The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 5, 2011, 09:32 PM   #1
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,812
Didja notice Accurate Arms load data changed? A lot?

My downloaded load data sheet from last year to this year is a dramatic difference, especially in the cast loads section for 9mm. I was using 7.6 grains of #7 for a 124grain cast bullet load in the Phantom, and 6.4 grains #7 in the P-01. The cast data I had said the low load was actually below the minimum, and the higher was in the mid range of OK.
The new data put 6.4 at the upper range of OK, and my 7.6 are over a full grain too high, plus P cast loads. I snorted...until I checked primers, and found a number that were quite flat. Hmm, never noticed that before.
I contacted AA, and they said they went to a new type of pressure checking, and reformulated load data.
Soooo...to make a long story short, check your data, see if things have changed at Camp de Accurate Arms for your load. Just an FYI for anyone who might not have noticed.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old June 5, 2011, 11:16 PM   #2
Marco Califo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 2011
Location: LA
Posts: 848
The latest download also include quadrupling the 223 loads adding specific loads for Barnes copper bullets and many cast/plated bullet handgun loads including Ranier and Berrys.

I was disappointed with the 308 section which was NOT expanded.

http://www.accuratepowder.com/wp-con...d_data_3.5.pdf
Marco Califo is offline  
Old June 6, 2011, 12:29 AM   #3
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
I was disappointed with the 308 section which was NOT expanded.
Buy more of their powder, so they can afford to justify more testing.
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old June 6, 2011, 01:20 AM   #4
Clark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 1999
Location: WA, the ever blue state
Posts: 2,996
In 2000 AA published some CZ52 only data.
They said it as 42k c.u.p. per the Eastern European Tokarev ammo they tested.... but don't shoot it in Tokarevs, because they are not as strong.

I blew up a couple CZ52s and complained on the internet that they were not strong, despite what all the books and magazines said.

I got 90% flames in reaction.

But CZ52s kept blowing up and in 2004 AA reduced the CZ52 loads from 42 k c.u.p. to 32 k c.u.p.

I noticed that my Quickload program thought they had reduced the loads from 63,866 psi to 22,953 psi.

Later in 2004, AA took all CZ52 loads down.

11 years later, I must seem like a broken record
__________________
The word 'forum" does not mean "not criticizing books."
"Ad hominem fallacy" is not the same as point by point criticism of books. If you bought the book, and believe it all, it may FEEL like an ad hominem attack, but you might strive to accept other points of view may exist.
Are we a nation of competing ideas, or a nation of forced conformity of thought?
Clark is offline  
Old June 6, 2011, 08:13 AM   #5
bfoosh006
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 17, 2009
Posts: 353
AA was bought by Ramshot / Western Powders. Western Powders is one of the only powder companies to publish 5.56 data. They fire and show pressure figures with all their data. So you will see some data changes.

In the past they have published some smokin' hot data. They had one .40 SW 155gr XTP load that did an honest 1341 fps in my 5" fully-supported barrel... at the minimum / start charge level.
bfoosh006 is offline  
Old June 6, 2011, 01:44 PM   #6
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
In the past they have published some smokin' hot data. They had one .40 SW 155gr XTP load that did an honest 1341 fps in my 5" fully-supported barrel... at the minimum / start charge level.
Aye. Right now, their True Blue data for .327 Federal is smokin' hot. Most loads encounter flowing primers and difficult extraction with starting loads. (And there's only one company producing brass... So, it's pretty easy to "duplicate" the load, other than lot-to-lot variation in other components.)

I expect to see quite a few changes to the .327 data with their next update.

Edit: Sorry, I had some major brain farts today (other threads, as well). True Blue is a Ramshot powder. ...But the issue with starting loads still remains.
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."

Last edited by FrankenMauser; June 7, 2011 at 02:13 AM.
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old June 6, 2011, 06:22 PM   #7
Loader9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2008
Posts: 949
Yeah, they apparently have been reformulating. That and the lawyers have apparently been having to justify their paychecks. I was looking back for a post about a guy that had issues with ammo he loaded using AA#9 in a 10MM. The data I have from the State (which furnishes it to me) says it is not to be used in the 10mm and that was also confirmed in a phone call to them. I don't really have much use for the powder except for 2 trappers. One shoots a 357 SIG and a guy with a 10mm which they said would create issues. Now, after reviewing the specs on the powder, they've increased the nitro in it by 4% and changed the density from .975 to .950. I guess this is yet another powder maker I can add to the short list of dimwits I won't use their products. If yer gonna change the freakin formula and the burning characteristics, change the dam name. Is that so hard? Folks using the old data will be borderline of blowing guns up if they don't know the formula has changed. Almost makes ya wanna call the morons everytime you get a shipment of powder to see what they've screwed up again. For me which I know is an exception, I don't have the trappers rifles or pistols here and some are almost 800 miles away. Not exactly easy for me to just work up new loads. Oh well, there's always ADI and Hodgdon.
Loader9 is offline  
Old June 6, 2011, 09:02 PM   #8
engineermike
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2010
Location: Oklahaoma City
Posts: 538
Geeez, and I was just about to change over to their #5 powder. Guess it's back to Hodgdons. Guess I had better call the guy I gave the #7 too.
engineermike is offline  
Old June 6, 2011, 11:01 PM   #9
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,812
It was the data that changed, not the formula, at least for #7, when I contacted the factory. I remember using datat for #2 from a Hornady manual from about 10 years prior, and wondering why I was getting such wild results - the company had gotten a new maker for the #2 and the formula had changed - my fault for using old data.
I still like #7 for 9mm and #2 for 38 special, as well as 1680 for 7.62x39mm.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07969 seconds with 9 queries