16ga.com ~ View topic

Joined: 18 Feb 2014 Posts: 30 Location: New Zealand

Please don't misunderstand me, I am a fan of the DR16. I have to go to considerable trouble to get them because no one imports them into NZ. They help make great looking shells with a variety of payloads. And those shells break targets as consistently for me as the Euro factory ammo available to me. But you see variation and you wonder a bit, hence the question. Chaser and Iron's posts answered it for me. As for flight distance, I'd never really thought about that. I think mine end up about in the middle of the wad band out in front of the traps where I shoot. I would have thought velocity would have quite a bearing on that outcome.

If you could choose between a world with freely available Winchester compression formed hulls or DR16s, which would you choose?

Richard.

Member Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 1338

Member Joined: 15 Mar 2007 Posts: 601 Location: Virginia

Member Joined: 09 Jan 2013 Posts: 2168 Location: Florida

I am the exact opposite I'd keep the DR wad in lieu of a new hull .

The DR16 any day over the Winchester CF hulls.

Wow burdock, so just how are you supposed to identify a good pattern......I do agree that trying to compare individual components of a load is very difficult......when you get solid patterns as in 70 plus% with a core to annular ratio of better than 1.5 to 1 at whatever distance you are targeting, you have a good load.

That's what I got from 2 - 7/8 oz loads using the DR16 at 35 yards using .015 of choke.

You need to look at Gualandi and B&P wads also. Their tabs do not break away either and I don't hear anyone whining about those patterns.

Joined: 26 Apr 2010 Posts: 3177 Location: NCWa

I'm wondering: there's an issue that the DR16 wad is traveling farther than competitive wads. Is this because the wad is staying with the load of shot , and so is "drafting" or is the "ballistic coefficient" of the wad higher than the competition so that even if it separates from the shot very soon after leaving the barrel, it would go farther than a less aerodynamic wad?

but as noted, I don't see that it makes much difference to the pattern, just something to contemplate.

Member Joined: 06 Oct 2007 Posts: 2346 Location: West MI

While we're splitting hairs; could the relatively longer flight of the DR be attributed in part to its weight? of the 4-16ga & 2-20ga wads on my bench it is the heaviest but not heavier than the CB1100-12.

SP16 26 grain
R16 28.3
SG16L 30.3
DR16 33.8
20SI 30.9
CB1078-20 31
CB1100-12 39

Further hair splitting, these were 3 wad averages and the most consistent by far was the Gulandi/BP's SG16L.

Joined: 03 Feb 2008 Posts: 830 Location: Adirondak Mtns

I really like the DR 16 ,crimps better than anything else I have used regardless of the payload and hull used.

As to the petals. Yes I have noticed the same issue. However, If I do my part the birds break or if in the field they die.

I for one don't shoot well enough to point the finger at my equipment for my misses. Other components can give me the same performance with the same results as the DR 16 they just aren't as easy to assemble.

The less time and trouble I have assembling good preforming reloads the more time I have to shoot.

DR-16 are great I just hope they will always be available.

Joe

Soooooo. Let me get this correct.......no one that is responding against the DR16 on this thread has ever patterned the DR16.........we are now concerned with how far the DR16 flys........If I had to guess, I would say that you boys are either bored or you have some sort of ax to grind.

Personally I couldn't careless what a fired wad does as long the patterns are good and the velocity of the loads are consistent. The DR16 passes on both counts, with flying colors.

I pattern and penetration test all of my new loads, it is the only way that I can tell how effective any given load will be.

To determine how consistent a load is look at the performance in a given use. A good load breaks targets with a crunch , mostly no pieces ,or always no cripples. The test to compare the dr with another wad would involve breaking the same target shot by the same shooter on the same day as many as 100 times but maybe more if the testing takes that direction.
Patterns were a fad in the '80's and 90's to sell magazines. I got sucked into to.

I would agree with you if patterning a shotgun consisted of one shot at a paper target and counting holes or perhaps 3 pellets consistently flying close enough to smash a clay target.
When loading new recipes, I shoot a minimum of 10 shots with the same load at specific distances, changing paper after each shot. I don't count pellet hits unless I'm checking chokes, but simply look at the pattern for the given distance. When I'm done, I know that what is coming out of my barrels at 22, 30, 40 and 42 yards will make me happy.
I also have made a penetration jig by cutting slots 1/2" apart in a 2x4 and inserting 1 foot square pieces of common cardboard into the slots. While very unscientific, the number of cardboard pieces that are penetrated gives an indication of lethality when compared to factory loads of the same ejecta and velocity.

YESSSS!!! jschultz
Well said,
BUT have you tested the DR wad?

Thanks
Mike

Thank you Skeet. Sorry I was just outlining my patterning method and have never used DR wads, but agree with Mark regarding patterns and not the condition of the wad after the shot.
I'm a bird hunter and have been locked in on RMC hulls and card and fiber wads for 10 years. When I do shoot a few targets, I load with 1-piece plastic from my many bins of wads.