Can you help interpret this load data, please?

[yess]

Hi All,

I am reloading for the 929 9mm, using an Australian powder, AP50N. The data supplied by the manufacturer (link below) doesn't list the AP50N powder and the projectile I am using (a Berry's 124g HBRN TP). They list the 30 and 70 data with the 124g Berry's projectile - but not the 50 data. I was hoping to get some advice on loading using this combo. I have loaded the combo before for a Glock, 3.6g of AP50 under the Berry's 124 TP seemed to cycle the slide well, but I'm now wondering if that was in excess of what ADI would recommend, if they were to list the AP50N and the 124g Berry data?

Thanks!

Warning, ADI Powders Handloaders' Guide

 

[TripleLock]

My first recommendation would be to contact ADI and seek their advice:
Contact us, ADI Powders Handloaders' Guide

 

[oldman10mm]

Their 'powder equivalents' chart shows AP50N equivalent to HP38,e3,PB,W231. If that was my project,I would find the starting loads for those with a 124 and 'guesstimate' from those. I've been reloading since the 70s' and 'relatively guesstimates' has yet to fail me. The 'starting' load might not be enough to cycle the action but at least it wouldn't be in the 'higher pressure danger zone'. Many would be against this practice. Contacting ADI is the best path.

 

[cadmike]

Nothing wrong with an educated guess as long as it truly is educated.

Also in looking at their data they do list a 120 grain lead and a 125 grain lead bullet. Those will be very close. You're not going to blow up that 929 revolver, and cycling obviously isn't an issue. Good luck.

 

[yess]

Thanks for the replies.
I have contacted ADI but they didn't commit to numbers, simply said work up a light load to start using the 125 cast projectile data. I started at 2.5g and the projectile barely left the barrel (this was in a Glock, I want to use the same reloads for both the Glock and 929). My concern is that in working my way up to a load that cycles my glock I have exceeded the Max load recommendations for the cast data - I'll quickly add that I have done so by slowly increasing the load amount by .2g at a time till I hot 3.0g then I went in 0.1g increments to 3.6-3.7.
I guess another way to pose this question would be, do you think Max recommendations are conservative? Not like Trump conservative, more like Bush conservative? I'm just concerned that even though I worked my way up slowly to these numbers I'm pushing my luck with hot loads?

 

[Rogeronimo]

It's always been my understanding that AP50N/AS50N are imported as International Clays, which is how I treat it ... P for pistol, S for shotgun. It has a strong tendency to spike, is only at home in a handful of cases, and I tiptoe around when working with it. I have a load that I like in 45 ACP, with a 230 grain XTP.

 

[Rogeronimo]

My info from ADI shows AP50N with its own personality, on par with HP38/W231, e3, PB, AA#2, and N320. Again, its touchy, so I recommend against transposing any numbers from one to the other. Having said that, I'm a square peg, round hole type myself, and would cautiously carry on as you are doing.

 

[cadmike]

The published loads for cast projectiles are likely quite conservative, in order to reduce the possibility of leading with those projectiles. I wouldn't worry about going a little hotter than that data.

 

[Rule3]

It's always been my understanding that AP50N/AS50N are imported as International Clays, which is how I treat it ... P for pistol, S for shotgun. It has a strong tendency to spike, is only at home in a handful of cases, and I tiptoe around when working with it. I have a load that I like in 45 ACP, with a 230 grain XTP.

AS50N is indeed International, NOT AP50N,

I have the chart of actual Hodgdon/IMR powders made by ADI, not the "equivalence chart.

 

[Nevada Ed]

Per post #5

Sierra manual does not even list your 3.7gr load as a minimum loading
for their 125 gr, jacketed bullet.

They start at 3.9 grs...........


Maybe 50 is not quite the same as w231.... ?

 

[yess]

Per post #5

Sierra manual does not even list your 3.7gr load as a minimum loading
for their 125 gr, jacketed bullet.

They start at 3.9 grs...........


Maybe 50 is not quite the same as w231.... ?

Yes, exactly, this has been issue for me. Just to confuse things, ADI's 'Powder Equivalents' page lists w231 as within about 5% - (same as HP38 and N320) which doing the math according to the Sierra manual (and anecdotal evidence) would mean the 'hot' load I am concerned about is the minimum load for 125 jacketed. ADI Powder Equivalents here:

Powder equivalents, ADI Powders Handloaders' Guide

And absolutely, as Rogeronimo has stated the AP50N spikes very quickly - hence my concern of being at (possibly) the top end of AP50N's use in 9mm cases.

 

[Rogeronimo]

Personally, I don't like the bullet diameter-to-bearing surface ratio of the 9mm luger with such a powder. As such, I go much slower when chasing after the cartridge's power potential. For accurate target loads, your choice should perform well.

 

[Rogeronimo]

AS50N is indeed International, NOT AP50N,

I have the chart of actual Hodgdon/IMR powders made by ADI, not the "equivalence chart.

Absolutely, and when fact-checking myself, ADI makes a distinction as well. Some hold the opinion of "same powder, different size" for case fill/metering friendliness, but the data disagrees with that notion. Even if true, the burn characteristics changed substantially enough to warrant a separate entry in the equivalency chart.

 

[rwsmith]

Get a chonograph and......

START LOW! That is of course, if you can't find published data.

The heavier a bullet is, the less powder it takes. Using the 135 gr. LRN data should be ok for the 125 gr. bullet with the AD50 powder. Ultimately, since the bullet you are using is lighter, your max load will be a bit more than the 135 gr data.

 

[Rogeronimo]

I'm just concerned that even though I worked my way up slowly to these numbers I'm pushing my luck with hot loads?

I guess to throw my two cents straight at your statement, I believe you are wise to be cautious. This powder goes vertical in a heartbeat with no warning. If you're cycling with good accuracy and salty recoil (does it feel like a 9mm?), you may well be there! In my opinion, there are much safer choices with which to extract top performance from this cartridge. I am curious where you're at in velocity at this level.

 

[noylj]

You use data for the next heavier bullet
You use data for that manufacturer's next faster powder
You stop and ask yourself: why didn't the manufacturer/supplier have load data for it? Maybe it is a bad/unsafe choice and I should use powder that does have published load data.

 

[yess]

You use data for the next heavier bullet
You use data for that manufacturer's next faster powder
You stop and ask yourself: why didn't the manufacturer/supplier have load data for it? Maybe it is a bad/unsafe choice and I should use powder that does have published load data.

So, in other words, instead of the manufacturer saying it's not advised to use this powder with ANY combination other than the three or four extremely narrow protocols we provide, the consumer is meant to make a series of quite tangential deductions and inferences (as you have done here) instead?

Thanks for your input. I've deduced and inferred from your message I won't be taking your advice on board.

 

[Wise_A]

Actually, noylj's advice is quite sound--though I normally wouldn't use next-fastest data. Then again, all the powders in my library are mainstream, and very few of my bullets are oddballs.

You're in different territory. The powder is poorly-documented, and the bullet complicates factors a bit with its hollow-base design.

Anyways, Berry's recommends jacketed data for its thick-plated bullets. Which complicates things a little more because there's no jacketed data on ADI's website. But I've used heavier charges of HP-38, Bullseye, Titegroup, Universal, and Unique in 124-grain heavy-plated bullets before--up to and above 4 grains--and those powders range from much faster to much slower.

Hence, I think you're fine. If it cycles well, and isn't unduly harsh, the Glock should have no trouble with it. If it were me, I would have started at a bit under the max for an equivalent-weight lead bullet, and moved up into jacketed territory until it started feeding the Glock reliably. With no jacketed data, then I'd probably stop as soon as it cycled, and paid careful attention to consistency of noise, recoil, and velocity.

 

[noylj]

>So, in other words, instead of the manufacturer saying it's not advised to use this powder with ANY combination other than the three or four extremely narrow protocols we provide, the consumer is meant to make a series of quite tangential deductions and inferences (as you have done here) instead?
Dear yess:
Even when I try to be nice, I get snarked...
All of my manuals have a statement that says something like: Only use load data from reputable manuals...or...Only use loads shown in manual.
If they don't show it, they don't recommend it.
I am not going to look up in the posts, but I seem to remember you actually called and asked about load data, so you got their response.
Berry's actually says: "You can use published load data for lead/cast bullets or low to mid-range FMJ data, as long as it is the same weight bullet. Berry's offers our standard plate bullets which can handle velocities up to 1,250 fps and 1,500 fps for our Thick Plate (TP) versions."
They don't blindly say to just use jacketed bullet data.

 

[Rule3]

Seems like a whole lot of "run around" for little gain.

I do not know where you live (what Country) but are you limited to this one and only powder?? If there is no data for it then perhaps it is not a good choice??

Can you not simply get some other powder(s)