Accurate No. 7 for 9mm, 380

I've still got the email and response from AA about load data for the 32 ACP from 2000 that I can scan and post. That load data is still available to this day in published format but back then was not. The same substandard velocities to this day are "distributers published data".
#7 IS NOT an appropriate speed powder for the 380..PERIOD! I say this based on close to 30 years using this powder in a variety of cartridges.

It is my go to powder for hot 9mm and light weight 357 (125 gr JHP). For Blow Back guns it it TOO SLOW. My original statement stands based on decades of experience.
 
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.
Click to expand...
I think the lack of any data at all means the powder is probably not appropriate. "Probably" is not "certainly", and you are free to experiment. I've used some pretty off-the-wall powders in .30 M1 Carbine because I'm shooting them in a revolver instead of a carbine. (Blue Dot was not a good choice, or maybe I was just loading them too hot)

I'm surprised you can even load enough AA#7 in a .380 to get it to work. I expected the case is too small to pack enough in there to get the pressure high enough to really burn.

I have some pretty good .38 Special loads using International Clays, even tho' Hodgdon says not to use it in pistol cartridges. (I looked up the equivalent Australian powder, whose name escapes me, and worked up slowly just to see if I could) But there are so many good .38 Special powders, I'm not sure that was a smart thing to do.

You can load whatever you want, but if you venture off the beaten path you assume the risks.
 
SHR970 said:
#7 IS NOT an appropriate speed powder for the 380..PERIOD! I say this based on close to 30 years using this powder in a variety of cartridges.

It is my go to powder for hot 9mm and light weight 357 (125 gr JHP). For Blow Back guns it it TOO SLOW. My original statement stands based on decades of experience.
Click to expand...

Have you used #7 in the 380?
 
Of the two powders you listed buy the AA#5. It will work with both 9mm AND 380. As I said before #7 is the wrong speed for 380 PERIOD. It might work but it won't work well especially in a blow back gun. Unless you change the spring out for a heavier Wolff unit you bulge brass in a Camp 9 and have to toss it out after one use BTDT.

#5 works well enough with 9mm in 115 & 124 gr. and 380 in general so for your purposes and circumstances that is the one to get.
 
So, speculation. Twice. Got it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
stagpanther said:
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.
Click to expand...

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,

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Unclenick said:
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.
Click to expand...

While you're at it, ask Sierra and Hornady if they've ever tried #7 in the 380.
 
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.
 
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:
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'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.
 
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.
 
There are obviously personal preferences that are just that, preferences. I research more than one source for information on loads and powders before deciding and testing for myself and my firearms, whether it be manuals or individuals with more experience than me. I used Accurate #2 for my 9mm with 4.5" barrel, but when i moved to a more concealable carry handgun with shorter barrel lengths (<3.25"), I opted for Unique for both 9mm (124 gr LRN) and .380 (95 gr LRN) and have had great success with accuracy. Personal preference with no arguments
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top