16ga.com ~ View topic

Member Joined: 06 Nov 2006 Posts: 128 Location: NE

Sent him an e-mail inquiring on any progress in their development of wads for our gun of choice, and was quite pleasantly surprised to get a phone call from him within an hour. Seemed like a nice guy and said that his dad had always used a 16.
Basically what he told me was that their plans were on hold for the time being. They had run a bunch of numbers, startup costs, production rates, anticipated sales, and such concerns, and were just not ready to jump in right now. He did say that he knew of four other companies that were at about the same place as they are.
Did not volunteer their names and I didn't ask. Looks like everybody is concerned with sales numbers justifying the cost of startup.
One thing I did get a feel for during our coversation was that if there had been a little more concensus on exactly what was wanted (as described/asked for in his thread here) that may have been a factor. He had reviewed the thread before he called, and had the site up during our call.
Just thought you guys might like to know.

berg

Member Joined: 01 Feb 2006 Posts: 450 Location: Indiana

Berg.
Whoever jumps into this first with a decent wad will have my loyalty on the sales. After all they deserve that.

Interesting berg as I had talked to Kevin on Friday with the same consensus. Through our discusion I was able to feel his concern with which design would be right. His comment was he needed a more accurate idea of the preferred load for the 16 target load.
I suggested that with our upcoming gatherings that possibly the host could gather individual load data from the shooters and compile the info which in turn could be sent back to Kevin.
1. He does need a base line and sorry guys it may not fill each whim that we have here.
2. The more info the better the chances of making it right the first go around. Just look at Charles H. concerns.
3. There is shot charge ? as to is it 3/4 or 7/8. Then we would have powder selection.
Heck you can go on here for awhile, but we as 16 ga reloaders need to come together with info and not stand on the sidelines casting volleys about what I want. Its not about I, I, I but we, we, we coming together to help develop this.
Interesting point was brought up in the fact that we all use fillers of some sort. At current prices they drive the cost up almost $100 on a case of wads and they can be had for somewhere between $80 to $150 depending on which one. Wink

No task shall be to large for those that work together!

Member Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 3438 Location: Illinois

Time for a poll on what we want/don't want?? I think so Wink

Member Joined: 23 Aug 2004 Posts: 98 Location: Ballwin, MO

I want a wad that will take a 7/8 oz load. If it will take a 3/4 oz load without fillers would make it nicer, but not essential. I will switch to whatever powder/hull combination is necessary for the load, so long as they are readily available.

I think that if the wad is designed for a particular hull, and that hull is readily available to everyone, then most if us, if we want to load this wad, will switch to the right hull. If the wad was designed for, say the Fiocchi hull, and we all started buying the Fiocchi hull, then maybe we would have enough clout to convince them to build it with a better, longer lasting plastic so we could get more reloads out of it. The same may apply to the Remington hull, but I don't have a lot of faith with Remington's management ability when it comes to anything in the 16 ga. After all, the only thing they would have to do to make us all happy is to use the same plastic in the black hull as they use in the STS hull! But will they listen, or do they care? They have the opportunity to OWN the 16 ga market for hulls just by changing the plastic on an existing hull, but they are not listening. I realize that it would cost them a few pennies more per box, but I am sure they could charge twice the difference, thereby making more profit.

Part of our problem is that we are all trying to use too many different components for our individual loads. Not always bad, but there just aren't enough of us to demand two or three different types of hulls(STS/AA/Fed), along with a 3/4oz,7/8 oz, 1 oz, and 1-1/8 oz wad for each hull. We just don't have the clout of the 12 ga(regardless of how practical our favorite gauge is compared to the 12!) If we can unite behind one wad that will work for most of us, and hopefully can be adapted for the rest of us, we may have a chance.

Sorry for the ranting. I loaded some 7/8 oz loads last night, and had to try both 28 ga and 32 ga cards to see what worked best with the Gualandi wads. Then I looked at the 7/8 oz 12 ga wads sitting on the shelf, and wondered why I bothered with the 16! But now I have recovered my senses and repent!

Trying to get this group together on anything is like trying to get a pair of 2 year old siamese twins into the same snowsuit. We are all very independently minded. Its why we choose a 16 in the first place. We just do not follow the crowd.

Some things to consider before we start demanding what we individually want.

1.) The Winchester AA wad and hull are gone for good. Screamiong for their return will not do anyone any good. Olin does not care. Its gone. forget it and move on.

2.) We already have two European wads designed for European cases. They can be modified for light loads in the proper case. If you like them, bug those guys for a wad suitable for lighter loads in the European case.

3.) We have one readily available 1-1/8 ounce domestic wad and a 1 ounce wad we can still special order. We do not need to reinvent the same wheel.

4. We could use a wad that can accomodate 3/4 ounces and 7/8 ounces of shot. We do not have one. A wad that will work for 3/4 ounces without filler will work for 7/8 ounce without filler, but not the reverse.

5. Remington is our only domestically produced hull. Everything else is imported and therefore, not as certain a thing. It would be in our own interest to favor the wad for use in Remington cases with a compressable wad base that will also fill those bigger non- domestic hulls as well.

6. Keeping the wad design basic and simple, without all the trick breakaway pettles, curlique expansion section, and powder disperrsal fingers would be easier to mold and easier to build a mold for.

7. Choose one spokesman who has proven he can get things done without all the horse manure internal politics any group like ours generates, and trust him for his ability and common sense.

If we can do this, we might get something accomplished. Otherwise, we will remain a divided committe with everyone pulling in different directions.

Well said 16gg, but you sure are a long winded cuss Wink

Kudu's my friend.
Charlie

When I speak my mind on a matter, it is in everyone's interest that I speak it plainly and completely. At least you fully understand what I'm saying and where I stand. I'm from the old school of communication.

Short phrases and half statements, like tv commercial sound bytes, do not get the job done. They only give a quick and vague approximation of reality. We have forgotten the importance of listening for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, because we now rely on incomplete sound bytes, partial statements, quick asides, and witty retorts to persuade us to buy this and believe that.

We are becoming sheep and not men. Men listen and use their minds to analize what has been said to seek truth. Sheep only listen for the tinkle of the bell around the neck of the Judas goat who leads them to slaughter. Which do you want to be my friend?

16gaugeguy,
The only sheep in Montana are the nervous ones. Cool

Best,
Ron

Except for the rams. They are jealous...and lonely. Cool

Member Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 425 Location: Maine

I'm with 16gg. A wad compatible with the Rem hull makes the most sense. With shot prices what they are, I'd like a wad that accomodates 3/4 oz. with a fluffy powder, ie. promo, and 7/8 oz. with a denser powder. What we're really lacking is a decent TARGET wad.

Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 10 Location: Indiana

I don't post much but I read just about everything that is written here and I have to agree with 16gg. I wad that will accomadate 3/4-7/8 oz loads seems to be what the industry is lacking and when you look back to the original discussion, there seems to be a loose consensus with this type of wad. I think 7/8-1 oz loads are perfect for the 16 ga and do most of my shooting with those loads. By the way...when is the next order of Remington wads?

I would just like to cast my vote for a 3/4-7/8 oz wad, preferably for the Remington hull. This seems to be the most readily available hull on the market and I think the wad should follow the larger hull numbers, especially if it is to to be a viable money maker for the manufacturer of the wad.

Just my $.02.

Joined: 13 May 2006 Posts: 38 Location: Ohio

I would be satisfied with a 7/8oz wad, with filler card if so desired, one could have a 3/4 oz, but will be happy with either.