16ga.com ~ View topic - New Claybusters WAA 16 clone wad...dissappointment!

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 224

I got my bag of WAA16 claybuster clones, and I am dissappointed. Sad

The "flaring" at the base that everyone keeps talking about just doesn't seem to be there. The wads I received had the same base diameter as a remington SP-16 wad (rough comparison). I'm sure this wad will shoot well, and will be great for the Remington hulls...but I load straight wall cheddite clone hulls. It looks to me like powder migration will be a problem with these wads. I was really looking forward to NOT having to put plastic squares in just to stop powder migration.

I didn't think we needed another wad for remington hulls...especially since remington quality has gone to pot.

I sure hope the new 7/8 oz wad we are all waiting on has a larger base than the WAA16 clone. Exclamation

Member Joined: 02 Oct 2007 Posts: 1975

Glad I waited to order. I was going to order some of these wads. powder migration was one of the reasons. I've been reloading 16 gauge and just started reloading 12 gauge. Seems like they can make wads for the 12 gauge that fit, why so much trouble making one wad for 16 gauge that fits the straight walled hulls? I also quit reloading the remington hull in 16 gauge. Even the new hulls will crack in cold weather. Quess I'll wait for the new ones from downrange. Anybody no the measurements on them?

Guest

I think that if you measure most American made wads you will find that they are undersized to the bore diameter no matter the gauge. The larger the diameter the higher the pressure gets because of friction.

It is just the way that the American manufacturers look at stuff, they aren't wrong. American made hulls have always had a smaller inside diameter than the Euro hulls. American made wads were never designed to fit Cheddite or Fiocchi hulls. For that matter, do you think that Winchester ever cared that the AA16 wad didn't work perfectly in a Federal hull?? I am not sure why everyone insists on trying to make wads/hulls work when they were clearly designed by manufacturers with different design ideas.

The gas seal is going to work with your new AA16 style Claybuster wads, and with most flake powders, migration shouldn't be a problem. If they make that wad to exactly fit the bore diameter, the reloading data will change because the pressure will increase. You wouldn't be able to afford the wads if that happens. (Ask Tom Armbrust how much it costs to run a 10 shot test string. Then figure out how many different powder, hull, primer, wad and shot charge combinations there are. We all need to put our feet on the ground, and realize that in the big picture, the 16 gauge is like a canoe on the Pacific Ocean.)

Not sure what everyone is all twisted up about, I am still using the original Winchester AA16 wads in Remington and Federal hulls, with Universal powder without any problems. So the new wads will work even better in those 2 hulls.

B & P and Gualandi wads are available and properly fit the Cheddite, Fiocchi and the newest Winchester hulls. What needs to be done, is Fiocchi, Winchester and Cheddite hulls should be tested with Gualandi and B & P wads. I am sure that there are loads on the Low Pressure Group data sheets for these combinations already. Precision Reloading has informationon the Winchester hull with the B & P wad. If you aren't happy with those two sources, have Tom Armbrust test some for you.

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

I like the claybuster wads, they do a great job considering their intended purpose. I get no off sounding reports in single digit temps when loaded in an RGL, and they work great in a Federal hull with green dot (the only powder I've tried so far). Once Charles' wad comes out, I'll only use the claybusters for 1oz. loads... no more puffed rice Very Happy

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 224

Guest

In Claybuster's advertisement, it clearly reads Replacement Wads.

The issue is that the Claybuster wad is NOT a new wad, it is a replacement wad for the WAA16, that is why you can use it as a direct replacement, with the original Winchester reloading data. Change the design and you change the loading data.

The wad design is clearly from Winchester, and was never intended to be used in Cheddite, Fiocchi, Federal or any other straight wall hull.

Why Claybuster chose this design is their business, but it definitely could have been thought out a little better.

There is a lot more to reloading then stuffing components into a shell. We have all learned that, again, with the WAA16 Replacement from Claybuster.

I know I keep writing about good loading data, but here is another case of someone developing data, that isn't good data. All components need to fit properly, in all aspects. Most guys think just because it crimps OK, then they are home free.

I haven't had any problem with Universal migrating in Remington or Federal hulls while using WAA16 wads. I have used the loads in the field, in an autoloader. If that doesn't jar them around nothing will.

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 224

I would have no complaints if the wad had been billed as an exact WAA16 replacement wad. Then I would have known what I was getting.

But, the wad was supposed to have been modified...the gas seal flared...to allow it to work in the straight walled hulls. That is what bothers me. It will still work in a straight walled hull...but it is not tight like a gualadini wad.

Member Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 1545 Location: Michigan

I load and shoot 1000's of Cheddite hulls a year.
I use the Gualandi wads with great success, in 3/4 to 1 oz. loads.
In hull lengths from 2-1/2" to 2-3/4".
After reading all this garbage, I'll stick with what works. Wink

Guest

Dave you have it right.

I shoot a lot of Fiocchi 16 ga hulls, and I use the Gualandi and B & P wads with no B.S.

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 224

Dave,

I agree with you as well. Now, if Graf's can just get in some more Gualandi wads... Confused

Guest

Apparently, you folks believe that the American manufacturers release wads designed to be used in any application, they don't. If you believe that the European manufacturers are any better, I have some swamp land in Florida I would like to sell you. The manufacturers only sell the wads they already make and with the exception of Winchester, they never develop reloading data.

I wish you guys would stop crapping all over the American manufacturers. The components they produce are excellent. How come nobody ever complained that Gualandi wads don't fit in the Winchester compression formed hull?

The biggest problem, whether you realize it or not, is that we don't buy enough of this stuff.

Not to take this off topic, but I hope you all realize that Mr. Hammack is really going out on a limb with his new wad. His fanny is hanging out a mile, I hope the 16 gauge fraternity can support him, or his new stuff will go the same way, of the other reloading components we have lost.

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 224

dogchaser37,

This isn't about American made or European made, at least not to me. It is about availability and quality.

I can get a whole lot of cheddite style hulls, new and once fired easily. And they hold up better than the current remington hulls. I want a wad that works best in these hulls, without powder migration at all, and without using fillers. The new WAA16 was billed as a wad that was modified to work well in a straight hull. Yes, it will work...just like an SP16 wad will work.

This thread is nothing against Charles's work. I am looking forward to seeing his wad. But I do hope it has a wider base than the SP16 and the new WAA16, so that I can more easily take advantage of the more available and better quality hulls out there.

Member Joined: 07 Jan 2008 Posts: 348 Location: Missouri

Just got 500 of the new wads in today.

I loaded my first 25 (the sample pack) in the Winchester Compression Formed hull and everything fit perfectly.

I'm happy.