No.9 in the 9

[Just another 22 shooter]

Last summer I scored box powder at a yard sale. In that box was an unopened bottle of AA N0.9. I had a small amount of No.9 left from a previous purchase many years ago. I had never found it to be the best in any of the cartridges I'd tired it in, mostly 44 mag and 357 mag.
Last year I got a Ruger 9PC Carbine that is just plain fun to shoot. Put a Vortex 1-4x Crossfire II on it.
This winter I decided it was time to figure out one load for the carbine. I'd been shooting Blue Dot in it with RMR's 124 grain jacket hollow point, thinking the slower powders would give best performance out of the 16" barrel. And it does give the top velocity of the powders I tried, but I was thinking I could get a bit more accuracy out of the carbine.
Looking at Sierra's data from the 5th edition, it showed No.9 data for the 125 grain bullet. I started at 8 grns and went up to the max, 9.8 grns. It showed good accuracy at 25 yards with all the No.9 loads. I chronographed the 9.8 load and got 1384fps mv 10 shot average. 5 shots into just under an inch at 25 yards. Pretty much what I was looking for. A soon as the weather gets warmer, I'll take out to 100 , just for fun.

 

[max]

Be careful, if I remember correctly Blue Dot has a bad reputation in very cold weather.

 

[DWalt]

It never occurred to me to use #9 for loading 9mm as it is slow, in the same general class as 2400, H110, and IMR 4227. But whatever works.

 

[sourdough44]

I checked a few manuals, not much there with AA-#9 powder. I'm one that likes a bit of a faster powder with the 9mm. Not saying there won't be data somewhere, then if it works for you, that's all great.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I don't think I would use anything as slow as AA#9 in the 9mm. The slowest I would go is AA#7. HS-6, Power Pistol and other powders in that burn rate range are options.

 

[Biggfoot44]

well , AA-9 is more forgiving at lower pressure spectrum .

It sticks in my memory that in developing the .45 Super Dean Grinnell found the best results with AA-9 , with pressure levels below 9x19 levels . So yeah , this is plausible .

 

[Cdog]

You're not the first person I've heard talk about good results with #9 in the PC9.

I use #7 and Longshot, but if I had #9 on the shelf I'd try it too.
I picked up a PC Carbine about a year ago. It was truly an impulse purchase. I've had more fun with it than I ever imagined.

 

[Paul in Nevada]

Some of these powders that perform poorly in hand guns work great in pistol caliber carbines. Personally, I would rather find one load that works well in both handgun and carbine since that's the major draw for pistol caliber carbines to me. If you already have the powder and need to burn it up it sounds like a good load.

 

[Sevens]

Well there's one guarantee that's basically built-in.

If you are using a powder that is too slow for the typical operation (as you are…) then if your bullet exits the barrel every time, you are at the absolute wrong end of the equation for catastrophic failure.

The much more common BAD powder choice is the cheapskate route where folks try to use powders that burn too fast for the application.

When you pick a too-slow powder, it isn't possible to stuff too much in to a case and go over pressure.

So the only safety concern here is that every shot you take has a bullet that exits the barrel. If you have that, then you have safety.

 

[BillBro]

Ive always had great results with A9 in my 44mags. Never tried it in a 357 but 44mag, yes sir. I agree with others, seems too slow for 9mm.
For 9mm and 5.56 reloading ingo please go take a look at NATO Reloading
Extensive amount of great info there.

Sorry, failed to see that youre shooting it in a ruger pcc with a 16" barrel. That obviously has changed things a bit, in your favor. That longer barrel apparently affords more burn time.

 

[Nevada Ed]

Some bad mouth Blue Dot but it will give you Maximum fps with the 115 & 124
speer JHP Gold Dot loads.
I have even tried IMR4227 with the 124 9mm bullet, which cleared the end of the barrel
but it did come with two stove pipes, in my testing.
Which shows that #9 might be doable in the 9mm, if the fps is high enough to work your pistols slide.

I have lots of "Interresting loads" that I have developed over the years
but my main thing, is that they be safe for my pistols and be beyond "Squib" areas and under pressures that might be dangerous.

Have fun.

 

[STORMINORMAN]

Not to hijack this thread, but...

Speaking of the PC9...

Has anyone (else!) had problems with GLOCK magazines reliably feeding with their PC9s?

I know this is probably better served on the Ruger forum but reloaders on THIS forum reading about #9 and the PC9 are perhaps likely to know what I'm referring to (after all, who really uses Ruger magazines in their PC9 other than those who would carry their Ruger 9mm pistols?) and would likely share some info, please?

Cheers!

 

[rosewood]

No 9 in the 9mm, can it be anymore obvious than that?

I loaded No 9 in the 10mm specifically for my Hipoint 10mm carbine. I figured a slower burning powder would benefit in a 16" barrel. I was right. I think I am getting 1555 FPS with a 180 XTP out of the rifle and 967 ft lbs of energy and great accuracy.

Rosewood

 

[Just another 22 shooter]

Speaking of the PC9...

Has anyone (else!) had problems with GLOCK magazines reliably feeding with their PC9s?

I know this is probably better served on the Ruger forum but reloaders on THIS forum reading about #9 and the PC9 are perhaps likely to know what I'm referring to (after all, who really uses Ruger magazines in their PC9 other than those who would carry their Ruger 9mm pistols?) and would likely share some info, please?

Cheers!

I've had my Ruger PC9 for a bit over a year and put a bunch of rounds down range with it. I use 33 round Glock factory, Magpul 21 round, and a Magpul 15 round magazines. Have had no problems what so ever with any of them.

 

[STORMINORMAN]

I've had my Ruger PC9 for a bit over a year and put a bunch of rounds down range with it. I use 33 round Glock factory, Magpul 21 round, and a Magpul 15 round magazines. Have had no problems what so ever with any of them.

Does your GLOCK insert allow the magazines to "wiggle" fore & aft?

P.S. Thanks!

 

[Just another 22 shooter]

Does your GLOCK insert allow the magazines to "wiggle" fore & aft?

P.S. Thanks!

Yup, Just the nature of the beast, I guess; the Ruger mag did the same thing and I had zero feeding problems with it.

 

[Racer X]

Does your GLOCK insert allow the magazines to "wiggle" fore & aft?

P.S. Thanks!

couldn't you glue in some shim stock to tighten it up a bit? You could check clearance as it is with feeler gauges. I assume you are old enough to know what those are.......

 

[Cdog]

Speaking of the PC9...

Has anyone (else!) had problems with GLOCK magazines reliably feeding with their PC9s?

I know this is probably better served on the Ruger forum but reloaders on THIS forum reading about #9 and the PC9 are perhaps likely to know what I'm referring to (after all, who really uses Ruger magazines in their PC9 other than those who would carry their Ruger 9mm pistols?) and would likely share some info, please?

Cheers!

I don't own a Glock, but I do own multiple Security 9 pistols. Their earlier low street price made them easy to buy. Their performance makes them easy to own. My Glock conversion is still in the package. From what I've seen the mag wells lack of stable support is there regardless of type.

Ya'll are correct about the ability to use the same mags/ammo as my pistols being a key "excuse" I made for buying the PC9.

If I loaded slower powders like #9 they would be special purpose limited run/fun, not something I'd likely ever use in both weapons.