John Taffin reloading data

[frontstuffers]

Hello all. I was looking over some reloading data from a John Taffiin article on the .40 S&W and had a couple of questions you may be able to help with. First one, he referenced AA7 powder. Is this the same as Accurate No. 7? If so, then here is the second question; He mentions using 9 grains of AA7 with a Sierra 180 grain hp. In looking up current load data from Acccurate their max is 8.5 grains with this bullet. So, is this a +P type of load or was he just exceeding max and getting away with it? I have always tried to err on the side of caution/safety and really don't feel like blowing anything up.....like.....me. I wasn't sure whether to look at this as a "Ruger only" type of load or an Elmer Keith more is better (aka little guy syndrome) type of load?

Thanks in advance for any responses. Well, any helpful responses. If you feel compelled to jump in with some smart a$$ remark....DON'T. Keep those to yourself. This is a legitimate question and I am trying to verify safe info.

 

[WIL TERRY]

IF all you're interested in is throwing loads together WITHOUT working up as you should, you must go elsewhere for data.
I'd give you the long and short of it but you BUT you'd think it to be a "smartassed" answer so I will bother not. I will add I tested this in a pressure gun as well as MOSTof JAT's data. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 40S&W +P PRESSURE DATA.
And so it goes...

 

[Jimbo357mag]

Yes 'AA7 powder' is no doubt Accurate #7 powder. They changed their nomenclature some few years ago. Accurate Arms is now Accurate.

http://www.accuratepowder.com/

All I know about the 40 S&W is that it is a relatively high pressure round like the 9mm.

 

[daveg.inkc]

Western Powder is the name over several powders. I have found AA9 to be very accurate in .41 M, .44 M. I have the new copy of Western Powders manual ordered. $25.00 from Midway USA.

 

[Enigma]

It is not uncommon for load data, even maximum loads, to vary significantly from one source to another. John Taffin has probably forgotten more about reloading than I will ever know, and I would trust (but verify) his load data. Editors and typists DO make mistakes. Compare the data with at least two other soucres, and if it's reasonable work up to it carefully. A 0.5 grain difference between maximum loads is extremely unlikely to cause catastrophic problems.

 

[grobin]

If you have a Glock and have not replaced the barrel with one that supports the cartridge head do not reload for it except for loads ~10% below the max.

The SAAMI max pressure is 36,000 CUP, exceeding this is possible with many powders due to case capacity, as is loading a long bullet-either can result in a lot of over pressure!

In any case work up to maximum loads with caution!

 

[frontstuffers]

Thank you all for your responses, it is very much appreciated. When I was at the LGS, the young man helping me wasn't sure it was the same powder either. After a quick search we figured it was. However, I like to be sure on these things as bad stuff can happen if you "assume".

Enigma, that is what I was trying to do, verify his data and was surprised to see that Accurate's max load was lower. I fully respect Mr. Taffin"s expertise but I always tread lightly at max load info.

grobin, I won't be using a Glock but still practice your info. If the powder level of a round even looks strange compared to another I will dump it and recharge the case. You just can't be too careful when reloading.

 

[jgt]

The number seven powders presents a hazard by the name. AA#7 is normally used in reloading pistol cartridges. Reloader #7 is normally used to reload rifle cartridges. I know of an instance where AA#7 was on the benchtop and was mistakenly used for a load intended for Reloader #7. It destroyed the rifle. I keep Reloader #7 for some rifle cartridges but avoid keeping any AA#7 in my loading scheme period. If I kept AA#7 around then I would keep no Reloader #7 at all.

 

[sparkyvega]

As several have said, "trust but verify". I do that by working up my loads.

 

[mikld]

One of my "rules" and what I tell new reloaders; I pay very little attention (none) to any forum expert, range rat, shooting/reloading celebrity, gun counter clerk, well meaning friend, pet loads website, or gun shop guru for any load data. Published reloading manuals are used 99% of the time for my starting loads and as a reference for max loads. There are enough combinations of components to last a reloader for years of safe reloading. I occasionally look at a powder manufacturer's web site, but usually double check everything against one of my published reloading manuals. After some experience is gained, most reloaders can spot "odd" loads and stay away from them...

Reloading manuals aren't hard and fast formula, but will keep you shooting safely (no squibs, no kabooms) for many years...

Go slow. Double check everything. And most important, have fun...

 

[frontstuffers]

jgt, sound advice. when reloading I make sure that all powder is off of the bench except the one I am working with and double check to make sure it is the right one. same thing with primers.

mikld, I try to always check reloading data in the reloading books. while not new to reloading, I take no chances with some load I can't verify. Case in point, the load difference in the opening post. I have even found differences in loading manuals for max loads and sometimes it is significant. as said earlier, you can never be too careful. but I do enjoy it so.

 

[dougader]

You see variations in load data even amongst the published handloading manuals. In 40 S&W, Sierra 5th lists their very own .40 caliber 180 grain jhp with AA7 and a MAX load of 9.2 grains. Speer lists their 180 GDHP with a MAX load of AA7 of 9.7 grains.

Start low and work your way up, looking for the accuracy and power level you want to achieve and stop if you see any signs of high pressure.

In light of the above listed examples, I wouldn't say Mr. Taffin's load data is suspect in the least.

 

[contender]

Yes, variations in loads from different manuals exist a lot. Why? Look at the other components. One manual, say Speer uses Speer bullets, while Sierra uses Sierra bullets. And both may use a different primer. ALL of it combined can & most often will cause deviations in the results.
And in many rimless semi-auto pistol calibers,,, bullet design combined with seating depth can GREATLY vary the velocity & pressure.
All this is why we use different manuals, and start low & work up to a safe load.

 

[Clovishound]

Yes, variations in loads from different manuals exist a lot. Why? Look at the other components. One manual, say Speer uses Speer bullets, while Sierra uses Sierra bullets. And both may use a different primer. ALL of it combined can & most often will cause deviations in the results.
And in many rimless semi-auto pistol calibers,,, bullet design combined with seating depth can GREATLY vary the velocity & pressure.
All this is why we use different manuals, and start low & work up to a safe load.

And yet most reloaders use data for the same style bullet interchangeably. If it is the same weight, profile and coating/jacket we routinely call it good and use that data. Of course, to do otherwise would require that we find data for every single bullet manufacturer or casting company out there. When it comes to cast, it would run in the hundreds of different bullets.

I suppose there is enough of a safety factor built into the data, but it does make you wonder. In my understanding the working up from a start load is no guarantee either, as overpressure signs in pistol calibers are often subtle and may not show up at all until you are significantly over the limit. Of course, a lot of times too hot a load won't result in catastrophic failure, but rather increased wear over time.

 

[grobin]

Even the case can cause problems-particularly when going to/from military brass. When I change anything I back off 20% and rework the load. Often I have several differences between the manual and what I am using! I've had several times when the only common factor was the powder!

I've found that when working up loads that using the same set of 10 cartridges over will accentuate signs of high pressure. e.g. the "Glock smile".

A load that causes increased wear may be perfectly safe; but is seldom the best performer. When the .264 magnum came out it got a reputation for excessive barrel wear with factory ammo. With newer materials that's no longer a problem. The 10 mm in several of the original pistols had excessive wear; but that is no longer the case, by and large.

I try for the best accuracy when developing a load; not the highest velocity!

 

[mikld]

Yep, you will see differences in reloading manuals because they are not hard and fast formula. They are published results of what a particular lab's technicians found when they used their powder in their brass with their bullets and primers, in their test equipment. Not every lab's components and test equipment are the same (even though most equipment is certified) so results will differ...

 

[frontstuffers]

Again, thanks for all of the responses, there is a LOT of good information and advice here. This is why I ask questions like I do. The original post was because of the data I read from Mr. Taffin. It was written on the .40 S&W and he stated his most accurate load (his guns, his loads) was 9 grains of AA7. And of course I couldn't find any reference to substantiate that. I value his expertise and experiences, but still take things with a "grain of salt" as it were if I can't verify safety. I learned early on not to jump on the hottest load and expect the best results. Often times I have found that loads approaching max are much more accurate. Since I am mostly punching holes in paper, I try not to load to hot. Besides, I also take into consideration any wear and tear to the firearm. With certain arms and ammo I do try to load for a specific result, but nothing excessive.

 

[Jimbo357mag]

Yep, you will see differences in reloading manuals because they are not hard and fast formula. They are published results of what a particular lab's technicians found when they used their powder in their brass with their bullets and primers, in their test equipment. Not every lab's components and test equipment are the same (even though most equipment is certified) so results will differ...

This is one of the most important facts when looking for data plus the fact that every gun is different.

 

[mikld]

And yet most reloaders use data for the same style bullet interchangeably. If it is the same weight, profile and coating/jacket we routinely call it good and use that data. Of course, to do otherwise would require that we find data for every single bullet manufacturer or casting company out there. When it comes to cast, it would run in the hundreds of different bullets.

I have a bullet manufacturer's manual for all the jacketed bullets I use. I also have a Lyman's 49th and 50th and Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook 3rd and 4th Editions for all my cast bullets. No big deal, and only 8 books total and I didn't buy them all at once. The first manual I bought was a Speer manual in '87 when I started using jacketed bullets (prior to this I had been using generic cast bullets from my local gun shop with Lee Loader data). When I started using Hornady bullets, I bought a Hornady manual. Same with Nosler and Sierra; I didn't get them until I started using their bullets. I bought a Lyman's 47th or 48th (?) early in my reloading history, one of my first and the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook when I started casting. I do have other manuals, mebbe 4 misc. manuals and powder mfg. manuals. Not a "strain" on my budget and I like to have as much info as I can on my hobbies. Many, many reloaders have way more manuals than this...