Reloading help

[uncle norman]

I'm not a prolific reloader but I worked up some 44 mag loads this weekend using AA9 and Winchester LP primers behind some Speer Gold Dot Soft Point 240 gr bullets and was mistified by the results. I started at 18.4 grains and worked 3 rounds each up 1/10 grain until I got to 19.5. I expected to see a gradual increase in velocity but was amazed that I got an average velocity of 1,274 with 18.4 and "only" 1,333 at 19.5. All the other loadings were up and down between these velocities. I used Lee carbide dies with the factory crimp die as the last step. I VERY carefully weighed each charge and couldn't believe the spread between shots in each grain loading. The 18.4 load clocked 1,220 1,294 and 1,308. Abviously if I can get 1,311 fps and 916 ft/lbs out of 18.6 grains and a tight group why load to 19.5. (I know 3 rounds of each grain loading isn't enough but I was also carefully looking for signs of pressure and didn't want to waste ammo if some showed in the lighter loadings.)

Somebody please enlighten me. Are these spreads whacky? Could my seldom used old chrony be off?

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

I know a lot of guys recommend using standard primers for AA#9, but try using magnum primers. It just may help bring those wide spreads down. I don't usually worry too much about the ES though. I have loads in my log book that show spreads as high as 70 fps that turned in the best accuracy. Generally though, low ES equates to better accuracy.

Magnum primers will light your load easier, and possibly more uniformly. Also, when you see very little gain for each incremental charge, you are at or very near the top for that load combo.

I have an article in Handloader that talks about "reading" pressure signs, or at least those that are generally used. It is almost impossible to "read" pressure using traditional methods like primer flattening, cratering, sticky extraction etc. I know a lot of guys don't want to believe it but when it comes from a labratory or some place that has scientific methods of judging pressure like a pressure gun, then I tend to listen to it.

 

[Catshooter]

I think that you have reached a plateu with that powder. I've not used AA9 before, but I've seen that sort of thing in the past before.

You can check your work if you doubt it, but your probably doing fine.


Cat

 

[uncle norman]

Thanks, gentlemen. Since I started at the minimum load in the Accurate on-line data sheet at 18.4 I thought there was nowhere to go but up. However, that loading is calculating at 865 ft/lbs. Three commercial loadings for 240 gr bullets (Winchester white box, Blazer and Mag Tech) all are about 750 ft/lbs. Would you suggest loading down more or would that cause problems with AA9? I've heard that one shouldn't underload too much. I don't think there is a much slower powder than 9 is there?

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

Since AA#9 is a ball powder, I wouldn't cut the charge from what they use for a starting load.

2400 is very similar to AA#9 as far as the velocity you'll achieve with it in my experience. H-110/296 (they are the same powder from the same maker- Hodgdon) are slower and will give even more velocity with the same weight bullet, as will the much newer Hodgdon Lil'Gun.

 

[fredj338]

You need a mag primer. AA#9 is pretty dense & w/o a hot flame to start, it will be inconsitant depending on powder location @ the time of the shot. You will get more uniform vel. & accuracy w/ a mag primer. 2400 is slower & I don't use a mag primer, but it's not a ball powder either.

 

[uncle norman]

The Winchester primers I used say, "Large pistol for standard and mangum loads." I guess that doesn't mean magnum primers, huh?

 

[MrPhil]

Lyman's 49th manual shows starting loads of 19 grains for AA#9. I've never used that powder but have found large extreme spreads when operating near the bottom of load data.

As to WLP, they have given me good performance with H110, another notoriously hard to start ball powder.

 

[Skip Sackett]

Just some thoughts.

AA#9 is a GREAT powder for the 44mag. One thing you will not have with it that you will with other powders is muzzle flash. Oh, there will be some, it just won't be "flame thrower" quality!

I have loaded quite a few rounds with AA#9 and it works much better at the top end of the data, much like the other slow pistol powders.

What are you shooting these rounds out of?

If you are shooting them out of a revolver, it could be the reason for the big spreads. If it were me I would use only one chamber to test out of. Use the same one for every load. Mark it so the next time you go out you can us it again.

Because everything made by man is going to have "tolerances" you may be experiencing differences in machining of the chambers.

Hope this helps.

 

[uncle norman]

If you are shooting them out of a revolver, it could be the reason for the big spreads. If it were me I would use only one chamber to test out of. Use the same one for every load. Mark it so the next time you go out you can us it again.

Because everything made by man is going to have "tolerances" you may be experiencing differences in machining of the chambers.

Hope this helps.

Oh, man. Something else to worry about! I'm using a Smith 629 (6 1/2" barrel)

 

[Skip Sackett]

Not to worry!

Oh, man. Something else to worry about! I'm using a Smith 629 (6 1/2" barrel)

I didn't mean to mention this to make you more miserable, norm!

If we know something though, we can work around it. Think about it. All it takes is just a teeny weeny something to be off and WHAMMO, you have a variance.

First off, how far away from the muzzle is your chronograph? With these BANGERS, you want to have it at least 15' away. Any closer and you may get false readings. Secondly, if we understand the mechanics of a revolver, we can get some amazing results. If you use the same chamber to do your testing in, even if it is a different one every time out, you cut down the variables by 16%, think about it. Then if we realize that a double action blow on the primer is lighter than a single action strike, and that makes the primer act differently, then we can use that to our advantage, not be worried by it. Do all of your testing in single action mode.

It will help in consistency, honest.

FWIW

 

[uncle norman]

I see your point about using 1 charging hole. Cut down all variables that you can to get close to the scientific method. I had the chrony at about 10' because I was shooting at the target at 15 yds. I'll move it farther away next time. Can a chronograph get out of calibration? I really don't see how that could happen. (I fired 6 rounds of MagTech 240 gr flat nosed soft point that said on the back of box 1,178fps. My shots averaged 1194 so the chrony doesn't seem out of whack.) I have noticed that in my 7 strings of 3 shots the first is the slowest in 6 of them. I shot each time with a cold barrel. I don't know what that says, just an observation.

 

[fredj338]

The Winchester primers I used say, "Large pistol for standard and mangum loads." I guess that doesn't mean magnum primers, huh?

Well yes Norman, you can use current WLP as mag priemrs. Win. used to make separate mag & std. Me, I think the WLP is not a true mag primer, but that is just me, so I use CCI or Fed. when I need a mag primer. If you run AA#9 @ low pressures it wil give you quite a bit of variation in vel. SO run them hotter or seitch powders. You might try a ture mag primer as well, good crimp helps. If you don't want high end loads, change to a med. burn rate powder. What level of vel are you trying to achieve?

 

[Steve C]

Relatively small changes in charge weight for a slow powder will not yield much of a change in velocity and small samples don't give you a good method of correlating the charge weight to the average velocity. What you are seeing is average velocities that are close enough together and the variations large enough that there is overlap due to the incidental numbers generated.

FWIF I generally work up in 2% increments assuming the start load is the common 10% reduction from maximum load. If not take the difference bewteen the start and the max and divide by 5 so for your example 19.5-18.4=1.1 and 1.1/5=.2gr increments. This allows 10 rounds at each load from start to max that conveniently uses up a 50 round box of cases. First test shoot 5 rounds of each load for group accuracy off a rest and if one charge level has exceptional accuracy it is then shot over the chrono for velocity.

 

[oldRoger]

Don't worry be happy, the reason for using only one chamber for tests is to eliminate what could be (not necessarily actually is) a big variable. You may see less spread in velocities from a single chamber.
When you go to the extra work of careful measurement and recording, the single chamber stipulation is not a big deal to add to your test.

 

[sonny]

Oh, man. Something else to worry about! I'm using a Smith 629 (6 1/2" barrel)

In my day, I called those things problems. Nowdays it's called a challenge. And you may find that it's kind of fun to figure it all out. And when you do, for your particular case, please post it here where we can learn. You did get some appropriate comments above, by the way.
Sonny

 

[uncle norman]

One of my gun shop guys thought the Accurate 9 may be position sensitive. An almost 10% difference in velocities sounded too extreme to him. He suggested Winchester 296. I'll try that when I get a chance.

 

[Edubya]

One of my gun shop guys thought the Accurate 9 may be position sensitive. An almost 10% difference in velocities sounded too extreme to him. He suggested Winchester 296. I'll try that when I get a chance.

W296 is a good powder, so is AA#9. What is your objective, both powders have good characteristics and are proven in the .44 mag. Most of us are looking for an accurate bullet/powder combination. I have found the 2400 as the ideal target/hunting powder for my 629-6. Target; or really an all-around load, is 17.5 of 2400 for 200-255 gr cast boolits in the .44mag. I've been amazed at the results and this is one formula that I don't fear litigation on for recommending. It's within all books suggested loads and it works out just too good for me.
Elmer Keith went for the 2400 and used a 250 gr at 1400 fps with something around 22 gr charge.
Make sure that you are not over-crimping and if you have not done so; slug you chambers, forcing cone and muzzle! An over-sized bullet can create "over-pressure"!
EW

 

[sonny]

I have found the 2400 as the ideal target/hunting powder for my 629-6. Target; or really an all-around load, is 17.5 of 2400 for 200-255 gr cast boolits in the .44mag. Make sure that you are not over-crimping EW

I agree with 2400; my go-to powder for .44 Special, .45 Colt, .44 Mag.

I load at 15 grs of 2400/250 hard-cast for 900 fps for target. Actually, I find that W231 and HS-6 give me smaller deviation in velocity than 2400, Unique or H4227 when loading for mid-range velocity.

I don't know what is meant by "Over-crimping." I didn't know you could, other than your case mouth will wear out and crack after fewer reloadings. My biggest problem is bullet creep with heavy loads in relatively light revolvers, and I go for the heaviest "reasonable" crimp that I can do.

I do know that the primer-only can push a bullet past a tight crimp and into the forcing cone of the barrel, which tells me that even a small pressure wave like a primer can defeat a tight crimp. This was with H110 where I tried a light load (contrary to Hodgdon warning), and the powder did NOT ignite. I was using WLP primers. See the Hodgdon site warning about the dangers of using reduced loads: They reco that you do NOT reduce any more than 3% lower than their recommended loadings. And I found out that they are correct.

I say: Use a heavy crimp for heavy loads...every time.

Sonny

 

[Edubya]

Over crimping

Most of my cast bullets in 9mm, .38, .44 or .45 calibers are cast to a BHN of approximately 12. I have found that I can get accurate results and no leading by not crimping too hard. I do the "thumb press" to insure that they are not able to jump, but I was having trouble with many of my cast bullets. Someone suggested that I knock a few bullets out and measure them. I did and apparently my crimp was deforming the base enough that they were not fully obturating with my medium loads. When I learned this I've tried to share this with any other loader of cast bullets that might want to learn from my observations. If you're getting good accuracy and are pleased with what you're doing, please continue to do so.
Best of luck,
EW

BTW; .22 rimfire bullets are being shot every day at speeds in excess of 1,200 fps without leading and they are around 8 BHN. So please don't tell me that I have to make my bullets harder, that's one of the reasons that I started casting (I don't like the jacketed bullets or the hard-cast that you can buy, I want expansion).