My 1999 jug of Universal powder has a different max than my "14 Lee manual. Huh??

[Tallbald]

I started to go into great detail about this but for simplification, I'll just say that my 1999 unopened jug of Hodgdon "Universal Clays" powder has a different max load for .357 with 158 grain jacketed slug than my new loading manual from a press manufacturer lists. Please look at the photo and assure me that the powder in my grubby hands is what manuals call "Universal" now. I'm told there was a change in how some referred to this powder because of name confusion. Someone else told me that somewhere in the last dozen years a lot of powders max loads were lowered, but I've been out of reloading for about 30 years and am re-learning some things and playing some catch-up. The link has a bigger picture. Thanks. Don
http://i1084.photobucket.com/albums/j420/tallbald/PA160447.jpg

[Tatume]

Different companies list different load data, and they may be sizably different. Lee typically lists low loads, maybe because they sell charge dippers and want to be on the safe side. But if you consult your library of loading manuals you'll find they don't agree with each other either. There are reasons for this, one of which is the location of the crimp cannelure on the bullet, which affects how deeply in the case the bullet is seated. Another is the hardness of the bullet, which affects the resistance the bullet offers. Hard bullets or deeply seated bullets cause pressure to increase.

You probably shouldn't use maximum published loads without working up to them anyway. Get with an experienced loader and learn how. You'll learn a lot here too.

Take care, Tom

[bandsmoyer]

XTP bullets and JHP use different data,can't help on the powder

[rsrocket1]

Over the past few years everyone has been reduing their maximum load data for a couple of reasons. In the "bad old days", the only form of pressure measurement was the copper crusher which measured peak pressure over a longer period of time (because it took a finite amount of time to crush the copper plug to the given distance). With modern piezoelectric transducers, the measurement is a lot faster and can see the peaks a lot quicker. What looked like a 35,000 psi peak pressure back then could now look like a 40,000+ psi peak pressure bump. So the load data had to be changed to reflect the more realistic peak of the powder burn curve.

Secondly, with all the lawyer litigation, I'm sure many manufactureres were told to reduce the max loads, some maybe had to go X% below what the manufacturer knew was the safe max load as a margin.

The problem is none of us know the reason for the reduction, whether it is for real safety or if it is "lawyerspeak". BTW, Lee doesn't do any testing themselves, they just republish what they find from other sources.

As Tatume says, start at a reasonable mid range load and work up or down until you find the most accurate load and stay safe. No need to squeak every last fps out of a gun.

[Tallbald]

Thanks. I revised my post because it seemed too detailed and clumsy to me when I re-read it. The picture shows the label on my 1999 bottle. This is indeed what manuals call "Universal" isn't it? Wish I had a bottle of Trail Boss instead of this which I bought so long ago as a hedge against Y2K, along with a Lee alloy turret press kit. Don

[RED333]

I was thinking that "Universal Clays and "Universal" were diff powders.

[Tallbald]

Red333 that's what concerns me too. And the different load data between jug and manual makes me wonder also so I thought I'd ask to be safe. Haven't yet received a reply to my email and voicemail left for the Hodgdon assistance line. I've had this very jug for almost 15 years and things change I know. The label looks similar to what I see elsewhere so I thought I'd ask. I'm still learning. I prefer to start with light loads ....and stay there. My shoulders/hands/spine don't handle stout loads like they did back in my earlier years. Don

[dragon813gt]

You have Universal. Clays bottles do not have the word Universal on them. You can go to Hodgdon's site to see what current ones look like.

[Tallbald]

Dragon thanks. For a while I had considered tossing the powder because of my confusion and such. I'll get my new Lee classic cast turret set up for the starting load and crank out a hundred or so of a few different low end loads in .38 Special. Until I can start using the 125 grain RNFP Lee gang mold and .358 sizing die I bought to use with old pure lead roof flashing, all I have is the hard 158 grain LSWC on hand. Looking forward to taking reloading beyond the extent Daddy and I did back in the 60's and 70's. Don.

[Pinsnscrews]

Just as an aside, for a Known, Common caliber (.357 for instance) I like to check both the bullet manufacturer AND the Powder manufacturer for load data. If one is not available, like say for a bullet manufacturer or for cast loads, then I definitely look for a secondary data source. Cast always falls to Lyman as one source. With load work up, I confirm the Max for both and start 5-10% below max listed and work up. If the data shows a Minimum load, I will start with the lower of the listed loads and work up. This is advice that was given to me in the chat room my first day on the forum when I wandered in looking for load data for a .357 Herrett.

[bdicki]

Universal and Universal Clays are the same powder. They changed the name because of confusion with Clays, there was also International Clays which is now just International. Both of these now say Clays technology on the bottle. My bottles only list data or 38 Special not 357. I use a lot of Universal in 28 and 16 ga shot shells. Universal is a lot like Unique and International like Green Dot, Clays is like Red Dot. The date does not interchange just the burn rates are close and were meant to compete with the Alliant powders.

http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/pistol

From the web site

158 GR. HDY XTPPowder Universal
Bullet Diameter .357"
C.O.L. 1.580"
Starting Load
Grains 5.8
Velocity (ft/s) 1,026
Pressure 32,100 CUP

Maximum Load
Grains 6.3
Velocity (ft/s) 1,133
Pressure 39,300 CUP

[Tallbald]

Excellent and the answers here clear up the confusion I had. I shall start at the low end and as advised, work my way up a little, staying well inside the safe load data. I'm looking forward very much to trying this powder that has set on my closet shelf almost 15 years until now, when I am truly returning to reloading. Don.

[bgokk]

I was thinking that "Universal Clays and "Universal" were diff powders.
Me too!
Hodgdon does too, just checked the site.:-?
I just rechecked the hodgdon site there 3 Hodgdon powders that use the word CLAYS.
1. Clays
2. International Clays
3. Universal Clays
So it appears "Universal Clays and "Universal" is the same.

My bad.:oops:

[runfiverun]

You have two different recipes there.
b.t.w. What bullet,case and primer did lee use?

[geargnasher]

Yup, been confusing people forever.

Clays
International Clays
Universal Clays

Scattered throughout those are Titewad, Titegroup, and HP-38.

Would have been a lot less confusing if they'd renamed "Clays" something like "Versatile Clays" instead of dropping "Clays" from the other two names and adding the "clays technology" to all of them.

Anyway, what you have there is a pound bottle of Universal Clays, the slowest of the three, suitable for medium handgun loads along the lines of Alliant Unique. NOT to be confused with plain ol' Clays, the fast stuff that's like Alliant's Bullseye or Clay Dot.

Gear

[mdi]

Well, if it were me, plain ole common sense tells me to use the data on the Universal bottle's label (which would pertain to the contents of the bottle!). I think the data on the label would be for the lot of powder in the bottle, and not an unknown lot in a press manufacturer's book...

[dragon813gt]

Well, if it were me, plain ole common sense tells me to use the data on the Universal bottle's label (which would pertain to the contents of the bottle!). I think the data on the label would be for the lot of powder in the bottle, and not an unknown lot in a press manufacturer's book...

Those labels are not on a lot by lot basis. If they were the lot numbers were not be added on to them. It's already been pointed out why loads have changed, modern pressure testing equipment.

[mdi]

Those labels are not on a lot by lot basis. If they were the lot numbers were not be added on to them. It's already been pointed out why loads have changed, modern pressure testing equipment.
Yep, but I often reply with the easiest, most reasonable answer. I often leave the in depth, high-tech answers to others. If the label data was for the powder in the jug, regardless of lot, it would be safe...

[dragon813gt]

If the label data was for the powder in the jug, regardless of lot, it would be safe...

No, it wouldn't. There are a lot of published loads that have been found to be unsafe. A lot of the data published is old and used the copper crushed method. Don't be surprised if these change when they get around to testing them w/ piezo electric transducers. You should be checking current data because the loads have changed over the years.

[mdi]

Ummm, yeah, no! With that thinking all powder over 1 year old should be discarded and/or destroyed as it's dangerous...

[dragon813gt]

Ummm, yeah, no! With that thinking all powder over 1 year old should be discarded and/or destroyed as it's dangerous...

No, it means check a current manual. Your logic is severely flawed and you're ignoring why the loads have changed. Is it a big deal to use the load printed on the label of this particular bottle, most likely not. Is it a big deal to shoot some of Elmer Keith's loads, you bet. They've been proven to be well above safe pressure levels.

[ReloaderEd]

Wait a minute there are two powders Clays and Universal clays they are NOT THE SAME!! CLAYS is hotter more like Bullseye and UNIVERSAL CLAYS is more like Unique.

[Love Life]

No, it wouldn't. There are a lot of published loads that have been found to be unsafe. A lot of the data published is old and used the copper crushed method. Don't be surprised if these change when they get around to testing them w/ piezo electric transducers. You should be checking current data because the loads have changed over the years.

A current example is the Accurate Arms data for 45 ACP using AA#7. It's a bit stiff.