16ga.com ~ View topic

Here are the tools I made about 10 years ago for depriming and repriming 16 ga. brass hulls with large pistol primers on a MEC 600. Virtually identical to yours, Mike (skeettx)!! I also do as you do -- no crimp and just Elmer's. As they say, great minds . . . Very Happy

[URL=http://s955.photobucket.com/user/HotTubGuy/media/Brass%20Shotshell%20Reloading%20Tools/IMG_0336_zpss32uha5m.jpg.html]

[/URL]
[URL=http://s955.photobucket.com/user/HotTubGuy/media/Brass%20Shotshell%20Reloading%20Tools/IMG_0337_zpsuj63u5em.jpg.html]

[/URL]

I went back and checked my loading logs, and found a little test I did on ignition comparison with Winchester 209's vs. Winchester WLP's (Win Large Pistol Primer). I loaded the shells on 1 Sept 2007. I had Hammer Double brass and Mag-Tech brass in 16 gauge. As you might know, Hammer Double simply re-machined the Mag-Tech case for a 209 primer, and cemented what looks like a Cheddite plastic basewad inside the hull, presumably to raise the hull floor to approximately the height of a 209 primer for better ignition of the small volumes of smokeless powder that would likely be used in these hulls. The plastic basewad might also improve primer retention -- I don't know. I still have some of these Hammer Double cases unfired, and some I have fired.

For sure my test was more qualitative than quantitative. I did not even chronograph these loads. I only intended to try to feel and hear the difference between the same loads using two different primers and two powders with vastly different burn rates. I particularly wanted to see if I was going to more-or-less have duds or inconsistent squib loads with slow powders and pistol primers. I used a slow burning powder, and a fast one with 1 ounce loads intended to be 1200 fps, and with both the Hammer Double hull with the Win 209, and the standard Mag-Tech with the Winchester Large Pistol Primer. The load with the "slow" burning powder was 21 grains of Herco, an 14 ga. .125" over powder card and two 14 ga. .400" pre-lubed fiber fillers under 1 ounce of #9's, contained under a .030" 13 gauge "B" wad sealed in place with Elmer's Glue-All. The "fast" powder load was 19 grains of Red Dot with the same wad and shot situation as described in the "slow" load. I loaded these, of course, in both the Hammer Double brass with the W209, and the Mag-Tech brass with the Win Large Pistol Primer -- that's 4 loads. I loaded a dozen of each for my test.

I shot these at skeet on 2 Sept 2007 in a Model 12. I had people on the squad observe and report on sound and breaks. I also shot a normal 1 ounce target load for comparison -- probably with Unique or International in the RGL hull -- I didn't record that. Both loads were consistent as far as everyone could tell -- nothing even close to a squib load. My notes say, "consistent and soft in all cases and very difficult to tell the difference between using either powder with either primer". I recall the Herco load shooting softer, though I didn't record it. I think both loads were softer than the RGL load. I do recall breaking all the targets, for what that's worth -- not much.

The upshot of this is that I stopped worrying about not getting positive ignition with pistol primers on reasonable loads. I consider the Herco load an unreasonable powder choice, by the way. I always worried about the plastic basewad of the Hammer Double hull becoming dislodged. I still don't trust those hulls in anything but a break-action gun where I can look down the barrel after every shot. I have never shot them more than twice so far. I guess I have been avoiding them. The test above gives me confidence that I really don't need a big 209 primer to do the job I want -- light, low-velocity loads for old damascus doubles. Standard Mag-Tech hulls and card and fiber wads are just fine for me.