AA#9 and 2400

[Thirdtxcav]

Would AA#9 work as a substitute for 2400. Both are close on the burn rate chart.

Has anyone used it in 8mm Mauser or 7.62x39 applications?

Any recomendations?

[Rocky Raab]

Accurate #9 is close to 2400, but I don't like to use spherical powders in greatly reduced loads, nor with cast bullets. I stick to flake and extruded powders in either of those two instances.

[sundog]

A lot of the single shot boys use 'tons' of AA9/H108/WC820 with plain base and very much reduced. When you get into the medium and slower ball powders ignition begins to be a problem, but #9 and clones seem to work okay. Had one fella shooting H108 in '06 in a 03 for military bolt and the charge was light enough his cases shrank and he had backed out primers.

[Thirdtxcav]

Rocky--

So do you think that Blue Dot would be a better choice. I have several cans of both #9 and BD.

[Rocky Raab]

I do. I won't argue with those who like Accurate #9 in these loads, but I'd MUCH prefer a powder that bulks up more, ignites easier and is designed for lower pressure. A#9 is not heavily ignition-deterred, but it still is a high density powder that would leave an awful lot of airspace - and it is probably designed for a 30Kpsi+ burn.

I have, use and like A#9 - but in full-power 357 jacketed loads and in the Hornet with ultra-light bullets.

[shawn45]

I am trying it out with a 340 Lee in my Marlin GG.

[Newtire]

17.5 gr. 2400 with the Lee 175 8mm was real accurate=1/2" @ 50 yds. out of a Turk.