Unique--Hercules vs Alliant???

[Alstep]

I've got some old Hercules Unique. Is it compatible with the loading data for Alliant Unique?
How about some of the other older Hercules powders?

[Winger Ed.]

Yes.

All the trade names on their powders cross over.
When they make a new batch, if it doesn't hold to certain parameters, they can't call it 'Unique' 'Bullseye', etc.
even though the ownership of the company has changed.

Like Grandma's gravey, one batch won't be exactly like another, but it will be very, very close.

[richhodg66]

I have used old data with modern Unique and had no problems, but slight lot to lot variations can exist, so it's prudent to use starting data when you open a new can and watch for problems.

[trapper9260]

What is stated , is what I found also.

[Harter66]

They don't look alike but in my typical 45 cal loads the difference hasn't been enough or consistent enough to worry about .
Comparison of 1968 , 1982 , 2008 and 2016 lots from known estate sources and my own purchases .

[mdi]

Several years ago, I read, somewhere (?), during a powder research is that gunpowder manufacturers hold a 4% variation of powder characteristics from a "standard", lot to lot. So Unique made in 2020 should be within 4% of the Unique made in 1960...

[Alstep]

Thanks guys, really appreciate the info. Now I can load up using my usual loads.

[poppy42]

Unique is one of the oldest smokeless powder is still in production. Sometime around 1890s that can be traced back if I remember correctly. And yes the low data has remained consistent

[1hole]

Like grandma's biscuits, gun powder is organic chemistry and the organic components are not identical, therefore they cannot be made precisely. But, they can be made very close.

I've read a small pile of excited posts saying, in effect, "They have changed the formula for XYZ 1234, it's not the same as the old stuff!"

That wild claim can be true in detail but it's seriously wrong in effect. Gunpowder makers would be fools if they marketed a new product but kept the old name; lawsuits galore! But they are not fools; those supposedly sneaky fellows have a simple way to safely market new powders, easy-peazy: they can and do just give the new stuff a new name. Why would they even think of doing otherwise?

[Shiloh]

Canister powders are quite close lot to lot.
The bulk surplus powders are further apart. The surplus powders are no where near as plentiful or available as they were 25 years ago or more.

Shiloh

[RyanJames170]

a few powder intro dates i pulled from the sharpe 1937 manual updated in 1948 ish

Bullseye 1898
Unique 1900
Red dot 1932
2400 1932

IMR 3031 1934
IMR 4064 1935
IMR 4198 1935
IMR 4320 1935
IMR 4227 1935

[PositiveCaster]

Alliant did indeed change the formulation of Unique ca. 2001. The reason given was to make it “cleaner”, but the actual reason may have been somewhat different. Regardless, powders with the same name from different lots will burn similarly, but not identically.

Max load data for the .357 Magnum:

NRA data from before 1969: 159-grain Lyman, 7.0 grains Unique. 27,740 CUP

Hercules data from 1990: 158 LSWC, 6.8 grains Unique, 33,900 psi



.

[Winger Ed.]

a simple way to safely market new powders, easy-peazy: they can and do just give the new stuff a new name.

That, and sometimes they sell it to factory ammo makers.
They'll do their testing and tell 'em, 'This stuff does &, acts like such & such, and will do well for this or that cal. loading'.

This may be why some military pull down powders look different, and had different weights than other powders that
were used for the same GI round.

[jsizemore]

Powder manufacturers tell you to use the latest published load data for a reason. Sometimes things do change.

http://ilrc.ucf.edu/powders/search.php

Please 2400 by Hercules and Alliant. V-V n135 changed dramatically and it's accuracy went away.

[poppy42]

a few powder intro dates i pulled from the sharpe 1937 manual updated in 1948 ish

Bullseye 1898
Unique 1900
Red dot 1932
2400 1932

IMR 3031 1934
IMR 4064 1935
IMR 4198 1935
IMR 4320 1935
IMR 4227 1935

Thank you for the clarification! I said 1890s but I was running off of memory I never looked it up. And let’s face it my memory ain’t what it used to be

[Burnt Fingers]

Alliant did indeed change the formulation of Unique ca. 2001. The reason given was to make it “cleaner”, but the actual reason may have been somewhat different. Regardless, powders with the same name from different lots will burn similarly, but not identically.

Max load data for the .357 Magnum:

NRA data from before 1969: 159-grain Lyman, 7.0 grains Unique. 27,740 CUP

Hercules data from 1990: 158 LSWC, 6.8 grains Unique, 33,900 psi



.

PSI and CUP are two different systems. Cartridges will almost always have a higher PSI than CUP.

It's almost impossible to connect the two systems. CUP went away because PSI has more precision.

[RyanJames170]

Thank you for the clarification! I said 1890s but I was running off of memory I never looked it up. And let’s face it my memory ain’t what it used to be

no problem figured some of the members would be interested in it, those were the only powders in the 7 or 8 pages that i recognized as being still made too

[1hole]

Powder manufacturers tell you to use the latest published load data for a reason. Sometimes things do change.

http://ilrc.ucf.edu/powders/search.php

Please 2400 by Hercules and Alliant. V-V n135 changed dramatically and it's accuracy went away.

Powder production lots are close to each other but they've never been the same from lot to lot. At least as far back as 1965 reloaders were told to reduce charges and work back up anytime a new powder lot was to be used; nothing has changed.

One thing about powder burn rates that can cause confusion is that many will change burn rates with changes in peak pressure. A given powder can have a burn rate at 35K for a .30-30 class cartridge but exchange positions with others when used in a 55K cartridge. That's part of why extrapolating book data for one cartridge can't safely be applied to others.

I've never noticed that 2400 has ever changed more than normal lot to lot; in fact, so far as I can tell, the current 2400 is at least virtually the same as it was in '65. In all that time, (book) full house loads for my then new Ruger BH/.357 and S&W 29/.44 mag. the charges are the same and accuracy has never varied.

[jsizemore]

Folks can do as they please with the info provided. Sometimes you can change the formula for a powder and the burn rate is exactly the same but not always. For some folks it makes little difference and for others it does. As long as your aware of the possibility, you don't go stumbling through your reloading blind. I can't stand I don't know.

[USSR]

PSI and CUP are two different systems.

Yep.


Cartridges will almost always have a higher PSI than CUP.


Rifle cartridges, yes, but with handgun cartridges CUP is generally higher. For example: The SAAMI spec for the .357 Magnum is 35,000 psi and 45,000 CUP.



It's almost impossible to connect the two systems. CUP went away because PSI has more precision.

Yep.

Don