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 http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/431826-s-herco.html 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]

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]

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]

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.