16ga.com ~ View topic

Guest

Hi Mike,

Any number of reloading manuals do make references to this, Lyman comes to mind. Lyman warns you about damaged and missing basewads.

I have had a 12ga. shell with a paperbased wad, that actually fell out, after I pulled it from the chamber. The shell did have a number of reloads fired in it.

You can hardly blow-up a modern barrel any other way, unless you have a barrel obstruction. A loose basewad is a great way to obstruct a barrel. Have I had it happen? No, but, but there is a 12 gauge trap gun on the wall of a local trap club with a peeled back barrel, to prove it happens.

Why tell a guy to go ahead and risk his safety for a few hulls, that he admits were water damaged.

It never ceases to amaze me, how many guys risk a problem over a few cents.

Guest

Well said, 16gaugeguy!!

Member Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 1338

Guest

Hi Mike,

You might read Lyman 4th Edition Shotshell Reloading Handbook, on page 28. There is a whole page of discussion on basewad deterioration and the possible dangers they present. It is very interesting reading.

Member Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 665 Location: Louisiana

16gg it appears that your reading comprehension is questionable---as are your manners. You certainly may have your opinion on many matters but name calling, whether you mean me or others is in poor taste.

Woodcock, I've not intentionally coupled any names to my derogatories including yours. I've said "anyone" to cover it. I mean just what I say. I've no intention of backing off here either.

I also do not belief you support this idea of using a shell past its historically established safe useful life. I also think you are aware of the numerous warnings against the practice found in just about every well written reloading manual ever printed. At least I hope you are.

I did say originally that we should not have to go back and pay the price our predecessors did to learn the wisdom they are passing on to us. However, if you've not read a good reloading manual or two on this matter, I strongly suggest you do so.

You should also be aware that someone else started escalating the unpeasantries by addressing me personally and proclaiming that I was full of nonsense or words to that effect for repeating the warning not to do this. This individual claims he regularly follows this unsafe practice, and does not care who says it is risky. He thinks I'm a fool or a liar or both for warning folks I guess. I guess he thinks the folks who wrote the manuals where I learned of the danger are too. I also guess he thinks all the others who have witnessed against this practice are too.

To me, any person who is willing to advocate or perform a stupidly dangerous belief or practice and who would willingly risk his own or anyone else's well being to save a few cents has the worst manners imaginable. If you find this offensive, well that is too bad. I'd rather sound offensive and perhaps spare folks from grief, than politely stand by and let it happen. Calling a pigheaded fool as much in this matter is the right thing to do here. It is not polite. It is the truth. I think you know it too. It certainly got your attention. That is my objective. I have managed to cut right through all the manure to get to the point. Since I think I've gotten there, I will now take a break and let the rest of you folks carry on. Wink

"All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing." I forget who said this right now. He was and is dead on the money.

Guest

After 7 weeks of kicking this subject around I decided to go to the authority on Federal Shot Shell hulls and as a couple of simple question. Below are my questions and Federal Cartridge Companies responses. I have edited the e-mail for privacy purposed.

From: Prodserv [mailto:Prodserv@ATK.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:52 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Shot shell reloading concern

No we have not

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:44 PM
To: Prodserv
Subject: RE: Shot shell reloading concern

Thank you for your quick response, however, you did not answer one of my questions which is “Have you ever had a report of basewad separation causing damage to a firearm?” Can you please respond?

I would like a copy of your reloading pamphlet.

My mailing address is:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Prodserv [mailto:Prodserv@ATK.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:52 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Shot shell reloading concern

,

We wouldn’t recommend the use of any hull that has been contaminated with water.

The average use of the hulls would be 4- 8 reloads on average, maybe more.

If you can supply us with your mailing address we will be happy to send you a reloading pamphlet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:08 PM
To: Prodserv
Subject: Shot shell reloading concern

I have reloaded your shotgun hulls for many years without incident, however, recently the safety of reloading your shot shell hulls have come into question because of the use of the paper basewad in some of your hulls.

Can you provide me with your recommendation for loading Federal Hulls with the paper base wad in particular:

The number of times a hull may safely be reloaded before the basewad starts to deteriorate or otherwise become’s unusable?

Cautions about using hulls that have become wet and subsequently been thoroughly dried?

Have you ever had a report of basewad separation causing damage to a firearm?

Thank you for your time.

Bottom Line Federal does not recommend reloading hulls that have become wet, Average loadings to be expected 4 - 8 perhaps more, Federal Cartridge Company has received no reports of any guns being damaged or destroyed from base wads lodged in the barrels.

Nice approach twice barrel. After wading through the thread it sound like Federal was just stating the facts which the thread covered. They just did it clearly without emotional tyraids. I appreciate your efforts on our behalf.
Best,
Ron

Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 728

16 gauge guy makes the best point. If it looks, smells, feels, sounds or tastes like it might be a bad shell it should be safely discarded, not reloaded much less fired. The few cents saved ain't worth the aggravation or injury.

Guest

I'm waiting for a reply from the Alliant reloading team to the same question above. I will post it once I get it here. In the mean time, I suggest anyone who wants to learn more about this topic refer to the 1993 edition of Ed Matunas' shotgun reloading manual. Go to pages 50-52 and read about it in the chapter that covers shotgun shells. I will try to have it scanned and will post it here ASAP.

I am also aware of a similar warnings regarding polyformed shells like the Federal hull in the Lyman manuals. I no longer have my old Lyman manual. I gave it to a new reloader over 10 years ago to help him get started safely. If anyone here has a copy and can scan and post the topic here, I'd really appreciate it.

I also really question the knowledge or comprehension behind the reply from Federal Cartridge. Federal uses several types of hulls for their shells including compression formed one piece hulls and polyformed huls that use either a rolled paper base wad or a plastic one. It would be all too easy for one of their people to misinterpret the question regarding this particular 16 ga hull. Beyond that, I question the wisdom of anyone within Federal answering the question as difinitively as it seems to have been. Every ammo manufacturing company I know of as a legal department or advisary group who issue strict guidelines on how and when to answer a question like this. The reasons the matter is handled this way is entirely obvious.

Federal is owned by Alliant. I think it would have been wiser to pass the question to the folks who research and test all the componants listed in the various Alliant reloading guides for a more difinitive answer. Hopefully, we shall see what they have to say on this matter within a few days. In the mean time, I suggest we all suspend our doubts, beliefs, and opinions until we can compile several expert sources of info on this matter. Then maybe we can put it to rest once and for all.

Guest

16GG why don't you just admit it. Your position is indefensible.

Obviously TB, you are not getting it. This is not a matter of "my position" or "your position" or "anyone's position". It is a matter of your, my, and any other reloader's and shotgunner's safety. If you would be so kind as to look into and read the text written by Ed Matunas, a respected and PUBLISHED expert, you might realize I'm citing an expert's advice given as an italixed warning regarding this matter. Once you do that, and also look into the same subject in several other published shotshell reloading manuals, you might want to change your own position.

Until then, why don't we agree to disagree and wait for more published, documented expert testimony on this subject. I hope anyone who is reading this discussion does the same before taking your or my position or any other person's non-expert opinion as sound. I believe there are far more qualified opinions available. I will put my own trust in them.