I am near borderline safe pressures on a load for 12 ga Damascus guns and am a little concerned about the "new" vs "old" AA hulls. I understand the new hulls generate higher pressures with the same loads vs. the older hulls. Just to make sure I can discern the difference between the two, are the newer hulls visually different? Some are gray, I know those are newer. But do some of the newer red hulls have little or no marking on the outside and are maybe glossy? The older ones seem to have the large AA and have a duller appearance. Thank you!
The new ones are definitely more glossy and I think a little brighter red then the old ones. The gray new ones are a dark gray, where the old ones were a silver gray. Also when you look into the new hull, you will see a plastic cup that is also the same color as the hull, that sticks up off of the base about 3/4"? . It is secured by the primer pocket. Once you have to hulls side my side, you will see the difference. The lettering on the hull to me is of little help, they seem to change them at will anyhow.
Two easy methods of inspection: 1) "candle" them. Hold hull in front of a bright incandescent bulb. You will see greater translucency above the base wad. Approx. 1/2" long area above brass base will appear darker. Works best with red AAs; sometimes a particularly opaque batch of plastic will make seeing the dark ring of the base wad harder. The older cf AA's do not have the doubling of the hull wall in base wad area and are entirely translucent down to the brass base. 2) Stick an awl, penknife blade, pencil or screwdriver into the mouth of hull and down. The end of the instrument will contact the shoulder of the base wad in the new AAs. You won't find this discontinuity on the interior of the older hull. The bright red vs. dull orange/red plastic composition may be a general giveaway also; I think I'd rather look inside, poke inside, or illuminate from outside. Incidentally, Accurate Arms reloading manual has low-pressure loads for both "AA style" (which most of us take to be the cf hull) and the gray Supersports. Course this premises that you're interested in loading Accurate's Solo 1000 or Nitro 100. If you're not certain about the construction of the hull, section one with a knife and have a look; all will be revealed.
jack
Shotgun Sports magazine has an article on them. I can scan it and send it to you if you want Gil. Is your email the same?
New AAs are glossy and smooth. New gray is dark, old AAs are silver. Old AAs surface has wave-like texture, not slick and shiny, probably from the compression forming process.
I looked at it and found this: Subject: Finally saw the AA basewad problem in person!
From: john wall
Email: johnrwall@comcast.net
Date: Wed, Jan 04, 2006 - 08:29 PM CT
Website Address:
after collecting a mason jar full of AA basewads from our clubground's downrange, i have stopped picking them up and only load the few old style AA's i get from time to time. if the basewads are in the same area as the hulls, that is one thing. when they are downrange of the stations, that is another. to each, his own. i like remmy and federal hulls. ONE PIECE HULLS RULE!
Does anyone believe this guy knows what he is talking about? I don't. I e-mailed him and asked him politely to send me a picture of some of them.
I got a response from John. He was a bit indignant at the suggestion he might be mistaken about what he clams to have collected. He also strangely "disposed of them some time ago" and admits to using the shells regularly now, for reloading, although he carefully inspects them. I quit using them myself, a few years ago. If I had "picked up a Mason Jar full of these runaway base wads I surely would have kept them. If nothing else, send them to Winchester. They surely would have been interested. I would not use them again, ever. Winchester surely shot themselves in both feet, by switching from the gold standard of reloadable shells to scary crap that most shooters now throw away.
Have you considered using the Federal paper hulls? They are perhaps the largest volume paper hull still readily available. Generally speaking, large hull volume makes for easier to load low pressure loads. How may rounds do you load as low pressure for Damascus? If you cannot source any in your area and the requisite quantity is not too great, PM me w/a physical addy and I'll send you some gratis. Once fired paper Fed hulls are good for two reloads with smokeless at normal pressures. A third loading, while sometimes possible is usually best not bothered with. Paper hulls also smell correct after firing, much better than the plastiques;-) Stick to published data, there is plenty around or contact the powder mfg. directly and ask what they have pressure data for using their powder and the Fed paper hulls.
BTW, hull volume in the old & new AA 12's is the same, so I wouldn't get overly concerned with sorting. The new ones crimp a bit better and the old ones last a bit longer, that's my take on the dif.
Kind regards,
tw
The really old AAs were a one piece hull. Ever since they went to a two piece hull I haven't really noticed the difference shooting-wise, but I have noticed that the new AAs eventually split down the side. They malfunction in this manner before anything else for me. I just shoot them one more time (if I have already reloaded them), then discard them. You shouldn't have any difficulty pressure -wise, Gil, if you stay within the safe standards given in your reloaders manuals. I still have a whole garbage bag full of the old AA one piece hulls out in the garage and I am saving them for what? And probably a thousand+ once or twice fired AAs, STS, Nitro, and Federal. I just load them all the same way and shoot. Never could tell the difference.
Pressures listed for the Nitro 100 loads I use in my Damascus guns are quite a bit higher with the new, HS shells than with the old AAs. Be sure to confirm the loads in a current booklet. ABSOLUTELY DO NOT simply substitute the new HS shells for the old, real AA's without checking.
I was a long time hold out for the old style AA. Still have a couple of thousand of them, and never fail to pick one up. I have come to see the new ones work fine too though. A friend gave me about 75 of the old silver with blue writing old styles last week. They were sure pretty going around my press. in truth though I don't think they live as long as the new type.
I know this was addressed a long time ago. I have the specifics someplace. It actually can be confusng to simply refer to 12g AA hulls as "old style" vs "New style".
The original AA hulls that we geezers grew up with (and loved) were one piece compression formed plastic hulls with Brass (or heavily brass coated metal) rims.
They loaded easily, and many times, before eventually wearing out.
usually the crimps would get weak &/or split &/or melt on the edges after MANY reloads (If you REALLY pushed it).
This is a fairly expensive way to make a hull.
About 10-12 years ago, or so, the bean counters got involved and they beagn playing with "new/improved" plastics but kept the original physical design. I remember that there were 2-3 itterations of this "improved" plastic over the next few years. This was the era of the early light colored "silver bullet" handicap loads and others that had a well desrved reputation for splitting lengthwise down the side as well as other issues affecting reloadability/longevity.
These plastic formala changes, with original one-piece design, would also be called "new style" (or some words best not mentioned in polite company) at the time.
A few years back they switched the design to a less expensive 2 piece plastic hull/base wad. I believe the plastic formula may have evolved a bit too at that time.
The recipes were ESSENTIALLY the same for most loads but might differ slightly dependng on componenets (check the books).
The newer (HS?) 2 piece hulls caused many of us some grief when they would crush and crumble during reloading.
It would happen to me on a VERY regular basis making modest pressure 1oz loads with Win12SL/Claybuster clones. I found that the powder wads would routinely catch the lip between the hull wall and the top of the seperate tapered base wad causing the crunch. I also found that I had to adjust the top/final crimp to try and get a decent non-crunch closing of the shell. It was a REAL PITA to get the press adjusted so that it could load the new 2 piece AA hulls as well as older ones and Remingtons (never completely successful).
Like a lot of people, I have found the new 2 piece AA hull to be a real pain to load with a lot of rejected/crunched ones. I also have been very unhappy with the way that the crimps refuse to stay closed even with the first reload.
I have switched to using Remingtons. The STS/Nitro hulls are great and even the gun club ones load better that AA. They use the same recipes (at least for my purposes) with very slight (usually lower) pressure differences.
Just my personal observations FWIW. (your results may differ).
The new/improved 2 piece hull design has now been adapted to most (all?) of the other AA gauges and designated HS(High strength).
It probably would be best to refer to the one-piece compression formed (original design) and the two-piece HS style (newer design) hulls for the sake of reloading.
JMHO
Like Jim I'm a HS basewad separation skeptic. And I've actually personally experienced basewad separation with Federal Topguns. If you take one apart it's not hard to see how this can happen.
But I've also torn down 12, 20, and .410 versions of the new HS.
I'll start with 12 and 20 ga hulls. Compared to imported polyformed hulls and domestic promotional hulls the HS basewad is far and away more solid, and securely placed.
I have to laugh when someone raises the separation concern (is it "separation anxiety".....) in the context of the HS .410. Apparently, some shooters haven't noticed that both Federal GMs and Rem STSs in .410 are polyformed hulls with separate basewads. If you bother to dissect examples of each you'll learn that the HS basewad is, once again, the most secure by design.
Now I'm not smitten with the 12 and 20 ga HS hulls, but this is simply because I have lifetime supplies of comp formed AAs and don't want to change press settings for crimp, powder charge, etc.
But the .410 HS hull is something special. It is the longest lived reloadable .410 hull we have ever had. Period. Not even the old, beloved comp-formed AA can be reloaded anything close to 14 times.
Sam
The recommended fix for the crumpled HS(horse-s...) shells is found on both the Winchester and MEC sites. The crimp starter should be lowered until the opening in the crimp started shell is smaller than a wooden pencil. The problem is that the shell walls are relatively soft and if the crimp folds are not folded in far enough, the walls will be crumpled in the first crimp station, rather than folding together, as they should.
The recommended fix for the crumpled HS(horse-s...) shells is found on both the Winchester and MEC sites. The crimp starter should be lowered until the opening in the crimp started shell is smaller than a wooden pencil. The problem is that the shell walls are relatively soft and if the crimp folds are not folded in far enough, the walls will be crumpled in the first crimp station, rather than folding together, as they should.
My press (Hornady Apex) already is. It makes no difference on mine for HS AA results but will affect other hulls that I reload. The powder/shot wad still will catch on the lip of the base wad 10-20% of the time and crunch the shell (even tho the crimp will look better). The crimp refuses to stay down on these regardlss of how much pressure is applied.
For my own work I will stick with the cache of old orginals that I have left and use another maker's procduct that suits my needs better and gives me no problems.
The new/hs 12g AA hulls arern't worth the trouble to pick off the ground.