AA#9 For max 357 loads.

[Bazoo]

I like 2400 for full power 357 loads, but I cant find any. By full powder, i dont mean the modern full powder in the 49th lyman manual. I mean reproducing the original factory velocities, or more. The old data shows 16 grains of 2400, with a 158 grain cast bullet as duplicating the old factory load. 15 grains makes a real nice heavy load. PO Ackley worked up to 20. grains in a converted winchester 92.

Okay, So, does anyone have any suggestions in working higher than the current listed max with AA#9? Has anyone done it? Or have any idea how the powder acts under these conditions. I've done a small amount of research on the powder, and it seems that it likes pressure and max loads, but not reduced loads. But i cannot find any sources where anyone has done any experimenting with it.

Guns will be a blackhawk, Marlin 1894.

Now Im sure i'll catch a bunch of flak about why dont you just shoot a factory load or find the most accurate load in the mid range. Or never go past the listed data. I appreciate others concerns. I also appreciate the work That PO Ackley and Elmer Keith did, and enjoy shoot full power 357 out a rifle and a blackhawk.

[BCB]

I like 2400 for full power 357 loads, but I cant find any. By full powder, i dont mean the modern full powder in the 49th lyman manual. I mean reproducing the original factory velocities, or more. The old data shows 16 grains of 2400, with a 158 grain cast bullet as duplicating the old factory load. 15 grains makes a real nice heavy load. PO Ackley worked up to 20. grains in a converted winchester 92.

Okay, So, does anyone have any suggestions in working higher than the current listed max with AA#9? Has anyone done it? Or have any idea how the powder acts under these conditions. I've done a small amount of research on the powder, and it seems that it likes pressure and max loads, but not reduced loads. But i cannot find any sources where anyone has done any experimenting with it.

Guns will be a blackhawk, Marlin 1894.

Now Im sure i'll catch a bunch of flak about why dont you just shoot a factory load or find the most accurate load in the mid range. Or never go past the listed data. I appreciate others concerns. I also appreciate the work That PO Ackley and Elmer Keith did, and enjoy shoot full power 357 out a rifle and a blackhawk.

What velocity are you trying to achieve?...

Good-luck...BCB

[BCB]

I like 2400 for full power 357 loads, but I cant find any. By full powder, i dont mean the modern full powder in the 49th lyman manual. I mean reproducing the original factory velocities, or more. The old data shows 16 grains of 2400, with a 158 grain cast bullet as duplicating the old factory load. 15 grains makes a real nice heavy load. PO Ackley worked up to 20. grains in a converted winchester 92.

Okay, So, does anyone have any suggestions in working higher than the current listed max with AA#9? Has anyone done it? Or have any idea how the powder acts under these conditions. I've done a small amount of research on the powder, and it seems that it likes pressure and max loads, but not reduced loads. But i cannot find any sources where anyone has done any experimenting with it.

Guns will be a blackhawk, Marlin 1894.

Now Im sure i'll catch a bunch of flak about why dont you just shoot a factory load or find the most accurate load in the mid range. Or never go past the listed data. I appreciate others concerns. I also appreciate the work That PO Ackley and Elmer Keith did, and enjoy shoot full power 357 out a rifle and a blackhawk.

As I reread your original post, are you sure of those charges of 2400?...

About 14.5 grains of 2400 shows a loading density of 100% for a 158 grain cast and is beginning to give pressure warnings…

Twenty grains will fit in the case, but it is right at the case mouth—almost overflowing. Hell, the powder would be compressed into the case by close to 0.35”—I doubt that can be done!!!...

QuickLoad shows that load as 138.9% loading density!!! And a pressure of 149612 psi. Give us a break P.O. Ackley!!!

Again, are you sure of the charges you write, OR, is it a different powder than 2400, OR are you talking about a 357 Maximum?...

QuickLoad can be a bit iffy with straight-wall cases, but I doubt it is crazy by the numbers it lists for the charges mention…

Good-luck…BCB

[Bazoo]

I am sure of both the powder used and the charges. Bullet is lyman GC 358156. Not talking of the 357 maximum.

Im not specifically trying to achieve any particular velocity. 1500 fps or so is what the 15g 2400 charge runs. I've shot a whole bunch of that recipe. Since 2400 is so hard to find, and i have some AA9, id like to try to duplicate that load.

[Bazoo]

Ackleys data can be found in his book, handbook for shooters and reloaders. There are several references to the 16 grains duplicating the old factory loadings, including cartridges of the world 4th and 5th, lyman cast bullet handbook 1st and 2nd edition.

[BCB]

Well, maybe so on all the data you listed...

But, I would like to see 20 grains of 2400 in a 357 Magnum case and then seat the boolit to an OCL of 1.6" or thereabout...

I think to get near 1500 fps from the handgun, you will be crowding the pressure curve using #9 depending on barrel lenght of the Blackhawk. You should have no problem getting 1500+ in the 1894...

Good-luck...BCB

[shooting on a shoestring]

Bazoo, I haven't used canister AA#9 but a milsurp WC820 that's pretty close.

Using a 4&5/8" Stainless Blackhawk, possibly the strongest .357 revolver in production and certainly capable of handling far more pressure than the Smiths or Colts, I've driven 150-160 grain boolits over 1500, repeatedly. Yes it's a hoot to go there in the heavy Blackhawk. I wouldn't take a Smith there, even if they could do it. That's why I have that Blackhawk. I haven't hit sticky extraction. Just went fast as I wanted to go and was happy.

Your choice of platform for heavy loading a 357 is right. AA#9 should get you happy. Be careful, be aware, go in small steps, stop before you go too far.

To to other readers not using a revolver made for the 44 Magnum, stick to the reasonable loads...for your gun.

[Bazoo]

Shooting on a shoestring, Thanks for the encouragement.

[BCB]

Bazoo, I haven't used canister AA#9 but a milsurp WC820 that's pretty close.

Using a 4&5/8" Stainless Blackhawk, possibly the strongest .357 revolver in production and certainly capable of handling far more pressure than the Smiths or Colts, I've driven 150-160 grain boolits over 1500, repeatedly. Yes it's a hoot to go there in the heavy Blackhawk. I wouldn't take a Smith there, even if they could do it. That's why I have that Blackhawk. I haven't hit sticky extraction. Just went fast as I wanted to go and was happy.

Your choice of platform for heavy loading a 357 is right. AA#9 should get you happy. Be careful, be aware, go in small steps, stop before you go too far.

To to other readers not using a revolver made for the 44 Magnum, stick to the reasonable loads...for your gun.

I have some WC-820 also—Lot #47320…

I use it in a 6” Security-Six of many years ago…

I am just curious as to how many grains of that powder you are using to break the 1500-fps mark with boolits in the 158 grain range…

Thanks…BCB

[Hickory]

I would suggest getting a bigger, more powerful gun
But, if you are going to abuse the more powerful gun, I have no other suggestions.

[BCB]

I would suggest getting a bigger, more powerful gun
But, if you are going to abuse the more powerful gun, I have no other suggestions.

Are you referring to me in post #9 or the original poster?...

Yep, I have no intentions of abusing my Security-Six--It has been good since the 1970's and it has fired, well I would have no idea how many rounds. The heaviest loads were with H-110 and Lil'Gun using the 358429. But, I did shoot them sparingly...
(And I did test for the excessive heat that is rumored to be produced by Lil'Gun--I didn't find it to be true)

Yep, I have other handguns that I can cause discomfort to my index and middle finger with recoil if I wish to do so!!!

H-110 or Lil'Gun might be much better choices of powders if one wishes to "hot rod" the 357 Magnum...

Good-luck...BCB

[Blackwater]

All I can say is that ball powders CAN sometimes show pressure excursions far in excess of what one would expect, so I'd be VERY slow in upping any listed loads beyond the manuals. I've done a little of this, just to see what would happen, but I wouldn't do it with a gun that I valued very highly. A Ruger SA is probably the strongest .357 out there, unless maybe you have a Freedom Arms. They're common enough that if you lock it up and/or destroy it, and come out alive yourself, it's at least replacable.

And as I said, with ball powders in particular, I'd make all increases in very small increments, since amount of powder loaded does NOT mean pressure goes up proportionately. Sometimes, you can increase charges by 10% and get 100% increase in pressures! That's why I'd go very slow in going above listed max's ..... unless of course you have a death wish. I once blew up a Super Blackhawk, so I know whereof I speak, too!

[Hickory]

Are you referring to me in post #9 or the original poster?...


The original poster.

[BCB]

This thread sort of died down…

I was hoping to get some numbers using the WC-820 or AA#9 to get to the 1500 fps mark from my Security-Six, although I have shot both in my SS 6-incher and could not get too close to the 1500 fps line…

Maybe my chrony is wrong?...

Good-luck…BCB

[Maven]

BCB, Your post prompted me to revisit my Reloading Notebook with respect to the.357mag. and WC 820. Although my data is from June, 2001, I have a complete record of it and chronographed 58 loads with Lyman #358429. Here's the complete list of gun, components, etc.:

Gun: Ruger BH, 4 3/4 bbl.
Bullet: Lyman #358429; sized to .358" and seated to 1.553" OAL; roll crimped
Brass: New Starline .357mag. cases
Powder & charge: 10.9 gr. WC 820 (AA #9 burn rate)*
Primer: Remington #5 1/2 (small pistol, magnum)
Chrono. (Shooting Chrony F-1) Data: Mean = 1,163 fps +- 37 fps; n = 58

Btw, I tried 13 gr. with the same data as above, but with old brass and a Dan Wesson 6" bbl'ed. revolver on 9/30/02 and got only 1,177 fps +-28 fps (n = 10), but I have to tell you the DW's bbl., though longer, is significantly slower than the shorter Ruger BH's bbl.

I think you can extrapolate some from this data, which I hope will be of some use to you.


*Lyman pistol powder measure. Whatever rotor I used (notes not at hand at the moment) threw 10.9 gr.

[BCB]

Maven...

Do you know the lot number of your WC-820?...

Quick calculations indicate my lot of WC-820 is slower than AA#9...

I am still comparing and correlating and extrapolating and etc. etc.!!!...

But, I am still thinking 1500 fps from a 4.625" barrel, as mentioned in a previous post, with WC-820 is a major achievement!!!...

Just sayin'...

Thanks...BCB

[Char-Gar]

Bazoo...I am an old time and have been shooting the 357 Magnum since the very early 60's when 16/2400 under 358156 was considered safe. If you used the HP version that was uppted to 16.5 grains.

This load was not safe them and is not safe now. The fact that is has been done does not mean it is safe. You are skating on the razor edge of the pressure redline.

Do as you wish, but we have backed down from that not because of some lawyers, but because it was a stupid thing to do.

[BCB]

Bazoo...I am an old time and have been shooting the 357 Magnum since the very early 60's when 16/2400 under 358156 was considered safe. If you used the HP version that was uppted to 16.5 grains.

This load was not safe them and is not safe now. The fact that is has been done does not mean it is safe. You are skating on the razor edge of the pressure redline.

Do as you wish, but we have backed down from that not because of some lawyers, but because it was a stupid thing to do.


AMEN…

With the 16.0 grain load and seating the boolit to the crimp groove, you are compressing the powder approximately 0.11”. That is a bit, but probably doable…

16.0 grains of H-110, which is a tad slower than 2400, begins to push the psi up towards the limits, yet is probably more acceptable than the 2400 load...

Not gonna be me dropping the hammer many times with my Security-Six on that recipe…

But, hot-rodding is just a fact of much of life’s challenges…

I’m still waiting on the charge of WC-820 that will get that boolit going 1500 fps from a 4.625 incher…

Just my thoughts...

Good-luck…BCB

[Maven]

BCB, Alas, my WC 820 is but a fond memory, so I'm, regrettably, unable to help with the lot no.

[fecmech]

I have used up my wc820 but it tracked 296 exactly. The lot # was LC-50-241. Getting 1500 fps from a 4.75" barrel isn't a major achievement, simply a matter of exceeding SAMMI specs and getting away with it.

[BCB]

I have used up my wc820 but it tracked 296 exactly. The lot # was LC-50-241. Getting 1500 fps from a 4.75" barrel isn't a major achievement, simply a matter of exceeding SAMMI specs and getting away with it.

Reckon so--and exceeding SAMMI specs but bunches and bunches...

To each his own I guess it is said...

Good-luck...BCB

[shooting on a shoestring]

I won't be posting my data. I do own a Security Six, and I would not take it into the kind of pressure it takes because it is a .357 frame/cylinder size of gun. The Blackhawk is a 44 frame/cylinder size of gun, but with .357 sized holes in it. That means the .357 Blackhawk can stand pressures greater than the SAAMI specs by a considerable margin.

I made the point the Blackhawk is the platform suited to hotrodding. I have done it in my New Model Blackhawk. The Security Six will not take the excess pressure without severely straining the gun and I don't condone that. More so for even less robust .357s like the various Smiths, Colts, SP101s etc...

If anyone does want to go past 1500 with 150 to 160 grain boolits, I believe the pressures will be greater than SAAMI specs. The prerequisite is to have a revolver that is over built to the degree it will be over pressure, go slow in small steps, and stop before you go too far!

[Bazoo]

I know that most people that ask this sort of question are not going to get a very good response. But if I get 100 comments in opposition, and 1 comment that helps me along my journey, its worth it. I havent used any AA9 before, and other than the research i've done, know nothing about it. I appreciate all the responses thus far though. And for the record, i prefer 2400 for heavy 357 loads.

[BCB]

Regardless of what loads people indicate they shoot and which handguns they use, I am not going to be stupid--I gave that up many many years ago...

With age SHOULD come wisdom. If it doesn't, well there are yearly Darwin Awards that prove some people just never learn, or take others advice...

Good-luck...BCB

[Treeman]

I do not have any info that really addresses the original question. I have used AA#9 in only one cartridge-the .357-44 B&D. In that application it performed adequately....I worked up the loads for my b-in-l who inherited a converted 4" mod 28. Nice gun. Stupid conversion- takes gobs of powder to duplicate .357 mag performance and takes away the versatility of .38 spl and .357 factory loads.

[Bazoo]

I have continued my research on the use of AA9 to make traditional full power 357 magnums. It appears that the powder will not increase performance with an increase in powder charge. I havent loaded any AA9 yet, as i've been busy with other projects, but have given up any hopes that it may be able to safely duplicate the original power level of the 357 magnum.

[Tatume]

Hodgdon shows almost 1600 fps with a 158 grain Hornady XTP bullet and H110/W296, from a 10" barrel.
http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/

Accurate shows 1367 fps with No. 9 and the same XTP bullet, and 1255 fps with a 158 grain SWC, from a 6" barrel.
http://www.accuratepowder.com/load-data/

These are dependable sources of data.

[lotech]

I haven't used any #9 in a .357 in quite a while. However, for what it's worth, my records indicate 13 grs. of #2400 and 13 grs. #9 had almost identical muzzle velocities 1,300 vs. 1,295 fps, 6" barrel (probably a Model 27), using the Lyman #358429, cast of linotype, about 160 grs. Accuracy with #2400 was apparently better, but my notes don't indicate whether the difference was significant.

[williamwaco]

I have used 5 pounds of AA9 in the .357. I like it a lot.

That said, it is my sincere belief that the published maximum loads are way too hot.
Too hot as in blown primers and case splits. Not hearsay, my personal experience.

Here is the actual note from my files.


WAY too hot. Accuracy non existent. Off the board at 50 yd and off the paper at 25 yd.
Shook the forend off the Contender - Twice.
Shook the scope loose.
Split two cases
Surprisingly, left no discernable leading.
Did not even try them in the S&W.

With 158/160 grain cast bullets, I use 11.6 grains.

[2ndAmendmentNut]

A few years ago when I was questing for the fastest accurate load I could find I tried AA#9, H110 and whatever equivalent Winchester powder (269 or 296?). No matter how heavy the charge, boolit, or crimp, or how hot the primer I would still get large amounts of unburned powder. Like many I have found 2400 to be one of my favorite powders for 357, with Blue dot and Unique coming in at a close second.

Edit) Seeing as the OP already has proven loads in his gun why not try to order more 2400 online? I understand this would mean ending up on a back order and paying a hazmat fee, but that beats the heck out of risky load development.

[Bazoo]

I have been learning about powders and their various characteristics under various conditions, in regards to hot loading the 357 magnum for strong frame handguns and rifles. So far, 2400, and imr 4227 are still the best that i've been able to find. As stated previously, i didnt have any experience with AA9 upon posting. I was hoping that someone else had already tread that water and would share their experiences.