.41, .44, and .45 Colt loads with AA #5?

[jason280]

Anyone using AA#5 in a .41 Mag, .44 Mag, or .45 Colt?  I picked up around 6 pounds of it, and would like to use it in my Blackhawk revolvers.  I'm hoping to get around 950-1000fps with 240-250gr bullets in my .44 and .45, and would like to get around 900fps or so with 200-210gr bullets out of my .41 Mag. 

[Lone Star]

Accurate data for the .45LC (Ruger & T/C Only):
Nosler 250 JHP, CCI 300, WW case, 7" Douglas barrel:
10.9/AA-5 = 902 fps Starting Load
12.1/AA-5 = 1025 fps Max Load - 18,100 CUP


.

[safetysheriff]

jason'

did you look on accurate's website to see what they recommended for the magnums ....  before buying the powder?

i think you're trying to use kerosene in a fuel-injected, blower-boosted dragster !     it's not the best idea....

sorry; but i think i'm being honest.   partly because the load density is too low with such a fast powder being used in a magnum-size case.

ss' 

[Racer X]

I have shot a few pounds of it in my Blackhawk 45 Colt with 250 grain cast bullets and 280 WFN bullets. Very clean burning and consistent, and really comes alive in the 1050 to 1100 FPS range.  If I am not mistaken, it is a little slower than Unique, probably closer to HS-6 but without the muzzle flash. Marshall Stanton at Beartooth Bullets swears by the stuff.

[Lone Star]

...did you look on accurate's website to see what they recommended for the magnums...

Apparently he did, since AA-5 is as good a recommendation as any listed for reduced velocity loads in the .41 Mag.  The lowest velocity load that AA lists is 1096 fps, a bit above the poster's goal but a slight reduction in charge weight will take care of that (AA's data was developed in a 9.5-inch non-ported barrel, he'll lose up to 100 fps just by firing the listed load in a shorter revolver tube).  AA-5 behaves very well at low loading densities, and has been used very successfully as a reduced velocity CB powder in bottlenecked cases. 

A better question might be, why would you consider AA-5 to be so inadequate for a reduced load?  Just asking an honest question....



.

[Cottonwood]

Rather than post the data, you can check for yourself at:

http://www.accuratepowder.com/loaddata_caliber_handgun_standard.htm

[jason280]

Thanks for the input.  My main point was to see if any other members are using #5 in their guns, not just get load data.  Its pretty simple to grab a load book, but I wanted to get a feel for other's experience with the powder in their guns. 

[Cottonwood]

Thanks for the input.  My main point was to see if any other members are using #5 in their guns, not just get load data.  Its pretty simple to grab a load book, but I wanted to get a feel for other's experience with the powder in their guns. 

Jason sorry about just not anwering with a no on using AA #5, as I have used 231, Unique, 2400 and H110 for all my pistol powder needs for calibers such as 38 Spl/357 Mag, .44 Spl/.44 Mag.  You've already purchased the powder and asking what others feel about it after the fact is like putting the cart before the horse so to speak.  But now that you have the powder use the published data that you should be relying on instead of what another has loaded.  Now the best way to start is with the published data, and then find a load that is good for you and your firearm.

[safetysheriff]

...did you look on accurate's website to see what they recommended for the magnums...

AA-5 behaves very well at low loading densities, and has been used very successfully as a reduced velocity CB powder in bottlenecked cases. 
A better question might be, why would you consider AA-5 to be so inadequate for a reduced load?  Just asking an honest question.....

group'

AA' loading manual #1 shows a starting load of 11.3 grs' of AA#5 giving a 210 gr' lswc in the .41 mag 1269 fps; and 10.4 gr's of AA#5 giving 1163 fps for a starting load with an XTP bullet of 210 gr's.    the 1096 fps' load in the .41 mag' is done with AA #2  with a 210 gr' XTP bullet.   the AA#5 will be a very low load density (and it is a spherical powder remember) trying to get a bullet going 900 fps'.    i just don't like the idea.   it sounds like a problematic load, to me.    remember, AA#5 was actuallly developed for the .45 ACP which is a low-pressure cartridge.   

i ran into pressure problems several years back with AA#7 in a .44 mag'.    it acted like it was a mis-labeled bottle of AA#5, i thought !   i've since been buying wc-820 instead at the gunshows, along with Win' 296, IMR Hi Skor 800x, and IMR 4227.    wc-820 bulk is probably very close to what AA#9 is supposed to be, but at a much lower price.

it's just an opinion, with experience behind it however, that the slower powders are better in the magnum and large-cased calibers (.45 Colt).    i guess not everyone would agree with it, but i like the performance the higher load densities generally provide when it comes to accuracy and reasonable power.    the idea of Hi-Skor 800X, incidentally, was written up by Ed Matunas in Handloader's Digest years back.   BUT, that's a single-based powder in 'stick' format, rather than a spherical, double-based propellant.

take care,

ss'   

[Dan Chamberlain]

There's only two powders I use in my .44-40 Henry.  One is AA #5 and the other is 777.  I know the .44-40 isn't one of the rounds mentioned, but AA #5 is very accurate in my caliber of choice, easy to load and very consistent with velocity.  And...it's not a magnum load.

Dan

[johk01]

I use AA #5 in both the 45 Colt (in a SAA clone) & 41 mag and have been satisfied with the results. For both cartridges, I use near the minimum load out of the AA manual for plinking loads and I don't try to warm things up with #5; other powders are better suited for warmish loads. 

[TommyD]

I use AA No. 5 mostly in my 45 ACP loads, and it performs extremely well with 230 grain lead bullets. I used to shoot the auto mostly, but as i have gotten older and crankier I have tired of chasing brass. Now I mostly shoot it out of my blackhawk and FA 83, which both have separate cylinders for the ACP.

I have tried it in the 45 colt, but have never been satisfied with the accuracy. This is probably not the fault of the powder, but rather that none of my revolvers seem to like the 255-260 grain bullets at moderate velocities (1000 fps or so). They shoot OK at 25 yards. But I have found that the group sizes open up disproportionately at greater distances. Past 50 yards they more resemble a "pattern" than a "group." I have had this problem with a variety of commercial cast bullets in the 255 gr weight range. Even the venerable Lyman 452424 Keith bullet has these problems.

Once I get to 300 grains the groups maintain consistency at 50 yards. With a 2x scope on either my Ruger Super Redhawk or my FA 83 I have no problem keeping 5 shot groups within a 3 inch circle at 50 yards all day long. Doesn't seem to matter which brand of bullet (or mold) I use.  I have used NBC, Oregon trail commercial 300 grainers as well as bullets I have cast from Lyman and RCBS molds. all give satisfactory results. I am confident with these bullets that I can nail the vitals of a whitetail at 50 yards consistently on demand. The bullets I get from the LBT 320 LFNGC mold are even better. 4/5 in the 3 inch circle at 75 yards.

The question that I have for you all, is what do you consider to be acceptable accuracy with these light bullet?
Do you set your sights at 25 yards?
Do you check group sizes at 50 and 75 yards? Or do you just assume that a 1.5 inch group at 25 will become a 3 inch group at 50?

Over the years it has been a little frustrating for me, and it has left me wondering if mine are the only guns that the 255 grain bullets destabilize past 25 yards.

I read articles by "authoritative" gun writers in major magazines. They publish their tests and the results of their group sizes at 20 to 25 yards. But they never mention what happens to their group sizes past that distance. They then pronounce a given bullet/powder combination to be "superb" or "accurate" or whatever.

So let me know, guys. Is there something wrong with my guns? I can't be the only one who has ever noticed this. What have you found?

Sorry for the rant, which is probably tangential to the topic of this thread. But the poor accuracy of these light bullets at 50 yards and greater is why I don't use much AA No. 5 in 45 colt. Not the fault of the powder so much. I see the same problems with Unique, 231, and Universal as well.

Tom

[Dan Chamberlain]

Tommy

Didn't see your post til today.  Sorry if you were left hanging. 

Acceptable accuracy?  I shoot all my short barreled revolvers at 50 yards off hand for my whitetail guns.  I have a .45 Mountain Gun that I used last week to shoot a standing 5" group at 50 yards.  Keep in mind, the day before the best I could do was 7.5" with the same gun.  Off a rest (and in the game field, I might use shooting sticks to serve as a rest) I was able to turn in a 3.5" group with the 4" barrel.

Now, when I'm shooting a hunting revolver at hunting distances, I don't use "bullseyes" on my targets.  I shoot at a plain paper or cardboard target and I might put a "spot" for aiming purposes.  But the spots are normally indistinct or slightly fuzzy so that they serve only as a reference, like the hollow behind the shoulder of a deer.

I can shoot farther than 50 yards and have, but unless I'm shooting my scoped Contender, I normally deliberately put myself into a position where 50 will be a maximum for seeing game.  No sense in tempting myself to wound an animal.

Dan