AA No.2 + 124gr LRN -- a good idea?

[mr0w1]

I'm loading up a batch of 9mm to be shot through a CZ-75, a G19 (LWD barrel) and an M&P9.

First off, I'll say that these are just plinking rounds. I don't shoot competitions, so I'm not looking to make PF or anything.

I've tried Unique, and going as high as I cared to with it, I had functioning problems with the G19 and especially the M&P -- the slide would go back far enough to eject the case most of the time, but not far enough back to pick up the next round. Maybe I'm just being too cautious and conservative.

I did some experimenting with Bullseye, 231 and Red Dot (all faster burning powders), and found that the guns cycled great with them, even with relatively light charges, and leaded the barrel very little (especially the Bullseye).

My idea was that I needed something that burned faster to give the slide more "kick", if you will -- I don't know if my reasoning was correct, but the end result of the experiment was.

So why am I looking at No.2? From the data I've seen it runs a higher powder charge than Bullseye, and burns a little slower -- seems less likely to end up in trouble that way. It's still faster than Unique, so I shouldn't have the problems I was. It should meter better than Bullseye, and will definitely better than Unique. It's also a little cheaper than 231 (which seems to be a favorite for 9mm).

So I guess my question is, any reason not to choose No.2? Does it have any odd characteristics that would make it unsuited to lead (like TiteGroup, for example, burning very hot)?

Thanks!

[atbarr]

Have you considered a lighter recoil spring?

A.T.

P.S. Welcome

Edited February 10, 2009 by atbarr

[mr0w1]

Thanks.

Frankly, I'd rather not. I know that 231 works with the stock springs, as well as Bullseye. I basically just wanted to know if the burn characteristics of No.2 are similar.

[George]

IMHO #2 is too fast for the neener. I like to see something that uses more space in the case for several reasons.

AA5 and AA7 would be better choices here if you want to use AA powder, but my top recommendation for any bullet weight in the neener is HS6. Good volume, med burn rate, works well with light and heavy bullets and low or high charge weights. The swiss army knife of small case volume powders.

[Intel6]

I have reloaded multiple thousands of 9mm ammo with 125 lead bullets. I have done it so much that I know the charge I used off the top of my head. 4.0 grs of AA#2 and a 125 lead bullet. Great plinking/steel load. AA#2 is a fast buring powder comparable to 231.

Neal in AZ

[dleat]

I have loaded several thousand 124 gr. AA#2 rounds. 4.0 Gr gives me 1068 out of my XD9 service and 1080 out of a Glock 34. Both make minor PF. Loads are a little snappy but controllable. I have used this load on steel and for USPSA production with good (for me) results. I have had no problems with accumulation of dirt or residue of any kind. I know few use this powder but I really don`t understand why. Just works.

[skip62]

my experience with AA#2 is very soft shooting, but has these little round goldish green colored residue specs. I usually shoot on a tarp to make it easy to pick up brass, and the tarp will be covered with the stuff. There is also 2 different types of AA#2, regular and Improved. The regular label just says AA#2, the other says AA#2 Improved on the side of the label. Improved is much cleaner, but really didn't like the balls of residue. I've since switched to VVN320 and Solo 1000. YMMV.

[mr0w1]

Thanks a lot guys.

I'm not new to reloading (just a little new to 9mm), and it's still overwhelming sometimes with all the powder and bullet choices and combinations out there. I guess that better than having fewer choices though.

[goneracin]

my experience with AA#2 is very soft shooting, but has these little round goldish green colored residue specs. I usually shoot on a tarp to make it easy to pick up brass, and the tarp will be covered with the stuff. There is also 2 different types of AA#2, regular and Improved. The regular label just says AA#2, the other says AA#2 Improved on the side of the label. Improved is much cleaner, but really didn't like the balls of residue. I've since switched to VVN320 and Solo 1000. YMMV.

I recently started loading with #2, and was confused over the improved vs old, so I emailed them about it. I asked if all the cans of improved should have improved on them.

this is his reply

"Bob,

Ever since 1993 the powder have been the no2 “Improved”.

The “improved” has been dropped since 2003/2004."

I would guess that unless you have had it awhile, its the improved, if it says so or not. I wanted to know as I found some data that showed quite a bit less than other data I found.

Hope that helps.

Edited February 11, 2009 by goneracin

[Carlos]

Welcome!

Actually, for your goals, there are many, many combinations that will work just fine.

And, for your peace of mind, consider this:

-your first post mentions you being cautious. Nothing wrong with that.

-the three guns you listed, (G19, a 75 and an M&P) are all modern designs (which did not exist before 1975). Thus, they are extremely strong and well-built. The data in your reloading manuals however, must be safe in 9mm guns that are up to 100 years old and of any/every design.

-I have personally shot 9mm Major ammo out of 2 of those guns you listed (a 75 and G19). The guns can take it. Take a look around here on be.com at 9mm Major - it is not blowing up guns now (and the 165 PF) and it did not blow them up before at the higher PF.

Point is: for what you are trying to do with YOUR 3 guns, you have a VERY wide safety margin.

For lead, I'd use Solo 1000.

Regards,

Thanks a lot guys.

I'm not new to reloading (just a little new to 9mm), and it's still overwhelming sometimes with all the powder and bullet choices and combinations out there. I guess that better than having fewer choices though.

[goneracin]

my experience with AA#2 is very soft shooting, but has these little round goldish green colored residue specs. Improved is much cleaner, but really didn't like the balls of residue.

wow, is that the truth. the front of my sig is gold. its the oddest powder residue ive seen. no grey, black nothing, gold. the inside of the gun looks like its got sand in it, again, its the powder residue. other than looking odd, i guess its just the ingredients in it.

[skip62]

I recently started loading with #2, and was confused over the improved vs old, so I emailed them about it. I asked if all the cans of improved should have improved on them.

this is his reply

"Bob,

Ever since 1993 the powder have been the no2 “Improved”.

The “improved” has been dropped since 2003/2004."

I would guess that unless you have had it awhile, its the improved, if it says so or not. I wanted to know as I found some data that showed quite a bit less than other data I found.

Hope that helps.

Ahh, ok then. I bought the AA#2 recently, the Improved I bought may have been on the shelf awhile though. The gun shop near me doesn't move much of this stuff. It seemed like I had less residue with the can of Improved, but that's pretty subjective, especially when shot a month apart. I still don't like the residue.

[skip62]

wow, is that the truth. the front of my sig is gold. its the oddest powder residue ive seen. no grey, black nothing, gold. the inside of the gun looks like its got sand in it, again, its the powder residue. other than looking odd, i guess its just the ingredients in it.

yup, that sounds the same as what I've seen. Great powder in all other respects, but I don't clean my guns without putting 2000 rounds through them, and with the amount of crap in the gun after 500, it's just too much for me.