shorter barrel == faster powder?

[randomBytes]

I'm new at this so only have the load data I can find to go by.

Much as I'd like to get some W231 for my 9mm loads (124gr JHP), I am looking at a choice of WST vs WSF.

AFAICT WST is faster burning than W231 and WSF is slower.

I have everything from a g26 to g34 and I'm thinking the shorter barrels will work better with a faster burning powder.

So thinking that WST might work better.

Anyone have actual experience to confirm/deny my hypothesis?

Thanks

[csburtch]

Don't have any experience with either, but, I love the 124gn hp and use 4.0 gn of red dot for my 9mm beretta.
Crazy accurate.

[ChrisGarrett]

I'm new at this so only have the load data I can find to go by.

Much as I'd like to get some W231 for my 9mm loads (124gr JHP), I am looking at a choice of WST vs WSF.

AFAICT WST is faster burning than W231 and WSF is slower.

I have everything from a g26 to g34 and I'm thinking the shorter barrels will work better with a faster burning powder.

So thinking that WST might work better.

Anyone have actual experience to confirm/deny my hypothesis?

Thanks

First of all, burn charts are just guesstimates and approximations, as one powder might be a fast burner in a 9mm case, relative to other powders in its class and then be a slow burning powder in something like a 223. Burn rate is mostly based on case volume.

Powder burn charts are more eye candy and just a loose way of ordering things.

In your case, you're going from what...a 3" barrel to a 4.49"? This will hardly matter.

Find a good manual and see what powder you can get at the store, that falls within your particular manual for cartridge X, Y or Z. Most guides will give you ~10 choices--some of them being a bit faster and some of them being a bit slower, but they're really not figuring this stuff out based on barrel length.

Chris

[randomBytes]

Thanks, yes I realize that burn charts are at best an estimate, as I said I have load data for both WST and WSF with 124gr (different sources), so figure both can work, just trying to guess which might be better.

I've only ever shot the g34 over a chrono so don't have direct data to compare the shorter g26.

[Bill Steele]

The answer is pretty complex and subtle. Suffice to say with a shorter barrel, there is some powder than may yield a similar velocity to a slower powder and provide complete combustion. But for government work, you will find that for he most part the slower powders that yield the best published numbers for a given caliber will yield the highest velocity regardless of the barrel, at least in handgun applications. For 9mm, you may get a similar velocity from WSF as Longshot or HS6, when shooting it out of a g26. But add an inch and the latter two will start pulling away.

If you want bunny fart loads, WST can deliver in 9mm, but it will never get you up in hollow point territory.

Spend some time with Hodgdon's load data and you will get he idea. The velocity numbers will decline as the barrel gets shorter and converge slightly between faster and slower powders, but the slower ones will always be the ultimate winner.

Have fun, good luck.

[XDRoX]

I load a lot with both powders in 9mm. I'd get WSF. You can load it hotter than WST. If you want light bunny fart loads then WST is the better choice. If you load WSF too light it will be dirty and you may get some unburnt powder in your G26. But for the most part most 9mm loads will work equally well in both your 34 and 26. Just don't load the WST too hot or the WSF too light for optimal results.

I don't have a G34, but I do have 8 different 9mm's including a carbine and the rounds I load work fine in all of them. I've never noticed unburnt powder in my G26.

WST is much harder to find data for also. I know you said you have some data, but WSF data is everywhere.

Especially with newer Glocks, they like hotter rounds. WSF is the better powder for hotter rounds.

Hope that helped.

[ChrisGarrett]

Thanks, yes I realize that burn charts are at best an estimate, as I said I have load data for both WST and WSF with 124gr (different sources), so figure both can work, just trying to guess which might be better.

I've only ever shot the g34 over a chrono so don't have direct data to compare the shorter g26.

I just checked Sierra V, Speer 13 and Nosler 4 and none of them use WST, or WSF with the 124/125gr bullets in the 9mm Luger case.

Winchester's 2006 pamphlet only lists 231 and WSF for their 124gr testing, if that matters to you?

I'd be leaning towards WSF and forego WST.

Not saying that you can't get WST to work under 124s in the niner, but when the guy making the powder doesn't even use in its testing, I'm taking notice.

Good luck, Chris

[XDRoX]

Funny, me and Bill were typing at the same time and we both used the term bunny fart loads with WST.

[randomBytes]

Thanks guys, I ordered the WSF
(Powdervalley have both in stock if anyone cares)

[Bill Steele]

Funny, me and Bill were typing at the same time and we both used the term bunny fart loads with WST.

We need to come up with another term, none the least of which is as light as the WST shoots, that would still be quite a bunny fart.

One thing that WST is great for in 9mm is rounds to introduce pistol shooting to a newbie, very unintimidating.

Chrisgarret makes a good point regarding speed and other properties. A shining example is a powder like W296/H110. It needs a lot of pressure to burn properly. Similar burn rate powders Like for instance AA#9 burn quite well when downloaded to a partial case volume.

[stilly]

Heh.

How low can you load a wst round safely? I tried to make some quasi squibs the other night by loading 3.9gr of WST into a 230gr .45 but the gun still cycled them quite well.

I also used I THINK either 4.9 or 9.xx WST loads for my FIRST loads I made with 9mm and they seemed to be decent, I did not think of them as bunny farts but maybe I will revisit them next and see how well they perform. I just got some more WST off the shelf of a lgs. In fact, Turners and Bullseye had it in stock. :\