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

I still have over 1K once fired Win CF hulls and a bunch of older nonsplitting Rem hulls so these wads will make me happy too.

A couple of years ago when I made the statement that I would like to see a wad like this I got my britches shredded Rolling Eyes

Dennis

When every second counts, the police are only minutes away.

Guest

Slidehammer,

I believe we have the same idea. I guess my distress with this website, is that I constantly run across fellows claiming that only the Europeans do anything correct.

I believe your statement was to the effect that only the Europeans know how to use a micrometer. If guys that reload knew how to use a micrometer, which some of us do. They would not try to use a wad made for a tapered hull in a straight wall hull, and then be upset when it doesn't work.

Another point to this whole topic is that there is a lot of reloading data, including the stuff on the LPG website, that is iffy at best. Just because it is printed, doesn't mean it is right. Just because the pressure or velocity is right doesn't mean it is good data either.

Not sure what the manufacturers on either side of the Atlantic have to do with any of that, it is our own impatience and ignorance that gets us into these reloading issues.

The only good point that the Euros have right is they all use the same wad and hull diameters, for now, which is convenient for us reloaders. There was a time not too long ago, when you wouldn't have wanted to reload the Euro cases, they were junk. At that same time you couldn't find European wads except for a few Fiocchi's. I kinda think the same is true now, but it is getting down to the point, with the 16 gauge at least, where we don't have a choice.

There is one aspect that has been overlooked here. I suggest everyone examine the wad base of the WW16AA clone very carefully. First, it is bit bigger in diameter than the Remington wad base--not greatly, but measureably. I measured the WW16AA clones carefully with a vernier against the R16s I have on hand and found this is slightly bigger. One point of care here. It is necessary to measure each wad base on two axises to get an average diameter, because the base of any plastic wad is likely to be a bit out of round as molded.

Of greater importance is the shape and the depth of the wad base cup or seal on the WW16AA clone. The cup is deeper and the cavity is more hemispherical. The cup rim is also longer, deeper, and far more supple.

I would not recommend these new wads for use with ball and other fine grained powders in a Cheddite hull. However, they will work very well for average and bigger sized disc or flake powders. I find that if I seat the wads carefully and firmly down on the powder charge, the wad base will obturate and seal the powdr charge in place nicely. I get no serious amount of powder migration in my target loads.

I learned how well the technique works under similar circumstances several years ago with a different wad that has a very similarly shaped base cup. I used to load the Federal 20S1 wad in the Remington 16 ga hull for sub gauge, light loads. This was shortly before we were able to get the R16 in quantity from Recob's. The Federal 20S1 wad diameter is smaller than that of the R16 by at least 10 thousandths of an inch or more. It is considerably smaller than the inside diameter of the the Remington GL16 hull. In spite of this, powder migration was never a problem if I seated the 20S1 wad firmly on the powder charge and crimped it in place firmly as well to keep it there. The wad base flaired out on the powder charge perfectly to seal it in. Its deeper, hemispherical base cup and more supple rim helped it to do the job very well.

Hunting loads are another matter. I want that nice long shot cup to protect the shot coloumn as much as possible. The loads are very likely to be subjected to rougher handling, so a bit of care is called for. I'd use a square plastic patch under and around the wad base to prevent any migration problems. Since I use far fewer hunting loads than target loads, the extra time and trouble expended is not substantial and is well worth it to me.

I guess it is a matter of what each of us consider BS or trouble, or bother, or whatever. I can remember it was not very long ago that folks were compaining about the discontinuance of the WW16AA wad and the almost obscene prices being asked for the remaining stocks of the wad. We have te wad back and at far better prices. Yey folks are still whining and wailing. Geez, give me a break. Give yourself one too.

Finding solutions to reloading problems is one of the unavoidable challenges of owning and feeding a 16 gauge gun. It is one of the basic realities of the gauge and has been for some time. As far as having a good selection and availability of 16 ga reloading componants, all I know is that things have been getting better and better, because a few folks have made an effort on our behalf and have made it so. A few short years ago, we had almost no selection of 16 ga wads, and they were all relatively expensive to boot. This is not so today. I for one am greatful.

However we 16 gauge people need to remain willing, adaptable, and innovative. If a person is not up to it, there is always the 12. Finding reloading componants for the bigger gauge is never a problem.

I suggest folks who can't accept the reality of the 16 go get a 12 and be done with it. Why go through life whining about things you can't or won't bother to help change. Whining changes very little. Instead of griping, why not spend the time and energy to calmly find solutions to the problems. Doing so helps promote the feasability of the gauge, which encourages folks to offer better solutions--like the new WW16AA clone from Claybuster. I'm betting it will become widely distributed and will sell for a more reasonable price than many of the imports from the limited distributers who sell them at this time. The competition can only benifit us. It can't hurt us.

Instead of bad mouthing the wad, why not buy some and learn to use it. It will work if you learn to use it wisely. Less viable more expensive solutions have been made to work very well, and not so long ago either. If we adopt the wad, it will encourage Claybuster to modify and prefect it as sales and demand justify the effort. This coarse of action is a far more productive and a wiser one IMO. Wink

Member Joined: 08 Mar 2008 Posts: 115 Location: Michigan

16guageguy - Very well said - I couldn't agree more! The new Claybuster WAA clones are a big improvement over the BP wads that I have had to use for the last few years in Fiocchi hulls - I really appreciate them.

Keith Rich

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

Member Joined: 08 Mar 2008 Posts: 115 Location: Michigan

Dave - I have had 2 problems loading Fiocchi hulls with BP wads: the wads did not fill up the hulls, so I had to use spacers, and the wads did not fully contain the shot - something I don't enounter when reloading 12, 20, or 28 gauge shells. The Claybuster WAA clones take care of both of those problems. I test fired them the day after receiving the samples and they worked just fine. This is the first time in about 5 years that I have been satisfied with my 16 ga wads since I could no longer use the Win/Rem wads with the straight-walled Fiocchi hulls.

Keith

Smiling :

Update first day of production for the new wad took place yesterday , Monday March 2nd .

Cycle time is down to 23.4 seconds .

For dim. on the new wad look back at prior post it is on there .

Regards Charles

That is good news Nick. this means we will have two new, very useful wads at our disposal within a few monthes of each other. If that does not show that the 16 has made a solid comeback, then would somebody kindly tell me what does please. Good work Nick. I notice you don't seem to spend a lot of time whining about stuff do you. Laughing

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

At 19,692 wads per 8 hour shift these should be available soon I hope. Very Happy

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 224

You might be assuming something here. Why not wait until you have both wads on hand to compare them side by side like I have. I saved one of the wads Nick sent me last summer. it is very close in diameter to the WW16AA wad. It also has a near identical base cup working for it. I'm also certain there will be some variation in measurements from lot to lot. Plastics molding is not an exact science. Tolerances can't be held to very narrow and exact specs like molding with metal and other materials.

Not to worry. Both wads will work very well in the Cheddite hull if used wisely and with some gained experience. So some of these opinions flying around are based on mere assumption and are wrong or are purposefully spreading disinformation. Don't believe anyone (including me) until you try some and see for yourself. Give them a fair chance as well. They are merely tools to be used. How well and how wisely is up to the user. Then you will know for sure.

Member Joined: 08 Mar 2008 Posts: 115 Location: Michigan

As has been alluded to earlier, we should be ecouraging and supporting manufacturers who are coming out with new 16 gauge reloading components. If something doesn't work for you to your satisfaction - don't use it, but don't discourage the manufacture of new components - especially wads - please! Give the new products a try and see for yourself.

Keith Rich

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

Shot about 150 1oz. green dot loads this morning using claybuster wads and Federal hulls on 5-stand. Temp was initially 10º, warmed up to 20º. Not a single blooper, or off-sounding report. Even broke more targets than any of the 12 gauges on the squad. Embarassed

For target work, at least, I now prefer this wad over the GU1621 in straight walled cases, because the entire shot column is contained within the claybuster's shotcup, and leading is not an issue. FWIW, I measured the internal dia. of both a Federal and a Cheddite at ~0.670, no reason a claybuster won't work as well in a Cheddite hull.