doublegunshop.com - home
Posted By: Chantry Reloading Question - 10/03/20 04:40 PM
Will using fiber wads and cardboard overshot cards raise or reduce pressure as opposed to using plastic wads?

Will a load published for a 2 3/4" hull have the same pressure if it is used in a 2 1/2" hull?

It is fairly easy to adjust the overall height of a load using fiber wads and cardboard overshot cards of which I have plenty

On edit: I am not asking for specific load data and intend to use published load data from reputable sources. The problem is there virtually no load data out there for 16 2 1/2" shells. While I am experienced reloader of rifle & pistol ammo, I do not have much experience with reloading shotgun shells, which seem to be much more sensitive in regards to pressure variations with different components.
Posted By: eightbore Re: Reloading Question - 10/03/20 10:36 PM
Answer: It is hard to blow up a good gun if loads are sensible. Don't overthink. End of story.
Posted By: Cobbhead Re: Reloading Question - 10/03/20 10:49 PM
I think conventional wisdom is fiber wads, because they "leak" more gas upon detonation will develop less pressure. I, for one, load 2 3/4" loads in 2.5" hulls by roll crimping. Once again, conventional wisdom says roll crimping will develop less pressure than a star crimp. That said, I don't trust any loads or advice garnered online, I send my handloads out for pressure testing if I think it is necessary. Cheap compared to replacing a gun.
Posted By: Stanton Hillis Re: Reloading Question - 10/03/20 11:08 PM
IMO, the chance of damaging a sound gun with a reload is roughly equivalent to the chance of loading with the wrong powder or double charging a load.
Posted By: BrentD, Prof Re: Reloading Question - 10/03/20 11:17 PM
Originally Posted By: eightbore
Answer: It is hard to blow up a good gun if loads are sensible. Don't overthink. End of story.


Blowing up a gun is not my chief concern but over stressing it so that it prematurely shoots loose, cracks some vital part, breaks wood, etc. are is part of issues that concern me. After studying reloading recipes, I'm not sure I trust pressure ratings that are published for them. At least not absolutely. I and I don't know how much variation can be induced by a different way or primer or case. It would be nice to have the ability to make objective measures of pressure or something closely related to it. Shipping off loads for measurement elsewhere becomes prohibitively expensive quickly.
Posted By: tw Re: Reloading Question - 10/03/20 11:32 PM
I don't think your question can be answered, Chantry, shy of having a specific load pressure tested, unless you are using the exact components from a prior pressure tested and published recipe, from a reputable source.

One thing I'll note from my own reloading experience is that the use of some fiber wads like Ljutic Mono Wads when used in plastic fired cases like Winchester AA CF hulls will iron out the crimp totally and stretch the case! Gas leakage is NOT a problem, but pressure could be. I never had them pressure tested even tho the load was a published one for plastic wads. I simply stopped the practice and have never had an issue using those same fiber wads in paper hulls.
Posted By: cadet Re: Reloading Question - 10/05/20 02:45 AM
All the reading I've done leads me to believe that - all other things being equal - fibre wads tend to lower pressures; so do roll crimps.
Posted By: GLS Re: Reloading Question - 10/05/20 10:23 AM
It is important to note in addition to the above, that fiber wads and nitro cards be used only in straight wall hulls rather than tapered hulls. Fiber and cardboard don't have the same ability to expand from narrow to wider travelling down the hull as does a plastic gas seal. Cheddite paper and plastic, Fiocchi are among those with straight walls. The rule of thumb in going from plastic recipes to NC and fiber wads with the same hull and powder as used in the plastic wadded hull is to use 10-15% more powder to account for the inefficiency. However, if your thumb gets blown off, don't come to me.
The overriding rule of thumb is to have loads tested for pressure. . Gil
Posted By: BrentD, Prof Re: Reloading Question - 10/05/20 11:50 AM
How many of you have every load tested, and what is the cost?
Posted By: Stanton Hillis Re: Reloading Question - 10/05/20 12:08 PM
I have had a number of my "concocted" loads tested by Armbrust, though none recently. I see no need for testing published loads.

Kinda got what I need and have no need for testing right now. Last I sent to him was $35 for 5.

SRH
Posted By: Drew Hause Re: Reloading Question - 10/05/20 12:20 PM
Tom was still testing loads as of 5/2019
Best to call first - 815-451-6649
Send a check with the shells, and do NOT mail via USPS
1108 W. May Ave, McHenry, IL 60051

And if using fibre wads, use the best. Old, stiff, hard (non-compressible) wads can increase pressure.
Posted By: Stanton Hillis Re: Reloading Question - 10/05/20 12:24 PM
Originally Posted By: Drew Hause
Tom was still testing loads as of 5/2019
Best to call first - 815-451-6649
Send a check with the shells, and do NOT mail via USPS
1108 W. May Ave, McHenry, IL 60051

And if using fibre wads, use the best. Old, stiff, hard (non-compressible) wads can increase pressure.


And, if I might add, get them to him quickly if you want results this year. He doesn't test during winter.

SRH
Posted By: BrentD, Prof Re: Reloading Question - 10/05/20 01:23 PM
Originally Posted By: Drew Hause
Tom was still testing loads as of 5/2019
Best to call first - 815-451-6649
Send a check with the shells, and do NOT mail via USPS
1108 W. May Ave, McHenry, IL 60051

And if using fibre wads, use the best. Old, stiff, hard (non-compressible) wads can increase pressure.


I use fiber wads that I have soaked in lube or sometimes just dry, depending on the powder behind it. I've never noticed Circle Fly being stiff due to age. I do worry about the dry ones causing a fire with blackpowder. Hence they are only used over water or on wetter fields.
Posted By: LGF Re: Reloading Question - 10/05/20 05:46 PM
Brent, in my limited chronographing of Longshot loads in RMC brass shells using card and fiber wads, it seems that dry fiber wads yielded lower and more erratic speeds than lubed wads. Small sample sizes, however. Have you found anything similar?
Posted By: BrentD, Prof Re: Reloading Question - 10/05/20 05:53 PM
Originally Posted By: LGF
Brent, in my limited chronographing of Longshot loads in RMC brass shells using card and fiber wads, it seems that dry fiber wads yielded lower and more erratic speeds than lubed wads. Small sample sizes, however. Have you found anything similar?


I have found that when dry, they pattern really well with longshot, and birds die really well when hit. Not very objective measures however. I have not tried them lubed with that powder. I use lubed wads for blackpowder where they also seem to perform very well, but I don't have any testing numbers for that either.

My current Longshot loads that I would like to test are 30 grs of powder, a WWAA12R, Claybusters equivalent wad, a 1/2" dry fiber wad inside of that and 535-540 grs of lead or bismuth finished with a roll crimp. They work well, but I don't really know the pressure. extrapolating from Hodgdon data they should be slightly better than 1300 fps, at 6000 psi. That's very optimistic however. Too optimistic in my opinion. But I really don't know.
Posted By: LGF Re: Reloading Question - 10/06/20 09:07 PM
Brent, last week I chronographed seven 1.25 oz bismuth loads with 33.0 gr. Longshot in Cheddite hulls with the WWAA12R Claybusters equivalent wad and fold crimp for an average speed of 1381 fps+ 42 SD. I will reduce those by a grain or two.

I also experimented with lubed vs. unlubed vs. hard fiber wads in RMC brass, using 27.5 gr. Longshot, five shots each. The lubed wads produced higher mean speed with low variance compared to both hard and dry:

Lubed: 1287 + 30.4 SD
Dry: 1032 + 162
Hard: 828 + 230

However, in a second set of experiments with the same powder charge, I got the following results:
Lubed: 1183 + 67
Hard: 1139 + 26

I try to be consistent in loading technique, but as I am wholly self taught, the inconsistency in results suggests I am not doing very well. I don't know why I got 100fps difference in the lubed wads between the two sessions, nor why the hard wads were so much more consistent the second time. The chronograph had been repaired between sessions; dunno if that might account for some of the difference.

Any advice gratefully accepted.
Posted By: GLS Re: Reloading Question - 10/06/20 11:27 PM
My success, or lack of success, loading fiber and nitro cards showed erratic velocities which gave me concerns about my chronograph. I ruled out the chronograph as being the source of inconsistent velocities by firing factory shells which had consistent velocities. My wads are Alcan Blue Streak that are bone dry, but still compressible. I've tried recipes published by BP in their short hulls brochure. Using their nitro cards and cork wads, I still had inconsistent velocities. For the time being, I'll rely on the small gas seal and Blue Streak wads which give consistent velocities. The plastic gas seal was the solution. I spoke to a tech at BP and he advised I needed at least 30 lbs. seating pressure to compress the powder. I haven't tried that suggestion. Gil
Posted By: Shotgunjones Re: Reloading Question - 10/06/20 11:49 PM
The question is begged... what is it that you're shooting these in?

The OP is shooting a 2 1/2" gun which I'd guess has short forcing cones and is designed for fiber wads.

Tell me you're not testing these in .741" ID Brownings.

It's remarkable that loading with traditional wads can be lost knowledge in 2 generations.

I use one piece plastic wads so don't have any experience to talk about in the fiber department except to note that BP sells an over powder gas seal (made of plastic) as a concession to the fact that available hulls today are so designed.

I did try the brass 410 shells, and the results were worse than dismal. I gave those away and chalked that up to temporary insanity.
Posted By: BrentD, Prof Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 12:04 AM
LGF,
Thanks for that data. It looks suspiciously like there might be a severe outlier in the first set of hard wad data. You might check the individual datums for that. Very curious stuff. I don't know what SDs should be for shotguns. BP rifles, should have SD in the single digits pretty easily and I don't see why shotguns should be any different. Unfortunately, my chrony went tits-up this summer for some reason.
Posted By: Ithaca5E Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 12:05 AM
Back in thee sixties when plastic over-powder wads and one-piece wads entered the market, the published recipes called for reduced powder charges due to the more efficient sealing of the plastic wads.

Just my opinion, but I should think that a given load would be pretty oblivious to the length of the shell; the only material change would be what, the lower weight of the shorter wad?
Posted By: BrentD, Prof Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 01:05 AM
Originally Posted By: Ithaca5E
Back in thee sixties when plastic over-powder wads and one-piece wads entered the market, the published recipes called for reduced powder charges due to the more efficient sealing of the plastic wads.

Just my opinion, but I should think that a given load would be pretty oblivious to the length of the shell; the only material change would be what, the lower weight of the shorter wad?


Agreed. Just hard to get a crimp on a load that is 1/2" short
Posted By: LGF Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 01:53 AM
Brent, the velocity on the hard wads was all over the place the first time:
472
906
736
1019
1011

With a mess like that, dunno what I would call an outlier.

And pretty consistent the second time:
1136
1136
1152
1171
1101

I have wondered about gas seals, but people must have gotten fiber wads to work pretty consistently when they were standard.

My initial attempts to measure velocity of BP loads yielded no results, presumably due to the mass of ejecta confusing the chrono. I have built a funnel to reduce the possibility of flyers hitting the chrono (again), and will see if that helps with BP loads.
Posted By: BrentD, Prof Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 02:42 AM
Yeah, I see what you mean, but that 472 fps. Hell, I can run that fast (well that's a lie, but it's not a lot faster than a compound bow).

I sure do like the patterns I was getting with my load. They have been beautiful and consistently so. They hit hard enough to kill stuff bang-flop dead most of the time, and penetration has been excellent with #5 Bi or #5 lead. Will double check them tomorrow on some woodies with luck, and maybe even a giant or two.
Posted By: Boats Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 08:59 AM
I spent a lot of time on 2 1/2 inch 16 G tried about everything. Fiber wads Roll crimps cutting 2 7/8 down, you name it I did it.

Ended up using Hodgdon’s 2 1/2 inch Cheddite Hull on line data. It works no fuss. Easy as loading 12 or 20.

Started with a flat of RST to obtain empties, since paid a trapper to collect RST hulls at a Tournament. 10 cents a hull one time, lifetime supply. 2 1/2 so close to 2 7/8 able to adjust the PW 375 Taper Crimp dies to crimp properly.

Prior to adjusting my PW used a Mec 600 with the short kit. Worked well, using the PW saved bench space. Buddy is loading 2 1/2 16 on the Mec now.

Boats
Posted By: GLS Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 09:03 AM
Weight of ejecta is only one factor affecting pressure. The friction of column height is another. Yes, pressure and velocity are independent, but an unplanned loss of pressure through inefficient sealing can affect a loss of velocity. In an early Lyman reloading manual it offers caveats of recommended numbers of nitro cards and column heights of fiber wads and states best vs. worst combinations. RST seems to have it figured out as some of its fiber wadded loads use only fiber wads without the nitro card. And don't get lulled into a feeling of security by using old recipes in newer paper hulls by Cheddite. These aren't your grandfather's hulls as the newer Cheddites have molded plastic bases internally as opposed to the old non plastic based hulls.

Boats, what did you use for fiber wads? Gil
Posted By: Boats Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 09:46 AM
Fibers were from Precession Reloading. Nitro card then fiber split to make correct stack height. Over shot & roll crimped. Add cutting down 2 7/8 to 2 1/2 its a lot of work . The stacked fiber worked well it’s not easy like powder, shot cup, shot crimp & go.

I usually shoot 16 in a very light Parker Hammer gun. High volume, 100-125 round of clays. For me it’s best use low recoil shells & keep the loading simple. I use the 3/4 oz data most, load some 7/8/ for a Parker Trojan using Hodgdons loads too.

Boats
Posted By: GLS Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 11:49 AM
Originally Posted By: Boats
Fibers were from Precession Reloading. Nitro card then fiber split to make correct stack height.
Boats

Thanks. I've ordered a couple of bags. My current fiber wads are ancient Alcan Blue Streaks that are so hard they must have been made from wood fibers cut from fallen trees in Arizona's National Petrified Forest. I'll see if they make a difference. Gil
Posted By: Stanton Hillis Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 12:06 PM
Are any Circle Fly wads suitable for shotshell reloading? I'm totally ignorant about the use of fiber wads in shells.

They seem to stay soft for a long time. I have a piece of a bag that I bought in Friendship, IN when shooting my "new to me" 16 ga. percussion m/l in about 1984, with Max Vickery. Couple of years ago they were still easily compressible.

SRH
Posted By: GLS Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 12:25 PM
Stan, I bought a bag a few years ago in 16 ga. and they were dripping wet. I had concerns about powder contamination even with a nitro card. I've wondered if they may have made for black powder muzzle loaders and I either ordered or was sent the wrong stock. Gil
Posted By: Stanton Hillis Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 01:06 PM
Hmmm. They must have sent prelubed wads, with something like moose milk. Mine were dry when I bought them.

SRH
Posted By: GLS Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 01:16 PM
Stan, I agree. Gil
Posted By: eightbore Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 01:18 PM
As a poster suggested, the wildly varying velocities in some of these loads is probably attributed to a faulty chronograph or incorrect use of the chronograph.
Posted By: GLS Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 03:21 PM
Eightbore, I thought the same until I fired 8 Winchester factory loads after shooting handloads and the AA's varied by maybe 25 fps wherein the handloads were erratic over the same chronograph. It could have been the reloader (me), but I follow the same procedure loading one at a time from start to finish. I may not have had sufficient or consistent seating pressure according to BP, but according to the Ideal manual, seating pressure with modern powders isn't as important as it once was. Gil
Posted By: Chantry Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 03:56 PM
Originally Posted By: Shotgunjones
The question is begged... what is it that you're shooting these in?

The OP is shooting a 2 1/2" gun which I'd guess has short forcing cones and is designed for fiber wads.


The gun in question is a 16 gauge 1884 Rigby SLE that was sleeved in 1955 with conventional steel barrels and proofed for 2 1/2" length shells at 3 tons.
Posted By: BrentD, Prof Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 03:59 PM
Gil,
I have never seen dripping fiber wads. I have bought pre-lubed wads, and they are heavier and stiffer, but never dripping. Pre-lubed fiber wads are harder for me to find. I tend to buy the dry ones and then soak them in odds and ends of black powder cartridge lube and/or melted Crisco. But mostly, I used them dry and they never seem to get hard with age.
Posted By: BrentD, Prof Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 04:01 PM
Do you suppose the high variance in velocities could be due to variation in the recrimping process? Were these reloaded shells or virgins?
Posted By: LGF Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 04:49 PM
I was told by someone who knows that hard fiber wads are better than soft, but he didn't say why. As above, I found that velocity with them can be very erratic. Any wisdom on hard vs. soft?

The same person recommended Swiss BP over Goex, again he didn't say why - thoughts?
Posted By: GLS Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 05:01 PM
I fired both new unfired and once fired. Crimp depth before roll crimping was at least .25" with a good roll over. With the small gas seal, the X12X with the same charges, all was good. Gil
Posted By: BrentD, Prof Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 07:14 PM
LGF, Swiss is the powder of choice among competitive rifle matches. It is typically faster for a given granulation, and less fouling and a bit more consistent from shot to shot. These are somewhat subjective however (except for as the overwhelming favorite among the best rifle competitors.
Posted By: Eric 375 Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 10:11 PM
Wet fiber wads are typically used in muzzleloaders shooting clays. Soaked in a liquid cleaning solution and squeezed out on loading. The loads are shot right away so no problem contaminating the powder charge. Not used in shot shells where they are not used right away. I use lubed wads in my black powder loads and they work very well keeping the fouling soft and lubing the bores. Lubed wads keep the fiber dust from blowing back into the shooters face. I also use OE powder as it is as fast as Swiss and the fouling is a little lighter and softer. Easily run 50 + loads on the clays course and do not have to punch the tubes in the course of shooting a round. 1fg. in the 10 gauge and 1.5 or 2 fg. in 12,16 and 20's. Work great and hit hard on the course and in the field.
Posted By: Stanton Hillis Re: Reloading Question - 10/07/20 10:21 PM
When I competed seriously in NMLRA patched roundball competition I sifted my black powder before a big match. I had three sifters that were labeled 3f no-go, 3f, and 3f fines. I ended up with a little over 2/3 lb. of very consistent granulated powder, out of a pound can, for the matches.

I shot some unbelievable groups with that sifted powder.

SRH
Posted By: BrentD, Prof Re: Reloading Question - 10/08/20 01:52 AM
Originally Posted By: Stan
When I competed seriously in NMLRA patched roundball competition I sifted my black powder before a big match. I had three sifters that were labeled 3f no-go, 3f, and 3f fines. I ended up with a little over 2/3 lb. of very consistent granulated powder, out of a pound can, for the matches.

I shot some unbelievable groups with that sifted powder.

SRH


That was old Goex. Today, Swiss powder will beat modern Goex badly and without sifting. The old Goex wasn't bad powder at various times. It was certainly the best available. But times have changed and Goex has not kept up with the competition.
Posted By: Stanton Hillis Re: Reloading Question - 10/08/20 02:05 AM
Swiss was available in limited amounts back then, but Goex was indeed the most widely available. I'd like to see if Swiss would shoot .45 cal. five shot groups smaller than 5/8" ctc, like that old sifted FFFg Goex would out of my 14 lb. buffalo rifle. That's pretty tight for a patched roundball, with any propellant.

SRH
Posted By: BrentD, Prof Re: Reloading Question - 10/08/20 02:40 AM
Was the Swiss you knew in a rebadged metal can like the Goex? That would have been the first batch that came over and I believe it was all #5 -or 1f. It was remarkable stuff. But today, it is nearly 100% Swiss among those that are contenders.
Posted By: Paul Harm Re: Reloading Question - 10/08/20 07:38 PM
Brent, if you don't trust load data, as you said, it seems like you better have any and all loads tested. "It would be nice to have the ability to make objective measures of pressure or something closely related to it." Yes it would, but there isn't. Precision Reloading charges $5 a round last I knew. If you take a 2 3/4" shell and cut the last 1/4" off to remove the creases so you can get a nice roll crimp you then are loading 2 1/2" shells. Seeing how you're just removing the excess material for a crimp, you still have the same area for the load components. The only difference is the type of crimp. Years back when plastic wads were first introduced, reloading manuals suggested lowering powder drops by 10% because the plastic sealed better. So if going from plastic load data there's no way you're going to hurt anything if you use fiber wads. For years I've loaded fiber wad shells [ off and on ] and increased powder drops by a 1/2 grain with no ill effects. And fiber wads can be used in any shell, tapered or straight walled. At least I've used fiber wads in Remington hulls and they shoot just fine. If you pick a load with 5 to 8000psi, you'd have to screw up pretty bad before things got dangerous. It's shotgun shell reloading, not pistol where pressures are so much higher. Quit worrying and have some fun. Fiber wads and roll crimps will diffidently lower pressures.
Posted By: Paul Harm Re: Reloading Question - 10/08/20 08:05 PM
I've used GOEX for 50 years and find nothing wrong with it. My chunk gun I made with a Bill Large barrel would lay one shot on top of another shooting GOEX and I never sifted any of my powders. I was also tied for high gun in the silhouette match one year and never sifted powder, and that match was shot out to 200 yards. I'm not saying sifting wouldn't help, it's just that I had pretty good luck without doing it. And GOEX is made in the USA. Back to the fiber wads in shotgun shells. BPI offers some kind of lubed wads. I normally use to just call Circle Fly and order whatever I wanted. Does BPI or Precision Reloading just sell CF wads under their own name ?
Posted By: BrentD, Prof Re: Reloading Question - 10/08/20 08:21 PM
Paul,

I just don't trust this one load. 1300 fps at 6000 PIS sounds too good to be true for an ounce and a quarter. I loaded and shot some in a stout enough gun, and they produced rather prodigious recoil as well. Recoil may not predict velocity or pressure perfectly, but it is enough to raise my concern so I would like to find out for certain. That is all.

I did not cut the shells down. If I implied otherwise, my apologies.
These were 2.75" shells, virgin so they made good roll crimps. Also loaded them with folded crimps as well and they were at least as recoil unfriendly as would be expected.

Every powder charge and shot charge was weighed to +/- 0.1 grain.
Posted By: BrentD, Prof Re: Reloading Question - 10/30/20 01:48 AM
As a follow up to this discussion, I had a load tested this week that I mentioned above. It is 30.0 grs of Longshot powder, a Claybusters substitute for the Winchester WAA12R wad, a 1/2" dry, 16 g fiber wad inside the cup, and 1.2 oz of #5 lead or Bismuth. followed by a card wad and roll crimp in a 2.75" Cheddite hull (new). It averaged 1227 fps and 4100 PSI. This was quite a bit less than I expected ((1300 fps @ 6000 PSI), but he explained that the roll crimp would drop 500-1000 PSI and the fiber wad would easily account for another 500.

All I can say is that it drops ducks dead extremely well.
Posted By: Stanton Hillis Re: Reloading Question - 10/30/20 11:39 AM
Hope you don't get bloopers with it when it really turns cold. 4100 is pretty low. 2 Piper used to say that is too low for real cold temps. Not so much of a problem down he'ah but could be in IA.

SRH
Posted By: BrentD, Prof Re: Reloading Question - 10/30/20 12:06 PM
A good point, Stan. I'm doubtful that will happen, but certainly something to keep in mind.

26f this morning. Pretty balmy, and no hardwater like Wednesday.
Posted By: Chantry Re: Reloading Question - 11/02/20 01:55 PM
Thanks for all of the answers. I had already planned on using fiber wads and will roll crimp the shells since that also reduces pressure.
© The DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com