Win AA452 9mm load help [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Win AA452 9mm load help


xtratoy
10-24-2010, 11:55
I have done a lot of searching and haven't been able to find any load info using Win AA452 and 9mm luger/Parabellum with 115gr. bullets. Found a list from an older Speer manual which lists a load for a 124 gr bullet. If anyone has any experience or info that they would share it would be most appreciated.

dudel
10-24-2010, 12:10
Burn rate has it at 24, with WST(20), HP38 (22) 231(26) and Green Dot (29).

Other charts have it closer to HP38 than any other powder. I'll see if my Propellant Profiles book talks about it. It's not one I recall seeing used with 9mm.

Burn rates are relative numbers, so that them with a grain of salt. I'd start with the lightest load available for GD and work up.

WiskyT
10-24-2010, 12:48
You can use the 124 data with a 115 bullet, but not the other way around.

dudel
10-24-2010, 12:51
I have done a lot of searching and haven't been able to find any load info using Win AA452 and 9mm luger/Parabellum with 115gr. bullets. Found a list from an older Speer manual which lists a load for a 124 gr bullet. If anyone has any experience or info that they would share it would be most appreciated.


I can see why you're having problems finding a 9mm load - AA452 is a shotgun powder!

When researching powders, my go-to book is "Propellant Profiles". It's a good source of information on all commercially available powders. There are many times when it will list pet loads for pistol using shotgun powders or rifle loads using pistol powders, etc.

Not so in the case of AA452. It does however mention that Speer #11 lists 13 pistol rounds using AA452. That might be a good place to start. It mentioned 45ACP and 38spl (no mention of 9mm).

Unless you've just got of ton of the stuff, I'd really suggest going out and getting a pound of a powder better suited to 9mm. There are many choices available. Your asking of the question tends to imply a newb status (apologies if this is not the case), as such, you don't want to be working up loads with a relatively fast powder, with little reference material and experience. This is a case were a chronograph would almost be required equipment (along with one of Jack's ex wifes).

When makeing the powder selection, it might be useful to know if you are trying to build a plinking round, or a max power round and how you plan to meter the powder.

Hope that helps,

Don

fredj338
10-24-2010, 15:14
I can see why you're having problems finding a 9mm load - AA452 is a shotgun powder!

When researching powders, my go-to book is "Propellant Profiles". It's a good source of information on all commercially available powders. There are many times when it will list pet loads for pistol using shotgun powders or rifle loads using pistol powders, etc.

Not so in the case of AA452. It does however mention that Speer #11 lists 13 pistol rounds using AA452. That might be a good place to start. It mentioned 45ACP and 38spl (no mention of 9mm).

Unless you've just got of ton of the stuff, I'd really suggest going out and getting a pound of a powder better suited to 9mm. There are many choices available. Your asking of the question tends to imply a newb status (apologies if this is not the case), as such, you don't want to be working up loads with a relatively fast powder, with little reference material and experience. This is a case were a chronograph would almost be required equipment (along with one of Jack's ex wifes).

When makeing the powder selection, it might be useful to know if you are trying to build a plinking round, or a max power round and how you plan to meter the powder.

Hope that helps,

Don
Dudel, come on, most pistol powders started life as shotgun powders.:dunno:
WST was 452AA replacement back in the early 90s. So they are close but not identical. The loading data form the Speer #11 is very valid. As Whiskey notes, you can always load lighter bullets using heavier bullet data.

WiskyT
10-24-2010, 15:39
If you read post #4 in this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=29118

The poster states that Phil Hodgdon says AA452 is the same as Hodgdon Trap 100. I would not go on this information alone, but would contact Hodgdon via email and see what they say.

WiskyT
10-24-2010, 15:57
http://www.icehouse.net/fgrig/gun/SURPLUS.TXT

More verification that AA452 is Trap 100.

dudel
10-24-2010, 16:52
Dudel, come on, most pistol powders started life as shotgun powders.:dunno:
WST was 452AA replacement back in the early 90s. So they are close but not identical. The loading data form the Speer #11 is very valid. As Whiskey notes, you can always load lighter bullets using heavier bullet data.

Fred, come on, I pointed out that there are powders that can be used both ways. :dunno:

The reason the OP isn't finding many 9mm loadings is because 452AA is primarily a shotgun powder. Some shotgun powders work better than others in pistols.

xtratoy
10-24-2010, 17:58
I have about 10 lbs of the powder. I found the list from Speer earlier and that is where I got the load for the 124 gr. bullet. Been reloading over 30 years and that is why I am asking and not just extrapolating based on burn rate of powder. just because the burn rate is similar doesn't mean the load density or charge weight will be equal. I do have a chronograph but I was trying to avoid the time involved in making a bunch of incremental loads and then driving an hour to shoot in the rain to see if one would work. I was just hoping someone had first hand knowledge of the powder with with a 9mm load. Here is what I found so I thought that someone might have some more info on the powder. Maybe i will just load up some 122 gr. lead FP bullets I have but I wanted to load up a thousand of the 115 gr. JHP I have.

Winchester 452AA Loads from the Speer manual:

Caliber Bullet Charge Vel.
.32 S&W Long 90 Speer HBWC 1.6 674
1.8 737
.32 H&R Magnum 100 Speer Plinker 4.4 953
4.9 990
90 Speer HBWC 2.3 780
2.5 811
.32-20 WCF 100 Speer Plinker 7.3 1424
8.1 1476
110 Speer Varminter 6.8 1313
7.4 1339
110 Speer Spire Point, Round Nose 6.8 1246
7.4 1295
130 Speer HP, Flat Nose 6.4 1159
7.1 1217
.380 ACP 95 Speer TMJ 3.3 913
3.7 1016
9mm Parabellum 124 Speer TMJ 4.9 1064
5.4 1142
.38 Super 95 Speer TMJ 6.5 1316
7.2 1336
.38 S&W 110 Speer HP 3.0 796
3.3 857
125 Speer SP, HP 3.1 792
3.4 844
148 Speer BBWC 2.9 703
Crimped in top lube groove 3.2 736
.38 Special 148 Speer BBWC 2.8 772
3.1 802
148 Speer HBWC 2.8 743
3.1 787
158 Speer LSWC, LRN, LSWC HP 3.6 763
4.0 842
110 Speer HP 4.5 934
+P 5.4 1072
.357 Magnum 148 Speer HBWC 3.0 758
3.3 812
158 Speer LSWC, LSWC HP 5.0 960
5.5 1004
110 Speer HP 12.5 1434
13.5 1488
125 Speer SP, HP 10.5 1261
11.5 1349
.41 Magnum 220 Speer SP 8.3 1004
9.3 1052
.44 Mag. 240 Speer SP, HP, TMJ 12.5 1197
13.5 1205
.45 Auto Rim 200 Speer LSWC 3.5 665
4.0 743
.45 ACP 185 Speer TMJ Match 4.3 757
4.7 819
200 Speer TMJ Combat 5.0 841
5.5 898
200 Speer HP 5.0 868
5.5 916
230 Speer TMJ 4.7 760
5.3 825
260 Speer HP 4.6 712
5.0 786
Note: Per Handloader’s Digest 1994, 13th. Edition, Scot 453 “performs almost Identically to Winchester 452AA”

fredj338
10-24-2010, 22:08
Fred, come on, I pointed out that there are powders that can be used both ways. :dunno:

The reason the OP isn't finding many 9mm loadings is because 452AA is primarily a shotgun powder. Some shotgun powders work better than others in pistols.
Yes, you did, my point was in jest. Most powders we use today were sg powders way back when. Stick w/ the Speer #11 data or the op has some older Hogdon data. I shot #s of it in 45acp before it was discontinued. When I spoke to a Win rep at EndofTrail in 1990, he told me WST was it's replacement & loading data I use today is pretty close to what I used for 452AA back then.:dunno:

WiskyT
10-25-2010, 14:11
When I spoke to a Win rep at EndofTrail in 1990, he told me WST was it's replacement & loading data I use today is pretty close to what I used for 452AA back then.:dunno:

Something being a replacement means it has the same use, but not that it uses the same data. The F14 replaced the F4, but it's not the same thing. I just don't want anyone to think it's a given that they use the same data.

fredj338
10-25-2010, 15:21
Something being a replacement means it has the same use, but not that it uses the same data. The F14 replaced the F4, but it's not the same thing. I just don't want anyone to think it's a given that they use the same data.
You are correct, it's why I said the data is close, but not identical.

xtratoy
10-25-2010, 17:07
Put together some loads at 5.0 gr.AA452 and 115 gr FMJ. shot over the chrony and they were pretty mild. Avg 1050 fps with ejection just barely getting out of the gun. I will try 5.5 grs. next time I have a chance. Shot out of my Glock 35. It has a LoneWolf 40-9 conversion barrel in it.

dudel
10-25-2010, 17:10
Put together some loads at 5.0 gr.AA452 and 115 gr FMJ. shot over the chrony and they were pretty mild. Avg 1050 fps with ejection just barely getting out of the gun. I will try 5.5 grs. next time I have a chance. Shot out of my Glock 35. It has a LoneWolf 40-9 conversion barrel in it.

Congrats. Sounds like you are well on your way. 10 pounds is too much to toss. Glad you could find a use for it.

WiskyT
10-25-2010, 17:50
Put together some loads at 5.0 gr.AA452 and 115 gr FMJ. shot over the chrony and they were pretty mild. Avg 1050 fps with ejection just barely getting out of the gun. I will try 5.5 grs. next time I have a chance. Shot out of my Glock 35. It has a LoneWolf 40-9 conversion barrel in it.

Pressure wise, that 5.0 might just be about the top. I would try less than 5.5 for my next step. A 10% increase in powder charge results in a 20% increase in pressure. 20% is a big jump. The sluggish ejection doesn't necessarily mean you are at less than max pressure. You're using a light bullet with a slide made for 40SW which is a bit heavier than the 9mm slide.


It's up to you, obviously, but I would either be happy with brass I don't have to chase, or try 5.2 grains.

fredj338
10-25-2010, 18:22
Put together some loads at 5.0 gr.AA452 and 115 gr FMJ. shot over the chrony and they were pretty mild. Avg 1050 fps with ejection just barely getting out of the gun. I will try 5.5 grs. next time I have a chance. Shot out of my Glock 35. It has a LoneWolf 40-9 conversion barrel in it.

It's not that slow a powder. Bumping to 5.5gr is not working up a load. Try 0.1gr increments, 10rds at a time.:whistling: Your result is pretty much what I get from WST. At 5.5gr, you are running the edge of max for sure.

xtratoy
10-25-2010, 18:29
OK, I'll take it in smaller steps.

xtratoy
10-28-2010, 12:14
I worked up to 5.5 of AA452 and was getting 1125 FPS and decent ejection (2 foot) to my right. No pressure signs yet. I never mentioned that I have a 13 lb. Lone Wolf recoil spring in the gun. I am going to try 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8 gr. Just looking to get load around 1150 and call it good if get decent groups with it. I have been using CCI small pistol primers. Its raining now and I have no idea when I will get a chance to try these next loads out. I sat in the truck for over two hours waiting for the rain to just slack off from a rainstorm to light rain to check out the last loads :crying:.

fredj338
10-28-2010, 13:02
I worked up to 5.5 of AA452 and was getting 1125 FPS and decent ejection (2 foot) to my right. No pressure signs yet. I never mentioned that I have a 13 lb. Lone Wolf recoil spring in the gun. I am going to try 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8 gr. Just looking to get load around 1150 and call it good if get decent groups with it. I have been using CCI small pistol primers. Its raining now and I have no idea when I will get a chance to try these next loads out. I sat in the truck for over two hours waiting for the rain to just slack off from a rainstorm to light rain to check out the last loads :crying:.
Go slow, 452AA will get funny on the top end. You'll see no appreciable vel gain by adding powder, that platue says it's time to stop.

xtratoy
10-28-2010, 15:09
are you saying that 1125 fps is the best that can be expected out of this powder? Not arguing as it may well be, but what are you basing this on? I have been looking at my reloading manuals and at hodgdon.com and I admit I don't understand how a bullet and powder combo can produce higher pressure yet slower speeds than the same bullet with a different powder. I just figured that if Winchester white box 115 FMJ is throwing brass further and showing flatter primers I was still good for a tenth of a grain or two. BUT...... I've been wrong before:faint: I'm always ready to listen to someone who may talk me out of doing something dumb.

WiskyT
10-28-2010, 16:51
are you saying that 1125 fps is the best that can be expected out of this powder? Not arguing as it may well be, but what are you basing this on? I have been looking at my reloading manuals and at hodgdon.com and I admit I don't understand how a bullet and powder combo can produce higher pressure yet slower speeds than the same bullet with a different powder. I just figured that if Winchester white box 115 FMJ is throwing brass further and showing flatter primers I was still good for a tenth of a grain or two. BUT...... I've been wrong before:faint: I'm always ready to listen to someone who may talk me out of doing something dumb.

Velocity really isn't dependent on pressure. A fast powder can reach max pressure (say 35kpsi) and lets say 1125fps. A slow powder, with all else being equal, could reach 1200fps at 30kspi. Trying to then go 1200fps with the fast powder could easily exceed the 35kpsi limit.

So, in your case, you might have plenty of room to go faster with the 452, but I doubt it. The bottom line is you just don't know. There is only two ways you could know. You could buy a pressure gun and everything that goes with it and operate your own ballistics lab, or you could email Hodgdon and confirm that 452 is Trap 100 and could they send you data for Trap 100 in 9mm. If you can find any old Hodgdon pamphlets from maybe ten years or so ago, that might have Trap 100 data in it. I looked online and couldn't find anything.

My personal opinion is that 452 is just slightly slower than Bullseye. The max for Bullseye is 5.0 with a 115. I wouldn't go higher than 5.5 without data from Hodgdon. Flattened primers etc really don't tell you much.

fredj338
10-28-2010, 16:55
are you saying that 1125 fps is the best that can be expected out of this powder? Not arguing as it may well be, but what are you basing this on? I have been looking at my reloading manuals and at hodgdon.com and I admit I don't understand how a bullet and powder combo can produce higher pressure yet slower speeds than the same bullet with a different powder. I just figured that if Winchester white box 115 FMJ is throwing brass further and showing flatter primers I was still good for a tenth of a grain or two. BUT...... I've been wrong before:faint: I'm always ready to listen to someone who may talk me out of doing something dumb.
I am not sure of the actual dynamic, but powders do wierd things when they hit there pressure limits. A good sign, w/o pressure testing gear, is when you are adding more powder & stop getting linear vel increases. It's telling me that you are only increasing pressure unnecessarily. So if you are getting 1100fps w/ 5.4gr & 1125fps w/ 5.5gr & then 1125fps w/ 5.6gr & then 1135 w/ 5.7gr, I would be stopping @ 5.5gr. I know it soudns wierd & maybe someone w/ an engineering backgorund in propuslion can explain it better, but I have seen the results of continuing to add powder in search for add'l. vel result in blown primers or deformed case heads, sticky bolts on rifles, etc.
If you want to go faster w/ lower pressures, switch to a slower powder like WSF, Unique or Universal. I can run 1250fps in a G17 w/ 115grFMJ @ WSF & not even be kissing the top end of it's load range. Where pushing WST or 452AA that hard is running the ragged edge & somethin like too short an OAL is going to cause problems very quickly in 9mm.

xtratoy
10-28-2010, 17:50
Appreciate the replies. I will load three rounds @ a tenth of grain increase just to see if I hit the plateau at 5.5 gr. I can always run this powder through one of my 38 special revolvers with tested and proven load data. Maybe I'll just burn it up in a shotgun seeing as that is what it was designed for. The 20 5.5 gr. loads I shot over the chronograph were all within 6 fps of each other. Way better than the spread of the loads with IMR 800-X. (50+) Thanks for the help.

fredj338
10-28-2010, 18:19
Appreciate the replies. I will load three rounds @ a tenth of grain increase just to see if I hit the plateau at 5.5 gr. I can always run this powder through one of my 38 special revolvers with tested and proven load data. Maybe I'll just burn it up in a shotgun seeing as that is what it was designed for. The 20 5.5 gr. loads I shot over the chronograph were all within 6 fps of each other. Way better than the spread of the loads with IMR 800-X. (50+) Thanks for the help.
Yep, it's a very uniform powder acorss many calibers. It also meters waaaay beter than 800X. The burn rate of 800X also contributes to the large deviation.