The “unique” thing with Unique - FBI duplicate loads

[Hi-Speed]

I have, like many, duplicated Win/Rem/Fed 38 Special +P LSWCHP loads using Unique (5.2 grs), Power Pistol (5.6 grs) and AA5 (6.2 grs).

Their velocities are within 25-30 FPS of each other...no real statistical difference in my opinion.

But Unique does not have the same blast and “bark” as Power Pistol or AA5 in comparable FBI loads. Unique’s recoil impulse with its FBI loading is markedly less than the other powders noted, and without any noticeable flash.

Unique has stood the test of time.

I also like Unique for 1,100 FPS 357 Magnum loadings with the 158 gr cast SWC in my Ruger B/H. Enough accuracy and power for me.

Pls share your experiences with Unique in your 38/38+P/357 Mag loads.

[Winger Ed.]

I'm a big Unique fan for .38, 9mm. & .45ACP.
Until I recently fell into a sealed 5 pound can of Bullseye for $40, its all I've used since the mid-80s.


There's a few loads for it in .357, but I always find myself drifting back to Blue Dot or something else.
It's common for some light rifle loads, but I was never comfortable with that.
I gravitate back to minimum rifle powder loads for rifles.

[Walks]

Favorite Powder for .357 Loads.
Lyman #358429 168gr SWC - 6.0grs Unique for all .357 Revolvers. With one exception.
The one Exception;
Lyman #358477 150gr SWC - 6.5grs Unique for the S&W M27, M28

[Petrol & Powder]

My problem with Unique is two fold: It isn't very powder-measure friendly & it seems to perform better near the upper limits in terms of charge weights.
Neither of those complaints are an issue if you're loading small numbers of cartridges (say fewer than 100) and you're loading them to near the upper pressure ranges (like say duplicating the FBI load). So Unique has its place on my bench.

I keep Unique on hand for those times where it shines, like making the "Skeeter" load in 44. But I'm not a fan of Unique for high volume production.
The other positive attribute of Unique is that it is nearly universal when it comes to handgun cartridges. You can almost always find at least one load for a handgun cartridge that can be assembled with Unique. During the powder shortage of the Obama years, Unique was one of my fall back powders used to conserve other powders held in my stockpile.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

I can't think of any specific experiences to share about Unique in .357 Mag. as you requested, but it is my "go to" powder for most handgun cartridges, and has been for many years. Although it may not be the optimum powder for all cartridges it works in most cartridges, and usually quite well.

[Froogal]

I like Unique. I like how it dispenses from the powder measure, and I like how it fills the case. For .357s, I load 5.5 grains of Unique under a 158 grain lead bullet. Standard, small pistol primers work just fine, but I experimented with some magnum primers. Those magnum primers seemed to produce considerably more "bark" than the standard primers. The jury is still out.

[Wheelguns 1961]

I like unique also. I go through about #8 a year. I use 6.5gns in .357’s with a 150-160gn bullet. I use it in.32hrm with 4.0gns under a 100-119gn bullet. My favorite .45c load is 8.5 under a 282gn bullet. I also use it in 480 ruger with 10.0gns under a 386gn hollowpoint for a nice practice round. I almost forgot 9mm. I use 4.0gns under a 135gn hollowpoint. These are all specific loads that I developed for my revolvers. I can’t forget .41 mag. I use 8.0gns with a 226gn bullet for practice rounds.

[Three44s]

I like Unique, but I like HS6 more often.

Three44s

[Outpost75]

I haven't used Unique in 20 years, mainly due to its particle size which doesn't flow through progressive loading machines. I use AutoComp or WSF for the same applications I used to use Unique for, only for +P revolver loads. Unique does not burn uniformly in light loads for me. For standard pressure loads Bullseye or TiteGroup are much better suited and burn cleaner.

[Forrest r]

You don't see a lot of testing with unique and lite bullets in the 38spl's on the website for some reason. It's nothing to get 950fps+ out of a snubnosed 38spl using unique with 125gr cast bullets. The bullet on the right is a 110gr cramer "gallery" bullet.
https://i.imgur.com/xHUCNJn.jpg

I used that 110gr cramer bullet & 7.0gr of unique testing 38spl p+ loads in a 2" bbl'd revolver. That combo produced 1100+fps & recoil was low enough that double taps were extremely easy to do with that 16oz revolver.

[dogdoc]

My problem with Unique is two fold: It isn't very powder-measure friendly & it seems to perform better near the upper limits in terms of charge weights.
Neither of those complaints are an issue if you're loading small numbers of cartridges (say fewer than 100) and you're loading them to near the upper pressure ranges (like say duplicating the FBI load). So Unique has its place on my bench.

I keep Unique on hand for those times where it shines, like making the "Skeeter" load in 44. But I'm not a fan of Unique for high volume production.
The other positive attribute of Unique is that it is nearly universal when it comes to handgun cartridges. You can almost always find at least one load for a handgun cartridge that can be assembled with Unique. During the powder shortage of the Obama years, Unique was one of my fall back powders used to conserve other powders held in my stockpile.

I can usually get my Dillon to measure within 1 or 2 tenths of a grain with unique. That should make no difference even on max loads. Your scale is only accurate to plus or minus 1 tenth(unless you have lab scale). Published max Loads are not that close to damage levels or we would all be blowing up guns or shooting them loose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Petrol & Powder]

I can usually get my Dillon to measure within 1 or 2 tenths of a grain with unique. That should make no difference even on max loads. Your scale is only accurate to plus or minus 1 tenth(unless you have lab scale). Published max Loads are not that close to damage levels or we would all be blowing up guns or shooting them loose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Or I can just use Bullseye or WW231 and get the exact same weight from the powder measure every time.

Unique has a place on my bench and I like it for some applications, but those applications are few. I'm with Outpost75, there are other powders that work better for standard pressure loads. It's not fear that drives my decision to use other powders.

[USSR]

...Unique does not have the same blast and “bark” as Power Pistol or AA5 in comparable FBI loads. Unique’s recoil impulse with its FBI loading is markedly less than the other powders noted, and without any noticeable flash.

That's because you are barely above a standard .38 Special load and not well into the +P range of the FBI load. You are closer to it with your AA#5 load (I use 6.4gr), but you really need to move up to HS-6 for velocity. Hands down the best FBI load powder.

Don

[Froogal]

5.5 grains of Unique under a 158 grain LRN works quite well for CAS. Both in a revolver and a lever action rifle. I am not concerned with velocity.

[sharps4590]

I use Unique more than any other powder. From little handgun cartridges to cases as big as the 9 X 57 and 8 X 58RD.. and bigger, cast and jacketed bullets.

[charlie b]

I used to use Unique a lot for all the reasons listed. Then I switched to AA5 and AA7 for my .45 and .357 loads. Meters very well and seems to burn cleaner for me. Meters perfectly in my progressive press.

[35remington]

I can affirm that 5.2 grains of Unique is certainly not barely above standard pressures and that such a charge will equal or exceed the velocities obtained with factory “FBI” loads. Such a load is in fact in the Plus P range using a 158 grain bullet. The OP’s commentary is relevant in my experience.

[USSR]

Hi-Speed,

Just so you should know, prior to the adoption of higher pressure .38 Special +P loads, 5.0gr of Unique behind a 158gr lead bullet was a well known and used standard velocity .38 Special load.

Don

[35remington]

4.7 grains Unique is max standard pressure with a 158. 5.2 grains is Plus P. This is via current pressure tested data.

[JBinMN]

4.7 grains Unique is max standard pressure with a 158. 5.2 grains is Plus P. This is via current pressure tested data.

Yep. Agreed. Per the Source links for each, if anyone wants to check:

Unique - 38 Special 158gr. LSWC:
http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloaders/powderlist.aspx?type=1&powderid=3&cartridge=26

Unique - 38 Special +P 158gr. LSWC:
http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloaders/powderlist.aspx?type=1&powderid=3&cartridge=27

Just posting the source links for agreement/affirmation, not argument.

[USSR]

JBinMN,

Forgive me, but I'm old. I've got load data prior to the adoption of +P load data that STARTS at 5.0gr of Unique for 158gr lead bullets. Ah, the days before lawyerly load data.

Don

[JBinMN]

JBinMN,

Forgive me, but I'm old. I've got load data prior to the adoption of +P load data that STARTS at 5.0gr of Unique for 158gr lead bullets. Ah, the days before lawyerly load data.

Don

Sure, no worries. I was not disputing anyone elses info.

I just agreed with 35 Remington that "current" ranges of the powder were as posted, & I was just offering up the sources for such data referenced by 35 Remington, for folks to go look at, if they liked, since he did not offer them in his post, that is all.

Everyone makes their own choices about load data. I too have some older manuals that I use at time for certain loads. Particularly loads I used long ago & I agree with you that lawyers/attorneys have had a hand in the reduction of powder ranges, rather than changes in powder formulas.
( Just with the +P data for Unique, for example, the Speer #11 manual from the early 1980s has a Max of 5.5. grains, while the current Max is 5.2gr.)

On this forum though, I just prefer to offer the current ranges to folks, as was done by 35 Remington, so as not to be having someone use something that perhaps causes them issues later on. Particularly if they were to use the loads in a firearm that was less than able to handle such loads for some reason or the other, because it was not well taken care of /neglected, or needed repairs, or even that they did not weigh out the loads with an accurate scale, etc..

So, please understand my agreement with his info was not in dispute of someone else, but just giving out a couple references for folks to use in the future should they like to do so.

:)

P.S. - the Speer manual #11 I referenced has 4.3 - 4.7gr Unique as 38 Sp. standard range for 158gr, & 4.8 -5.5gr. as P+ range for the same projectile. Use them at your own risk. ;)

[USSR]

Ah, yes, gotta love those old Speer manuals. My Speer #8 published well before +P ammo was a twinkle in anyone's eye, lists 5.0gr to 6.0gr of Unique with their 158gr SWC fired out of a S&W K-38. But I can assure you my K-38 Target Masterpiece will never see such a load. :wink: However, the great shooters of the day considered the 5.0gr Unique load to be a standard load. Here is an article on the .38 Special by the great John Taffin in which he refers to it: http://www.sixguns.com/tests/tt38spcl.htm.

Don

[scattershot]

My copy of Speer #8 also lists 5-6 grains of Unique. 898-1085 fps respectively.It also lists 8-9 grains of 4756, for velocities of 1140-1250 fps. Well before lawyers started writing reloading manuals. Strangely, Number 7 lists a max of 5.5 Unique, and 4756 isn’t. Mentioned at all. Number 10 lists 4756, but the max charge is listed as 4.8 grains. Max for Unique is listed as 4.7 grains, for a velocity of 913. Go figure.

[35remington]

The current method of reading pressure is far more accurate than the old data was. My commentary was intended to affirm that the OP was indeed using Plus P charges of Unique and not something milder.

The Speer Number 8, which I have, is more about what to never do in 38 Special than about conforming to SAAMI spec, which did not exist at the time. All the same one wonders whether the data techs were smoking something other than cigarettes while they were developing the data. Many of the start loads are way beyond Plus P maximums by current data.

This wasn’t a lawyer thing so much as them going off the road into the weeds in a pretty severe way.

[USSR]

To each their own.

Don

[dogdoc]

Remember that loads listed as plus p in some manuals may still be significantly less pressure than SAAMI max plus p pressure levels in 38 special. I suspect they often are conservative to provide a safety cushion and lawyer cushion. I notice my Lyman cast bullet manual for 38 special plus p goes up to around 18000 cup while SAAMI spec for 38 spl plus p in cup is about 22000.(psi would be different )

[35remington]

Current data is considered to be considerably more accurate and in adherence to specs than old whatever the source. For whatever it is worth it is the factory Plus P ammo that falls between handloaded standard pressure and plus P velocities, so if anything the handload data is a bit hotter than what the factory loads to.

It is more likely better pressure measuring equipment is responsible for the reduction in powder charges and the adherence to SAAMI specs than a lawyer is to blame. Standard velocity and Plus P handloads get quite acceptable velocities from revolver length barrels as revealed in my extensive chronographing of same. The need for “lawyer proof” handloads is non existent as what currently exists is very acceptable velocity wise, and not so hard on the guns as the often reckless data of the past.

Standard pressure ammo reaches from 820 to 920 from snubby to four inch barrels and plus P adds another 50-70 fps with a 158 grain bullet. Since the derived ballistics from a four inch barrel start to rival actual 40 ballistics with a 180 grain bullet there is little to complain about. Usable power and longer gun life is what we want and current data delivers just that.

Win-win.

[35remington]

Incidentally, if you look at some of Larry Gibson’s pressure testing data sets it will give the distinct idea that the “extra cushion” for pressure in terms of how close the data is to the max SAAMI spec is not as far away from the actual SAAMI limit as implied here.

Current data is useful reliable and safe. That is what we are after.

[country gent]

One reason for the discrepancies between older and newer manuals even of the same source is powders change slightly over the years for a given canister number. They are close but there have been small changes. For discrepancies between different manuals it can be the differences in test equipment and procedures. I believe unique was slightly changed a few years afo to make it cleaner burning. So it may be slightly different from the older.
I use a lot of unique in handgun rounds along with 231, Some bullseye and 2400.

[USSR]

Remember that loads listed as plus p in some manuals may still be significantly less pressure than SAAMI max plus p pressure levels in 38 special. I suspect they often are conservative to provide a safety cushion and lawyer cushion. I notice my Lyman cast bullet manual for 38 special plus p goes up to around 18000 cup while SAAMI spec for 38 spl plus p in cup is about 22000.(psi would be different )

Good point you bring up, dogdoc. First, lawyers aside, understand that any pressure spec SAAMI dreams up is an arbitrary number. Prior to SAAMI establishing the pressure specs using psi in the 1990's, the .38 Special standard pressure was 18,900 CUP and +P was 22,400 CUP. They then decided to use 17,000 psi and 20,000 psi. Since there is no conversion method to go from CUP to psi, they pulled the psi numbers out of whole cloth. Then, about 20 years later, they lowered the +P max pressure from 20,000 psi to the current 18,500 psi level. Was this because guns were blowing up at 20,000 psi pressure levels? Hardly. So what happens with this changing of the pressure specs numbers is, a well known and established standard .38 Special load of 5.0gr of Unique behind a 158gr SWC suddenly and magically becomes a +P load. Funny how playing with numbers works.:wink:

Don

[35remington]

Arbitrary?

No.

Much of this has to do with tradition and the mild steels used in 38 Special revolvers. Standard velocity ammo has never been loaded to a high pressure level, and many manufacturers only made 38 revolvers of harder steels until fairly recently. Smith and Colt do not warrant their revolvers as Plus P rated until relatively recently and after many decades of making them and many millions sold. There was good reason for doing so and frequency of repair was a key reason.

Incidentally, Plus P is still listed as 20K psi, so that argument is not valid either. Keep in mind this approximates 45 ACP, and is about double what a shotgun runs at, so such pressures are not really low.

There is no conspiracy here. Just the imposition of common sense and uniform standards. Copper crusher measurements are no longer the industry measurement used.

[35remington]

References for above

https://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_P_ammo.htm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_Special

[35remington]

20K psi is not arbitrary in the sense it is an actual engineering limit for the many variants of Plus P rated 38s out there. Higher pressures than 20K would prematurely wear out the many aluminum frame 38s out there rated for Plus P.

There are good reasons the selection of pressures were made as they were for standard and Plus P in 38. Keep in mind SAAMI is made up of industry sources that ply engineering as their trade. When a pressure standard is decided upon there are soundly reasoned, not arbitrary, engineering reasons for setting them where they are at.

[USSR]

FWIW, it's not enough that 35remington and I disagree on most near everything, but he has to PM me with his snide remarks. Sorry 35remington, but you are not the last word on everything.

Don

[35remington]

I have simply set forth known facts as a counterpoint. If that offends my apologies. Enough said on the matter here as I am done

[Larry Gibson]

USSR

understand that any pressure spec SAAMI dreams up is an arbitrary number. Prior to SAAMI establishing the pressure specs using psi in the 1990's, the .38 Special standard pressure was 18,900 CUP and +P was 22,400 CUP. They then decided to use 17,000 psi and 20,000 psi. Since there is no conversion method to go from CUP to psi, they pulled the psi numbers out of whole cloth.

Not so. SAAMI did not "pull the psi numbers out of whole cloth". The difference in the MAP is caused by the 1st being from CUP measurement and the 2nd from peizo-transducer measurement. The use of transducer and strain gauge pressure measurement is referred to as "PSI" and the older copper crusher method as CUP. Simply 2 different means of measurement with 2 different end numbers. In the 38 SP cartridge the numbers, though different, are the same pressure.

[USSR]

Larry,

You are missing the point. I fully understand the difference in pressure obtained by the copper crusher method as opposed to that obtained using a piezoelectric transducer.

In the 38 SP cartridge the numbers, though different, are the same pressure.
There is simply no way of knowing that. What I am saying is, since there is no mathematical method to convert the 18,900 CUP previously used for the .38 Special to a pressure reading using the transducer, how did they arrive at exactly 17,000 psi? Why not 16,800 psi or 17,500 psi?

Don

[ulav8r]

How do you know they did not fit a test barrel with both copper slug (CUP) testing and a transducer setup for psi testing, or two test barrels side by side with each type of measurement? Also, at some point I found an article that compares cup pressures to psi. https://www.shootingsoftware.com/ftp/psicuparticle2.pdf The article is copyrighted 2002.

[dogdoc]

As pointed out on another thread and I think backed up by Larry’s testing(Larry please comment), some handloads loaded to near max cup levels , when tested on modern psi equipment, may have a higher psi than current SAAMI max in psi.(hell of a run on sentence). I think we were talking 357 magnum on that thread. So some of the old loads tested and listed in cup that are under SAAMI cup max levels, may be higher than current SAAMI max psi levels when tested with piezo psi equipment .

[dogdoc]

As I understand, cup data is still accepted and considered valid by SAAMI. Example is latest Lyman manual. Much data in cup . I suspect we are nearing the end of the cup era and will not see any new cup data however.
As someone said, I do not remember any rash of damaged guns using the the old plus p cup data so a lot is academic.