Aa #9 & 4" 357

[Kawriverrat]

Any one have some velocity numbers & Loads used with this AA #9 from a 4" revolver ? ....Jeff

[charlie b]

I was always happy with AA's load data in my .357's Never bothered with the chronograph for them. I liked AA#7 for heavy loads, never tried AA#9 in them.

[sghart3578]

Here are a few, all shot from a 4" S&W model 28:

158 gr JSP
13.4 gr A #9
avg 1195 fps

158 gr Lee 358-158-RF home cast wheel weights
11.4 gr A #9
avg 1180 fps

180 gr TC Lasercast lead bullet
12.4 gr A #9
avg 1225 fps
(this load was fired in June on a very hot day in 2012, I don't know if the heat caused a rise in pressure)

I hope this helps. I shoot a lot of A #9 but almost exclusively in rifles. I don't have a lot of data for my revolvers.


Steve in N CA

[rintinglen]

From a Colt Python 4 inch, a 154 grain SWC over 12.6 grains of AA#9 gave 1189 fps.

[Kawriverrat]

Thanks, it's appreciated. Jeff

[Kawriverrat]

Marshall, Thanks for running that through quick load. It is appreciated....Jeff

[mnewcomb59]

I have most of a pound of AA #9 left. I have NEVER seen such variance in load data. I think I saw anywhere between 11.5 and 15 grains as max for 158s. Over 80 years worth of data, 2400 is always between 14.5 and 15.5 gr as max load, so IDK why there is so much variance in Accurate's data.

I haven't used it for two reasons. One is I don't want over pressure loads so I don't wanna use the old data if they lowered it because it was blowing guns (18.6 gr w/ 125!), and I don't want to use slow powder for mild 1200 fps loads because I do that speed with Unique or Power Pistol with half the charge weight. Basically, until I get a chrono it is useless to me.

[charlie b]

Accurate lists max of 12.4 AA9 for lead and 13.8 for jacketed. Why would you go anywhere else?

[mnewcomb59]

Accurate lists max of 12.4 AA9 for lead and 13.8 for jacketed. Why would you go anywhere else?

http://www.castpics.net/LoadData/Fre.../Accurate.html

Their own data is all over the place over the years. Plus I have an older Hornady manual that mimics the higher charge weights.

[30calflash]

Not sure but it was surplus from foreign countries at one time. If a change in supplier occurred it could be the reason for the different numbers in various manuals.

Same thing happened with some of their rifle powder, one batch good, the next, different batch totally different end result.

I've an older 2 lb container, I'll see if the supplier is listed on it.

[sghart3578]

I know every one suggests using load data from reloading manuals, I do to. But as you guys have pointed out there is some confusing info out there.

A long time ago I started using a simple system to find the load for each of my revolvers.

I would start at the lowest suggested charge. I would load 6 of these, then go up in .5 gr increments, loading 6 of each.

When extraction got "sticky" I knew that was the highest load for that particular revolver.

It was then a simple process to go back down in .5 gr increments until I got the accuracy I wanted. Then I wrote it down.

I loaded for years before I got a chronograph. I have only had one for 2 or 3 years.


Steve in N CA

[jetinteriorguy]

I have used AA#9 with excellent results accuracy wise. Only thing for me, it's very fine grained and leaks in some of my powder measures, and it runs hot temperature wise. If I shoot ten rounds fairly quickly in my Henry the barrel is way hotter than 2400. The same results in my revolvers.

[Kawriverrat]

It is the finest grained powder I can remember using. Had a couple of rounds while loading not get primers & what a mess.

[Green Frog]

We used Accurate #9 in a wildcat rifle round the 32/357. It used a 357 mag case necked down with a straight taper to take a true 32 caliber lead bullet of about 200 grains. This round in a strong rifle used about 10 grains or so MAXIMUM for extreme bench rest accuracy. Unfortunately, this worked with an early, Israeli(?) batch of #9, but none of the other lots seemed anywhere near as good. "You don't know what you've got till it's gone..."

Froggie