Author |
Message |
< 16ga. Ammunition & Reloading ~ Waa16 wad 1 oz. |
|
Posted:
Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:10 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Dec 2014
Posts: 12
Location: NJ
|
|
Hi all!
Happy New Year!
I've been following this forum now for a month or so and decided to join.
I have gain a wealth of knowledge and am very interested in all the topics in general.
I recently inherited a 16 gauge 366 HORNADY to complete my bench along with the Winchester super x hulls once fired ( compression formed) and several bags of the waa16's wad.
I've search all the reloading sources current and past and haven't been able to come up with a load data that has the waa16 wad and 700x powder.
I'm trying to achieve a load that will cycle my sweet sixteen so I can shoot some skeet.
Hodgdons shows x pert hull with some data but not sure if the super x hull is the same.
I was hoping to use 14-15 grains 700x , 1 oz 9 shot with waa16 wads and the super x hull which is a compressed formed one piece hull.
My concerns are the pressures being to high or not enough to cycle the hump back..
Need some help please |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Tue Dec 30, 2014 3:03 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 08 Aug 2011
Posts: 1946
Location: Central CT
|
|
Hi glad you joined 16ga.com!!
Pressure isn't a component of cycling your Sweet 16, as it is recoil operated. As long as you have a published load the pressure part is taken care of.
The 700-X might be an issue only because it really isn't the right powder for 1 oz. loads in the 16 Gauge for YOUR application, as the velocities maybe too low to cycle the A-5 action. So even if you find the data, not too sure if it will be of any use.
I would steer you towards Unique or if you can find some Universal as being the powders best suited to get the job done. There is plenty of data for those two powders using the WAA-16 wad and an ounce of shot. |
Last edited by Dogchaser37 on Wed Dec 31, 2014 12:32 pm; edited 1 time in total _________________ Mark |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Tue Dec 30, 2014 3:23 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Posts: 1338
|
|
|
Last edited by mike campbell on Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Tue Dec 30, 2014 3:44 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Dec 2014
Posts: 12
Location: NJ
|
|
The only other powder I have would be PB.
Tha data in the hodgdons site states Xpert hulls with dr16 wads. With low pressures..
I didn't want to buy anymore components
Thank you for responding gentlemen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Tue Dec 30, 2014 5:35 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 6535
Location: massachusetts
|
|
It's not a simple matter of which powders we want to use in order to load safe and effective ammo, but which powders we are required to use. That is just how it is.
700X is a fast burning smokeless powder designed for 12 ga target loads. It burns too fast and is not bulky enough for loading acceptable 16 gauge one ounce loads with the components you've mentioned. Pressures will be excessive. Acceptable crimps and effective velocities are not likely either if you reduce the powder charges enough to reduce peak pressures to acceptable levels. Best look for a slower burning powder for loading one ounce loads with your components.
However, 700X would work very well for 3/4 ounce loads in a WW16AA compression formed hull. The DR16 wad will work or you can use .135" thick, 28 ga nitro card wads as fillers in the WW16AA wad to get good crimps. These 3/4 ounce loads are wonderful for clay target shooting. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Tue Dec 30, 2014 6:06 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Posts: 9455
Location: Amarillo, Texas
|
|
Hello Sonnylee
Pleased you have joined up
Welcome
Please go here
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/reloading16gauge/members/all
Enroll and you will see LOTS of loads for your hulls and application.
Once you enroll and have been approved, click on "files" select your hull and read and smile
Mike |
_________________
,
USAF RET 1971-95 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Tue Dec 30, 2014 8:01 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Dec 2014
Posts: 12
Location: NJ
|
|
Gentleman again thank you..
Hodgdons shows Xpert hull with a variety of powders, can I also use this hull formula with the super x hull ( compressed formed)
If so PB can be an option as well.
I tried to create an account on that site it doesn't seem to want to cooperate..
Can't seem to log in? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Tue Dec 30, 2014 8:36 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 582
Location: Great Lakes
|
|
I am surprised a few pounds of Winchester Super Field or 540 did not come with your nice inheritance. Either of those powders should work for you. |
_________________ A Springer Spaniel, a 6# double and a fair day to hunt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Wed Dec 31, 2014 9:40 am
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 759
Location: Somewhere in the Socialist State of Minnesota
|
|
Sonnylee wrote: |
Gentleman again thank you..
Hodgdons shows Xpert hull with a variety of powders, can I also use this hull formula with the super x hull ( compressed formed)
If so PB can be an option as well.
I tried to create an account on that site it doesn't seem to want to cooperate..
Can't seem to log in?
|
Did you get in yet? I approved two new members last night and this morning. Email me if you are still having problems. phyle98@yahoo.com
I found you name listed as a member. |
_________________ http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/reloading16gauge/
Minnesota Gun Owners http://gocra.org/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:28 am
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1393
Location: Tappahannock, Virginia
|
|
Just Signed up a few minutes ago.
lemingdds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Wed Dec 31, 2014 4:23 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Dec 2014
Posts: 12
Location: NJ
|
|
I got it
It was my acc. Password
Thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Fri Jan 02, 2015 12:35 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Dec 2014
Posts: 12
Location: NJ
|
|
Ok,
Finally found a load that I can use with data from the Lyman 4th
Win..CF hull
14grs. 700x
Waa16 wad. Hopefully I wont have any dished crimps
1 oz. payload 8's
1137 fps
10700L. Not to sure what the L stands for?
Anyway I'm going to give it a try this weekend
And chrono. it as well.
Will shoot it from my 16 gauge sweet 16 hopefully it will cycle... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Fri Jan 02, 2015 12:41 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 08 Aug 2011
Posts: 1946
Location: Central CT
|
|
Lead Units of Pressure. That data was developed by IMR a long time ago.
I have tried that load, it does fit. |
_________________ Mark |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:30 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 6535
Location: massachusetts
|
|
The 14 grain powder charge of 700X with your components appears to be a mild one at first glance. However, I've found 14.5 grains of 700X to produce a fairly snappy load in my pet 3/4 ounce load in an RGL hull w/ an R16 wad with fillers. This combo produces a cylindrical combustion chamber due to the flat wad base and the flat plastic base wad. The WW16AA case and wad are a far more efficient combination due to the elipical combustion chamber the combo produces.
Please be advised. Dupont (IMR) first published this data in the 1970's. That was about forty years ago. Things can change in that amount of time. I'd not be comfortable with data this old unless the recipe has recently been retested with modern components and comfirmed as acceptable.
Being a canister grade powder, 700X is not supposed to have changed since then. The problem here is that Dupont no longer manufactures canister grade powders. I don't think the first company which took over from Dupont is either, but I'm not certain of that. Regardless, the new 700X is no longer manufactured by the original company. It's probably not being manufactured in the same facility. So I'd not assume anything here.
The load noted does not specify which 209 primer is called for. However, nearly all brands of 209 sized primers made since the 1970's have gone through several design changes. It is not wise to assume a particular brand 209 primer of today has exactly the same ballistic characteristics as one from forty years ago.
I'm betting the original data calls for a standard WW209 primer. The newest ones are different in some respects. So to be safe, I'd look for the mildest 209 primer I can find. I believe that would be a Remington 209P (STS) primer.
Finally, the safety standards and guidelines used by the ammo industry in the 1970's have become far more stringent. Some of the changes are due to politics and our legal system. However, some are due to advances in science and technology.
I think it is wise for any of us to acknowledge that things do change over time. It is not wise to assume they haven't. Again, I recommend caution here. Good luck too. You can always fall back on 3/4 ounce loads as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:42 am
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Dec 2014
Posts: 12
Location: NJ
|
|
Morning all!
One of the reasons I came onto this site was to educate myself more in regards to the 16 gauge reloading.
I'm well aware that I should use solid data from reliable sources and not supplement components.
However, once I was able to find a starting data with components available to me I posted on this forum to confirm indeed it was data from a reliable source.
I do not have the experience to determine that powder from yesterday may or may not be equal to powder today..(700x)
I would have assumed a difference from lots but not overall changes in burn rates.
The data I posted earlier did not include a primer which is the W209...
16 Gauge Guy shared a wealth of knowledge regards possibilities of powder changes and also mentioned in an earlier post that I can use specific components that I haven't found with any of the loading sources I'm using..
So now I'm back to square one because obviously I'm not going to chance a load that may harm myself or anyone else.
Where I'm getting at is there's an abundance of opinion on reloading on every forum I belong to.
But recommending a load or supplementing components that have no reliable source is more dangerous to me than loading data from 40 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|