Rotherham's translation is pretty good. I tend to consult it more than Young's 'cause as you said, Young's is a bit of a hard read. My personal opinion is that it uses a couple of eternals in it that aren't necessary as well. I've even heard Joseph Prince quote Rotherham's a few times. I don't think he's a UR believer though, although with the Gospel of Grace that he teaches, UR's pretty much the next step from what he teaches if you ever get to hear very much of Joseph Prince's ministry http://www.josephprince.org
He's made two, maybe three ET references in the nearly 6 months that I've been listening to him, and his program is on 7 days a week where I live between a couple of different channels. And those couple of times he didn't harp on it. Just a passing reference.
My point is that apparently Rotherham's has got credibility with people that aren't necessarily UR. Beyond that there's the Concordant Literal. It's one down side is it's not in one volume or even two. You'll get the occasional Universalist that'll balk at a few translational differences in it, but overall, it's a pretty fantastic translation. If I personally had to pick between the Concordant New Testament and the KJV.... but that's just me 'cause I never found the KJV very readable anyway and years ago when I'd found out about the NKJV, I was so relieved! The reason that a lot of Universalists will still use the KJV is because so many study aides are readily available for it, from Wigram's Concordance to Young's Concordance.
My studies recently have centered mostly around the New Testament, so I've been using the Concordant and Scarlett's New Testament. Scarlett's is a translation from 1798 that's perdy good. I got both of those New Testaments from the Concordant Publishing Concern http://www.concordant.org
For Old Testament, I'm mainly using the NASB, although I've peaked in the KJV a few times for like something out of Proverbs or something like that. UR was sorta my big fork in the road about 7 years ago, so I've spent less time in the Old Testament while I've been finding my footing again in the New Testament. I don't always remember to, but I've sometimes looked in rotherham's Emphasized Bible from http://www.studylight.org
A KJV's basically fine if you're able to really read it and get a lot out of it. A lot of people really don't get much out of the 17th century translation, myself included 'cause half of the English vocabulary -- ignoring the Hebrew and Greek for a second, but just the English of 1611 so often means the exact opposite of what it means these days. But if you're thoroughly schooled in Shakespeare's English and know it as a foreign language, then as I said, the study aides are there for that translation. No translation's going to be 100% satisfactory to absolutely everybody. You might read a few pages of rotherham's Emphasized and decide that Young's wasn't so bad afterall