Unique in .357 'lite'? 125 grain cast

[StarMetal]

I just got off the phone with Ben Amonette for works for the Alliant Powder Company. He said he wouldn't go below 6.0 grains of Unique in this instance, not because of danger, but because there are so many more efficient ways to go about it. Like another poster here he said if the fellow wants to stay with Unique to go to 38 Special brass which we know works well in 357 revolvers. The other is to switch to a more suitable powder that is faster burning. Off subject we talked about the Weatherby blowup using Bluedot, which is another Alliant powder. He was very interested in that and very very adament about that being a wrong powder to use in that case jacketed or cast bullet. He said nowhere will you see load data for Bluedot in that cartridge. He agreed that you see Unique, 2400, etc., for cast rifle loads...but that Bluedot was a big no no. Back to the Unique. One of the concerns was if you go lower then 6.0 in your 357 load was consistency. The cosistency of the velocity won't be good. He noted like I said bullet diameter, bearing surface, and crimp all play a part in that. So bottom line is, and it's been said here, is either go to 38 cases or accept the 6.0 load.

Joe

[9.3X62AL]

No dog in this fight--but it seems like Bullseye or WW-231 might be better fuels to get where ya want to go.

[StarMetal]

They would be the better powders Al. From what I got talking to Ben at Alliant is he was wanting to see a good crimp to increase the resistance so the powder would burn more efficiently. That or an increase of powder to get the pressure up more to help it burn better. We even discussed using small amounts of Unique in cast loads in rifle cartridges. He had nothing to say bad about that either. From what I gathered from him and pointing out some very small loads of Unique in cavernous cartridges like the 38-40 and 44-40, is that when Unique gets below a certain amount in a roomy case that the consistency problem will show up. Lyman simply didn't list lower lowers because the accuracy went south. I asked him right out would going a little lower be flat out dangerous. He said no. That the consistency in the velocities would just be terrible.

Joe

[Larry Gibson]

No dog in this fight--but it seems like Bullseye or WW-231 might be better fuels to get where ya want to go.

I'm not putting a dog in Starmetal's fight either. I just want to keep Throckmorton out of trouble.

"As mentioned use Bullseye, about 4 gr."

That's what a couple of us suggested in the beginning of this thread. Joe is still beating the drum but "lite" loads with Unique that "gets below a certain amount in a roomy case that the consistency problem will show up" as the guy from alliant told him is exactly what several of us said here. That "inconsistancy" is the pressure spiking giving a very large ES. Perhaps the guy from Alliant doesn't consider pressure spiking as dangerous and perhaps in this case it may or may not be but Many of us understand that it is not good and most often unsafe. No sense taking the chance with Unique in such "lite" loads when, as the guy from Alliant said; "there are so many more efficient ways to go about it".

That's where the Bullseye recommendation comes in.

Larry Gibson

[StarMetal]

I'm not putting a dog in Starmetal's fight either. I just want to keep Throckmorton out of trouble.

"As mentioned use Bullseye, about 4 gr."

That's what a couple of us suggested in the beginning of this thread. Joe is still beating the drum but "lite" loads with Unique that "gets below a certain amount in a roomy case that the consistency problem will show up" as the guy from alliant told him is exactly what several of us said here. That "inconsistancy" is the pressure spiking giving a very large ES. Perhaps the guy from Alliant doesn't consider pressure spiking as dangerous and perhaps in this case it may or may not be but Many of us understand that it is not good and most often unsafe. No sense taking the chance with Unique in such "lite" loads when, as the guy from Alliant said; "there are so many more efficient ways to go about it".

That's where the Bullseye recommendation comes in.

Larry Gibson

Funny Larry, you start out about not wanting to put a dog in my fight and then you go on and on in the next paragraph doing just that. So if you weren't in this post just who am I having this "fight" with? It's with you Larry because that's how you've become lately.

Reckon I should put you on ignore here like over on Accurate too?

Joe

[carpetman]

Darn---he says he is low on funds and has Unique and is wondering about Unique. What to get other than Unique was not the question.

[9.3X62AL]

Agreed, Ray--but if he was nearby, I'd loan him some BE or 231 to tide him over--or so that he could contrast it to the Unique loads he might be trying.

Not trying to step on toes here.

[Larry Gibson]

Darn---he says he is low on funds and has Unique and is wondering about Unique. What to get other than Unique was not the question.

Carpetman

Yes that was Throckmorton's original thought. However, right after my post recommending the use of Bullseye he states;

"I think I'll break into the emergency fund and get a different powder just to be sure and safe. thanks for all the responses.
Mike "

I think Mike has it figured out.

Larry Gibson

[carpetman]

I have used unique for .38 special and .357 mag mostly 158 grainers and if I was in danger I sure didnt know it.

[Larry Gibson]

I have used unique for .38 special and .357 mag mostly 158 grainers and if I was in danger I sure didnt know it.

Carpetman

I, along with thousands of others, have done the same. Unique is a very good powder in the .38/.357 with normal loads. It is only when you get into the "lite" load catagory that pressure spikes can become a problem. I'll assume you know the difference between a regualr load and a "lite" load. Probably why the starting load for the above mentioned 125 gr bullet gives 1000+ fps. That is the minimum where the powder will burn efficiently and not pressure spike.

Your comment is kind of like using 4831 which is a very good powder in the 25-06 and 6.5x55 and thousands have shot regular loads with 4831 in those cartridges (and others) without any danger. However, when they drop down into the "lite" load catagory then problems and danger does arise. It is called SEE and I'll also assume you knew that.

Maybe you learn something new every day too.

Larry Gibson

[jimkim]

I wonder how Trail Boss would work. I was thinking when I first read this that Bullseye, Red Dot or Trail Boss would be my first choices for reduced loads, if you remove the option of loading 38 specials.

[Larry Gibson]

I wonder how Trail Boss would work. I was thinking when I first read this that Bullseye, Red Dot or Trail Boss would be my first choices for reduced loads, if you remove the option of loading 38 specials.

jimkim

Trail boss might be a good alternative also. Here is the data from Hodgdon's manual;

125 GR. CAST LRNFP IMR Trail Boss .358" 1.580" 3.5 874 14,900 CUP 5.3 1035 17,900 CUP

Looks like a load of 3.5 gr (starting load) might work. I don't know though because I've not used Trail Boss. Perhaps we've someone who has?

Larry Gibson

[carpetman]

Larry Gibson---Seems the different writers of reloading manuals been down here reading your posts on lite and reduced---their data now includes a starting point as well as the maximum. My old Lyman manual does in fact include a starting point of 4.0 grains of unique--which Throckmorton is way above. Throckmorton has said he is checking manuals and using verified data, seems he knows the gig.

[Larry Gibson]

Larry Gibson---Seems the different writers of reloading manuals been down here reading your posts on lite and reduced---their data now includes a starting point as well as the maximum. My old Lyman manual does in fact include a starting point of 4.0 grains of unique--which Throckmorton is way above. Throckmorton has said he is checking manuals and using verified data, seems he knows the gig.

Carpetman

Consider there may be a reason why the new Lyman Manual gives a starting load of 6 gr with a 125 gr cast bullet in the .357. You may well wish to attempt to discredit me all you want with your arguements. However if you want to argue with or attempt to refute Dr. Oehlers findings be my guest. I'm concuring with Dr. Oehler because my pressure tests with Unique using "lite" loads shows the same tendancy to pressure spike. I suppose you will have have your test data available when you discuss the issue with Dr. Oehler? Oh, that's right, you're only quoting out of "old" reloading manuals.

I think this thread has run it's course.

Larry Gibson

[zxcvbob]

Consider there may be a reason why the new Lyman Manual gives a starting load of 6 gr with a 125 gr cast bullet in the .357. You may well wish to attempt to discredit me all you want with your arguements. However if you want to argue with or attempt to refute Dr. Oehlers findings be my guest. I'm concuring with Dr. Oehler because my pressure tests with Unique using "lite" loads shows the same tendancy to pressure spike. I suppose you will have have your test data available when you discuss the issue with Dr. Oehler? Oh, that's right, you're only quoting out of "old" reloading manuals.

Or maybe there's not a reason. Or a very poor reason (like just trying to distinguish it from a .38 Special load.) That's my theory. There's not enough difference in the SAAMI specs for OAL between .38 Special and .357 Magnum for there to be any "pressure spike" danger by loading less than 6 grains of Unique in 357 brass when that's a pretty stout load in a .38

[Larry Gibson]

Or maybe there's not a reason. Or a very poor reason (like just trying to distinguish it from a .38 Special load.) That's my theory. There's not enough difference in the SAAMI specs for OAL between .38 Special and .357 Magnum for there to be any "pressure spike" danger by loading less than 6 grains of Unique in 357 brass when that's a pretty stout load in a .38

zxcvbob

You may not think there is a difference in pressure with the same load in a .38 case .vs a .357 case because of the length of the cases but there definately is. I'd suggest you do a little more research on "seating depth" in straight walled handgun cases and reconsider your statement. The danger of the "pressure spike" has to do with case volume and powder positioning. The larger volume of the .357 case with the shorter seating depth of the 125 gr bullet and the use of a small amount of Unique creates the situation. Dr. Oehlers experiments proved this and mine have also.

Contrary to Starmetals' confusion the Oehler M43 is not a "chronograph", it is a ballistic lab instrument that measures much more than velocity. It also measures pressure among many other things. If you're not aware of who Dr. Oehler is you might want to research Oehler Research Inc and see what types of pressure measuring instruments he makes for the industry. Theory aside the fact that Unique does pressure spike when loaded in "lite" loads is proven.

Throckmorton is well advised to use another powder for his loads.

I really don't care whether you, Starmetal or Carpetman believe there is a danger or not. The fact that tests have demonstrated a possibility should be enough for anyone to use caution, especially when those results and warnings come from such a reputable source as Dr. Oehler. I'm having a hard time understanding why any one here wants to advise someone to do something that has been proven to be potentially dangerous. Who out there wants to state that pressure spikes are not potentially dangerous and are safe?

Are there not sufficient other powders available that do not pressure spike and are thus safe with such loads? So why all the arguement against me, or anyone else, for simply recommending the use of a better and safer powder and giving the reasons for that recommendation? I understand Starmetals and Carpetman's reasons but yours?

Larry Gibson

[carpetman]

Larry Gibson---Yes I'm quoting old manuals---and have used the data myself. I dont recall any lawsuits from that data nor hearing of massive destruction of folks guns from using it. I don't know why they changed it. My guess would be from a pressure standpoint they realized that more would still be safe---not saying less would be an immediate catastrophe. If it wasnt back then, why now? Best example of this is the powder I use in my .243 in the newer manual has a higher starting point than the old max. This would be the 95 grain cast using IMR 4227---check out the Third Edition Cast Bullet Manual and the Lyman 44th edition. I dont rub elbows with Dr Oehler nor do I have his machine, but so what---I bet my postman can whip your postman.

[Larry Gibson]

Carpetman

One of the reasons we see many changes in loading manuals is because of the much better pressure measuring systems used today. The old loads were pressure tested with the copper crusher method (CUP). That method only measured one thing - peak preassure. The modern peizo-electrice transducers (PSI) of today not only measure the peak pressure but the entire time/pressure curve. This is where "pressure spikes" are seen and known about. What was thought to be ok by using the CUP measurement has, in some instances, been found to be not ok with the more sophisticated PSI measurements. My guess that would be the same reason for the higher starting load for 4227 in the .243. With the newer PSI measurement and seeing the actual time pressure curve the new load starts where 4227 begins to burn efficiently in that application. I do not know for sure however because I did not run the .243 test but given my own tests of 4227 in other cartridges with cast bullets that would be my assumption.

I never said anything about lawsuits, massive destruction of guns or SEE. I said that lite loads of Unique in the .357 case under 125 gr bullets can cause pressure spikes and is potentially dangerous. I gave a concuring statemnt from Dr. Oehler to further back up that statement. Are you saying pressure spikes are not potentially dangerous?

Perhaps if you did "rub elbows" with Dr. Oehler you might not be so quick to make assumptions about what is in old manuals compared to new manuals.

The credence of your postman quip leads me to believe you've no further desire to learn anything but simply wish to argue. I'm hoping throckmorton paid attention to the facts and got some different, more efficient powder for his loads. Thus I've said my piece and will just back on out of here.

Larry Gibson

PS; don't bother answering the one question above, your answer is obvious.

[carpetman]

Larry Gibson--I'm sure it's a given that better measuring equipment exists today. But I also figure it's a safe bet that if the loads Lyman listed back then were dangerous there would have been indicators showing up (simple stuff--primer problems--no sophisticated equipment needed, well ok eyeballs--they are very sophisticated. I'm sure Dr Oehler is a brilliant man, but I doubt that the staff that Lyman had were the folks you see with "work for food" signs. Maybe so. These spikes you mention obviously don't go above peak pressure---or they would be what's measured. I think it's a chicken or egg question. Better measuring methods have assured the Lyman folks they can indeed increase the powder above what they previously thought. I am saying I have shot many a round of .38 special and .357 mag with the smaller charges of Unique and saw absolutely no signs of a problem. Maybe they wont work today because of better measuring devices??? I bet your postman is a wimp.

[zxcvbob]

Any load that is safe in a .38 Special is also safe in a .357 Magnum with the bullet seated to the same OAL. The cartridge may look funny with the bullet seated that deep, and a taper crimp might be more appropriate than a roll crimp, but the internal ballistics will be the same.

Bullseye, Clays, Red Dot, or TrailBoss would probably be better choices for powder than Unique.