16ga.com Forum Index
Author Message
<  16ga. Ammunition & Reloading  ~  Pinto beans!
Birdswatter
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2006 3:40 pm  Reply with quote
Guest





Larry, Very good info. I can certainly deal with a 15 fps variance.
Back to top
Slidehammer
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 8:44 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 241
Location: Bitterroots

Larry Brown wrote:
Weight, you say? 2-32ga card wads, often used as filler in 16ga loads, weigh 12 grains on my powder scale. 4 kernels of Puffed Wheat, roughly average size, weigh under 3 grains. As I said, I don't soak mine in water before I reload; nor have I ever noticed my cereal getting soggy before I add milk. So I suppose it's possible that they might absorb a little moisture, but I doubt they'll end up being as heavy as those card wads--not that I'm at all worried about their weight either.



As for the use of "displace", that's undoubtedly my writer mind, in search of "le mot juste", as they say in French. When you're using filler, you are not DISplacing shot, which would mean you're getting rid of some and substituting something else; rather, you're REplacing shot with filler. There is no displacement from the stated shot charge weight.


Hi Larry,

I thought I may add a little clarification to this somewhat sensitive subject it seems, at least from my point of view.....
I agree with the first paragraph quoted above. Yes the weight of cards will be greater, but uniformly greater....
I guess my thought is a possible weight change unbeknownst after loading, by adding an extremely hygroscopic material as a filler such as puffed wheat. Would this weight change, if it occurred, make much difference ballistically? As you say, probably not. This wasn't my concern by the way. The little "sponge" of moisture, if it occurs, can be death to the primer just a fraction of an inch away.....

It was "drummed" into me years ago not to engineer in failure..... So yes, I look at this subject overly sensitive to most tastes.

That said, will puffed wheat absorb moisture after loading to any appreciable amount? Probably not......... If it did, would the primer be contaminated? Again, probably not.....

Could either of these scenerios become a reality? YES!

My thought is why test the odds? You started with a non-hygroscopic material as in styrofoam and then changed to puffed wheat..... I assume for the convenience?

I agree everyone should put whatever their heart desires into their shotshells. I have just tried to explain what may be the best choice and why.

Again Larry, your second paragraph quoted above is true. But with the shot weight being a given; I still prefer "displacement" to define our filler's purpose. Not displacement of shot, but the displacement of volume our given amount of shot occupies.

Slidehammer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
16gaugeguy
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 11:08 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 6535
Location: massachusetts

Obviously Sidehammer, you are also into some part of the engineering profession. I used the term displace from that point of view. I also tend to think in terms of building a load when I reload. I also attempt to eliminate as many variables as I can given the tools and materials I have to work with, the conditions I'm working under, and the results I'm looking for. Its the mindset of an engineer. We tend to go for as perfect as possible, because sometimes close enough isn't. I tend not to compromise when better is easily obtainable.

I just can't see the difference between inserting a card wad or two and inserting a pinto bean, a piece of styrofoam peanut, or puffed wheat. It takes about the same effort. the added cost is negligable. The results are better. its simple logic--a no brainer really.

Its also easier to buy the card wads in bulk rather than cut out foam discs from meat trays. The savings in time is well worth the minor added expense of the card wads. I know from experience. It would be different if I was buying card wads from some of the more expensive sources in small lots. Just the postage alone kills you.. But I buy them 10k at a time. That many will last me for several years and its far less expensive in the long run. Circle fly has made that possible.

However, some folks just don't think in engineering terms. Somehow, I think you and I have crossed some vague line between logic and romance. We "cardies" have upset the "pinto beaners" and "puffed wheaties". It all kind of reminds me of the battle between the "Big Endians" and the "Little Endians" in Gulliver's Travels. But by God, they are wrong, and I'll fight them 'til hell freezes over!...or not. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Larry Brown
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 12:25 pm  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 743

I think there's some confusion here. I've never loaded with pinto beans, so I don't know what those guys do, but the Puffed Wheat is an OVERSHOT filler, the last thing you put in. It's not at the bottom of the wad, like cards, and therefore is quite some distance from the primer. You can't load Puffed Wheat in the bottom of the wad, because if you did, you'd crush it when you seat the wad, and you'd end up with all kinds of crud in your rammer tube.

"Displace" volume--that I'll accept, but most certainly NOT displace shot. Reminds me of the animal rights woman who tried to tell me that the pheasant "displaced" the prairie chicken here in Iowa. I had visions of those nasty old ringnecks, strutting down a dusty gravel road . . . "Prairie chicken, there ain't room in this hyar state for the both of us. Now git!" Plowing up the prairie spelled the end of the prairie chickens; pheasants replaced them in a very much modified landscape.

All this stuff about Puffed Wheat absorbing moisture . . . since when has cardboard ceased to absorb water?? I've seen a bunch of wet cardboard boxes in my day, so I don't see why cards could not do the same. Less likely to do the same when they're loaded undershot into the shell, I agree. . . but they could certainly absorb moisture BEFORE you load them into the shell. And I store neither my Puffed Wheat nor my reloads in damp places. Once again, they're TARGET LOADS, not duck loads, so I'm not carrying them around places they're going to get wet.

As for the results being better when using card wads over Puffed Wheat or anything else . . . how does one define "better"? Better patterns? That would require head to head pattern testing. More consistent pressure and/or velocity? That would require pressure and velocity testing. And if one can break straights at skeet with Puffed Wheat loads, what difference does "better" make in that particular application? You have a "better" reload if you also only use once fired hulls, if you measure powder for each load, and if you exercise a good bit of care with your crimps. I'll be far more selective about the hulls and crimps for hunting loads, and worry a whole lot less about either when shooting targets--although a lot of my hunting loads are factory anyhow. I don't have problems with bloopers, and I've seen prettier reloads that do. So to me, it pretty much comes down to one angel more or less, doing the ballet on the head of a pin--or a primer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Birdswatter
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 5:20 pm  Reply with quote
Guest





Having just received my first order ever from Circle Fly, I feel the need to commend them. The gentleman I spoke with on the phone was genuinely friendly and helpful, and I've never seen faster service. The cards were here in a couple of days. Other vendors could take a lesson from these guys.
Back to top
16gaugeguy
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 5:01 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 6535
Location: massachusetts

Okay there Larry, which end of your egg do you open first? Laughing I use my subgauge weight loads for targets and hunting. the 7/8 oz loads with # 8 shot are fine trap loads. Using #7 shot works great on early season stocked pheasant, and #7-1/2 does for grouse. A simple change of shot sizes does the trick. Its the same with the 3/4 oz loads. all I do is switch from #9 to # 7-1/2 or #8 depending on the bird being hunted. I use the #8 shot on snipe, rail, and woodcock. the 7-1/2 is for quail. nothing else changes, including the card wads. Simple.

Birdswatter, I found the folks at Circle fly to be the best. The bulk price is very inexpensive, the service is fast and friendly, and the owner is just a super guy, very helpful. I 'm very glad to here you've had the same experience. Everyone else I've heard from thinks so too. I think you will like the results you get with the R16 wad and the cards. The reloader actually does most of the work when you ram the wad.

I use two butter tubs seated on the right side of the loader, one for wads, and a smaller one full of cards. I use both hands to pick up a wad and one or two cards at the same time. Dropping the cards into the shotcup and seating it into the wad guide is also a simultaneous move. Then a simple pull of the handle and its done including the shot. I can do this almost as fast as picking up and seating just a wad. It takes a bit of practice at first, but the move becomes second nature in no time at all. Like i said, simple. good luck with your loading.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Larry Brown
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 1:25 pm  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 743

Guy, we're still not addressing the issue of whether cards are superior to styrofoam, Puffed Wheat, or anything else, and if so, why--and can it be proven. I think maybe you haven't served in the military, where they drill into your head the old saying about what happens when you ASS-U-ME.

Most 16ga loads under 1 oz are not listed in any reloading books. Quite a few of them have been developed AND TESTED by the 16ga reloading group, which means that ballistician Tom Armbrust checked them for velocity and pressure. If you've got light reloads using cards that have not been tested, you should have that done, and have them added to our data base. But otherwise, without actually testing loads for velocity and pressure, you're whistling in the dark. Then you can always pattern them to determine whether one filler material interferes with the shot more, less, or the same than another. Those are the only ways to actually KNOW those things rather than assuming them.

Changing shot sizes . . . of course that pretty much changes nothing other than the density of the pattern. I usually use 8 1/2's, but depending on the application, I'm sure they'd work just as well with smaller or larger shot, although I don't think I'd use a 7/8 oz load of 7's on a pheasant--certainly not a wild rooster.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
16gaugeguy
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 5:50 pm  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 6535
Location: massachusetts

Larry, I have patterned these loads. They throw a very effective one too. The nothing is getting through the first 24" circle. With a skeet choke and #9 shot, the 3/4 ounce load will cover the bird just about anywhere inside this area. The 7/8 ounce load of #7 pigeon shot will easily kill stocked pheasant early on, rooster or not. It seems I remember you stating you'd used this weight charge of #7 shot on early season birds over dogs yourself.
Anyway, it dumps them fine out to 30 yards. It also patterns extremely well too. The short shot strings these loads produce tend to pattern very well. I also step up to Alliant Unique in the 7/8 ounce hunting loads to get 1300 fps at under 9700 psi. Its a killer load on grouse and partridge too.

There is a whole body of recorded evidence dating back to the mid '70s from the Winchester and Alliant (Hercules) ballistics labs that indicates these loads are well within acceptable pressure limits for a modern 16 ga gun. I checked them out with my contacts at Alliant and the loads were okayed for modern 16 ga. guns. I don't recommend them for vintage guns or any gun not chambered and proofed for modern 2-3/4" 16 ga. ammo.

Referring back to my copy of the 1975 2nd edition Winchester Ball Powder Loading Manual shows that in a AA16 cased 1-1/8 oz, 1185 fps load, 26.5 grains of 540 ball (HS6) under an R16 wad, ignited by a WW209 primer produces 8800 lup. 27.5 grains produces 1240 fps and 9400 lup. Moving to the mid 80's manual shows the following data. An 1185 fps, 1-1/8 oz load using the same powder and componant but substituting a WW16 wad for the R16 requires only 24.5 grains to get higher pressures, in this case, 11000 psi. The 1240 fps load could not be safely produced due to pressure limits.

There are a lot more examples in the various old manuals that indicates the R16 wad always produces less pressure than the WW16 wad, all other componants being equal. Using this evidence, lets look at another more modern published load using Green Dot and a WW16 wad. The 2004 Alliant Powder Reloader's Guideoffers this 1 oz., 1165 fps load in a Remington SP (GL black) case. 16.5 grains of Green Dot under a WW16 wad produces 10,200 psi when ignited by a remington 209P primer.

If a full ounce of shot can be fired safely with 16.5 grains of Green dot out of the Remington case using a wad known to produce higher pressures than an R16 wad, then it should be safe to interpolate, that 3/4 or 7/8 ounce of shot in an R16 wad over 16 to 16.5 grains of Green dot is also safe. Alliant agreed with me on this one. I've been using these loads safely in my guns for years now without any problems. However, if you can produce evidence to the contrary, I'll be glad to have them rechecked by Mr. Roster. Personally, I think its a waste of the man's time. The evidence is all there. the work was done years ago. All one has to do is the academic research. A phone call to the experts who produced the data doesn't hurt either.

I hope this information clears up any doubts you have about the safety of the loads I've been promoting. I'm pretty careful about passing on reloading data. I too would not want to be responsible for endangering anyone. Of course, neither of us can control how this info is interpreted or used by others. Reloading requires careful preperation and well supported data. I always adhere to these guidelines. I recommend others do too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Larry Brown
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 5:56 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 743

Guy, you mentioned the old AA case and WAA16 wad, which not too many people use any more. Likewise, unless you hoarded R16's or bought a bunch of them recently, they're not all that common either. But if you check the 16ga Reloading Group data base, you'll find loads I submitted for testing, using the black Rem hull, 7/8 oz shot, Unique, and 3 different wads: R16, SP16, WAA16. (In all cases, using Puffed Wheat filler.) The SP's produced the lowest pressure, then the R16's, then the WAA16--ranging from a low of 7850 psi to a high of 8650. Velocity ranged from 1165 on the low end to a high of 1215. But using the new Aussie Win hull and the Gulandi wad, I was able to drop the pressure to under 7,000 psi while retaining a velocity of 1160 fps.

In a gun like your Citori, you don't need to worry much about what you shoot in it. However, if you're shooting older guns--British, European, or even older American--there are pressure issues one needs to consider much more carefully than with a modern 16. And there are a whole bunch of old 16's out there, and a whole bunch of people shooting them. Likewise, any time you start "extrapolating" and substituting reloading components, it's wise to check the results of your experiments. That's the great value of the 16ga reloading group.

As far as 7/8 oz of 7's go, I've never used that load for anything. I've played around with reloads of 1 oz 7's, 1 1/8 in the 12ga, but in the 16, the #7 load I've used most on pheasants is the factory B&P, which is a 29 gram load. I've used the 1 oz Kent Gamebore 7's on prairie grouse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
16gaugeguy
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 7:20 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 6535
Location: massachusetts

Larry, if you are carefully reading my response, we are essentially saying the same things. I wrote my warning not to use these loads in guns nor designed for modern ammo in bold type. I also think you are aware that I was instrumental in convincing Remington to remarket the R16 to this group through Recob's target shop. I bought 10K. That is in addition to the 5-6k I already had. I use them and the SP-16 wads almost exclusively for all my needs, except the occasional box of 1-1/4 ounce loads I produce. I have a small stash of the old Herter 1-1/4 oz capacity wads for that purpose.

The loads I cited above as examples were gleened from old data in support of the research I did to determine the safety of the subgauge weight loads I developed for my purposes in my guns. These sub gauge weight loads are perfectly safe in modern or post WWII era 16 ga guns. The 28 ga card wad inserts I use do not have any negative effects on the loading process, the crimps, pressures, velocities, or patterning that I can determine. They have also been recommended for use by several powder companies as the most repeatable, uniform, and safe way to modify and reduce the shot capacity of an existing plastic wad. That is why I use them. I'm sure that if puffed wheat, pinto beans, styrofoam discs, or any other material or method were as good, those companies would have recommended them. They don't.

As far as your BP 29 gram load, it is, for all practical purposes almost a duplicate of the 7/8 oz. (28 gram) load I have used on Pheasant. I'm sure both are about equally effective. The difference in shot weight is negligable. I would not recommend them on big, tough wild pheasant either. I stated I only use them on early season stocked birds and over dogs to boot.

I think we have both covered this topic thoroughly by now. It's up to the folks who read our views to adopt the methods they see fit. If anyone wants to use a different type of filler other than card wads, So be it. I personally don't think the results will be as good, but that is my opinion based on my experience. Good luck with your reloads. I hope you enjoy shooting them as much as I do mine. 16GG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GA_Longhorn
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 8:23 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 28 Jul 2004
Posts: 70
Location: W. Monroe, LA

I'm should probably get put in "timeout" for this, but I'm sure if one puts Pinto beans in his handloads, he should load no more than 239 at a time.

Why you ask? Confused

Because if you load one more, it would be too forty.... Laughing

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

Regards,
Charles

_________________
Teach a child to shoot...But first teach them to be safe. Safe hunting cements good memories.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jchandler
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 9:03 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 179
Location: Hoosier state

16GG, a correction is in order. You equate the 7/8 oz to 28 gram load. Actually 24 gm is closer...= 0.84720 oz. 28gm=.98840 oz and the 29gm load is 1.0237 oz. Jeff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
16gaugeguy
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 9:41 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 6535
Location: massachusetts

Jeff, you are dead on the money. 28 grams is just about one ounce. I was looking at a quick reference guide cobbled up on my computer by one of our "more competant" state workers here at MassHighway. I should have recognized it and remembered that a 24 gram load is the equivilent of a 7/8 ounce load. I've certainly shot enough of them at trap practice. Embarassed Thanks for the heads up before it led to an "official blunder" like a bridge collapsing.Rolling Eyes I'll change the data to correct it now. My only reasonable excuse is this all happened BC (before coffee). Rolling Eyes

However, there are just about 260 #7 pellets in 7/8 oz. By starting them out at 1300 fps, and limiting the range to 30 yards, they will fold up any lightly plumaged early season pheasant you center with the load. They are far more effective than # 7-1/2 shot.

I don't ever recommend using 7-1/2 shot on pheasants, but have shot more than a few with the smaller shot when that was what was in the gun. 99% were just as dead after the bang, but #7 is better and kills them a tad quicker and surer. #6 is better still for all around use, but 7/8 ounce is too light a charge for #6.

Longhorn, That one stinks!!! Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Larry Brown
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 9:49 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 743

There are about 310 #7's in a 29 gram load, an increase of 50 or so over 7/8 or 24 gram load. Significant enough difference that I'll use the heavier one on wild roosters, but not the lighter one.

Guy, unless you've shot loads using both cards and Puffed Wheat, or whatever other filler other reloaders use, it is indeed your opinion that the card loads are superior--but it's not based on your experience. You can't have experience at something without having done it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jim McCann
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 10:12 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 18
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska

This is all interesting stuff, but I also use the Puffed Wheat for my 7/8 ounce target loads and call them my "Audabon" loads 'cause the birds sure love the tiny pieces left on the grass after the shot. Laughing

But seriously, at least the cereal leaves less junk lying about.

Warm regards,

Jim
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 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
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