16ga.com ~ View topic

Joined: 15 Apr 2017 Posts: 11 Location: western Montana

So, what am I missing here ... ? In the photo, the blue wad came from a bag that says "CB0100-16 optimum load 1 ounce" the pink wad came from a bag that says "CB0078-16 7/8 oz". Except for the color, I can't see a nickel's worth of difference between them. Any thoughts?

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

Look inside the shot cup lol.

Joined: 15 Apr 2017 Posts: 11 Location: western Montana

Wow, I did look in the cup, but just saw the number not the dome (time to get my eyes checked). Thanks for straightening me out!

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

Yes sir, I figured you just overlooked it lol.
They are both great wads, happy loading!

those are the ones I use, work great

Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Posts: 2126 Location: Hudson,Wy

Just beware of powder leakage/ migration with certain powders in straight wall cases (most of what we have for hulls today). Longshot is notorious for leaking past the gas seal. In Remington or the long discontinued WW compression formed hulls (AA style) it's not much trouble. I pre flare my wads to stop the problem, but it is a bit of work to do 500 of them.

800-X powder leaks past nothing though, and I use it for my 2 3/4" 1 oz. loads with great satisfaction. Also, in straight walled hulls, I find that the pink wad is actually a perfect fit for 1 oz. loads and the blue one holds 1 1/8 oz of lead shot just right.

The overshot cup on the Claybusters 16 gauge AA clones are supposed to have been made a little bigger in diameter than original Winchester 16 gauge AA wads -- by design, since there are relatively few 16 gauge compression-formed hulls in the hands of those who want to reload them, and thus there was potentially a limited market for the wad. Claybusters, I take it, did want to have a wad compatible with Win-West compression-formed hulls and the thick-walled Remington SP's, but also expected their AA clone wads to be installed in other hulls. All other hulls are fairly thin-walled Reiffenhauser types. I cannot verify Claybusters' supposed diameter increase by comparison with Win-West 16 gauge AA wads right now, maybe someone else can. Maybe, with the Claybuster 16 gauge clones, there is not as much need to worry about powder migration in Euro-type or Federal hulls as there was with the original Win-West 16 gauge AA wads.

For sure, in my experience, Charles Hammack's DR16 has a larger over-powder cup than the Claybusters AA clones. It has other well-documented characteristics, some very useful and some that require more care in reloading. Euro-sourced wads like Gualandi's especially, having been designed for the thinner Reiffenhauser-type hulls used by European cartridge companies, have even larger diameter overpowder cups. Also, their powder migration rings are more effective than those of the DR16. All these wads can be made to work in most hulls, but I guess one should check to make sure some combinations don't result in powder migration issues, as no mention of that potential ever is expressed in loads published by powder companies. It goes without saying (but I guess I will say it Very Happy

), the finer the powder granulation, the thinner the hull wall and the smaller the wad diameter the closer you get to powder migration issues.

Even 20 gauge Gualandi's can be sucessfully used in 16 gauge Remington SP's, and probably in Winchester compression-formed hulls, too.

Best Regards,

Joined: 10 Feb 2011 Posts: 217 Location: Pacific Northwest

So out of curiosity, I just pulled some bags of wads and did some measurements. These are the outer powder seal diameters (average of five wads) for five different 16 gauge wads. These are in order of increasing powder seal diameter.

WAA16 - 0.622"
SP16 - 0.632"
CB0100-16 - 0.635"
DR-16 - 0.648"
SG16 - 0.658"

The assertion that the CB0100-16 was produced with a larger diameter than the original WAA16 is obviously true. 13 mils larger than the original is notable increase. I don't have any of the CB0078-16 currently (some are on the way) but I would assume that they are probably close to their CB0100-16 counterparts.

These days I only load my diminishing stock of WAA16s in my diminishing stock of WW CF hulls. In my experience, the WAA16 are a very poor match for the cheddite hulls. I get lots of migration issues after carrying rounds around for a day or two.

Joined: 07 Sep 2011 Posts: 567 Location: wheeling, wv

Interesting, I had just found a low pressure load using 19.9 Universal/ 1oz/ WAa16 wad
at 1165 fps @ 7100 psi. Then I read about powder migration issues. I have a bag of the Claybuster clones--so perhaps powder migration may not be a problem.
I was going to put it in a 2 1/2" hull with 7/8 oz lead, and maybe drop powder to 19.5 grains. I did load a few today and they fit nicely-havent shot them yet. Any thoughts?

CHOOT-DEM

Enjoy
Mike

Member Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 3438 Location: Illinois

Now discontinued-----