An old school 12ga 1 1/2oz load

[megasupermagnum]

With the discontinuing of most plastic wads we've had for decades, it's getting impossible to create loads that were once everywhere. This is one my main reasons for continuing to research and test wads we've had for centuries. Paper, felt, fiber, etc. Natural wads.

I was unable to find any listed load in my old manuals for a 1 1/2 oz load with any powder still made. So I decided to test my own. I found multiple resources of loads listed with plastic wads, and I knew the general range I'd be looking in. I then tested them with my Pressure Trace II.

I make no claim to the safety or accuracy of this data. I am not a professional. Use it at your own risk.

The loads I tested are as follows

12ga 2 3/4" Federal Paper hull
Federal 209A
Bluedot 33 to 37 grains
(2) 1/8" 12ga nitro cards + (2) 1/8" 12ga felt wads
1 1/2 oz lead shot
fold crimp

These load beautifully. I love the crimps on paper hulls. You will notice I used two nitro cards. This is a practice I started with muzzleloaders. I tested how much hard card wads seal, using .050" thick card, and tested velocity. I found that .050" did not seal well, .100" makes a decent seal, .150" makes about all you will get, .200" was just a touch more, .250" was the same as .200". So a single 1/8" nitro card should be all you need, but I use two just to be safe. I used store bought 12 gauge nitro cards in this testing. You can use home made wads as I often do, and it will perform the same as long as you use somewhere between 1/8" and 1/4" worth of them. That's the great thing about paper wads is they are so forgiving. You can add or remove somewhat to adjust for stack height without changing the load. The felt wads I used were cut by me. Any felt wad will do. You can also use an equal height of cork or fiber. Just something compressible that will take up the space.

The results are not all that surprising, which is always good. I would say the biggest surprise when I first started doing these tests is how unremarkable they are. There was always this idea that paper wads don't seal as well, or that you need to increase powder to compensate for velocity/pressure, or whatever. Every time I do a test like this, I find paper wads pretty much do the same pressure and velocity as plastic wad data. I have never done a side by side with plastic though, but I probably should. I'm not going to average every single shot pressure today, so I'll round them. I did average the 36gr load. The velocities I did not pay too much attention to since I was focused on the pressure. Some of them were bad reads, so I did not get good averages. From 33 to 36 grains, velocity did not increase much at all. For all intents and purposes, at 34 grains, it was about 1180 fps, measured at 4'. The barrel was 28".

33gr- 10,000 psi
34gr- 10,900 psi
35gr- 11,100 psi
36gr- 11,866 psi
37gr- not tested

Now compare that to a load from Lyman. Yes the hulls are different, but pressures between Federal paper and plastic hulls, both with the same paper basewad, are nearly identical. Old manuals used to interchange the two.

12ga 2 3/4" Federal plastic, paper basewad
Federal 209A
34gr Bluedot
SP12 wad
1 1/2 oz lead shot
fold crimp

10,800 psi
1248 fps

So from what I'm seeing here, the book listed load is a nearly identical swap, with no real change in speed or pressure. It is definitely not a 10% change that used to be said. Of course I did not test the load as listed, as I do not have any SP12 wads. I'm going to load more of these paper wads at 34 grains and pattern test.

[HWooldridge]

Sounds like a good combo to try with buckshot.

[longbow]

msm... when you say "Every time I do a test like this..." How many have you done? Any chance you will post them all? I have been trying to find as many "old timey" type load recipes using card/felt/fiber/cork wad columns as I can.

I have to ask though when you say you don't see much difference between using the card wads or plastic wads are you referring to velocity, pressure or both? I ask because I have put together wad slug loads using shotcups that had the gas seal cut off for use under full bore slugs leaving me with a bunch of shotcups I didn't throw out. I loaded powder, nitro card wads then hard card or fiber wad under the shotcup with slug. I got so much gas blow by that the plastic wads tended to be quite badly burned. I didn't check velocity over a chronograph and cannot check pressure so no idea there. Due to the blow by I would have assumed that there was significant leakage that would result in lower pressure and velocity. Your results say I am wrong there. I have also read of the "10%" change and that card wads require higher powder charges to produce same velocity as plastic wads or gas seals.

Not arguing with your results or comments at all and quite possibly there is enough leakage to damage plastic shotcups but not result in significant pressure drop. I am curious is all and have no way of checking myself.

Please keep posting your test results as this is both interesting and educational.

Thanks,
Longbow

[megasupermagnum]

Off the top of my head, I remember pressure testing 12 and 16 gauge bismuth loads, as well as I've done 1 1/8 oz lead trap loads. I'm not sure if I posted the results or not. Mostly those are one off tests for fun. In this case, I do intend to load and hunt with these 1 1/2 oz loads.

One of my goals this summer, besides really tuning in the Lyman 525 slugs if the wind ever slows down, is to do a more thorough test on plastic wads. I have a simple question. Is our new plastic wad ammo really better than the old ammo? Of course there's a lot to that question, but I'll try and just focus on velocity and patterns mostly. I've already done similar tests in muzzleloaders, and in that instance, the paper wads actually pattern tighter than plastic wads every time I've done it. Not only that, every time I tested plastic wads in muzzleloaders, they had lower velocity as well. I also wonder if they loaded ammo wrong for decades. We shall see.

I've already got the test planned out, but I'll need a full day of good weather to do it. I'll be using my Winchester 97 with 2 3/4" chamber, and Benelli Nova with 3 1/2" chamber. I'll then spend a whole day pattern testing two 1 1/8 oz loads, two 1 1/2 oz loads, and I'm planning to also include a factory load like a Remington STS.

[quack1]

Something that might be of interest in your testing. Back in the days when lead was legal for duck hunting, I found I could get noticeably better patterns from 1 3/8 of shot than 1 1/2oz. The barrel was a fixed choke Remington 30" full. My guess was the lesser amount of shot flowed through the choke with less crowding and deforming. Also, a shot wrapper inserted before dropping the shot helped tighten up patterns, as did using a shot buffer. I also found card and fiber wads in paper shells would pattern better than plastic wads in plastic cases, and that card/fiber wads in plastic cases were better than all plastic components.

[HWooldridge]

I think you may be on to something about plastic wads not patterning as well but they are likely much cheaper to use in production (fewer components to handle).

Back in the 1970's, my grandpa used to buy paper shells from the local icehouses which were "Hecho en Mexico". I can't recall the maker but we shot dove with them because they were really cheap (IIRC, about a dollar per 25 box or thereabouts). You could only get them in #6 shot and they were loaded in the traditional way with nitro cards and roll crimped with a card on the end, and the hulls were high brass. I was a teenager and had no access to velocity measurement devices but they kicked hard and patterned tightly in our Remington model 11 guns; we killed a lot of birds with them. I remember both 12 and 20 shells were dyed the same amber yellow color, which could have been a problem if we had owned a 20 gauge. Maybe one out of a hundred would have a bad primer but we just threw the duds away because they were so cheap.

[atr]

I was unable to find any listed load in my old manuals for a 1 1/2 oz load with any powder still made.

I find the same thing and I too have been using old (outdated) paper cases and wads with success! Federal paper hulls are the best!
I have tested the patterns of these loads and they compare favorably with factory loads in plastic cases. My test for pressure is not sophisticated; I compare the felt recoil of a reload with felt recoil of factory load.

[centershot]

MSM, Thanks for your work on this project! I've wondered from time to time if today's shotshell loads were really "all that"! I started hunting with my dad back in the 60's, a lot of the ammo we used was made by Alcan, paper hulls, NC and fiber wads. It seemed to kill game well; When Remington introduced their "Power Piston" Line of ammo we bought it and it also killed well. Neither my dad, his hunting buddies, or me felt it was "better". Didn't kill ducks any better, or worse. The big thing (for dad & me) was the introduction of plastic hulls, no more swollen paper hulls that wouldn't chamber. Sometimes (most times) it was hard to keep ammo dry in the boat or blind. The wads, nyeeaaahh, one worked as good as the other, far as we were concerned.

I look forward to seeing more on this topic, MSM, keep up the good work!

[megasupermagnum]

By any chance, could someone donate 20-30 Remington RP12 wads for my testing? I'll pay for them.

[centershot]

MSM, PM me your address, I've got some I can send you, NC.

[jban]

MSM, if it doesn't work out with Mr. centershot, let me know. I have RP12 and RXP12 I can get to you. As long as you report your finding here.

[ihunts2much]

Awesome report! I myself have been looking for data to launch a .735 ball or other bore diameter slug on a hard wad stack using longshot powder.