data for Win 296/H110 for the 110 grain bullet in the .357 Magnum as it just isn’t very efficient with that light bullet weight.

But let’s take a closer look at the 125 gr 2 1/2” data again, this time with recoil calculated for a 36oz 2 1/2” Model 66:

10 grains Unique, 125 gr at 1,227 FPS
Recoil impulse; 0.9 pound.sec
Recoil velocity; 12.91 FPS
Recoil energy; 5.83 ft lbs

20 grains Win 296, 125 gr at 1,286 FPS
Recoil impulse; 1.16 pound.sec (29% more)
Recoil velocity; 16.56 FPS (28% more)
Recoil energy; 9.58 ft lbs (64% more)

The question you have to then ask is whether 59 FPS is worth 64% more recoil energy and 28-29% more recoil impulse and velocity.

That partly depends on whether you think you’ll need a follow up shot and how fast you want to be able to bring the front sight back on target.

It also partly depends on the design of your hollow point and whether it needs an extra 59 FPS to perform.

(Based on my ballistic gel testing, an extra 59 FPS just isn’t needed with a well designed hollow point in the .357 Magnum.)

As another aside, in my 2 1/2” Model 66 and 686 and in my 3” Model 13 and 686 about 50-60 FPS is the loss in I see chronographing loads with Unique versus Win 296 when loading both just short of sticky ejection - very close to what Bob Hagel got in his data.

Mr. Hagel also included this statement in his article:

“It probably doesn’t come as a great surprise to experienced reloaders of handgun cartridges that Unique is a very stable powder with all bullet weights, and that it retains velocity quite well with all bullet weights as barrels become shorter. In fact it proved to be the only powder that caught up with WW-296 in the 2 1/2” barrel but only with the 110 gr bullet. It caught up with 2400 in the 140 gr bullet in all barrel lengths under 8 inches. It is one of the very best powders for both uniformity and velocity in the .357 Magnum cartridge for all bullet weights below 150 grains, and accuracy is top drawer with nearly any bullet if you juggle charges a little looking for it.”

That’s high praise for Unique and something the folks who like to bash it might want to think about.

Your entire post was a very interesting and enjoyable read but that very last snippet seems a little out of place and does not really match the tone of the post.

Most folks who “bash” Unique say nothing with respect to how much velocity it can make in .357 Magnum with bullets at/under 150 grain weight, they bash it now for the same reasons they bashed it 15 years ago. It meters poorly, it’s dirty and often leaves soot and we have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to modern powder choices.

None of these are reasons that a lover of Unique shouldn’t happily stick with Unique. But all of these reasons are fantastic reasons to look for something better if you don’t already have an established love affair with Unique.

I still use old school powders… Bullseye and 2400 and I use more Bullseye than the average bear. But as much as I love both of these, we are fortunate in that there are so many choices today that if both of them went away, it wouldn’t slow me down at all.

FWIW, since the 70’s been using Unique and 2400 in all pistol cartridges, and some Bullseye for certain target loads. Have “ other” pistol powders but never used them enough to have an opinion. BTW, all my “ opinions” are based on real life experiences, from published reloading manuals not some article written by someone in a magazine.

I don’t research a load & automatically look to getting max FPS with whatever powder I plan. Especially depending on the gun, midrange loads are usually plenty. Even beyond the slow/fast powder debate, recoil & muzzle blast factor in.

Now if I was loading a 38 or 44 spcl, I may go right to near max. That low pressure round in a modern gun, easily dealt with. Moving on to the 357 or 44 mag, I’m more likely to be mid range for most use. Again, it depends on the stated goals.

I’ll most often use a medium burn powder, Unique or H Universal.

I specifically meant bashing it for use in the .357 Magnum.

But since enough brought it up, Unique is one of the most versatile powders around.

Yesterday for example, I shot it in a .357 Manum pistol as well as in one of my .38-55s. I also shoot it on a regular basis in my 45-70s, again replicating black powder ballistics. Unique will replicate black powder ballistics without the powder fouling and corrosive residue. “Dirty” is a very relative thing.

Beyond powder fouling and corrosive residue, I’ve never understood the “it’s dirty and often leaves soot” argument. It lacks any serious validity. Sure, Unique can be sooty at low and even medium charge weights, but even then the soot so just that, soot. In contrast colloidal ball powders like Win 296 don’t just leave soot, they leave grainy partially burned powder.

If you shoot revolvers and do speed loads enough with Win 296 sooner or later you’ll get one of those unburnt particles of powder under the ejector Star and it will cause it to stand proud enough out of the back to the cylinder the point the cylinder will not go back into the frame. Clearing it means dumping the rounds and then finding nad fishing that grain off of the cylinder or back side of the ejector star.

I’ve never had that happen with Unique, which is one of a couple reasons why Win 296, H110 and even 2400 are not on my list of powders I use in a revolver self defense load.

Now…to be fair I also clean my handguns after each range session and I’ve never seen the value in something stupid like a “2000 round test” or “5000 round test”. Outside of a combat zone (and then only very rarely) will someone put a pistol or rifle through that many rounds without an opportunity to clean it. The AL is more or less legendary for its ability to function dirty, and yet Soviet and com block doctrine was to keep it white glove clean, just like pretty much every other serious military on the planet, because clean and properly lubricated firearms are more reliable than dirty firearms.

I agree that Unique also meters poorly compared to some of the fine ball powders like Win 296 or flattened ball powders like 2400 or Win 231, but again it’s relative.

A reasonably close to maximum load of Unique generally delivers lower SDs in velocity than a similar load with a slow burning powders like 296, even when both are metered. You might get a .1 grains variation in Unique in a good measure than you would not get with 296, but the SD in velocity will still be lower. In other words the difference in metering doesn’t matter.

I will however state that good technique with a powder measure matters more with Unique. Consistency is key. I load on a 550B using the standard Dillon measure. The press must be solidly mounted on a solid bench for optimum results and the press needs to be operated consistently. Miss something on the shell plate and have to back up or repeat a step? It’s a good idea to dump the cycled twice in the measure charge and drop a fresh one. That’s a good idea with any powder, but Unique is less tolerant than some other common handgun powders

Looking across the shelves above my bench I see a number of handgun powders including Red Dot, Bullseye, SR7625, Tite Group, Power Pistol, Unique, HP-38/win 231, HS-6, 700x, 800x, 2400, Lil Gun, and 296/H110. Tite Group, Power Pistol and Lil Gun are the only reasonably “new” powders, and all three of those are there to fill specific needs (as are some of the others).

Part of that limited and mostly old school selection is an artifact of the most recent shortage (going on two years now) and limited availability. But that’s also partly by design. I haven’t counted lately but there’s still close to 100 pounds of rifle and pistol powder on those shelves, and most of it was laid in with the idea that the powders I want to stock in quantity against this and future shortages are powders that are very versatile and have a wide application offering very good to excellent performance across a large number of cartridges and bullet weights. Unique is arguably one of the most versatile powders ever made.

That’s important when you load a wide range of calibers from .32 ACP and .22 Hornet to .45 Colt and .45 Win Mag for handgun rounds, not to mention rifle rounds from .22 Hornet all the way to .45-70. That’s especially true in times like these where powders are thin on the ground, and over priced when you find them. At present we do not in fact live in an embarrassment of riches when it comes to hand loading components.

I agree with you though that I wouldn’t miss Bullseye or 2400 all that much as there are other modern powders that do what they do just as well.

When it comes to a Unique there are powders put forward as a replacement such as Universal Clays, BE-86, 20/28, etc but they all have differences in terms of being a little faster or a little slower or being less tolerant (more prone to pressure spikes) in low load density applications in large cases, such as the .38-55 and .45-70. Individually while they can all replace Unique in some specific applications, they each have less total range of application than Unique.

But that all on top of what’s been stated in the previous post that Unique is a very versatile and effective powder in the .357 Magnum.

In terms of load manual data, so do I for the most part. I’ve never thrown away a loading manual in 44 years as newer manuals tend to focus on newer powders. In a shortage those old manuals come in handy in terms of finding old school data for old school powders.

In terms of the data presented above, Bob used published data, and in fact stayed within it, adjusting downward to an established pressure ring diameter. It’s a different way of saying and quantifying “the cases don’t stick on ejection”.

Where I depart from that reliance on data published in manuals are cartridges like the 7.62x38R / 7.62 Nagant round used in the 1895 Nagant. It’s an odd beast to load for in the first place given that the bullet is contained inside the case and the case mounts is rolled over so that the cylinder can rotate and the case mouth can then seal against the forcing cone when fired. I have yet to find a formal manufacturer load manual that covers that cartridge.

Agreed.

There is a reason there isn’t a .357 Magnum +P load. For self defense purposes you can find a bad hollow point load for the .357 Magnum, but it takes a bit more work than it does for other calibers, where the problem is more often finding a load that is good enough. And with a good load in the .357 Magnum, nothing up to and including the .44 Magnum really does it any better.

Would the OP (or someone else) elaborate on this “pressure ring”? I haven’t run into that term, sounds like an useful thing.

(Found on net... interesting) https://www.shootingsoftware.com/ftp...%2019%2004.pdf

I have experience with Bullseye, HP-38/W-231, AA#5, and H-110/W-296 in the 357 Magnum. Bullseye works just as well with cast lead bullets in the 357 Magnum case as it does in the shorter, 38 Special case, just takes a tiny bit more powder to compensate for case internal volume. HP-38/W-231, Unique and AA#5 work very well in the 357 Magnum case for loads that are less than maximum possible velocity for this cartridge. Then there is H-110/W-296. Awesome powder for 158 grain jacketed bullets. With 125 grain jacketed bullets... yes, excellent velocity and will also make anyone beside me on the firing line move away. The blast and fireball are impressive.


I reserve H-110/W-296 for the heavier bullets and barrels of 4 inches or more... preferably 6 to 8 inches.

__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA

It's always best to read the book or writings for yourself.
So much doodly-squat is put out on the interweb as things so and so "Said" when in fact most is taken out of context or simply inaccurate or mis quoted .

If anyone is interested Elmer Keith's book on reloading ... "Sixgun Cartridges & Loads " 1936 is available $9.95 hardcover reprint @ Amazon w/ free shipping . Read what he wrote and which loads he really used and what he had to say about bullets .

I found Bob Hagel's Handgunner article extremely interesting and informative . Another thing I found interesting was the FPS gain from 2 1/2" to 8" ... I expected more in the longer barrels ...but the numbers don't lie . It's one article that I printed out and put with my reloading manuals ... I never throw away the back issues of "Handloader"... I'm a longtime subscriber .

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

Thanks for posting that. I'm the guy who started the latest short barrel powder thread.

First off I would like to thank the OP for a well written and informative post.
It was interesting and the comments thought provoking. I wasn’t going to say anything but decided to throw in a couple of my experiences that might be helpful of not.
I have been reloading since the early ‘60’s, information was scarce and sometimes wrong. When i started, like a lot of new reloaders, I tended to buy into every new thing. New tools and powder, oh yea, i had to have it.
I have shot most of the handgun games, some hunting and some law enforcement. After a while I had so many different powder and bullets it became cumbersome.
After a while I started to notice that I used mostly the same loads more than others. I started to give away a lot of stuff I didn’t use much. Over the years I have “standardized” my loads for my rifles and handguns.
Since we are talking handguns here, the powder I use is Unique.
Have I used others, sure. Are some other powders better in certain applications, again sure. Does everyone have a favorite, of course.
But if a person wants to simplify his powder selection in these day of hard to find components, Unique is a good choice. Lead or coated bullets and Unique will give a shooter most everything that is needed to compete, hunt, and just shoot for fun.
After all isn’t that what we all do anyway, just shoot for fun.
Just one man’s opinion, not an argument. YMMV

It would be interesting to see if the same test could be done with AA 2, 5, 7 and 9. I doubt it now that Western Powders has been sold and due to the current component crunch. I still load with as much BE and Unique as the faster stuff, it just isn't seen on the shelf as often.
Thanks for the reprint. I remember Bob Hagels article and think he may have quoted it in one of his books. I will check later.

__________________
Front sight and squeeze

Just for my info.; Who is Bob Hagel and what are his credentials?

Hagel's been dead a good while, but was easily among the top five gun/ handloading writers ever. He wasn't a keyboard operator or YouTube-type expert. He hunted, guided, and did lots of experimental load development and lots of shooting. He is far better known for his work with rifles and rifle cartridges (including many wildcats) than he was for his handgun work.

He wrote for a number of publications and was on the HANDLOADER and RIFLE staff for many years before retirement. MY only criticism (and the criticism of others) was that many of his rifle loads were indeed quite warm and not for the novice handloader. Still, an excellent gunwriter. His books are worth owning. Few writers today put as much work into their projects as Hagel did.

Let me see if I have this right on short barrels.

If the only question is how to get the most velocity out of a short barrel,
the answer is a slow powder.

If the only question is how to get the most velocity out of a long barrel,
the answer is a slow powder.

If the question is how to get the most velocity (least waste) out of a slow powder, the answer is a long barrel.


--------

The OP quoted Hagel on the myth:
"Mr. Hagel was addressing the perception that slow burning powders were wasted in short barrels and produced lower velocities than fast powders."

I believe that statement is both true and false.

It could be said that slow burning powders are "wasted" because their most efficient use is with long barrels. I don't believe that is a myth.

It could not be said that slower powders produce slower velocities than fast powders in short barrels. That is a myth.

I think I know what Hagel meant when he wrote that, but it seems poorly stated.

Prescut

Didn’t mean to disparage Bob’s article, remember reading his writings back then, just the generalization of relying on some magazine article and surely most things online. Yesterday shot my 65 and 19 with some Unique loads, cleaned them this AM .

I started the dance in 1967 with Unique and except for a few foxtrots with a few other powders ... it looks like I'll be going home with Unique .
After it's all said and done ... I can find one or two powders that almost dance as well ... but none are better than Sweet , Old Fashioned Unique .

A few powders almost match her sister , Bullseye , in light target load accuracy ... but none can really beat her for target loads .
Gary

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

With H110 for both my 3.3” (4” with comp) and 3.5” barreled 500’s, I always seem to get better velocity to load charge ratio, as well as precision, when I back down 1 to 2 gr from maximum. However case fill volume is another parameter at hand, a very sensitive one at that. Not comparing to longer barrels, just behavior of the powder

Hodgdon Universal, like sourdough mentioned above, takes care of the "dirty" " and "meters poorly" complaints of Unique, and burn rate is nearly identical.

I started using Universal about 10 years ago and use it for all my mild loads in .357. .44 Mag and .45 Colt.

For more powerful mid level loads I use HS-6.
HS-6 will burn completely out of the 4 inch barrels if the charge is on the upper end.
Starting loads with HS-6 have erratic velocities with unburnt powder, as the charges increases it burns 100%.

__________________
U. S. Army Veteran

But let’s take a closer look at the 125 gr 2 1/2” data again, this time with recoil calculated for a 36oz 2 1/2” Model 66:

10 grains Unique, 125 gr at 1,227 FPS
Recoil impulse; 0.9 pound.sec
Recoil velocity; 12.91 FPS
Recoil energy; 5.83 ft lbs

20 grains Win 296, 125 gr at 1,286 FPS
Recoil impulse; 1.16 pound.sec (29% more)
Recoil velocity; 16.56 FPS (28% more)
Recoil energy; 9.58 ft lbs (64% more)

^^This right here is why I don't shoot H110 from my model 66 2 3/4" with any bullet. My palm is telling me the same thing as the data. The recoil makes it less enjoyable, and in my hands, less accurate. Put that same load in my Henry 20" and it's a joy to shoot, and extremely accurate.

I've always wanted to try Universal because as mentioned, it is so close to Unique in burn rate, but meters so well and isn't as dirty. But who can find it these days? It would be interesting to compare to Unique with this type of testing in different length barrels.

__________________
What could possibly go wrong?