The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 1, 2020, 03:52 PM   #26
74A95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2016
Posts: 921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carriertxv View Post
Using a Hornady 124 fmj and 7.2 grains of #7 is a very accurate load for any of my 9mm guns.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/att...1&d=1596289103
That link is dead.
74A95 is offline  
Old August 1, 2020, 04:16 PM   #27
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 7,460
Quote:
So, speculation. Twice. Got it.
I clicked on your link, it takes you to a page that unless I'm mistaken, says the load data was culled from a 2010 issue of handloader magazine and is specific to the 2.75" barrel lcp. Must of used a lot of powder (and pressure) to get high velocities I would think if using #7, which I too find highly suspect.
__________________
If you’re ever hiking in the woods and you get lost, just look up and find the brightest star in the sky and you’ll know which way space is.
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!

Last edited by stagpanther; August 1, 2020 at 04:23 PM.
stagpanther is offline  
Old August 1, 2020, 04:30 PM   #28
74A95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2016
Posts: 921
Quote:
Originally Posted by stagpanther View Post
I clicked on your link, it takes you to a page that unless I'm mistaken, says the load data was culled from a 2010 issue of handloader magazine and is specific to the 2.75" barrel lcp.
You're right. It is specific for the gun used.

Also, I spaced and thought the "Accurate" was a reference to the source of the data. It looks like that information might simply be what the author used for his tests.

Sorry for the error.
74A95 is offline  
Old August 1, 2020, 05:07 PM   #29
Carriertxv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 19, 2013
Posts: 230
I’m not sure why that didn’t post as when I hit preview it was there. It’s a picture of Labradar readout on that load. I tried it again and is showing now.


https://thefiringline.com/forums/att...2&d=1596319724

Last edited by Carriertxv; August 2, 2020 at 11:37 AM.
Carriertxv is offline  
Old August 2, 2020, 09:31 AM   #30
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 17,685
74A95,

You have a point about the potential to discourage thinking of alternate explanations. It's not my intent to be preemptive of other ideas, so it can't hurt to mention that other explanations may apply.

I have a contact at Western. I'm going to drop him a line and see if he can offer additional insight about #7 not being part of their .380 load data in light of Speer including it. If they ever tried it, they may have test data or notes on file that are relevant. If not, he may be able to provide information about how they choose which powders to include.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle
Unclenick is offline  
Old August 2, 2020, 11:00 AM   #31
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 7,460
I have a speer manual and it does list AA 7 for their loads--but they use charge weights that go significantly beyond other powders probably reflecting their relative burn inefficiency for that cartridge. My guess is that it's a "in a pinch it can be used of nothing better is available" alternative, or maybe someone who can only buy one powder for both the 380 and 9mm. I can't see anything inherently dangerous about it because your bullet will probably fall out of the case before you could get there--but that's just speculation on my part (hang fire might be different). Speer also used a PP as test gun (all steel fixed barrel I believe). I think the listed velocity is optimistic though maybe the PP could actually achieve that.
__________________
If you’re ever hiking in the woods and you get lost, just look up and find the brightest star in the sky and you’ll know which way space is.
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!

Last edited by stagpanther; August 2, 2020 at 11:15 AM.
stagpanther is offline  
Old August 2, 2020, 11:03 AM   #32
74A95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2016
Posts: 921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unclenick View Post
74A95,

You have a point about the potential to discourage thinking of alternate explanations. It's not my intent to be preemptive of other ideas, ao it can't hurt to mention that other explanations may apply.

I have a contact at Western. I'm going to drop him a line and see if he can offer additional insight about #7 not being part of their .380 load data in light of Speer including it. If they ever tried it, they may have test data or notes on file that are relevant. If not, he may be able to provide information about how they choose which powders to include.
While you're at it, ask Sierra and Hornady if they've ever tried #7 in the 380.
74A95 is offline  
Old August 2, 2020, 01:35 PM   #33
Marco Califo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 2011
Location: LA (Los Angeles)
Posts: 1,934
I like to think the maker/distributor knows best and they say "No."
http://www.accuratepowder.com/load-data/
__________________
............
Marco Califo is offline  
Old August 2, 2020, 02:05 PM   #34
74A95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2016
Posts: 921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco Califo View Post
I like to think the maker/distributor knows best and they say "No."
http://www.accuratepowder.com/load-data/
Accurate does not have data with #9 in the 38 Super, but Speer, Hornady and Lyman do.
74A95 is offline  
Old August 2, 2020, 03:15 PM   #35
Marco Califo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 2011
Location: LA (Los Angeles)
Posts: 1,934
Accurate does not have 380 ACP data using #7. I believe that is because it is not a usefull burn rate for that application.
We are not talking about 38 Super. Speer data has changed over time. I only use their current online data, and with a grain of salt. Hornady's latest data is not online because they sell paper books, which are never update once printed.
I still would put MUCH greater credence in the Powder Manufacturer's current data. Especially over 30 year old data Lyman and Lee republish but do Not test themselves.
I think it is a fallacy to compare every load ever printed and choose the one you like best. The powder is still the same.
I find that Western Powders Accurate and Ramshot data enable me to get reliable near or maximum loads with their powders.
__________________
............
Marco Califo is offline  
Old August 5, 2020, 09:57 AM   #36
gwpercle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2012
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Posts: 1,189
If your dealer has Accurate Arms powders ... pick up some AA#2 , AA#5 and AA#7.
Accurate has a load data site , pdf reloading guide you can download and for the cost of postage a reloading guide . Recently they published a large comprehensive Reloading Guide / Manual .
With those 3 powders and all the available data you can cover a lot of handgun cartridges .
I discoved Accurate powders during the 2013 shortage ... the dealer had nothing but Accurate Powders on his empty shelf...a shipment had come in and he was having a sale . I had never heard of Accurate Arms Powders (bullseye, unique & 2400 used for 45 years) I bought AA#5...it worked so well I went back and bought AA#2 and AA#7.
They meter very well and with the availability of loading data are easy to work up loads .
I have the pdf printed loading data , one or two updates and ordered the Loading Guide Booklet for $1.97 postage . A surprising amount of AA data is contained in the newer Loading Manuals ..Speer , Hornady , Lyman etc.
If you haven't ...try these powders ... I LIKE EM !!!

For reloading the 380 acp #7 may be too slow ... #2 or #5 , which have a faster burn rate may be better suited .
#5 in 9mm Luger works .
Gary

Last edited by gwpercle; August 5, 2020 at 10:03 AM.
gwpercle is offline  
Old August 7, 2020, 04:28 PM   #37
dgang
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 179
Ran low on Unique and Power Pistol so bought some AA#5. Close to the same burn rate and works just fine in .380, .38+P and 40 S&W. Glad I bought the amount I did as Accurate #5 is now unavailable at the "brick and mortar" stores and all the on-line sites. Just hate to pay the HazMat fee though, although they seem to differ: one site charges $11.00 and another costs $30.00. Pays to do some comparison shopping.
__________________
I shoot, therefore I am.
dgang is offline  
Old August 7, 2020, 08:35 PM   #38
SHR970
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 1,370
I've only been using Accurate powders since the early 90's. Feel free to blow my admonitions off. I've only laid out which countries the powder has been sourced from over the years (AA#7) from what the powder containers have told me (notes count). Just call or email Western Powder who contracts production through St. Marks currently and see what they have to say.

Easy Peasy Mac 'n Cheesy.

Appearance wise, I can tell you that the St. Marks powder looks a lot different from the other batches so much so that I can tell by looks if told it is #7. Current #7 looks like LongShot but behaves differently.
SHR970 is offline  
Old August 8, 2020, 05:14 PM   #39
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 17,685
Powders do change sources over time. Plants upgrade and add or drop means of production or politics stop free trade in arms-related materials with some countries or sometimes a company gets bought by an entity that doesn't want some of the original business for some reason. Read the Accurate FAQ, items 4 and 5 (note that some automatic spell checker seems to have changed the word "from" to the word "for" in two places when referencing Czechoslovakia as a former country of origin.)

The above is one reason old load data cannot be counted on to be valid. In the case of the forced change in Nitro 100, Accurate said to stop using it in metallic cartridges at all because they hadn't done the necessary testing to compensate for the changes. They said this newer version is better optimized for 12 gauge shotgun shells, so it will burn differently. (I would have changed the name, in their shoes, but I'm not their marketing person.)

In the QuickLOAD user's manual, the author says the reason he never included data for the IMR SR powders or 700X or 800X is they have changed source plants so frequently that he does not trust any data he collects for them to remain valid.

For the most part, though, when a powder manufacturing source changes, the plant tries to keep it close enough in properties so old and new stock can share the same load data. This has happened with IMR 4198, for example, which usually comes from the Valleyfield plant in Canada. But when Valleyfield can't supply it, ADI AR 2215 has been substituted (this is according to a pre-2009 Hodgdon MSDS sheet which listed AR 2215 as a substitute for IMR 4198 and AR 2205 as a substitute for IMR 4227; that information detail is no longer supplied on the MSDS sheets).

The bottom line is you always want to run some test loads with a new lot of powder, both because burn rates and bulk vary (don't trust your old powder measure settings without rechecking) some from lot to lot, and because the source may have changed and changed some characteristic that can affect the pressure. Always check recent load data before using old load data with current production powder.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle
Unclenick is offline  
Reply

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 12:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07658 seconds with 10 queries