16ga.com ~ View topic - Anyone have experience with Claybuster or Rem Wads...

Joined: 20 Mar 2009 Posts: 428

DC,

I know many people like this and I understand your frustration. I'm just like you --- I get tired of so much arrogance from individuals who don't know what the hell they are talking about. In the past, I have jumped with both hands and both feet on the first inkling of stupidity that comes across my path. After a while, I got tired of jumping because stupidity outnumbered me 10 to 1.

I finally realized that rational thinking and common sense are God-given and not everyone has them. Just keep in mind that everyone reading these posts has a mind of their own and not everyone is ignorant of the subject of shotgunning, ballistics, etc.. They will read 16GG's post and then yours or vise-versa.

Those with the gift of understanding and knowledge will choose your argument over his, only if you present it based upon facts and not emotions.

Then, let the others blow themselves up and we will rid the world of dumb-asses!

Guest

While there are a lot of folks on here that really understand what is going on. I am concerned that someone, without the experience, with an older gun, is going to end up splitting a forend or worse, by taking some very poor advice.

I know that I wouldn't be too pleased if I were led down that path and ruined a nice gun. I wish that everyone would think about that before we let advice out that doesn't have a solid foundation.

Joined: 30 Aug 2007 Posts: 234 Location: KY

Guest

Joined: 20 Mar 2009 Posts: 428

Smashdn,

Anything is possible, however I think DC is just trying to save someone a lot of heartache or even worse. This is why we have been given data from Ballisitcians. It is what they do for a living. They have tested these recipes for pressure, velocity, etc. and provided us with safe, ballsically effective loads for us to rely on.

Deviating from the prescribed and tested loading data, in most cases, opens the door into unchartered territory that most of us are not qualified to or have the equipment to verify what we have created once we are done and what the consequences of our concocktion may deliver in the future.

I like to stick with the data as closely as possible.

You don't go to the Dentist for relief of a back problem. You go to a Doctor or Chiropractor so why go to a witch doctor to get loading data for your shotshells?

Powder migration does not cause pressures to climb. Just the opposite. Some reloading manuals will list recipes calling for a slightly smaller than ideal wad in a certain hull, because the resulting ballistics and patterns warrant it. I've seen some target loads listed like this. The load turns out to be a very effective target cruncher regardless of the slightly loose wad fit. I've seen the opposite too in recipes where the wad is a very snug fit. The resulting load warrants it.

However, target loads usully do not get tossed around or carried from day to day in a hunting vest like hunting loads do, so powder migration is usually not that big a problem. A blooper on the target range is also not as big a safety problem or inconvenience either as it might be in the hunting field--if you discount a possible dropped target. Most target ranges I've shot on provide a "blooper stick" to shove a stuck wad out of the barrel. Most target shooters will also immediately check their barrels in case of a blooper, especially if they don't see the wad come out. It happens far too often, so folks are more aware of the danger.

On the other hand, a blooper is usually a bigger liability in the hunting field. Getting a stuck wad out of a barrel there can cause a long walk back to tha car for a cleaning rod. A blooper can lead to a wounded or missed bird which is always more dissappointing than a dropped target if the hunt has cost a lot in time and money to be part of. A stuck wad can also easily go unnoticed in all the excitement of a flushing bird or covey with the resulting disaster of a burst barrel and a pssible injury, not to mention a totally ruined hunt. so most hunting load data calls for perfect or slightly tight wad fit.

We 16 gauge reloaders face a number of challenges that folks who reload for a 12 or 20 ga gun do not. We do not have the large selection of wads and hulls avaialable to us. The hulls are not nearly as good, nor is the data as plentiful. We must find ways to make do with what we have. This calls for some extra ingenuity and common sense.

Adding a thin plastic polyethylene patch under the wad base of a loose fitting wad in a hunting load is one way to make do. Of course, it is wise to be cautious when doing it. Common sense would tell us to first check the load data for the recorded pressures. If it is already high, then the load is not a good candidate for an added patch. If the powder is a fast burning one, the same applies. Fast powders can spike up very quickly and unexpectedly. If the load is a mild to moderate one and calls for a moderately slow to slow burning powder already, then it might be a okay for the patch. However, cutting the powder charge by two grains at first and testing the load out would also be wise. It's what I do. I highly recommend that approach.

None of us here can hold each and every person's hand through the process of loading for a 16 ga. We do what we can to help out, and that is all we can do. Insulting attacks and intentionally looking to cause trouble or degrade an individual becuse you disagree does not help out.

Anyone is entitled to disagree with anyone else. All that is expected is to do so civilly and bring some specific facts to make your argument a clear, well backed up one. Simple. That approach shows some intelligence and good common sense as well. Without it, we are just pissing into the wind.

Member Joined: 02 Oct 2007 Posts: 1975

Okay 16GG. I got the recipe right off of Hodgdons site. The load called for 20 grains of 800X. My bushing is throwing 19 grains of 800x. Also it calls for 1 1/8 oz of shot. My bushing is throwing 456 grains of #7 shot which is about 1 1/16 oz. It comes to just a little over in the sp16 wad. In fact one ounce fills it up. I said in my posting it is a high pressure load in the winchester hull.. The same load in a Federal hull is rated at 8500 psi. The winchester load is rated at 11000 psi.
I Just wanted to see if putting a patch under the wad made a difference. I know this is not scientific and full of doubts. I used my Baikal 16 gauge to try it. I don't know if you are familiar with the Baikal 16 gauge or not. The gun weighs just under 8 pounds. Makes a good trap gun. The barrels are 12 gauge barrels bored out to 16 gauge. In fact my 12 gauge Baikal weighs 7 1/2 lbs. You can shoot 1 1/8 oz loads all day in the Baikal 16 gauge and it won't bother you. In fact I use the load for hunting and Have shot it in my Citori and my 11-48. When I shot the first one off, I didn't even bother with the top barrel. I have shot enough shotgun shells in my 70 years to know that this was dangerous.
I know you'll say this is not scientific proof and to use common sense. I'm not picking on anybody. I'm just saying that to recommend placement of under the shotcup in any listed load could be dangerous. You can take it how you want. There are all ways new people asking about recipes and asking about problems with migration and such. In your first postings where you recommended placing a patch under the shotcup you did not specify that this could cause problems.
I also would like bowbuilder to post his findings.
Why not just recommend that when they do have migration problems a different recipe with a different powder. From your other postings you seem to be familiar with the differences in powders.
That's all. Take it for what it's worth.
George

Member Joined: 02 Oct 2007 Posts: 1975

[quote="spr310"]Okay 16GG. I got the recipe right off of Hodgdons site. The load called for 20 grains of 800X. My bushing is throwing 19 grains of 800x. Also it calls for 1 1/8 oz of shot. My bushing is throwing 456 grains of #7 shot which is about 1 1/16 oz. It comes to just a little over in the sp16 wad. In fact one ounce fills it up. I said in my posting it is a high pressure load in the winchester hull.. The winchester load is rated at 11000 psi.

Thanks for being specific. It helps. I think we could agree 11000 PSI is just below a max pressure load. I'd have warned you not to do it if I'd known. My Blue Dot loads are all under 9.5K PSI. So the patch helps without putting me in jeapardy.

FYI, 800X is miserable stuff to throw charges with. Those big discs just do not meter well. I advise check weighing every charge to get uniform results. Hope it helps you.

Joined: 08 Feb 2009 Posts: 1310 Location: Western WA

Very interesting discussion and observations on the SP16 wad with a blooper patch. I definitely won't be trying it. Not that it is totally without merit, but I am a relative novice at shotshell reloading and in no position to be experimenting.

So if the blooper patch is left to the experts, where does that leave the rest of us regarding the SP16 and large capacity straight-wall (i.e. Fiocchi) hulls? Is it a less-than-ideal combination?

Thanks,

Brewster

Guest

SPR310 and 16 GG,

I looked at the Hodgdon data, I will go out on a very short limb here. The hull in Hodgdon's data is a big question mark as far as I am concerned. The hull that was used, just my opinion and YOU need to verify, was the Winchester 16 Gauge compression formed hull and not the polyformed versions.

There is little probability that 20.0 grs of 800-X develops 11,000 PSI in a Winchester polyformed hull, with a Winchester primer, Remington SP-16 wadand 1 1/8 oz of shot. That load would be very inconsistent and slower than molasses in Antarctica.

I have a copy of the IMR data manual dated May 2001, the exact load is listed and that data is with what IMR calls the Winchester Expert hull, which was the CF hull. Hodgdon has reprinted it, but because they are so nonchalant with their hull indentification, there is a lot of room for specualtion. There is that word again

I also devleoped loading data for the Winchester poyformed hull and my load ended up being:

Winchester Polyformed hull
CCI 209 Primer
24.0 grs. 800-X
Remington SP-16 wad
1 1/8 oz. lead shot
1324 FPS 10,700 PSI

The above load was developed using Tom Armbrust's 16 gauge test barrel on Precision Reloading Inc. (not Precision Reloading LLC) piezo test equipment in June of 2000, by me.

I will let both of you figure out what happened from here, I believe we have a LOT of errors. Starting with the hull, powder amounts, shot weight, plastic squares etc.

Just so you understand I use 800-X in my pheasant hunting loads, it does need to be weighed, but I love the stuff. Please throw the flaming arrows somewhere else, because when it comes to 800-X in any one of 4 different hulls, I have done my homework and I am not guessing about any of it.

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 224

All right everybody, here is the loads I had tested and the results. Please note that I do not consider either of these loads to be good loads. I am only posting the recipes for the sake of the discussion. I do not recommend anyone use these loads. Also, these were new loads I was working on...nothing was previously published.

The load I tested was as follows:

Load #1:

12 #1 Hornady Buckshot pellets
Cheddite Blue 2 3/4" Hull (16ga)
Win 209 Primer
28 grains of Steel powder
Remington SP-16 wad
PSB Buffer
OS-16 overshot card

Load #2:

The same as load #1 except for a 1"x1" plastic square cut from a ziplock freezer bad under the wad/over powder

Results:
Load #1:

FPS: 1305, 1381, 1336 Ave 1340, EV 14, SD 37
PSI: 10100, 13200, 10700 AVE 11333, EV 3100

Load #2:

FPS: 1338, 1344, 1381 AVE 1354, EV 43, SD 23
PSI: 12300, 12600, 12800 AVE 12566, EV 500

To me, the plastic sheet makes a pressure difference, and I wouldn't go recommending people do that anymore, without having it tested first. You guys use your own judgement.

The plastic sheet is not neccessarily a bad thing, but it does change what is going on inside the shell, and increases pressure.

Guest

Bowbuilder,

I have worked a lot with Steel powder. The Winchester primer will not do the job.

Try a Federal 209A and back off the powder 2 or 3 grains. To be honest, Steel powder is generally a poor match with lead. You are trying to make it do something that it was not designed for. It was designed for Steel shot and the pressure curves that steel shot and its heavy wads produce.

Blue Dot, Longshot something along those lines would be a better fit.

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 224

Guest

I hope you all understand that I am not trying to be a know it all. I have actual hands on exprience with this stuff. I am just trying to lead you and your efforts in the right direction. Both for safety and money savings as ballistic testing gets expensive.

Sorry for being blunt and I am not trying to offend anyone.