16ga.com ~ View topic

Below is a copy of the question I fired off to the folks at Alliant. I will publish their answer unabridged when I receive it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reloadability of Federal 16 ga. hulls‏
From: 16gaugeguy
Sent: Thu 1/22/09 3:12 PM
To: alliant.reloading@atk.com

Dear Sirs: There has been a debate going on among some of the members of our 16 gauge internet group regarding the amount of times it would be considered safe and proper to reload a new, once fired 16 ga. Federal Game Load hull which has the standard rolled paper base wad. How many average reloads can anyone expect from the federal hull before normal wear and tear renders it unsafe. Any guidelines or information you have established regarding this matter and could share with us would be greatly appreciated.

I have been reloading shotshells with Alliant/Hercules powders for decades now. I've always appreciated the help and information you folks have readily made available for us reloaders and shotgunners. So thanks once again in advance for your guidence and help in this matter. 16gaugeguy on www.16ga.com.

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

Below is is a discussion on the same topic on another shotgun forum. I just googled it up a minute ago. Anyone who is interested might want to read it. I do not know any of the folks below. I'd not claim them as experts. I simply found it interesting that some of the same opinions are being voiced here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TheFiringLine Forums > The Hide > Shotguns
polyformed vs. compression formed
User Name Remember Me?
Password

Forum Rules Firearms Safety Firearms Photos Links Library Lost Password Email Changes
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search

Search Forums

Show Threads Show Posts
Tag Search
Advanced Search

Go to Page...

Thread Tools

2008-09-01, 06:08 PM #1
Brutus
Member

Join Date: 2005-09-11
Posts: 55 polyformed vs. compression formed

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

Trying to start reloading my own hunting loads.
Practically all of the winchester shells I've accumulated over the years have a plastic basewad including the heavy field loads. I've never seen a compression formed case. In the Lyman manual most of the loading data is for compression formed. What gives?

Brutus
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Brutus

2008-09-01, 07:55 PM #2
Scorch
Senior Member

Join Date: 2006-02-13
Location: Washington state
Posts: 4,884 The most common compression formed cases are much better for reloading than polyformed cases. This is not necessarily due to the compression formed cases being stronger, but that the base wads of the polyformed cases crack and break apart. Many cases use compressed fiber (paper) for base wads.

One of the most common compression formed cases is the Winchester AA. I thought everybody had seen them.
__________________
Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs.

http://www.johntaylormachine.com/
http://yourhealthshows.com

Scorch
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Scorch

2008-09-01, 09:05 PM #3
Brutus
Member

Join Date: 2005-09-11
Posts: 55 I guess this is where the confusion begins. AA and Super X are the only Winchester loads I've ever purchased. Since my MEC reloader was setup for Reddot target loads I never really paid that much attention, just load em & shoot em, worked just fine, but I could'nt leave well enough alone and when I decided to start making my own reloads for hunting I started by reading the Lyman manual and thats where the trouble started. According to Lyman compression formed cases have an integerally formed basewad as opposed to polyformed which have a seperate white plastic basewad. Now I have at my desk a sample of Super X heavy field load 3 1/4 dram equivelent (1250fps)
and a AA super sport (1300fps) both have the seperate white plastic basewad. Guess I should have never read the manual.

Brutus
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Brutus

2008-09-02, 02:49 AM #4
zippy13
Senior Member

Join Date: 2008-08-23
Location: SoCal
Posts: 797 You're over investigating the situation, I got my first MEC 650 40 years ago, and guess what, it was set up for loading AAs with Red Dot, too. Get your loading data based on the hull you're loading: If it's a AA hull, use AA data, don't let Lyman confuse you.

To confirm you existing loads, check out Alliant Powder Realoading Data (in pdf) by clicking here.

Unless you've changed the bushing, the one that came with the loader should drop 2-3/4 or 3 dram load (I don't remember) of Red Dot. I successfully loaded with the original bar and bushing for 20-years. Every time I bought an 8-pound keg of Red Dot, I wondered if somehow MEC got a kick back.
I kept hearing how reduced loads would break targets better, so I retired my original MEC bar and bushing in favor of a new adjustable "micrometer" bar. Now I shoot a variety of loads for practice and tournament.
My main change has been from Red Dot to Green Dot, it has less recoil and I can use it in 12, 20, and 28-gauge shells -- (it doesn't work in the .410). Yep, the old MEC now has three Grabber buddies (all with adj. bars).

IMHO, don't go crazy buying MEC bars and bushings, get an adjustable unit and a scale (if you don't already have one). Start investigating other loads -- that's part of the fun of reloading.

__________________
NRA Endowment Member, NSSA Life Member

zippy13
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by zippy13

2008-09-02, 10:51 AM #5
sargenv
Member

Join Date: 2007-05-29
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 71 One thing to note is that they no longer make the old style "compression" formed AA hull. Lately they have changed configurations due to the machine that used to extrude the cases for the old AA hulls has finally gone to the great graveyard in the sky. Winchester had to come up with a different method to make hulls since they could no longer make them the "old" way. The internal dimensions of the new hulls are a bit different and they need to be loaded a bit differently.

If it were me I'd suggest you take a look at the Remington STS hulls. Remington has finally gotten their hulls right and those are the newest and best hulls since the old AA's. If you still have a good stock of the old AA's (Like I do) well, then you can use that old data too.

sargenv
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by sargenv

2008-09-02, 06:08 PM #6
.45 COLT
Senior Member

Join Date: 2004-05-18
Posts: 119 There isn't much load data for the Winchester Polyformed hulls. The "Hull Snobs" won't even bend over to pick them up. That doesn't mean that they aren't reloadable, or that they're not worth reloading.

You're using Red Dot. A 3 1/4 - 1 1/8 -X (1,255 FPS) load in a Polyformed Hull:

W209 primer.
WAA12 wad.
21.0 Grains Red Dot.

For a 1 1/8 - 3 1/2 - X (1,310 FPS) load with the W209 and WAA12, Alliant lists 22.5 Grains of Green Dot. If you want to stay with Red Dot, use a Remington 209P primer, WAA12 wad and 25.5 Grains of Red Dot.

Those recipes will make a pretty fair hunting load with shot up to #6 in size (and a target load of #6s isn't bad either). If you want a larger size shot, use a different hull and go to 1 1/4 ounces (or heavier) of shot to keep the pellet count up.

MEC bushings typically throw light powder charges. You really need a scale if you're going to get serious - and for safety. They don't always throw light.

DC

.45 COLT
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by .45 COLT

2008-09-02, 06:46 PM #7
Death from Afar
Senior Member

Join Date: 2004-11-07
Location: Christchurch, NEW ZEALAND
Posts: 1,411 Good thread. The life of the polyformed hulls really is a lot less- most are dead to you afetr, at best 3 times through the gun. The el cheapo spanish and italian ones do about that, top US hulls a bit more. Apparently powder can leak under the primer pocket and in rare occassions blow the base wad out with drmatic results the next time you pull the loud lever. Dont be tempted to get "just one more" out of these!
__________________
Currently...DPMS AR15, Ruger 10/22 Mag in 17HMR; Remington 870 P 12 Gauge; SKB .410, Benelli M2 12 Gauge + .303's!
"Beware of the Man with one gun...he probably isnt into guns enough to be safe with it".

Member Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 1338

You can lead a horse to water.....

Member Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 1338

Member Joined: 31 Aug 2007 Posts: 238 Location: Lodi, CA

16GG,

I like the idea of asking the powder companies for their advise on this subject, only I have this bad feeling that they may not answer due to liability. What a shame if that happens. Still, my hat off to you sir for a valid and logical attempt! Exclamation

My question is simple:

I also reload these shells and I am heeding your advise on tossing any wet hulls I run across.

But what I would like to know is how did you or the old timers decide on "two" reloads for a plastic hull with a paper base wad? Can I push the reloads to three or four times if the hull still is sound and I am using a MEC Jr. and pressing the wad and the primer together?

I guess I can accept the idea of tossing the hull after 3 or 4 reloadings, but after two reloadings these hulls just still seem too good and almost brand new. My Remington GLs on the other hand look much more beat up and need to be tossed after 2 loadings because the hull itself begins to split and break down. But, I am not seeing that on my Federals.

*Last edited by 16gaugeguy on Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:28 pm; edited 1 time in total*

Doc, I had hoped to scan and print page 51 of the third edition of Reloading for Shotgunners by Edward A Matunas, published in 1993 by DBI books, Inc, ISBN 0-87439-151-3. The facility I have access to won't allow me to due to subject matter restrictions. So I will transcribe the most pertinent passages and the italixed warning below. I think the text will answer your question better than I can. In the mean time, lets wait and see what the Alliant reloading team has to say.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"With experience the reloader will learn how many times a case can be reloaded for a specific shotgun and load before the first signs of case deterioration occur and will stop reloading a case prior to that point."

"The idea, of course, is to stop using the case before it begins to fail. With case failures come erratic ballistics. And, case failure is not necessarily progressive...slowly progressing to catastrophic failure."

"So, get to understand the reasonable case life for your circumstances and stay below the number of times they have been fired and keep good records to prevent accidents due to too many firings."

"There is no special medal given for those who simply must get eight or more reloadings from a case. In fact, if you run into a shooter who wants to brag about how many firings he's obtained from a case, you may want to put some safe distance between him and yourself.. No case lasts forever, and it is far better to be safe than sorry. Early retirement beats death on the job."

Warning: Unibody cases should generally be considered as used up on the sixth firing even if no failures have occured. This means the firing of the original factory load and then five reloads. This assumes no negative signs of wear appear sooner. Polyformed cases should never be fired more than three times, the original factory load and two reloads.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there it is. The 16 gauge Federal hull is a polyformed case. Further, it is one with a wound paper base wad. We should understand that paper has less resilience and elasticity than polyethylene or the other supple types of plastics used for hull walls and base wads. The wear and tear on the paper base wad from resizing and repriming alone is far more damaging than on a plastic base wad. Paper does not spring back once it is compressed. The metal base holding it will. Space will develop between the steel rim and the paper wad. Count on it. That space is the devil in the works. It will allow the hot gases under it at some point. There is no safe way to predict when. So staying well within the guidelines above would make sense to anyone with some.

To those with the sense to realize the truth here, I'm with you. To those that do not or will not, God help you. Obviously I can't. However, please do give me the courtesy of fair warning who you are, so I can plan not to be there when you hurt yourself or anyone nearby. Thank you.

As far as how past generations of ammo manufacturers and professional ballistics experts came up with these guidelines, I can only assume it was on the basis of what proofs and observances they obtained from the thousands of hours of research they did to develop and market safe loads, safe componants, and safe guidelines. The technology available has changed and improved, but the basic procedures have been established for centuries. Ballistic research is not a new science. It has been going on since the days of Francis Bacon.

The Federal case we are discussing has been around since the advent of plastic walled polyformed hulls in the 1950's. If these cases could have been established as having a longer reloading life than other polyformed cases of the times, it would have been in the manufacturer's interests to capitalize on the fact. They have not done so. In fact, Federal decided to develop a one piece compression formed hull designed for a longer safe reloading life. I will not question Federal's decisions on these matters. I suspect they know better than I or anyone else here.

Member Joined: 02 Oct 2007 Posts: 1975

16gaugeguy.
I've followed this thread from the beginning. What are you trying to prove? Everybody agrees that if the hull is questionable don't use it. Have you got some personal agenda against Federal? Get off it. Take a holiday. Go to the bahammas or something.

Joined: 07 Oct 2008 Posts: 74 Location: MO Ozarks

I have followed this thread with great interest. Apart from some intemperate language used it's been fun.

Now if you all would like a real, scientific, controlled test of the issue, see the article by Tom Armbrust at the following web site.

www.armbrust.acf2.org/caselife.htm

I will summerize Mr. Armburst's info about the Fed paper base wad hull by saying that he loaded and fired them 12 times and they performed great.

He did not discuss the issue of loading hulls that had been wet.

In any event, it is well worth your time and effort to read the article. It does put paid to some myths for me.

I had always paid heed to the "only load once, at most twice" mantra from the naysayers. I will no longer pay any attention to them.

Every hull should be inspected prior to loading. I am now treating Fed hulls just like any other. Inspect and if OK, load.

16 ga. hulls are too hard to come by to discard needlessly. My opinion. Everyone else should do what makes them comfortable.

*Last edited by 16gaugeguy on Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:23 am; edited 1 time in total*

I promised everyone concerned I'd print Alliant's answer exactly as it was sent. Here it is:

[b]RE: 16 gauge Federal Game Load hull‏
From: Amonette, Ben (Ben.Amonette@ATK.COM)
Sent: Thu 2/05/09 3:51 PM

We do not know the answer to your question. When it comes to paper base wad hulls, we usually recommend reloading them only 1 or 2 times. However, we do not know how many times you can reload them before they become a safety issue. Thanks for your interest in contacting us and have a nice day.

Ben Amonette

Consumer Service Manager

Alliant Powder Company[/b]

I'd say Ben answered the question as honestly as he could. I will continue to follow the traditional guideline about reloading these hulls no more than two times. This time it is being offered by a spokesman from the parent company who makes the Federal hull.

To me the guideline is not bullshit as Twice Barrel would want us to believe. It was formed decades ago and has not changed since. I'm not about to argue with the wisdom behind it. The rest of you can do as you please. all i ask is please be considerate of others' safety and well being if you decide to not heed the warning.

Joined: 07 Oct 2008 Posts: 74 Location: MO Ozarks

16gg

Did you intend to comment on my post? All I can find in your post is a quote of what I posted.

Thanks, BCP

I am reserving the space until I receive an answer back from Alliant. I will post the answer unabridged and complete as I receive it whether it runs counter to my belief in this matter or not.

As for Tom Armbrust's article, there are too many questions left open regarding the safety issue and any ballistic performance deterioration IMO. The article does not state anything about the actual case preparation method beyond that he uses a Mec Sizemaster. He does not state if he checks any for internal deterioration beyond a visual check or did I miss it? Did Armbrust dissect any to visually inspect for the extent of internal base wad deterioration? Did he probe the cases with a dowel like he should to check for looseness? Further, where are the the pressures and velocities of the loads listed for each consecutive reloading. He did use a pressure gun to perform his test. However, he simply aveages the loads at the end and proclaims the test a sound one.

He used a Browning BT-99 trap singles shotgun for patteern testing, but he does not state at what intervals, i.e., if the patterning was done with the worn shells or not. Armbrust also admits he continues to reload the cases after they start to show signs of internal and external deterioration, but this is done in a pressure gun. Pressure guns are designed to withstand pressures and case failures that no production shotgun will survive. Reloading and firing obviously worn cases is something we have been continually warned not to do in our shotguns by the various shotshell hull manufacturers. What is it they know that Armbrust is not commenting on here?

If Armbrust pattern tested the hulls after so many refirings, I do think his choice of gun to try this experiment in was wise. The BT-99 is probably one of the stoutest trap singles shotguns ever built. I've owned several. They will outlast most others and will survive overloads and abuse that would destroy other shotguns. I'd not compare the BT-99 to any 16 gauge upland gun in the strength department.

Frankly, anyone can do what Armbrust did. They might get away with it for awhile. Then they might not. However, Armbrust never does state whether he'd advise anyone to follow the practice with a field gun or not. I wonder if Armbrust would be willing to pick up the tab for any ruined guns or body parts if someone were to follow his apparent example and get into trouble?

However, I do like Spr310's offer to send me on an all expenses paid vacation to the Bahamas. It's been a tough winter so far and I could use a break to warm up and do some bonefishing. Thanks guy. When can I expect the tickets? Very Happy

Joined: 07 Oct 2008 Posts: 74 Location: MO Ozarks

16gg

It's tough to let go of your predjuces, isn't it? I expect that no matter what type of evidence or argument given, you would find some other counter-argument to attempt to rebut it. I respect Tom Armbrust and his results. He probably knows more about the interior ballistics of shotgun shells than anyone else in the country.

Based on Mr. armbrust's article, I expect to reload each Fed Hull 6 - 8 times, with no issues or problems.

I will carefully inspect each hull prior to loading, like I do every hull. I will let my personal experience guide me, based on reputable information provided by acknowledged experts in the field.

Please send me all the 16 ga. Fed Hulls you come across. I'll be glad to have them.

One man's guidelines are another man's prejudices I guess. I'll stick with the traditional guidelines here, thanks. They have served me very well up until now.

However, I'd certainly appreciate it if you would contact Mr. Armbrust and have him personally weigh in here. I'd like to see him post a definative statement in which he qualifies the 16 ga. Federal polyformed case we are discussing as thoroughly safe to reload more than 2 or 3 times and under what guidelines and/or restrictions he'd recommend we do so. His going on record and posting his proof here would carry some weight. Otherwise, we are simply interpreting and/or extrapolating from one of his articles about a related 12 gauge case being reloaded for entirely different purposes than 16 ga hunting loads. In as much, we have accomplished nothing IMO. Thanks.

PS, life is even tougher going through it without fingers or eyes. I think the Duke would agree.

Guest

I think we have taken this a wee tad too far.

Hoashooter asked about 5 wet cases.