AA #9 Question

[Old Grumpy]

I started reloading in 1991 and used manufacturers data and Hornady's 3rd Edition to build my loads. I stayed a few 10ths under maximum when I went for "full power loads". After a couple years I stopped shooting and packed my reloading equipment up (so the ex-wife could not try to take it in the divorce). One of the smarter things that I did (the ex-wife is not included in this list) was to lable each and every box of reloads.

A few years back I started reloading again. I now use new data from Lyman's 49th, powder companies, and the net. I do know some powder have been reformulated since 1991 and I've been told SAAMI specifications have changed (been lowered). Now when I pull some of my old loads out to shoot (they shot fine in 1992) I can not find the loads in any of the current guides.

Case in point: Today I shot some .44 Rem Mag reloads, through my Redhawk, over the chrono. They were loaded in 1992 usig AA #9 data from Accurate Arms. The load consists of 17.5gr of AA #9, 300gr Hornady XPS, and WLP primers. They shot very well and were extremely accurate at 25 yards. The chrono data was: Lo 1177 fps, Hi 1210 fps, Avg 1192.2 fps, XS 33 fps, and SD 9.542 fps.

I am really proud of the small standard deviation. The charges were thrown with a RCBS Uniflow and confirmed by a RCBS 505 scale.

Should I choose to replicate this load I'd have problems. First off Accurate Arms now lists loads for the 300gr XTP as starting at 14.8gr (1031 fps) and ending with a maximum of 16.5gr (1172 fps). Lyman's is not a lot better and they don't even list the Hornady XTP (Hornady wouldn't pay them I guess). Lyman's 49th lists starting loads of 17.5gr (895 fps) and a maximum load of 19.3gr (1020 fps) using a 300gr JSP.

None of the cases I shot showed any signs of over pressure and ejected easily. I know this was not the listed maximum in 1991 but could have been 0.2gr or 0.3gr below maximum. So who can shine some light on this?

Did Accurate reformulate AA #9 sometime between 1992 and now? Is the difference due to the change in SAAMI specs? If I were to rebuild some more of these loads with the current AA #9 powder would I have problems? Now before anyone calls me to task, if I did attempt to duplicate these using the current powder I start with at least a 10% lower charge and work back up. It is just the difference in charge weights between then and now that really throws me. :banghead:

Help, anyone currently using AA #9 in their .44 mag?

 

[Josh45]

While I do not use that powder or that caliber, The general idea is that they have been reformulated and you should start low and work your way back up. I would usually start with the lower charges and keep going until I saw pressure signs. I hope someone can give you a better detailed answer regarding this but for safety sake, I would use the new manual data dn start low and go up like I mentioned.

 

[SHR970]

In the last two years they really downgraded their loads. From the V3.4 manual to the 3.5 we have today there is a drastic drop. Part of it they (AA/ Western) state that they are using new pressure testing equipment. This drop is much more pronounced than the drop from the V2.1 / 2.2 data we used in the early 90's to the 3.4 data they were supplying us with less than two years ago. There are some loads that didn't drop at all; seems they didn't retest that data. I still have a print of the email reply they gave me on 9 Oct. 2000 for data on the 32 ACP. which is excactly the same data as is available today.

I am going to break into my new 8# of #9 soon, I'll be reworking my loads but am fairly confident that I will be getting up towards my original sweet spot recipies.

 

[Walkalong]

My AA #9 is from around 91/92ish, and I use data of the day. 240 Grain jacketed at 1300+ from my 5.5" Redhawk.

I would stick with the newer data for newer powder. AA stuff has been manufactured all over the world from different makers. To think the formula has changed is easy to believe.

AA #5 pic. I have no new AA #9.

 

[joneb]

My Accurate 1996 data is with CCI 300 primers, the new data is with WLP.
I have read that some have had trouble with AA#9 with standard primers in cold temperatures ? I have worked up loads with standard and magnum primers and find the standard primers to be a bit more accurate at moderate temperatures.

 

[SHR970]

The powders used in the V3.4 and V3.5 are all sourced from the US. Lymans 49 Data is in line with V3.4 data given the usual vartiations of lot to lot and differing components.