Which of my powders for the softest recoil in 9mm

[tcj]

So, I have several powders that can be used for 9 and would like the collective wisdom from those who have used these to offer their opinions.

I'm not looking for load data - I'll develop ladders and chrono the results - just input as to which would offer the best combo of low recoil with accuracy to 25yrds. Don't really care how "dirty" a load might be as cleaning my firearms is not a big deal.

I just really don't want to open each and every powder and develop a load ladder for each one.​

FYI - the bullet will be a 125gr Blue Bullet (coated, RN). Low recoil needs are due to my more recent physical limitations. Firearms that the loads will be used in are: Glock 17, CZ75 & 1911.

Thanks in advance for sharing and have a great day!

 

[mdi]

I can't answer your question because I haven't used all those powders and I'm not recoil shy. I have used True Blue but I didn't compare the recoil against any other powder (I use a lot of Universal in my 9mms). Remember that you can only go so light and still have your pistol function reliably. I'd say try starting loads with True Blue in your heaviest gun...

 

[fxvr5]

Probably Bullseye or Zip. The physics for the lowest recoil gunpowder is the powder that requires the least charge weight to push the same bullet to the same speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil#Including_the_ejected_gas

 

[Walkalong]

At what velocity level? Or are you just interested in a low recoil accurate plinker to have fun with?

If so, fxvr5 gave you the answer, first Bullseye, then Zip.

 

[tcj]

At what velocity level? Or are you just interested in a low recoil accurate plinker to have fun with?

If so, fxvr5 gave you the answer, first Bullseye, then Zip.

Velocity is only a concern with regard to being able to run each gun with factory standard springs...otherwise don't care as these will not be for competitions that require a power factor....only competition it will be used in is speed steel.

 

[LUCKYDAWG13]

Myself i use red dot in all my 9mm so I would use bullseye
Just about the same thing

 

[rsrocket1]

Bullseye while being called a "fast powder" really has a lot more in common with Unique than with Red Dot in terms of overall "speed".

You should use the fastest burning powder you can get your hands on such as Red Dot, Clays, Titwad, e3 or Extra Lite.
Test them out and see how low you can go while still keeping 100% functionality and the slide locks back on the last round. If you can't get that to happen and still want to go lower, then try a weaker recoil spring that can still reliably bring the slide back home and also realize that you'd better make sure you don't switch loads to normal power without swapping back to the normal power spring.

If your physical limitations aren't going to get any better, you might want to think about going to a full size .380 gun. If it's a temporary thing, just remember to swap recoil springs if you need to.

 

[Walkalong]

Velocity is only a concern with regard to being able to run each gun with factory standard springs...otherwise don't care as these will not be for competitions that require a power factor....only competition it will be used in is speed steel.

Bullseye will work very well for what you want.

If you decide to try something new, N-310, Clays, or WST would be good choices.

 

[Dudedog]

Lots of people like the faster powders Bullesye, Tightgroup etc,

The physics for the lowest recoil gunpowder is the powder that requires the least charge weight to push the same bullet to the same speed.

True however, I prefer the "feel" of a slower burning powder. I like WSF. To me powders in that speed range give me recoil that is less "snappy", something I like.
The recoil may be higher in according to the physics but it feels softer to me.
Feel can make a difference..

I would say try a powder on the faster side of 9mm burn speed and one in the middle something around Universal/WSF/Unique/BE86 burn speed.
Only you can decide which feels better to you.

If you are trying to minimize recoil in 9mm using a lighter 95-100gr bullet can help a lot even with stock springs. (if you are not concerned with making powder factor I would recommend trying some)
I got 100% function in a couple of my 9mms with stock springs right around 1000fps with the 100s. My 9mm 1911 with a somewhat tired spring was ok lower than that.

I prefer not to have to go to lighter springs, but nothing wrong with doing it as long as you are shooting loads that don't "overpower" the spring.
With a lighter spring you can load 9mm with 95-100s and load them down to even midrange .380 power levels and usually still get 100% function, a springs cheaper than a new gun, might be worth a try.
At worst you're out maybe $20 with shipping.for the spring. Wolfe gunsprings usually has reduced power springs for most pistols. (Brownells carries lots of them if you order from Bronwells)

(OP I did notice you said you had 124gr bullets already, just throwing the lighter bullets out as suggestion if the 124s create to much recoil)

 

[FROGO207]

I also like the heavier bullet with the slower burning propellant combo. I feel it as more of a push back rather than a snappy impulse that fast propellants give you. I agree you should at least try a faster and a slower one that you have to see what feels best to you.

 

[frankmako]

I like aa#5 for my soft 9mm loads.

 

[wrench459]

Are you using a compensator or have peep holes?
If so try wac .

 

[mcb]

Lots of people like the faster powders Bullesye, Tightgroup etc,


True however, I prefer the "feel" of a slower burning powder. I like WSF. To me powders in that speed range give me recoil that is less "snappy", something I like.
The recoil may be higher in according to the physics but it feels softer to me.
Feel can make a difference..

I would say try a powder on the faster side of 9mm burn speed and one in the middle something around Universal/WSF/Unique/BE86 burn speed.
Only you can decide which feels better to you.

If you are trying to minimize recoil in 9mm using a lighter 95-100gr bullet can help a lot even with stock springs. (if you are not concerned with making powder factor I would recommend trying some)
I got 100% function in a couple of my 9mms with stock springs right around 1000fps with the 100s. My 9mm 1911 with a somewhat tired spring was ok lower than that.

I prefer not to have to go to lighter springs, but nothing wrong with doing it as long as you are shooting loads that don't "overpower" the spring.
With a lighter spring you can load 9mm with 95-100s and load them down to even midrange .380 power levels and usually still get 100% function, a springs cheaper than a new gun, might be worth a try.
At worst you're out maybe $20 with shipping.for the spring. Wolfe gunsprings usually has reduced power springs for most pistols. (Brownells carries lots of them if you order from Bronwells)

I doubt a shooter can feel the difference between a fast and slow powder that ends up pushing the same bullet to the same velocity in the same gun. The difference in the acceleration vs time curve between a slow and fast powder happens over such a small amount of time the human body lacks the ability to resolve temporal events that short. The bullet is in the barrel for less than a milli-second for most cartridge/handguns. Most tactile senses saturate in the 200-500 Hz range. An event, like a pistol bullet's trip down a barrel that happens in roughly a milli-second is on the order 1000 Hz and you would need to sense faster than that if your going to be able to resolve differences between two such milli-second events

If you where instrumenting a handgun with an accelerometer, strain-gauge, or pressure sensor you would sample those sensors at at least 20kHz to have any chance or resolve the difference in burn rate. At 20kHz you only get 20 data points of the 1 milli-second event.

Sensing these difference is made even harder to sense if your shooting a semi-auto handgun as the slide (an very likely the barrel) are moving independent of the frame your hand is holding. This mass-spring system isolates your senses from the internal ballistics similar to the suspension on a vehicle isolating the chassis from the road.

-sorry pedantic rambling

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

I don't know if it is any better than the others but AA#5 works very well in my 9's.

 

[fxvr5]

I doubt a shooter can feel the difference between a fast and slow powder that ends up pushing the same bullet to the same velocity in the same gun.

I can.

It's not about barrel time. It's about recoil force. See the wikipedia link above. Slower powders that require more weight produce more recoil force than a fast powder that requires less weight.

Here's some data from this source http://www.shootingtimes.com/ballistics/compensators-pressure-gas/ (same gun, pushing the same weight bullets to the same speed with different gunpowders) and did my own calculations. But you can see their figures, too.

45 ACP
230 grain bullet
850 fps
gun weight 2.5 lbs
Titegroup 5.2 grains = 5.2 ft lbs recoil
A#7 9.9 grains = 5.5 ft lbs recoil

38 Super
115 grain bullet
1275 fps
gun weight 2.5 lbs
Titegroup 5.4 grains = 3.13 ft lbs recoil
A#7 9.4 grains = 3.44 ft lbs recoil

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I agree Bullseye and then Zip will give you what you're looking for.

Bullseye, Clays, WST and a few other fast powders will feel the softest.

Zip is slightly slower and in the same class as W231/HP-38 and AA#2. All very accurate IMO.

While AA#5, True Blue, Silhouette along with HS-6, AutoComp and Unique are medium speed powders and while they are very good choices for the 9mm they will not deliver what you are looking for.

 

[Dudedog]

I doubt a shooter can feel the difference between a fast and slow powder that ends up pushing the same bullet to the same velocity in the same gun

Maybe some people can't, I can easily tell the difference between a HP38 load making 128 PF and a WSF load making 128 PF. Same 124gr bullet, same vel.
To me the WSF load "feels" softer. More of gentle push vs a harder shove.
This is in an steel 9mm 1911, Full size pistol, and much "softer" shooting than say my XD subcompact .

"Feel" is a subjective factor, not completely about the physics involved.
(it might be interesting to see the recoil force plotted vs time to try to put numbers on it but it is still subjective)
Total recoil is only one part of it.

Some people like the feel of a faster powder it feels softer to them, some people like the feel of a slower powder, it feels softer to them, both are right about what feels softer to them.

Really the best answer for the OP would be to load ammo with the powders he listed, adjust the loads to get the same vel, and just see which one "feels" softest .
Given the powders listed the total recoil force at the same vel is probably not more than a say 1/4 -1/2 a ft/lb difference between the one with the least recoil and the one with the most.
Who knows they may all feel the same they may not, two might be to close to call as to which feels softest but one of those two might shoot a lot better.
Load some up and test

I would be curious which one is the "right" answer for you.

fxvr5
The guns in your example have a comps correct?. Muzzle break/comp changes it.
Just from a ME standpoint
I get 369 ft/lbs for the .45 load and 415 ft/lbs for the 38 super load for ME.
Add that the .38 Super is burning more powder and I would think the .38 Super would generate more recoil force.
Of course with comps gas pressure/volume..... and such come into play.

 

[mcb]

I can.

It's not about barrel time. It's about recoil force. See the wikipedia link above. Slower powders that require more weight produce more recoil force than a fast powder that requires less weight.

Here's some data from this source http://www.shootingtimes.com/ballistics/compensators-pressure-gas/ (same gun, pushing the same weight bullets to the same speed with different gunpowders) and did my own calculations. But you can see their figures, too.

45 ACP
230 grain bullet
850 fps
gun weight 2.5 lbs
Titegroup 5.2 grains = 5.2 ft lbs recoil
A#7 9.9 grains = 5.5 ft lbs recoil

38 Super
115 grain bullet
1275 fps
gun weight 2.5 lbs
Titegroup 5.4 grains = 3.13 ft lbs recoil
A#7 9.4 grains = 3.44 ft lbs recoil

That is different than what I was saying. Dudedog was imply that if both theoretical loads produced the exact same free recoil energy that he would be able to tell slow powder from fast powder because of the burn rate. The slow powder would produce a lower peak force and slightly longer impulse due to the slower powder (this is true but would be small fractions of a milli-second longer) and be less snappy and that is not physical possible for the human body and the dynamics of a semi-auto pistol.

What you are showing with you data above is that because you can use less fast powered to achieve the same bullet velocity you produce less total impulse as the fast powder produce less additional recoil. That I believe and can also feel in my own loads. You are feeling a difference in the resulting total impulse and resulting free recoil energy not subtle internal ballistic differences in such a short event.

 

[fxvr5]

fxvr5
The guns in your example have a comps correct?. Muzzle break/comp changes it.
Just from a ME standpoint
I get 369 ft/lbs for the .45 load and 415 ft/lbs for the 38 super load for ME.
Add that the .38 Super is burning more powder and I would think the .38 Super would generate more recoil force.
Of course with comps gas pressure/volume..... and such come into play.

The guns in the article are configured in 2 ways. 1) no compensator. 2) with a compensator. Read the article again and see the figures. With or without a compensator, the recoil force is the same. The difference is that with a compensator, the slower powder produces less muzzle rise because of Newton's laws, whereas without a compensator the slower powder produces more muzzle rise, again thanks to Newton's laws.

Don't confuse muzzle energy with recoil force. The mathematical formulas are different.

The 38 Super and the 45 in the article are shooting two different bullet weights. The numbers in my previous post show the 38 Super produces LESS recoil force using the data from the article. See post 15 again.

If the 45 and 38 Super shoot the same bullet weight, the 45 produces slightly more recoil because it uses more powder to push the same bullet weight to the same speed. That is shown here: http://www.shootingtimes.com/ballistics/compensated-45-vs-compensated-38/

 

[Walkalong]

For someone who doesn't need to reach a certain velocity (Power factor etc), a light bullet over a fast powder will give the least recoil. Sure, if they keep pushing the charge up it will get "snappy" and no longer be pleasant, and at that powder level a medium speed powder can feel better. A fast and medium speed powder can overlap each other on felt recoil depending on the velocity. And remember, felt recoil is largely subjective as well.

My 9MM "plinker" load is a plated 124 at 1050ish from a 5" 1911 using N320. It is pretty soft and cycles my 1911 with a stock spring, but isn't as light as I think the OP wants. If the OP has a 1911 he can use a light bullet, a smidgen of fast powder, and even use lighter recoil springs to gain function if need be. Maybe some other pistols as well.

 

[mdi]

I doubt a shooter can feel the difference between a fast and slow powder that ends up pushing the same bullet to the same velocity in the same gun.

In my experience, I disagree. When I was shooting my 44 Magnums a lot (100-150 rounds per session, three times per month) I most certainly could tell the difference if recoil from a fast powder to a slow powder when pushing a bullet to similar velocities. Faster powders give a "snappy", quick jab to my hand and slower powders (none slower than 2400) gave a slower hard push. Kinda like a 12 oz. ball peen hammer vs. a 5 lb single jack...

 

[Dudedog]

Faster powders give a "snappy", quick jab to my hand and slower powders (none slower than 2400) gave a slower hard push. Kinda like a 12 oz. ball peen hammer vs. a 5 lb single jack...

Yes to me it is like this, however like I mentioned before some people prefer one over the other no right no wrong to feel.

Dudedog was imply that if both theoretical loads produced the exact same free recoil energy that he would be able to tell slow powder from fast powder because of the burn rate. The slow powder would produce a lower peak force and slightly longer impulse due to the slower powder (this is true but would be small fractions of a milli-second longer) and be less snappy and that is not physical possible for the human body and the dynamics of a semi-auto pistol.

Not trying to argue but respectfully disagree.
I would be happy to let you load 5 with WSF and 5 with HP38 (same vel for both rounds)in a mag for my 9mm 1911 in what ever order you want and tell you which is which is which at say $20 a piece.
Sounds like mdi would be happy to take the bet in a revolver as well.

I think when we were done both mdi and I would have some free reloading supplies.

If you haven't tried it, try it and see. I would imagine you could as well (but all people are different), no matter what the numbers say.
I have tried it so I know..
I don't care if it is physically possible or not.
Maybe I do it with ESP, but if I do it with ESP it's the only thing my ESP is good for....

 

[mcb]

You guys can believe what you want but the human body simply does not have the temporal resolution in its tactile senses to feel the difference between a fast powder and a slow powder that produce the same total recoil impulse with the same bullet in the same gun. I suspect that either the recoil impulses are actually different values and the slower powder is not pushing the bullet as fast thus your preference or the slow powder is producing a more favorable muzzle blast thus your perceived recoil is more favorable.

In the end if you like, you like it, perceived recoil is all that matters.

 

[Hokie_PhD]

In the end if you like, you like it, perceived recoil is all that matters.

Exactly.

Personally I don’t like snappy recoil. Now a hard push type recoil doesn’t bother me. So I try to make my pistol loads not snap as much as possible. In my case I want an accurate round, then one that doesn’t give me a snappy recoil.

One nice thing about loading your own ammo is there are so many choices of bullets and powders that anyone who’s willing to take a little time and experiment should be able to find a combination or three that they like.

 

[Walkalong]

You guys can believe what you want but the human body simply does not have the temporal resolution in its tactile senses to feel the difference between a fast powder and a slow powder that produce the same total recoil impulse with the same bullet in the same gun.

Perhaps not, but I can tell the difference between a N340 load and a 2400 load in .357 when they make the same velocity. Same for 9MM with fast vs medium powders. Since you threw in "total recoil impulse" I had to think about it a little, but I believe I could still tell the difference.