Accurate #5 and 44 Mag loads for 240 SWC needed

Status
Not open for further replies.

mikle76

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
169
Location
Autauga County, Alabama
I'm not looking for max velocity but I have #5 on hand and would like to work up a warm (but safe) load with it in my single shot magnum. I'm having a hard time finding loads online or in my books. I have H110 and Lil' Gun on hand also but I don't want thunderboomer loads. What ya'll got?
 
I inherited a .30 cal ammo can full of .44mag from my dad after he passed away.

His load was 10.8gr Accurate #5 in virgin Win brass with CCI 300 under a commercial, hard cast 240gr SWC.

I've shot ⅓ of the can out of two S&W 629's and a Ruger SBH, and, IMO, it's a nice, accurate "day at the range" load.
 
I'm not looking for max velocity but I have #5 on hand and would like to work up a warm (but safe) load with it in my single shot magnum. I'm having a hard time finding loads online or in my books. I have H110 and Lil' Gun on hand also but I don't want thunderboomer loads. What ya'll got?
There is .44 Special data with a 240 grain lead bullet on the Accurate website, none for .44 Magnum with that bullet though. You could easily load up from the .44 Special data though.
 
If the factory hasn't provided any data isn't it because they don't recommend it for the cartridge? Not trying to be combative, but maybe the burn rate of #5 just isn't suitable?
 
Full disclosure. I’m a newb. But when I look on Hogdons website and they don’t list a particular powder bullet combo and I can’t find it in a manual? That makes me wary. I tried to plug your combo and it came up not available. Made it down to powder and wasn’t there. I would perhaps take that a sign. Just rookie thoughts…
 
There is/was data available.

In my case, the loads I inherited from my dad were taken directly from this source.
It was a thin (less than ¼ the pages of a Guns and Ammo magazine) publication from 1991.

My dad loaded the .44's in 1999

9jUiNkK.jpg
zeG3ikT.jpg
With a bottle of powder from the same era.
Er9NjFJ.jpg
He used this powder almost exclusively in .45acp with this one exception.

Of course none of this means that this powder formulation hasn't changed in the last 30ish years but that's why we work up loads.

Hope this helps OP :thumbup:
 
Y-T71, that's exactly what I'm looking for and good advise on working up loads! My bottles of powder are about that age also but were well stored and have worked well in 9mm and 357. Listen up nay sayers...... In the 90's #5 was used for everything under the pistol/revolver Sun. Back then there was maybe half the powders available as now. #5 and/or Unique were must haves! I personally thought Universal Clays was a must have. I could do shotgun and pistol with it, get a cleaner burn than Unique and it was an easy grain for grain replacement IIRC.
 
too fast for anything past 357 and much better suited to semi auto loading
you're dead set on using it for this application none of us can tell you not to, but AA9 is a much better choice for your caliber
 
too fast for anything past 357 and much better suited to semi auto loading
you're dead set on using it for this application none of us can tell you not to, but AA9 is a much better choice for your caliber

OP specifically stated he was not looking for max velocity and it appears that the manufacturer themselves had taken a different view than yours.

YV9AdCm.jpg
 
These loads were safe in a 44 Special, probably a half a grain more powder in the 44 Magnum case would give the same velocities


4" M624 44 Special

240 LSWC Valiant 9.5 grs AA#5 Lot 35 590 Mixed Brass WLP
T = 64 °F 3-Mar-07

Ave Vel = 901
Std Dev = 14
ES = 42
High = 923
Low = 881
Number rounds= 8
Very Accurate, barrel leading


240 LSWC 10.0 grs AA#5 thrown Lot DM Midway cases WLP
T = 58 ° F 30-Dec-15

Ave Vel = 998
Std Dev = 25
ES = 73
High = 1028
Low= 956
N = 8

44 Spl Ruger Blackhawk 5.5" barrel

240 LSWC 10.0 grs AA#5 thrown Lot DM Midway cases WLP
T = 58 ° F 30-Dec-15

Ave Vel = 1050
Std Dev = 13.71
ES = 46.2
High = 1068
Low= 1022
N = 15
 
The old AA Number One printed manual has tons of AA5 44Mag recipies. IAlso, Load Data.com has lots and lots of recipes. Would not be my first choice, and I'd definitely not go much past the midlevel loads...as you'll get a lot more flash and recoil with little additional gains. I'd push you towards AA9, but you can certainly do some lower velocity loads with AA5 if you have to use that powder.


aa5-44mag2.jpg aa5-44mag.jpg
 
Because it's not listed in current data doesn't mean it's not suitable for a particular cartridge.

While I don't put much stock in burn rate charts, other than a general reference, #5 is listed as slower than Unique.

Never heard anyone say Unique isn't a good choice for medium power loads in .44mag or your example: .357mag.

While this particular set of circumstances are not "trailblazing" since I've already provided data and proven that it's a viable combination; reloading, by its very nature, encourages experimentation and to say that "there's no data therefore it's not a recommended powder" isn't necessarily true.
 
OP specifically stated he was not looking for max velocity and it appears that the manufacturer themselves had taken a different view than yours.

View attachment 1116152

I'm still skeptical. That data is what, 31 years old? There is no promise by the manufacturer that there is formula consistency over that length of time and, of course, neither the published data or the current bottle mention .44 Magnum. Have we compared other loads using #5 in calibers for which data was available at both times to make sure they are equivalent? I think that would be a reasonable minimum step.

Assuming that 31 year old data is still good seems like a reach. Why not call or email Hogdgon?
 
Yeah, you're absolutely correct.

While I, personally wouldn't have a problem starting with the minimum and working my way up, if you're skeptical, and, of course you should always err on the side of caution especially if you're just starting out, I'm sure a quick call to the manufacturer/distributor ie. Hogdon should give you all the answers you need.
 
I'm still skeptical. That data is what, 31 years old? There is no promise by the manufacturer that there is formula consistency over that length of time and, of course, neither the published data or the current bottle mention .44 Magnum. Have we compared other loads using #5 in calibers for which data was available at both times to make sure they are equivalent? I think that would be a reasonable minimum step.

Assuming that 31 year old data is still good seems like a reach. Why not call or email Hogdgon?
Let's think about this for a minute. Just because the powder is older, do you think it's different?

Do you think the manufacturer would make a powder completely different from #5, and call it #5 ? Really?

It's a cannister powder. Manufacturers warrant the speed of cannister powder to within 5%. That's +/- 2.5%.

If it's 4% faster than #5, it's not #5. There is not a chance that the manufacturer is going to expose themselves to the liability inherent in intentionally mislabeling the powder.

That lot 4% faster will be sold to an ammo company. Or, perhaps sold to a surplus powder reseller, to be sold as "Use #5 data, less 10%".

If the lot of #5 powder from today isn't within parameters of the lot of #5 from 30 years ago, it will not be sold as #5.

Now, that being said, the DATA recommendations may have changed in 30 years. But not the behavior of the powder.
 
Sure, formulations change occasionally.

Unique powder has been made for 120+ years. But, todays Unique is not formulated the same as Unique 50 years ago, which isn't the same formulation as 100 years ago. The changes in formulation has been documented and publicized.
Supposedly it burns less dirty now (having never used Unique, I wouldn't know).

Regardless of the formula differences, the differences in manufacturing methods, even the differences in packaging, Unique powder behaves the same, ballistically speaking, today as it did 100 years ago.

Otherwise, it would be renamed as another powder.
 
The max AA5 load for 240gr jacketed 44spl round is 9gr.
The max AA5 load for 200gr jacked 44spl round is 10gr.
That's where I would start.
If you have to buy brass I would probably stick with 44spl brass since 9 to 10gr of a powder like AA5 is probably only going to fill a 44mag the case about 1/3 and a 44spl case would be filled around half way.
 
One more data point, if you need it. Prior to GD (St Marks) taking the AA powder contract, it was produced by Lovex (Explosia in the Cz Republic). Lovex still sells that formulation as D036, and Shooter's World carries that as Auto Pistol. While there's been some drift over the years, the load data still overlaps about 99% of the time, and on both sides, start load is still well within the boundries. Lovex and Shooter's world both have current published data for 44 Mag. I've used D036 quite a bit, and all of the load data overlaps current AA5 load data, and past AA5 load data. I personally would have ZERO qualms with starting at the low end of published AA5 data and working up for 44 Mag. AA5 not being my first choice for 44 Mag not withstanding, but if it was all I had, I would dang sure use it without fear. Those who think "there must be a reason" are more than welcome to shy away from load development and stick to what they are comfortable with....but did it ever occur to anyone that there is no overly dramatic reason why that data is left out? But that its simply popularity and time? I mean....look, since AA ED1 was published there are what......half a thousand new cartridges? Hundreds of new powders? Come one......you'll also notice that Hodgdon chose to drop about 30% of the load data published by western powders. And for those who've been around a few years......Hodgon has dropped recipes from every powder maker they've acquired...why? Because it's not good? Don't be stupid. It's because if they kept all that data, their magazine would be 4 inches thick and cost 200 bucks. Load data dies away, doesn't mean it isnt' valid, just means that the publisher felt it was worth cutting in favor of something else. So fine, if you don't want to use it, then don't...but starting an argument because you're afraid to use it, and want other people to share your fear.....well, that's just another symptom of the nanny state....some of you guys on this board.....I wonder how you make it out of bed in the morning you're so freakin' afraid of life. Seriously, I'm completely convinced that there are members on this board who've been trapped at intersections for days because the "walk" signal was broken. For reals folks, if it scares you, don't do it.....or take the time to learn how to do proper load development.......but going on an on about how you thing something like old load data should just be discarded and never used again.......come on...take some testosterone pills or move to France where you don't need it to begin with. I fully expect some of you nanny state supporters to complain about this and get it deleted, and that's fine.......but somebody needs to stand up and tell people to stop all this nonsense about being afraid all the time about everything. Every time a crybaby gets his way...the nanny state gets a little stronger.
 
One more data point, if you need it. Prior to GD (St Marks) taking the AA powder contract, it was produced by Lovex (Explosia in the Cz Republic). Lovex still sells that formulation as D036, and Shooter's World carries that as Auto Pistol. While there's been some drift over the years, the load data still overlaps about 99% of the time, and on both sides, start load is still well within the boundries. Lovex and Shooter's world both have current published data for 44 Mag. I've used D036 quite a bit, and all of the load data overlaps current AA5 load data, and past AA5 load data. I personally would have ZERO qualms with starting at the low end of published AA5 data and working up for 44 Mag. AA5 not being my first choice for 44 Mag not withstanding, but if it was all I had, I would dang sure use it without fear. Those who think "there must be a reason" are more than welcome to shy away from load development and stick to what they are comfortable with....but did it ever occur to anyone that there is no overly dramatic reason why that data is left out? But that its simply popularity and time? I mean....look, since AA ED1 was published there are what......half a thousand new cartridges? Hundreds of new powders? Come one......you'll also notice that Hodgdon chose to drop about 30% of the load data published by western powders. And for those who've been around a few years......Hodgon has dropped recipes from every powder maker they've acquired...why? Because it's not good? Don't be stupid. It's because if they kept all that data, their magazine would be 4 inches thick and cost 200 bucks. Load data dies away, doesn't mean it isnt' valid, just means that the publisher felt it was worth cutting in favor of something else. So fine, if you don't want to use it, then don't...but starting an argument because you're afraid to use it, and want other people to share your fear.....well, that's just another symptom of the nanny state....some of you guys on this board.....I wonder how you make it out of bed in the morning you're so freakin' afraid of life. Seriously, I'm completely convinced that there are members on this board who've been trapped at intersections for days because the "walk" signal was broken. For reals folks, if it scares you, don't do it.....or take the time to learn how to do proper load development.......but going on an on about how you thing something like old load data should just be discarded and never used again.......come on...take some testosterone pills or move to France where you don't need it to begin with. I fully expect some of you nanny state supporters to complain about this and get it deleted, and that's fine.......but somebody needs to stand up and tell people to stop all this nonsense about being afraid all the time about everything. Every time a crybaby gets his way...the nanny state gets a little stronger.

:thumbup: I'd like to sign up for your newsletter please.

I was trying to "dance around" the subject in the interest of being amicable, but you're absolutely on point!

To be clear, I never look down on someone who is trying to be as safe as possible; stay in your comfort zone but, I provided print data as well as real life "I pulled the trigger on it myself" data.

Still wasn't good enough for some of you.

Others then chimed in with data of their own: still, some remained skeptical.

Fair enough.

I then took the stance that if you don't like it than you prove me wrong but since I haven't seen anyone offering I took the initiative and emailed Hodgdon myself.

Of course, I don't expect to hear from them until next week because of the holiday, I'll be sure to post whatever response I receive.

Finally, #5 wouldn't be my 1st choice either but that's not what the OP asked

In the meantime I'd like to quote what my esteemed colleague from Oklahoma said in post #15:
If you're not comfortable doing it, then don't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top