doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Win AA loose base wad problem.

So, again, how do I identify these hulls?

I believe they all say HS, either on the head or the hull side. They also are made of slicker and smoother plastic. The old AAs, especially the 12 ga. have a duller, wavy look to the plastic. You can also see the separate base wad end, about 1/2" above the brass and by looking inside. All the dark gray 12s are HS. The silver-gray ones are older compression formed Handicap shells. If red, use the above criteria, but again, I think all say HS on them somewhere.

Alder....I tamp my base wads down with around 10,000 pounds of pressure when I fire my standard trap load. Don't think looking inside the hull, or pushing hard on the handle of my MEC 600 is going to have much effect on those base wads.........
I shoot thousands of Federal paper reloads, and my method of seating base wads hasn't failed me yet........
Let the flames begin.......!!!!!!! Grant.

OM 70, I don't think anyone here is making any generalizations about basewads.
We are talking specifically about the Win AAHS hull.

I had several of the 'new style' AA cases (not the HS cases but the ones brought out to replace the old compression formed AA case) cough up the base wad. These cases were reloaded on a progressive loader that reprimed by pushing the primer into the hull while it was supported by the rim. Not by pushing the case down onto the primer with a ram inside the case upon the base wad. After changeing over to a loader that did reprime by supporting the base wad, I've had no further instances. I suspected in the beginning that the base wad moved on fireing. After the change over in loading machines with the different repriming support of the base wad, I was rethinking that it was the repriming that was pushing the basewad out of it's 'socket'. I had 12 moved base wads in approx 5000 reloaded AA cases. None since the switch. I reload the cases till they're dead. I use the same load as always, a light 7/8oz right out of the Lyman manual. The base wads moved high enough in the shell to make the shot drop level with the top of the hull (but that height was probably even as a result of the powder drop tube pushing the wad back down into the hull to a uniform depth on each). Thats what originaly brought it to my attention. Never had one where the wad left the hull completely. I've never loaded any of the HS type hulls. Still have plenty of the one piece and the second generation 2 piece left. Both load nicely and I use them in both break open and pump guns.

I load practically nothing but AA shells and have never heard of the "in-betweener" that Kutter refers to, above. The early three-piece AAs might not have said HS on them but all that were not compression-formed are the same, TTBOMK. Back when there was a lot of talk about this problem, on the Shotgun Sports board, it was reported that Winchester "had made some changes" but so far as I know, AAs are either compression-formed or HS, whether or not they were marked with the HS logo. It seemed to take an awfully long time to determine that the shells that lost their base wads were loaded on P-W type loaders. I remember stories that some were coming out of factory(not reloaded) shells and one guy claimed to be seeing base wads from these shells "laying all over the ground" at his range. Many, if not most, of the stories were very difficult to believe. One other possible cause, IMO, is that there are a few people who love to brag about how they never resize their shells. Seems like a strange thing to be proud of. Sort of like admitting you don't use deodorant....your friends already knew that.

I would sure like to hear the real truth. I have loaded maybe a quarter million shells on loaders that don't support the shell inside during the primer seating function. I bought my first PW the year they started making them, still have it. I also shoot some valuable guns, not all of them break action where I can check the barrel after every shot. I guess my defiant action is to use my compression formed empties exclusively until I wear them out. I think I have enough. By the time I wear them out, WW will be making them again.

The AA's I was refering to that were not marked 'HS' could be loaded with conventional wads. I thought the newer cases which were 'HS' marked needed special 'HS' wads (perhaps not in 12ga, my error then). That was my only point in mentioning the case difference. As Jim correctly points out, they are all still of separate base wad design. I just personally have never used the latest ones marked HS. I avoided the 410 HS hulls when they first came out because I was unable (according to the loading data) to use my large supply of AA wads in them, instead they demanded a special HS wad. What a total marketing stumble by W on this whole thing.

Like Jim, I haven't encountered a 2 tube/basewad type AA hull that wasn't a HS. The last time I bought AA ammo was 2-3 yrs ago and I bought about 10 flats of 410 and 10 of 28g. The HS was just hitting the streets and my ammo was mixed, with mostly compression formed 410s and the 28's were mostly if not all HS. I segrated the HS empties and haven't reloaded any of them to date. I have a couple PWs and don't need a problem. What bothers me is that the 3 piece hull has been around for, well, forever. This issue hasn't been prevalent in other makes of 3 piece hulls that I've heard of. I did recall some friends that loaded the cheap promo hulls with aluminum and steel bases and they had paper basewads that would fly out on occasion. But none ever stuck in the barrel.

Read the article in this issue of Double Gun Journal where S Bell digs out base wads and forces them down the tubes of a TWIST barrel and fires proof loads with no damage! Makes the base wad story sound like a bunch of that bull stuff you are talking about. In my experience the HS WW is the best small gauge hull to reload and only the STS beats in in 12 gauge only.
bill