Accurate No. 7 for 9mm, 380

B

BondoBob

New member
I need to add another powder for 380 and 9mm I'm starting to load. I see Accurate No 7 and No 5 a lot in the published load data. And it's available. Any thoughts/experiences with this or other suggestions? Powder supply is pretty tight in my area and I'd rather not order online. Paying shipping and hazmat double the cost here.
 
Many thousands of rounds with 7.0 grains of AA#7 over a 147 grain lead bullet. It was very accurate in my 226.

Never loaded .380 so nothing to add for that.
 
A#7 for full house+ loads in the 9? Been doing that for a long time since that is what it was originally developed for (IMI 158 gr UZI). Not a typo.

Also per their confirmation used in CorBon 115 +P and 124 gr +P back in the day.

Great powder when loaded hot and heavy.... whether made in Isreal, South Africa, or the Czech Republic. Good in 9mm, 357, or 44 Mag. Haven't cracked off rounds loded with St.Marks yet but have a 8 lb.er of it. Only loaded 32 H&R with that stuff so far with heavy for caliber bullets in the 32 H&R. By the unburnt I can see differences not evidenced in the other formulations.

For 380....wrong powder.....end of story. It might work but wrong speed hands down. For 380 in the AA line use #2. In other lines use the faster powders.

For 380......no.
 
Accurate doesn’t list AA-7 for the .380, the slowest is AA-5. It just isn’t appropriate for the low pressure .380. It would leave plenty of unburned powder in the barrel and action.



.
 
TX Nimrod said:
Accurate doesn’t list AA-7 for the .380, the slowest is AA-5. It just isn’t appropriate for the low pressure .380. It would leave plenty of unburned powder in the barrel and action.
Click to expand...

But they list it for the 45 Auto, which has a lower peak pressure (21,000 psi) than the 380 Auto (21,500 psi)
 
They do, at 21,500 psi MAP for 380 vs 21,000 psi MAP for 45 Auto, but the average 380 bullet has less sectional density than the average 45 bullet for the powder to build pressure against, plus Accurate tested the 45 Auto with a 33% longer barrel to give it a little more burn time. #7 was probably usable, but just underwhelming, so they didn't bother to publish for it.
 
Note that the topic of this thread is the 380 Auto/ACP/9 mm Kurz, and not the 9 mm Luger/Parabellum/9×19 mm, so I have removed the posts speaking exclusively about the latter cartridge as having the potential to cause confusion; especially when the complete name is not used to distinguish the two 9 mm designations.


74A95,

That's fascinating that Speer found #7 not only workable but a near top velocity producer in the 380 when Accurate and some others eschew it. Speer data is developed in a production gun (Walther PPK in this instance) but the top loads are pressure-tested by Alliant on contract, so the data should be good. (The other sources I don't know about, as they may only be developed by pressure signs in a production gun of unknown chamber and bore dimensions and therefore may or may not be representative overall.) I note that for each bullet from each source, there is a load that produces more velocity with a powder that is faster burning than #7 and that needs significantly lower charge weight to get there. This tells me #7 is more expensive to use, but that in return you should get a big fireball (perhaps a blinding one at night) if you are into that sort of thing. I am curious about how dirty it is.
 
Unclenick said:
74A95,

That's fascinating that Speer found #7 not only workable but a near top velocity producer in the 380 when Accurate and some others eschew it.

I note that for each bullet from each source, there is a load that produces more velocity with a powder that is faster burning than #7 and that needs significantly lower charge weight to get there. This tells me #7 is more expensive to use, but that in return you should get a big fireball (perhaps a blinding one at night) if you are into that sort of thing. I am curious about how dirty it is.
Click to expand...

The third source I listed (https://loaddata.com/Cartridge/380-Auto-380-ACP-Ruger-LCP-Load-Data/5595) shows the source was Accurate, so they have likely listed it in their catalog at some time in the past.

How do you know that other load manuals 'eschew' #7, or have maybe not tried it? Do you have inside information from these other companies or are you speculating?

Powder companies do sometimes drop data from their older catalogs. Sometimes it is for perceived 'efficiency'. Ramshot used to list Enforcer powder data for their 45 Auto, but dropped it because they did not consider it efficient. Yet it is a powder that will push a 230 grain bullet to 1,000 fps and stay within standard operating pressure whereas other powders need to run +P pressure to do that.

I'm not aware that #7 produces fireballs. I don't recall seeing them during any daylight shooting I've done and I've shot a lot of #7. Do you know this for a fact or are you speculating?
 
Unfortunately I do not have access to my reloading log book. Using Titegroup and a 100gr. plated bullet I was able to duplicate factory chrono speed
 
74A95 said:
How do you know that other load manuals 'eschew' #7,…
Click to expand...

I don't find #7 listed in the print version of Accurate Number One (©1994) which I picked up at Camp Perry around that time. Western number 3 (3.1, 3.2, or 3.5) doesn't show it, nor does number 6 or number 7. I don't have other issues for either Accurate or Western after they took Accurate's distribution over, so I don't know when it might have appeared there, assuming the attribution is accurate (pun intended).:D Hornady #2 and #10 don't list it, but I haven't looked at other years between yet. Lyman #50 doesn't list it. Nosler #6 and #8 don't list it. Sierra didn't list it when they still listed the 380 at all. Even the late Richard Lee didn't find any #7 loads to list. So I inferred the eschewing.

Accurate's description of the powder from their first load manual says:

"No. 7, A double base, ball propellant originally developed for 9 mm NATO carbine ammunition. It has become a favorite propellant for IPSC shooters who shoot the .38 Super Auto. Somewhat more specialized in applications than No.2 or No.5, it is well suited to high-intensity cartridges. The popularity of No.7 has increased dramatically since its introduction in 1983. It is a good choice for magnum handgun cartridges (such as .357, .41, and .44 Magnum) when slightly less than full power loads are preferred. "

Accurate Smokeless Powder Loading Guide Number One, p.4, 1994​

74A95 said:
I'm not aware that #7 produces fireballs. I don't recall seeing them during any daylight shooting I've done and I've shot a lot of #7. Do you know this for a fact or are you speculating?
Click to expand...

In general, powders too slow to burn completely will produce a fireball if a barrel isn't long enough for the gases to cool significantly by the time they are expelled, or unless they are formulated with a really effective flash suppressant. The reason I used the qualifier "should" is that I don't know the user's barrel length nor whether there is much by way of flash suppressant in this powder designed for carbine length barrels. I based the likelihood of fire on the SAAMI standard V&P test barrel length of 3.75", and that QuickLOAD, after adjusting to match Speer data, thinks about 1/3 of the powder will be unburned at bullet exit. GRT is less optimistic. It gives a better match to published velocity with pressure at a more reasonable value for 380 Auto but thinks only about 47% of the powder will be burned inside the bore with a 3.75" barrel. So, unless there is a lot of flash suppressant or a significantly longer barrel, there will be some fire. Not seeing it in daylight is not unusual, given the peak pressure is in a lower range than the magnum revolvers or a 9×19 or a 38 Super, which would make for higher temperature and flame whiteness (but also for more complete burning). So a yellower, but larger flame is my expectation (again, absent much flame suppressant).
 
Not quite sure how you arrive at that. That #7 data is missing from most common data books is a fact. So they avoided including #7 somehow, intentionally or otherwise. We can speculate on the reason, but not the fact.

The fireball is just playing probabilities based on experience, so that is true speculation, though it would be odder for there not to be a fireball in low light than for there to be one, given the powder quantity and a short barrel.
 
inferring is working from clues or extrapolating from them. Not quite the same thing as making something up from whole cloth.

Apparently you don't like the way I express myself. Is so, take it to PM's. Snarky comments unbecoming have no place in the threads. I will refer this to another moderator if you have a problem with that.
 
Unclenick said:
[snip]
In general, powders too slow to burn completely will produce a fireball if a barrel isn't long enough for the gases to cool significantly by the time they are expelled, or unless they are formulated with a really effective flash suppressant. The reason I used the qualifier "should" is that I don't know the user's barrel length nor whether there is much by way of flash suppressant in this powder designed for carbine length barrels. I based the likelihood of fire on the SAAMI standard V&P test barrel length of 3.75", and that QuickLOAD, after adjusting to match Speer data, thinks about 1/3 of the powder will be unburned at bullet exit. GRT is less optimistic. It gives a better match to published velocity with pressure at a more reasonable value for 380 Auto but thinks only about 47% of the powder will be burned inside the bore with a 3.75" barrel. So, unless there is a lot of flash suppressant or a significantly longer barrel, there will be some fire. Not seeing it in daylight is not unusual, given the peak pressure is in a lower range than the magnum revolvers or a 9×19 or a 38 Super, which would make for higher temperature and flame whiteness (but also for more complete burning). So a yellower, but larger flame is my expectation (again, absent much flame suppressant).
Click to expand...
I think #7 does have a flash suppressant, but I really doubt that it is enough for a short barrel .380. It (assuming it's really there) certainly would help, though.

I use #7 in .357 for almost full power loads, especially with cast bullets.

There are so many more appropriate powders for .380 (I like Green Dot), I'm not sure why anyone would want to use something as slow as AA#7; it'll probably work but it's not very efficient. OTOH, I have 16 lbs of Israeli pulldown #7, so maybe I'll try it; :D the only problem is I hate shooting my .380, so probably not. But maybe in 9mm Mak...
 
Okay, hear me out. . .

What concerns me is a way of thinking that excludes other possible explanations that don't involve some kind of conspiracy, such as powder X must not work well with cartridge/bullet Y, and that's why it isn't listed in so-and-so's manual. I see this a lot on forums. Why? I don't know. I suppose people come up with an explanation that could make sense, and they run with it, without weighing other, perhaps more rational and simple explanations.

Argument #1. There are at least 60 powders that work in handguns. Testing them takes time and money, so it's reasonable to think that manufacturers are not going to test them all for every handgun round they have data for.

There might also be an argument made for how many different powders they might test for a cartridge. Not everyone handloads 380. They might think, well, we tested 6 powders, that's enough. Case in point, Hornady has data for the 38 Automatic, and few folks are loading this caliber. So they have data for 3 bullet weights (110, 115, 124/5), and at most 4 powders. That's probably good enough, at least to their way of thinking. But lots of people load for 9mm, and they have 5 bullet weights (90, 100, 115, 124/5, 147), and 16 powder for just the 115 grain bullets. But even 16 powders is a far cry from 60.

Argument #2. The absence of a powder in a manual for a cartridge/bullet does not mean that powder doesn't work well with that cartridge/bullet.

For example, let's take Vit N310 and 185 grain JHP bullets in the 45 Auto. This is a well known match winning combination. People have known about it for decades. (https://
www.ssusa.org/articles/2016/4/07/usmc-match-45-load/) It has low recoil and superb accuracy. This is not a secret. It is well known on the Bullseye website (https://www.bullseyeforum.net/) as a great combination. It's often thought of as the Gold Standard (according to some bullseye shooters). Other articles have included it as a powder of choice for super-accurate 45 ammo. (https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/loads-for-the-bullseye-shooter/99418)

You would think that manuals would have this powder listed with their 185 grain bullets. Right? Let's see how many list this powder and bullet combination. Lyman? Speer? Nosler? Hornady? Sierra? Not a single one of them have it in their data. NONE. Why not? Ask them.

So, I do have issues with any claim that says a powder/bullet/caliber combination must not be good simply because it's not listed in a manual. Why? Because it's an assumption based on zero data. But some people make that assumption anyway.

I've asked powder/bullet makers about why some powders aren't included in their load data. Answers have included:

1. We never tried it.
2. We feels it's inefficient - something you have already mentioned, Unclenick.
3. We changed our policy about recommending powders that require extreme compression.

But most of the response have simply been that they never tried it. Not having tried it does not translate into it not being a good powder. As I said, with at least 60 powders that can be used for handgun loads, you have to stop somewhere. And in some cases, like N310 and 185 gr JHP bullets in the 45, they have left out one of the very best combinations known to shooters.

I hope this explains where I'm coming from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top