How much tinkering can a Loader do with components?

[Ironduke]

I am an experienced metallic cartridge reloader, but I'm a novice at shot shell reloading. I've tinkered with a few loads, working with the Lee 1oz slug, but that's it.

So here are some questions I have. I have a bunch of Win AA hulls, which is what I have used exclusively so far. I also have a bunch of Federal hulls, the ones with the lengthwise skives. What does it do to pressure to switch from Win AA to the federal?

I have been using Claybuster Wads. I have used the white CB1118-12, a WAA12 replacement, or red CB 1138-12, WAA 12R replacement. I got some Green CB 8100-12, TGT12 Replacement, which I think are replacement for the Remington figure 8 wad. These are taller than the previous wads with a shorter shot cup.

The powder I have been using is BlueDot, 44 grains of it to be exact. I also have some 800X as of today.

So I'm looking to see what I can do to make safe loads. Oh, and I can only use fold crimp right now. What is safe to substitute?

[fecmech]

Generally going from AA taper wall hulls to Fed straight wall hulls pressure and velocity go down BUT best you get some shotshell loading manuals before you substitute components.

[MrWolf]

I would go to the powder manufacturer's website and also look at reloading manuals to see what the changes in components does. My son and I shot a lot of trap and I tried quite a few combinations till I eventually settled on a load that worked for us. I ended up using International Clays which is a harder hitting powder but perfect for our style of shooting. Good Luck

[GhostHawk]

A year ago I dove into shotgun reloading with a 20$ Lyman easy loader from the pawn shop. First purchase included the Lyman shotgun manual. Worth every penny. Within 6 months I added the "Advantage" manual from BPI, also worth while.

The basic #1 rule for shotgun reloading is no subs, period.

If the recipe calls for a given wad, use that wad. Unless the wad says it is a direct replacement for that wad.

If you are shooting in older firearms with debateable strength, go easy.


There is a LOT you can do with casting for shotgun. Buckshot, slugs, etc.
But IMO 00 buck is one of the hardest. A smaller buck size like #1 or #4 will stack easier, won't cause bulges in your cases.

But shotgun reloading is not like metallic centerfire reloading at all.
Instead of a rigid brass case you are dealing with a soft plastic hull. Insteady of many thousands of PSI you are limited to 10 to 12k. Rifles commonly run 3 to 5 times higher and more.

You just don't have the margin for error. So be careful.

[megasupermagnum]

Yes, it's not nearly as accurate as brass reloading, and that's why I love it. Shotgun reloading is an art, not as much a science. Small changes, can have dangerous consequences. For now, I would stick to the "no substitutions" rule.

Eventually, through reading studies, loading data, and plenty of shooting, you will be able to safely make certain substitutions. Primers are something you need to be careful with. Going from a CCI 209 to a Fed. 209A is not a good idea. Pressures can rise 2,500 psi in this instance. If, however, you found data with Winchester 209's with pressure at 9,300 psi, you could safely swap it for something like that CCI 209.

The things you can play with relatively safely are things like spacers. You can pretty much add or remove spacers without much affect on pressures. You could put a 20ga 1/8" nito card under those lee slugs and see if they shoot better. You could trim the wad petals down to the shoulder of the slug (if you remove them entirely, the slug would not be accurate).

Some claim you can't work up shotgun loads. I disagree. You certainly can't go over the listed charge, but you can go down. The only danger is if you go too low, you get a blooper, and a wad stuck in the barrel. I generally start around 10-15% low. In the case of 44 grains, I would start at 38 grains and work up 1 grain at a time. Maybe one will be more accurate.

Hulls is where things really get complicated. They change over the years, have multiple types, and have special hulls. Federal hulls are my favorite to work with. They really only have 3 kinds for 2 3/4", plastic base (.090 basewad), fiber base, and gold medal. The plastic base hull has volume unmatched by any other hull, and is made in 2 3/4", 3", and 3 1/2". If you can get a good number of these, take them. The federal hulls can look the same on the outside, but many also can have a fiber basewad. I've loaded quite a few of these. They work, but I would not pay for them. They work quiet well for free hulls. The gold medal is probably the best 2 3/4" hull, for the one reason that there is a ton of reloading data. Same as the Win AA hull, except the new AA hulls are different from the old, and not well suited to reloading.

One thing to look out for is straight wall vs tapered hull cases. Win AA hulls are tapered, they are thicker at the base. Federal hulls are straight wall. By the way, skiving is basically chamfering the inside lip of the hull to make it fold crimp nicer. What you were referring to is the ribs on the hull, and they don't have any real affect. The thing to remember with those two hull types, is that they use different wads. tapered hulls use wads, like the AA wads, with a smaller gas seal. A wad like the Federal S series are for straight wall hulls. They would not seat all the way down on the powder in a tapered hull, although with as much powder a 44 grains of blue dot it might. The only real problem with tapered hull wads in a straight hull, is powder migration. Basically there is space around the powder cup for powder to get by and more or less become useless. Loading data should be formed around these principles, but not always. I've seen load data for win AA wads in federal hulls, and even loaded them. They do not work well.

[Cap'n Morgan]

Not much to add here, except you definitely should give roll crimp a try. I newer seen a factory slug load using star crimp - obviously for safety reasons to avoid mixing with shot loads - but with roll crimp it's much easier to adjust for various payload heights. Also, it leaves more room (literally) for experimenting.

This is the exact same components loaded in once-fired 70mm hulls, trimmed to 62mm, and a 76mm factory hull, respectively. The difference is over half an inch, but it doesn't matter with a roll crimp:

http://i.imgur.com/AxbPjxn.jpg

Both the roll crimper and the hull trimmer/cutter can be found here:
http://www.siarm.com/

They have a (sort of) English language page and many interesting things...

[longbow]

Yes, you must be careful making substitutions.

Best to get some reloading manuals. You will find that there are piles of loads for birds hot but not so many for slugs.

Also due the the variety of components the load data is very specific.

It seems hulls and primers are the worst for pressure variations for a given powder charge.

Different brands of 209 primers are not the same. Tom Armbrust wrote an article on primers subs and pressure variations can 3000 PSI just from changing primer brand.

Winchester 209 are relatively mild. Federal 209 are "hot".

Also as mentioned above, a change from tapered hull to straight will affect pressure. Going in that direction pressure should drop. Going in the other direction will increase pressure because the tapered hulls have shaped combustion chambers and smaller volume.

I don't worry about wad substitutions as long as the wads are similar. Don't eliminate the cushion leg though as that allows crush at ignition where a solid wad column does not so can result in a pressure spike.

A generally considered safe practice is using birds hot load data and substituting and equal weight of slug. Slugs produce less pressure that the shot load due to less bore friction. These won't be high performance slug load but will be safe and functional.

I have 3 editions of the Lyman Shotshell Reloading manuals, info from all the major powder companies (generally downloadable manuals from websites) and the best manual I have is Reloading for Shotgunners which list several powder charges for each set of components and has a reasonable slug section.

Please do not randomly substitute components! There are no guaranteed pressure indicators in shotshell reloading. If you get sticky extraction you are well over safe pressures.

Play but play safe.

Longbow

[Ironduke]

Thanks so much for all the info, Guys. I really appreciate it. I'm never going to make the cover of GQ magazine as I am, and I certainly don't want to blow up a gun in my face. Additionally, My theory from metallic cartridge reloading still applies when working with slugs: Enough power on target is enough. That is, If I hit game animal with sufficient mass in the right spot relative to the internal organs, and with enough velocity, then that is all that is required. The difference between X fps and X+50 fps is negligible on target. So for me, loading ammo, whether shotshell, or metallic, there is no need to hotrod. Safety and accuracy trump balls-out velocity any day.

[Moonie]

Understand when you are loading metallic cartridges and choose a load that is around 40,000psi on a cartridge that has a max psi of 50,000psi you can get things pretty wrong without any issue. Shotgun shells max out around 11,000psi, if you chose a load of 10,000psi and miss it by 2,000psi you are going to have issues, not so much with the metallic cartridge. Do not make substitutions until you have lots of experience with shotshell loading and know exactly to expect.

[megasupermagnum]

Winchester 209 are relatively mild. Federal 209 are "hot".



Not to pick on you longbow, but this is a good example of how people can get into trouble. The Federal 209 is NOT hot, it's actually one of the weakest primers. It's right around the strength of a Remington 209P. I have not seen either sold for reloading in years, but the Remington 209P can be found in the muzzle loading isle. The Federal 209A is the magnum primer, and is about the hottest primer available. In Tom Armburst's test, pressures went up 1,790 psi when he went from the Federal 209 to the Federal 209A. The CCI 209M (again, CCI has a regular 209 primer that is quite weak) is often considered equal to the Federal 209A. In that instance Tom Armburst found the CCI 209M to produce 400 psi less pressure than the Federal 209A. I have swapped the two without issue, but I've gone entirely to the Federal 209A. More data for it, and it's easier for me to get.

This is partly in response to Moonie, but the general rule of thumb is that if a load is under 10k psi, you can swap certain components without any danger. These are generally target loads, and for example, swapping from a Winchester 209 to a CCI 209M is a safe swap. I'll disagree, that if you raise pressures to 12,000 psi, you will have problems. I can say on strong authority that you cannot tell any difference between 11,500 psi MAP (maximum average pressure for 2 3/4 and 3" 12 gauge recommended by SAMMI) and 12,000 psi. That's why reloading for shotguns is not a wing it ordeal. You could raise pressures to 15,000 psi, and your only hint of a problem could be an increased recoil. Luckily, most modern guns could handle a steady diet at that pressure and not even flinch. It's a terrible idea to load to these pressures, but the chances of a gun blowing up are very slim.

Here is an article by Tom Armburst about primer substitutions. Realize that this is one situation, and different powders, shot, etc. could change these results.

http://www.armbrust.acf2.org/primersubs.htm

[faustus]

Ok, I am a newbie when it comes to shotshell reloading. And I am reading again and again that substituting components for recipes that are close to max pressures ... that ... well ... that this is DANGEROUS! That I would be playing with my life. Ok, I am believer in calculated risks ... or educated risk ... so I did my research .... and I am still doing my research .... :)
But here what I figured out so far ...

- SAAMI max pressure for 12ga 3" is 11,500 PSI
- My Hastings barrel came with a certificate that states that the barrel was tested with 19,000 PSI, and it seems this is a sort of industry standard ... testing barrels to around 20,000 PSI.

Lets say I would substitute primers for a known recipe that generates max pressure .... and pressure would go up by 3000 PSI ... then I am still far below the pressure my barrel was tested with.
That barrel is not supposed to blow up ... right?

Now, the question I had is ... well at what pressure would my barrel blow up? And after some research I found this interesting article:

http://www.shotgunlife.com/shotguns/tom-roster/important-information-about-shotshell-pressures.html

And in this test the barrel blew up at around 55,000 psi. So, it seems there is quite a huge margin between going over max pressure and the danger zone of the barrel blowing up ... at least for modern shotguns.

Now what I am curious about is ... at what pressures the different hulls from Fiocchi, Cheddite and Federal (and others) will actually show pressure signs? Does anybody know if somebody has done any actual testing/research on this? I only remember posts from Ajay (VdoMemorie) that Fiocchi, Cheddite show pressure signs much earlier than the hulls from Federal. But I would be curious to know at around what pressure that would be.

Has anybody any information on this?

[GhostHawk]

The problem is what happens if a single round of your ammo which lets say just for ballpark figure is hitting 15,000 psi should end up in an old gun. One with old steel, not the latest and greatest.

Is it going to hold? Or are you going to be fighting to hold onto what you have in a lawsuit that could strip you of everything.

Is it worth the risk?

Only you can answer that.

But for me, no, it is not worth the risk. Even though it may seem low now.

Also it is bad enough if a fine old gun gets destroyed. Gets far far nastier if someone is injured or killed. And if a shotgun barrel blows that is entirely possible.

Your call.

[JBinMN]

JUst an opinion.... "mine" anyway...

I started reloading 12ga. shotshells in around 1977 or so. We kind of "pushed the envelope" a bit back then. And, it seems that reloading manuals have lowered the loads a bit since then. I would only suggest ( the opinion) that just because ya have a sports car or a motor cycle that can do 180 mph, it doesn't mean that ya should do it & particularly on a regular basis.... & just because YOU can do it,doesn't mean everyone can do it...

Do as ya like, but it seems to me that there is a certain "personal responsibility"that one takes in "pushing the envelope", and if YOU choose to do it, "yourself"... fine then. Anything happens that results in an unsafe condition, then YOU be prepared to accept the results of your doins.

One other thing to remember is... that if someone else gets a hold of your doins & is unaware of them being a bit "hot" for specifications, or you do not mark to warn, etc.. YOU are the one culpable for the results to others for YOUR doins..

DO as ya like, but be prepared to accept the personal responsibility fro your own doins & not blame anyone else for them.

( I do not & have not reloaded for anyone but family & extremely close friends & I mark the loads that are "pushing the envelope". I suggest ya do the same regardless of who decides to have a bit of experimentation with this sort of thing.
:)

G'luck! to ya'll, regardless...
:)

Please be careful though... If not for yourself, but for any who might not be aware of your doins... Hate to hear of a kid or a grand kid,( whatever/etc) getting hurt down the road, because they decided to go out & use some of "Dad's" or Grandpa's ( et al) old loads, & not knowing those loads are a bit "hot".
;)

Not, "preaching", just putting in my , "2 Cents" in the hopes that no one gets hurt... or worse...

[nagantguy]

JUst an opinion.... "mine" anyway...

I started reloading 12ga. shotshells in around 1977 or so. We kind of "pushed the envelope" a bit back then. And, it seems that reloading manuals have lowered the loads a bit since then. I would only suggest ( the opinion) that just because ya have a sports car or a motor cycle that can do 180 mph, it doesn't mean that ya should do it & particularly on a regular basis.... & just because YOU can do it,doesn't mean everyone can do it...

Do as ya like, but it seems to me that there is a certain "personal responsibility"that one takes in "pushing the envelope", and if YOU choose to do it, "yourself"... fine then. Anything happens that results in an unsafe condition, then YOU be prepared to accept the results of your doins.

One other thing to remember is... that if someone else gets a hold of your doins & is unaware of them being a bit "hot" for specifications, or you do not mark to warn, etc.. YOU are the one culpable for the results to others for YOUR doins..

DO as ya like, but be prepared to accept the personal responsibility fro your own doins & not blame anyone else for them.

( I do not & have not reloaded for anyone but family & extremely close friends & I mark the loads that are "pushing the envelope". I suggest ya do the same regardless of who decides to have a bit of experimentation with this sort of thing.
:)

G'luck! to ya'll, regardless...
:)

Please be careful though... If not for yourself, but for any who might not be aware of your doins... Hate to hear of a kid or a grand kid,( whatever/etc) getting hurt down the road, because they decided to go out & use some of "Dad's" or Grandpa's ( et al) old loads, & not knowing those loads are a bit "hot".
;)

Not, "preaching", just putting in my , "2 Cents" in the hopes that no one gets hurt... or worse...

Sound logic there friend!!! Years back a friends uncle passed and left behind tons of reloading stuff/ammo to my best friend; he split the loot with me as he isn't a reloaded, I got several boxes of loaded 300 weatherby ammo, box said only 79 grains,not of what or what weight bullet just 79 grains. I pulled them all and found between 74 and 81 grains of unknown powder and bullets from 150 to 180 in the same boxes. Very similar with the 44 mag ammo old uncle Fred left to my friend,no grimp diffrent bullets,different charge weights and lots of split cases,the 44 ammo had no labeling whatsoever; some of the dies i got had been "customized" with what appeared to be a cut off wheel and a cold chisel. I also remeber their being 2 of 3 muzzle loaders, all three with split stocks and barrel bulges.
Their is pushing the envelope and using your self as a test crash dummy ;fine and well but I shudder to think what would have happened had anyone shot old Fred's "custom loads"!

[megasupermagnum]

I think people go a little overboard with guns blowing up. The chances are slim. I think the best example is to look at guys who have gone far and above, guys like Tom Roster, or Ed Hubel. Tom Roster couldn't get guns to blow up until 55,000 psi. You certainly don't want to be loading even half that pressure, but the chances of catastrophic failure are almost none, although they do happen. I've never seen the data, but I would think a squib, and a follow up (or any barrel obstruction) accounts for more danger than anything you can reload. Old guns are certainly a liability. Ed Hubel found the shell itself to be the weak link. The gun is fine, but a blown case can certainly harm or kill you. I think he found shotguns shells good to around 20k psi if my memory is correct. Point being, you probably won't blow up the gun. To muddy the waters farther, SAMMI (american standards) rate 12 ga 3" guns to only 11,500 MAP, and 12 ga 3 1/2" guns to 14,000 MAP. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure European standards put a max for ALL 12 gauge lengths as around 15,000 psi MAP, although with a velocity limit of 1400 fps.

When I reload for close family, I make sure the load is under SAMMI specs. When I load for myself, I don't worry nearly as much. I currently have a couple loads sent off for pressure testing. They are 3" steel shot loads that I plan to run up to 13,000 psi, unless my velocity goal is met before that. My reasoning, I only plan to shoot these in a 3 1/2" gun, but if one accidentally finds its way into a 3" gun, its a heck of a lot safer than shooting a 3 1/2" in a 3" chamber.

Again, things to avoid swapping when "playing" are hull, primer, and buffer (although you can go without if the data calls for it). Those 3 things have the biggest impact on pressure, besides the shot type itself. Wads also play a big part, but I would not fear swapping a Win AA for a Fed 12S3, especially if pressures are under 10k psi. You can pretty much add or remove spacers, trim wads, slit wads, use overshot cards or not, as you please. Fold crimps generally raise pressures over roll crimps, but most data is for fold crimps. I regularly roll crimp, fold crimp data.

Don't be dumb about it, but there is plenty of safety built into load data.

[Hogtamer]

A couple of things...recoil is a separate animal than pressure altogether. In fact there would probably be no recoil if your barrel blew up in front of the chamber, just shrapnel. Recoil is a function of charge weight and velocity. I have been loading shotgun loads since about '76, tens of thousands of rounds. In shot loads in particular, the hottest loads generally do not produce the best patterns that I verified myself again on paper just last week with some 20 ga 1oz loads. The 1350 fps pattern was blown to heck, the more modest 1200 fps near perfect out of the same gun, both at 40 yds. This includes most buckshot loads. Slugs and balls benefit from higher velocities generally because the longer they stay transsonic the more accurate they are. Pushing huge slugs at high velocities is a brutal excercise however, unpleasant at best, painful otherwise.

[longbow]

Well, having survived a shotgun blowing up in my hands I tend to be a little sensitive about load data and what is safe and what is not.

I loaded up some hulls using the Lyman slug reloading data with two exceptions ~ I loaded shortened hulls and made a primer substitution. The shortened hull required that the cushion leg be cut out off the wad so maybe three exceptions. Book listed powder charge of correct powder (I only had PB and that is what the load data called for). I could not have double charged or components wouldn't have fit in the hull. This was a load for a Lyman Foster slug.

I had fired a few through my Browning BPS slug barrel and found they had pretty hefty recoil and a few hulls gave sticky extraction. Accuracy was okay but I was shooting close range and just popping rocks.

I decided to try one in my Remington single shot and it came apart in my hands! The entire top of the chamber blew off and the barrel separated from the receiver. I got sprayed with small shrapnel/powder and debris across my forehead which drew some blood and I lost some hearing in my right ear ~ out in the bush and no hearing protection. I was lucky.

The remains of the barrel showed lead streaks in the chamber from where the shortened hull mouth would have been to the forcing cone. I have to think the Lyman Foster expanded to fill the chamber then had to swage down through the forcing cone causing a pressure spike. Speculation on my part though.

Powder charge was checked and thrown with a Lee scoop so no powder measure failure, right powder for the recipe, no barrel obstruction (single shot you can see through when loading).

I have been very, very careful since then with slug reloading... well, reloading of any kind.

I have since looked at short hull load data and it seems to me that the short hull data indicates that less powder of same type as loaded in a longer hull generates same or similar pressure. Didn't really make sense to me because a shotgun hull is straight (even tapered hulls are close to straight) so why would a change in hull length affect pressure then it hit me... I had cut the cushion leg off and the cushion leg is going to crush at ignition giving a larger volume as the powder ignites. I suspect that the removal of the cushion leg was at least part of the reason for the pressure excursion. Again speculation on my part.

Maybe the barrel had a flaw or was made of poor quality steel? I don't know.

Maybe the primer substitution + the altered wad + plus the slug expanding to fill the chamber all added up.

What I do know is that it is an unpleasant experience and it happened using a book load with what seemed like minor changes.

Megasupermagnum you are correct, I should have said Federal 209A. They are all I have seen for some time. There is also a bit of misinformation about primers being "hot" or not. Apparently with shotgun primers the amount and type of priming compound is varied to produce certain characteristics. Some have hotter flame, some have longer burning flame, some have both, some are not as hot or as long burning but the net result is that with certain components there is the desired effect giving clean burning, consistent and correct velocity and acceptable pressure with a given payload. Change one or more and they may not work as well with pressure going up or down, in some cases pretty significantly.

Slug loading uses the same components but instead of aiming for consistent velocities of 1150 FPS to about 1300 FPS like birdshot loads for target and field, slug loads usually push the velocity/pressure envelope.

Modern shotguns may well have large safety margins but I managed to blow one up and do not want a repeat performance.

Again, play but play safe!

Longbow

[longbow]

Yeah, what Hogtamer said. There was no recoil when that shotgun came apart!

That and at least one of my manuals shows loads of quite different pressure with payload leaving at the same velocity which should give same/similar recoil. They use the example to demonstrate that velocity is not a good indicator of pressure or load performance.

[megasupermagnum]

That is an incredible and scary story Longbow. I have been extremely fortunate, and have never blown up a gun. I did have one load I remember where the load was so hot it started to flatten and partly backed out the primer. The primer was definitely tight in the shell when I loaded it, not a loose pocket. I only shot one of those, and have been more careful since. Oddly that one shot patterned very well, and the shell ejected without problem. That was a turkey load by the way. If I remember right, it was a 2 1/4 oz load in a 3 1/2" 12 gauge with a tiny Win AA wad and nothing else. I think I cut out the cushion, same as you (although I replaced it with card wads), and even added buffer. That was back when I really had a case of the "megasupermagnum".

I have to wonder how old a Remington single shot is. I've never seen one, and everything I see online is quite old. Not that that is any excuse on my part, it's actually probably a good case to stay to SAMMI specs. I only ask because I always found single shots to be strong, especially H&R (who I hope opens back up one day). Pump actions always seem to do well in abuse testing, like Tom Roster did, but looking at them they look weak. All that holds the bolt in a rem 870 or Mossberg 500 is a lug in a cutout in the top of the barrel stub. The Benelli nova uses a rotating bolt that locks in, similar to rifles, but the lugs are still relatively small. Bolt action shotguns should be tough, but every one I've seen was made to be as cheap as a single shot, but be a repeater. I had a Marlin super goose 10 gauge, and all that held the pressure was the tiny bolt handle in the groove in the action. I never trusted it, especially since it was only reliable as a single shot.

I guess another thing to mention that you will find is that slow powders like Blue dot or 800x are more forgiving. You don't want to be messing around with a 11,000 psi load of Red dot or worse Titewad (although both are generally used in low pressure target loads).

[Cap'n Morgan]

Here is a link to a lengthy discussion of the blow-up of an old Damascus barreled shot gun:

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=356377&page=all

And here is a pic of the blown chamber - notice how the rear end is still intact. Other pictures in the link show the cartridge head with no signs, what so ever, of excessive pressure.

http://i.imgur.com/tAF98nm.jpg

My theory is that blow-ups like this - or the one Longbow had - is analog to the dreaded "ringed chamber" which is sometimes seen in rifles when a space between powder and bullet (due to a disc or similar being used to keep the powder back against the primer) allows a pressure wave to build up and then hit the rear of the bullet, causing a small bulge (or "ring") in the chamber before the bullet has time to start moving.

I imagine some sort of "blooper" scenario, where the payload is pushed slightly forward before the powder is properly ignited thereby creating enough room for the pressure wave to build up before the payload starts moving again.

I don't claim to be an expert on pressure waves, but from what I understand, the wave acts like a "piston" building up pressure moving along, while the pressure behind the wave is "normal", this would explain why the cartridge head and primer show no signs of excessive pressure.

What thinks thee?

[megasupermagnum]

Well, I don't know anything about Damascus steel, but your theory seems realistic. I know it's certainly a dangerous thing in muzzle loaders.

I know most of you guys have socks older than me, but I should clarify what I consider "old". I consider mid 80's and newer to be a "modern" gun. When steel shot came around, shotgun barrels had to be built with better steel, better chokes, etc. I wouldn't be putting 15,000 psi loads through my 50's era 16 gauge.

[Harter66]

Remington produced the Nitrosteel line of shells . Right on the cases , 2 3/4" cases , it says in plain English max average pressure 1050 BAR . My calculator says that's 15,000 PSI . 1050 BAR and 15,000 PSI shouldn't be confused with the older pressure measures of Lead Unit Pressures . LUP has a MAP of 11,500 but I feel fairly confident that a Rem RXP white with 1 1/4 oz of #6 lead over 27.0 gr of Unique with a Fed 209A in a plastic base FC game case is north of 11,000 psi .

Case base construction and shape will influence pressure even more than primers . FC is a top offender in the game cases especially steel shot . They will vari the base hight with shot size and payload . BRASS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BASE , no matter who's cases you're using .

[Hogtamer]

Speaking of LUP.....I was looking for some data for slugs and all loads were rated a certain PSI.

Except HS-6 which was listed as 12,000 LUP in 2 different sources. What's different with that powder?

[faustus]

I have to say ... this is a very interesting exchange. I am learning lots of new stuff ... thanks everyone for sharing.

@Longshot: Thanks for sharing your story about your gun blowing up in your face. This is real life experience ... and not some theoretical knowledge. So, thank you. I think I will keep my loads quite conservative for now.

@Ironduke: I bet you did not expect such a lively discussion when you started this thread ... ;)

To me ... as a newbie ... I have to say that this forum and community rocks!!

Thanks everyone.

[longbow]

Yeah, not sure the origin of the Remington single shot but it was not old. I bought it new back in the mid 1980's. It may have been made under contract overseas somewhere but it was marked Remington so I have to think it met modern Remington specs.

Yes, I agree on slower powders being more forgiving too. That is something I should have mentioned with the short hull comment, most powders for load data I have seen are relatively fast so I think changes in volume like hulls or no cushion leg probably have a more dramatic effect on pressures than with slower powders like Blue Dot. PB is a relatively fast powder so again that may have added to the equation that led to kaboom!

I think that is all part of the black magic to loading shotshells... many variables beyond just powder choices and all the variable bits affect the final outcome.

To be honest, I sub wads without much worry as long as they are similar. There will be differences in cushion leg and likely bore friction but if similar and the load is not a screaming hot 11,000 PSI load then I'm not too worried. Primers and hulls I am careful with.

One of the things I like about the Reloading for Shotgunners manual is that it lists several loads with incremental powder charge increases and lists all pressures so if I am using an 8000 PSI load there is a lot of tolerance for an oops pushing pressure up. Not saying I want to be sloppy or push the envelope, just that there is a large margin of safety with a moderate pressure load so a change of wad or maybe a different straight walled hull won't be an issue.

In fact there are several recipes I have seen published with pressure data that just say "Use any straight walled hull." The Precision Rifle load data for their PileDriver slug said just that for a 12,000 PSI load! I used that data for my 0.735" RB loads but started at their starting load of 26 grs. of Blue Dot under my 585 gr. ball rather than their 610 br. full bore slug. Their data went to 44 grs. Blue Dot under that slug and I stopped at 38 grs. with the ball because recoil in a single shot was pretty unpleasant (different single shot). I can't imagine how brutal recoil would be with another 25 grs. of lead and 6 grs. more powder! Maybe okay in an H&R USH with bull barrel but a standard single shot... YIKES!

Yes, I am with you there too. I wish I had bought an H&R USH when they were available. A good yet inexpensive gun.

Longbow

[longbow]

Cap'n Morgan:

That looks like it was a fine old shotgun and very nice Damascus barrels... well, barrel now. Too bad.

The old Damascus is not generally considered to be up to shooting modern loads is my understanding and should be kept to BP pressures and really BP or subs.

I picked up an old W.C. Scott & Son 10 ga. double barrel gun (also Damascus barrels) that dates back to the early 1880's. It was at one time a beautiful gun but has seen abuse and neglect. If I can get it rebuilt and shootable I would like to but if I do it will only see BP loads.

Longbow

[megasupermagnum]

Yeah, it's almost comical old load data. With my original lee loader kit, it doesn't even list hull types. For wads it lists "plastic". It doesn't even list primers, but it lists the lee scoop and corresponding powder weight/type that may be used with a rather large range of shot weights. Pretty much use anything, with that scoop (the only scoop in the kit) with a max of 1 1/8 oz shot.

That is a little too lax for my liking, but comparing to modern data, I haven't found an unsafe combo yet. I guess LEE knew what they were doing.

[Cap'n Morgan]

Common sense is the most important reloading tool. I swap hulls all the time, but they are all straight wall, and so similar on the inside you can't tell the difference.

Scooping shot and powder was the only way to reload shot shells for the old-timers and they gladly swapped newspaper stuffing for a wad when resources were low.
I remember reading of a young guy who was reloading for his older brother. Back from the duck hunt, the brother complained that the gun had kicked unusually hard. Turned out the youngster had added a 16 gauge scoop of powder on top of the normal 12 gauge measure to give his brother a little advance on the ducks! This was probably not a cardinal sin back in the black powder days, but this was smokeless powder. The gun was a French "Robust" and lived up to its name by staying together through the ordeal.