Accurate Number 9 in 9mm Luger?

golfnutrlv · August 28, 2011, 10:46 PM

Hey all, anyone tried Accurate #9 in 9mm??

THe Sierra manual lists data for it, but accurate doesn't. Go figure. The burn rate and powder design seems a little hot.

Thoughts???

armoredman · August 28, 2011, 10:58 PM

Accurate changed their data recently due to a change in testing. If they don't list it, I wouldn't use it. I like #7 in 9mm, myself.

bluetopper · August 28, 2011, 11:23 PM

AA#9 is a magnum handgun powder. Not a very good applicant for the 9mm.

golfnutrlv · August 29, 2011, 01:40 AM

I figured as much, but was curious. Makes you think twice about some of the load data in the manuals. Do your own research...

griz · August 29, 2011, 07:51 AM

I tried it, mostly because I had a bunch of #9 and wasn't using it up as quickly as I had planned. It is a pretty slow powder for 9mm, so even with a compressed charge the velocity was on the slow side. But it did function fine for the rounds I loaded up.

Sevens · August 29, 2011, 12:43 PM

Lousy idea. You'd need heavy charge weights and you'd probably run out of room in the case trying to get there... and you may even end up with unburnt powder flowing out of the barrel.

It's just a poor application for the powder.

Can it be done? Probably -- I don't believe it would be a dangerous experiment.
What's the reward for doing it? Not enough to bother.

TX Nimrod · August 29, 2011, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Accurate changed their data recently due to a change in testing. If they don't list it, I wouldn't use it. I like #7 in 9mm, myself.

Accurate never did list #9 for the 9mm (it's not in my 1994 #1 Manual) because it is not appropriate for the 9mm. It is actually 'way too "cool" not too "hot".

Quote:

Makes you think twice about some of the load data in the manuals. Do your own research...

Sierra sometimes lists some goofy data for some cartridges. For example, in Manual #3 they listed H110 for the .45-70, which only fills the case about two-thirds of the way full - with a powder which should have a high loading density. Talk about hangfires and erratic results! I can't see how they could even have tested it and publish the data. The next manual did NOT list H110, at least they learned.

.

overkill0084 · August 30, 2011, 11:19 AM

Seems to be a fairly poor use of AA#9. I wouldn't bother with it. There are so many better options for 9 mm.

Doodlebugger45 · August 30, 2011, 12:27 PM

It reminds me of the time I decided to load up some light plinking rounds for my .45 Colt using #9. Yeah, they worked sort of. The bullets went out the barrel and hit the target. But it was so incredibly sooty that it started to jam the cylinder after about 40 rounds. It works much much better in full-house 44 mag loads than it does for the light loads.

armoredman · August 30, 2011, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armoredman

Accurate changed their data recently due to a change in testing. If they don't list it, I wouldn't use it. I like #7 in 9mm, myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TX Nimrod

Accurate never did list #9 for the 9mm (it's not in my 1994 #1 Manual) because it is not appropriate for the 9mm. It is actually 'way too "cool" not too "hot".

Never said they did, TX Nimrod, been using Accurate Powder since I started loading 9mm. #2 works, #5 works, and #7 works. I was just making sure that everyone gets the latest data, since loads have changed a LOT in several calibers. Just an FYI.

I like Accurate Arms stuff, haven't really tried anything else.

joneb · September 1, 2011, 12:04 AM

Slower powders require more pressure to burn efficiently, AA#9 is out of reach for the 9x19 Luger at SAAMI pressures. I would use something faster, if you like AA powders #5 would be my choice.

rc · September 6, 2011, 01:08 AM

You want #7 or #5 or even #2. #7 is designed for 9mm carbine and gives a good velocity in carbines like blue dot. #5 is more of a 45 ACP powder but does good in 40 and 9mm.

August 29, 2011, 12:43 PM	#6
Sevens Senior Member Join Date: July 28, 2007 Location: Ohio Posts: 11,775	Lousy idea. You'd need heavy charge weights and you'd probably run out of room in the case trying to get there... and you may even end up with unburnt powder flowing out of the barrel. It's just a poor application for the powder. Can it be done? Probably -- I don't believe it would be a dangerous experiment. What's the reward for doing it? Not enough to bother. __________________ *Attention Brass rats and other reloaders:* I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.

September 6, 2011, 01:08 AM	#12
rc Senior Member Join Date: April 28, 2001 Location: CA Posts: 1,929	NO! You want #7 or #5 or even #2. #7 is designed for 9mm carbine and gives a good velocity in carbines like blue dot. #5 is more of a 45 ACP powder but does good in 40 and 9mm.

August 28, 2011, 10:46 PM	#1
golfnutrlv Senior Member Join Date: November 5, 2008 Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 1,347	Accurate Number 9 in 9mm Luger? Hey all, anyone tried Accurate #9 in 9mm?? THe Sierra manual lists data for it, but accurate doesn't. Go figure. The burn rate and powder design seems a little hot. Thoughts???

August 28, 2011, 10:58 PM	#2
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,480	Accurate changed their data recently due to a change in testing. If they don't list it, I wouldn't use it. I like #7 in 9mm, myself.

August 28, 2011, 11:23 PM	#3
bluetopper Senior Member Join Date: December 17, 2005 Location: Northeast TX Posts: 1,214	AA#9 is a magnum handgun powder. Not a very good applicant for the 9mm.

August 29, 2011, 01:40 AM	#4
golfnutrlv Senior Member Join Date: November 5, 2008 Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 1,347	I figured as much, but was curious. Makes you think twice about some of the load data in the manuals. Do your own research...

August 29, 2011, 07:51 AM	#5
griz Senior Member Join Date: August 1, 2000 Location: Middle Peninsula, VA Posts: 1,588	I tried it, mostly because I had a bunch of #9 and wasn't using it up as quickly as I had planned. It is a pretty slow powder for 9mm, so even with a compressed charge the velocity was on the slow side. But it did function fine for the rounds I loaded up.

August 30, 2011, 11:19 AM	#8
overkill0084 Senior Member Join Date: August 7, 2010 Location: Northern, UT Posts: 1,162	Seems to be a fairly poor use of AA#9. I wouldn't bother with it. There are so many better options for 9 mm.

August 30, 2011, 12:27 PM	#9
Doodlebugger45 Senior Member Join Date: April 15, 2009 Location: Wyoming Posts: 1,717	It reminds me of the time I decided to load up some light plinking rounds for my .45 Colt using #9. Yeah, they worked sort of. The bullets went out the barrel and hit the target. But it was so incredibly sooty that it started to jam the cylinder after about 40 rounds. It works much much better in full-house 44 mag loads than it does for the light loads.

September 1, 2011, 12:04 AM	#11
joneb Senior Member Join Date: December 10, 2005 Location: Central , OR Posts: 1,888	Slower powders require more pressure to burn efficiently, AA#9 is out of reach for the 9x19 Luger at SAAMI pressures. I would use something faster, if you like AA powders #5 would be my choice.