AA#9 Squibs in 45 Colt cases

[BLUEDOT37]

I wanted to see if anybody else has had the same issues I've had using Accurate #9 powder. I'd always used flake powders (Hercules/Alliant) in the past for my reloading but after I added a 454 Casull to my inventory I decided it was time to try some of the ball powders. I tried some different loads with H110 & was aware not to load it down & to use magnum primers, & have had no issues with it in any of my cartridges. Since I have a large quantity on-hand of regular primers, that I use with my 44s & 45s, I was interested in AA#9 when I saw that the Speer & Lyman manuals do not show a need to use a magnum primer in there data. Looking at Accurate's manual for the 45 Colt doesn't show a magnum primer "specifically", but more on this later.

I loaded up some 45 Colt +P (Ruger/TC) rounds using new Starline cases, 18.5gr. of AA#9, .452" 255gr. cast LSWC bullets with a heavy crimp at the cannelure ring, CCI300 primers firmly seated. This load is in the 23K psi range, & I fired them in my 454 Casull pistol. The new powder was individually weighed, then a bullet was seated to 1.605". I only loaded 25 to start & the first few rounds fired fine. After a few more I noticed one that didn't have quite as sharp a report, but otherwise okay. After a few more good ones I had one with a small delay/hang-fire. I debated the issue & decided to press on & after a few more good ones the day ended with a squib & the bullet stuck in the barrel/forcing cone, with a wad of partially burnt powder packed behind it.

Accurate's online manual, v3.5, shows a range of 15.8 - 17.6gr. of #9 for this bullet. My 18.5grs is more powder, but less than I've subsequently used in other variations in 45 Colt & Casull cases. I sent an email to Accurate describing the problem & asking for their ideas. I received a prompt reply & was told that AA#9 is a hi-performance powder, that they definitely recommended using magnum primers & that my load was of too low pressure & I should bring up the charge. He also included a couple small partial charts for 45 Colt & 454 Casull loads. The 45LC chart had a AA#9 powder range of 19.1 - 22.5gr. with a 255gr LSWC using Rem 2-1/2 primers, at 25K psi. The chart for the 454 Casull loads were similar, but different, than online & showed CCI400 primers. I sent a reply asking why the powder range he said I should be using for the 45LC was (& still is) different from the range in the current v3.5 manual. I also asked why the primers shown in his charts are non-magnum primers. I've never got a reply back, even though I sent it a second time.

So this is the rub, how can they show one thing online but tell me something different? Why, if #9 needs a magnum primer (all weight loads & calibers?) don't they show a magnum primer being used, like CCI350 or CCI450? Using Win WP primers or Rem 2-1/2 (one primer does it all type) doesn't let me know a "magnum primer is recommended". And why does Speer & Lyman manuals show their loads with regular primers, CCI300, for all their AA#9 loadings, even 44Mag.?

I've reloaded for over 40 years, try to be careful, verify data is safe, loaded for pistols from 38 Spcl. to 500 Mag & admit that I don't know everything. So what's the deal with this? Was this just bad luck or am I missing something? Have others out there had any related issues using #9, in 45LC or other cartridges? I lost confidence in AA#9 & haven't loaded it in anything else since.

[ArchAngelCD]

Accurate was telling you to change the primer because you were having a problem. Most reloaders use a standard primer with AA#9 and have no problems no matter what the cartridge is. Just because the work magnum is in the cartridge doesn't require you to use a magnum primer. A magnum primer is a powder need, not a name need.

Recommending a small rifle primer isn't so out of line since most 454 Casull loads use that primer.

[tappedandtagged]

I don't load for 45 colt, but I actually use that same charge weight of 18.5 in my 44 mag with a 240 LSWC and regular CCI 300's. I have never had a hang fire, squib or any issue for that matter with any of the 200+ rounds I've fired.

If you ever get down to the SW corner of OK, let me know and I'll drive up from Arkansas and take that AA9 off your hands.

On a serious note, has the powder and primers used been kept dry and free from oil or moisture?

[Kelly Green]

I use A#9 when building hog loads for my old Ruger .45 Colt Bisley.

15gr. #9
CCI 300 primer
300gr. jacketed bullet
This load chronographs at approximately 815 fps. from a 5 1/2” barrel.

I also use #9 in .357 magnum loads with 150gr. lead and standard 300 primers, without incident. I’ve never experienced any of the problems you described with this powder.

[fltbed]

I’ve started experimenting with #9 this past year and it is defiantly my new favorite powder for mid range 45 Colt +P loads. (23K-28K)
My current general purpose hunting load is:
280 gr. LBT WFPGC
18 gr. #9

Like others have found, I get better accuracy with standard primers rather than Mags.
But I don’t think the primers are your problem.

What I suspect is happening is, when your primers go off, the powder just starts to ignite, but the pressure from the primer explosion pops the bullet out of the case and it then lodge’s in the forcing cone. The increased space in the case reduces pressures immediately and cause’s the burning of the powder to be reduced or, as you discovered, go out completely. The band-aid fix is to put a heaver crimp on the bullets and switch to a hotter primer but there is a better way.

When I started loading magnums (44, 45C+P, 454) back in the 1980’s, I read everything I could find from all the reloading guru’s of the day.
Several, like Elmer Keith, made mention of needing more bullet pull with magnum loads that crimping would not fix. Elmer noted that most expander plugs were too large to give adequate grip on the bullets. Check your expander plug with a set of calipers. It should measure .002-.003 under bullet diameter.

Following the advice from another article, I size my 45’s twice. I full length size in my RCBS 45 Colt die, then I size about the top 1/3 of the case with my 45 acp die. I also turned down my expander plug in a hand drill with some emery paper to .449 dia.
Doing all this is a PITA but it has improved my accuracy and I’m fairly certain I have adequate bullet tension as the last time I had a squib, the bullet never left the case.

Hope this helps.

Jeff

[tappedandtagged]

Fltbed, you have me confused. If the expander die is under bullet diameter, then it won't do its job. It is meant to expand the top of the cartrdge ever so slightly to prevent the base of the bullet from shaving off when you seat it. I only expand, or bell, the mouth of my cases to the point that I can barely see the bell with the naked eye. The bevel base boolits I load then seat just fine without shaving off lead and the bell is done away with when I crimp.

Now I have heard of reducing the size of a neck expander in a bottle neck cartrdge to increase neck tension, but never anything of the sort on a straight walled handgun cartrdge.

Can you clear up my confusion. I don't think I'm understanding you correctly.

[BruceM]

Can you clear up my confusion. I don't think I'm understanding you correctly.

It is you who do not understand.

The purpose of the expander is not merely to bell the case mouth. After the sizing die sizes the case, the ID of the case will (or should be) smaller than the bullet's diameter. The expander opens that ID up to the point where it will be close to the bullet's diameter but small enough to maintain purchase on the entire length of the bullet enclosed in the case mouth. Flaring the case mouth only facilitates starting the bullet into the case.

In straight walled pistol rounds, bullet movement after seating is controlled, by far, by neck tension. A firm roll is merely the finishing touch and not the determining factor. A taper crimp in autoloader rounds is used for removing the flaring of the case mouth only and not for bullet retention. This is why the expander must be .003" smaller than bullet diameter and, in big kickers, you may need to go a thousandth or so smaller yet.

Bruce

[358156hp]

Did you load these in 45 Colt cases, or 454 cases? If you loaded them in 454 cases, you are way under the minimum load, according to Accurate.

[tappedandtagged]

Originally Posted by BruceM

It is you who do not understand.

The purpose of the expander is not merely to bell the case mouth. After the sizing die sizes the case, the ID of the case will (or should be) smaller than the bullet's diameter. The expander opens that ID up to the point where it will be close to the bullet's diameter but small enough to maintain purchase on the entire length of the bullet enclosed in the case mouth. Flaring the case mouth only facilitates starting the bullet into the case.

In straight walled pistol rounds, bullet movement after seating is controlled, by far, by neck tension. A firm roll is merely the finishing touch and not the determining factor. A taper crimp in autoloader rounds is used for removing the flaring of the case mouth only and not for bullet retention. This is why the expander must be .003" smaller than bullet diameter and, in big kickers, you may need to go a thousandth or so smaller yet.

Bruce

Ok. I just re-read my manual. I guess I have never had an issue like this so I've never given it much thought. I see now where the expander die expands the inside of the case as well as belling the mouth.

And you were right Bruce, I didn't understand. Thats why I said in my first post that I was not understanding. But thanks for the clarification.

[Kelly Green]

Response to the expander die posts.

I use the Lyman Neck-Expanding “M” dies after sizing the case. It’s a two-step plug. The first step of the plug expands the neck of the case to slightly under bullet diameter and the second step expands the first 1/16” of the neck to slightly over bullet diameter. The “M” series are the best dies I’ve found for seating bullets, especially cast, without shaving lead and the bullets seat perfectly centered.

[BLUEDOT37]

I have a idea on what the issue is that caused my problem, but let me answer some of the questions in the replies posted.

Post #3: The powder & primers are new & have been kept in good condition. (I did load & shoot a limited amount, 2 ea., of S-L Colt brass, 250gr JHP, Colt +P+ loads with #9 powder, ranging from 19 to 25grs., ~43K psi, & CCI 300, without issue, again in my SRH 454.) Your 44 Mag loads are similar to mine but the 45 Colt case has about 18% more capacity, which is an element in what I think the problem was. By the way, I had previously loaded up some 44 Mags with Speer 240gr. JHPs, CCI 300, & AA#9 incrementing from 18.0 to 20.0grs. without issue in that small test lot, using my Mdl. 29-2.

Post #5: You didn't mention what gun you're shooting your loads in, but I'm assuming a 45 Colt chambering? I agree that bullet pull/neck tension is important in magnum loads, & even ones like mine with slow powder in a large case, to get & keep the fire going. I did put the heaviest roll crimp I thought suited for the fairly hard cast lead bullet. Your idea of "double sizing" is interesting. In fact some of the aforementioned 250 JHP "+P+" loads were "double crimped". Probably like you, I went overboard. I used the Lee 45LC FCD to first apply a heavy roll crimp, then swapped the crimping plug insert from my 45ACP Lee FGD to the 45LC FCD to add a taper crimp (I admit I was paranoid because of the squib issue). The Lee expander die I currently use is different from my old RCBS expander die in that the Lee has a shorter length of die that goes into the case before it starts to flare vs. the RCBS which is a much longer part. I think the Lee is better, in this respect, because the seated bullet seems fitted in the case better, IMO. The finished cartridge has a barely visible line were the bullet is seated in the case, which may not be the way the factory perfect ones look like, but satisfies me as to bullet tension. I don't put any more flare on the case mouth than is needed to start seating the bullet, which also helps avoid too little neck tension.

Post #8: The squib was loaded in S-L 45 Colt cases & shot in my SRH 454.

Post #10: I was unaware of this Lyman die.

So, while looking through some back issues yesterday I saw an article in Handloader #225, Oct-2003, that talked about a problem some of the early SRHs (mine's a 2012 model) had with too tight chamber throats, causing high pressures & sticky extraction on max. 60K psi loads. I recalled that I had checked my gun's throats with my caliper (don't have any pin/plug gauges), as well as dropping factory jacketed bullets thru the chambers, & was dismayed that they were larger (~.4545" range) than I expected. The email from Accurate did allude to large Casull chambers. I then put a 45 Colt cartridge loaded with a Hornady XTP 250gr. JHP in one cylinder & a 454 Casull case loaded with the same bullet in another. The OAL difference is only about .11" longer (it looks like even more), in favor of the Casull of course, but looking at them from the front shows how much more cylinder throat the Colt round has to go thru before it exists the cylinder. So my guess is that: the "loose" throats, the longer (than Colt) Casull cylinder throats, large case to powder weight ratio, regular primer, & slow burning powder, combine to marginalize this load in this situation. Most had fired as expected but others were amiss with weak discharge, hang-fire, & "the" squib. I don't know if this explains why the 45 Colt JHP workup loads, that started at 19gr., fired okay since the sizing is .001" smaller, but harder, than the LSWC. It could be because I only shot a couple before the next powder increment or, they got a harder crimp (my notes don't show I "double crimped" these, but I may have since other loads completed a day later were so noted) being they're jacketed? I would assume that this same issue, if correct, would apply to anyone shooting 45 Colts or 454 Casulls in a 460 Magnum?

I'll probably reserve the AA#9 for heavy to magnum load usage in same as caliber brass. Any thoughts?

[gaijin]

Interesting that I too, have experienced PRECISELY the problem you describe-quite recently.
19.5 gr. AA9 with CCI 300, 255 gr. KTSWC (GC) and Starline cases; results were abysmal. Hangfires (pop/BOOM), even stuck a bullet and extremely erratic velocities.
I was shocked, as AA9 and CCI 300, Starline brass had proven a winner in .41 and .44 mag-at similar chamber pressures (not maximum loads).
My first thought was not enough roll crimp. Adjusted die to max and went to the range again-same problem.
I then switched to WLP primers, thinking that since they are marketed as "standard and magnum" primers they must be hotter.
This worked well. Velocities were 1150 fps +- with small deviation
(this in a S&W MG-4" barrel).

Additionally; my experience has been that like amounts of 2400 and AA9 in .41 and .44 mag gave VERY close to the same velocities with the same/above components. This was not what I experienced in the .45 Colt-the 2400 load worked well, where the AA9 was a complete failure with the CCI 300 primers.

The only thing I can figure is; the case volume of the .45 Colt resulted in maybe a 70% load density which was obviously insufficient with the CCI 300 primer. The .41 and .44 loads had a powder volume that has to be 80 to 90%, which apparently was compatible with the same primer.

Regards.
T

[fltbed]

Originally Posted by BLUEDOT37

Post #5: You didn't mention what gun you're shooting your loads in, but I'm assuming a 45 Colt chambering? I agree that bullet pull/neck tension is important in magnum loads, & even ones like mine with slow powder in a large case, to get & keep the fire going. I did put the heaviest roll crimp I thought suited for the fairly hard cast lead bullet. Your idea of "double sizing" is interesting. In fact some of the aforementioned 250 JHP "+P+" loads were "double crimped". Probably like you, I went overboard. I used the Lee 45LC FCD to first apply a heavy roll crimp, then swapped the crimping plug insert from my 45ACP Lee FGD to the 45LC FCD to add a taper crimp (I admit I was paranoid because of the squib issue). The Lee expander die I currently use is different from my old RCBS expander die in that the Lee has a shorter length of die that goes into the case before it starts to flare vs. the RCBS which is a much longer part. I think the Lee is better, in this respect, because the seated bullet seems fitted in the case better, IMO. The finished cartridge has a barely visible line were the bullet is seated in the case, which may not be the way the factory perfect ones look like, but satisfies me as to bullet tension. I don't put any more flare on the case mouth than is needed to start seating the bullet, which also helps avoid too little neck tension.

That load was developed in my Accusport Bisley 45 Colt/acp.

The only 454 I’ve ever loaded for is my brothers Freedom Arms. Back then there were no 454 dies except for the custom RCBS dies FA sold for well over $100. I modified my Lee 45 Colt die in a lathe (removed most of the flair on the mouth of the die) and ground off a few thousands off the top of my shell holder so I could resize enough of the casing in order to get them to fit back into the extremely tight chambered FA.

I think I have discovered your problem. Dump the Lee CFCD.
When these dies were introduced, I did some testing in 9mm and 45 acp and discovered that, in my testing, they actually decrease neck tension. Especially with lead bullets. What happens is, brass is elastic, lead bullets are not. When the carbide ring goes over the top part of the case holding the bullet, it swages the case, and the bullet, down a bit. The brass case will naturally spring back due to it’s elastic properties, (that’s why brass works so well as a cartridge case, it seals off the back end of the chamber but as soon as the pressure drops it springs back allowing for easy extraction) the bullet, being lead, does not spring back at all. (gilding metal jacketed bullets will spring back some but not much) The original Lee Factory Crimp dies are for rifles and use a collet to crimp the mouth of the case. This is the best idea I’ve ever seen for crimping and I still use them on all my rifle ammo. I just wish Dick Lee would have gone in this direction when developing the handgun version. (The only “trick” crimping die I’ve ever seen that actually is an improvement over conventional roll crimping is the Redding Profile Crimp die. A combination taper/roll crimp in one.)

It’s that elastic properties of the brass case that gives so much neck tension when double sizing. I forget who wrote the article on double sizing the case. It could have been Jan Libourel or Ross Seyfried, I can’t remember, and I have long since lost the article, but I’ve used this technique with LBT 335 gr. cast bullets, which have a very long nose leaving more room for powder but less bullet inside for the case to hang on to, in both my Bisley (@ 1250 f.p.s.) and my brothers FA (@ 1600+ f.p.s.) and those bullets don’t budge till the powder lights off. I sure a metallurgist could explain why the case grips the bullet tighter better than I ever could but it does work. If you don’t feel like sizing your casings twice, Redding now offers a double sizer die. With two carbide rings installed that will do the same thing in one pass. (although it cost almost as much as two complete die sets!)

I’ve never used a Lyman M die but I’m told by others they like it for loading bullets in certain progressive machines as the bullets don’t tip when the shell plate indexes.

I agree with you on the Lee expander plugs and have modified my RCBS and Lyman expander plugs to do basically the same thing.

Hope this helps.

Jeff

[fltbed]

Originally Posted by gaijin

The only thing I can figure is; the case volume of the .45 Colt resulted in maybe a 70% load density which was obviously insufficient. The .41 and .44 loads had a powder volume that has to be 80 to 90%.

Regards.
T

IMO, the reason so many have problems loading for the 45 Colt is that over the last, what…130 years now? The chamber, throat and bore dimensions have been all over the place. Originally designed to use black powder and soft swaged .454 diameter lead bullets. Older guns will have rather generous chambers, huge throat’s and bores running anywhere from .452 -.458 diameter.
It’s only been in the last few years that the gun companies have settled on .451-.452 bores and chamber throats of .452-.4525 like the custom gun builders have been making for over 40 years.

It only stands to reason the reloading die dimensions will be all over the place as well. The most common issue I’ve seen is oversized expander plugs. Well…their not oversized for loading an older 45 Colt with .455 swaged lead bullets but they don’t work worth a darn with modern .451-.452 diameter bullets. Especially when loaded to 28K-30K with slow burning “magnum” powder. That’s one of the reasons Ruger chamber throats were always (until recently) so undersized. When the primer explosion pops the bullet out of the case it only made it about .010 till it’s wedged in the chamber throat. Less bullet movement = a smaller decrease in pressure that might give you a hang fire or a squib. The down side is, those tight chamber throats sure don’t do anything for accuracy. It’s even worse with lead bullets because after the bullet goes through the throat, it’s .002-.004 under the bore diameter.

Anyway, I’m rambling and getting off topic.

T, I suspect you may have the same issue as the OP. what I suggest is to check your expander plug.

Jeff

[gaijin]

[QUOTE=fltbed;136932205

T, I suspect you may have the same issue as the OP. what I suggest is to check your expander plug.

Jeff[/QUOTE]

In my instance, the expander plug isn't the issue Jeff.
I've never had any issues in this caliber, loading from mid level to upper end (Ruger only) loads until trying AA9 with CCI 300 primers.
I think it was as simple as minimal load density allowed the standard primer flame to pass ON TOP of the powder column (with gun held horizontally) with insufficient energy to ignite the powder (as evidenced by the amount of powder fouling/unburned/partially burned powder residue present in chamber after "hang fire").
A hotter primer was the answer here-results with accuracy and velocity were what I'd come to expect with AA9 with this one change.

[fltbed]

Originally Posted by gaijin

In my instance, the expander plug isn't the issue Jeff.
I've never had any issues in this caliber, loading from mid level to upper end (Ruger only) loads until trying AA9 with CCI 300 primers.
I think it was as simple as minimal load density allowed the standard primer flame to pass ON TOP of the powder column (with gun held horizontally) with insufficient energy to ignite the powder (as evidenced by the amount of powder fouling/unburned/partially burned powder residue present in chamber after "hang fire").
A hotter primer was the answer here-results with accuracy and velocity were what I'd come to expect with AA9 with this one change.

You may be on to something with the #9 and CCI #300 primers as I always use Federal primers in my revolvers. But I doubt it.

The guy who turned me on to #9 is the owner of my old S&W 25-5. I used his load data as a start load for my experiments in my Bisley.

255 gr. SWC from Mastercast
16.5 gr. #9 (Max load for modern S&W)
CCI #300 primer
Starline brass
1000 f.p.s. (6” 25-5)

All I did was switch to a Federal #150 primer, LBT 280 gr. WFP’s and worked the charge up from 16 to 18 gr. for a velocity of just over 1100 f.p.s. out of my 5 ½” Bisley. The internal case capacity between my 280 LBT and your 255 Keith's are about the same yet my load works with standard primers and yours requires magnum’s? That just don’t add up.

Like I said in my first post, (#5) magnum primers and more crimp are a band aid fix. The problem is not enough bullet grip. The most common reason is a too large expander plug.
The primer “flashover” myth was busted back in the 90’s with the advent of the electronic pressure transducer. For those that don’t know, a pressure transducer looks like a piece of thick packaging tape and can be attached over the chamber. It can measure the exact chamber pressure, in a sine wave, from the moment the primer ignites to the instant the bullet leaves the barrel. Much better that the old copper crusher (c.u.p.) method, where they drilled a hole in the chamber, inserted a copper plug, and guessed the chamber pressures based on how much the plug was crushed.
Like I described in my first post (#5) the primer explosion pops the bullet out of the case and it loges in the forcing cone. This sudden decrease in pressure, just as the powder is starting to ignite, is what causes hang fires and squibs. More bullet grip is the solution.

Now, if we were talking about reduced charges of H110/296 this situation can get very catastrophic, and deadly, as that particular powder has a tendency to drastically spike pressures at that point causing all kind of bad things to happen. That’s why there are minimum loads today that were normal to max loads twenty years ago. #9 is not like that though and takes to moderately reduced charges quiet well.

Jeff

[BLUEDOT37]

First off, I appreciate every bodies thoughts & related experiences. I'm going to consolidate my thoughts/questions/reply like I did last time.

I'm still of the opinion, at this point, that my particular issue was multifaceted, not just a black & white, clear-cut one aspect cause, but maybe I'm wrong. I do strongly suspect that the one item that could have bettered it (but I wasn't going to experiment after it happened twice) was using a magnum-type primer with this particular combo. "gaijin" had the same trouble & he was shooting basically the same load, except his was in a 45 Colt chamber & the WLPs (one primer does all) fixed it for him. He also had (bravely) tried again with a stronger crimp, before the primer change, which didn't help. It just seems that the lead bullet had to have been another element as, stated before, I didn't have a problem with (the few) AA#9 19grs. & JHPs loaded in Colt cases. "Kelly Green" said he shoots 15grs. in a Colt case/chamber using a JHP & CCI 300, with no problems, though his bullet is 300grs, 20% heavier, which in itself could be enough to help keep the pressure up & burn consistently.

fltbed: Nice gun! I never had a Bisley frame Ruger. Isn't their shape supposed to handle recoil better than the regular style? I'm glad you did mention specifically what primers you use, Fed 150 primers, but your 280gr. bullet is heavier than the 255gr. Like above, that 10% extra weight may make the difference in consistency & needing a magnum primer?? I hear what you're saying about the Lee FCD, & don't dispute your findings, but I started using them when all of a sudden I started having bullet neck tension issues with my 45 ACP 1911 reloads. First off, I discovered how much better I liked a Lee 4 die set vs. the 3 die RCBS set I was using. (I have come to decide that part of the trouble was the old & tired nickel plated (thin?) cased Remingtons. I hate to throw anything away & have successfully been using them loading lead bullets & the "tighter" Lee dies, but I think they'll go in the trash next go-around.) I do like the easy adjustability of the crimp setting on the FCD best. If all your brass aren't the same exact length, like happens after using them for light & heavy loads & mixing them up, it's quick & easy to tweak it one way or the other. As far as the post-sizer TC ring, I rarely feel it contact the case when withdrawing the cartridge & if I do feel it, it's usually light. Probably more so with lead bullets, like you said, no matter which caliber I'm using. It's kind of a shame the pistol FCD doesn't crimp like the rifle FCDs, but I guess there's a good reason.

Concerning the various 45 Colt bullet & chamber dimensions, I became aware of that once I started loading the Colt cartridge & did some reading, & that's why I was disappointed in the looser throats in my 454. I don't see why they didn't leave them at .452" to closely match the barrel? The Handloader article I mentioned above stated the problem guns had throats less than .452", which makes sense, & they should be opened up to .4525". Don't know why they went so wide on mine, or if mine's an exception? (Maybe I should check into it more?) If the factory would size them together then the commonly found .451-.452" bullets would be fine. People with old guns could get the appropriate sized bullet for their's. You'd think we could start to get on the right track by now!?

gaijin: Do you use magnum primers, in your case WLP, for all your AA#9 45 Colt loads? I don't know how heavy a load you can/do use in the S&W Mountain Gun. Concerning the load density (LVMD) of mine (18.5gr.), I calculated it at 63% using the Lee manual's "useful case capacity" of 1.93cc (I use it as a relative number, as surely that number would have to vary with the size/style bullet loaded?) & the powder's VMD of .0657. This is low but, looking back at my records, when I first started trying this powder out, I loaded some (limited incremental test rounds) S-L .454 Casull cases with the same bullet, 255gr LSWC .452", CCI 400 (SRP) & AA#9 from 19.5grs. up to 21.5grs (~1265fps - 1400fps). The LVMD range is 59% to 65%, & I didn't have any issues with these. The notable difference between the two, the 45 Colt & the 454 Casull case load, is the primer & the throat distance traveled. The Casull load had lower LVMD but less distance to go to exit the cylinder & a small rifle primer, as is normal. My first impression is that the CCI 400 is hotter than the CCI 300. Primer strength is a hard thing to pin down because there doesn't seem to be a lot of data or a uniform way to rate them (almost as bad a comparing powder burn rate tables...don't you love them?). I did recently see a chart (from an old reloading manual?) someone posted in a thread that was for CCI primers & showed the 300 stronger than the 400, 7.10 ft/lbs vs. 6.0 ft/lbs. Of course this data could have changed ten times since that test & doesn't address the flash duration, seemingly only the peak power, of each. I wouldn't doubt too that powder case position, powder forward or powder back, may have been a factor (I've seen reports both ways about this but can't say I could vouch for any).

It is good to know that AA#9 burns consistently in the 44 Mag with CCI 300 primers. If nothing else I can use it up there & save my (venerable & dependable) 2400 for other loads.

Sorry this is so long, but if anybody else has any related experience that would be good to know & compile, speak up.

Ken

[AABEN]

A good heavy crimp will help you out.

[gaijin]

Ken, the ONLY .45 Colt loads I use WLP primers in is the one in question (19.5 gr. AA9, 255 gr. cast, etc) and a couple using H110 (in which I use CCI mag. pistol).
All the rest (at least six) I use CCI 300. (using HS-6, HS-7, 2400 and Unique)

[fltbed]

Originally Posted by BLUEDOT37

fltbed: Nice gun! I never had a Bisley frame Ruger. Isn't their shape supposed to handle recoil better than the regular style? I'm glad you did mention specifically what primers you use, Fed 150 primers, but your 280gr. bullet is heavier than the 255gr. Like above, that 10% extra weight may make the difference in consistency & needing a magnum primer?? I hear what you're saying about the Lee FCD, & don't dispute your findings, but I started using them when all of a sudden I started having bullet neck tension issues with my 45 ACP 1911 reloads. First off, I discovered how much better I liked a Lee 4 die set vs. the 3 die RCBS set I was using. (I have come to decide that part of the trouble was the old & tired nickel plated (thin?) cased Remingtons. I hate to throw anything away & have successfully been using them loading lead bullets & the "tighter" Lee dies, but I think they'll go in the trash next go-around.) I do like the easy adjustability of the crimp setting on the FCD best. If all your brass aren't the same exact length, like happens after using them for light & heavy loads & mixing them up, it's quick & easy to tweak it one way or the other. As far as the post-sizer TC ring, I rarely feel it contact the case when withdrawing the cartridge & if I do feel it, it's usually light. Probably more so with lead bullets, like you said, no matter which caliber I'm using. It's kind of a shame the pistol FCD doesn't crimp like the rifle FCDs, but I guess there's a good reason.

Concerning the various 45 Colt bullet & chamber dimensions, I became aware of that once I started loading the Colt cartridge & did some reading, & that's why I was disappointed in the looser throats in my 454. I don't see why they didn't leave them at .452" to closely match the barrel? The Handloader article I mentioned above stated the problem guns had throats less than .452", which makes sense, & they should be opened up to .4525". Don't know why they went so wide on mine, or if mine's an exception? (Maybe I should check into it more?) If the factory would size them together then the commonly found .451-.452" bullets would be fine. People with old guns could get the appropriate sized bullet for their's. You'd think we could start to get on the right track by now!?
Ken

Thank you. It’s from the first production run Ruger did for Accusport and it was a basket case when I got it. Chamber throats were between .448-.450, cylinder was too loose, (for me) barrel cylinder gap was too wide, (for me) trigger was horrible, etc. This is my forth Ruger so I pretty much knew what needed to be done. I ended up turning the barrel in one revolution, re-cutting the forcing cone and setting the B/C gap to .004, reaming the chamber throats, fitting a Belt Mountain #5 base pin, fitting a Power Custom cylinder stop, hammer, trigger and having a new taller, thinner, fiber optic front sight made for it. All before I fired the first shot through it. But it was worth it.

Yes, IMO the Bisley grip frame is great for controlling recoil. The gun just rolls up in your hand in recoil.
In my experience, there are basically three ways to counteract felt recoil.
Weight (like the Ruger Super Redhawk)
Porting or compensator’s. (like the Taurus 454)
Ergonomics
I don’t like heavy revolvers. I figure if I’m gonna carry 4.5-5 pounds worth of gun, I’ll just step up to a rifle and lead is a pain to clean out of comp’s, so…

I’ve been shooting USPSA for a while now and I discovered the same thing with Remington cases. Brass, nickel, 45 acp and 40 S&W as well. My jacketed bullets would drop down inside the casing right out of the sizing die. And just like you, I hate throwing anything away so I started segregating them for lead bullets only. LOL

I gave my 9mm Lee CFCD to a buddy of mine. He just had to have it so he could load for the match barrel in his new open gun. I still use my Lee 45 acp CFCD though. I just knocked out the carbide sizing ring and use it like a standard crimp die now. I hate throwing anything away. LOL

I can’t think of any reason the chamber throats on your 454 would be cut so large. The “old school” bullet casters rule of thumb is to size your lead bullets to the same (or slightly larger) size as your chamber throats and ignore bore diameter. I know this works with standard 45 Colt, 44 special and even mid range 44 mags but I’d be hesitant to try it at 454 levels.

Speaking of old school rule‘s of thumb. Did you try, loading the cylinder full, shoot all but the last round, remove said round and measure the OAL to see if it had grown any under the recoil forces?
You probably have but I’d thought I’d ask.

Jeff

[BLUEDOT37]

Originally Posted by fltbed

It’s from the first production run Ruger did for Accusport and it was a basket case when I got it.

That's a shame you had issues with it right out of the box, but now it's probably even more special since you personalized it. I forgot to ask, in the pictures two of the targets have 5 holes each, but the 3rd only has 8 holes...where's the other 2 ?!?
(I always shoot in groups of five too.)

Originally Posted by fltbed

I’ve been shooting USPSA for a while now and I discovered the same thing with Remington cases.

That Remington brass is probably the oldest 45ACP brass I own...I'll never buy nickel plated brass again though.

Originally Posted by fltbed

Did you try, loading the cylinder full, shoot all but the last round, remove said round and measure the OAL to see if it had grown any under the recoil forces?

Yes & no. I believe I shot a full load, of five, with the "problem load", since I had made 25, but I can't say for sure if I checked them. The one load I definitely recall checking, in this gun, was a test batch of 45 Colt +Ps, 200 gr. Hornady XTP .451", CCI 300 & 20.5gr. of 2400 @ ~1300fps/750ME and 200gr. cast LSWC .452", CCI 300 & 19.0gr. of 2400 @ ~1280fps/726ME. Both of these did not have cannelures (45ACP bullets) & were taper crimped over the ogive or shoulder. I wanted to see how they performed & if the recoil would unseat the bullets. They both shot fine & the last bullet hadn't moved, which I was happy with. After I got this gun I spent most of my time trying different combinations of bullet weights, in small test lots, & experimented with H110, AA#9, & Lil'Gun. After "the squib" troubles this gun got pushed aside when I found a 325NG & started loading up ACP, Auto Rim & Super combinations for it. I need to get back to the 454 & continue work on my "Big Bang Theory".

[fltbed]

Originally Posted by BLUEDOT37

That's a shame you had issues with it right out of the box, but now it's probably even more special since you personalized it. I forgot to ask, in the pictures two of the targets have 5 holes each, but the 3rd only has 8 holes...where's the other 2 ?!?
(I always shoot in groups of five too.)

I’ve had “issues” with every gun I’ve ever owned and “personalized” every one of them. LOL
That Ruger is a good example. Was it safe to shoot? Defiantly. Was it within factory spec? Sure. Did it meet my needs? Not quite.

The pic was from February 2009. I was shooting up the hunting ammo I loaded the previous fall at the local gun clubs 25 yard indoor range.
280 gr. LBT
23 gr. H4227
Win 454 case trimmed to 45 Colt length
Rem 7 ½ BR primer
1100 f.p.s.

The three extra shoots on the bottom target were because I only had three rounds left and didn’t feel like running another target down range for only three rounds. LOL

Jeff

PS the trimmed down 454 brass is an ongoing experiment in case life with 45 Colt +P loads.

[BLUEDOT37]

Originally Posted by fltbed

PS: the trimmed down 454 brass is an ongoing experiment in case life with 45 Colt +P loads.

I've been using Hornady & Starline brass in my 45 Colt "+P", & "+P+" loads. I can't comment on how long the case life is/will be, but I know they're strong enough. Using H110, I've loaded them up around the 40-45K CUP range, shot in my 454 Casull, with no troubles. The Starline pricing in very reasonable too. Now, I only use my Starline Casull cases for 300gr.+ bullets & max. powder loads.

How's the H4227 working for you? I loaded some IMR4227 an eon, or two, ago. IMR's a rod powder, if I remember right? Is the Hodgdon a rod too? Do you see much difference between it & some of the other slow magnum powders like H110 or Lil'Gun?

I'll take your word on those "two missing holes"

[fltbed]

In the 80’s-90’s I tried Winchester, Remington and Federal brass for +P loads and of them, federal FC headstamps would last the longest (about 7-8 loadings) before splitting. Back in 1999 I was given 100 pieces of Winchester once fired 454 brass. I thought since the 454’s are tougher, I get more life out of them. So I trimmed them down to 45 Colt length and the experiment started.
So far, I lost one at loading #4, (cracked mouth) one at loading #9, (cracked mouth) one at loading #18, (split lengthwise) and one at loading #22. (split lengthwise)

H4224 (now only available as IMR 4227) is a good in between powder like 2400. It’s a short stick powder and measures fairly well. Doesn’t need magnum primers and can be downloaded safely. However, like 2400 it’s dirty, leaving little granules of yellow unburnt powder everywhere rather than the black and gray flakes like 2400. This past year, I’ve been experimenting with #9 for mid range loads and so far, I like it the best.

I like H110/296 for max loads. I worked up a load back in the late 80’s of 24.5 grains with Hornady’s then new 250 gr. XTP, @ 1300 f.p.s. and used it until the newer load data came out showing a start load of 25.7 gr. I was getting sticky extraction at 25.0 so I quit using it with light weight bullets. About that time Lil’Gun came along and I switched to 23.5 gr. with the same XTP, at the same 1300 f.p.s. but the cases would just fall out of the cylinder. With 270 gr.-360gr. Cast lead, H110/296 and Lil’Gun are very similar with the only real difference being that Lil’Gun is a little less temp sensitive. H110/296 has had a know issue with top strap flame cutting and cracking forcing cones in big magnums with light for caliber bullets, (according to FA, Lil’Gun is even worse) so I only use it with the heavy’s.

We only shoot 454’s out of my brothers FA and the only thing I’ve ever loaded close to factory loads are 260 gr. FA JFP with 35 gr. of H110/296 and a cast 310 gr. Keith SWCGC with 31 gr. of H110/296.
Since 92 the only load we shoot through it has been Speer’s 260 gr. JHP with18.5 gr. of Blue Dot for a bit over 1400 f.p.s. Boy, you can tell I’m getting old. LOL

<<I'll take you word on those "two missing holes">>

That’s my story and I’m stickin to it.

Jeff

[mtgianni]

My thoughts on the 45 and AA9.
Deprime with a depriming only die, do not size.
Size only the top1/2 to 1/3 of your case for the longest case life, omit this if you have more than one 45 and full length size.
AA9 needs pressure to burn well, a heavy crimp helps, bullet size helps more. I use a roll crimp and make sure that my cast bullets are larger than the cylinder throats and that the throat are larger than the bore.
I would not go lighter than 250 gr with AA9.

[BLUEDOT37]

Originally Posted by fltbed

Back in 1999 I was given 100 pieces of Winchester once fired 454 brass. I thought since the 454’s are tougher, I get more life out of them. So I trimmed them down to 45 Colt length and the experiment started.

I wonder if there's a material difference in case capacity (less?) in those cut-down W-W Casull cases vs W-W Colts?

Originally Posted by fltbed

H110/296 has had a know issue with top strap flame cutting and cracking forcing cones in big magnums with light for caliber bullets, (according to FA, Lil’Gun is even worse) so I only use it with the heavy’s.

There's always something/somebody trying to ruin our fun! (I stopped by the gun store & was suprised to find they actually had some 296 in stock, but not much else, so I grabbed some so I can continue to abuse my forcing cone.)

Originally Posted by fltbed

We only shoot 454’s out of my brothers FA. Since 92 the only load we shoot through it has been Speer’s 260 gr. JHP with 18.5 gr. of Blue Dot for a bit over 1400 f.p.s. Boy, you can tell I’m getting old. LOL

You had me thinking for a bit, where did you come up with a Blue Dot load like that, then I remembered FA had some good load data listed that I saved, & there it was. I'm guessing about 40K CUP, by their chart? My son bought a bunch of Blue Dot & then decided he liked my Power Pistol better . That's a good idea for burnin' some of it off.

[fltbed]

Originally Posted by BLUEDOT37

I wonder if there's a material difference in case capacity (less?) in those cut-down W-W Casull cases vs W-W Colts?

Back in 89-90 I ran some capacities test on the Federal, Remington and Winchester cases that were available. I forget the actual numbers, as I’ve long since lost my notes. IIRC, WW and R-P brass was the thinnest and held the most water. FC brass was the heaviest and held the least so that’s what I used. (That’s also what Bowen and Linebaugh were recommending to use at the time.) The Win 454 brass is slightly thicker yet and held slightly less water than the FC cases I was using. In testing though, my velocities were 20-30 f.p.s. less with the cut down 454 brass. I think is has to do with the small rifle primers in the 454 cases having less priming compound than the large pistol primers (Fed #155’s) I was using in the 45 colt cases.

Originally Posted by BLUEDOT37

There's always something/somebody trying to ruin our fun! (I stopped by the gun store & was suprised to find they actually had some 296 in stock, but not much else, so I grabbed some so I can continue to abuse my forcing cone.)

I first saw this with the 357 Max with 125 gr. bullets. Then with the Dan Wesson Super Mags in 445 & 455 using 180gr. & 200 gr. bullets. Then FA came out and said not to load anything lighter than 240 gr. bullets in their guns. (which I thought was funny cause the only jacketed bullets made back then, that could handle full power Casull loads, were their 260 & 300 gainers.) I’m still waiting to see if that holds true with S&W’s 460 mag using Hornady’s 200 gr. FTX or if they’ve come up with a solution no one else has thought of. Time will tell.

Originally Posted by BLUEDOT37

You had me thinking for a bit, where did you come up with a Blue Dot load like that, then I remembered FA had some good load data listed that I saved, & there it was. I'm guessing about 40K CUP, by their chart? My son bought a bunch of Blue Dot & then decided he liked my Power Pistol better . That's a good idea for burnin' some of it off.

I like that load a lot. Blue Dot burns very clean at that pressure level and the Speer bullets cost less than half of the FA 260’s.
That load has accounted for many whitetails and two black bears so far.

Jeff

[BLUEDOT37]

One of the things mentioned here was to use a stronger primer, like WLP Std/Mag, to aid ignition on slower powders. Curiously, I just read a fairly in-depth article, at Leverguns.com, testing large pistol (& rifle) primers in the .500 Linebaugh case with a moderate dose (30gr.) of slow powder (AA1680). FWIW, the WLP primer had the second worst in Standard Deviation & was the worst in Extreme Spread, in this test setting, while the CCI350 was the best ?!?

.500 Linebaugh Primer Test

...

[fltbed]

OK, I’m now sitting down to eat my full plate of crow.

I recently acquired some CCI #300 primers and loaded 10 of them up in some of my old Federal brass with 18 gr. of #9 and some 250 gr. SWC (Lyman #452424 cast with #2 alloy) I double sized the cases and put a firm roll crimp on them.

At the range today, temps were around 40 degrees, overcast and humid. The first five rounds chronoed:

1. 881 f.p.s.
2. 927 f.p.s.
3.1077 f.p.s.
4. 771 f.p.s.
5. 882 f.p.s.

Unburnt powder was present everywhere and three of the cases showed blackened sides from the brass not expanding and sealing the chamber fully.
For the second five rounds I tipped the muzzle vertical and taped the side of the cylinder to make sure the powder was resting up against the primer before firing each round. Those were:

6. 1144 f.p.s.
7. 1071 f.p.s.
8. 1027 f.p.s.
9. 990 f.p.s.
10. 1140 f.p.s.

The cases from these five looked normal but they still had over a 100 f.p.s. spread and besides, who wants to point their gun skyward just before firing every round.

I defiantly believe you and T (gaijin) are on to something with the CCI 300 and the 250 gr. cast bullets with #9 and I apologize if any of my remarks came off sounding condescending. Once I’m done choking down these feathers, I’ll start experimenting with different primers and bumping up the load till this pullet, powder combination settles down like I know it can.

Jeff

[gaijin]

Great to hear your experience mirrors mine Jeff.
I've been reloading for 35 yrs. and this was a new experience for me.
Please advise on any further developments with this!

T

[Hammerdown77]

This is a timely thread for me.

Several weeks ago I was shooting a 44 magnum load using AA9 under a 250 grain cast Keith bullet (429421). Load was 18.5 grains, and I used a Winchester WLP primer (which I use for all my slow burning ball powders). I had used this load last summer in a SBH and it shot very well. The gun I was shooting this time was a Smith 29-4.

Ambient temp was about mid to upper 40's.

About once or twice every cylinder, I had rounds that had noticeably less report and recoil. Even the guy spotting for me (I was shooting at a plate 200 yds. away) noticed the difference. I never stuck a bullet, but on a couple I opened the cylinder and looked down the barrel just to make sure.

I've never had this issue before with AA9, although to be fair this is the first time I've shot any below 50 degrees. I've always used a standard primer primer in small pistol (357 mag), and either a standard or WLP in the large pistol rounds.

Most of Accurate's reloading data specifically indicates not to use a magnum primer with AA9, one exception being 357, I believe. And like the OP mentioned, Accurate's "Ruger Only" load data for AA9 is ridculously conservative.

I was surprised they told you to up the charge that much and use a magnum primer. That goes against everything they say in their loading manual and product literature.

I have a co-worker who stuck a bullet in a SRH 454 Casull using AA9. He was using a book load, mid to upper range, and standard small rifle primers (not mag). I don't know if it was cold that day or not, I'd have to ask him again.

Last time out I upped the charge to 19, 19.5, and 20 grains in the 44 under that same 250 Keith. All shots felt the same as far as recoil and blast goes. Next time I will bring the chrono.

Clearly, the Accurate loading data is not the last word on how to use AA9 powder...

[garbler]

The longer you load and the longer you shoot the more you will be able figure this out but none of the reloading manuals are the last word — not by a long shot. In fact the first part of these books is packed full of information telling you essentially there are so many variables and we know so little about the users of this information or their guns that we are playing it SAAMI safe. The books are guidelines only. Those that load a lot use them as the first step and figure it out from there.

I really don't know why people or AA calls their powders like #2, #5, 7 and 9 " Ball Powders " cause they are not. They are spherical powders and most wildcatters and books like 'Propellant Profiles' and gunwriters call them as they should be. It may be a marketing thing I don't know but the true Ball Powder was developed by WW ( Western Cartridge ) and nobody else made this type of powder. It had a deterrent coating on it that controlled the rate of burn but also made it a bit harder to ignite. It am not sure but it may be that AA #9 also has a deterrent coatings on the spherical granules.

Primers and powder columns are always hard to nail down as far as reliable ignition. However when you read these reloading manuals most of the time they suggest one primer for the cartridge and then the rest is bullets, charge and velocity with a goal of selling their products as much as possible. Once you learn to read pressure and can find good ignition without vertical stringing then you can mix the load for your gun following the rules of the road so to speak.

Though some of my sources are a bit old I would strongly recommend Ken Waters 'Pet Loads' books for a good cross section of what works and what is typically a problem with certain cartridges and guns. Right now I read about half of the posts here and started to get dizzy just thinking about all the potential issues with your loads, setting up your dies and potential measurement problems with chambers on your gun. You just have way too much going on at the same time to be able to rationally figure out how to get a good load to shoot well in your gun.

I mean working up the best load for accuracy ( the only test as far as I am concerned ) can mean literally changing one component at a time, keeping records and gradually finding and eliminating the offender. It may be something as simple as changing from LP to magnum LP primers in which case look for vertical stringing a good indicator of ignition problems or primers. Then again is could be your crimp since the bigger cartridges like some resistance most of time to help the primer flame ignite the column and of course keep the bullet in the case during recoil and not lodged in the chamber mouth. Have you checked your primer hits to see if perhaps you not getting enough out of the hammer/firing pin. I have refaced a lot of hammers on Smiths due to insufficient nose penetration but just a guess and another possibilty.

If I were you I would first make sure mechanically your gun is correct and that mean chamber slugging and measuring. Then slug the barrel to make sure your cylinder should be living with your barrel. I could tell you horror stories of early Vacqueros with tight chambers swaging down bullets so they rattled down the barrels. Next insure you are getting good hits on the primers then go to your loads and take it from the beginning ground up. I am not trying to sound like a no-it-all but I have been through this so many times with so many guns for almost fifty years that I actually look forward to this kind of stuff and seeing if I can make a peacock out of a turkey. It's the challenge and variables involved in handloading that keep a guy from getting bored.

[fredj338]

Originally Posted by tappedandtagged

Fltbed, you have me confused. If the expander die is under bullet diameter, then it won't do its job. It is meant to expand the top of the cartrdge ever so slightly to prevent the base of the bullet from shaving off when you seat it. I only expand, or bell, the mouth of my cases to the point that I can barely see the bell with the naked eye. The bevel base boolits I load then seat just fine without shaving off lead and the bell is done away with when I crimp.

Now I have heard of reducing the size of a neck expander in a bottle neck cartrdge to increase neck tension, but never anything of the sort on a straight walled handgun cartrdge.

Can you clear up my confusion. I don't think I'm understanding you correctly.

Not quite right. The expander has a straight shank & then a flared bevel The straight shank wants to be just slightly smaller than bullet dia, so for 452 bullet, 4515 would be ideal. Then you are press fitting the bullet for good neck tension. The flare is taken care of by the beveled portion of the expander. I do this on my 357sig dies to improve neck tension. The expander is 0.354", I don't get setback.
I haven't gotten around to trying AA#9 in my 44mags or heavy 45colt loads yet. I would try std primers first, but as with most ball powders, a mag primer will often give better ignition.

[BLUEDOT37]

Originally Posted by fltbed

OK, I’m now sitting down to eat my full plate of crow.

I defiantly believe you and T (gaijin) are on to something with the CCI 300 and the 250 gr. cast bullets with #9.

Jeff

Thanks for the update! I recently bought some WLP's (panic purchase) when I saw they actually had some primers on the shelf at the LGS & remembered I had plenty of regular large primers but not many for magnum use. If I load up some of the "problem childs" using the WLPs, instead of the CCI 300s before you, I'll post my results. I didn't mention it before, but all my shooting with this load was done either inside or outside when it was warm.

And by the way, I didn't take any offense to any of your posts so no apology needed... we're all just sharing knowledge, ideas & experiences.

[BLUEDOT37]

Originally Posted by Hammerdown77

This is a timely thread for me.

Several weeks ago I was shooting a 44 magnum load using AA9 under a 250 grain cast Keith bullet (429421). Load was 18.5 grains, and I used a Winchester WLP primer (which I use for all my slow burning ball powders). I had used this load last summer in a SBH and it shot very well. The gun I was shooting this time was a Smith 29-4.

Ambient temp was about mid to upper 40's. I've never had this issue before with AA9, although to be fair this is the first time I've shot any below 50 degrees.

I have a co-worker who stuck a bullet in a SRH 454 Casull using AA9. He was using a book load, mid to upper range, and standard small rifle primers (not mag). I don't know if it was cold that day or not, I'd have to ask him again.

Last time out I upped the charge to 19, 19.5, and 20 grains in the 44 under that same 250 Keith. All shots felt the same as far as recoil and blast goes.

Got a couple questions:

- do you know how the cylinder throats compare between the SBH & the 29-4? My 29-2's are not particularly loose (~.4325") but could be tighter. Just wondering if loose throats could be a factor in this problem?

- the last time you upped the charge, & you didn't have any problems, was it just as cold as the previous time?

- does your co-worker's SRH 454 have "loose" throats like mine (~.4545)? Any idea what powder weight he was using with his squib? How about bullet type: lead or jacketed? (Sound like he was using Casull cases, vs Colt cases, by the reference to SRP?)

[gaijin]

Originally Posted by BLUEDOT37

Got a couple questions:

- do you know how the cylinder throats compare between the SBH & the 29-4? My 29-2's are not particularly loose but could be tighter. Just wondering if loose throats could be a common denomiator in this problem?...

My experience with Ruger revolvers of recent manufacture, in both .44 Magnum and .45 (Colt) chambering has been they are tight.
Tight enough to swage cast bullets to under bore diameter and drastically reduce accuracy.

The same was true of S&W revolvers of recent manufacture; specifically three 629-4 MG's, two 629-6, two 625-6 MG and a new "Lock/MIM" 625 MG.
The throats were tight enough I finish reamed with a Manson reamer- where accuracy improved dramatically with cast bullets.

The issues discussed with AA9/CCI 300 Primers and 250(+-) KTSWC's occurred with the cylinder throats reamed in my case.

[rwsmith]

I think they have mountains of data, but only pick and chose to publish what is guaranteed not to get them in trouble. I'm not saying to exceed published loads but one manual gives the excuse for lack of data as being all new when the piezoelectric testing became available. That's fine will me except that piezo testing and the accompanying electronics and software had been around for 20 years when their manual stated that. And at the same time they brag about their great lab and shooting tunnel, etc. The lack of recipes (and blank space) in this manual is astounding. So, to wrap up, I'd say that they have a whole lot more data than they are letting on, including on the internet.

[rwsmith]

I think they have mountains of data, but only pick and chose to publish what is guaranteed not to get them in trouble. I'm not saying to exceed published loads but one manual gives the excuse for lack of data as being all new when the piezoelectric testing became available. That's fine will me except that piezo testing with the accompanying electronics and software had been around for 20 years when their manual stated that. And at the same time they brag about their great lab and shooting tunnel, etc. The lack of recipes (and blank space) in this manual is astounding. So, to wrap up, I'd say that they have a whole lot more data than they are letting on, including on the internet.

[dla]

Originally Posted by BLUEDOT37

I wanted to see if anybody else has had the same issues I've had using Accurate #9 powder. I'd always used flake powders (Hercules/Alliant) in the past for my reloading but after I added a 454 Casull to my inventory I decided it was time to try some of the ball powders. I tried some different loads with H110 & was aware not to load it down & to use magnum primers, & have had no issues with it in any of my cartridges. Since I have a large quantity on-hand of regular primers, that I use with my 44s & 45s, I was interested in AA#9 when I saw that the Speer & Lyman manuals do not show a need to use a magnum primer in there data. Looking at Accurate's manual for the 45 Colt doesn't show a magnum primer "specifically", but more on this later.

I loaded up some 45 Colt +P (Ruger/TC) rounds using new Starline cases, 18.5gr. of AA#9, .452" 255gr. cast LSWC bullets with a heavy crimp at the cannelure ring, CCI300 primers firmly seated. This load is in the 23K psi range, & I fired them in my 454 Casull pistol. The new powder was individually weighed, then a bullet was seated to 1.605". I only loaded 25 to start & the first few rounds fired fine. After a few more I noticed one that didn't have quite as sharp a report, but otherwise okay. After a few more good ones I had one with a small delay/hang-fire. I debated the issue & decided to press on & after a few more good ones the day ended with a squib & the bullet stuck in the barrel/forcing cone, with a wad of partially burnt powder packed behind it.

Accurate's online manual, v3.5, shows a range of 15.8 - 17.6gr. of #9 for this bullet. My 18.5grs is more powder, but less than I've subsequently used in other variations in 45 Colt & Casull cases. I sent an email to Accurate describing the problem & asking for their ideas. I received a prompt reply & was told that AA#9 is a hi-performance powder, that they definitely recommended using magnum primers & that my load was of too low pressure & I should bring up the charge. He also included a couple small partial charts for 45 Colt & 454 Casull loads. The 45LC chart had a AA#9 powder range of 19.1 - 22.5gr. with a 255gr LSWC using Rem 2-1/2 primers, at 25K psi. The chart for the 454 Casull loads were similar, but different, than online & showed CCI400 primers. I sent a reply asking why the powder range he said I should be using for the 45LC was (& still is) different from the range in the current v3.5 manual. I also asked why the primers shown in his charts are non-magnum primers. I've never got a reply back, even though I sent it a second time.

So this is the rub, how can they show one thing online but tell me something different? Why, if #9 needs a magnum primer (all weight loads & calibers?) don't they show a magnum primer being used, like CCI350 or CCI450? Using Win WP primers or Rem 2-1/2 (one primer does it all type) doesn't let me know a "magnum primer is recommended". And why does Speer & Lyman manuals show their loads with regular primers, CCI300, for all their AA#9 loadings, even 44Mag.?

I've reloaded for over 40 years, try to be careful, verify data is safe, loaded for pistols from 38 Spcl. to 500 Mag & admit that I don't know everything. So what's the deal with this? Was this just bad luck or am I missing something? Have others out there had any related issues using #9, in 45LC or other cartridges? I lost confidence in AA#9 & haven't loaded it in anything else since.

Not sure who came up with the bright idea to use a standard primer in such a low pressure application. CCI350 is your friend here. AA#9 is a good powder but it is going to need a little extra help in this application.

Another thing you might consider - the Lee FCD. I know you think your roll crimp is adequate, but your application wont recoil enough to pull anything. The FCD takes the guesswork out of creating a heavy roll-crimp, and the heavier crimp will raise the start pressure - which will help your AA#9 to get burning before bullet movement drops the pressure.

[Hammerdown77]

Originally Posted by BLUEDOT37

Got a couple questions:

- do you know how the cylinder throats compare between the SBH & the 29-4? My 29-2's are not particularly loose but could be tighter. Just wondering if loose throats could be a common denomiator in this problem?

- the last time you upped the charge, & you didn't have any problems, was it just as cold as the previous time?

- does your co-worker's SRH 454 have "loose" throats like mine (~.456")? Any idea what powder weight he was using with his squib? How about bullet type: lead or jacketed? (Sound like he was using Casull cases, vs Colt cases, by the reference to SRP?)

Not sure on the throats between the two, seems like last time I checked a .430 bullet could be pressed through with finger pressure on both the Smith and SBH. I'll check here in a bit, though.

It was not as cold the second time I shot an AA9 load in the 29. So it's not a direct comparison.

Not sure about throats or bullet weight or charge on the co-worker's SRH. I think he was using XTPs, in a Casull case. He did tell me it was summertime when he had this happen, though.

[BLUEDOT37]

Originally Posted by fltbed

OK, I’m now sitting down to eat my full plate of crow.

I defiantly believe you and T (gaijin) are on to something with the CCI 300 and the 250 gr. cast bullets with #9.

Jeff

Originally Posted by BLUEDOT37

Thanks for the update! I recently bought some WLP's (panic purchase) when I saw they actually had some primers on the shelf at the LGS & remembered I had plenty of regular large primers but not many for magnum use. If I load up some of the "problem childs" using the WLPs, instead of the CCI 300s before you, I'll post my results. I didn't mention it before, but all my shooting with this load was done either inside or outside when it was warm.

UPDATE: Okay, finally got to the range to try this "problem child" load using WLPs instead of CCI 300s, everything else is the same: 45 Colt S-L cases, AA#9 @ 18.5grs., 255gr. cast LSWC, heavy roll crimp (in crimp groove), OAL @ 1.605", & Winchester Large Pistol Primer (Std/Mag), ~1175-1200fps, ~22K CUP, VMD @ 63%, ~68F indoor range, shot in 7.5" bbl. Ruger SRH 454.

I loaded (25), all with individually weighed powder. All shot normally with no ignition irregularities or hangfires. There was minimal blackening on the case sides. A few cases had a scant amount of unburnt powder visible, but nothing noteworthy for his level of load.

So, like "gaijin" previously stated/found, the WLPs smoothed out this load. I think if I use this powder/bullet combo again, I'll up it to 19.0 - 19.5grs. (20.5grs would up the load VMD to 70%).

[mtgianni]

Glad it is working for you.