| Author |
Message |
| < 16ga. Ammunition & Reloading ~ Anyone have experience with Claybuster or Rem Wads... |
|
 Posted:
Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:19 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 224
|
|
DC37,
I tried the same load using 28 gr of Bluedot (and the plastic sheet...unfortunately I did not test without it.) That load was slower (Ave 1244) and also overpressure (Ave 12266) and also not very consistent. Longshot just will not work in that hull/wad combination due to powder migration and grain size, at least for what I like.
Yes, I agree that a hotter primer will help consistency of the loads. I was using Steel because when you start buffering lead loads in a 16 ga, the pressures start climbing very quickly. Even Steel wasn't a slow buring enough powder to work for the loads I was trying. But this is off topic, so I'll stop writing. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:38 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 1975
|
|
| Dogchaser. Both the CF hull and the polyformed hacve the same recipe. In the CF hull it is 8800 psi and and in the polyformed it is 1100 psi. I have both some old CF hulls and some old polyformed hulls, also some of the newer hulls. In fact I even have some of the old shells from the 70's that haven't even been shot yet.I also like 800x and have not had the problems metering it. Although I do weigh just about every load. You can tell the difference between the CF hull and the polyformed by the base. The cf hull has ribs and the polyformed doesn't, both high base. Now they also have that load listed under the winchester xpert hull which I was told when talking to them that that is the polyformed. Which you confirmed after talking to them, in one of your posts. All I know is that 800x does not migrate when using the SP16 wad. I'll keep using them in both my winchester loads and federal loads. That's what it calls for and they knock down pheasants out to close to fourty yards. It burns fairly clean also. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:55 pm
|
|
|
|
|
| OK I give up, You obviously know someting I don't. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:12 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 1975
|
|
Dogchaser. The same load in Lymans has the CF hull rated at 10,100psi. I don't know who is right now. Still a safe load. My load in the polyformed is supposed to be a tested load with 1100 being on the high side. I don't know what the difference is as the capacity is the same in both hulls.
[img]
[/img]
You can see I still have some that aren't ready for reloading yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:23 pm
|
|
|
|
|
I have Lyman 1, 2, 3 & 4 editions, I haven't bought 5 yet. And as such I don't see the data for 800-X in a polyformed Winchester.
Not sure what polyformed hulls from Winchester you are using but, the polyformed hulls that any of the current loading data uses, have quite a bit more capacity than the compression formed Winchesters.
There were some polyformed made a LONG time ago that had a very high basewad, but I don't know if they were made in 16 gauge. If your polyformed are from the 60's and 70's, they are not meant for the latest loading data.
The polyformed that the current data is for is vague at best as Hodgdon claims their ballistics lab treats them all the same, that statement I believe to be iffy, but that is what their customer service guy said.
The data I gave you in an earlier post was for the polyformed shells that were made by Olin in the late 1990's early 2000's. Someday I will have it retested with the newest Winchester hulls and possibly the Cheddites, but that is another topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Jun 06, 2009 1:11 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 1550
Location: Minnesota and Florida
|
|
 |
Last edited by MaximumSmoke on Fri Sep 17, 2010 3:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Jun 06, 2009 3:42 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Tony,
I am not guite old enough to remember exactly what those old polyformed Winchester hulls looked like. I am glad that you are.
Do you have any idea where the 800-X loading data came from, that spr310 references?
800-X is not as old as the other IMR shotshell powders, I believe it was introduced in the late 70's maybe early 80's (yes I have crs). So I can't imagine that there was ever any data developed for the older polyformed Winchester hulls with the high inside basewad, especially in 16 gauge. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:03 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 1975
|
|
Tony. You are right. I got my 12 gauge and 16 gauge hulls mixed up.
Dogchaser. Here was what I found out today on the load. It came from a guy that used to reload and was in a league. He quit shooting and gave me some powder and hulls. From what I could understand from him was that they loaded all winchester hulls withe recipes from the compression formed hulls. Actually the pressure was allways lower in the polyformed hulls. The pressure should be about 8500 to 9000psi. They do this because of all the different winchester hulls and not much data on them. Also the loads for the expert hulls are not compression formed. I have an old xpert hull and I cut it apart. It is the same as the polyformed hulls with a steel base and separate basewad. All the compression formed have a brass base. I don't know why they list an xpert hull in 16gauge as they're not made. All winchester makes in 16 gauge is the polyformed or whatever it is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:32 pm
|
|
|
|
|
| OK that explains the whole thing. Glad we got to the bottom. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:31 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 1550
Location: Minnesota and Florida
|
|
|
Last edited by MaximumSmoke on Fri Sep 17, 2010 3:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:57 pm
|
|
|
|
|
| shootingsioux wrote: |
Well, guys, the current low-brass 16 gauge Winchester hull is called the X-Pert today. That's the one they're talking about in the loads for the DR16. The high brass is called the Super-X. Both are a regular ordinary Cheddites of the current variety, and internally they are the same regardless of brass height. This means those loads posted for todays X-Pert translate directly into the Cheddites of today. I have not seen different internal constructions or basewad shapes in the current Cheddite 16's, including today's X-Pert. This is not true of the 12's, however.
The old so-called polyformed Winch-Western hulls (we're talking 60's and 70's here) were exactly the same construction as their paper predecessors except for the material of the tube being plastic. They were Winchester Rangers or Western X-perts in low base, and Winchester Super Speeds or Western Super-X's in the high base. Some later old-fashioned polyforms were used in the Upland shell, though compression-formed cases were later used for Uplands. We're talking 16's here, but it happened in 12's and 20's too. Western Cartridge Company was owned by Olin chemical company. Western bought Winchester after Winchester went belly up in 1931. Though the loads and construction were the same, Olin maintained the two ammo brands, Winchester and Western. This was the same thing Remington did after they bought Peter's Cartridge Co. People were very attuned to brand. They were the same product, just branded differently. Anyway, the bases on old polyformed were all brass, as was most everything else in those days. They were a thin and chintzy hull, and didn't last long. there was plenty of loading data -- same as the paper ones. You'd have to get some pretty old loading data from MEC, Hercules, Alcan, duPont or Winchester. The Lyman first edition is copyrighted in 1969, and it only has compression-formed data in 16 ga. It does, however, contain good descriptions of the early polyformed hulls in 12 and 20 that also exemplify the polyformed 16's. Anyway, the old polyformed are very forgettable hulls and you won't find many anymore. (I loved the paper ones, though.)
I dropped out of the scene for a while in the late 80's and early 90's, so I don't know when they started using Cheddites like they do now, but I do know that in between the original polyformed hulls and today's Cheddites there were "polyformed" X-perts with plastic internal basewads that were not the same as today's hull. They were very little different in capacity or internal form from those of today, so they load about the same. They had a tube material that was about the same as the oldest polyformed Winchester-Western products. I don't know who made the hull, but I suspect it was Winchester-Western.
Possibly this is useless trivia again. Sorry if it isn't of practical interest to most of you, but there is a surprising difficulty in identifying old stuff sometimes, and there were a few changes along the way. Remington SP's are another whole complicated ball of wax. Fortunately, because the 16 has been fairly low in production, fewer changes have been made by all brands than say the 12's and 20's.
Tony
|
Tony I have to disagree with you the current winchester lead loads are called Super X http://www.winchester.com/products/catalog/shotlist.aspx?gauge=16 Winchester no longer catalogs a 16 gauge Xpert shell http://www.winchester.com/products/catalog/shotlist.aspx?bn=7&gauge=16
Wiinchester first started using Cheddite hulls in their 16 gauge SuperX loads imported from Italy in about 2003 then switched production to Australia in about 2005.
But everything else is quite correct. |
Last edited by Twice Barrel on Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:36 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:06 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 1550
Location: Minnesota and Florida
|
|
|
Last edited by MaximumSmoke on Fri Sep 17, 2010 3:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:20 am
|
|
|
Joined: 20 Mar 2009
Posts: 428
|
|
Once again, it sounds to me like DC and these other Gentlemen are giving GOOD ADVICE backed up by FACTS! I for one will take his advice and not load these loads. 16GG, I believe the evidence is very overwhelming so BE CAREFUL or you might fall in to the "BLOW YOURSELF UP" category.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:08 am
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 234
Location: KY
|
|
| spr310 wrote: |
| smashdn wrote: |
| smashdn wrote: |
| Twice Barrel wrote: |
|
Smashdn what powder(s) are you using?
|
I was using longshot and unique powders.
Is there a bulkier powder I could try to A) stop the powder migration and B) fill up more of the hull so I don't have to use fillers and undershot card?
I don't get any migration using a SG16, but using a lighter load (7/8 to 3/4 oz) with a filler in the shot cup puts most shot out of the wad.
|
So, back to the task at hand, it was suggested that I just use a different hull or wad? Or powder? If there is such a problem with powder migration in the recipe using the fiocchi hulls and Rem wads why would they even be published in the first place?
|
Where did you get the recipes to use longshot with an SP16 wad in a Fiochi hull? I have hundreds of recipes and can not find one using that combination. None on Hodgdons site and not even any in BPI's manual which can be taken with a grain of salt. I see Lymans now has a couple, but I don't understand that. Longshot will migrate right up the bottle in your reloader even when it's grounde and you have a dryer sheet in there with the powder. That's why I quit using it.
|
Yeah, out of the lyman manual. I guess I am gonna have to quit using it for 16. It can be used for a hot little 20 ga load so I guess i will use the remainder of it in them. It is interesting that the reason I bought the longshot powder when I first got a 16 ga reloader was because it was listed the most often in recipes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:00 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 1975
|
|
| Longshot seems to be one of the most listed, why not just switch wads. Most of the recipes I have using longshot also call for the BPI wad or the waa16. These wads fit better in the straight walled hulls. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
