Unique ?smokless? power replacement

[runfiverun]

i like titegroup for a lot of reasons and w-231 for the same ones.
it goes a long way, it burns clean, meters nicely, isn't really position sensitive.nor temp sensitive, works with jacketed or cast boolits.
they also cover a large range of calibers from 9mm to 44 mag.
if i need more in the revolvers i change to 2400, still more 296 or 110.
if i need more in the auto's i get a bigger caliber out.
plus the price is pretty good and at from 3gr for 38 special to 8 for the big ones.
to4 or so in the 44special and 5 in the 41mag/special load.to 6 in the colt c-boy load.
they are pretty darn flexible.

[GMW]

Hi, I am a Newbie here, but have been having fun loading up my own bullits for about 35 years. My latest project is for a G20 with 155gr SWC's and 175gr SWC. They are made by Trueflight and I got them cheap. The powders I have on hand is Bluedot, Reddot, 2400, 231, HP38 and some Unique. I also have a new " lead friendly" barrel on order. Could someone get me staterd with some loads that will cycle the stock Glock and not deposit too much lead in the bore. I have no idea how hard these bullits are. Thankyou for your time.
Gerry


opps.......how did this happen? I meant to start a new post!

[Potsy]

.35Remington,
In the next couple of weeks I'm going to get to make some trips to the range (finally!!!work has been wide open for about 2 months now and I've not pulled the trigger on anything, and its really starting to bore me).

I don't enjoy running long strings over the chrony, but would be happy run a few for our own amusement and education.

I'm assuming you would want extreme spreads with the powder at the rear of the case, the front of the case, and shooting "normally". I'm figuring 6 rounds, per string, 1 string per powder position. That may not be a big statistical cross section, but we'll have an idea.
I will be running this test in a Kimber Eclipse target .45 ACP and a Ruger Bisley .45 Colt for those interested. Loads will be those mentioned above, I'll be using Winchester instead of mixed brass in the ACP.

Give me a few details on what you want to know and hopefully I'll have some results in a week or two.

[missionary5155]

Would everyone who is "Fed up " with dirty ,nasty smelling, smokey Unique bring it down to me here in Peru.... I will safely and humanely dispose of it for you.

[35remington]

"I'm assuming you would want extreme spreads with the powder at the rear of the case, the front of the case, and shooting "normally"."

(In reference to powder position testing with Universal).

Exactly.

Hopefully with mid range to standard velocity loads with 185-230 grain bullets in .45 ACP, and 200 to 255 in .45 Colt.

Just to see if my information is duplicated by others.

Thanks for the effort. We'll see.

[Lloyd Smale]

I love unique and herco. they both shoot so well that i can live with a little smoke and mess. Two powders that will burn at the same rate are power pistol a powder i use alot too and have had great luck with and universal clays, a powder i use sometimes but have never had the luck with working up accuate loads with that i have the other 3. I could care less if a powder is a little dirty as long as it shoots well.

[James C. Snodgrass]

HS-6 is what I started using instead of Unique there isn't as much data but it is available . As far as clean goes it ain't that . But it is a good alliterative. James

[RNyogi]

would everyone who is "fed up " with dirty ,nasty smelling, smokey unique bring it down to me here in peru.... I will safely and humanely dispose of it for you.

amen!

[spurrit]

I'm just happy to not buy any of it.

[Rocky Raab]

Not creating an argument in any way, but who the heck actually shoots by carefully positioning the powder? In real life, the normal cycling of the gun (ANY gun), recoil and holding the gun nearly horizontal for almost all shots will pretty much result in the powder laying evenly level in the case. When I shoot it normally (cycling the gun without any odd positioning gymnastics) Universal gives me very low variation in velocity or group, in handgun or rifle.

Universal (they changed the name due to confusion with the other two "Clays") is as near to Unique as one can find - deliberately so by Hodgdon. I use it in handgun as well as rifle loads at the same charge levels and get almost identical results. I would not blithely substitute one for the other at absolute maximum load levels, but up to mid-range, it is perfectly safe to do so.

All powders have a preferred pressure range at which they burn best. Very light loads of any powder are liable to burn poorly, resulting in unburnt kernels, smoke and dirty cases. All that goes away when charges reach that powder's "happy place" of pressure.

[spurrit]

There are THREE Clay's powders? I thought there was just universal and regular! They really oughta use better naming/labeling practices. When I first got into reloading, I went through several pounds before I realised I was using the wrong Clay's data!

[oldhickory]

All I will say is, if I had only one pistol powder to load with...It would be Unique.

[Rocky Raab]

Hodgdon originally introduced three powders using new Australian manufacturing technology: Clays, Universal Clays and International Clays. They were all designed primarily for shotgun target sports, hence the "Clays" part of the name.

They soon also listed handgun load data for Clays and Universal Clays, but still do not list handgun applications for International Clays.

Almost immediately, however, near-accidents started being reported due to name confusion - as one might well realize after the fact! So within a year or so, they changed the names to Clays, Universal and International, but elsewhere on the label also included "Using Clays technology."

Application-wise, Clays can be used wherever RedDot works, and Universal where Unique does, although not always with the exact same charge weights.

[35remington]

Rocky, IPSC shooters will shoot from the "surrender" position with a holstered gun. And may chronograph the gun from the muzzle down position or muzzle up position to "make major" for the shoot - and the unknowing may run too close to the "edge" and find the chronoed average lower than they desire (disqualified), or conversely, higher than they desire (more recoil than necessary when a more consistent powder could run closer to the major cutoff) .

I find no downside to a powder that produces lowest possible velocity variation if accuracy is a wash, as it often is. Deliberately testing for it is something I regularly do, and I find it covers all possible situations. Choosing between a powder that produces variations of 50 fps rather than 100 fps with positioning extremes is often a tiebreaker. If two powders produce similar accuracy, similar velocities with the same charge, and one is half as position sensitive, guess which one I pick?

It's a personal choice, but for myself a very relevant one as it's a clearly distinguishing, repeatably different characteristic. And I look for it.

With pistols, "odd positioning gymnastics" is the name of the game, more often than not. As are tip barrelled single shots and loads run smartly into a bolt action chamber rather than gently. We often don't run the gun exactly the same way each time, (for example, hunting versus a bluebird day at the range) and I like a powder that is less sensitive to variation due to conscious or unconscious decisions on the part of the shooter.

[Rocky Raab]

I also find no downside to a powder that doesn't exhibit variation with positioning.

That said, except for unusual circumstances or forced situations like IPSC, I'd contend that normal cycling results in pretty much level distribution of powder in most firearms and in most circumstances.

Recoil of a revolver shoves powder forward, but the rising muzzle brings it back. Cycling the cylinder levels it again.

There isn't enough room in most semi-auto rounds to make powder position pertinent, but the violent slamming about likely levels it nonetheless.

Recoil in a rifle slams the powder forward, but then shoving the cartridge forward shoves it back again. The gun is fired horizontally most of the time, and so the powder is usually level.

Tip-ups are loaded with the cartridge down, but are snapped closed, forcing the powder back again. Again. most are fired horizontally.

The only time I can envision that a gun would be fired straight down would be at a snake between your feet, and in that event, slight loss of velocity is the least of your worries - and the range makes it meaningless.

If you fire straight up, the added velocity is a bonus!

[35remington]

Except that it does vary, and it isn't always level. As the saying goes, stuff happens. Normal cycling doesn't always account for it, and to me it is a very valid criteria to use to evaluate a powder.

Tip a single shot down. Insert cartridge. Snap it closed gently, as I usually do, or point it muzzle down, when hunting, then raise to level for the shot. Powder near bullet. I don't snap a single shot closed with anywhere near enough force to fling the powder backward, as I'm not closing a bear trap. Velocity testing of typical closing effort reveals (with position sensitive powders) that the powder does not move markedly away from the bullet after tip down and closing, as the velocity is notably different than when the powder is level or positioned near the primer in many cartridges. I'm a very avid Contender carbine shooter and small game hunter.

Or, hold it at port arms when seeking game and level for the shot. Powder near primer. Or when shooting at an up angle, as squirrel hunting. I do a lot of that, too.

Cycle the boltgun slow, on a rest. Powder distributed through case.

Now, cycle it fast, as when hunting, and close the bolt abruptly. Powder near bullet, well away from primer.

I know there "theoretically" isn't enough room for the powder to move in the automatic pistol case, but do me a favor, as I was asking for others to try this. Try a 200 LSWC of the HG 68 pattern in the 45 ACP, using standard charges of 6 to 6.5 grains of Universal. Try it with the 230 lead roundnose of 2 ogive radius, if you prefer, with the 6 grain charge.

Try it with powder near bullet and also near primer. I get over 100 fps variation in a ten shot string. Unique runs to half that. Which means, apparently, there's too much room for Universal. Unique does bulk better and this likely accounts for some of it.

It's a tiebreaker for me.

I find the position sensitivity of Universal in the stubby 45 ACP case to be curious, but quite repeatable, and of course as the loads are lightened things theoretically get worse. But, it is present with up to 6.8 grain charges with the 200 LSWC, producing spreads of 100 fps there also (950 to 1050 fps in a five inch 1911).

If you don't care about such things, don't. But I find them relevant, and avoid powders that are sensitive to variations with powder positioning extremes. As I said, I look for it, which is probably why I'm concerned about it.

Most don't. But I'm not most guys and look for such differences to narrow my selections.

I'm not particularly looking to convince anyone. I'm mentioning it for those who may wish to see if it happens to them with Universal.

However, you're not going to convince me that such testing is foolish. I handle guns in such a way that past and current testing reveals that velocity variations due to powder position can and do happen, if I choose the wrong one.

My powder selection lets me concentrate on the shot rather than be concerned with how the powder is oriented, no matter what.

[Rocky Raab]

Oh, I didn't say your testing is foolish. Rigorous testing always shows something.

I actually think we cannot say just where the powder is in a cartridge 99.99% of the time. We can't see it, and even the slightest tipping or jostling will cause at least some of it to slide towards level. Fill a dipper with powder and tip it over. No matter how slowly you go, the powder doesn't stay in the dipper; some tumbles out. It is reasonable to assume that this behavior does not change within a cartridge. So powder is never uniformly against either the bullet or the primer.

As to effect in the field, it is as I said: shots downward are never at a range where it matters, and shots upward would benefit from any slight velocity boost. Net relevance? None.

I'll happily admit it might matter to IPSC shooters - but that's about as inclusive as saying it matters to left-handed orphans who drive DeLoreans.

Good discussion. I'm enjoying it, my friend.

[35remington]

Not surprisingly, I do often fire shots upward in the field (I'm an avid squirrel hunter, and like light fast powder loads in my 25-20 as well as other calibers) and in other cases I raise the gun from a muzzle down position to fire the shot at game I kick out when traipsing about (and I'm not about to tip the barrel up to position the powder near the primer before shooting, as I don't have time to dink around).

I also carry it level or at port arms, as I mentioned. It would perhaps not surprise you that I often use dacron with powders of 2400 speed and slower in light loads for rifle cases, so I ensure this position sensitivity thing is moot for me with those powders as well despite how the gun is handled.

So, I'm consistently concerned with it, and take steps to avoid it, whatever they may be. At least you can say I'm on the same page, all of the time. My philosophy is to avoid variation if possible, and I do. Do such things matter? Certainly to me they do or I wouldn't do this.

I'm pretty well convinced that pointing the gun muzzle down or up positions the powder at the extremes of the case space, and leveling it, while possibly allowing some of the powder to move, doesn't move most of it to the other end nor is it entirely level, at least while I'm handling the gun. The chronograph says so with some powders.

I think I've spoken my piece about it.

[cephas53]

I
" You might just have to play around with your loads a bit to get it burn cleaner."

Although I'm new to casting I've been reloading and using Unique for about 3 decades now. Wanted cleaner burning, tried other powders but had a stash of Unique to use. After some effort I found what kir_kenix says is true. This winter I've experimented trying to see if I could get a cleaner load with it. All else the same, 45apc, Lee 452-228-1R I used several lubes. Was about ready to give up. Last effort was pan lube, found the recipe in your sticky section for lubes. Was very pleased with the results.

[spurrit]

Hodgdon originally introduced three powders using new Australian manufacturing technology: Clays, Universal Clays and International Clays. They were all designed primarily for shotgun target sports, hence the "Clays" part of the name.

They soon also listed handgun load data for Clays and Universal Clays, but still do not list handgun applications for International Clays.

Almost immediately, however, near-accidents started being reported due to name confusion - as one might well realize after the fact! So within a year or so, they changed the names to Clays, Universal and International, but elsewhere on the label also included "Using Clays technology."

Application-wise, Clays can be used wherever RedDot works, and Universal where Unique does, although not always with the exact same charge weights.

The dumb #######s should at least make the labels look noticeably different. I'd bought some of both without knowing better when I first started reloading.