Can I switch from shot to slugs if the slug payload weight is the same or less? The reloading book says "no", but I have read here how others have said it is OK to do that.
Can I switch from shot to slugs if the slug payload weight is the same or less? The reloading book says "no", but I have read here how others have said it is OK to do that.
OK let me try a stab at a answer
There is no clear cut answer
As the problem isn't just payload weight
Because how or the differance to how the shot or slug react to being pushed through the forcing cone
Also as to how it reacts to a choke
Some of it is the differance in volume taken up by the the payload
Fillers needed to bring the slug up to the proper height to crimp and the differant wads used
I will never tell you it is OK to just sub a 1 oz slug for 1 oz of shot
As a slug NORMALY produces more pressure than the same weight in shot
As the shot will flow as it moves in the shot cup
While it passes through the forcing cone and choke
Sort of as the shot flows it provides a soft start
Where the slug has to be forced to move
And forced even more to go through the forcing cone and choke
How much extra pressure dose a slug produce ?
To many varryables to tell
But I use a simple idea
If the load you would like to use produces 9500 PSI or less
IMO it is probely going to be safe to use that load ( same wad ) with a card filler to bring up the slug for crimpimg
But if you start sub ing wads
All bets are off
As a example
I have pressure tested Winchester wads with a load I was working up
Just Subbing the Winchester 1 1/8 oz white wad for the 1 1/4 oz wad caused over 1200 PSI differance
With everything else being the same
Not a big deal if you started out with a low to mid range load
But if done with a Max load
It could cause a problem
Just remember a shotgun runs on a lot lower pressures than handguns or rifles
As their locking systems are no where as strong as most people think
I have seen to many shotguns junked and a few shooters hurt
So play it safe and stick to know safe loads
John
And I carry a LOADED Hell CatYea, thou I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me; Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.
John, you covered it pretty well at first glance.
The essence of the answer rests with the RULE:
Unlike metallic cartridge reloading, you never "work up a load" with shotgun. You load to a specific tested and published recipe.
You use a specific hull, a specific wad, and a specific amount of a specific powder, for a specific amount of shot, and that's it!
Ditto for slugs.
So, use the shot recipe for shot, and the slug recipe for slugs, and you MIGHT (no guarantees) find some that overlap.
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Metallic Cartridge Reloading Instructor
Author of a book on reloading
ILSA MEMBER http://www.internationallawnsteelsho...ssociation.com
NRA RANGE SAFETY OFFICER
Johnch:
Maintaining the correct height is not a concern if you roll crimp, right? Or does the height also impact the pressure/volume? Was the 1 1/8 oz wad making less pressure than an 1 1/4 oz one? You convinced me the slug makes more pressure than the shot in the FC and choke.
Until you have chamber pressuring measuring equipment and sufficient testing under your belt to prove that your theory is right despite those of us who do have pressure measuring equipment finding that the exact opposite is true so far to date I politely suggest you stop quoting this hypothesis of yours as fact.
You are following in the footsteps of Aristotle in your methodology (I think heavier objects fall faster therefore they do). I follow the footsteps of Galileo Galilei (Lets perform tests to find out if this is true or not) and I’m not the only one. I suggest you go talk to James @ Dixie Slugs in the meantime I’ll go dig around in my files on the other computer when I have a chance and see if I can’t get some of my pressure trace files to transfer to this one so I can post some of them.
Let me be very clear, what you are saying has been proven to be false. I am pointing this out because this particular error is as prevalent today as Aristotle’s reasoning held as absolute truth concerning many different natural phenomenon where in the days of Galileo Galilei. I am not personally attacking you although as I stated earlier I am kindly suggesting that you are stating as facts things you cannot prove and that have already been proven false through hard science and that is not a wise position to take ones stand upon and your willingness to accept without hard science proof such a statement you picked up from others or as a reasoning of your own mind I find of considerable concern for your long term safety and those around you when it comes to reloading in general.
[QUOTE=Frank;1169695]Johnch:
I recomend to follow a recipe exactly
No the 1 1/8 oz wad was more pressure
And the load with the 1 1/4 oz wad load called for a cork filler
So I figured I could save a step and use the other wad
But I am glad I checked the pressure before I loaded more than a few
John
Last edited by Johnch; 02-20-2011 at 11:52 PM.
And I carry a LOADED Hell CatYea, thou I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me; Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.
I agree. No need to cut corners and ruin a good gun. Thanks.johnch:
I recomend to follow a recipe exactly
No the 1 1/8 oz wad was more pressure
And the load with the 1 1/4 oz wad load called for a cork filler
So I figured I could save a step and use the other wad
But I am glad I checked the pressure before I loaded more than a few
John
turbo1889:So turbo, what is your proof that slugs don't make more pressure? I would like to hear what you have.You are following in the footsteps of Aristotle in your methodology (I think heavier objects fall faster therefore they do). I follow the footsteps of Galileo Galilei
I would as well
I am about to embark on a road of few tracks and need some kind
of reassurance that I am not making a fools journey
Hit em'hard
hit em'often
What I know about loading shot shells wouldn't fill a thimble. That being said, understand, clearly, I have no clue what I'm talking about.
Now, THAT being said, I have to wonder how the data for various shot shell loads was originally developed. Did the first people to develop these loads have access to pressure measuring equipment? If they did, that pretty much answers my question and shuts me up. If they did NOT, how did they determine the point at which to limit the powder charge/payload charge combination?
I promise you, this is not presented in a challenging manner. I ask because I am truly curious and would like to learn. Are there established methods to "work up" a load for shot shells as we do with metallic cartridges?
Turbo Is right. The same weight shot or slug load, the slug will have less pressure. The reason being the shot being loose and round will push out against the inside of the barrel more than a solid mass as the slug is.
but what about the fact the slug has to be pushed through a restiction in the bore and is going to take more to swadge down to bore size compared to fine shot or buckshot which can easily squeeze down. I fooled a bit with slugs last month. I loaded them to the level the book said too and then loaded them to what i was loading buck too and i can say this. The ones loaded with the buck powder charge had a real sharp crack to the report. I know that sure isnt scientific but it sure seemed like there was more pressure to my ears. Much more of a sharp report then with factory slug loads too.
Greetings
I routinely dump the shot out of Winchester Game Loads 7 1/2 shot and replace with a .685 round ball. Never saw any pressure problems. But properly fitted round balls produce less pressure than a shot load all other componets being the same. Properly fitted being the key.
I do not shot slugs. I find round balls being as accurate as slugs and easily out penetrate slugs plus being easier to cast. But as far as your real origonal question.. Yep I do swaps.
"Come unto Me, all you who labor and are heavy burdened, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28
Male Guanaco out in dry lakebed at 10,800 feet south of Arequipa.
turbo1889:We're waiting on Galileo. He was going to bring us some info.I follow the footsteps of Galileo Galilei (Lets perform tests to find out if this is true or not) and I’m not the only one. I’ll go dig around in my files on the other computer when I have a chance and see if I can’t get some of my pressure trace files to transfer to this one so I can post some of them.
Okay, Lets first get one thing straight; I am not Galileo and I am not anything like a master genius that even comes close to that kind of category. I do, however, ascribe to the experimental methodology that Galileo pioneered and I follow in those footsteps. When I can’t do my own experiments for one reason or another I then choose to “Stand on the Shoulders of Giants” and I choose my giants to be those who follow an experimental methodology. In many ways my motto is “Question everything; Especially all things asserted to be true simply because that is what all the big loud mouths say like a single chorus.” (Following this philosophy by the way is an almost guaranteed way to drive most liberal college professors up the wall and make them want to pull their hair out. ). I’m the guy that when he hears someone say that heavier objects fall faster in direct proportion to their weight difference (something twice as heavy falls twice as fast ~ etc.) and this is so because the great minds say that it is so and they say that it is so because they think that is how it is and because they think that is the way it is therefore that is the way it is I go find myself a tower and a 16# and 8# bowling ball and roll them off the top side by side and see if the 16# ball actually falls twice as fast as the 8# ball instead of just taking your word for it. If I find that they are very wrong about this belief of theirs I will then ask them to join me at the tower and see for themselves. If they stubbornly refuse to reconsider their position after viewing the data with their own eyes I will then be tempted to ask them to stand where the bowling balls hit the ground and I will drop them again from the top that way they can get a better view of the experiment. I would suggest everyone adopt this mentality to at least some extent ~ well maybe not the last part though.
It is also true that I do not have the financial backing that Galileo had and I have to work for a living; my “lab” (shop) however is a cluttered mess so at least I’m like Galileo in that manner who according to what I have read just about drove his house keepers insane with his clutter. So, I have spent the first part of this weekend getting the files I needed off the old beat up laptop I use for range duty, found some of my notes I needed, located the highlighted “twin” loads in my books, and have been using the search function on this forum to re-locate some earlier information. So here goes:
____________________________________
Pressure Trace Data:
1. ~ Remington 1-1/8oz. Walmart bulk pack economy loads slug substitution test:
----- a. ~ T1, T2, & T3 Are the loads fired just as they are straight out of the box with the original lead shot payload in them.
----- b. ~ T4, T5, & T6 Are the loads opened up and the shot dumped out and a naked 0.690” round ball cast with the Lee mold with the weight of the ball regulated to be 1-1/8oz. by adding pure lead to WW alloy until the density was right and then re-crimped nice and tight with a fold crimp with the center of the fold crimp heat sear sealed just like the original load.
----- c. ~ T7, T8, & T9 Are the loads opened up and the shot dumped out and replaced with a slug cast from the Lyman 525gr. wad-slug mold with the weight of the slug reduced to 1-1/8oz. by casting with pure type-metal alloy and then re-crimped nice and tight with a fold crimp with the center of the fold crimp heat sear sealed just like the original load.
1. ~ Published 1oz. lead shot clays powder load data slug substitution test:
----- a. ~ T1, T2, & T3 Are a published load with the load data followed exactly loaded into fresh once fired hulls. The load in question is listed as having a pressure of 10,900 PSI and calls for 21.0 grains of “Clays” powder to be used in the 2-3/4” Federal paper base wad hull ignited with a Fed-209A primer and uses a Fed-12S0 wad.
----- b. ~ T4, T5, & T6 Are the same load with a naked 68-cal round ball cast with type metal to get the weight down to 1oz. substituted for the shot inside the wad and no other changes made to the load.
----- c. ~ T7, T8, & T9 Are the same load with the 1oz. Lee slug cast from pure lead substituted for the shot inside the wad and no other changes made to the load.
1. ~ 12ga. 1-3/8oz. Full Bore Foster Slug (Custom Mold) Load Work Up:
----- a. ~ T1 Is a published lead shot load with the load data followed except for the slug was substituted for the shot with the petals were cut off the wad and a couple nitro cards put in between the top of the plastic wad and the base of the slug to adjust the wad column height to get a good (fold) crimp loaded into a fresh once fired hull. The load in question is listed as having a pressure of 9,000 PSI with 1-3/8oz. of lead shot and calls for 36.0 grains of Blue Dot powder to be used in the 2-3/4” Federal Gold Medal hull ignited with a Win-209 primer and uses a Remington RP12 wad.
----- b. ~ T2 & T3 Are the same load with the wad column stiffened up by switching to the use of a Federal 12S4 wad with the petals cut off and a more nitro cards. First of the two loads fired was cast from hard WW alloy; second of the two loads fired was cast from soft nearly pure lead.
----- c. ~ T4 & T5 Are the same load with the wad column stiffened up by switching to the use of a Federal 12S4 wad with the petals cut off and a more nitro cards. Plus the primer was swapped out for the hotter Fed-209A magnum primer. First of the two loads fired was cast from hard WW alloy; second of the two loads fired was cast from soft nearly pure lead.
----- d. ~ T6 & T7 Are the same load with powder charge increased by two grains to 38 grain of Blue Dot with the previous modifications of the wad column stiffened up by switching to the use of a Federal 12S4 wad with the petals cut off and a more nitro cards and the primer being swapped out for the hotter Fed-209A magnum primer. First of the two loads fired was cast from hard WW alloy; second of the two loads fired was cast from soft nearly pure lead.
----- e. ~ T8 & T9 Are the same load with powder charge increased by two grains to 38 grain of Blue Dot with the previous modification of the wad column being stiffened up by switching to the use of a Federal 12S4 wad with the petals cut off and a more nitro cards. Only this time the CCI-209M magnum primer was used instead of the Fed-209A magnum primer. First of the two loads fired was cast from hard WW alloy; second of the two loads fired was cast from soft nearly pure lead.
There are a lot of interesting things in all three of those pressure trace records of note that we could discuss but for today I just want to concentrate on whether or not they show that substituting equal weight slugs for the shot in a lead shot load makes the pressure go up or go down all other things held equal. I will also note that the 1-3/8oz. full bore diameter slug when cast from hard WW alloy is a couple thousandths of an inch over bore size and does indeed have to squeeze down in the forcing cone to fit the barrel of my NEF-USH gun in which all three of these pressure traces were recorded. In addition the 0.690” RB is about 0.010” too big to fit inside a standard shot wad and the wad petals not be bulged out over bore diameter accordingly and it does tend to shear the front half of the petals off the wads or at least thin them in the spot where the equator of the ball is.
____________________________________
Twin Loads & Standing On the Shoulders of Giants:
Now it is true that I did engage in the practice of building slug loads from equal weight lead shot load data long before I ever purchased the pressure trace equipment necessary to do the kind of load development work outlined above that allows one to not only quantify peak chamber pressure levels of the loads one is working with but to also view certain quirks and problems with certain loads (as you might have noticed something weird is going on with the Lee slug substitution in the 1-oz. clays powder load above).
The reason I chose to do so was a because I found a giant who had already done the experimental work and had the actual hands on first person experience in this area to qualify in my mind as someone I could trust their work enough to stand on their shoulders. The individual in question is James the owner of Dixie Slugs
Dixie Slugs Is a federally registered and licensed custom ammunition company that specializes in heavy full bore diameter cast slug loads Here is a link to the company web site: http://www.dixieslugs.com
The owner, "James," from what I have researched has over 50 years experience with the commercial manufacture of ammunition is a member and semi. active poster on this forum.
I would like to reference a few of his past posts at this time:
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...0&postcount=10
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...8&postcount=46
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...5&postcount=42
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...37&postcount=7
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...70&postcount=5
Here are the exact excerpts of said posts that I am referring to:
The ONLY change I have made to those posts I am quoting is to cut out stuff that is off topic for this particular discussion. In such cases I indicated where I had made such cuts by putting in ". . ." in what I quoted. These are taken directly from his posts that I linked to and are in respective order to the links so you can double check me if you wish.
As I previously mentioned; I question everything and try to double check stuff with other sources if possible. So I didn’t take even what old Dixie said at face value and instead did a little research of my own within my limited abilities to do so at the time. Specifically I went digging through my assortment of published slug and lead shot load data looking for what I refer to as “twin loads” namely loads that use the same hull, same primer, same powder, and same or very similar wad column and compare the powder charges, pressure, and velocity of the two published loads to each other that have essentially the same components except for one is a slug load and one is a lead shot load. Here are a couple such loads I was able to locate in my old (really old) notes from way back when I first started considering doing this:
Twin Load 1-A:
----- 2-3/4” Fed. All Plastic (that would include the GM and a couple others) Hull
----- Win. 209 primer
----- 31.0 grains "Hodgdon Universal Clays" powder
----- Fed. 12S3 wad (with addition of PR's TS disk a thin tyvek disk in bottom of wad)
----- Lyman 525gr. slug cast from hardball alloy to make a 500gr. slug
----- 1,388fps. @ 9,100 PSI
----- Load Source = Precision Reloading "Blanks to Supersonics" page #123
Twin Load 1-B:
----- 2-3/4” Fed. GM hull
----- Win. 209 primer
----- 26.5 grains "Hodgdon Universal Clays" powder
----- Fed. 12S3 wad
----- 1-1/8oz. (492 grains) of lead shot
----- 1,300fps. @ 9,400 PSI
----- Load Source = Lyman 5th Shotshell Book page #138
A slightly heavier slug pushed to higher velocity with a heavier charge of powder at less pressure then an equivalent lead shot load.
Twin Load 2-A:
----- 2-3/4” Win. AA Hull
----- Win. 209 primer
----- 24.5 grains "Hodgdon Titewad" powder
----- Win. WAA12L wad (with addition of PR's TS disk a thin tyvek disk in bottom of wad)
----- Lee 7/8oz. slug cast from pure lead
----- 1,517fps. @ 10,690 PSI
----- Load Source = Precision Reloading "Blanks to Supersonics" page #121
Twin Load 2-B:
----- 2-3/4” Win. AA Hull
----- Win. 209 primer
----- 21.4 grains "Hodgdon Titewad" powder
----- Win. WAA12L wad
----- 7/8oz. of lead shot
----- 1,400fps. @ 10,800 PSI
----- Load Source = Old Hodgdon Free Load Data Pamphlet (and also listed on their web-site right now)
An identical weight slug pushed to higher velocity with a heavier charge of powder at less pressure then an equivalent lead shot load.
There are more twin loads then those two that I found and compared but I can’t seem to find all of my original notes from back then and I’d have to re-do my research and find them again if I can’t find the other pages of my notes on twin loads that are missing. I know I’ve got some twin load comparisons notes between the 525gr. Lyman wad-slug (at full weight cast from pure lead) loads found in the Lyman 5th and 1-1/8oz. (492 grains) loads somewhere that show the same thing. Namely a slug that is over a full 1/16oz. heavier producing similar pressure levels with nearly identical powder charge levels.
Pressure Signs in Shotgun Hulls & Working Up Loads:
As I previously mentioned, I have not always had the luxury of the pressure trace equipment I now posses. So I do have some experience when it comes to working up loads in shotguns. The case head expansion method can be used and does work (James @ Dixie Slugs has acknowledged its use for shotguns as well) but it is much more of a pain then with metallic cartridges and extreme care must be taken to make sure you are using a proper comparison between a known load and the load you are working with. I found I could only count on reliable results if I used brand new fresh hulls of the weaker head European style thin plastic base-wad construction and always used hulls from the same. My experience with micro-meter head expansion measurements with reloaded hulls or hulls with stronger base construction like the compression formed Win. AA hulls and Rem. compression formed hulls and even to a certain extent the Fed. paper base wad hulls show that such readings are inconsistent.
I much prefer the “Unsupported Faulty Chamber Bulge Measurement” system since I found it produces very reliable pressure signs that can be seen with the naked eye much less a micro-meter. Basically this consists of deliberately using a shotgun with a faulty chamber that does not fully support the cartridge head as a test gun. The base of the shot shell hulls will bulge into the unsupported area just like what happens with Glock handguns and this bulge can be quickly and easily measured to compare loads. Obviously, one must still take care to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges and use the same hulls with the same number of reloads (preferably new hulls or once fired only from the same bag or box of factory loads) for cross comparison. Here are some pictures of exactly what I’m talking about, the center hull is a “known pressure book load” in the 11,000 PSI range:
The digital camera I had back when those photos were taken wasn’t very good at taking pictures of things really close up and getting them all into focus but between the three photos I think you can clearly see the bulge that all five of the shells have in varying degrees (the one on the far left has a very small bulge and it is very hard to see in those photos but it is there). As you can see the results of higher lower or higher pressure loads then the “book load” shell in the middle are clearly visible to the naked eye and although precision measurements are obviously taken when using this method the results in shells with weaker head construction like these ones are clearly visible to then naked eye. The two shells to the right are obviously higher pressure the far right one being in the extreme and the shells to the left are obviously lower pressure. Now here is the real kicker. From the published book load from the left to right charges are -3.0gr. / -1.0gr. / +-0.0gr. / +1.0gr. / + 2.0gr. on the powder charge.
And to tie up the loose ends on pressure signs in shot shells, IME (In My Experience) sticky extraction is a pressure sign that is fairly reliable but doesn’t usually show up until you get into 12ga. 3-1/2” load pressure levels so if you get that in a 2-3/4” or 3” shell back off since your at least a thousand over pressure. Don’t bother looking at primers, IME you aren’t going to get any signs of pressure on the primers until your way, way to hot. You will get sticky extraction long before you see anything worth noticing on the primers and the only time I have ever seen a classic (for metallic reloading) flattened and cratered primer on a shotgun primer clearly showing extensive pressure signs was on a shell another guy had to knock out of his Benneli from the muzzle with a rod and hammer after he tried loading Copper Head brand name air gun BB pellets using steel shot load data instead of buying regular steel shot which is much softer and is actually very soft iron not steel (don’t do that !!!).
As always I would suggest the use of a strong rugged heavily built gun to use as your test bed and concentrate on stiffening up your wad-column instead of trying to push the envelop and put in more powder then what is called for in equivalent weight lead shot loads if your trying to load slugs this way and you don’t have pressure trace equipment. Sticking to just stiffening the wad column is a pretty safe bet and IME will improve accuracy and burn cycle consistency.
____________________________________
In Conclusion & Random Notes:
This is as best as I can do at this moment to present a solid case backed up by evidence and professional witness testimony (quoting Mr. James). I have only recently purchased my pressure trace equipment and I have a lot of work left to do with it in this area and a lot of load data to build. Unfortunately, winter weather has pretty much put things on hold and you probably won’t see me dragging out all the equipment to the range until a nice warm sunny spring day comes around. I need to do a lot more comparison and work up traces to “boiler plate” my evidence and more importantly and directly work up solid performing useful loads that allow significantly greater choice of components then conventional shotgun load data calls for.
Basically, I want to confirm with pressure trace records all the loads I’ve developed using the old “equal weight swap and then adjust wad-column and define charge range using pressure bulge” technique. Then I want to work up new loads using powders and components I know will work but for which I have no reference point with. Loads using IMR-4227 for heavy weight 20ga. full bore slugs being a prominent example. I was able to develop such loads using 2400 powder using some obscure heavy field load lead shot data I was able to locate as a reference point and they have proven to be far superior to loads using Blue Dot or IMR-4756 which are IME the best choices found in most commonly available 20ga. lead shot load data for building slug loads from and IMR-4227 has all the qualities that should make it a superb heavy slug load powder in the 20ga. but I would be completely out in “no published load data land” with that one.
Okay, enough rambling. Long story short, I’ve got a lot of work left to do in this area but I think I’m far enough down the road to call out a blatant false notion for what it is. Later on (as in after I have all summer to experiment and next winter to write) I’ll should have a full scale boiler plated booklet size write up on exactly this issue and a whole bunch of loading info for a wide range of cast lead slug weights and types in several gauges now that I have the equipment I need to undertake a full scale project like that.
Excellent info turbo!
I will save this for future reference.
Longbow
That was a good analysis, turbo. Look forward to reading your future reports.
turbo1889:You mentioned 'wad column'. What about reducing or increasing the column height? Would decreasing the height by using fewer cards increase pressure? Or is pressure dependent on only on hull opened up length? A 3" hull takes more powder than a 2 3/4". How you stuff the wads or cards doesn't affect pressure, just the shot pattern or slug group?As always I would suggest the use of a strong rugged heavily built gun to use as your test bed and concentrate on stiffening up your wad-column instead of trying to push the envelop and put in more powder then what is called for in equivalent weight lead shot loads if your trying to load slugs this way and you don’t have pressure trace equipment. Sticking to just stiffening the wad column is a pretty safe bet and IME will improve accuracy and burn cycle consistency.
All I can say is WOW!That is Absolutely astounding.Very excellent information.This is exactly the kind of information Ive been looking for.I cant wait for further developments.Thank You Sir...Robin
turbo1889,
Fantastic write up.
I wish you good luck on your research. Please keep us up to date on your progress.
When you write up your findings I would love to purchase a copy of your "full scale boiler plated booklet"
Thanks, jmsj
BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
GC | Gas Check |