Unique vs AA#5

[styles]

I’ve been doing a lot of research/reading for tier II or midrange/medium loads in 357 and 44. I have large amounts of No 2 and No 5 Available.
I can’t count the number of times I see someone ask about No.5 and someone answers not to use No 5 it is too fast, but they use Unique or recommend BE-86; both faster than No 5.

I have clipped the burn rate chart:
33) Accurate No. 2
34) Ramshot Zip
35) IMR SR-7625
36) Vectan AO
37) Winchester 452AA
38) Scot 453
39) Hodgdon HP-38
40) Winchester 231
41) Alliant 20/28
42) Winchester 244
43) Hodgdon HS-5
44) Winchester WSL
45) Alliant Unique
46) Alliant BE-86
47) Hodgdon Universal
48) IMR Unequal
49) Alliant Power Pistol
50) Vihtavuori N330
51) Alliant Herco
52) Winchester WSF
53) Winchester WAP
54) Vihtavuori N340
55) Hodgdon Hi-Skor 800-X
56) IMR SR-4756
57) Scot Solo 1500
58) Ramshot True Blue
59) Accurate No. 5

I can understand someone saying use 2400 or #9 for max loads, but What is it that I or Them don’t get about Unique??

 

[styles]

I meant to put this in the reloading forum

 

[Rodfac]

I've used Unique, Herco, WSF a lot over the past 40 years...and do have a jug of #5 but never realized it was that much slower...I'll have to run some loads with it...gotta measure better than Unique/Herco!

As I rarely load to magnum levels in any cartridge, except hunting rounds for my carbines, the medium speed offerings suit me just fine. I'm talking about 900-1100 fps loads predominantly. But you can put up some pretty stout loads using them or #5 with complete, loading manual verified, safety.

Best regards, Rod

 

[fxvr5]

Don't do your research on forums. Check your manuals for load data. Always work your loads up. If you have questions, contact the manufacturers.

 

[JO JO]

midrange/medium loads in 357 and 44

if hodgdon shows load data for #5 and 357 and 44 give it a try , I do load 44 mag at mid levels I have used Unique , BE 86 but not tried AA#5 even though I have at least 12 pounds of it
I am currently using AA #7 for mid range loads with great results. I have not seen unique or BE86 locally for a long time but my LGS has had a constant supply of Accurate powders at a decent price
Im sure someone here can answer your question

 

[cfullgraf]

I like Unique and 700-X for many applications but I like Accurate #5 as an alternate load if I do not have my primary powders.

I like to have alternate powders loads developed so that I can easily transition to a different load should my favorite powder is not available.

I've been dabbling with target loads for 45 ACP using Accurate #2. I don't think I'd use it as an alternate to Unique or Accurate #5 on an equal basis. But, in low pressure rounds, maybe.

Unique is call Unique for a reason. It gives good performance over a wide range of cartridges.

That does not mean other powders may provide better performance if that is what you are looking for.

I can load Unique in 9x19 and get good performance but I prefer Ramshot True Blue or Accurate #7. True Blue meters easier than Unique. I've use Blue Dot as well for 9x19.

I like Unique in 45 Colt and mild 357 Magnum loads. I could use something like Accurate #5 but I like Unique for my 20 and 28 shot shell loads so I usually have a supply of Unique in hand.

I went through a period of time looking for consistent loads from my 2" Centennial J-frames. I found W231 was the most consistent. Unique and Accurate #5 would work pressure wise but I did not get the velocity consistency as with W231.

The point I'm making is different powders, guns loads etc can affect the results you are looking for. You have to find what works for you.

 

[41 Mag]

I would love to throw you some straight insight on the data you are looking for, but there just isn't a ton of it out there for those particular AA powders and the calibers you are asking about.

I have used probably a couple hundred pounds of the AA powders #2, 5, 7, & 9 through the years. Most of everything I load for is used for hunting deer and feral hogs. As such most of the loads have utilized #7 & 9 in 357 through 454.

The majority of my #2 or 5 loads have been 38spl, 45acp, and 45 Colt, with some 9mm and 10mm thrown in.

Is there data out there in a manual, probably for #5 with a cast bullet more so than with jacketed. If you're looking for those tweener loads that might be the better route to look. Check the standard Lyman Handloading, and Lyman Cast manuals. There are some loads listed but not with every bullet weight, and both cast and jacketed to some extent.

 

[styles]

There is plenty of data in the accurate loading manuals including 44. mag with no. 5. And even no. 2.

 

[styles]

Lyman manuals tend to focus on USA made powders now. The older ones have some loads. Hogdgon removed the accurate data on 2 and 5 in 44 mag and lists 7 and 9. This seems like more of a ‘what is best’ / max loads than giving data for powders that are more than viable.

 

[Charlie98]

Hogdgon removed the accurate data on 2 and 5 in 44 mag and lists 7 and 9. This seems like more of a ‘what is best’ / max loads than giving data for powders that are more than viable.

As Hodgdon transitions Western data to their data base, I can see where they have made some changes... or omissions. TAC in .30-06 is one of them as well. I've always considered Western data to be pretty robust, so my hope is they culled it out until they get a chance to work up new data with modern testing protocol.

FWIW, the old Western data is still available... I have a PDF copy if you need it, but it's out there, too.

I can’t count the number of times I see someone ask about No.5 and someone answers not to use No 5 it is too fast, but they use Unique or recommend BE-86; both faster than No 5.

It's not necessarily how 'fast' or 'slow' a powder is... it's how it works that's the trick. Looking at my relative chart, Universal, WSF, AA#5, and Unique are all in a line as the same approximate burn rate. Universal and Unique are very similar in how they burn and work, WSF and AA#5 are not so much. Never use just the burn rate chart to determine what a good powder is for any application. Another good example is W296/H110; they are right in there with 2400 and IMR4227, but W296/H110 work very, very differently.

 

[Anchorite]

I burn a lot of Unique, No. 2 and No. 5. All are versatile.

 

[MEHavey]

I would in no way rely on Burn Rate charts for load data,
. . . . ( BUT...)
There is nothing wrong w/Accurate #5 for mid-range Mag loads:
(slightly slower burning/lower pressures)



FYI Only -- not for direct loading;
WARNING
CAUTION: The following post includes load data generated by calculation in QuickLOAD software based on a particular powder lot, the assumption the primer is as mild as possible, and assumptions about component, chamber and gun geometry that may not correspond well to what you have. Such data should be approached by working up from published starting loads. USE THIS DATA AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The HighRoad, nor the staff of THR, nor QuickLOAD's author nor its distributor assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information or information derived from it.

 

[Anchorite]

True story … one of my college shooting buddies had a DW 44 magnum with a 4” barrel. We shot that revolver a lot.

We cooked up a load of 9.2grs of AA#2, CCI300, WW brass, and a 250gr LSWC sized at .430.
He had a chronograph. I don’t recall what the load was clocking, it wasn't a scorcher, but the es and sd of that load was zero.

Might have been the revolver, but that made me a believer in AA powders. This would have been 89-90.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I’ve been doing a lot of research/reading for tier II or midrange/medium loads in 357 and 44. I have large amounts of No 2 and No 5 Available.
I can’t count the number of times I see someone ask about No.5 and someone answers not to use No 5 it is too fast, but they use Unique or recommend BE-86; both faster than No 5.

I have clipped the burn rate chart:
33) Accurate No. 2
34) Ramshot Zip
35) IMR SR-7625
36) Vectan AO
37) Winchester 452AA
38) Scot 453
39) Hodgdon HP-38
40) Winchester 231
41) Alliant 20/28
42) Winchester 244
43) Hodgdon HS-5
44) Winchester WSL
45) Alliant Unique
46) Alliant BE-86
47) Hodgdon Universal
48) IMR Unequal
49) Alliant Power Pistol
50) Vihtavuori N330
51) Alliant Herco
52) Winchester WSF
53) Winchester WAP
54) Vihtavuori N340
55) Hodgdon Hi-Skor 800-X
56) IMR SR-4756
57) Scot Solo 1500
58) Ramshot True Blue
59) Accurate No. 5

I can understand someone saying use 2400 or #9 for max loads, but What is it that I or Them don’t get about Unique??

I think the correct answer to your question is, the burn rate charts are interesting, but not informative.
Unique is a flake powder; Accurate No.5 is a ball powder. Their relative burn rates are going to be circumstantial.
And, Unique is universal. It’s equally useful for rifle, shotgun and pistol cartridges. No.5 is not as utilitarian for a variety of reasons*.

* this is in reference to published loading tables backed up by labs with accreditation. It’s not meant to imply every or any source “published” in the public domain or information from hearsay sources.

 

[Captain*kirk]

Unique has worked quite well for me in the following calibers:
.44 magnum with 240gr jacketed, semi-jacketed and plated bullets
.44-40 with 200gr hard cast bullet
.45LC with hard cast 250gr bullet
.380 ACP with 90 and 95gr bullets
Not to mention shot shell hand loads.
I could also use it in some of my rifles but have found there are better powders IMHO for those.
As was mentioned, it's a very versatile powder.

 

[OS/N]

I like A#5 for the 45C handgun and carbine/rifle. Its close to unique and easier to find. 10 grains +/- with a Keith 255 SWC is a good shooting hard hitting load with annealed case mouths.

TB does okay in 9mm, 357, 38, & 45acp handgun loads but I use slower magnum powders in 357 carbines. Accurate #7 is good in the 9mm carbine but I load mainly true blue that the pistol likes and use the same loads in the 9 carbine.

 

[243winxb]

After many years, you find what works & what doesnt. No need to try new powders.

@50 yards. qq

 

[CoalTrain49]

Wait until the next powder drought hits. Should be this year sometime. The companies that market powder would like you to try their new products. Generally not any better than their old products, just something new with an ad campaign. Only problem is, it isn't available. That just leaves you with the few that are. I don't look for powder anymore. I found what works and bought enough to last me for a long time about 5 years ago. I doubt I'll ever use it all, but at least I bought it for $22/lb and I'll never be without powder. $50/lb seems like a rip off.

 

[dh1633pm]

Don't do your research on forums. Check your manuals for load data. Always work your loads up. If you have questions, contact the manufacturers.

Not sure the OP was looking for data, but rather information on the user of No 5 versus Unique. I use both Unique and No 5. Each has their uses. I agree with those above, that its not the burn rate that's important, but how it works.

 

[styles]

You got it - I was asking why so many people say no 5 is too fast, but unique is perfect? Yet, no 5 is slower.
I probably wasn’t direct enough. I’m thinking there is just confusion because of the lack of accurate data in Lyman manuals these days Or people don’t want the no 5 bought up!

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

You got it - I was asking why so many people say no 5 is too fast, but unique is perfect? Yet, no 5 is slower.
I probably wasn’t direct enough. I’m thinking there is just confusion because of the lack of accurate data in Lyman manuals these days Or people don’t want the no 5 bought up!

If you can find two burn rate charts that agree, let us know. Shooters World puts No.5 much slower than Unique but Western put No.5 as much faster than Unique. LHS has them exactly equal.

Burn rate charts are interesting, not informative.

 

[243winxb]

http://www.adiworldclass.com.au/powder-equivalents/

Powder Equivalents- "Note: This table shows only approximate equivalent values within about 5%. Actual burning rates can vary depending on the calibre, firearm, loading components and practices, as well as from powder lot to lot. As a consequence, it must be understood that Australian Munitions cannot accept any responsibility for the use of this information in any way."

 

[IWAC]

My Guiding principle is: Pick your "experts" carefully...there are several on the 'net that I have been watching for a decade or more. Common sense, still healthy, after a youth, which like most of us, "experimented" on the edge of oblivion, and don't have nicknames like "Lefty", or "stubby". Their experience and advice is mostly consistent with my own observations, and sometimes more useful than manual (published) material. "Skeeter" Skelton, Bob Milek, John Barsness, Jack O'connor, Roy Huntington, Mike Venturino, Brian Pearce, Patrick Sweeney...they haven't all died! The differences in manuals is well-known, with different, sometimes straaange barrel lengths, plain universal, or vented universal receivers, actual guns, different lots of powder, different testers, phase of the moon etc., etc. TRUST, but verify!

 

[Mercy Me]

I too find that AA #5 is a good replacement powder for Unique, but just a tad slower in burning rate in my applications. It also has a significantly lower flame temperature!

If you are looking for a direct replacement for Unique, Universal Clays has to be the answer! In all the loads I've developed over the last 20+ years with Unique, I've found that I can directly replace it with Universal Clays, grain for grain, and the differences in performance are so small that they aren't worth mentioning. What is significant is the ease with which Universal Clays meters through a measure, and the consistent charges thrown by a variety of measures. Also how stunningly clean it burns.

 

[2ndtimer]

Universal Clays (currently referred to as just Universal) is a great replacement for Unique, cleaner burning, too. But when was the last time you saw a pound available? Seems like it has not been on shelves or online for years.