16ga.com Forum Index
Author Message
<  16ga. Ammunition & Reloading  ~  Powder Migration
CitoriFeather16
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:21 pm  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Posts: 989
Location: Las Vegas

I'm working up some 1 oz. Pheasant loads from the reloading group using the following components:

New unfired Fiocchi primed hull
19 gr. unique
Win. WAA16 wad
1165 FPS
8100 psi

After patterning some of these today (nice pattern) I picked up one of the wads (pictured below). It looks to me like I'm getting some powder migration or powder blowby. I did notice when loading that the wad went into the case very easily. I didn't get a chance to chronograph thie load today. I only fired 4 rounds. Barrels were realtively clean. Would powder migration be a serious negative if I was still obtaining published velocities in a hunting load.

Thanks for your opinions.

Matt

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
16GAwaterfowler
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:23 am  Reply with quote



Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 287
Location: missouri

You will find that with a straight walled case like the Fiocchi and the AA16 wad you will get powder migration in many loads. Using very fine powders such as SR7625 or 4756 powder migration can be a real issue. My favorite 1 oz hunting load uses the Winchester Polyformed Upland case(straight walled similar to the Fiocchi) the AA16 wad and Longshot powder. Powder migration with this load has also been a big issue with many of my loaded shells having the wad fall down into the hull as powder migrated. The chronograph also showed there was a problem...listed velocity on this load is 1500 fps, here are five over the chrono.
1407 fps
1466 fps
1499 fps
1421 fps
1429 fps Hi/Lo dev 92 fps AVG velocity 1444 fps
As you can see one out of five I shot came in at listed velocity and the Hi/ Lo spread is a bit much for my liking. I solved the problem by taking a small square of waxed paper and inserting it in the hull over the powder charge then placing the wad in the hull. Now the velocities stay with +/- 30 fps of 1500 fps. It is a bit of a pain in the reloading process, however the load performs so well in the field for me the extra step is worth it to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ron Overberg
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:51 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Dec 2005
Posts: 591
Location: Plains, MT.

Interesting predicament with a simple answer at least in my thoughts. The WAA16 wad seems to compliment the WAA16 hulls and they are both hard to come by anymore. With this in mind sell or trade the problem wads and use a more modern wad from Balistic Products or the R16 from RECOB. The board members will probably help in the exchange quickly. I know I would be willing to trade SG16 wads, which work in straight wall cases for the WAA16 wads. I still have the old hulls but I only load them with the WAA16 wads. Just another thought for consideration.
Best,
Ron
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Twice Barrel
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:24 am  Reply with quote
Guest





I agree with Ron. The Fiocchi hull is much more efficient with a larger wad than the WAA16 wad. I would recommend using the Gualandi 1621 or Ballistic Product SG16 wad for applications using Riefenhauser type hulls. There are already two loads using 21.5 grains of Unique with the GU 1621 wad which I think are much better suited to your intended application than the 19 grain load with a pressure within 1000 psi of your intended load.
Back to top
16gaugeguy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:56 pm  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 6535
Location: massachusetts

A few months back, I offered a simple solution to this problem. Its easy to do too. Take any one of the heavier gauged plastic food storage bags and cut out some squares big enough to encompass the entire base of the wad. Place a square squarely on top of the wad guide, then ram the wad home as usual. End of problem. Very Happy

You can stack several bags and cut out a bunch of squares with sharp shears all at one time. This works especially well for hunting load with slower powders. The patch does not seem to raise pressures to any meaningful degree either. However, If youy are loading an absolute max load, I'd back it off a grain or so.

The WW wads work in Remington hulls fine for target loads, especially if you are loading a bunch at a time
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Twice Barrel
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:48 pm  Reply with quote
Guest





16gg and Citorifeather the point I was trying to politely make is that the world just doesn't need another load developed for the now discontinued WAA16 wad. Now if I were going to develop a load for use with the Fiocchi or any other "modern" hull using other than a Gualandi GU1621/SG16 or GU1621 wad I would be looking at using the R16 which are now available again but which have very few loads with newer powders and which have pressures expressed in LUP as opposed to psi. If you feel the compunction to piddle around with plastic sheets have at it but there is no real necessity to.
Back to top
16gaugeguy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:48 pm  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 6535
Location: massachusetts

I got you point, but I disagree. If there are usable wads, why waste them. I've been figuring out ways of working around the shortage of 16 ga componants for so long now, its second nature.

Besides, I've said more than once that the Gualandi wads leave a lot to be desired. At least the Winchester wads will protect a full ounce of shot and serve for 1-1/8 ounce loads better than the Gualandi too. Gualandi makes adaquately deep 12 ga. wads. for trap and skeet target loads. Why can't they do the same for the 16?

To me, 16 ga. Gualandi wads are suitable for only close work. Quite a few folks are finding the Fiocchi 16 ga. Golden Pheasant loads are coming up short past the same range. Its no mystery why. Short shot cups. Protected shot patterns better and hits further out. Flattened, bore scrubbed shot does not.

The WW 16 ga wad is a good, useful wad for one ounce loads that will kill out at 35 to 40 yards. So are the R16 and SP-16. I don't throw good tools out because some fool stopped making them.

Some of the better high velocity loads require an R16, SP-16, or WW16 AA in a Federal or a Fiocchi (Cheddite) case. I want my hunting ammo rugged enough to be carried in a pocket without worry of powder leaking past the bottom of the wad. A simple square of plastic food bag does it. Its a solution that works and is easy to do. Why reject it out of hand? We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ron Overberg
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:42 pm  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Dec 2005
Posts: 591
Location: Plains, MT.

Waste not want not is a 16g motto. I will still trade wads for the WAA16 wad which is very good in an old Win. hull and second best in most other hulls. This board is the source of help for those who seek it. Laughing I just want to help as any good board member would do. Wink
Best,
Ron
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CitoriFeather16
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:23 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Posts: 989
Location: Las Vegas

Ron, I agree. I only loaded about a dozen of these. I have the BP SG16 wads and I will use those with another recipe in the data.

Thanks for all the opinions!

Matt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Twice Barrel
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:53 am  Reply with quote
Guest





You know 16gg I have been listening to you make your claims about the poor design and capabilities of the Gulandi wads for some time so I set up a simple little experiment to calculate what the effect that barrrel wall scrubing would have on down range pattern.

For the experiment I used the Gualandi 1621 wad, the Remington R16, the Remington SP16 and the Winchester AA16.

As we all know only the shot which is not protected by the wad cup and is directly adjacent to barrel is effected by scrubbing so to calculate the number of shot that would be effected by each wad I used a band of adheseve tape around the mouth of the wad to simulate the barrel and capture the number of shot that one would expect to have direct contact the barrel.

In order to insure consistancy I used the same weighed 1 ounce load of #7 1/2 Remington shot.

Results

Remington R 16 37 pieces if shot were captured on the adhesive tape.
Remington SP16 20 pieces of shot were captured on the adhesive tape.
Gualandi 1621 53 pieces of shot were captured on the adhesive tape.
Winchester AA16 6 pieces of shot were captured on the adhesive tape.

So what does this mean. Considering there are 350 pieces of shot in a one ounce load the Reminton R 16 wad allowed 10.6 % of the shot charge to directly contact the barrel walls. The SP 16 allowed 5.7% of the shot charge to directly contact the walls. The Gualandi 1621 allowed 15.1% of the shot charge to directly contact the walls. The Winchester AA16 allowed 1.7% of the shot charge to contact the walls.

What this proves to me is that the Winchester AA16 is the most efficient at protecting shot from barrel wall scrubing while the Gualandi GU1621 is the least.

What it also proves to me is the difference in protection from barrrel wall scrubing between the R16 and the GU1621 at 4.5% is negligable and even the most expierenced shooter could not differentiate between the two with the difference of 10 pieces of shot inside a 30 inch circle at 40 yards.

It also proves that I have too much time on my hands and need to go hunting.
Back to top
woodcock
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:56 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 665
Location: Louisiana

Sounds to me GG, like you might consider asking Winchester to make the WAA available--I mean you were able to convince Remington to share the R16. As there appears to be considerable interest in the Wincheater wad----------------hmmmmmm. Maybe we could gang up on 'em!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
16gaugeguy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:38 pm  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 6535
Location: massachusetts

TB, I'd say a pattern test using closely similar velocity loads built around each wad and fired from one gun with a good choke would be better.

I did it about 7 years years back to see if any real difference existed between them. The Remington out patterned the Gualandi by a considerable percentage using a full choke at 35 yards. However, that is to be expected due to the design.

This was when I began campaigning both Remington and Winchester to resurrect their 16 gauge wads. Remington was noncommital. Winchester flatly refused. Which answers Woodcock's post.

Gualandi designed this wad to approximate the same patterns typical of traditional paper wadded ammo in European guns. It does this very well. I used to use them for close work before I learned first hand how effective and versitile Polywad inserts are. Now I load my ammo with some of the 15000 R16 wads I bought from Recob's on the first go round, and use a Polywad insert for short range ammo. Works for me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Twice Barrel
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:26 pm  Reply with quote
Guest





Ah ha Mr 16gg here we have a problem. The testing cannot be controlled because to obtain optimum performance from each wad we must use different hulls. Remington SP for the R16 and a much larger Chedite Riefenhauser type hull for the Gualandi wad. But to make you happy I will take one of my old clunker Sterlingworths our tomorrow and see what happens using a load of 20 grains of Unique which should be close to 1220 fps and within safe chamber pressure for both loads.
Back to top
16gaugeguy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:36 pm  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 6535
Location: massachusetts

I used 1 ounce of #6 hard shot, a Remington hull and 20.5 grains of Unique with the R16 wad for about 1275 FPS. This is a standard load I still use today. I used a Federal hull and 21.5 grains of Unique for the same Approx. velocity with the Gualandi wad. Both rounds were shot 5 times out of the top barrel of my 16 ga. Citori with a custom bored 28 point full choke tube installed. Patterns were taken at 35 yards.

The R16 wad load held a 72% pattern average inside a thirty inch circle. The Gualandi had trouble making 60% at 59% average. Plus, the Gualandi wad showed a fairly dense cluster of shot in the center, but a very weak and somewhat off center outer ring. The R16 wad shot a more evenly distributed pattern with a useful, but not ideal outer ring. Given a few more yards to open, that pattern would have been very effective out to the fringe.

The Gualandi pattern would have been effective only if the bird was centered perfectly at that range. Close in at 20 yards, the center core of shot would probably have shreaded the bird. Its hard to say what the annular ring would look like. However, the R16 pattern would have ruined the bird at that range even worse most likely.

I don't normally hunt with a full choke in my gun. This was just a comparitive test to establish a baseline to go by. However, my results convinced me to pursue the R16 wad reintroduction as worthwhile.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dave Erickson
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:49 pm  Reply with quote
Guest





My shooting buddy and I did some pattern testing a couple summers ago with all of the 16 gauge field loads in size 6 that we had in our ammo supply. We wanted to find the densest patterns in our SxS game guns for pheasants. We tested Kent Ulitmate Upland, Remington Express, Winchester, Federal and PMC. All of the loads were 1 1/8 oz except for the Kent which were 1 oz loads.

Of the five loads tested in two shotguns, one load was eye-poppingly more dense than the others. So much so that we still scratch our heads about it when we talk about it. Which one? The PMC "Heavy Field Loads" clearly had the tightest patterns by a surprisingly wide margin. Well, naturally I had to cut one apart and see what wad they were using. The wad was a B&P (Baschieri & Pellagri) wad tha Ballistic Products calls the " Z16 Trap Commander" and Precision Reloading sells as the "TUWZ2M16GA." These wads have shotcups that are way shorter than the Remington shotcups and only about 1/32" deeper than the Gualandi.

That kind of blew the whole shotcup depth theory open for me.

Cabelas had these loads for about 5 or 6 bucks a box in their retail outlets, but I haven't seen them now for a couple years. Evil or Very Mad

A couple weeks ago a nice fellow named Eugene Molloy over at gunshop.com sent me a study by the BASC, a Brittish shooting organization that showed no real difference in the patterns shot from plastic shotcup loads and fiber wad loads (no shotcup at all). The findings were that the shot to shot variations offset any real difference between the two. If anyone would like me to send you the attachment, just forward your email address to me on a private message.

Now maybe they were comparing Gualandi wads to the fiber wads, but wouldn't that still show a difference?

In theory, having the shot all protected by the wad makes sense, but I don't think it always works out that way. Otherwise the Remington SP16 wads in the Express loads would have patterned tighter than the PMC loads with the short shot cup, right? Or at least as tight? It wasn't even close. The shot in the PMC certainly didn't appear to be harder to me going by the "pliers squeeze test." It seemed a little softer in fact.

Any thoughts on this?


Last edited by Dave Erickson on Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
All times are GMT - 7 Hours

View next topic
View previous topic
Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next
16ga.com Forum Index  ~  16ga. Ammunition & Reloading

Post new topic   Reply to topic


 
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB and NoseBleed v1.09