16ga.com ~ View topic

Member Joined: 16 Aug 2004 Posts: 317

[quote="dogchaser37"]????

The WAA16 wad seals the 16 ga bore just fine. I have used a least 5 cases and am working on another 2 cases. (Yes they are the original Winchester WAA16 wad, not a clone.) Most have been with Remington cases and Universal powder, and they are used in semi autos.

While it is true that the WAA16 wad does have powder migration issues with certain powders in the straight wall cases, it does NOT have a bore seal problem.

If we stop loading the 16 gauge down, using half baked and half tested loads, and stop switching components, all of these so called "problems" go away.[/quote\

My bad. Typo. I meant the WAA20. We were discussing substitute 20 ga. wads in the 16 bore. Sorry about the confusion.

Guest

I guess I was a little taken back when I read WAA16.

Pretty good wad really, it just has a bad reputation, when we use them for purposes they weren't designed for.

Member Joined: 16 Aug 2004 Posts: 317

Guest

Yup you are correct, the WAA16 was designed for tapered wad hulls was never meant for a straight wall hull.

I guess I don't understand why you are concerned about a little bulge in the Remington hull. It doesn't hurt anything and the pressures and velocities are not only usable but very consistent with both the B & P and Gualandi 16 gauge wads with any number of powders.

The Winchester Compression formed hull is a bit different story and I agree that the above mentioned wads have no place in that hull.

Member Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 1338

Guest

Not sure why that happened with the Gualandi, never had that issue to be honest. Same with the B & P, never any problems.

The Gualandi wads can vary in diameter substantially. I got some fat ones which were very hard to seat in an RGL hull. I had to use considerable force to seat them. They also split the case mouthes on too many of an already somewhat thin mouthed hull. They worked okay in a Fiocchi case for 1 ounce loads, but were too short for subgauge loads. I also prefer a wad with a deeper shot cup for 1 ounce loads.

As far as 16 ga subgauge loads being problematic? I respectfully disagree. The benefits far outweigh the disadvantages IMO. Reduced recoil for targets and fine performance on smaller game birds are two big advantages.

We need to relearn what the old timers knew about the 16 gauge. These are the same folks who made the 16 ga reputation what it was before commercial interests and misguided marketing policies destroyed that reputation after WWII. The old timers used subgauge loads like 3/4 and 7/8 ounce loads. The loads were commercially available in former years. All we are doing is recovering the knowledge and rediscovering just how versitile and servicable the gauge is. That is a very good thing IMO.

Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 158 Location: NW Florida

My experience with the Gulandi 1621s and the RGLs are the same as 16GG, requiring more force to seat the wad, resulting in split case mouths. I cut both the RGLs and the Fiocchi hulls to 2.5in. No problem with the Fiocchi's, some of which I have reloaded 5 or 6 times. Good quality.

I Think the Gualandi design concept was originally intended for 2.5 inch cases. It works very well in them. 2.5 inch loads are still fairly widely used in Europe.

I just remembered something I read regarding the history of the 16 and Miss Annie Oakley. The gauge was her overwhelming favorite. She knew what quite a few old timers knew. She used a 16 double to handily beat the top English trap shooter at his own game in his own country--500 pairs of trap doubles. He was using fairly stiff loads in a 12 gauge. She used light, easy recoiling 16 ga. loads and simply outlasted him. Clever girl.

I further remember reading that she and her husband hand loaded virtually all her exhibition shooting ammo used while in Buffalo Bill Cody's employ. Most of her close range loads were very light 5/8 ounce target loads. These light recoiling easy to shoot loads allowed her to put on up to 5 shooting demonstrations a day. The little loads limited the fatigue all shooters get from heavier kicking ammo.

Reloading one's shot shells was common practice during Miss Oakley's time. Her expert knowledge of guns and loads assisted her in becoming probaly the most famous American shooter there ever will be. Following the practices of such a great shooter and real expert still makes perfect sense today.

In regards to using a smaller gauge wad in a load.

Back when I was reloading for International Skeet, my standard match load was a Federal paper with a 12C1 wad and 32 grams (1 1/8 oz) of shot. The was no speed restriction in the game - you could shoot the fastest load you and your equipment could stand.

After the 1988 Olympics, the rules of the game was changed to 28 grams (1 oz) of shot. At that time there were few 1 oz wads available for the Federal paper hull (It was an emotional rather than a logical to continue to use the paper). I found a recipe for 1 oz loads using WAA12 1 oz wads. On a whim, I loaded some shells with those wads. Lo and behold, I got excellent patterns with velocities in the range I had expected. That became my match load. Using the same wads in the (old) AA 12 gauge case for practice yielded lesser velocities.

Subsequently, a bunch of new "short load" 12 ga wads became available and I eventually went away from the Federal paper as they were increasingly difficult to secure.

In reading Handloader Magazine of the time, the theory was that an AA-style wad had enough flexibility to seal a straight-walled case without any loss of pressure.

In the mid-90's, Stan Baker of Seattle popularized the "big bore" barrels for trap guns. These 12 ga barrels had a bore of .800 - .070 larger than the standard 12 ga barrels AND WADS. The result was claimed to be better patterns and increased velocity. The users of these "big bore" barrels just used factory ammunition and ordinary reloads. You would have to ask someone other than me as to whether these claims were actually true.

So it may be that a 20 ga wad in a 16 ga shell is a perfectly viable proposition. My only concern would be powder migration, especially where ball powders are concernd.

My 2 cents - worth less and less each day.

Stan took more knowledge to the grave about shotgun barrels and bores than other folks will ever know. He was a main force behind my campaign to get Browning to make things right on their warped O/U barrels back in the 1990's. He tought me chapter and verse on how to spot bore and bore alignment problems before buying a problematic gun. His tutoring has saved me trouble many, many times since.

His body of accumulated knowledge has brought shotgunning out of the dark ages IMO. Every shotgunner who owns a factory backbored shotgun with extended forcing cones owes a dept of gratitude to the man. He is sorely missed.

Guest

Same thing will happen when you kick the bucket GG, a lot of folks will mourn the loss of the greatest firearms and ballistics guru of all time.

The rest of us will be glad your useless, self contradictory, unending drivel will finally cease.

Member Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 665 Location: Louisiana

Thunderwolf--Very shortly now (I hope) you will be able to purchase a purpose designed wad for 7/8 oz. in 16 gauge.
I have been fortunate enough to have loaded and shot a few of them and, IMO, the wait has been worth it. Patience---it won't be long now............ Wink

Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 158 Location: NW Florida

Cut down some 16ga RGLs to 2.5in this evening and loaded them with GreenDot and 7/8oz of #9s using a 20ga claybuster wad. Perfect crimps. Will try them out this weekend on the skeet field. If they are satisfactory, I will use them in place of the Gulandi 1621s in the Remington hull. Will continue to use the Gulandi's in the Cheddite hulls.