Tmi?

[JBinMN]

Thank you for those tables ! Have them loaded and will think on them often.
Mike in Peru

Ditto!

[Treeman]

HogTamer, You mentioned that you wish someone would measure the internal volumes of various hulls.......There is a most interesting blog by DaveinAZ regarding shotgunning, waterfowl hunting, and non-toxic shotshell loading. He is a thoughtful guy with some obvious skills in statistical analysis who tries to post helpful info. He also has the pleasant ability to give a reasoned opinion without assuming that anyone who differs is a lying scumbag who gets their jolles poking the eyes out of kittens. Here is a link to his shotshell volume measurements. https://pipesf16.wordpress.com/12-ga-2-75-hull-volumes/

It is noteworthy that some hulls vary greatly but many straight wall hulls are fairly close. Ironically Fiocchis of different colors varied more with other Fiocchis than some brands differed from each other.

[Hogtamer]

EXCELLENT! Thank you Treeman, added this to homescreen for reference. Those clear Federal PB hulls mentioned as the most voluminous from BPI are the federal hulls I've been loading for the last couple of years with slugs and buckshot. Part of the difference in volume is from .027 wall thickness vs .029 and .030 thickness in other hulls. Max data for Fed GM hulls is significantly less in the Fed PB hulls and as he pointed out,max loads in the PB hulls become overpressure quickly in the smaller GM hulls. Great to have the differences quantified and one can extrapolate sensible loads for cheddites using this data. Lots of other interesting article on this site, Thanks again!

[Ginsing]

I use the very same article for reference hull interchangability.
Great article shows how close many strait wall hulls are in their capacity.

[jimb16]

I notice that those sheets don't mention which wads to use with those charges.

[Treeman]

Jim, The Lee charge table is intended for use with any wad column that will provide proper fit.

[longbow]

It kinda makes a guy wonder when one source says not to make any component substitutions because it could cause high pressure yet the basis for my Blue Dot 0.735" RB loads was the Precision Rifle pressure tested data that stated to use any new straight walled hull, a plastic gas seal, the 610 gr. Piledriver slug (full bore solid) and powder charge from 36 grs. to 44 grs. (I post that from memory so don't go using it without checking ~ I have the load on paper in the reloading room).

The top end charge supposedly produced 12,500 PSI.

I don't think I would want to be putting just any primer and wad in those hulls with a 12,500 PSI pressure load! And 12,500 PSI with what straight walled hull, wad and primer? Since a primer change can cause pressure change of up to 300 PSI according to Tom Armbrust and the crimp can affect pressure as well this seem like pretty vague load data but there it was published.

Since I was using a 0.735" RB which is at least 30 grs. lighter than the Piledriver and I started at 36 grs. and stopped at 40 grs. of BD I wasn't worried but if I was approaching 44 grs. under a 610 gr. slug I might be a bit more cautious.

Again, I kinda wish we had a BP sub that could be loaded like BP and was not pressure sensitive. But then if that was available it probably wouldn't be available where I am and it would just be another choice in an already over crowded market of powders and reloading components.

As Hal points out though, we can make it simpler by following basic load data like the Lee charts. That's a good observation and good advice!

Longbow

[W.R.Buchanan]

You can also make it simpler by backing off on your loads and considering the fact that ANY projectile from about 500 gr up going any speed above 900 fps is going to be more powerful than is needed by most anyone.

You got to consider what you will be doing with your ammo. If you are going to shoot paper or basically plink with it, you don't really need to go full bore. If you are loading for Polar Bears or Brown Bears then you might want to step it up some. But even then do you really need anything above existing Factory loaded ammo. A 1 1/8 oz slug at 1600 fps is a pretty formidable round.

A full bore round ball is around 580 gr or 1.325 oz. It should be no problem to get that ball above 1300 fps and high pressures would not even come into the picture, and thus substitutions of components wouldn't either.

So far it has been my findings that the only thing that radically affects pressures is the sub in of Federal Primers in place of like Winchester or other brands of primers. the Feds seem to be the hottest and by a good margin.

I have not seen in all my travels thru data spread sheets anything that alarms me as far as Wads and Hulls.

YMMV, but I think if you do look around and compare pressures you'll see what I'm talking about. Keep in mind that if you are playing in the 8-9,000 psi range not much you can do will hurt you. If you are in the 11-12,000 psi range you need to exercise a bit more caution, and if you are approaching max power loads you need to pay attention to everything.

For those who don't know,,, the term "Round" used to describe 1 unit of loaded ammunition came from "Round Ball." And all we are doing is reinventing the Brown Bess.

Can you imagine how much more effective that weapon would have been if they had just put some Crude Open Sights on them? Just a single bead on the front and two on the back would have changed everything.

We'd probably all be speaking English now.

Randy

[longbow]

English rather than American? We Canadians are bilingual... I can converse with Americans and English! Sometimes they don't understand me though! Most Americans think I have a Scottish accent but Canadians and English think I have an American accent!?! I must hang around with you guys too much.

Not sure a rear sight would have helped on the Brown Bess as the windage between ball and bore was HUGE! Accuracy of military muskets (as loaded by the military) was pretty poor, hence the development of buck and ball loads. Volley fire was the thing then... fling lots of lead.

A tightly patched round ball can change that a lot though and there are smoothbore musket shooters with just a front bead or blade that can compete (and win sometimes) against rifle shooters. Ask Waksupi.

That is one of the reasons I am a bit disappointed in my smoothbore results as I am convinced that many smoothbore musket shooters get better accuracy than I do with my shotgun but that I should be able to meet their accuracy. So far I do not believe I have. Some of these guys compete at 100 yard ranges and are competitive with patched ball in rifled gun.

And so I slog on with my quest! Working on a wad punch now for my Brenneke'ized lee slugs.

Longbow

[bikerbeans]

No shotgun forcing cone in a musket. No choke to content with either.


BB

[longbow]

True enough BB and maybe that's what the stumbling block is. My slug guns are cylinder bore so no choke but 3" chambers and forcing cones to contend with.

I am thinking one of the reasons I tend to get somewhat better results with slugs or balls in shotcups is the long chamber and forcing cone. With ball in a plastic wad that wad acts as a bumper and guide to get the ball to the bore. In a smoothbore musket that ball is patched and tight fit all the way to the muzzle.

Some of my recovered 0.735" RB's show an uneven belt indicating (to me anyway) that they picked up a spin opening the crimp or they hit the bore off center. Either way that can't be good for accuracy. That's something the front stuffers don't have to deal with.

Maybe I should just get me a Brown Bess!

My digression isn't helping the OP though so I'll shut up.

Longbow

Hah! Wrong thread! this is Hal's thread so okay to deviate some... right Hal?

[Hogtamer]

While the forcing cone may great for shot loads it can't do much for wadcup slugs except rip the petls off a tight fitting load I wouldn't think. Thinking sometimes puts me at odds with facts though, but if I happen to be right why not ream the cone out if it's a dedicated slug gun?

[Hogtamer]

While the forcing cone may great for shot loads it can't do much for wadcup slugs except rip the petals off a tight fitting load I would think. Thinking sometimes puts me at odds with facts though, but if I happen to be right why not ream the cone out if it's a dedicated slug gun?

[longbow]

That's what Greg Sappington did... except he had a custom barrel made and a reamer made up to make a rifle like chamber, at 2 3/4" hull length IIRC, rather than a shotgun like chamber. Reaming a standard chamber might require one of those custom Ed Hubel cartridges to fill that long hole! I'd have to measure but along with the extra 1/4" for 3" chamber I'll bet there's a good couple inches of forcing cone. That'd be one long chamber!

[Petander]

Always glad to see the big light bulb turn on, when guys figure it out.

Attachment 233310

[RMc]

I

Again, I kinda wish we had a BP sub that could be loaded like BP and was not pressure sensitive. But then if that was available it probably wouldn't be available where I am and it would just be another choice in an already over crowded market of powders and reloading components.

Longbow

Black powder works better than most would think!

Great short article that also covers:

12 gauge 2.5" cartridge with 600 grain round ball driven near 1400 fps by American Black Powder made to late 19th century standards.

http://www.classicarmsjournal.com/fr...loading-bench/

[W.R.Buchanan]

The forcing cone on Mossbergs and Rems is about 3/4" long. The Vang Comp process lengthens it to @3". The barrel is then backbored out to about .745 but the reamer has a taper on the end back to .730, which effectively works like a choke.

My M500 Tac gun with that barrel shoots slugs very well, and I am at 2.5" at 50 yards Offhand. I'm sure there is more there off a rest.

Randy

[RogerDat]

Thanks for the informative links to tables and articles. Seems to me a big impediment to reloading or loading for shotgun is the over abundance of load components and recipes around them.

For the metallic cartridge reloader who starts out thinking they will buy a bag of hulls, a bag of wads, a brick of primers and some powder to load for shotgun a very rude awakening awaits. Speaking for myself cost wise I don't mind buying 2 or 3 powders to cover a range of loads but having to buy multiple different wads for the same load depending on the powder is not a welcome development. Then finding out it all depends on hull brand which is really only a means to researching what brands conform to certain basic hull designs which is only somewhat readily available information. Confounded by weird differences in rebranded versions or different generations of the same model name and brand of hull at which point I start to wonder what am I going to save? Like 3 cents a load?

Then as the OP I start to wonder how much does it really matter but being cautious sort of person I am not in a big yank to learn what works by making it go boom by my head. Eventually I hope to have a concise list of wads/components that will allow me to load different weights of shot, or slug with a likewise concise list of three or so powders. From what I have been able to glean so far from reading Green Dot for low power, Blue Dot for high power, still not sure what to put between the two. I already have good supply of Unique for metallic reloading which might fit in there someplace. I see 700x or 800x in that range along with some HS powders. What I'm not likely to do is dedicate the space and funds to having three or four different wads for one load depending on powder for multiple weight/types of loads. Nine to twelve bags of wads so I can do only 4 different weights of shot loads at moderately different fps is just annoying. WHAT you mean I have to double that if I use different hulls!

I desire to be able to load for what I might need ammo for so I will have something that works in shotgun I can count on being available but unless I figure out how to cut through the massive data around loads to come up with some basic git-r-done components I'll limit myself to the least loads that provide viable ammo. Slugs and buckshot being most expensive perk to the top, with a single basic shot load for 20 gauge and 12 gauge. Maybe 7/8 for 20 and 1 oz. for 12. I might include a small load for each to allow for wife and grandkids desire for less recoil. In 20 a powder with less oomph might accomplish that in a 7/8 load but a 3/4 oz. would be nice option. Only not if it requires me to purchase, adjust components, and test for another 2 or 3 wads to match up with powders.

It's the one weight of powder that does it. If one can't adjust powder then one has to find load data for different powder that will often have different components. I already started thinning my choices if it won't fit in a Remington Gun Club or a couple of other Remington premium/semi-premium hulls I'm not going to pay it much mind. I bought those hulls in bulk. Remington wads however are freaking expensive so going to avoid those if possible. Guess which wads are most often listed in Remington hull loads? Even though clearly other cheaper options exist. I don't know who is out to get me, might be marketing, might be people just looking out for my safety, might be nanny lawyers. But it is most annoying part in starting up shotgun reloading.

Wait a minute you mean to say some hulls use European sized primers and some use American? So that inexpensive bag of BPI hulls pre-primed mean ordering different primers if I want to reload them? ARRRRRGH! Oh there is a primer pocket tool for $20 that will make the primer pocket tighter and allow American primers to fit, how does it work. Answer Great! No Awful!

[centershot]

Thanks for the informative links to tables and articles. Seems to me a big impediment to reloading or loading for shotgun is the over abundance of load components and recipes around them.

For the metallic cartridge reloader who starts out thinking they will buy a bag of hulls, a bag of wads, a brick of primers and some powder to load for shotgun a very rude awakening awaits. Speaking for myself cost wise I don't mind buying 2 or 3 powders to cover a range of loads but having to buy multiple different wads for the same load depending on the powder is not a welcome development. Then finding out it all depends on hull brand which is really only a means to researching what brands conform to certain basic hull designs which is only somewhat readily available information. Confounded by weird differences in rebranded versions or different generations of the same model name and brand of hull at which point I start to wonder what am I going to save? Like 3 cents a load?

Then as the OP I start to wonder how much does it really matter but being cautious sort of person I am not in a big yank to learn what works by making it go boom by my head. Eventually I hope to have a concise list of wads/components that will allow me to load different weights of shot, or slug with a likewise concise list of three or so powders. From what I have been able to glean so far from reading Green Dot for low power, Blue Dot for high power, still not sure what to put between the two. I already have good supply of Unique for metallic reloading which might fit in there someplace. I see 700x or 800x in that range along with some HS powders. What I'm not likely to do is dedicate the space and funds to having three or four different wads for one load depending on powder for multiple weight/types of loads. Nine to twelve bags of wads so I can do only 4 different weights of shot loads at moderately different fps is just annoying. WHAT you mean I have to double that if I use different hulls!

I desire to be able to load for what I might need ammo for so I will have something that works in shotgun I can count on being available but unless I figure out how to cut through the massive data around loads to come up with some basic git-r-done components I'll limit myself to the least loads that provide viable ammo. Slugs and buckshot being most expensive perk to the top, with a single basic shot load for 20 gauge and 12 gauge. Maybe 7/8 for 20 and 1 oz. for 12. I might include a small load for each to allow for wife and grandkids desire for less recoil. In 20 a powder with less oomph might accomplish that in a 7/8 load but a 3/4 oz. would be nice option. Only not if it requires me to purchase, adjust components, and test for another 2 or 3 wads to match up with powders.

It's the one weight of powder that does it. If one can't adjust powder then one has to find load data for different powder that will often have different components. I already started thinning my choices if it won't fit in a Remington Gun Club or a couple of other Remington premium/semi-premium hulls I'm not going to pay it much mind. I bought those hulls in bulk. Remington wads however are freaking expensive so going to avoid those if possible. Guess which wads are most often listed in Remington hull loads? Even though clearly other cheaper options exist. I don't know who is out to get me, might be marketing, might be people just looking out for my safety, might be nanny lawyers. But it is most annoying part in starting up shotgun reloading.

Wait a minute you mean to say some hulls use European sized primers and some use American? So that inexpensive bag of BPI hulls pre-primed mean ordering different primers if I want to reload them? ARRRRRGH! Oh there is a primer pocket tool for $20 that will make the primer pocket tighter and allow American primers to fit, how does it work. Answer Great! No Awful!

Yeah, it gets somewhat frustrating! IMO, Randy Buchanan has the best approach to this: Find a trap load that works well, then use that set of components to load round balls and buckshot. IIRC he is using Green Dot powder and loading to around 1250 fps. Hopefully, Randy will chime in on this!

[jmort]

It is common knowledge that a single ball/slug will generally produce less pressure. As a consequence, it is common to take equal weight shot loads and use that data and components for ball/slug. Been discussed in many threads over the years. Another good reason to have a lot of load data. I have a lot of different wads, cards, hulls, whatever.