Tmi?

[Hogtamer]

It occurred to me as I plowed through tons of loading data and search for specified components that maybe, just maybe, I was being played for a sucker. For around 15 years the only shotgun data I consumed was the single sheets that came with the Lee Load All, a portion of which is pictured here.
232730
I'll say 20k rounds or so for everything to upland birds, ducks, geese, turkey, deer and the occasional clay target. If you can read the print on the photo you'll see there are exactly 2 specifications for hulls; paper/composite base wads and plastic. Not a hint about straight walled or tapered, roll crimp or star. Primers are not even mentioned, nor wads. The new sheets are just like the ones 40 years old except for inclusion of some different powders. Not that complicated.

Now it seems we are compelled to consult this manual and that; use a very specific proprietary component no matter how inconsequential. I know, I know, the information age and better measurement techniques leads to vastly improved specialization and performance and safety. Or dare I think MARKETING has become ever more specialized to provide new profit opportunites for manufacturers and sales outlets? Like soap powders ever new; new and improved; extreme cleaning; gentler to the environment; reformulated and even better; smarter for today's new washers; gentler; 25% more free; exciting new look; fresh new scent; 30% more effective; etc, etc.

OK, I'm through now. But the world didn't end yesterday when I used a cardboard card over a couple grains shy of suggested powder yesterday, then the recommended winchester wad on top of that to use in a cheap Federal plastic base hull. They shot great. No lawyer showed up at my door. And the deer I hopefully shoot soon won't care what put the big hole through his lungs. Here's to a simpler 2019!

[jmort]

Shotgun hull pressures while rather low in comparison to metallic cases, do spike rather easily. I have a lot of load data for a lot of components. It really helps me doing load work up with the components I have. You have to be careful doing load work up with different components. But I have a lot of components and yet not always exactly what is specified. Also doing slug and ball/multi-ball, you may have to build a column and that takes some thought. Some are too sensitive about shotgun load work up, nothing wrong with that, but if you are careful and cautious you can safely do it. I like having a lot of load data but I get what you are saying.

[dverna]

There are more concerns with getting sued these days....and some people do not have much common sense. I believe those two reasons are more in play than any other.

BTW, I have seen some shotgun loads posted on this site that concerned me but there are those who want to push the limits. Not sure if the extra 100 fps matters when launching over an ounce of lead at a 150 lb deer but so be it.

Like you, I have been reloading for a long time. Over 150k shotgun shells. I have never had the need to tweak a published load very much (different primer or wad most common) but I do not tweak a load that is near maximum. For a beginner, they are safer not to experiment. A max load in a straight wall hull is going to be over max in a tapered hull. It may shoot just fine but that does not make it as safe.

I do not need maximum performance in my 12 ga. It is used mostly for Trap shooting and i never use maximum loads. I have substituted wads and primers in the 12 ga. The 20 and 28 ga are my primary hunting gauges and those are maximum or near max loads. I do not deviate at all on those loads as I use components that are easily acquired and buy enough to load for years of use. KISS. If a component becomes unavailable, I will use a new load with the correct hull, wad, primer and powder....with literally dozens of loads out there, finding a published load with common components is easy.

Slug users seem to be the worst "offenders". Trying to get maximum performance and acceptable accuracy is tough. Different slugs/balls, modified slugs, different wads, modified wads, different hulls, changing primers, to chase the goal. Suggesting it does not matter assumes others have your understanding. Many do not have your experience and intelligence.

When I was investigating slug loads, I saw load recommendations from respected members on this forum that I believed were unsafe. No one died or got injured....no one reported a blown up shotgun....at least that I know of....so I was wrong in my opinion. Maybe I am just too much of a scaredy cat. But I have also seen a barrel separate from the monobloc and a split barrel. A load that is "safe" for a handful of shots, may turn ugly after firing a few hundred in a gun with a weak design or slight metallurgical defect.

[jmort]

I never red-line any load, metallic or shotgun. Don't see the point.
But, I do like reading about the recoil insensitive and those who push the limit.
I don't want to be near that load when it is shot.

[GhostHawk]

Moderation in all things, including moderation.

Its your time, your shotgun, your life, your choice.

In todays sue happy environment company's have to be able to prove that for most conditions their loads are safe.

If you load only for yourself, you can cut all that **** out. Do it carefully.

[jdfoxinc]

BPI load Manuel's are definitely predjudced towards their components. So yes marketing has a lot to do with load data presentation.

[Treeman]

Richard Lee used some common sense............he looked at huge ammounts of data and chose powders and charge weights that were safe in any combination of components within the specified hull types. That still works. Were things can get sticky is with heavy payloads at high velocity...simply fewer workable combinations under max pressures, and ESPECIALLY with non toxic shot where the wads have little or no crush section and high velocities are considered desirable. I have long used Lee's system for the majority of my loading for the light target and field loads that constitute the bulk of my shooting(and the slug loads that I find pleasant to shoot) I'll stick to puplished recipe loads for steel shot.

[Markopolo]

Things were a lot simpler before the advent of Plastic wads. There were over powder cards, fiber waxed wads, overshot cards. These 3 things with straight walled hulls are the deal. I was reading in my old lyman 1955 manual, and those three thing were all there was, and life was simple. The hard part was deciding if you needed 2 hard cards and 1 fiber to get the best performance. I betcha you can get plenty of these using that method.
232737

I did.

Marko

[longbow]

I am totally in agreement with Hal in that many things are needlessly complicated and much more finicky than they need to be. Back in the days of BP you the choice of brand, granulation and charge... if you were lucky. For many people brand and granulation may have been limited to what was made locally or what was sold in the one or two stores nearby.

Now we have multiple brands of powders and within each brand are many different burn rate powders. The choices seem endless and in combination with other components the load recipes are in fact endless. Where this modern situation differs with BP is that pressures are higher and more importantly small changes in components can result in large changes in pressure unlike BP loading.

It seems to me that everything is becoming too specialized now. Yes the results can be very good but you need an exact set of components and many load recipes do not list options for primers, wads, equivalent hulls, etc. When a simple primer change can result in 3000 PSI pressure difference which could result in over pressure or a blooper depending, a guy has to be careful.

I have often lamented the lack of the old bulk shotgun powders that replaced BP or more general load recipes like Lee published so when you don't have exactly right components you can still load safely, albeit resulting in lower performance loads. I'd rather have more options to use what I have or can get locally and be loading safely than wondering if I can substitute this primer for that one. That Lee data is on the right track but it would be nice if powder choices were expanded since that is a major limiting factor. If we had a smokeless powder that could be loaded like BP then we would be able to simply use more or less powder and adjust wad column to suit. I suppose a guy could use a BP sub but I think they burn hot and foul much like BP. Old style bulk smokeless would be more user friendly I think.

Simple is good!

Longbow

[W.R.Buchanan]

It occurred to me as I plowed through tons of loading data and search for specified components that maybe, just maybe, I was being played for a sucker. For around 15 years the only shotgun data I consumed was the single sheets that came with the Lee Load All, a portion of which is pictured here.
232730
I'll say 20k rounds or so for everything to upland birds, ducks, geese, turkey, deer and the occasional clay target. If you can read the print on the photo you'll see there are exactly 2 specifications for hulls; paper/composite base wads and plastic. Not a hint about straight walled or tapered, roll crimp or star. Primers are not even mentioned, nor wads. The new sheets are just like the ones 40 years old except for inclusion of some different powders. Not that complicated.

Now it seems we are compelled to consult this manual and that; use a very specific proprietary component no matter how inconsequential. I know, I know, the information age and better measurement techniques leads to vastly improved specialization and performance and safety. Or dare I think MARKETING has become ever more specialized to provide new profit opportunites for manufacturers and sales outlets? Like soap powders ever new; new and improved; extreme cleaning; gentler to the environment; reformulated and even better; smarter for today's new washers; gentler; 25% more free; exciting new look; fresh new scent; 30% more effective; etc, etc.

OK, I'm through now. But the world didn't end yesterday when I used a cardboard card over a couple grains shy of suggested powder yesterday, then the recommended winchester wad on top of that to use in a cheap Federal plastic base hull. They shot great. No lawyer showed up at my door. And the deer I hopefully shoot soon won't care what put the big hole through his lungs. Here's to a simpler 2019!

Always glad to see the big light bulb turn on, when guys figure it out. People questioned me when I told them I was running my Pumpkin Balls in my regular Trap Loads nothing different than 1 1/8 ox of shot versus 1 oz of ball. My gosh do ya think that hull knew the difference?

There is a mentality in the shotgun reloading world that "Recipes" must be followed exactly or death will occur. In some cases that may be true but on the low end it ain't true at all.

When I "down load" a pressure tested load, IE: put less powder in the hull. It doesn't raise the pressure. Simple as that.

By the same token that doesn't mean I will just change things around willy nilly without some thought as to how my changes will affect pressures or performance.

All of Lee's Load Data that comes with their tools is on the low side. Always has been, and that is due to powder dippers being used to dispense powder which is not the most precise method.

When I got my first Lee Loader I immediately bought a Lee Priming tool and a little Redding Scale. I knew that the dipper I got with the Lee Loader was not going to be exact. But really no big deal cuz their published load data was very conservative. But Lee understood that small differences in a load aren't going to make any significant difference, (Especially in 1971 when groups were bigger), and as long as they were below max loads nobody would blow themselves up. A definite CYA move on his part.

In shotgun loading I see the use of certain primers being the single biggest cause of pressure spikes. Federal Primers being the most spikey. I don't see hull construction being a big problem and some wads are going to change pressures a small amount.

Here's a hot tip: If you want to substitute this or that component but are unsure what will happen, go to your loading manuals, like the ones with 1100 different "Recipes" using every combination of components there is, and compare the pressures in the right column between recipes that use most of the same components but change maybe one. It is called interpolation.

Typically they are classed by Hull Type but will have loads using different primers and wads. They are also classed by velocity.

There are 4 basic velocity levels of shotgun shells. 1100 fps, 1300 fps, 1600 fps, and 1800 fps. Obviously there are loads in between these numbers, but these are the basic levels.

If you are playing around in the 1100-1300 fps range there isn't much you can do that will blow up in your face. The pressures are below 10K psi. This is where the vast majority of loads I shoot are placed. These are also below virtually every factory load available. The slowest I've seen are Estate #8's at 1145 fps. All of the slugs I have shot have been in the 1300 fps range, except the 2 Federal Butt Kickers which were at 1610 and hurt me big time!

All that said,,, I do not condone playing on the top end and pushing the velocities pressures up. Here's the big reason why...

There is absolutely no reason on this planet why you need to push velocities and pressure past what established factory loads are at.... Period!

There is nothing on this planet that will be shot with a shotgun, that will be killed any deader with anything you can make, than what you can buy over the counter. So that pretty much defines what your top end should be kept below. As long as you are well below that you can experiment.

My .02

Randy

[Rcmaveric]

I am weary of playing with shot gun components. All i can get locally is Winchester primers which limits me severely in choices with with Rem Gun Club hulls.

Untill i find a book and how to develop shotgun loads i will continue to be weary of deviation. When I lack knowledge and experince i error on the side of caution.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[W.R.Buchanan]

Caution is not a bad idea! Ignorance is usually what gets you hurt.

Education is the cure for Ignorance, but you can't fix stupid, and a man has got to know his limitations.

Randy

[jmort]

I think it is most interesting, the whole load development challange.
I like having lots of data to look at.

[faustus]

Caution is not a bad idea! Ignorance is usually what gets you hurt.

Education is the cure for Ignorance, but you can't fix stupid, and a man has got to know his limitations.

Randy

+ 2 ... and well said!

[OnHoPr]

Well, I suppose I am going to get flamed on this one, but I think wildcatters with the shotshell have improved general shotgunning and specialty loads for many. A bit of factory ammo has had its origins developed from wildcatters, though the ammo companies have tweaked the loads to certain saami specifications. For instance, back in the ole lead shot days (circa 60s) the waterfowlers started putting flour and cornmeal type material in 3” 12 ga BBs and 2s to shoot in the ole Mossberg and Marlin 36” bolt action 12 gas for pass shooting for geese. So, the ammo companies seen this and developed buffer to tighten up patterns for specialty loads.

Is there any published data from the ammo companies showing where to put 100 to 120 grs of Reloader 17 in a shotgun hull for slugs? Back 5 years ago or better there was a bit of wildcatting development on this sight and a bit over on SW. But, then a certain group of shooters went bizonkers like the world is flat over what was being discussed. Now that discussion has stopped. Sad, just because of some fear mongers. Strange too, because it seems like they blow up a gun at the clays range about every week with their published loads.

How about this scenario, here are a few thoughts about a proposed hypothetical load.

12 ga 2.75 and 3” hulls and/or their chambered guns are saami 11,500 psi.

12 ga 3.5” hulls and/or their chambered guns are rated saami 14,000 psi.

There are 12 ga 3” 1 oz slugs pushing 1760 fps out of the 11.5K guns.

There are now Sporting Clays loads pushing (published data) over 1500 fps with a 2.75" 1.25 oz load in 2.75 & 3” 11.5 k guns with the newer powders. Not saying that they couldn’t have done that with any of the older powders.

The clays reloader is always looking for economics and softer on the shoulder scenarios. If they see that they only get 60 shots
out of a lb. of powder, they cringe at the thought and think about their shoulder.

Now, given those basic base lines who is to say or why could not you load a 2.75” hull with 1 1/8 oz load to 14,000 psi and shoot it out of a 12 ga 3.5” chambered gun with a saami of 14,000 psi. (For your own personal consumption) You could fill the shot cup with 8s giving you 459 pellets pushing 1,700 to 1,800 fps with a turkey choked 3.5” gun giving you a pretty tight dense pattern out pass 40 yds and only kicking like a heavy 1.25 to 1.5 oz hunting load. That’s giving you twice more pellets than 2 oz of 6s in a 3” hull while still having more velocity @ 40 yds than the conventional loads @ muzzle. Where is the data for that hypothetical scenario? Well the ammo companies couldn't because somebody might shoot that load out of a 11.5 K psi gun, correct. Unless they came up with some form of +P labeling like they do with hang gun ammo. Maybe cheaper than marketed factory turkey loads or cut into their profits. More pellets, denser pattern, lighter kicking, and enough energy for a turkey head/neck shot pass 40 yds.

And forget the big BS, “Well, if you were a real hunter you would call them in closer.”

[Hogtamer]

Good comments all and of course caution as with any explosive. Look, I love BPI and others who give us shotgunners choices no one else does. I'm saying that in an average 1 1/8 oz shot load with a plastic wad, I'm not worried about this wad or that was with similar dimensions. A couple of years ago until recently Cheddite hulls were all the rage at BPI, even their own Cheddite manual to sell you. Now they don't have them in stock but plenty of Fiocchi hulls that are suddenly better. Of course that means Fiocchi 616 primers blah blah. I wish some one would measure Cheddite, Fiocchi, Rios and the cheap federals and post internal capacity of all. I'm not here to tell you to interchange them at will. BUt if you look enough data (and I have) you'll discover practically identical loads for them all, just not from the same source. And don't think that because there may be 200o loads in some manual that they have all been physically loaded and tested. Maybe half the different shot loads I've tried in NO WAY comport with proper crimps...too low or too high by far and I say wow, no one has loaded this, just computer prognostications about PSI and FPS.

Yes, above all be safe, NEVER be careless. For the first time I can remember I gave my sons a flat of store bought shotshells for Christmas. The fun ain't enough when it cost me 15% more to load 'em myself and ever-changing and ever higher price components are the root of the problem. Thanks for all the feedback and your help bringing me along with the specialty stuff over the years.

BTW, shot 6" group with Lymans and rifled gun at 140 yds today. Yessiree.

And grandson got his first time behind the wheel with an old 3 speed munual transmission. Ground less gears then I did the first time iirc.

[W.R.Buchanan]

Wow 6" at 140 is exactly what we are all looking for. That is truly usable Rifle Accuracy with the power of a Dangerous Game Rifle from a commonly available shotgun.

I got into this quest when I came back from my last Tactical Shotgun Class at Front Sight. IE: Nov 2018. I wanted to be able to shoot slugs out to 100 yards with some chance of connecting with a man sized target and this was not predictable with Factory Slugs from smoothbore barrels.. I did it mainly to amuse myself and see the looks on Instructors faces when I showed them what the weapons they were teaching us to run would actually do when fed the right ammo.

They were impressed with the Vang Comp Barrel's performance and several sent their barrels off for the mods. If I can get the A5 to shoot like a rifle then they will really be impressed, and hopefully others in the class will follow along.

All the Factory loaded slugs I shoot right now are running at 1300 fps. I see no reason to go faster except if I get to go to the far north and shoot a big bear or something I'd want something a bit faster. The slugs with dedicated hunting uses will be running faster simply because I will only be shooting one or two at a time. For testing and sighting the gun in I have access to a lead sled.

But even after all that I see no reason to push the envelope and I should be able to get what I want at 1500 fps or slightly below. In other words even a Polar Bear wouldn't know if it got hit by a slug going 1500 or 1600 fps. and neither would anything else. The shear knock down power of at 500 gr slug is going to be devastating to anything it hits. I've got slugs right now that are up over. 600+ gr and most of them are at at least 490-500+gr. Even the Lee slugs are 480 gr. with the wad attached. They are the practice rounds to drill repeat shots on a moving target (Wild Boar Fever) That's what the A5 with rifled barrel is for.

I think the first thing that needs to happen anytime you venture into a quest is that you need to define your expectations. This usually takes the form of a picture in your head,,, or some call it a "Vision."

If your "Vision" is realistic then it can come to fruition, and happiness will follow. If it is not Realistic, then chances are you have fallen victim to the "You can make anything work in your head,,," syndrome. Reality is a totally different mistress.

Seen this last one many times and it is a shame, because the main cause of it is not understanding everything you know about something and thus having unrealistic expectations. Usually disappointment follows and along with it comes spite for those who are successful. But you can only blame yourself for not educating yourself sufficiently on the subject you have pursued and not learning from your mistakes.

If you read my signature below you need to understand that being able to do what you don't know how to do, is not about blind luck. It's about having a wide enough knowledge base to be able to solve new problems by using existing knowledge, and or obtaining or developing new knowledge by either education or learning from your mistakes. The latter method is known as the "School of Hard Knocks!"

Still works.

Randy

[RMc]

Lee Load-All Charge Tables:

12 Gauge

https://www.titanreloading.com/image/data/PDF/12gauge.pdf

16 and 20 Gauge:

https://leeprecision.com/cgi-data/instruct/LA1071.pdf

[William Yanda]

Lee Load-All Charge Tables:

12 Gauge

https://www.titanreloading.com/image/data/PDF/12gauge.pdf

16 and 20 Gauge:

https://leeprecision.com/cgi-data/instruct/LA1071.pdf

Now that's what I call helpful, printed both of them.

[missionary5155]

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

[JBinMN]

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

Ditto!
:drinks:

:)

[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!:p 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.

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/from-the-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! :killingpc

[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! :killingpc

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.

[Ginsing]

Centershot:
That approach can work however I wouldn't advise buying the exact same components as your trap loads. If you are loading buckshot you will run into issues with stack height. Buckshot takes up more volume than does birdshot in any given weight. I ran into this problem when I first started loading buckshot. I ended up just buying wads with the shortest cushion leg and a set of gasket punches. My suggestion to anyone starting buck and slug loading is to have a good selection of card wads, fiber wads ect to adjust load column height. Or better yet just a selection of hollow punches that way you can punch your own wads.

[RogerDat]

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. I only have a single full manual for shotgun the Lyman. Rest of my load info is looked up online from powder manufacturers or things such as the Lee Load All sheets linked to in prior post. My Blue Dot load for 20 gauge round ball is based on that less pressure for weight minor variation of load from Ajay.

I don't want to have a good selection of wads, cards and hulls. I would like to ideally find light, regular, and heavy capacity wad for 12 and a light, and regular wad for 20. nitro card one gauge under to beef up wad for slug. Maybe gas seal in 12 and 20 gauge. Over shot card in those two gauges. Buying for slug or ball loads. While doing lots of lookup to see if I can find matches between shot and slug wads. I may have to choose a brush wad for buckshot in the 20 gauge or resign myself to cutting petals off of Trap Commander WAA clone to fit 8 .310 balls. made up 2 shells and can't wait to try those.

Six bags or so of wads will fit in my storage drawers for wads. And a couple of drawers from a small of plastic drawers on a shelf will handle the cards. I have to share basement with dear wife, and a lot of out of season decorations. I like so many of us am overflowing already. I figure I have enough shot for around 5,600 loads @ 1oz. each so 1000 to 1,500 hulls seem about right. At best I'm going to have 500 wads of my most useful load (probably as you suggest a good trap load) The others will more likely be 250 each. Yes I do tend to build to an inventory which I then try to maintain. Smart or a sickness only time will tell.

Right now I'm buying shot gun powder single pound at a time. Hoping to find the one(s) I need to buy an eight pounder of. Might even buy 2 powders if the second really covers a need. But lord save me if I start trying to cover the territory those of you who really shoot shotguns do, or that I already cover for metallic. Assuming the wife didn't notice the expense I'm pretty sure she would notice not being to get through the basement.

Have read about what ginsing posted. I think it was expressed as buy wad for one weight higher load. So to get 1 oz. buck shot in wad use 1 1/8 oz. wad for the shorter base and taller wad cup.

[OnHoPr]

@ Rogerdat, Yes, it can be mind boggling with all the components & data for the 12 & 20 especially if you are loading for multiple guns. Where a lot of this vast expansion of criteria is used is in the tinkerers tinkering. IIRC ask HT if he still wished they still made the UniWad.lol It solved a lot of these specifics. Basically, for powder for the 12 & 20 Unique is probably the better choice. GD starts getting a little on the fast side for the 20, but if you shoot a lot of the 20 you could still use it and save a few cents and it is a good cold weather powder. This is for general clays and field loads. When you get into the heavy or mag hunting loads since they discontinued 4756 for the 20 ga just a couple of powders should suffice. A bulky powder like STEEL or maybe 800X, but the 800X might keep you away from true magnum loads, and a low bulk powder like Longshot or HS6 which would make great heavy or mag loads for the 20 and 12. These would give you wad column, hull, load space versatility.

I usually just use 209Ms and adjust the load accordingly for field or target loads. But, I did a lot of tinkering with mag loads. Back in the day when I reloaded a lot I just used 209s, 157s, 97s, 109s whatever, but that was mostly for target or field loads. I did have problems in MI in cold weather with BD with them though. You should be able to get away with only 2 or 3 wads for the individual gauges. Try to keep your hulls american. That's just trying to keep it general for 2 gauges for target or field and magnum for 7/8s to 1 1/8 for the 20 and 1 oz to 1.5 oz for the 12. If you went 3" or 3.5" on the 12 or 20 you might be able to find data with the those wads. When you start shootin single projectiles and looking for the dream load for all the individual guns is where the mind boggling starts.

[W.R.Buchanan]

Roger: I use Green Dot for the majority of my loads as they are all in the Trap Load category, running in the 1200 fps range. I have 2 wads and have been using the Blue Claybuster wads for my Slug and Buckshot loads and Claybuster WAA12 Clones for my shot and Pumpkin Ball loads. Same Winchester Primers for everything. I can adjust column height by Roll Crimping which is variable with respect to the column height as opposed to fold crimping which has to be close or you get sucko crimps.

I have some Blue Dot I got so I can try some more powerful loads down the road.

I have thousands of AA hulls some old style and some new. A friend gave me 700 old style AA's which I have loaded 6-8 times each, so they are throw aways. The newer AA's are all once fired and I paid $100 for 2500 of them .04 each. I also find good hulls laying around and favor any hull that previously had a Factory Roll crimp like a factory slug. My next class at Front Sight I will pick up a bunch of them.

So I have two wads, two powders, and that covers all my shotgun loads, from bird to buck to slugs.

Right now I am casting .319 round balls for buckshot and then tumbling them in a little Harbor Freight Rotary Tumbler.Another Green Dot load.

I have a Lyman .662 round ball mould, the NOE Lyman Sabot Slug mould, a Lee 1oz mould, an STI Hammer Head slug mould, and I got sabots for it, and I bought one of the Russian Paradox moulds which is supposed to show up next month from Russia, and will probably need a gas seal for it, and will probably use Blue Dot for those slugs. All the rest are using Green Dot and running in the 1200 fps range or more properly the Walmart Dove Load range which is more than adequate for anything I'm going to do..

I loaded a whole box of Lyman Slugs with 23 gr of Unique but see no measurable difference between those loads and the Green Dot loads.

My point here is that you can do pretty much anything you want with one or two powders and wads.

Randy

[Petander]

Centershot:
That approach can work however I wouldn't advise buying the exact same components as your trap loads.

I will get slapped on my face for this:

I don't always buy components,I use the trap rounds as they are.

I have cut out the crimp section from trap loads,removed the shot and re-loaded them with slugs of lesser weight than the original load. The hull becomes shorter so pressures go up. The first time I did that was in the 90's for light 12 gauge practical slugs.

And today I fired some 20 gauge Svarog (Lyman-style) 265 grain slugs, using Pegoraro 1 oz trap rounds components. Cut the crimp,remove shot,add 28 gauge fiber and 20 gauge slug,roll. Hit bullseye with a very mild load.

An added bonus: I gather more lead than I shoot away with these 30 cent slug rounds.

But this should not be done really. ( Place a scary ghost emoticon here )

[gpidaho]

I read this in one of the threads here so I thought it was worth a try. Using an appropriate sized drill bit, a Forsner type. Cut the folds out of a loaded shotshell, leaving the crimp ring intact. Mix shot and melted wax to form a solid mass (slug) The ones I made cut a nice clean hole in the target at 50 yrds. Now, if I get a round built and the fold crimp doesn't hold from the hull being warn and weak I cut the center out and build a frag slug. Works pretty good. Gp

[Ginsing]

Petander:
It's interesting that yours are casting so light. I just checked 10 random slugs I cast up and they average 280 grains.
What alloy are you using?
I'm glad they shot well for you, my very limited shooting with them(5) they did ok. About 4" at about 40 yards.

[longbow]

Petander:

You shouldn't be raising pressure subbing equal or lower weight slug in place of shot. It is generally accepted that slugs produce less pressure than shot due to less bore friction.

TonyfromItaly... or maybe Elvis... one our European members anyway, posted that for slug loading it is accepted practice to increase birdshot powder charge by 15% for a slug. I have not confirmed the safety of that practice so take it with a grain of salt and it is always better to err on the side of safety.

Regardless, I don't think your method is going to cause higher pressure. It should be safe and sane.

Longbow

[Petander]

My higher pressure thinking comes from the shortened hull, then roll crimping tight. Everything is being packed in a smaller space than before. It is a good thing when shooting much lighter slugs than the original payload was. I don't really know.

My alloy is hard, ww/lino. High antimony. About 16 BHN. That's why I'm paying serious attention to choke diameters.

233488

[Ginsing]

Mine are about 50/50 pure lead / coww that might explain the weight difference.
I wouldn't worry about the choke as long as the ball or slug will fit through the choke. I just shot the .575" ball in a trap wad through a modified choke. The recovered wads didn't even have torn petals. There was a line on the wad where the equator of the ball was. The wad just squeezed down in that spot. Accuracy was quite good

[Cap'n Morgan]

My higher pressure thinking comes from the shortened hull, then roll crimping tight. Everything is being packed in a smaller space than before. It is a good thing when shooting much lighter slugs than the original payload was. I don't really know.

Shortening a round will not affect pressure as long as slug weight, wad and wad compression remain the same. I would try sectioning a loaded slug and compare it to a sectioned trap load (or use clear plastic hulls where you can see the individual components) If the powder & wad column has the same height, all is fine. Adding a roll crimp instead of star crimp will actually reduce the pressure slightly.

[Petander]

Okay,thanks for clarification,Captain.

Got some chronoing to do.

[longbow]

I'd agree that if the hull, powder charge, wad column and payload are all the same the hull length shouldn't matter unless you use a ridiculously long roll crimp. If you shorten or remove the cushion leg though then there is less or no crush at ignition effectively reducing combustion chamber volume and I think raising pressure.

BPI short hull load recipes without cushion leg wads seem to produce higher pressure with less of a given powder than same charge under a cushion leg wad.

From my comparisons it appears that faster powders seem to be affected more. This is just from me comparing between a variety of load data but the short story is that I'd be careful about using a wad with a much stiffer cushion leg or no cushion leg in place of one with long/soft cushion leg. Pressure testing is the only way to be sure though and this is just me speculating some.

For what you are doing I wouldn't worry about it as you are just shortening the crimp some.

Longbow

[Petander]

Yep these are mild and nice. I also loaded some 574 balls to try.

233554

Some may wonder why I'm doing this. Well, where I live I get factory loaded trap ammo for the price of powder alone. Making everything from components will cost twice - and now I'm getting more lead than I shoot as a bonus.

Nice and easy practice slugs.

[longbow]

A guy just can't complain about nice and easy and cheap with the bonus of extra lead... what's not to like!?!

Actually I have to check on component costs versus factory loads. It seems factory birdshot loads have dropped in price so may be cost effective to use as you are.

[Petander]

My shotgun reloading re-started when I begun experimenting with TSS. I like 20 gauge,I have some friends with 20 gauge guns,too. TSS ammo is priced wayyy out there. And I can make barrel-safe TSS for some of my older, maybe a bit delicate shotguns,too. These light slugs are also fine with them.

While at TSS... I'm saving money by loading other shotsells,this is sort of getting out of hands but I'm sure the saving will start soon. I even have a buckshot mold in the mail, something I never imagined doing.

But well, I never thought of getting a cat either. Life gives funny (furry) things.

[Petander]

These 20 gauge "trap slugs" and "trap balls" chronoed 1250 fps, the same as my 1 1/4 oz tungsten load development with VV N340.

233704

[Ginsing]

I have read of people using vv n340 and n350 in shotguns. I havnt been able to find any specific load data for them however. Even the Vihtavuori website says it works well but has no data as of yet. I would like to try n350 powder in my shotgun loading, I use it for mid power 44 mag, plinking loads in 30-30 and 45-70. It works great, clean burn, consistant velocity and great accuracy.

[Markopolo]

Petander,what sort of hulls are those.. don’t think I have ever seen those here in the states..

[Petander]

Those are Bornaghi brand hulls.

A couple of finnish tungsten shot companies have published their (hard to find) tested Vihtavuori data. It's all in finnish,grams,m/s etc... Lead is "lyijy", steel is " teräs".

https://ammoxdata.com/reseptit/

https://unlimitedammo.fi/reseptit.html.

Enjoy! :)

[Ginsing]

Thanks for the info.
I used my translator on my computer.
Those sound like some really high pressure loads 1050 bar = over 15000 psi

[Petander]

Thanks for the info.
I used my translator on my computer.
Those sound like some really high pressure loads 1050 bar = over 15000 psi

Yep,1050 bar is modern CIP steel shot "maximun service limit" pressure. Proof loads are 1370 bar.