16ga.com ~ View topic

I want to put a 1 oz. stacked load together for some 16ga. WW Super paper hulls. The load I found in the data sheets calls for a .135 NC and a 7/8" felt wad over 19 grains of unique. I have been unable to conveniently locate 16ga. felt wads. If I substitute 16ga. fiber wads for the felt, would this significantly affect velocity or pressure? This is a 1165 FPS load.
I would also be appreciative of a load for this hull utilizing a more commonly available plastic wad.

Thanks
Art

Member Joined: 08 Oct 2012 Posts: 371 Location: Indiana

There is a partial box of 16 gauge 3/4 inch felt wads on gun broker in the reloading section if this is any help

Clarification: The paper hulls I have are red hi brass marked super speed.

Art

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

Circle Fly Wads has whatever you want.

http://www.circlefly.com/index.html

When I checked,Circle Fly site only lists fiber and some special order cork.

Art

http://www.possibleshop.com/s-s-wads-shotgun.html

16 gauge felt wads here. Doesn't give the thickness. May have to use a few to get to 7/8".

I know this sounds knit picky butt. Fiber wads are made of different things, paper,wood, wool and cork. Alcan offered the Feltan Bluestreak that was a lubricated wad made of wool and paper. Federal made "fiber"wads of paper. Cork was used to reload 12ga hulls because a whisky bottle cork would fit in a 12ga hull and it was easy to cut it to the needed length. Turned out that duck hunters liked that method the best,not because of the whisky, because the loads patterned very well.
I find Alcan stuff at E-bay.
I have seen plastic wads tear the paper out of the inside of hulls ripping off some or all of the crimp. In paper hulls I use paper "fiber" wads.
I have used Circle Fly fiberwads they seem to be punched out of compressed paper sound board which is to friable and lacks cohesion in my opinion.

Having frequently used both in the past, I think Alcan Feltran Bluestreak and Winchester fiber wads are about the same for all practical purposes. They are both less pliant than actual felt wads whether the felt is made from wool or a synthetic fiber. Regardless of which filler wad is used, some type of nitro card or plastic cup wad at the bottom of the stack is necessary to contain the hot powder gases.

Felt is expensive regardless of what it's actully made of. So be prepared to pay substantially more for felt wads. A cheaper practical substitute would be to punch out your own from plastic foam meat packing trays. Stacked plastic foam wads will offer the cushioning effect of felt w/o the cost. Hope my input helps you. Good luck.

Thanks for all the advice on stacked load wad alternatives. I always use a hard card wad over the powder in my paper hulls. I have fiber wads ,lubed fiber wads, wads I have punched out of cork ,plastic meat trays and an old felt hat. Using these different filler wads I have made up satisfactory shot shells with good solid fold crimps . With 19 grains of Unique the performance at the patterning board seems approx. the same no matter what the filler is. The lubed fiber wads do resemble those that I have taken out of old factory shells and would be my first choice . I just wondered if velocities or pressures varied with different fillers?

Art

If we factor in uniformly excellent crimps, then probably closely similar solid wad stacks account for only minor variations in load pressures and velocities. As long as the stacks are made up of the same diameter wads and are the same height, then, resistance to the intial thrust of the hot gases would be about the same as well. Variations in peak pressures and velocities between individual loads would probably be greater. So detecting variations caused by closely similar wad stacks would be all but impossible w/o firing thousands of rounds and accurately documenting the results.

Assessing differences in pattern qualities would be just as difficult. Maybe a more pliant wad column would mitigate pellet damage from initial set back, but even then, it would be very difficult to quantify. Other variables like individual pellet hardness, roundness, and size, resistance caused from increasing amounts of bore fouling, slight variations in crimp depths and firmness, individual hull conditions and dimensions, etc. would also have to be factored in.

As we can see, there are simply too many variable factors in play to pinpoint exactly what is taking place when the loads are fired. All we can do is document and assess the results, but as previously stated, that would take a massive effort. Very few of us here have the resources or the time to test fire thousands of rounds. It's a task best left to the professionals.

For our purposes, closely similar solid wad stacks should be good enough as long as all other components are uniform and loading practices are as well. Of course, our reloads should be able to produce suitable velocities and dependable patterns good enough to cleanly take birds. Then it's a matter of putting those patterns squarely on target. This is why I believe excellent shooting skills are far more important to us as long as the chosen load is a reasonably dependable one. So more time at the practice range than at the loading bench is what's needed for most of us IMO.

In short, there is no such thing as the perfect reload or even the perfect factory load. However, excellent shooting covers up a lot of minor sins at the loading bench. Shooting many thousands of practice rounds at many thousands of clay targets over many years has taught me this. Might work for anyone.