Accurate #9


PDA






area51
June 19, 2012, 10:40 PM
Anyone using #9 for their 357/44 magnums ? I've used unique/2400 but I hear #9 is pretty good. Any other comments on Accurate powders are most welcome.

If you enjoyed reading about "Accurate #9" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Clark
June 19, 2012, 10:47 PM
I have a 7.62x25mm was well.

Ramshot Enforcer is the same powder; smells the same, looks the same, and pressure sign thresholds match within a couple percent.

SHR970
June 19, 2012, 11:05 PM
Many, many pounds of it.

The best load I EVER made for my 357 Blackhawk used AA#9, CCI 500 SP, and Sierra 170 gr. JHP. I could consistently hit a 2 liter soda bottle at 200 yards with that load. Too bad I can't get those hollow points anymore.

It's hard if not impossible to find locally so I have to have it shipped in. I buy 8 lbs. at a time. One thing I like is that it produces less muzzle flash than 296 and gives comparable velocities.

joneb
June 19, 2012, 11:36 PM
I use AA#9 for 357 mag. and I really like it for jacketed, cast w/GC and cast bullets in the 18 bhn range.
The last batch of AA#9 I bought said made in Belgium, I have found #9 to be fairly consistent over the years but not as much as W-231.

area51
June 19, 2012, 11:47 PM
I have found #9 to be fairly consistent over the years but not as much as W-231.

I use w231/hp38 in 38spcl/9mm/45acp with great results.

cast w/GC and cast bullets in the 18 bhn range.

Wanted to use mb 158swc w/o gc @ starting with 11.2 and woking my way up to about 11.6 out of Blackhawk 357.

joneb
June 20, 2012, 12:17 AM
Wanted to use mb 158swc w/o gc @ starting with 11.2 and woking my way up to about 11.6 out of Blackhawk 357.
If the MBC's 158 lswc is the action series I would work up from 12.0 gr of #9 with a CCI 500. You may find better accuracy with a SPP but for cold temperatures the mag primer maybe appropriate.

ArchAngelCD
June 20, 2012, 01:32 AM
I have not used AA#9 for the .357 Magnum YET but I will be sometime soon. I have heard very good things about it so I just have to try it.

I have used W296/H110, 2400 and Lil'Gun so far for full power .357 Magnum ammo and like them all for different reasons.

area51
June 20, 2012, 02:00 AM
If the MBC's 158 lswc is the action series I would work up from 12.0 gr of #9 with a CCI 500. You may find better accuracy with a SPP but for cold temperatures the mag primer maybe appropriate.

Isn't 12.2 the max?

BBDartCA
June 20, 2012, 02:09 AM
I like #9 a lot for 357. 125 / 158grain. Needs a heavy crimp to keep the unburnt powder at bay.

Heavier bullets I really like Winchester 296.

Steve C
June 20, 2012, 02:22 AM
AA9 is very much like 2400 IMO. Its finer in grain size and you use about 1.0 grain less to get equal pressure and velocity when compared to 2400. I've used it for my .357 mag and .41 mag, don't have a .44 or I probably would have used it there too. I also use 2400.

I really like AA9 with 158gr SWC hard cast. 12.2gr of AA9 send the 158gr LSWC out the muzzle at around 1,250 fps.

rg1
June 20, 2012, 02:26 AM
AA#9 is the best powder I've tried in .357 Magnum. My data comes from Accurate Arms Manual #1 which used standard CCI 500 primers in their tests. Later data uses a magnum primer. My loads with standard CCI 500 primers is very consistent and I don't see any unburnt powder. It's extremely accurate in a 6" revolver and also in a Marlin rifle. I shoot 13.0 grains of AA#9 with Hornady 158 gr. XTP's in both. This is a near maximum load. Haven't used it in 44 Mag as my loads using Win 296 are satisfactory. Only thing about AA#9 is I can't find it locally.

Hammerdown77
June 20, 2012, 12:17 PM
AA9 is very much like 2400 IMO. Its finer in grain size and you use about 1.0 grain less to get equal pressure and velocity when compared to 2400. I've used it for my .357 mag and .41 mag, don't have a .44 or I probably would have used it there too. I also use 2400.

I really like AA9 with 158gr SWC hard cast. 12.2gr of AA9 send the 158gr LSWC out the muzzle at around 1,250 fps.
That's the same load I use, 12.2 grains under a 158 gr LSWC.

I've tried higher, and lower, and that is the most accurate.

jim8115
June 20, 2012, 02:16 PM
I have replaced H110 with #9 for my 357 loads. 12.5 Gr # 9 with a missouri hard cast 158 SWC. Chronos at around 1250 FPS, near as I remember. Dont have my records here with me. Most accurate load I have tried

Walkalong
June 20, 2012, 03:45 PM
I like AA #9 in .44 Mag.

336A
June 20, 2012, 03:57 PM
I've come very close to trying AA#9. I read nothing but glowing reports about it and a lot folks feel that it is "the" powder for the .41 magnum. The only thing that has kept me from trying it is that the newer data uses Magnum primers which aren't needed with this powder. I can't find any of the older data that uses standard prmers sio for now I just use 2400.

Walkalong
June 20, 2012, 04:04 PM
I have older AA #9, and use older data, but newer AA #9 is slightly different.

SlamFire1
June 20, 2012, 04:28 PM
My AA#9 has to be from the 90's.

My standard 357 load is 13.5 grains 2400 with a 158 anything. This is a powerful and accurate load.

If you are only interested in shooting magnum loads, also consider H110/W296.

I did have misfires in cold weather, with a revolver with a weak mainspring, and using WSP primers with AA#9. I changed out the mainspring and shot in slightly warmer weather and everything was fine. I can see the recommendation for magnum primers as these ball powders are harder to ignite.

My data is with WSP or standard CCI.

AA#9 shoots well and if the price is right, I can recommend it.


Smith & Wesson M27-2 6.5 Barrel



158 LSWC 13.5grs 2400 R-P cases CCI primers
9-Oct-05 T = 64 F
Ave Vel = 1273
Std Dev = 44.03
ES = 176.7
High = 1372
Low = 1195
N = 30


158 JHP 13.0 grs AA#9 R-P cases WSP
9-Oct-05 T = 64 F
Ave Vel = 1156
Std Dev = 35.63
ES = 160.6
High = 1230
Low = 1069
N = 20
Very accurate



158 JHP (W/W) 14.0 grs AA#9 R-P cases WSP
9-Oct-05 T = 64 F
Ave Vel = 1208
Std Dev = 27.65
ES = 89
High = 1255
Low = 1166
N = 24
Very accurate

158 JHP (W/W) 13.5 grains 2400 R-P cases WSP
5-Aug-06 T = 102 F
Ave Vel = 1222
Std Dev = 26.45
ES = 72.12
High = 1262
Low = 1190
N = 5


158 LRN Valiant 12.0 grs AA#9 CCI500 Mixed cases
5-Aug-06 T = 104 F
Ave Vel = 1278
Std Dev = 34.98
ES = 117.4
High = 1344
Low = 1226
N = 27
Accurate

158 LRN Valiant 12.5 grs AA#9 CCI500 3-D cases
5-Aug-06 T = 104 F
Ave Vel = 1348
Std Dev = 34.16
ES = 134.7
High = 1386
Low = 1251
N = 25
Very Accurate no leading

158 LRN Valiant 13.0 grs AA#9 CCI500 3-D cases
5-Aug-06 T = 104 F
Ave Vel = 1360
Std Dev = 33.19
ES = 109.8
High = 1393
Low = 1284
N = 26
Very Accurate



158 LSWC Linotype 12.0 AA#9 Mixed cases CCI500

21 June 2008 T = 85 F

Ave Vel = 1166
Std Dev = 99
ES = 251.8
High = 1245
Low = 993.3
N = 6

No leading

158 LSWC Linotype 15.5 W296 Zero Cases CCI500

21 June 2008 T = 85 F

Ave Vel = 1282
Std Dev = 35
ES = 128.1
High = 1325
Low = 1197
N = 12

No leading, no extraction issues, heavier recoil than AA#9 load


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Smith%20and%20Wesson%20Pistols/DSCN1755M27-2.jpg

Clark
June 20, 2012, 11:22 PM
SlamFire1,
That is a great photo. Interesting without looking posed.

357 Mag AA#9 158 gr published loads:

Hornady 2000 11.5 gr

"Midway Loadmap" 1999 15 bullets 11.3~11.7 gr

"Modern Reloading" Richard Lee 1996 13 gr

"Speer 12" 1994 13.7 gr
"Speer 13" 1998 13.7 gr

Accurate pamphlets 1996, 1997, 1999, & 2000 13 gr
"Accurate Arms Number Two" book 2000 15 gr
Accurate pamphlet 2001 "new data" 15 gr

"Lyman's 47th" 1992 16 gr
"Lyman Pistol and Revolver" 1994 16 gr


CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The High Road, nor the staff of THR assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.


For a test gun, I used a Colt Police Positive 38 Special from Aim surplus [$79].

I reamed the cylinder of Colt Police Positive to .357 mag length:

AA#9 1.590", 357 mag brass, wspm, hard crimp
16 gr OK!!
17 gr STOP! case stuck, hammered it out

joneb
June 21, 2012, 12:17 AM
Using below max charges for AA#9 from 2002 I load 13.6-13.9 with 158 XTP and Nosler 158 jhp with either CCI 500 or WSP for a Ruger Sec. Six. The cases extract easily, and these loads are have produced the best accuracy for me, better than 2400 and W-296.

area51
June 21, 2012, 11:49 PM
I loaded about 50 rounds with 12.5 heavy crimp and will try them out tomorrow with my Blackhawk and m28-2 3.5" barrel.

Excellent metering on this powder out of my old #55.

joneb
June 22, 2012, 12:30 AM
Excellent metering on this powder out of my old #55.
In my Redding M3 powder throw with the micro pistol meter AA#9 will throw accurately down to the last five charges in the hopper :)

ssyoumans
June 22, 2012, 11:18 AM
I have a 7.62x25mm was well.

Ramshot Enforcer is the same powder; smells the same, looks the same, and pressure sign thresholds match within a couple percent.

I am not so sure that they are the same. The latest manuals from AA and Ramshot have very different data. I do not believe these are the same.

However in Rifle, AA2230 and Ramshot Xterminator are the same. Identical load data in all calibers. Reference AA version 3.5 and Ramshot version 4.5 of their manuals (current version).

Clark
June 22, 2012, 05:17 PM
ssyoumans,
Maybe I am going to learn something.
In 2000, AA data showed 11.7 gr AA#9 110 gr 7.62x25mm for CZ52s only.
My CZ52s blew up.
I went through 5 years of flames on line when ever I posted that all books are wrong and Tokarevs are stronger than CZ52s.
In 2005 I plugged Ramshot into Quickload [assuming Ramshot =AA#9] and got the right velocity 1622 fps and the pressure 65 kpsi.
AA then reduced their CZ52 loads to 26kpsi [8.5 gr] and sold the company.
I updated my Quickload.
Now Quickload has AA#9 in the library, and gives the results Enforcer once did. But now the Enforcer calculations are much lower, like your observations of Enforcer published data.
I don't know if the QL library data is from testing or inferred from published data.
Neither the AA#9 that I purchased in 2000 nor the Enforcer that I purchased in ~ 2004 have lot numbers.
I figured it out that AA#9 and Enforcer were the same on my own, before I read on line that AA#9 = Enforcer = W820 = H108

Walkalong
June 23, 2012, 08:38 AM
The first little mini PDF Ramshot put out had some really hot (Unbelievable in .45 ACP) Enforcer data. The newer ones have backed way off of it.

ArchAngelCD
June 23, 2012, 11:53 PM
Any other comments on Accurate powders are most welcome.
If AA powders were available locally I would have no problem using them. They have come a long way from years ago and all their powders seem to be very consistent now.

While I have not yet tried AA#9 like I said above I have used a good amount of AA#5 and I like it. AA#5 makes a great .38 Special +P powder, a good .45 Auto and .45 Colt powder and works well in the 9mm too. AA#5 was specifically designed for use in the .45 Auto so it should work well in that application. While it's acceptable in the .45 Colt I have yet to match the accuracy of W231 and HS-6 with AA#5 in the .45 Colt.

bluetopper
June 24, 2012, 12:19 AM
I've always thought and seen data to make me come to the conclusion that Accurate 4100 and Ramshot Enforcer are the same. I still think this is the case.

Clark
June 25, 2012, 03:45 AM
If two powders look the same and smell the same, they are probably the same.

I verify by testing them with brass and chrono. The threshold of long brass life in a rifle or case bulge in a semi auto handgun should be the same.

The exception to that is Power Pistol and Bullseye. Power pistol was once called "Bullseye 84".

The way to tell the difference it to measure the density.

With the old IMR single base stick powders, one can measure the sticks with dial calipers.

IMR-POWDER GRANULATIONS AND COMPOSITIONS
Powder Dia. Perf. Lgth. Web Coating Density
.... ....(.65xdie) . (.93xcut) ... (%) . (g/cc)
4198 .027 .007 .085 .010 6 DNT .85
3031 .030 .007 .030 .0015 8 DNT .89
4064 .032 .007 .085 .0128 9 DNT .90
4320 .034 .007 .042 .014 8 DNT .92
4350 .039 .008 .085 .016 5 DNT .925
4676 .034 .007 .058 .013 7 DNT .90
4895 .033 .007 .058 .013 6 DNT .90
4831 .039 .008 .085 .016 8 DNT .90

area51
July 8, 2012, 01:46 PM
11.5 over mbc 158swc was my favorite load. 1.5" groups @ 25 yards out of my Blackhawk. Did I mention I really love my Rugers ? I have to get me one in 44Magnum.

Is #5 and #7 almost the same as #9 ? It seems you use less powder than #9 according to accurate data.

Walkalong
July 8, 2012, 03:56 PM
Is #5 and #7 almost the same as #9 ?
In what way? Burn speed? Not even close. Performance? I really like AA #5 also, but have never used AA #7.

squarles67
July 8, 2012, 10:16 PM
Accurate #9 and Enforcer do not look the same.

http://i421.photobucket.com/albums/pp293/squarles67/IMG_2528.jpg


Both of these were purchased within the last 3 or 4 years.

john wall
July 8, 2012, 11:05 PM
GREAT in 357, 44 Mag.

Also works very well in the 410.

Clark
July 9, 2012, 02:40 AM
http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx220/ClarkM/AA9andEnforcer7-8-2012.jpg

squarles67,
Your picture makes them look similar, but AA#9 is more shiny.

Mine look the same to me under a microscope, but as groups, the Enforcer is more shiny.

Are there any other powders this small?
This is some small balls of powder!

squarles67
July 9, 2012, 10:37 AM
They do in fact look similar but the #9 is flattened and the Enforcer is ball

The Enforcer is tiny indeed and leaks like crazy from my Auto Disk.

Clark
July 9, 2012, 01:31 PM
squarles67

They do in fact look similar but the #9 is flattened and the Enforcer is ball

Here we go again.

In my samples:
95% of Enforcer are flattened, and 5% round.
5% or AA#9 are flattened, 95% are round.


They both measure between .010 and .012"

squarles67
July 9, 2012, 02:18 PM
In my samples:
95% of Enforcer are flattened, and 5% round.
5% or AA#9 are flattened, 95% are round.

I would say that what I pulled from my cans yesterday was just the opposite but I don't have the time or patience to pull and measure a large enough sample to be meaningful. I suppose my point is I think I'll keep treating them as different powders.

amd6547
July 9, 2012, 04:02 PM
Can AA9 be used in 38spl?
I have a pound I bought for 44mag use 10yrs ago...never got around to loading more than 50rds using it.

squarles67
July 9, 2012, 04:15 PM
Can AA9 be used in 38spl?
I have a pound I bought for 44mag use 10yrs ago...never got around to loading more than 50rds using it.
Accurate doesn't have any data for it and in my opinion it's much too slow for 38 special

area51
July 9, 2012, 06:00 PM
In what way? Burn speed? Not even close. Performance? I really like AA #5 also, but have never used AA #7.

I am about to order more powder and wanted to get some 2400 which I've never used before. Is #9 very similar ? Do you like #5 as well as w231 ?

Walkalong
July 9, 2012, 06:37 PM
Can AA9 be used in 38spl?No, the burn speed is too slow to do well.

I am about to order more powder and wanted to get some 2400 which I've never used before. Is #9 very similar ? Do you like #5 as well as w231 ?
I have never used 2400, but it is in the same range as AA #9, give or take a little. Both are suited to similar applications.

If I had to choose, I would choose W-231 over AA #5, but I like both a lot, and since I do not have to choose, I use both.

Walkalong
July 9, 2012, 06:39 PM
Are there any other powders this small?
This is some small balls of powder!True Blue. Tee tiny little balls. Seriously tee tiny.

Walkalong
July 9, 2012, 07:21 PM
AA #9 and True Blue pics.

SHR970
July 9, 2012, 08:12 PM
Ramshot Enforcer is the same powder; smells the same, looks the same, and pressure sign thresholds match within a couple percent. No, they are not the same.

I've always thought and seen data to make me come to the conclusion that Accurate 4100 and Ramshot Enforcer are the same. I still think this is the case. Your conclusion is correct....Enforcer = AA4100 So sayeth Johan Loubser; Ballisitican Ramshot Powders.

True Blue does have a counterpart...but not in the Accurate line.

Walkalong
July 9, 2012, 09:05 PM
True Blue does have a counterpartCare to share?

Clark
July 9, 2012, 09:08 PM
"presumably arrived-at by closed-bomb testing"
Hodgdon Olin relative quickness
H-335 WW-844 101
BL-C(2) WW-848 100
H-380 WW-452 99
------ WW-748 98
H-414 WW-760 95
H-450 WW-785 92

Winchester/Hodgdon
W231 / HP38 = Ramshot Zip
W540 / HS6 =True Blue
W571 / HS7
W296 / H110
W760 / H414
W785 / H450 (both obsolete)
WAP = Ramshot Silhouette
WC680 =AA1680 = H116

Accurate Arms/Ramshot
AA#9/Enforcer
W820 = H108


*POWER PISTOL

Win 231 = HP 38
Win 296 = H110
Win 760 = H414
Win 785 = H450
WC 844 = H335
WC 846 = BLC(2)
Win 540 = HS6
Win 571 = HS7

Walkalong
July 9, 2012, 09:21 PM
W540 / HS6 =True BlueMy True Blue is much, much, finer than the HS-6 I had.

SHR970
July 9, 2012, 09:50 PM
Care to share?

True Blue = New Vectan SP-2 as in the reformulated SP-2

Source...Johan Loubser Ballistician Ramshot Powders

If you enjoyed reading about "Accurate #9" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!