10 gauge round ball loads.

[OnHoPr]

Them Ozark squirrels must get pretty big down there for that Blunder Bust clone. I have never loaded for the 10 ga, but will open my mouth for a little pondering for you. First, https://www.precisionreloading.com/c...!l=MC&i=846210, there is a star crimper should work with your press to fold crimp. Second, if you take a hardwood dowel rod big enough to sand/lathe to the correct OD and put a 5/16th lag bolt on one end with the head cut off you can make a spin doctor to help reconstitute those hull mouths. Third, I would stay away from the real fast and real slow powders for unknown deliberating on load and column, 800X is one of the medium powders that can produce heavy field loads and with the mid heavy payloads like the ball you have. It also has just about the most bulk as well in loading space. Fourth, you know that high density construction styrofoam that comes in 4 by 8 ft sheets of various thicknesses, that seems like with a simple tool that you could make to cut wads of the proper diameter out of it to put between two nitro cards, one on top of the gas seal and one below the ball may work pretty good. Though, as you have mentioned in a previous post on this thread deliberating on a load would take a little more pondering. If you took known wad column structures and put them in your shotgun reloading press and checked out the poundage for so far compressed and test or try to simulate or conjure what the styrofoam sheeting would give in similar test, something like the 5/32 steel ball test for checking BHN. Lastly, as a note if when you go to the final crimp stage you may have to fiddle with the cam at the top of that station to get good crimps. Ponder at your own risk, but be safe. I just want to see pics of the squirrels harvested with it.

[Cap'n Morgan]

Tim, I can see why you worry about the ball ironing out the crimp instead of opening it up, but perhaps isn't a problem after all? You could drill and thread a ball and try pulling it through a crimped hull to see what happens. Even if the ball would flatten the crimp in real life, it would happen in the chamber and worst case scenario would be a ruined hull.

[MBTcustom]

Tim, I can see why you worry about the ball ironing out the crimp instead of opening it up, but perhaps isn't a problem after all? You could drill and thread a ball and try pulling it through a crimped hull to see what happens. Even if the ball would flatten the crimp in real life, it would happen in the chamber and worst case scenario would be a ruined hull.

I've already pursued this line of thinking, and I don't care to do it for the following reasons:
1. I am already completely convinced that the ball will ride over the crimp rather than folding it back open if used without an over-shot card.
2. I'm certain the ball will ride over the crimp ironing it flat, and compressing it, but the wads following behind the ball will not allow it to stay that way, so the crimp will be trying to open right in the middle of the wad column and while the pressure is rising fast.

I figure at the very least, I lose the front edge of the shell, and at the worst, it will cause my wad column to become seperated or obstructed, which could modify the pressures in the chamber to dangerous levels. Either way, I see no reason to do this, and I'll not attempt it.

To OnHoPr:
a crimp starter works great on a shell that already has a crimp on it. Last time I tried it on a new shell, things didn't work out so nice.

No gentlemen, I believe I need to depend on the weight of the ball and the wad column to produce my back pressure and use a small amount of glue of some sort to keep the ball in place.

By the way OnHoPr, I think your powder recommendation is right on the money, and that is exactly the direction I am going. I am using SR4756 for starters, but I think I have a small quantity of 800X as well.

[vzerone]

Goodsteel what makes you feel that way about the crimp when for decades since the creation of paper and then plastic shotshells (not the brass ones) that, that is going to happen. I've never seen it happen ever with any kind of projectile/projectiles that were loaded. I feel that one of the fallacies about pressure no matter what it's in handgun cartridges, rifle, shotshell, even muzzle loaders that separate components will get separated on the trip up the barrel. It doesn't take a lot pressure in a contained tube to keep a constant force on items traveling up that tube. Yes I know that for example, in swaging that you can't rely on a copper or brass tube to stay with the lead core on a bullet because both the rear and front end are open. Nothing is both end open on that shotshell.

[OnHoPr]

You just mentioned one of my three favorite powders for loading slugs, 4756, 800X, and Herco. They are all close together on that shotgun powder burn rate chart and have provided some of my more accurate slug loads. All of them will produce a good medium heavy load with medium heavy payloads.

You have a knife and a dowel rod, don't you. Maybe whittle an inside mold form to put in the hull, then put it in the hull and try to form the crimp. I think they make a more deliberate crimping tool too. Did you ever think about heating up the hull plastic so that it forms easier. Maybe have a pan of boiling water and put the hull upside down just at the mouth or crimp area level. Then when heated well put the whittled mold in the hull and form it quick with a crimping tool. Maybe even use 50/50 antifreeze and water to get it hotter to mold easier.

[Hogtamer]

Cut off the hull just above top of ball and use a bead of stiff lube or beeswax. Prevent any leading issues too. Ball prolly will be tight enough in hull so it won't take much to hold in place.

RE: 800-x
I had 4 different loads pressure tested with my full bore zinc 12 ga slugs (zlugs!) 2 each with Steel and 800x.
The 800x produced less velocity with higher pressure than the Steel and all loads were safe. After shooting about 100 of them I prefer the 800x load out of 20" barrel as there is less flash and boom. For a longer barrel it's not an issue. The tests proved to me that Steel is much more forgiving pressure wise at least over a solid wad column than the 800x. I don't like to get over 11,000 psi in shotguns. There's a lot of good data in some old threads. Bikerbeans has real world experience in those 10 ga monsters and I would rely heavily on his experience.

[MBTcustom]

Goodsteel what makes you feel that way about the crimp when for decades since the creation of paper and then plastic shotshells (not the brass ones) that, that is going to happen. I've never seen it happen ever with any kind of projectile/projectiles that were loaded. I feel that one of the fallacies about pressure no matter what it's in handgun cartridges, rifle, shotshell, even muzzle loaders that separate components will get separated on the trip up the barrel. It doesn't take a lot pressure in a contained tube to keep a constant force on items traveling up that tube. Yes I know that for example, in swaging that you can't rely on a copper or brass tube to stay with the lead core on a bullet because both the rear and front end are open. Nothing is both end open on that shotshell.

A picture is worth 1000 words:
Attachment 155789

Like I said, I suspect the ball will shoot through the roll crimp, and the wads will unroll it after it's been ironed flat.
Is this a problem? I'm interested to hear opinions.
Here is a picture of what it looks like from the front:
Attachment 155790

[MBTcustom]

Cut off the hull just above top of ball and use a bead of stiff lube or beeswax. Prevent any leading issues too. Ball prolly will be tight enough in hull so it won't take much to hold in place.

Unfortunately, no. The balls slide into the new Cheddite hulls with minimal resistance. These are much thinner than the old Remington hulls I burned up Saturday.

[singleshot]

No, I don't think your plan is a problem either way. I've done many hundreds of loads both ways and both can and do work. The worst thing that happens is the end of the plastic gets frayed and ratty with a roll crimp. With glue or wax or such, the worst that happens is inconsistent velocity depending upon the powder used or sometimes the ball can fall out before firing if it's a loose fit. Why not eliminate wad and put on a 6-point crimp? That seems the cheapest option. I find that works well too.

So many options...so little time.

[MBTcustom]

No, I don't think your plan is a problem either way. I've done many hundreds of loads both ways and both can and do work. The worst thing that happens is the end of the plastic gets frayed and ratty with a roll crimp. With glue or wax or such, the worst that happens is inconsistent velocity depending upon the powder used or sometimes the ball can fall out before firing if it's a loose fit. Why not eliminate wad and put on a 6-point crimp? That seems the cheapest option. I find that works well too.

So many options...so little time.

Thank you for the information.

Trust me, I would purely love to put a six point crimp on these shells, but the reason I do not, is that it seems to be the absolute most expensive option, as I do not have a 10 gauge MEC sitting around here, cannot find one to borrow, nor get for cheap (unless I was able to buy that one for $80something bucks last week on ebay), and a new one costs over $300 and that's only IF you can find one in stock (MidwayUSA is showing me pictures of things I cannot have again. LOL!)
Also, one thing my pictures failed to show was the trouble I was having getting the crimp tucked in tight around the ball. I pressed as hard as was reasonable, and the ball was still easily rolled in the hull by finger pressure because my roll crimper had contacted the top of the ball before I got the crimp tucked in tight (I made it myself, so I'll try to scoop out the center to allow the ball to ride higher, but I can't imagine ever getting a good solid crimp without some sort of ledge to tuck against.)
I'm thinking I may need to put this project on hold till I find a way to fold crimp the shells.
A friend of mine has an old set of Pacific dies that allow him to reload 12 gauge shells on his single stage press, but that's the only set like that I've ever seen, and if I did find them they would be collectors items.
Every now and then a Lee loader pops up, but I don't know how well that works, and it also is a collectors item.
My MEC 650 cannot be converted to load 10 gauge shells.
Looks like I'm a stuck duck, and I honestly don't see how a fold crimp is the cheapest option.

[longbow]

You know, I wondered the same thing about roll crimp for 0.735" RB's in 12 ga. but they worked just fine with no signs of the crimp being run over.

However, something one of the fellows here said a long time ago was that he left hulls open and used melted beeswax as a sealer over the ball. I wouldn't think that would help with initial compression and ignition but that may depend on powder too. Faster powders won't notice as much.

I have been thinking of trying either beeswax or paraffin in that manner to see how it works. As long as the wax leaves the ball at the muzzle all should be good and paraffin might be better for that than beeswax.

Another thought is to seat the ball low enough that you could "squeeze" a waist in the hull just above the ball. I am thinking spinning the hull and using a device like a smooth nut cracker (Hah! Big balls... nut cracker. Hmmmm...) to form a smooth radius waist just above the ball.

Not sure that makes sense but Ross Seyfreid used a tool to do that on plastic hulls loaded with Paradox boolits of the original Kynoch style with the large radius groove and two narrow driving bands. The "crimp" was the squeezed "waist" in that groove. looked nice and seemed effective. probably easier on hulls too.

I have a copy of the old article buried somewhere. I could post or send you a picture (which is worth a thousand rambling words) if you want. you are a handy guy so I am sure you can come up with something like that.

Actually now that I think of it you could make a cup rotary tool much like a roll crimper but shaped to form a smooth dome type crimp over the ball. So not a fold crimp but not a roll crimp. If it left the middle of the ball exposed it would allow easy verification that is a round ball load like a roll crimp does but no chance of running over a crimp at all. You'd need a bit of give in the wad column whilst spinning the tool and forming that "dome" though or the ball would be loose.

Hah! Contrary to what many say I may not be as dumb as I look after all!

Now quit reading posts on Cast Boolits and git 'er done boy! We are all waiting on results.

Longbow

Well, I guess I may be as dumb as I look after all. I was posting below your #40 post at the bottom of page 2! DOH! There's been a lot of activity on this thread! Oh well.

[MBTcustom]

I decided to try seating the ball lower in the shell in order to make it so that the roll crimp would contact it sooner. This made a very clean crimp and the tool barely kissed the front of the balls.
I reviewed what load data I have, and I chose a load, and made a column stack that put the ball in exactly that position.

Attachment 155811

[Mk42gunner]

Regarding fold crimping of plastic shells with the Lee Loader: Forget it.

I loaded a lot of 3" .410 and 2 3/4" 20 gauge when I was a kid with Lee Loaders. The fold crimps in plastic hulls were fugly before I knew fugly was a word. Back then Federal .410's were roll crimped and I could never get one to fold crimp good enough to even think it might hold shot, even when using Lee's plastic crimp starter (I had both six and eight point starters).

To really get a folded crimp to hold, the center of the crimp needs to be able to go below center. I don't see that being a good thing when you are trying to hold a solid ball in one place.

The roll crimped shells you showed in post #52 look pretty good to me. I'd try a few, if they work, fine, if not then worry about another crimp or way to glue the ball in place.

I have seen brass crimp starters, I think at BPI, and probably meant for mounting on a MEC.

Good Luck,

Robert

[MBTcustom]

I keep thinking about the comment by vzerone. I think I'm drastically overthinking this.
I'm going to make a few more loads today with progressive charges of powder, and go see what the chronograph tells me.
I called hubel458 last night and had a great conversation and he told me to measure the base of the hull before and after shooting and compare it to the expansion of factory hulls. That and a chronograph should be enough to feel my way forward.

[MBTcustom]

Well I tested my first 10 gauge RB loads today and nothing blew up, so I guess I get a blue ribbon. LOL!
I'm not saying the method I used to arrive at my loads was scientificaly sound, or wise, but it's what I felt comfortable with, so feel free to comment and offer constructive criticism.

My payload minus wad column is 1/10 of a pound, or 1.6oz. This is just .025oz lighter than a 1 5/8oz load. I figured that .025oz would help offset the heavier wad column considering I'm going from the recommended plastic shotcup, to a solid stack of BPI gas seal, fiber wads, and Quaker grits.

I don't know a whole lot about loading for shotguns, but I've been looking at spent hulls since I was a young lad, and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that the Chedite hulls have more capacity than normal which will reduce pressure (more massive wad column notwithstanding). Thus, these hulls offer a little bit of a safety cushion IMHO, simply on account of their bigger capacity and thinner walls.

The primer is the joker in the deck.

So, what I did was a review all of the data I had, from every reference regarding 3.5" 1 5/8oz loads in the 10 gauge using SR4756 powder. Target loads, field loads, everything.
What I arrived at was a possible charge of 36 to 43 grains.
So, I loaded 4 each of 36, 37, 38, and 39 grain loads.

Now obviously, the problem is that as the load increases, the ball sits higher in the hull, and I can have that if I need a good crimp, so I adjusted the grits accordingly to make up the difference. What I was after was for the ball to sit .265 inches below the mouth of the new hull to facilitate a good crimp such as described and pictured last night.

I wrote everything down, and here how I stacked the loads and the exact recipes I tried:

First I weighed the powder charge and dumped it in the hull.
Then I inserted a gas seal.
Then I pressed in 3 hard fiber wads, one at a time, and I pressed them down hard with a dowel. (there was enough wall tension, I feel comfortable saying that the force I exerted on the wads was held in place).
Then I used trial and error with Lee dippers to find the dipper that gave me a ball hieght that gave me .265 from the mouth of the case to the ball when the ball was pressed into the hull as hard as I could manage.
Finally, the crimp was rolled in place.

Here are the recipes (4 each)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test load #1

Chedite 10 gauge primed hull from BPI

36 grains of SR4756

One BPI X10X gas seal (seated hard with a dowel)

Three 3/8" hard felt wads from BPI (seated hard with a dowel)

4.3cc Quaker grits

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test load #2

Chedite 10 gauge primed hull from BPI

37 grains of SR4756

One BPI X10X gas seal (seated hard with a dowel)

Three 3/8" hard felt wads from BPI (seated hard with a dowel)

4.0cc Quaker grits

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test load #3

Chedite 10 gauge primed hull from BPI

38 grains of SR4756

One BPI X10X gas seal (seated hard with a dowel)

Three 3/8" hard felt wads from BPI (seated hard with a dowel)

3.7cc Quaker grits

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test load #4

Chedite 10 gauge primed hull from BPI

39 grains of SR4756

One BPI X10X gas seal (seated hard with a dowel)

Three 3/8" hard felt wads from BPI (seated hard with a dowel)

3.1cc Quaker grits

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here are the muzzle velocities recorded and the barrel orientation for each of the loads:

Test load #1
1. right barrel 1111 fps
2. right barrel 1014 fps-----------------------------average 1138 FPS
3. right barrel 1305 fps
4. left barrel 1125 fps

Test load #2
1. right barrel 971 fps
2. left barrel 1135 fps-----------------------------average 1061 FPS
3. right barrel 1097 fps
4. left barrel 1043 fps

Test load #3
1. right barrel 978 fps
2. left barrel 1162 fps-----------------------------average 1063 FPS
3. right barrel 1053 fps
4. left barrel 1060 fps

Test load #4
1. right barrel 1095 fps
2. left barrel 1232 fps-----------------------------average 1168 FPS
3. right barrel 1205 fps
4. left barrel 1143 fps

That's exactly what I saw in exactly the order it was done. I did not pay any attention to group size for the moment because I am only interested in working up loads at this time. However, the berm was 30 yards beyond the chronograph and all the balls seemed to hit where I was aiming.

Attachment 155890

Attachment 155887

Attachment 155888

Attachment 155889

[Rattlesnake Charlie]

GoodSteel

The photo of those loaded rounds in Post #52 sure look good.

It would be interesting if members with factory loaded pumpkin balls would report. The only one I have is in .410. It has a roll crimp that curls far enough into the hull to touch the ball. I have only one, and have never fired any others.

My own personal experience with round balls in shot shells used folded crimps, both 12 and 20 gauge. They were as accurate as some slug rounds. Some of the new slug rounds like the Federal with Flite Control wad are real tough to beat.

I purchased some "doughnut" wads from BPI last year with the intent of building round ball loads. You might want something similar under the ball to help keep it centered. Having another, of some thickness, on top of the ball may allay your concerns about opening the roll crimp. Think of a properly sized Life Saver mint (made of some heavy card stock) sitting on top of the ball before the crimp is applied. It would open the roll crimp on firing, and I surmise that the lead bowling ball would pass it somewhere before it got to the target. Just another wild idea ....

I'm following this thread with great interest.

Rattlesnake Charlie

[MBTcustom]

I've added average speeds to the data above. I think the first load was out of place because the barrel was fowled from the factory loads I shot last weekend. Could be there was some sort of residue left in the barrel that helped to get the speed up. Either that, or shot #3 was a crimp bridge or some other weirdness that I can't understand.

Anywho, other than the first one, I think the last group was settling down, so I figure I need to bump things up just a touch.

I loaded another 8 rounds to see what happens. 4 are loaded with 40 grains of SR4756, and 4 are loaded with 41 grains of SR4756. I'm hoping things will settle down a little.

One thing I keep wondering is if the wad column was jacking with the chronograph readings. I wish I had an answer for that, but I'm not totally trusting these ES values. Hard to see how things could be that far off.
If the 40 grain loads exhibit pressure signs, then I'll open the 41 grain loads and reclaim the components.

[OnHoPr]

The first pic shows the diagram for the 650. The column bolt just needs a proper placement to get the height you need for the 10. I am not sure if yours can go from 2 3/4 to 3" or not, but if it can if you put the bolt in the top hole of the housing and the bottom hole of the column then you should be at the 3.5" height. If not, do a D&T to get the height. I am not sure of how your rotating plate functions and since yours is 12ga and you are wanting to do 10ga that could be a problem. I don't know if you can just switch the base plate. You may need to make a simple plate to hover over top of you rotating plate. If so, the D&T would be necessary and would have to be factored in with the hole placement. Once you have the correct height the two assemblies, the 10ga spindex and cam crimp assembly are reasonable replacement parts from MEC. The diagram for the assemblies was IIRC the Steelmaster, but they should be universal. I would do a little more checking on the compatible part, though all they do is go on the top plate of the press. Most specialty loads like the slug and buckshot loads are hand filled anyway, so this system should be able to crimp a shell. The sizing is another matter, you may find a sizer assembly that would work. The bite that comes in with this is that drop tube portion of the press is kind of a bite, but you should be able to at least use it for seating wad pressure. If it interest you look into it a little deeper. I just did a quick research for the possible. I reload the 3.5 12ga on my Versamec. Now I wouldn't want to load for trap that way, but to do test slug, turkey, and buckshot loads it does the job. I would also load a few boxes a time for steel if necessary.

[Cap'n Morgan]

One thing I keep wondering is if the wad column was jacking with the chronograph readings. I wish I had an answer for that, but I'm not totally trusting these ES values. Hard to see how things could be that far off.
If the 40 grain loads exhibit pressure signs, then I'll open the 41 grain loads and reclaim the components.

I was seeing the same thing when chonographing some of my slug loads; speed seemed to vary too much, with SD numbers well into the three digits range. Powder was Unique, Herco, Blue Dot and Steel and all testing was done with CCI 209 primers. In all cases the barrel showed quite a bit of residue left. Aliant powders are known to be a bit "dirty", but still... . Anyway, I was going to try magnum primers, but that meant quite a long trip to pick up some. Instead I tried loading with Vectan AS, which is a medium to fast powder suitable for loads in the 7/8 to 1-1/8 ounce range.

The difference was remarkable; the SD numbers is now typically within a 20 FPS range for a 1100 FPS load - and the barrel is as clean as a whistle! I still need to fine-tune the loads, but so far I'm quite pleased with the results. Since going up in gauge requires faster powders (everything else being equal) I would try a faster powder before taking it out on the chrono

http://www.reloadersnest.com/burnrates.asp

[MBTcustom]

Just another detail of note. The barrels are clean and sparkly. Not the best picture, but here's the RH barrel.
Attachment 155995