AA-5 Loads in 38 Special are HOT!

link

"Great to learn that the old lots are different from the new."

Is that known for sure to be true for AA5?

Did you click the link to view the pictures?

From a flattened flake to a flattened ball.

I'll say that is a big difference in appearance.

Now does that mean old AA data is outdated? Maybe!

I never used any AA powders until ten or so years ago.

Someone may have the answer to that question.

BLM
 
I'd love to chronograph the load, but my chrony is headed back to the mother ship for repairs, and I'm probably just going to buy another one anyway, to use as a spare. So it may be awhile, but I will get those loads clocked.

The powder lot involved appears to be # C829132108. Could that mean it was packaged at 9:08pm on 8-29-13? If that's the case it's not as old as I suspected, and was pretty fresh when I bought it.
 
I need to know where it states that canister grade powder varies as much as 10%.

That appears to be a statement of fact which I have never seen in a reloading manual.

There are other reasons for variation in how a powder performs.

This includes temperature, bullet weight shape and the various size and thickness of the cases used.

Speer #14 only states that some minor variations will occur. I would consider 10 percent from batch to batch more than minor.

If you will please reference the source for the 10% burn rate variation.

I tried AA #5 in the .38 special and was disappointed. I'll stick to Unique in that caliber.

After trying AA#5 in several loads and various handguns I finally found a load where it exceeded my expectations.

I had acquired several hundred .45 caliber Nosler 185 grain JHP bullets in a deal.

When the Nosler and AA #5 where matched together in a reload I was truly impressed.

So now I know where the pound of AA #5 will be most effectively used.

BLM

Notes on lot to lot variation can be found in most powder manufactures technical notes. The degree of variation are dependent on a number of variables.

10% might to be considered minor by some including Spear- would suggest you ask the what range actual value it means.

Highlighted in yellow are variables I pointed out in post 11, and are only a few of the many.

What reload data says to use magnum primers?

What reloading manual recommends substitution of components and start with near max loads?

The OP has not provided OAL information, no chronograph data is presented, lots of missing information to definitively say if what the was actually "hot". If it was hot for this gun is it because the load is actually hot or the throat tight for the bullets used.

On identification of powders from photos, several recent threads in this forum in the last 2 years. BAD and BAD ADVISE.

You could send powder samples to a lab for specific heat test to determine the difference from the manufactures published values. You would also need this data for the lot of powder used for the load data you are using to understand how this might impact the OP experience.

Bottom Line

This would of all been avoided if the OP would of followed the reloading manuals you have referenced. Start low and work up slowly.

Good Luck and be safe
Ruggy
 
ruggyh

It's been said that the 10 percent variation is Hogwash.

That Hogwash was not posted by myself.

If you have a source, that states, that powders vary by as much as 10 percent please list that source. You have not quoted a single source so far.

Otherwise it is Hogwash.

I believe that modern canister powders are held to a much closer standard of variation,

More likely within 2 percent give or take a little and that would be acceptable for reloaders working up a load.

This is not a pissing contest. I want verification of a statement presented as a fact.

Otherwise we are back to Hogwash.

Please tell all of us where you heard. read or otherwise was revealed to only yourself that canister powders vary by as much 10 percent.

I really want to know. I never thought it was possible. It's a bit of a concern.

Honestly I never heard of such a problem and I just want to know the truth.:)

BLM
 
Canister powders are....

Canisterpowder are supposed to be close tolerance because very many reloaders are hobbyists with no test equipment. Bulk powder supplied to ammo manufacturers is not to such a tight spec, but each batch is tested and adjusted to give the right pressure/velocity.

That being said, those two pictures of #5 look VERY different. That doesn't say anything about burn characteristics, which may be the same regardless of appearance. I really wonder, though,:confused::confused::confused:
 
"That being said, those two pictures of #5 look VERY different. That doesn't say anything about burn characteristics, which may be the same regardless of appearance."
It's a virtual certainty that the ballistic performance of AA5 must be very close to the same no matter what the visual appearance. I believe Western procures propellants from various manufacturers around the world, but nonetheless the ballistic performance would have to meet the same specifications no matter where it came from or what it looks like. Otherwise, many years of published reloading data becomes worthless and possibly dangerous. So can anyone document that the ballistic performance of the two forms of AA5 differs in any significant way? And are the same differences in appearance found in other AA powders?
 
Lets say they are no variations between powders and 10% is an exaggeration.(when I return states side I will dig up several Military third party testing reports for you)

Would you please post your references for powder identification from photos.

Are you also going to discount all the other observation?

Are you advocating component substitution without regard?

You could call Johan Loubser (ballistician) at Western Powder and get his take on what might be happening.

Hope he figures out his problem without incident.

USE safe reloading practices and you wont end here.

Good luck and be safe.
Ruggy
 
Last edited:
What reloading manual recommends substitution of components and start with near max loads?

As mentioned earlier, I have loaded this combination of components before without any issues, in fact my previous loads were loaded with more powder than this load. I did NOT "start with near max loads" as you claim, I'm clearly below 90% of maximum, according to Accurate's own load data.

I did not provide Chronograph data because my Chrony is undergoing reconstructive surgery. ( I also stated that earlier.)

I have to admit I got a bit complacent about loading 38's, after several hundred thousand I thought I had a pretty good handle on it, and I'm shooting my handloads in modern guns, all clearly rated for Plus-P loads.

The use of magnum primers was due to the non-availability of standard primers, which heretofore has caused no other issues.

If you want to nit-pick every detail of the information I have provided, then you missed the stated intent of this thread. I was looking for input regarding pressure issues with this particular powder, not a rambling diatribe of potential causes attributable to my reloading practices and alleged variances in the burning rates of canister-grade powders, as yet completely unsubstantiated.

BTW, it's SPEER. Not Spear. ;)
 
Laflin&Rand

This has been a mystery and an education of previous unknown changes in powder shapes in the manufacture of AA #5.

Use the previously posted link to see the powder as it was in 1980 and now after 2006.

Papajohn428 thank you for staying with this thread despite some posts which may have not been well thought out.

In searching for more powder information I found a PDF for Laflin & Rand.

This company was making powder back in the day and was bought out by Dupont.

Check out the link to see information about powders and see images from powder canisters from long ago.

Also check out the original Unique stored under water in a jar on page 19.

I think that only bulk powders vary 10 percent from batch to batch.

Canister grade powders have to be spot on for data to remain relevant as has been pointed out previously.

Enjoy the history of Laflin&Rand. This thread lead me to find it after trying to verify possible powder inconsistencies.

http://www.castpics.net/subsite2/GeneralReference/L&R-Smokeless.pdf

BLM
 
"Canister grade powders have to be spot on for data to remain relevant as has been pointed out previously."
Absolutely. I have no idea as to where the "10% variation" came from, but it is nowhere near that for canister powders intended for sale to reloaders. Any reputable powder manufacturer will maintain the lot-to-lot ballistic characteristics of its lines of canister powders (this is done by blending) within very tight limits for however long as it is produced and sold. It really cannot do otherwise, as that would subject it to potential product liability lawsuits. That's not the case for powders sold to the ammunition loaders, and lot-to-lot variations are the norm. However, that is not an issue for them, as every ammunition manufacturer tests each lot of powder purchased in its own ballistics lab to adjust powder charges for a suitable load which meets pressure and muzzle velocity standards for each cartridge, something an individual handloader cannot do.
 
There are so many shots being fired from all directions on this thread - I'm hesitant to jump in - but what the heck, it's the internet.

Not many Accurate Arms powder fans around on the 'NET from the boards that I read.

I started with them, because the guy that showed me how to reload back 20 years ago used them exclusively. I have since branched out, but have an almost sentimental regard for AA powder.

I am aware that their manufacturing for various powders has moved around the globe. It was in Israel, then the Czech Republic. I can't find a reliable source to quote - but I have used canisters marked as manufactured in both locations over the years.

I cannot recall any significant changes in recommended loads - but their standard disclaimer is that the "current" published data supersedes all prior data. Eh, sounds like liability-speak to me.

This does not contribute to the OP's original issues or address any of his concerns.
It does speak to the change in appearance of various AA powders over the years.

Best Regards,
Fritz.
 
Okay, I decided some detective work was necessary to rule out certain questions about my reloads, so I took 20 rounds out of three separate ammo cans of what I'd loaded, broke them down, and determined that NONE of them were overloaded, the most powder I got out of a round was 5.1 grains, most were less than that. I used an inertial bullet puller, which lets some of the powder jump out around the collet when the bullet is released, but it's generally pretty negligible, assuming you stop whacking the "hammer" when the bullet is pulled out.

I also calibrated my Chargemaster's scale before I began, it's always been dead-on,and I have no reason to suspect a problem there. I have a lot of check-weights of different sizes, and they all weighed what they should.

The bullets I used are from a local commercial caster, and don't appear to be any harder than normal, I still have several boxes on hand and my hardness tester tells me they're all about the same.

Some of the pulled rounds had magnum primers, some had standard primers, just like the ones I fired.

I also had a lengthy conversation with Engineer1911 at his behest, and while we talked about a lot of things, most of it was about reloading. He brought up a point I hadn't considered, that of the powder being stored in a warehouse somewhere for a long time before the "Pistol Powder Shortage of 2013" hit. I bought the powder in question in October of 2013, didn't use it until about six months ago, and of the five pounds I bought (when there was nothing else to be found) I still have most of one left. Having no AA#2 on hand to compare it with, I can't say it looks more like AA#2 or AA#5, but I do recall that when I photographed all the AA powders I had on hand several years ago, the only way I could tell most apart was by looking at the label next to them when I took the photos. AA#7 and #9 have smaller grains, but #2 and #5 look the same to me.

I use a lot of brass that's been fired numerous times, but sorting the older brass from the newer stuff would be impossible, I use what I have until the primer pockets loosen up or it splits. So some of the brass might be work hardened, but when I encounter a load where the bullet requires more force than normal to seat (like with military brass) I set it aside and put it in a different lot, usually to be shot in a stouter gun like my 686 or the GP-100, just in case there's an issue I don't want my 38's to be subjected to.

I know magnum primers can make pressures spike, but this is the ONLY time it's been so noticeable, and not all the hot loads had magnum primers, so I have to think it's a powder issue.

An earlier poster mentioned that he thought I might have AA#2 that was mis-labeled as #5, and thus far, that seems like the only thing that makes sense. That, or a very hot batch of AA#5, maybe one that was stored in a hot warehouse that altered the burn rate somehow. All the canisters were sealed, but far be it from me to say it's not possible.

It seems a call to Western Powders would be in order, the lot number should tell us how old the powder actually is, I suspect it's more than a couple years old, regardless of how long ago I bought it.

If anyone has any thoughts on what I may be overlooking, feel free to chime in, I'm all ears. If it was a few rounds here and there I'd chalk it up to discrepancies in the brass, but it's ALL of them, and I'm a bit concerned. Having loaded at least a half-million rounds of pistol ammo without this kind of issue leaves me wondering what's going on here.

Get a Chronograph. That adds A LOT to your investigation. They only cost about $70 or $80 and are well worth the money. I use mine all the time and it helps me a lot in determining load effectiveness.

I am somewhat new to AA powders. I have a can of AA7 and AA2 that a friend sold to me in bulk with the rest of his reloading equipment.
For .38 Special, I usually use Alliant Unique or Buffalo Bore and I've even experimented with 2400 generating poor results with it. I have a can of Power Pistol as well but, in my experience, Unique can at least match in in .38 Special.
 
So did you contact Western or not? If not, I would at least send them an email? They have been responsive to my occasional inquiry and never acted like I was too much of a burden. :) Might give them a call or send a note.

I don't want to the add to the misery of multiple "lectures" but I can only say from my own experience that I have been surprised so many times by "odd developments in handloading" (:o) that I rarely load in big batches like I once did, particularly rifle cartridges. (By odd I mean just unsatisfactory - not dangerous.)

I wish the whole standard/magnum pistol primer thing would just go away. I can't recall a case where a magnum primer ever improved accuracy of any of my loads, but I do realize things are a bit different these days, particularly with the new ball powders and the really big magnum handgun rounds like the .460 and .500. I cringe every time I walk into a shop needing standard small pistol primers and all I see are magnums. :mad:
 
Get a Chronograph. That adds A LOT to your investigation. They only cost about $70 or $80 and are well worth the money. I use mine all the time and it helps me a lot in determining load effectiveness. ......"


Please reread post #8!

"Some fool shot up my chronograph rods, so it's on the way back to the mothership for an overhaul."

Best,
Rick
 
Last edited:
Back
Top