load for 3" Win with high baswad

Interact with others on shot gun shells, reloading, ballistics, chokes, or anything that has to do with your shooting.

Moderators: donell67, NV Guide, pennsyltucky, Ohio Wildfowler

load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby Jim Atlas » Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:54 am

eastcoastsoxfan wrote:The 2 on left are both 3" experts. I'd say the lower white base wad one is the we would use for steel. The 2 on right are tapered 3" that I think BT talks about in original post, they are 3" lead hulls.

Image


All my hunting buddies use 3" Xperts (mostly 'cause they're cheap--the one guy who used Kents finaly patterned his shotgun last week and has gone over to Xperts as well). Since they're one of my main source of once fired hulls, it looks like there're going to be a lot of these in my life. All of the hulls I've gotten from them and picked up around the WMA are the high basewad type.
I haven't tried loading any of the 3" Win data from Lyman's or the RSI book, and I assume there would be some fit and pressure issues. Anyone got any loads they've used these hulls for?
User avatar
Jim Atlas
hunter
 
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:31 am
Location: NW Ore.


Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby BBK » Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:14 pm

Terrible terrible terrible hulls. Throw them away. So much frustration trying to get them to load correctly, then you have to use an OS card to plug the giant hole in the middle left after crimping which IMO messes with the patterns. I want NOTHING in front of my shot, not matter how light it is.
BBK
hunter
 
Posts: 2927
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby Jim Atlas » Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:59 pm

So I'll take that as a "no" from BBK. check.
User avatar
Jim Atlas
hunter
 
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:31 am
Location: NW Ore.

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby BT Justice » Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:12 pm

The high base wad hulls are usually for lead loads, specifically turkey loads that use less powder or different less bulky powders than STEEL.
The main problem with the high base wad hulls is you won't fit much STEEL powder in them with 3" wads, according to my notes they will only hold around 35 grains of STEEL powder with the 3" RSI wad.
Here's one load I tried with the high base wad hulls

Win high base wad 3" Expert hull
Federal 209A primer
35 grains STEEL powder
3" RSI wad...60 lbs wad pressure needed to seat
1 3/16 oz steel shot plus felts needed to raise shot to top of wad...depends on shot size

1544 fps AVG 38 fps Hi/Lo dev. from five shot string

I never did pressure test this load as I had no real intentions of using it a whole lot, just trying it with the 35 grain powder charge. It would be usable but I wouldn't recommend fiddling with it to much as the velocity spread is tight enough to point to at or near max pressures.
User avatar
BT Justice
hunter
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:43 pm

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby 10gaOkie » Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:26 pm

I agree. Not a good choice for a steel shot hull.

Chris
10gaOkie
hunter
 
Posts: 2901
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:38 pm
Location: OKC

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby Jim Atlas » Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:56 pm

BT, thanks. I was thinking folks would be handing out 1-1/8 oz loads. Nice to know I can get the 520 grains in. That might be a load to look into considering how well RSI #77 patterns for me.

Chris, I agree. My main complaint is the primer punch hangs up on the base wad. I also don't like the hole in the crimp. But it's hard to complain about free...
I have a fair whack of once and twice fired 3" Ched hulls on the shelf and all the 2-3/4" I could ask for. But seeing as how my main source of free 3" hulls (my buddies) are all pumping out these high basewad Winchesters, it seems like a good idea to look into it.

To tell the truth, my favorite guns have 2-3/4" chambers anyway...
User avatar
Jim Atlas
hunter
 
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:31 am
Location: NW Ore.

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby Spunky » Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:14 pm

I use them for a 1 1/16 oz. load. The recipe comes from RSI. Great shell for this load since the pressure is really low.
Spunky
hunter
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: PA

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby BT Justice » Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:31 am

I'll go with Jim on this one, free is free and could save quite a bit of money.
The Winchester hulls may not make the prettiest reloads, there's not much data for them and they are pain to work with till you get your recipes and press dialed in.
That being said to buy new 3" hulls and pay todays outrageous shipping charges, your paying 20 cents a hull or more depending on what and where you buy them.
May not sound like a whole lot till you figure that's around $50 a case savings, which I would rather use the $50 to help fill up my truck or belly and not somebody else's wallet.
I also use loads I make up with these hulls for give away ammo, I pride myself on not being a mooch but a lot of times if you get invited to a club or private hunt your considered a guest and usually no one will take money from you.
In these cases I learned many years ago other hunters are always willing to take free ammunition, I usually show up with around 5 or 6 boxes and set it out for anyone to use if they want. By the end of the hunt you more times than not get an invite back with a comment about bringing some more of those shells along with you.... :thumbsup:
User avatar
BT Justice
hunter
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:43 pm

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby Cerberus62 » Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:51 pm

BT Justice wrote:The high base wad hulls are usually for lead loads, specifically turkey loads that use less powder or different less bulky powders than STEEL.

The crazy thing about these hulls is that they are used in steel shot loads.

My hunting buddy shoots nothing but factory Xperts, and only with steel shot, and gives me all his hulls. There will be both high and low base wad hulls all mixed together, certainly not mixed from the same box or even case lot. But he buys several cases at a time, and after any particular hunt I will find both high and low hulls in the bag.

It doesn't even matter what the factory load was. I have hulls identically marked for shot weight and size that are high and low.

I don't know what Winchester is doing or what the reasons behind it are, but it's irritating because they actually do load up pretty well once you have the press adjusted, and they are free 3" hulls. It's just a pain to sort through them and use different loads.
Cerberus62
hunter
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:50 pm

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby BBK » Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:19 pm

Cerberus62 wrote:
BT Justice wrote:The high base wad hulls are usually for lead loads, specifically turkey loads that use less powder or different less bulky powders than STEEL.

The crazy thing about these hulls is that they are used in steel shot loads.

My hunting buddy shoots nothing but factory Xperts, and only with steel shot, and gives me all his hulls. There will be both high and low base wad hulls all mixed together, certainly not mixed from the same box or even case lot. But he buys several cases at a time, and after any particular hunt I will find both high and low hulls in the bag.

It doesn't even matter what the factory load was. I have hulls identically marked for shot weight and size that are high and low.

I don't know what Winchester is doing or what the reasons behind it are, but it's irritating because they actually do load up pretty well once you have the press adjusted, and they are free 3" hulls. It's just a pain to sort through them and use different loads.


Care to share a recipe?
BBK
hunter
 
Posts: 2927
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby BT Justice » Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:23 am

Cerberus62 wrote:I don't know what Winchester is doing or what the reasons behind it are, but it's irritating because they actually do load up pretty well once you have the press adjusted, and they are free 3" hulls. It's just a pain to sort through them and use different loads.

The reasons behind it are fairly simple, except for hulls like the Remington STS or older AA hulls, most ammunition companies design hulls to meet their needs not the reloaders. they would rather see everyone buy new ammo than reload it...makes sense from a corporate view.
You also have to remember another thing, factories don't use canister grade powder, they use what they can get a truckload or train car load full of cheapest and have their labs adjust the amount of powder needed. Now matter how good the QC is at a powder manufacture, not all batches come out just like they planned, they have specs that they adhere to for canister grade, if it's out of spec it gets shipped to whoever wants it then it's there problem.
So what you see in reloading manual is for in spec powders and most loads are designed around that, the factories might use powders that are out of spec enough(use less powder) to make the high basewad hulls a necessity with the same weight loads as other lots of powder.
Federal gets around this by using low plastic or the high paper based wad hulls, Remington just seems to use spacers of some sort or another in their loads
User avatar
BT Justice
hunter
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:43 pm

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby Cerberus62 » Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:52 pm

BT Justice wrote:
Cerberus62 wrote:I don't know what Winchester is doing or what the reasons behind it are, but it's irritating because they actually do load up pretty well once you have the press adjusted, and they are free 3" hulls. It's just a pain to sort through them and use different loads.

The reasons behind it are fairly simple, except for hulls like the Remington STS or older AA hulls, most ammunition companies design hulls to meet their needs not the reloaders. they would rather see everyone buy new ammo than reload it...makes sense from a corporate view.
You also have to remember another thing, factories don't use canister grade powder, they use what they can get a truckload or train car load full of cheapest and have their labs adjust the amount of powder needed. Now matter how good the QC is at a powder manufacture, not all batches come out just like they planned, they have specs that they adhere to for canister grade, if it's out of spec it gets shipped to whoever wants it then it's there problem.
So what you see in reloading manual is for in spec powders and most loads are designed around that, the factories might use powders that are out of spec enough(use less powder) to make the high basewad hulls a necessity with the same weight loads as other lots of powder.
Federal gets around this by using low plastic or the high paper based wad hulls, Remington just seems to use spacers of some sort or another in their loads

Yeah, I know about that factory powders. I'm a newer poster on DHC but I've been hand loading for nearly 35 years, so that makes me think of questioning some of the "conventional wisdom".

It would seem to me that it would be easier and cheaper for the factories to order powder to a specification that gives the ballistics they want, rather than change tooling to run different hulls to accommodate a "cheaper" powder.

When you look at powder, the cost of materials is really about the same to produce any single or double base nitrocellulose propellant. Sure some ingredients may vary in percentages, but overall not by much. All NC powder is pretty much the same until its final form, the size and shape of the grains and any deterrent coatings applied are what determines the burn rate.

So the easiest and cheapest way for a manufacturer to save money on powder would be to specify a burn rate that gives the desired ballistic results with the lightest charge. Sure, some specialty loads like buckshot, slugs or heavy steel waterfowl loads may require a larger volume hull.

Most all of the domestic ammo makers use small and large capacity hulls as needed, most European manufacturers use basically the same hull and make load volume adjustments by using different powder densities or different wads to accommodate the load.

Considering the amounts of powder that Winchester orders it doesn't make sense that they would go to the expense of making different hulls to accommodate an "off-spec" powder. They have their powders blended to order, and buy them by the train car load.

I could be wrong, and you may know something I don't. If you do have first hand industry knowledge otherwise, I will certainly like to know about it, it would clear up some of these old myths.
Cerberus62
hunter
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:50 pm

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby BT Justice » Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:30 am

Cerberus62 wrote:
BT Justice wrote:
Cerberus62 wrote:I don't know what Winchester is doing or what the reasons behind it are, but it's irritating because they actually do load up pretty well once you have the press adjusted, and they are free 3" hulls. It's just a pain to sort through them and use different loads.

The reasons behind it are fairly simple, except for hulls like the Remington STS or older AA hulls, most ammunition companies design hulls to meet their needs not the reloaders. they would rather see everyone buy new ammo than reload it...makes sense from a corporate view.
You also have to remember another thing, factories don't use canister grade powder, they use what they can get a truckload or train car load full of cheapest and have their labs adjust the amount of powder needed. Now matter how good the QC is at a powder manufacture, not all batches come out just like they planned, they have specs that they adhere to for canister grade, if it's out of spec it gets shipped to whoever wants it then it's there problem.
So what you see in reloading manual is for in spec powders and most loads are designed around that, the factories might use powders that are out of spec enough(use less powder) to make the high basewad hulls a necessity with the same weight loads as other lots of powder.
Federal gets around this by using low plastic or the high paper based wad hulls, Remington just seems to use spacers of some sort or another in their loads

Yeah, I know about that factory powders. I'm a newer poster on DHC but I've been hand loading for nearly 35 years, so that makes me think of questioning some of the "conventional wisdom".

It would seem to me that it would be easier and cheaper for the factories to order powder to a specification that gives the ballistics they want, rather than change tooling to run different hulls to accommodate a "cheaper" powder.

When you look at powder, the cost of materials is really about the same to produce any single or double base nitrocellulose propellant. Sure some ingredients may vary in percentages, but overall not by much. All NC powder is pretty much the same until its final form, the size and shape of the grains and any deterrent coatings applied are what determines the burn rate.

So the easiest and cheapest way for a manufacturer to save money on powder would be to specify a burn rate that gives the desired ballistic results with the lightest charge. Sure, some specialty loads like buckshot, slugs or heavy steel waterfowl loads may require a larger volume hull.

Most all of the domestic ammo makers use small and large capacity hulls as needed, most European manufacturers use basically the same hull and make load volume adjustments by using different powder densities or different wads to accommodate the load.

Considering the amounts of powder that Winchester orders it doesn't make sense that they would go to the expense of making different hulls to accommodate an "off-spec" powder. They have their powders blended to order, and buy them by the train car load.

I could be wrong, and you may know something I don't. If you do have first hand industry knowledge otherwise, I will certainly like to know about it, it would clear up some of these old myths.

You didn't read my post well, like I stated not all batches of powder come out like they planned. Most powders that they call Canister grade come within 10% of the original specs for how the powder was originally designed, the rest is used as commercial grade and sold off to ammo manufacturers. This is why they always call for a 10% reduction in powder charge when working with a new batch of powder for rifle or pistol reloading, the 10% variance for shotgun shells is considered safe to use and why they don't tell you to reduce powder charges with them.
The big misconception here is the civilian market accounts for a lot of powder or components being used, it doesn't. Out of all people who participate in shooting sports, it's only estimated that 5-10% of them reload, although with recent political events those figures may be higher. Depending if we are at war or the government feels the need to supply their many law enforcement forces, the civilian market only accounts for between 30-40 % of all ammo sales.
So really reloaders are considered a minuscule part of the entire picture, and why we don't see or know how the whole thing works.
The powder manufactures make batches in very large amounts, like 10 tons or so I've been told. The problem is as I stated they don't know exactly how a batch of powder is going to come out till it's finished and some testing is done on it, it's been compared to baking a cake. Use the same exact recipe 10 ten times and ten times it will come out slightly different, the only problem is you can get by with a cake that's off, you can't get by with explosives that are off that much.
So now your the powder manufacturer that just spent the time ,money and effort making 10 tons of powder and it's out of spec by 20% lets say. Do you pitch it and start over hoping the next batch or the one after that comes out right, nope you sell it to the highest bidder and let them worry about it. It's actually a win- win situation for both powder and ammo manufacturers, and why we will never see the prices large ammo companies pay for a train car load full of powder.
I don't have all the figures or facts but I've been told profits made on sporting ammo are anywhere from 200-400% of manufacturing costs..true or not I'm not for sure. So it's worth it to them to make different hulls for different components, in reality it actually can save them money by using less powder for a given load charging the same amount for it...who's going to really know???????????
User avatar
BT Justice
hunter
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:43 pm

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby Cerberus62 » Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:52 pm

BT Justice wrote: You didn't read my post well, like I stated not all batches of powder come out like they planned. Most powders that they call Canister grade come within 10% of the original specs for how the powder was originally designed, the rest is used as commercial grade and sold off to ammo manufacturers. This is why they always call for a 10% reduction in powder charge when working with a new batch of powder for rifle or pistol reloading, the 10% variance for shotgun shells is considered safe to use and why they don't tell you to reduce powder charges with them.

BT I did read your post well, a few times in fact and you present a good case to support your position. I do know that retail grade canister powders are a small part of the powder manufacturers business. Probably very profitable segment but still small compared to the whole. We are the only group that demands and requires powders that are consistent and replicable from lot to lot. The rest of the production is what we are talking about here.

Back some time ago I read a great piece on this in Handloader or American Rifleman and I remember the author stating that Hercules made 8 different speed of Red Dot for the OEM market. On this site some of our overseas members make reference to Alliant 381, which is Steel, but just enough different to have it's own number. In yet another piece introducing Alliant Promo they factory guy being interviewed came right out and said that Promo was made up of floor sweepings and other cleanup of powder production runs, and all that powder was then blended to match the speed of canister data Red Dot, sometimes with the addition of some new Red Dot, or other powder so that the entire lot, once thoroughly blended, would perform as Red Dot, That's why you have to weigh and recheck bushing drops with Promo, cause it is literally made up with just about anything.

I have had some long conversations with Johann Loubser at the old Accurate company and with several of the Alliant folks. Every one of them either said outright or intimated that other than physical shape, powder was all the same until the final blending. You've been loading long enough to have seen the odd flakes or sticks in new powder compared to the same old in another can, that's the final blending.

That's how they deal with out of spec powders, offering manufacturers different speeds of a standard benchmark powder. They may screw up a production lot bad enough that it wont meet THE spec, but it would certainly meet "SOME" spec somewhere, so they offer it under a different name.

Do they sell it cheap? Maybe, who knows? I don't, and I don't claim firsthand knowledge of their practices other than what I've related to you here.

I can certainly see a Company like Winchester or Remington, or Federal all making different configurations of hulls to serve different applications. But 10 tons of off spec powder would have to be really cheap to cover the costs of tooling up to make a new hull to accommodate a one time deal. And then have another hull in the field for people like us to deal with.

Unless you can tell me you have first hand knowledge of this from inside the manufacturer, we are both going on what we have heard from others. There's a guy on the SGW boards who is retired from Alliant, and worked on the production side. He doesn't make a big deal of it, but I think I'll look him up and pose the question.


The big misconception here is the civilian market accounts for a lot of powder or components being used, it doesn't. Out of all people who participate in shooting sports, it's only estimated that 5-10% of them reload, although with recent political events those figures may be higher. Depending if we are at war or the government feels the need to supply their many law enforcement forces, the civilian market only accounts for between 30-40 % of all ammo sales.
So really reloaders are considered a minuscule part of the entire picture, and why we don't see or know how the whole thing works.
The powder manufactures make batches in very large amounts, like 10 tons or so I've been told. The problem is as I stated they don't know exactly how a batch of powder is going to come out till it's finished and some testing is done on it, it's been compared to baking a cake. Use the same exact recipe 10 ten times and ten times it will come out slightly different, the only problem is you can get by with a cake that's off, you can't get by with explosives that are off that much.
So now your the powder manufacturer that just spent the time ,money and effort making 10 tons of powder and it's out of spec by 20% lets say. Do you pitch it and start over hoping the next batch or the one after that comes out right, nope you sell it to the highest bidder and let them worry about it. It's actually a win- win situation for both powder and ammo manufacturers, and why we will never see the prices large ammo companies pay for a train car load full of powder.
I don't have all the figures or facts but I've been told profits made on sporting ammo are anywhere from 200-400% of manufacturing costs..true or not I'm not for sure. So it's worth it to them to make different hulls for different components, in reality it actually can save them money by using less powder for a given load charging the same amount for it...who's going to really know??????????? [/quote]
Cerberus62
hunter
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:50 pm

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby Cerberus62 » Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:59 pm

BBK wrote:by BBK » Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:14 pm

Terrible terrible terrible hulls. Throw them away. So much frustration trying to get them to load correctly, then you have to use an OS card to plug the giant hole in the middle left after crimping which IMO messes with the patterns. I want NOTHING in front of my shot, not matter how light it is.


BBK wrote:by BBK » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:19 pm
Cerberus62 wrote:

BT Justice wrote:The high base wad hulls are usually for lead loads, specifically turkey loads that use less powder or different less bulky powders than STEEL.


The crazy thing about these hulls is that they are used in steel shot loads.

My hunting buddy shoots nothing but factory Xperts, and only with steel shot, and gives me all his hulls. There will be both high and low base wad hulls all mixed together, certainly not mixed from the same box or even case lot. But he buys several cases at a time, and after any particular hunt I will find both high and low hulls in the bag.

It doesn't even matter what the factory load was. I have hulls identically marked for shot weight and size that are high and low.

I don't know what Winchester is doing or what the reasons behind it are, but it's irritating because they actually do load up pretty well once you have the press adjusted, and they are free 3" hulls. It's just a pain to sort through them and use different loads.

Care to share a recipe?


I'd be happy to, but I thought you said these were junk?
Cerberus62
hunter
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:50 pm

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby BBK » Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:45 pm

They are, as far as I know there are NO published steel shot recipes for those hulls. Curious to where you found one.
BBK
hunter
 
Posts: 2927
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby BT Justice » Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:14 am

Unless you can tell me you have first hand knowledge of this from inside the manufacturer, we are both going on what we have heard from others. There's a guy on the SGW boards who is retired from Alliant, and worked on the production side. He doesn't make a big deal of it, but I think I'll look him up and pose the question.

Please do, it would be interesting to hear what really goes on if he is willing to share the information.
User avatar
BT Justice
hunter
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:43 pm

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby BT Justice » Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:28 am

BBK wrote:They are, as far as I know there are NO published steel shot recipes for those hulls. Curious to where you found one.

This is the part that confuses me, not pointed directly toward you BBK, but there's no published data for the high basewad hulls which I agree with.
Yet you have a lot of guys on here advocating using Euro type hulls with Euro primers there is no published data for and saying they work great....this makes no sense.
User avatar
BT Justice
hunter
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:43 pm

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby Cerberus62 » Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:49 am

BBK wrote:They are, as far as I know there are NO published steel shot recipes for those hulls. Curious to where you found one.

I didn't find a published load, which is why is didn't post any data. I have a method that works for me.

Standard disclaimer, it's what I do, I don't recommend it, yada, yada...

When I'm dealing with a hull like this I compare it to hulls with published data by removing the crimp folded section of the hulls. After checking the sample hulls for overall length, sometimes one brand may be longer or shorter, I use a piece of 3/4" i.d. PVC cut to a nominal length that exposes only the petals. That way I am left with a straight tubes and eliminate variation from the folds.

From there I will the hulls with table salt, weigh them and calculate the deference. Once I know that I then look for data that matches.

For example, I find that the 2 3/4" Winchester Xpert with low base wad is nearly identical in volume to the 2 3/4" Federal Top Gun paper base wad hull. I then use the data set for the smaller volume.

I have found the Xpert high base wads to match up to the volume of 2 3/4" Federal Gold Medals and slightly more than 2 3/4" Cheddites. So I use the 2 3/4" data in the 3" hull.

This method is for me only, and is certainly not "lab tested" buts it works well enough that I am comfortable with it for my uses.

BTW, I reviewing all the Alliant Steel data from a variety of sources, I think it would be nearly impossible to get enough A-Steel to fit in a hull and still run into dangerous pressures. I have seen published A-Steel data, some at relatively low pressure, that are such a tight fit using the published components, I wonder how that lab made the loads.

Again, you asked how I did it, not my recommendation that you do the same.
Cerberus62
hunter
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:50 pm

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby adrenilinejunky » Sat Oct 19, 2013 9:31 am

So what your saying is that you use a 2 3/4 gold medal recipe for your 3" high base xpert hulls? Don't you end up with a lot of space in the hull after the loads in or did I miss read the part of trimming the shells? I have talked with a few guys and it seems like if you want to reload xpert hulls you have to do some modifying to recipes which Im ok with doing but I don't understand calculating chamber pressures(hasn't been explained to me actualy) enough to trust myself in making load modifications. I would rather use trusted information from somebody that has tested the modifications.
Waterfowl hunting is not just a sport, Its an addiction to some of us.
User avatar
adrenilinejunky
hunter
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 7:47 pm

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby BT Justice » Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:41 am

adrenilinejunky wrote:So what your saying is that you use a 2 3/4 gold medal recipe for your 3" high base xpert hulls? Don't you end up with a lot of space in the hull after the loads in or did I miss read the part of trimming the shells? I have talked with a few guys and it seems like if you want to reload xpert hulls you have to do some modifying to recipes which Im ok with doing but I don't understand calculating chamber pressures(hasn't been explained to me actualy) enough to trust myself in making load modifications. I would rather use trusted information from somebody that has tested the modifications.

The main problem with the High Basewad hulls as I stated in a previous post is how much STEEL powder you can put in them with what wad your using. With most standard 3" wads I've found you can only get around 35 grains of STEEL in the hull, which is great if your making 1 3/16 or 1 1/4 oz loads.
If you want to make up lighter loads then you have to either trim your wads or use 2 3/4" wads, then in many instances you have to modify your recipes a bit depending on what type of velocities you want.
I just relegate the high basewad hulls to heavier steel loads or use them for lead loads, much less fiddling.
User avatar
BT Justice
hunter
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:43 pm

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby Cerberus62 » Sun Oct 20, 2013 7:49 am

adrenilinejunky wrote:So what your saying is that you use a 2 3/4 gold medal recipe for your 3" high base xpert hulls? Don't you end up with a lot of space in the hull after the loads in or did I miss read the part of trimming the shells? I have talked with a few guys and it seems like if you want to reload xpert hulls you have to do some modifying to recipes which Im ok with doing but I don't understand calculating chamber pressures(hasn't been explained to me actualy) enough to trust myself in making load modifications. I would rather use trusted information from somebody that has tested the modifications.

When using a 2.75" load in the 3" HBW hull I don't get extra space, because he higher base wad is already occupying the space.
Of course, the natural question then becomes "why not just use a 2.75" hull in the first place, with tested data?"

For the most part that's what I do, almost all my duck loads are 2.75" at 7/8 and 1oz and one special, published 1 1/8 @ 1500.

I use normal 3" hulls to make up 1 1/8 loads at 1550 or so, and for my hunting I really don't need more than that. I have used the HBW Xperts with 1 1/8 steel loads and as much A-Steel powder as I can get it them, and they'll work, but it not worth it to me try developing a load further.

I do use the HBW hull for buckshot and slug/round ball loads where I am basically building a custom wad stack and can use the slightly greater volume.
Cerberus62
hunter
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:50 pm

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby Jon Bergren » Sun Oct 20, 2013 9:16 am

I have loaded the 3" Win hulls using RSI data. They worked. I sealed the hole with hot glue. I prefer the 3" Rem or Cheddite hulls. Ned S
Jon Bergren
hunter
 
Posts: 1356
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:07 pm

Re: load for 3" Win with high baswad

Postby bojac » Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:46 pm

I use data for 3" Winnies from here......http://www.uncledavesenterprise.com/fil ... oading.pdf. I'm still looking for a 1 1/8oz 1550fps recipe.
bojac
hunter
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:56 pm


Return to Shotshell, Reloading, Ballistics, & Chokes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests