The Firing Line Forums

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

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 19, 2000, 04:36 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: November 7, 1999
Location: US
Posts: 510
Bullet Setback Testing with Acurate Arms #9

WARNING: I do not recommend the following practice for anyone. Proceed with caution and you are responsible for your own actions!

I chrono'd some loads with an overall length of 1.135, some at 1.126, and then I actually pushed the bullet in as far as possible until it fully compressed the powder. The powder was the only thing holding the bullet in place!

In order to simulate the bullet setback, I had to bell the case a bit, no cannelure was used, and of course no crimp at all. I also used old brass since bullet slippage is easier when the brass is not new. I then used a Dillon flat wrench to help me push the bullet into the case, using a cement floor for leverage. Don't try this folks!

oal = overall cartridge length

At 13.0 grains of #9, the bullet could be forced in to an oal between 1.195 - 1.235.
At 12.6 grains, the bullet could be forced in to an oal between 1.1115 - 1.116.
At 12.2 grains, between 1.0975 - 1.1055.

I repeat, the compressed powder was the only thing holding the bullet in place!!!

The bullet setback results:

At 13.0
1.135 oal velocity average: 1265 fps
1.126 oal velocity average: 1266 fps
bullet setbacked cartridge average: 1272 fps

At 12.6
(12.7) 1.135 oal velocity average: 1234 fps
1.126 oal velocity average: 1227 fps
bullet setbacked cartridge average: 1245 fps

At 12.2
(12.1) 1.135 oal velocity average: 1165 fps
1.126 oal velocity average: 1188 fps
bullet setbacked average: 1214 fps

In all the above tests, the brass looked normal and measured identical between the normal and bullet setbacked loadings. Perceived recoil between the loadings appeared to be similar. Based on my approximate measurements, I did not feel it would be safe to create a bullet setback on less than 12.2 grains of #9 powder.

What's interesting is that the velocities between oal's with 1.135, 1.126 and the fully fully setback loads are all very similar, until to get to 12.2, where the oal is getting very short.

I may be testing #9 up to 14.3 grains, per the Speer Reloading Manual. I will write a more in depth description of #9 soon.


I could not blow up my Steyr M357

AA#9 appears to not only power the bullets sufficiently, but has a dual purpose of holding the bullet in place if bullet slippage should occur. The new AA Reloading Manual also states that #9 actually compresses with the bullet insertion process and the powder actually works quite well.

I did notice that some of the unburnt AA#9 powder did end up on my chronograph ten feet away. At first, I thought it was just a little dust. So, even if you miss the bad guy, you can temporarily blind him by throwing powder in his face.

Note: Since I normally use a cannelure grooved bullet and a roll crimp, I am more than satisfied that this process alone is sufficient and safe to shoot 357 SIG reloads. The above test with #9 is just a secondary defense which might be of use.

petej88 is offline  
Old June 4, 2001, 01:40 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: bluefield
Posts: 735
thanks and what about the 147 gd jhp

it looks like the powder you used is a good may not rember me but i sent you some emails a good while back about some problems i was having with my p229 sport.i had to have it sent back.the barrel was set to tight,now it works great.from what you found with the A#9 it looks like it would also be very safe to use a 147 grain its longer more bullet to go into the case and still make the o.a.l .i think it would have more support from the powder charge.kind of like my 44 mag loads with a 240 jhp and 296 i cant seat them but so deep the powder is in the way.power pistol is the best with a 124 or is it 125 i cant rember right now but the speer gold dot or at least i have found that to be the 147 and A#9 accurate, if its half as accurate as the lighter load bullet and power pistol then it is plenty accurate enough for anything,thanks,keith
It's not just a gun it's the symbol of freedom
kidcoltoutlaw is offline  
Old June 5, 2001, 08:57 PM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 1999
Location: WA, the ever blue state
Posts: 4,678
When I was working up loads for the 147 gr 9x19mm, I tried AA#9 and H110. When it came to compressing the powder, they would not compress. The bullet would flatten out by several thousands of and inch. The nose of the bullet would flatten.
The hollow point would close up.

This is in contrast to many other pistol powders that I double compressed. That is, I filled the 9mm case up, seated a bullet in a bullet puller, and unseated the bullet. There was then room in the case to put in more powder. The real bullet was then seated in a second press.

So, AA#9 can be some tough stuff to compress.
Clark is offline  
Old June 6, 2001, 04:15 PM   #4
Senior Member
Join Date: November 7, 1999
Location: US
Posts: 510

Wow, now that's intense compressing. Thanks for the info.
petej88 is offline  
Old June 9, 2001, 03:43 PM   #5
Senior Member
Join Date: October 13, 1998
Location: Chandler, Az, USA
Posts: 125
I use AA#9 (as specified in their new load manual) to run a 95 gr Hornady XTP at 1900fps out of a CZ52. Wow, it runs out of case capacity long before it reaches anywhere near the pressure limits. Good stuff, #9 (as well a #5)
wolfz is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 03:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06645 seconds with 9 queries