aa9

[Lloyd Smale]

have to chuckle at brain pearces recent article in handloader. I should have know better as this has happened before but i just had to try it again. Ive been working up loads for two 45 colts. A stock ruger 4 5/8s blackhawk and a custom clements 4 inch vaquero. Ive been loading 6 differnt 45 bullets around 255-260 grain. So far i tried unique herco 2400 hs6 4227. I didnt use 110 because this is a slightly reduced loading im shooting for. Somewhere around 1000-1100 fps. Nothing earth shattering but some decent groups up to this point. then i figured id give aa9 a shot. I usually dont use it for reduced loads as ive found it hard to ignite like 110/296. Well i loaded up all the bullets with 19 grains of aa9 using both cci 300s and 350s. I started shooting the ones with 300s and had squibs in every cylinder full and a couple that barely made it out of the barrel. It had my wondering if my powder measures was hanging up. I then shot the ones with 350s and low and behold not a single squib or light recoiling round. Another good thing was that hands down both of these guns liked this load better then any other powder primer combo. It shot the old lee group buy 255swc and babores 260lfn into one ragged hole at 25 yards in both guns. Sorry brain but your never going to convince me you actually shot those test rounds using standard primers. More then likely you were looking to make a dedline and wrote a tale. By the way it was 40 degrees when i shot and im sure if it were colder the results would have been even more of a joke.

[Ben]

Very similar results for me :

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=82864

[Ronb]

AA9 is one of the best"reduced" loads in my 480's. 18 gr under a 420 gives me 1100 fps with 100 yd groups of 3'' or so. A plus is that it hits the same spot as the same weight bullet at 1275 at 100 yds. Shoots great in the Alaskan too.

[spqrzilla]

Pearce has written a couple of things lately where I think he's gone off the rails.

That said, in my .45 Colt and .41 Magnum loads, AA #9 has done well for me atop WLP primers.

[Dale53]

Lloyd;
I must confess that your comments trouble me. I have never met Brian Pearce but I have read his articles, critically, for the past three years or so, and find that we have MANY common experiences. You are, in effect, merely because of differing experiences calling him a liar. THAT troubles me.

Let me give you an example. Many years ago (probably 40 years or so), before I even stocked magnum primers, I wanted to change powders for "high end" loads in my Model 24 S&W. This was and is a 6½" barreled revolver chambered, as you know, in .44 Special. I didn't like 2400 due to the unburned powder left in the barrel. I wanted something a bit cleaner.

H110 was just becoming popular so I thought I would try some. I checked the manuals and loaded a safe starting load (as outlined in one or two manuals). The second shot I stuck a bullet in the barrel. I carefully removed the bullet (a 250 gr Keith) and a shot or two later, stuck another bullet. Obviously, something had to change.

I went home, chastened, but not out, and did a bit of research. I did some measuring and discovered that the old set of .44 Special dies gave a minimum of neck tension (that had worked perfectly with loads of Bullseye powder and Unique powder. I had been teetering back and forth about ordering a set of RCBS carbide dies for the .44 Special/Magnum and decided my full length steel die just did not size my cases down far enough to give proper neck tension. I hoped that the new sizing die would solve this. Money was really tight for a man with a growing family and the delay was occasioned by the cost.

At any rate, I got the new dies, and along with the blessing of sizing cases easier and without lube, I NOW had considerably more neck tension for my home cast Keith 250 gr bullets (Lyman 429421). I have since fired thousands upon thousands of H110 loads in the .44 Special and .44 Magnum and have never had any "bloopers" since. In the past I had several bad experiences with CCI primers so had settled on Federal 150's or Winchester LP primers and have seldom used magnum primers.

So, my comment to you is I believe your account of your experiences but I also believe Brian Pearce's account of his experiences. There has obviously been something different that caused those differences but I do not, for one minute, believe that Brian is lying. To assume he is lying tends to belittle you and the rest of us on this Forum.

This is NOT a personal attack on you, Lloyd as I respect you and your experiences - I just believe it has become popular to pan writers whether there is any reason or not and this appears to be one of those times.

Let's play nice, shall we??

Dale53

[Lloyd Smale]

Dale i wrote a long reply to your post and then deleted it. Sufice to say that i stand by my results and if Brain cares to argue them id gladly meet him half way with components and my chorograph.

[felix]

I would bet there are as many versions of AA9 out there as there are WC820s. Keep in mind the variance in storage conditions of the various lots as well, including the actual formulation differences however slight. Ignition results can be significantly different, especially in different applications than intended (case full, case half-full, bore size, boolit weight, etc.). ... felix

[Lloyd Smale]

Felix my complaint with the article is he claimed it was a good powder for reduced loads and claimed it worked best at those levels with standard primers. Just aint happening with aa9 or 820 at least with any batch ive had and ive been using them both since they were available and probably shoot 2 times as much of it as all the other powders i use combined. By the way your absoultely right about the burning rate of aa9 varying as much as 820.

[btroj]

I once had squid problems with WC820 in my 44mag super redhawk. Got tired of pounding bullets out of the barrel with a wad of powder stuck behind them.
I crimped them to holy h*** and got them to all go off. Talk about velocity variation!

These were with standard primers. Don't know what mag primers would have done. I do know that in that gun WC820 is reserved to magnum type loads only and the bullets are crimped heavily. I also have tried to keep bullet pull without crimp to its max.

I feel your pain in squibs. Once was enough to teach me.

[BCB]

I’m not sure I completely understand this topic. But here goes my thoughts…

I am shooting the Lyman 429650 (320 grains) from a SRH…

I had been using CCI-350’s all of the time with AA#9 and WC-820…
(My lots of AA#9 and WC-820 are the “same”)

The charge for each of those powders is 15.0 grains…

I shoot this load as a long distance “fun” load. By that I mean I have a life-size silhouette of a groundhog that I place at 150 yards. The SRH is ‘scoped and I can rattle it close to 80% of the time…

Well, checking my supply of 350’s I discovered that I was getting rather low, but I have several thousand CCI-300’s. So I wondered about just switching to the 300’s and giving it a try…

I did not chronograph the 300’s versus the 350’s, but I was amazed that the P.O.I. stayed the same at the 150 yard target. So apparently there isn’t any, or much, difference in velocity generated by the 350’s or the 300’s…

Accurate Arms reloading manual recommends a starting load of 15.7 grains, so I a 0.7 grain under the starting load…

Accurate Arms also recommends the CCI-300 and not magnum primers…

So I guess I am saying that I never had any problem using AA#9 or WC-820 with regular primers…

(I am also using 300’s with the AA#9 and WC-820 in the 45LC with the 45-270-SAA and no problems either)…

BCB

[evan price]

Bear in mind that the Winchester large pistol primers are listed right on the box as being for Magnum AND Nonmagnum applications. Win doesn't make a spcifically-Magnum LP primer.

That said, I have great success with a 240gr WQ-WW semiwadcutter with #9 and a Win LP primer in my 7.5" Super Redhawk. Or a Nosler 240-JSP, more #9, and a CCI Mag primer.

[Shuz]

FWIW: I've never used AA9 in the .44 mag, but I have burned thru several jugs of WC820 down thru the years and I have never experienced a squib load. I have used CCI 350 mag primers exclusively. I will mention that I load on a Dillon Square Deal B that has a minimum size expander button/ball. IIRC it is .424 in diam. My favorite WC 820 load with lot number 47320, is "only" 17g, CCI 350, 429421, at Saeco 7 and weighing 252g and sized .431. OAL is 1.710. This load is very comfortable to shoot in a 5 inch bbl'd Smith 629, and gives 5 hole groups of less than 1 inch at 25 yds from a rest. Now the interesting info: The velocity is 1144fps, es 66 and sd of 28. Not stellar stats, except for the velocity. I attribute the accuracy and velocity to the very stiff case tension caused by the smallish expander.

[Dale53]

Lloyd;
I am with you on this. I would NEVER try using WC 820 or AA#9 for reduced loads of ANYTHING. I have used a bushel of WC 820 over the years but NEVER in reduced loads. I have the original lot # (a slow lot of WC 820) and it is within .5 gr (half grain) of H110 and I treat it just like I would H110 and Win 296 (nearly full loads or full loads only).

Years ago I chronographed my loads in both my S&W Model 29 (8 3/8" barrel) and my Ruger Red Hawk (7½" barrel) and 23.0 grs gave me 1200 fps with a 250 gr Keith and 24.0 grs gave me 1300 fps. I practiced with the 23.0 gr load and hunted with the 24.0 gr load.

I also am a BELIEVER in case neck tension. My problems with H110 in my .44 Special were totally relieved by increasing case neck tension. That was proof enough for me.

FWIW
Dale53

[exile]

I wanted to chime in here because I am so new to reloading compared to the rest of you. I recently purchased a .41 magnum and loaded up twelve rounds to test Brian Pierce's load the other day, 210 grain semi-wadcutter over 18 grains of AA # 9 using the CCI 300 large pistol primer. The loads shot fine, so I loaded up another 100 the other morning. Like I said, the loads seemed fine, but are you guys saying you would recommend the CCI 350 primer instead?

Also, from what I am hearing, one should never try to use reduced loads with AA # 9, is that correct? I also loaded 15 rounds of .32 H & R magnum with 7.5 grains of AA # 9 and a CCI 500 primer using the Lee 90 grain tumble lube boolit. They shot fine through the Ruger SP-101 in .327 Federal.

Again, not trying to start an argument, because I don't know what you guys know, but just wanting clarification, would hate to have problems.

exile

[wiljen]

Are you guys saying you would recommend the CCI 350 primer instead?


Some people have had problems with standard primers and slow ball powders (myself included) and would advise that you use hotter primers with such powders. Others have not had the same experience (whether by luck or a difference in technique or possibly climate) and do not share that opinion. What I can say without doubt is that I've never heard of anyone having squib problems with H110, W296, Wcc820, or AA9 when using magnum primers. The same cannot be said for standard primers. If you are going to use standard primers, be aware that squibs may occur and be very attentive to changes in sound, feel, velocity (or lack there of) etc. The worst thing in the world isn't a squib load, its the full power load you fire after the squib.




Also, from what I am hearing, one should never try to use reduced loads with AA # 9, is that correct?

Some powders just are not good in reduced application as they need pressure to burn cleanly. The real slow burning ball pistol powders fall into this class.

In rifles, IMR 4350 is notoriously bad in reduced loads.

[BCB]

Is it possible there is a terminology misinterpretation here?...

By reduced load, are we talking about, say a charge of AA#9 in a 270 or 30-30 or some other rifle case with a cast boolit?...

If that's the case, then I agree it shouldn't be done...

But in applications it was designed to be used, I have never had a problem with CCI-300's...

The same is true with WC-820...

BCB

[turnercl]

My experience with AA#9 is loading 357 Maximum. I made some trial loads of 2400, Lil'Gun and #9 all over Winchester Small Magnum Pistol Primers. These loads were each about 10% under their respective published maximums. No problems with the 2400 or the Lil'Gun.

However the #9 load was over pressure (flattened primers, difficult cartridge extraction). Subsequently I read comments that Win small mag pistol primers were way hot and probably should not be used unless a load recipe specifically called for them.

Reloading with small rifle primers (not mag) solved my #9 pressure problem.

So my theory is that #9 (more so than 2400 or Lil'Gun anyway) can be pushed over the edge by a too hot primer.

[wiljen]

Is it possible there is a terminology misinterpretation here?...

By reduced load, are we talking about, say a charge of AA#9 in a 270 or 30-30 or some other rifle case with a cast boolit?...


By reduced load, I meant anything under published minimums or anything with lots of air space left in the case.

The .32 H&R load in question only fills about 67% of the powder space with the bullet seated to .250 depth (which is about as deep as one can seat it). I would suspect other powders would be better in that application as I've never known AA#9 to be very consistent when given 30% air space to work with.

[MT Gianni]

John Taffin recommended a charge of 15gr-16 gr of AA9 in 30-30 and a 180gr RCBS. I have had good luck with 15.7 gr charge of WC820. I would not shoot AA9 in a low pressure load and don't consider this to be one. AIRC velocity is around 1700 fps.

[exile]

Thanks for the information.

I seated my 90 grain tumble lube boolits out a little farther since I am putting them in a .327 Federal revolver, thinking that would decrease pressure a little bit. Maybe that's not a good idea.

Also someone gave me 100 Winchester large pistol primers which I was thinking of trying in the .41 magnum with AA # 9. Maybe that's not a good idea either.

So much to learn, hopefully without blowing up any guns.

exile

[spqrzilla]

I have shot a lot of H110 and AA#9 in my magnum pistols. My personal experience with non magnum pistol primers, specifically CCI, was inconsistent ignition with both powders in my .41 Magnum. WLP as mentioned by me above, appears more reliable to me under those powders.

[Lloyd Smale]

Some of you guys are gettting me slightly wrong. My point is that aa9 can be slightly downloaded but if you are going to do it you need to use a hot primer to insure ignition at the lower pressures. If you are running full power loads a standard primer will light it off. For an example my load in the 45 colt was a 255 cast swc and 19 grains of aa9. Ignition at that level was miserable with standard primers. The standard primers i used were ccis and there probably the hottest standard primer made other then a winchester and a winchester isnt much hotter. Now ive shot the same bullet with 22 grains of aa9 and a standard primer with no issues at all. I dont get single digit deviation with it but it at least doesnt go pop when you pull the trigger and groups are good. Personaly i think aa9 is a much better powder for downloading then 110/296 is. But mag primers should definately be used if your going to do it and my chronograph has showed me numerous times that cci 350s are the top choise. As for it showing pressure signs with mag primers at high pressures. Ive used it for top end loads in the 454 475 and 44 mag for many many years and never noticed this even once. Maybe its because when the book says 25 grains is max i consider it max. If your the type that wants to push the envelope and run test loads in your gun 110 might be a better choise.

[sundog]

Just thinking out loud here. The single shot boys have been using AA9/H108/820 in low pressure loads for years. And, yes, lot to lot variations are significant.

[Dale53]

Lloyd;
NOW we are in complete agreement. That mirrors my experience.

When I first started loading for handguns it was with an S&W .357 magnum. I was a youngster and knew NO ONE who reloaded. I had Elmer Keith's little blue book and used that as a guide. I got three powders, Bullseye, Unique, and 2400. I used them as indicated (Bullseye for light target loads, Unique for medium loads and 2400 for full loads). They worked quite well and I NEVER had a problem. However, I didn't like the unburned kernels of 2400 (took me a while to figure out you needed to eject the cases with the revolver vertical to keep debris from getting under the extractor star).

I changed to H110/296 for my "full load" powder and liked it much better than 2400. However, I NEVER asked it to be my "everything" powder. I used it only for full loads. In the early Sixties when I bought my first .44 Magnum, I naturally used H110/296 for full loads. In fact, since I had and used a .44 Special, I decided to use the Special for light and medium loads and shot nothing but full loads in the .44 Magnum/s. Later, I was an early adopter of WC 820 simply because of price. It has worked very well for me.

I suspect that most of the problem with the slow burning ball powders (H110, 296, AA#9, and WC 820) is that too many people try to make that powder work for medium loads. They just simply are not suited for medium loads in revolvers. It's that old saw - "Horses for Courses". Don't try to make a draft horse win the Kentucky Derby and don't try to plow with a Kentucky Thoroughbred.

Dale53

[TCLouis]

Things can be weird and no explanation makes sense when reloading.

I have shot up 16 pounds of the old original slow WC820, couple of pounds of AA#9, and one pound of 296 with CCI and WLP standard primers.

I bought a bunch of WC820 AA#9 speed recently (last year or two) and in 357 have had to drive boolits back in the barrel every time I tested it and an have had boolits skip across the dirt to the target several time with some wimpy loads (by sound) several times in the 44.

Put the same powder in the 06 with 150 cast with same pistol primer and it fires full power EVERY time.

What's the difference . . .Heck I don't know, I quit trying to guess results when loading ammo years ago after being wrong all the time.

I do have 200 Mag primers I got in a trade years ago, guess I will have to see if that works, and if so, buy enough to help burn this latest purchase of WC820 up though the way it performs in the 06, I may just plink it all down range in a rifle with Winchester WLPs.

[44MAG#1]

Going along this vein I remembered a test I did couple or so years ago with H110. I loaded 12 rounds with a charge I thought would be okay but really knew wouldn't be and chroned 6 with the gun held down and cocked and then brought slowly upward inline with the chrono and fired. Tested 6 like that and the next 6 I raised the gun up vertical cocked it and slowly lowered it and fired and tested the next 6 like that. The velocity average between the two 6 shot tests were over 200 fps difference.
I did the same thing with Mr Smales 45 Colt load of #9 and some old 454242's with CCI 300's and the loads went with the powder in front of the case 1121. 1132, 1127, 1112, 1116 and 1104 with an ave of 1119 a SD of 10.19 and an ES of 27.79
With the powder rearward i got 1210, 1238, 1250, 1244, 1253 and 1233 with a SD of 15.55 and a ES of 43.14.
Just as I thought the powder is very position sensitive at 19 gr charge weight.
I encourage others to do the same test with their loads and post them.
While cocking the gun held nearly level or level from a rest the powder will probably be fairly level in the case due to the rotation of the cylinder and one may not notice this situation then which gives the impression that their "load" is doing the right thing.
Oh yes, I did the same thing with H4227 a long while back and it was the same. But it was a load that was a couple grains lighter than the start load for that powder in the 500 S&W a nd 440 gr cast with a CCI 250 mag rifle primer.
Before you disbelieve me take the time to test this situation.
Oh yes again, I did the AA#9 test this morn 5/11/10 forgot to add that.

[Geraldo]

I have not used AA9 in several years, but back in the '90s I used a lot of it in .44 Magnum. I used whatever the starting load was in their flyer (no manual then) under a 240gr cast boolit with CCI 300s exclusively and never had a problem in thousands of rounds. Today's AA9 must be different.

[GLynn41]

Never tried to lower the charge of AA#9 in my .41's-- for me the lower powder charge of the normal loads of AA#9 is good enough or may be a grain less-- like 16.5- with 220's or 15 with 255 both of which is lower than 296 by 3 to 5 grains -- there are better powders for more cuts in charge weight than AA#9 -- i like the powder have used about 4#s -- only used one primer WWLP-- no problems ever and no surprise there- only time I ever had squibs was with a .45 colt and 296 in cold weather-- anyway I agree with Lloyd I would not cut AA#9 or WC 820 by much -- there are better choices for that

[44MAG#1]

Somehow we have degenerated to thinking 19 gr AA#9 is a reduced charge,
No.9 255 LC SWC 15.8 1,038 17.6 1,180 20,100 1.600
This from the AA site under ruger and tc loads.

[GLynn41]

no I do not think that is a reduced load it is a top in a .41 mag for a 210 Gold Dot --

I like AA#9 because it gives good velocity with lessor charges -- I under stand that the pressures are about the same ---for my cast 222gr .41 MIHA mold I use 17.5 AA#9 with H110 296 it is about 22gr in my Redhawk--- so to my weird way of thinking I am using less powder --if i want less powder usage and less pressure and velocity -- again I do not go down much in AA#9 I go to another powder -- in my case 800x-- sorry for my confusion -- Accurate Arms says about some of the same things about AA#9 as far as precautions as is stated about 296 iirc

[spqrzilla]

I'm unaware of Accurate Arms ever stating that AA#9 should not be used with loads less than maximum, as Winchester and Hodgdon recommend for WW296/H110.

[Rico1950]

Winchester reccomended no more than a 3 */. reduction with W296. That's around a 10,000
reduction in pressure.

[GLynn41]

what I read was AA#9 needs a heavy bullet pull //not so good with light bullets -- I do not remember anything else
BUT I can not find my red AA reloading book and their site says nothing about this that I could find so
Forget I ever said it--since i have no documentation