I also found this within the book from Lee Precision titled "The ABC's Of Reloading, 7th Edition" (published in 2004).

https://www.galimbertipaolo.it/reloading/LeePrecision-ABC_Reloading.pdf

 

I have an Accurate Powder Guide from 2003 and it only lists A-4100 for the .410 in 2.5" 1200fps loads. That said in the front of the Guide they list their powders and what they compare to. They compared AA9 and 4100 to 296. I shot a lot of AA9C (Commercial) which was a little slower than AA9 in the .357 mag. In that cartridge my impression was the 9C was closer to Alliant 2400 than 296. I still have a couple pounds of 9C and if I ever get silly enough to shoot a .410 I may send some off for testing.

 

My thought is to pressure and velocity test Accurate No. 9 at 13.0 grains in a 2.5" 1/2 ounce .410 Bore load using the AA-HS hull and CX-2000 primer. No. 9 is likely close to being up to as much as 20% faster than H-110/296. Don't use H-110/296 data by any means.

But then again, I don't (yet) own a .410 Bore Shotgun or reloading press.

Accurate No. 9 generally shows up on relative burn rate charts as being a bit slower than Alliant 410 and a bit faster than Alliant 2400.

As an aside, 'Shooters World Heavy Pistol' is quite nearly identical to Accurate No. 9, and is generally cheaper. Explosia/Lovex once mfg'd Accurate No. 9, but when they lost this manufacturing business to General Dynamics, they introduced their "Shooters World" line of powders in North America to keep this market open to them. So effectively, 'Shooters World Heavy Pistol' is pre General Dynamics 'Accurate No. 9'.

 

Likewise:

'Shooters World Major Pistol' is pre General Dynamics 'Accurate No. 7'.
'Shooters World Auto Pistol' is pre General Dynamics 'Accurate No.5'.
'Shooters World Clean Shot' is pre General Dynamics 'Accurate No. 2'.

 

I speculate that the wide availability of dirt cheap military surplus Olin WC-820 powder may have kept people from experimenting with Accurate No. 9 in .410 bore within the timeframe of No. 9's introduction (and well beyond). In the heyday of WC-820's general availability many people quite mistakenly proclaimed that it was identical to Accurate No. 9.

Compounding this, non canister Olin WC-820 lots were produced across as span of three relative burn rates, ranging from similarity to Accurate No. 7 on the fast side to similarity to H-110 on the slow side. The disappointment (and serious pressure risk) that this would have brought to those experimenting with WC-820 in .410 bore may have further discouraged using Accurate No. 9, despite it being retail canister grade and thereby highly uniform in relative burn rate.

 

I have 4 or 5 Accur9 loads for 28ga that are decent, steel and bismuth with good payloads and speeds. From Bullet225ho.com. thought i had 410 data, but looks like only 28ga. I bought a pound of it 2 months ago to mess with.

 

I use Accurate No. 9 in 1 ounce 28 gauge. My first 1 ounce Precision Reloading tested load using Accurate No. 9 carries a test date of 10/4/23. Did Bullet225ho (Brandon?) precede or follow me in using A#9 in 28 Gauge? I'm pretty sure he uses a strain gage based Pressure Trace 2 and doesn't use universal receivers or barrels, or certified reference standard loads, so his pressure data is potentially more suspect than the likes of Tom Armbrust or Precision Reloading who use SAAMI accepted pressure transducers and Universal Receivers/Barrels. It's very hard to reliably calibrate a Pressure Trace 2, and to keep it calibrated. That said, I wish I could get my hands on a Pressure Trace 2. They are no longer made. And there is no follow-up version...

I use more Accurate No. 7 in 28 gauge than No. 9. A#7 is good for 7/8 ounce, and high velocity 3/4 ounce.

 

I'd like to know if he mirrored it also. There's little worse than someone who does that. Maybe somebody has purchased his stuff and would be willing to share it with you.

 

@Dave in AZ, none of those 4 loads mirror my one ounce of Lead load, but the two loads I posted on SGW an TS using Accurate No. 9 may still have given him the idea to try it. Even a phone conversation with Tom Armbrust and/or Precision Reloading post my tests with it may have inspired it. I guess we'll never know. I like his videos. I think he could do a much better job on pattern analysis though. That part of his videos is severely lacking.

 

Yah, lot of work to do patterns for sure though. I have an old win98 box.. maybe the XP one... with Shotgun Insight loaded on it, to do analysis on a pattern pic. Worked decent.

2 weeks ago, someone had AI do a pattern analysis and darn if it wasnt good, counted all holes in 30" circle, 20", and talked about evenness of holes. Soon someone will have the right AI directive to get really good results.