16ga.com Forum Index
Author Message
<  16ga. Ammunition & Reloading  ~  Powder Migration
Dave Erickson
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:06 pm  Reply with quote
Guest





Here, I copy/pasted the part of the Basc study regarding plastic and fiber (no shot cup) wads. The Table 3 didn't quite transfer the way I wanted it to, but I think you get the gist of it.


Plastic v Fibre wads
Again, ask shooters how plastic wads affect patterns, compared with fibre wads, and the chances are that they will say plastic produces tighter patterns. Probe a bit further and
little sound basis for it seems to be known, other than "Well, it's what I've always heard...". It is certainly often read in the shooting magazines, sometimes with a 5-10 per cent tighter pattern stated. But on what basis? Is this fact or myth?

Table 3 below summarises the results of comparing the average pellet count in the 30in circle recorded for the plastic and the fibre wad cartridges. Where plastic wads produced statistically denser patterns than fibre wads a P is shown; where fibre-wad patterns were denser, an F; otherwise there was no difference.

These results show no tighter patterning of the plastic-wad cartridges over the fibre wads. In 11 out of 25 comparisons the fibre wads increased pellet density. In 13 comparisons there was no difference.

Clearly these findings relate to the the one cartridge tested i.e. from one manufacturer, one cartridge type and one pellet size only. We cannot assume necessarily that they apply to other cartridges of other makes, sizes and types (including wad design) but they do raise a question over traditional views of plastic wads.

Such a finding will make it easier to use the fibre-wad version at least of this cartridge where the landowner or farmer is concerned about plastic wads.

Table 3 Results of patterning comparisons between plastic and fibre wads 1 1/8th oz. No 6 lead cartridges.

Range (yds) Cylinder Improved cylinder Modified Improved modified Full
20 F F F F F
30 F P
40 F
50 F F
60 F F



Conclusions
Research suggests that the average shooter will not consistently kill pigeons at more than 40 yards with 11/8 oz of No.6 shot.

The variation in performance from cartridge -to-cartridge means that the effect of choke cannot be accurately predicted.

With 1 1/16 oz of No.6 shot, fibre wads consistently give as good or better pattern density than plastic wads"
Back to top
16gaugeguy
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:00 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 6535
Location: massachusetts

Dave, there are so many variables involved when testing shotshells for pattern, that its a rarity to see close similarities between test results. Velocity is a big one. Loads at or below 1200 FPS tend to pattern tighter than loads over 1250. I'd have liked to see the actual velocity of that PMC load.

Pressure is another. I've witnessed some jaw dropping pattern results from an 1840/s era black powder muzzleloading non-choked English double gun using FFG and a card/felt/card wad column and a thin over shot wad. I've also been using lower pressure loads to tighten my trap patterns for years.

Higher pressure loads tend to thin the core of the pattern and the entire pattern dispurses more at shorter ranges. I use this knowledge to load light weight, fast loads with a higher pressure which tend to spread the shot better for close work on quail, woodcock, and snipe. High velocity, high pressure 28 gauge loads tend to do this quite well.

When I did my comparison test, the two loads i used were as closely approximate in both velocity and pressure as I could determine. My results did show a decidedly denser pattern from the R16 load over the Gualandi load.

Even more important, was the pellet distribution within the two patterns. The R16 patterns had much more even pellet distribution. The Gualandi loads seemed to indicate that they threw a bullseye type pattern. At 35 yards, they threw a dense center cluster of shot with a weak, off center annular ring. I'm betting that at shorter range, like 25 yards, the annular ring would have had decent distribution and the core would have been extremely tight, too tight in fact to keep from ruining a well centered game bird.

As for the B&P wads, they seem to be much better designed and made than the Gualandi wads. The wad petals on the Gualandi wads tend to rip off and fly away, and not consistantly either. This would help explain the uneven pellet didtribution and the lopsided patterns. the B&P wad holds together much better. This tendency would help explain the tighter patterns, especially, a more robust center core.

I use a cased wad to tighten patterns for use in a more open choked barrel. I simply apply a wrap or two of Scotch Magic tape to keep the petals of a wad from opening as much or as quick. This is a trick from the old muzzle loading era. Cased shot loads were used to extend the range of a non-choked gun out to past 60 yards. It works very well too.

Anyway, I've posted the componants, the gun, and the choke I used for my test. Anyone can try it for themselves if they wish.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jparkers
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:48 pm  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 14
Location: Knoxville, TN

Hello Gang,
Haven't been around for a while. Have a question kinda on this same topic. Have a bunch of Active G-28 Wads. Are these the same wad as the BP SC16 and the Gualandi 1621? Also, looking for a 2.5 inch, 7/8-oz. load running about 1220-1250fps (modern gun, so a bit of pressure isn't a problem). I have new Fio. hulls, Fio. 616 primers and an assortment of powders. Any thoughts will be helpful.

Thanks,
Jerry

_________________
SpeciesNut
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
16GAwaterfowler
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:10 am  Reply with quote



Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 287
Location: missouri

16GG... when I get a chance and if I can find the PMC loads I will run them over the chrono. Most of the factory 16 ga loads I have chronographed do run around listed velocities, the thing I don't like is many of them have wide velocity swings, Federals being one example.
Here are five shots with Federal factory 15/16 oz steel loads -
1275 fps
1309 fps
1313 fps
1262 fps
1346 fps Avg 1301 fps (listed 1300) Hi/Lo spread 84 fps

The above factory load is averaging listed velocity however the Hi/Lo spread is a bit much for my liking and is of what I have found with many 16 Ga. factory loads. The Remington Express(green hull) 16 ga loads seem to give excellent performance for a factory loading, even the Remington field loads(black hull) work fairly well. Perhaps this is why many of reload for the 16 ga., beides performance issues the last time I checked the Remington Express loads were near $10 a box at most places.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
16gaugeguy
PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:23 pm  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 6535
Location: massachusetts

Wait til you price the Federal premium loads. Talk about sticker shock. Rolling Eyes WOW!!! OUCH!!! Can you say" Reload"/ Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kgb
PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:54 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1256
Location: Nebraska

Dave, that BASC study had me thinking I'd seen something along those lines before and I finally dug out a column in the June 89 Shotgun Sports on the Sporting Clays load which Federal used to market. It was a 3de 1 1/8oz load of 8's with just a wad column, test velocity between 1205 and 1212fps, Don Zutz did the writeup. Compared to a Gold Medal 3de 1 1/8oz load of 8's, typical plastic wad, there was no significant difference in the two at 25 yards.

The idea behind the round was faster-opening patterns, but it didn't work out that way, or as in the article, seemed "a debatable topic." Don'z (can I patent that?) conclusion in the article was "But, if shooting Sporting Clays without a shotcup wad gives you more confidence on close and moderate-range shots, I can't think of a better load than Federal's T-122 at this time." That looks like an acknowledgement that a lot of this is in the mind and that's just fine.

Some of the guys out here spent a fair amount of time trying to get 7/8oz reloads using the Gualandi wads to open up patterns. Although they certainly had to be leaving some of the shot unprotected, patterns didn't seem to suffer.

Like everything else, you can't know until you try--I think those wads are extremely stiff compared to Winchester and Remington wads, same goes for the Federal 1oz 12ga wads and I presume their other versions, but in actual use they look to do just what they need to.

kgb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
16gaugeguy
PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:00 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 6535
Location: massachusetts

It might seem that way. What I have found is the Gualandi type wads and unprotected shot charges surrender the annular ring of the pattern too soon. What you end up with is the central core but little support outside of it. Any well centered target will break or be killed, but the ones outside the center are too often missed, unbroken, or in thecase of game birds, fringed and not killed.

However, American style wads tend to throw a larger usefulpattern all the way out to the end of the terminal range of whatever percentage that particular pattern might be from cylinder to full. There is more leeway for error--something always useful when shooting at a game bird, a target of unknown speed, and uncertain path. It works better for clay targets of mixed ranges and speeds too like SC targets. Most premium European target ammo uses American style wads with shot cups sufficiently deep enough to accept at least 85% of the shot.

Specialty close range loads do have their place, especially for fixed choke guns. I use spreader loads to good effect. However, good close range spreader loads throw a looser central core and a better annular ring. The whole pattern spreads faster and not just the outside of it.

As for subgauge shot loads like 12 gauge 7/8 ounce or 24 dram international trap loads, these loads throw a very dense, but slower opening and therefore smaller pattern out to beyond 40 yards from full choked barrels. They use a wad with a cup that protects all of the shot, like a WWAA12L wad as well as the hardest premium shot.

Its nice to think we can always center the target or withhold the shot if we are not dead certain of a hit. However, it just is not so. I'll stick with well designed wads that have a long and well established track record like the R16. It has been doing a good job for over 40 years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dave Erickson
PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:15 am  Reply with quote
Guest





I've had excellent results with Gualandi wads for my target loads. They look good on the pattern board, too. I bought two lots of 5,000 when they were something like $69.00/5000 with free shipping from Graf's. I think they went up to 89/5000 now with free shipping. Still a bargain.

I never "bit" on the R16 wads for two reasons. They require the use of additional filler to acheive a good crimp for my 7/8 and 3/4 oz 16 gauge target loads. My life is busy enough, so I really get annoyed by that extra piddly step of adding fillers to target loads, No filler is required with the Gualandi wads. (even 3/4 oz)

The second reason is that I have had bloopers loading the Rem SP16 and Win AA16 wads in both Cheddite and Federal hulls. The R16 would be no different, and taking another piddly step of adding some sort of additional gas seal/powder migration blocker under the wad would be even MORE time consuming. No thanks. That leaves a pretty narrow selection of hulls suitable for the R16: the Remington, and the old discontinued compression formed Winchesters. Forget about the Fiocchis, they're too big too. Then again, you're still going to add fillers to get your crimp for light target loads. In three years of shooting, I've never had a blooper with the Gualandi wads. I know, I know, some of you have never had a blooper with a R16, SP16, or WAA16 and I believe you, but I have. And you will say my powder was wrong, and my hull was wrong. Maybe, but I still believe you're asking for problems with those three wads in any hull other than the Remington or compression formed Winchesters, unless you dink around with adding gas seals or powder migration blockers. 16GG, weren't you recently posting about adding plastic wrap under your wads to stop powder migration?

I'm not knocking the R16 wads. They are good wads, but they just do not suit my shooting needs. I shoot a very light 16 gauge, and it's performs and recoils like a sweet overbored 28 gauge with my 3/4 oz loads. I suppose if I shot my 7 pound Remington 11 exclusively, I'd happily stuff my Remington hulls with the R16's and an ounce of shot for targets.

Just don't knock the Gualandis. They are the cat's meow for easy shooting/easy assembling target loads. These crush the targets as well as any, and the wads are a bargain. What's not to like??? Besides, we're all pretty much hunters here who like to keep tuned up with our 16 gauge hunting guns.

I haven't felt the need to load hunting loads for quite some time, but just for curiosity's sake, I am going to try a 1 1/8 hunting load this week using the Federal hull, the B&P wad, and Green Dot. This 1200 fps load is listed in the Precision Loading manual and I think it has potential for tightening up the very open right barrel on my SxS. This B&P wad is another short-shotcup wad, but it is even thicker and stiffer than the Gualandi. It is the same wad that is used in those PMC loads I mentioned above that yielded those astonishing dense and uniform patterns. I think KGB is on to something in his comments regarding the stiffness of some of these wads, and like good ole "Don'z" said, Green Dot seems to tighten patterns a bit. I guess I'll find out for myself.
Back to top
kgb
PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:31 pm  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1256
Location: Nebraska

Dave, when I patterned the tubes of my Citori, I put together a 1 1/8oz reload in Federal hulls with the SP16. Powder was Solo1250. I found that once I hit the tighter chokes, everything was well into the 70's and 80's for percentage. For some reason I can't find the paper I recorded that on, but I believe I posted the results here. Wish I'd have looked into the fringe area for count, I'd be halfway done! Helped me determine to get rid of the Full choke that came with the extended tube set, it was no improvement over the Mod/IM tubes at all. For those loads, obviously, the Rem wad worked just fine. In fact, when I find a combination that makes pretty crimps I tend to keep it!

I got some of the R-16's from Rekob's; I'd picked up 3 bags from an old gun shop and have a bunch of old data for them. I was out of the G-wads at the time and Graf's didn't have any in stock. I could have waited for the G's, and will get more some day.

I have added puffed wheat and cards, and make up spreaders with Spred-R inserts, but I sure don't like slowing down the process that much. For a few boxes of specialty shells, not so big a deal. A better alternative is to cut down hulls to 2.5" or so, once that is done to the proper height, it should be smooth sailing. When I get a cutter built, that's what I plan on doing with all those Winchester straight hull empties.

kgb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dave Erickson
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:03 am  Reply with quote
Guest





KGB, you're right. It's not a big deal to add filler for a box or two of specialty loads. For target loads I usually crank out 16-20 boxes at a sitting, so I really enjoy the ability to get that rhythm going and get-r done!
Back to top
16gaugeguy
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:58 pm  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 6535
Location: massachusetts

Dave, I use nothing but Remington hulls for any of my target loads. I find them easier to get and longer lasting too. I don't like the Gualandi wads in a Remington hull. They are too tight. I find them a real problem to seat with my Grabber. They require too much effort on the handle and too many ruined hulls from split mouthes as well as breaking several wad guides to boot. No thanks. The R16 works fine. The act of placing one or two 28 ga card wads in the shot cup adds maybe a second to the time needed to finish each load. That is 25 seconds per box at maybe six boxes a week. Hell, I spend that much time scratching my backside in the morning when I wake up. Laughing Its also just as easy to do as scratch my butt if I set up for it first. I've got two hands so I use them--for both. Wink

I've also tried 7/8 and 3/4 ounce light loads in the Winchester Cheddite hull with Galandi Wads. I don't know how you are doing it without added filler. I find the support column of the 16 sporter G wad is too short to get good crimps without something in the bottom of the cup to raise the shot up high enough to support the crimp folds for anything but 1 ounce loads. I've tried using Green Dot for these loads. Unique too. Neither will fill the bottom of the shell enough to take up that much space for me. Perhaps you might let us in on your technique here. I'd appreciate it.

I use the R16 in a Remington hull for all my one ounce hunting loads. These high velocity game loads based on the R16 will pattern rings around the G wad past 25 yards with nicely distributed IC and light modified patterns. Inside of 25 yards, I use a spreader load incorporating the Polywad insert and one ounce of shot in an SP-16 wad without any other filler needed.

For standard one ounce hunting loads, the only other wad that even comes close to patterning as well as the R16 wad is the B&P Z wad. It does a much better job than the G wad in this department. However, I have no real need to use it, because, again, it does not fit in a Remington hull, and my present Unique and 800X loads knock the hell out of any pheasant I hit out to 35 yards and a bit in all but the worst conditions I'd care to hunt in.

I use the Fiocchi hulls for all of my longer range 1-1/8 and 1-1/4 ounce loads. I can get enough Blue Dot into them for excellent pressure vs velocity characteristics without having to stand on the press handle to crimp them closed. I have a choice of the SP-16 and the old Herter's 1-1/4 ounce 16 gauge wad for these loads. My technique of using a square of plastic bag to stop any powder migration would work wonders for any slow ball powder or finer grained flake powders. I add the patch now just to be sure.

I probably load one or two boxes of these loads per year. The added effort is well worth the returns in excellent performance, durability, and reliability on a load used for tough conditions when I need them to work perfectly. They do--every time.

There is just no way the short cupped G wad is ever going to match the fine patterns I've been getting with either of the two wads I use for my express and magnum loads. I'd bet the farm on it. I'm not alone in this opinion either. I've heard the same thing from too many others to believe otherwise.

I too have found that for #4 or 5 shot, an improved modified tube is all I need out to as far as I would dare to shoot, which is maybe 45 yards on one of my best days., and never when the wind howls and the rain or snow is flying. But its nice to see those big cock birds fold up dead in the air when those big pellets hit the mark out yonder.

We can go around until hell freezes over on this one. You like what you use, and I like mine. I would never tell someone so set in his ways to do otherwise. I don't doubt your convictions either. If you are happy, then so am I.

When it comes down to it, I've got nothing but my efforts to have Remington offer the R16 again at stake. I'm glad I did. It offers everyone another alternative to a diminishing selection of reloading componants. I was both pleased and grateful the folks responded so positively to my efforts. They helped out as much as I did. so did Recob's. The price for the wads is but one consideration.

I recently tried to find a source for the longer of the two B&P 20 gauge Z wads as a possible alternative to the R16 for filler free 3/4 and 7/8 ounce wads in the Remington hull. No deal. Even the B&P ammo importer can't get them for us. I've also been working behind the scenes with a domestic wad maker to come out with a 16 gauge wad designed to work in any hull and one that could fill the need for light target loads as well. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows we could sure use them. However, its like trying to pull a camel's teeth.

So you go right on loading whatever suit you. so will I. I hope anyone out there reading our opposing posts goes out and tries both. i cetrtainly did. Its the only way they'll ever be sure to find the best loads they can make for any of their needs. Its also how I discovered that scratching my butt with both hands is better than using only one. Works for me.Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dave Erickson
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:05 pm  Reply with quote
Guest





16GG, just a couple quick comments.

My "fillerless" 7/8 and 3/4 oz loads use the Remington hull and the Gualandi "20" gauge wad. They have a short and a long model. Get the longer one made for the lighter 20 gauge loads. They are a good match. No filler needed. Perfect crimps! Slightly concave on the 3/4 oz load, but they work very, very well. I shoot a very light sub-6lb 16 gauge SxS at the only game that very light doubles seem to be made for; skeet. What a joy these loads are to shoot! What a simple an easy load to assemble! No money or time wasted on fillers, and they just crush the targets. I use these strictly for targets, and BTW, I find that the 3/4 oz load is fully contained in the Gualandi 20 wad's shotcup.

I agree, the 16 gauge Gualandi wad is indeed too wide for the Remington hull. That's why I went to the 20 gauge wad. If a person can get the past the idea of a 20 gauge wad in a 16 gauge hull they're home free. It's simply a matter of using a slightly oversized 20 gauge wad in the small capacity Remington hull, and overall it's an extension of Lenard Lemke's work trying various 20 gauge wads in 16 gauge hulls.

I don't trust the Remington wads in larger capacity hulls. I've had bloopers. IMHO, they are not a good match. Sure, you can cut up plastic baggies and put a square under he wads, but that, and another filler for a decent crimp would about do me in. For target loads?? No thanks! And beware of Blue Dot in cold weather. It is known to have poor ignition.

Yes, we'll just have to agree to disagree on a few things. That's OK. No one is trying to diminish your good work in getting the R16's available to the public. That was good work, and you are the perfect PITA to get it done. Smile
Now we just need to get you focused on getting a some low recoil 7/8 oz target loads and a better hull from the big three.
Back to top
16gaugeguy
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:11 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 6535
Location: massachusetts

Thanks for the tip Dave. We are thinking along the same lines with the European 20 gauge wads for sub loads. I was informed, but have not been able to confirm, that the B&P 20 ga Z wads have the biggest diameter of all 20 ga wads at .625-.630 (as actually molded, not nominal design specs). If this is accurate info, they would work perfectly in the Remington hulls. Their shot cups will hold 3/4 ounce of shot and the longer of the two (meant for 7/8 ounce loads) might work perfectly for loads with perfect crimps w/o fillers. However, I've not been able to find a source for them. The B&P domestic importer can't get hem yet. The factory has no surplus to sell due to the increased demand for 20 gauge ammo. Or so I've been told.

I tried the newer Federal 20S1 wads last spring for the same purpose. The newest ones average nearly .620" as molded and are bigger than the 20 ga. G wads. the Federal wad base is also better shaped for more obturation and seals the 16 ga hull perfectly. However, the shotcup is too deep and requires filler to load 3/4 ounce loads. Even the 7/8 ounce loads are a bit dished.

As for the 7/8 ounce commercial loads, I'm already on it. I've been campaigning Federal to reintroduce the 16 ga. 7/8 ounce express load they made up for Walmart on a limited basis. I asked them to cut the velocity from 1300FPS to 1150 fps. I informed them of the 16 gauge community's need for a light recoiling sport load. The corporate contact thought it was a great idea, and figured they'd sell very well. However, nothing has come of it yet. Perhaps some of you folks out there could hammer them a bit. They are on the web and will answer your inquiries. If enough folks knock on the door, it just might swing open.

You are right. I'm a tenacious PITA when I want something. However, I'm but one voice in a sea of them. If even a dozen of you folks could possibly mange to be as big a PITA as me on these requests for new produces, I think we could get it done. What say ye?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
All times are GMT - 7 Hours

View next topic
View previous topic
Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2
16ga.com Forum Index  ~  16ga. Ammunition & Reloading

Post new topic   Reply to topic


 
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB and NoseBleed v1.09