16ga.com ~ View topic

Joined: 15 Oct 2004 Posts: 787 Location: Indiana

The RGL's in 1 oz., #8 16 ga. are the closest thing to a "poor man's target load" that we'll find for a while; they work ok for me....

So the gist of my post does not get misconstrued, I use the Remington GL load myself and have generally been very satisfied over the years. It has proven to be the most affordable factory 16 ga load on the market.

My issue is that Remington has recently downgraded the quality of the plastic they use to make the hull way too much IMO. They have also done so to the entire line of black hulled shotgun ammo they make now. I think they need to rethink things here, especially since there is no good alternative for the 16 ga GL hull. Cold weather splits in new, factory fresh ammo is unacceptable. Remington is courting with disaster here in law suits. The bit of profit margin they get in the short term will cost them far too much in the long run. Their corporate reasoning here is plain stupid IMO--like a dinosaur's.

Guest

Not sure about all of Remington's ammo, but I have been shooting and reloading the black 12 gauge unibody hulls, for skeet, with no problem. These were purchased new this year.

To be honest the 16 gauge 2 piece plactic hulls have always burned and cracked at the mouth since I can remember. Never had the cracks extend down the sides though.

Have you contacted Remington? Often the ammo manufacturers reimburse customers in some way for failed or inferior product, as they should.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, besides with all the bad stuff going on, we need to work with the manufacturers not against them, by bad mouthing their products. Let them know about this dangerous product, give them a chance to right their mistake.

Member Joined: 06 Oct 2007 Posts: 2350 Location: West MI

[quote="dogchaser37"]The squeaky wheel gets the grease, besides with all the bad stuff going on, we need to work with the manufacturers not against them, by bad mouthing their products. Let them know about this dangerous product, give them a chance to right their mistake.[/quote]

I agree w/DC37 here, They may not know there is a problem or if it is wide spread enough to warrent looking into. Without feedback from end users how can a manufacturer know that there is a quality control/assurance issue. It seems to me that since the nature of the product (the hull) is initially desgined for a single use and then to toss it over your shoulder once the shot has been taken; not many people would even notice a split case.

For the record I retrieve as many cases as I can and yes some of the RGL's I have shot in the last couple of seasons have split.

This thread raises an interesting question; how many truly dangerous or catastrofic situations arise from a hull wall splitting during the firing sequence? And what are the results? Blown up gun? Combustion gasses escaping out the sides of an action body or receiver? Bodily harm or reportable injury? I'd guess not many if any. If my guess is correct then with no law suits pending I would think that a shell manufacturer has no real reason to address a split wall concern.

Just my 2cents, but I think it would be interesting to hear about real world issuses that have arisen from just a split hull wall and not an over preasured chamber or a weak and possibly poorly maintianed gun.

God I hope this doesn't turn into a pissing match and just simply brings to light an exchange of real world instances.

Mike

Joined: 05 Feb 2008 Posts: 184 Location: Dover-Foxcroft, ME

Full length side splits aren't the problem. Migration of a basewad into the barrel because of a full length side split could be a problem - but seems pretty unlikely.

Sam

Member Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 1338

In today's society, perceptions rule, not reality. This extends into our civil court system--and sometimes our criminal justice system as well. Remington needs only to cause the perception that their ammo could be dangerous. doing so would open the door for some smart tort lawyer to start another class action suit against them.

Remington got their ears pinned back in the class action suit over the alledged weakness of their 870/1100 barrels just over a decade ago. There was nothing really wrong with the 870/1100 barrels, but the ordinance steel QC strength test results were a bit lower than those for the steel used by some other domestic shotgun makers. The perception was that Remington was making substandard barrels. The truth was that the barrels were plenty strong enough for the job, but were a tad less so than others. Nobody was in danger of being hurt, but the perception was just the opposite. They rolled over and conceded the issue before it went to trial to avoid risking a loss in an overly liberal court as well as to avoid facing the court of public opinion in the aftermath..

Remington could be caught in another no win situation here. All it takes is the perception their ammo is potentially dangerous, and the blood would be in the water. In my opinion, Remington is refusing to learn the lesson of a decade ago. Only fools repeat the same error. Only insane people expect a different result. This does not speak well of Remington's management team.

Aside from that, why should Remington's customers be subjected to substandard performance from the ammo under any normal circumstances. When a shell splits, the breech seal it is supposed to provide is compromized. Some of the force of the powder gases is released in wrong directions. The ballistic performance of the load will suffer. If this happens on a target range, it is a minor thing. If it happens during an expensive upland hunt causing crippled and lost birds under already difficult conditions, that is another matter and one that should not ever happen.

These GL loads are meant for bird and small game hunting. GL stands for Game Load. The solution is simple. Make the shell cases stronger and more resilient in cold conditions. Everybody wins. This is really a no brainer folks. I guess Remington management lacks enough brains to realize this though. And so it goes.

Member Joined: 02 Oct 2007 Posts: 1975

I tried out a recipe using WWpolyformed hulls the other day. Wanted to check for patterning. Wanted to also try to see how 800 was in cold weather, so I carried the two shells while I went for a walk in the woods with my dogs. When I got back I patterned the shells. The pattern was good , but both shells split about half way down. I then tried two more but went out right away without letting them get cold. No splits. Might be the cold effects all of the hulls more.

Guest

I'd support your assumption if older Remington Gl hulls split like the new ones. They don't. The plastic used in the new ones is not suitable for the job at hand. It should be replaced with something better like the older type plastic that worked.

Member Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 1338

Did you chronograph the loads to see if there was any difference? The pattern can be a good one and not have enough velocity to hit hard enough. In fact, lower velocities and lower pressures will improve patterns on paper. How effective that pattern is can only be determined by seeing how well it breaks targets or kills game.

Guest

Member Joined: 02 Oct 2007 Posts: 1975