AA#7
- Thread starter 918v
- Start date
- Status
Mike 27
Member
I am confused by the question. Are you talking a particular data recipe from a source? I know that the 8th edition Hornady book reduced some 10mm loads so they may have backed off on 9 as well. I personally use a faster powder for 9mm though. Bullseye is my favorite but use AA2 as well.
Mike
Mike
rfwobbly
Member
► I believe all the Accurate powder data was recalculated about 10 years ago. Not sure if that was lawyers or data conversion caused by new lab equipment, but the loads dropped.
► Like the AA No.2 & No.5, it's so fine it can leak out of loose powder measures. Dillon offers a special tight fitting powder bar; Lee can leave you with a mess.
► I prefer No.7 in 38 Super, but it can work in 9x19. The issue is the volumes of powder used. You may have trouble with the small 9x19 case. Once in there it shoots great; high accuracy and low std deviations.
► Like the AA No.2 & No.5, it's so fine it can leak out of loose powder measures. Dillon offers a special tight fitting powder bar; Lee can leave you with a mess.
► I prefer No.7 in 38 Super, but it can work in 9x19. The issue is the volumes of powder used. You may have trouble with the small 9x19 case. Once in there it shoots great; high accuracy and low std deviations.
Used it for years in my 9's. The powder has been sourced from a few places over the years...I have had batches from Israel and Czech. The current stuff is from the US. My last keg was Cz. my new one is US.
The US stuff looks different than the old stuff although they say it has been said the formula is the same. That said I am dropping my loads a bit and reworking. #7 has always liked to be run hard; the nice thing is that in the 9 it fills the case well. I don't know if it is still true but the older Corbon 9mm +P loads used this powder.
One of the things I like about this powder is that in my comp.ed P89 I have virtually zero muzzle flip. At full power loads my muzzle actually goes down a touch.
Edit: I also found it very useful in 125 and 158 gr. loads for my SP101. It gives me better overall results than W296 and AA#9 with both bullet weights.
The US stuff looks different than the old stuff although they say it has been said the formula is the same. That said I am dropping my loads a bit and reworking. #7 has always liked to be run hard; the nice thing is that in the 9 it fills the case well. I don't know if it is still true but the older Corbon 9mm +P loads used this powder.
One of the things I like about this powder is that in my comp.ed P89 I have virtually zero muzzle flip. At full power loads my muzzle actually goes down a touch.
Edit: I also found it very useful in 125 and 158 gr. loads for my SP101. It gives me better overall results than W296 and AA#9 with both bullet weights.
CZ57
member
AA#7 is excellent for producing high velocity and load density with 124 gr and 147 gr. bullets. I haven't tried the reformulated #7, but has been mentioned it is also excellent for .357 Magnum loads for snubs. Much less muzzleblast without all of the velocity loss of the magnum powders like H110/W296. 
Last edited:
I've used AA#7 over the years, it once worked well for me in 44spl with 200gr JHPs but the newer batch left partially burnt powder that tied up the revolver.
With the new batch of #7 I loaded it with 240gr jacketed and it worked well, the remainder I loaded in 357 Mag for a 2.75" Ruger Sec Six and it did very well at the lower end with jacked bullets, low flash and accurate.
With the new batch of #7 I loaded it with 240gr jacketed and it worked well, the remainder I loaded in 357 Mag for a 2.75" Ruger Sec Six and it did very well at the lower end with jacked bullets, low flash and accurate.
Bush Pilot
Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 2,400
I use a ton of AA7 for 10mm.
NuJudge
Member
I use it in .40 S&W
My recollection is that it was originally designed for 7.62x25. I have not used it in that, but I have used a lot of it in the .40 S&W, and plan to use it in heavy bullet 9mm.
I like it because it fills up the case, such that a double charge will not fit in the case. Accuracy with cast Lead bullets is decent.
It does leave a sprinkling of unburned powder all over the bench, but the bore is clear.
My recollection is that it was originally designed for 7.62x25. I have not used it in that, but I have used a lot of it in the .40 S&W, and plan to use it in heavy bullet 9mm.
I like it because it fills up the case, such that a double charge will not fit in the case. Accuracy with cast Lead bullets is decent.
It does leave a sprinkling of unburned powder all over the bench, but the bore is clear.
AA#7 has worked well for me loading 9x19 and midrange loads for 357 mag. I bought several 8# jugs of "commercial" #7 years ago(unfortunately almost gone now). It was a different density than canister powder and required a slight measure tweeking to achieve the same velocities as canister. I get some impressive velocities using Gold Dot 124 HP in the 9mm w/o any indications of over pressure.
I've got my Dillon set and working now and intend to lay in a stock of #7 to load with this winter.
I've got my Dillon set and working now and intend to lay in a stock of #7 to load with this winter.
Arrrrgh!
So nobody knows why the new data is so pathetic? I thought Sierra's data is conservative. I have a feeling they didn't retest it using new equipment. I think what happened was their supplier made a lot of powder for a real big customer who wanted the powder to do A, B, and C. Western Powder, to save money, decided to piggyback off that order and sell this powder as AA#7. I don't like this at all. People spend slot of time and money working up their loads only to have the manufacturer change the specs. This isn't right.
So nobody knows why the new data is so pathetic? I thought Sierra's data is conservative. I have a feeling they didn't retest it using new equipment. I think what happened was their supplier made a lot of powder for a real big customer who wanted the powder to do A, B, and C. Western Powder, to save money, decided to piggyback off that order and sell this powder as AA#7. I don't like this at all. People spend slot of time and money working up their loads only to have the manufacturer change the specs. This isn't right.
I have had the same basic problem with AA #5. Pretty big differences between some lots. I still haven't found a better full load/+P .38 Spl powder yet, but I'm looking. I may have to go off the charts to get it.
I have some older AA #9, so I use the older data with it. I may not buy any more just because it is frustrating to redo data for a new lot. There are too many choices of powders that do a much better job of lot to lot performance year after year. AA powders have been made all over the place. I have used a lot of there powder though.
I have some older AA #9, so I use the older data with it. I may not buy any more just because it is frustrating to redo data for a new lot. There are too many choices of powders that do a much better job of lot to lot performance year after year. AA powders have been made all over the place. I have used a lot of there powder though.
CZ57
member
Walkalong, here's some pretty decent load data for Silhouette in .38 Special and it's fairly mild standard pressure. They only show +P data with the 110 Barnes XPB.
Silhouette 110 HDY HP XTP 6.2 1,140 6.9 1,267 16,160 1.450
Silhouette 125 SIE JHC 6.0 1,073 6.7 1,192 16,620 1.447
Silhouette 140 HDY HP XTP 5.4 962 6.0 1,069 16,590 1.438
Silhouette 158 HDY HP XTP 5.0 872 5.6 969 16,410 1.434
Silhouette 110 HDY HP XTP 6.2 1,140 6.9 1,267 16,160 1.450
Silhouette 125 SIE JHC 6.0 1,073 6.7 1,192 16,620 1.447
Silhouette 140 HDY HP XTP 5.4 962 6.0 1,069 16,590 1.438
Silhouette 158 HDY HP XTP 5.0 872 5.6 969 16,410 1.434
It stops short of anything useful, as it does in 9MM with a 124/5 Gr bullet. I tried both. I would have to go over the Ramshot data. (Off the chart )
I only bought the Silhouette recently, and have not really wrung it out yet.
)I only bought the Silhouette recently, and have not really wrung it out yet.
- Status
Similar threads
