Lowest recoil powder choice - 9mm

Lowest recoil powder choice


  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

tcj

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
347
So I just used up the powders that I normally use for 9mm and wanted to get your input - based upon actual experience only please - as to which of the following powders (I have them all already) would provide the lowest recoil at minimum powder loads.

Please note, I am not asking for load data, just your input based upon your shooting experience.

All of these will be under a 124gr RN coated bullet (Acme) and will be fired out of a number of handguns including a Glock 17, a CZ75B, a 1911, as well as a Ruger PCC.
 
The answer is simple.

Determine the powder charge weight for each powder that will push your bullet to the desired speed. For example, you want to push your bullet to 1000 fps. Find the charge weights for each powder that does that. Consult the Western Powder manual.

The powder with the lowest charge weight will produce the least recoil. If powder X uses 5.0 grains and powder Y uses 5.4 grains, powder X will produce the least recoil.

Zip looks like the winner.
 
Those math formulas don't always equal what you feel at the range. Some powders just feel softer than others even with equal or greater charges.
W231 is soft shooting, plus accurate with reduced loads.
Bullseye is loud and snappy by comparison.

True Blue and Silhouette look a bit slow for low recoil loads. I tried downloading WSF, got low recoil, but accuracy went out the window.
 
Those math formulas don't always equal what you feel at the range. Some powders just feel softer than others even with equal or greater charges.

True Blue and Silhouette look a bit slow for low recoil loads. I tried downloading WSF, got low recoil, but accuracy went out the window.
+1. In general, with max loads, slower burn rate powders will produce slower "push" than harsher "snap" of faster burn rate powders. fxvr5 talked of ofjective empirical energy which can be different from subjective perceived felt recoil.

And while we load slower burn rate powders to near max load data to obtain more efficient/optimal powder burn and accuracy, we often load faster burn rate powders to mid-to-high range load data as efficient enough powder burn is achieved with accuracy. So faster powders at mid-to-high range load data I use can produce less felt recoil than slower burn rate powders at high-to-max load data.

All of these will be under a 124gr RN coated bullet (Acme) and will be fired out of a number of handguns ... as well as a Ruger PCC.
Since most PCC operate with blowback action, consider this.

Bolt of PCC is holding the case in the chamber only by spring tension when the powder burns. As soon as bolt moves away from the chamber, high pressure gas leakage will start and soot the outside of case. Due to this reason, I prefer really fast burning powders for carbine loads as more efficient powder burn will occur as chamber pressure builds faster (before the bolt moves away from the chamber) and your spent brass will be cleaner (relatively). My carbine load powder of choice is Promo (same burn rate as Red Dot) which many claim is faster than Bullseye. It easily produces 100% case fill loads (depending how short the OAL) and I load them short like 1.110"-1.125" with 115 gr FMJ/RN and has produced smaller than W231/HP-38 which is slower burning in comparison.
 
Last edited:
Thank you.
When I would open it to edit, it would show an extra
on the end of my reply. There wasn't one at the beginning of my reply and I didn't put it at the end,
I erased it off three times and every time I would save it would be right back there again.
 
By the numbers ZIP.

Having said that to me a slower powder can feel softer even if by the numbers it generates more recoil at the same vel than a faster powder.
Physics says burning less powder makes less recoil, but for me a 9mm load with WSF at say 1030 fps or so feels softer than the same bullet at the same vel loaded with less Titegroup.
There will be the argument by some that it is impossible for a human to feel the difference but, hhmm, let me say I perceive the WSF loads to be softer.
So If I had all 4 of those powders I would load them up to the same vel and decide which one felt best (and shot best) for me.
You might find than they all work at your target vel and there is not much difference or you might find a big difference in accuracy.
For practice I like 4.5gr of WSF with a 124/125 which goes against the general trend of faster burning powders that most people prefer.
But "feel" is a subjective thing and what feels softer to me might not to you.
 
Windows updates just came out. It is acting like an Auto complete of some kind is adding a second bracket quote bracket to what I type.
It could be in my comp.
Back to the forum.
 
There will be the argument by some that it is impossible for a human to feel the difference but, hhmm, let me say I perceive the WSF loads to be softer.

Can't argue with subjective experience (some people are color blind, for instance - the cardinal isn't grey, but it looks like grey to them). But it's not a question of whether humans can detect burn rate - it's a question, in semi-autos, of whether there is even a mechanical/physics means of communicating that information to the shooter in terms of recoil. And the answer is no, because the powder is all burned by the time the slide contacts the frame and transfers the vast majority of the recoil force to the frame, which is all that the shooter is touching. Basically, any burn rate-drive pressure curve variance gets summed before it gets "communicated" to the shooter.

The most popular fast powder these days is Titegroup, which is a high-nitroglycerine powder. Nitro content influences the speed of the gasses and other ejecta coming out of the muzzle. I think a lot of people who think "I just don't like how fast powders feel" would more accurately say "I don't like how high-nitro powders feel."

Take N320, which is a fast single-base powder (no nitroglycerine). I have never met anyone who doesn't like how N320 feels. Some people think it feels "the same" as whatever they like. More people think it feels noticeably softer and quieter (which is a big part of how our brains interpret and "feel" recoil).
 
I wasn't aware that ANY powder in 9mm caused very much recoil.o_Oo_Oo_Oo_O
When you start getting old an worn out (like me :uhoh:) every bit helps if you want to spend any significant time at the range.

A few short years ago I would typically send 250-300 rounds downrange. Now it is at most 120 or less.
 
I wasn't aware that ANY powder in 9mm caused very much recoil.o_Oo_Oo_Oo_O

All recoil influences split times. It doesn't matter whether it is "much." Not everyone who is looking at reducing recoil is doing it because they are in pain or something.
 
I'd try N320 or N340. Over the last year I've shot over a thousand of rounds of N340 in 9mm and find it to be well worth the extra price. It's very consistent and clean burning. It also works well in light and heavy loads. Lat weekend I was shooting 147 lead RN out of my G17 and CZ 75B with N340 ringing the gong at 100 yards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top