doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com AA Featherlites?

They remind me of what is known as a "squib load". Somewhat odd to shoot, at least for me.
JR

On their box it states 26 grams of #8 shot 980 fps, on the Hodgdon site they list 3 loads using a Winchester AA or Winchester AA HS hull, the lowest one, 12.4 grs. Winchester AA Lite, Win. 209 primer, J-XL-1 wad, Velocity 970 fps, PSI. 4900. The highest, 12.1 grs. Winchester AA Lite, Win. 209 primer, Remington TGT-12 wad, Velocity 970 fps, PSI. 5500.
26 grams is 0.917 ounces, 15/16 oz. is 0.937. So load stated from Winchester is less than 15/16 oz.
I would guess that the last one is the closest to what Winchester actually used. Best thing if you really want to know is to take one apart and weight the shot, powder and look at the wad and compare them to other wads.
I use all Mecs for .410 to 10 ga. and I can tell you that none of the 302 and 502 bars ever drop what it states for shot and most of the bushings, which is close to 40, do not drop the amount of power stated. Both of these shot bars and bushings were tested for 10 drops and then averaged on a digital scale and then a beam scale.

While your point is correct and well taken, the Red Dot analogy really doesn’t play. You would simply build squib loads which can be equally dangerous due to stuck wads. Loading the antique and OVERPRICED Alliant powders under 7K psi is asking for trouble. You can’t possibly exceed SAAMI max with 7/8oz and Red Dot at the stated velocity, which you must know.

This topic recurs here. One simply cannot make assumptions about the pressures of factory loads in the absence of factory information and testing is of little value for the reasons stated.

The powder companies have discontinued most canister powders that their loyal customers used to make low pressure loads for the antique guns we like to shoot. The closest we have now is ‘Perfect Pattern’ (I laugh at the name) which is similar to but apparently not identical to the now discontinued AALite.

The bastards don’t want us loading low pressure loads.

As far as ‘living on the edge’, I prefer other thrills. Known risks can be eliminated, It’s the unknown ones that will get you.

Recoil does not equal pressure. Report does not equal pressure. Unfortunately, only pressure equals pressure.

SAAMI max is not really where a guy with a double wants to spend a lot of time. But, ammunition makers only have to keep their loads there, or, just under.

Anything goes. All they need to do is just that, stay at or under max. They are under no obligation to give you any more reassurance than that.

And you can bet, that is exactly what they do.

Best,
Ted

Lloyd, it seems to me that a few more dollars to test those loads would not be a bad thing. In comparison to the value of the guns and value of one's body parts, it is a very small price to pay to actually know, rather than guess. Your guns have lasted a long time. To ensure they last yet another century in good shape it would be wise and proper, not to mention appreciated by those up ahead that might get own them one day. Testing available, fast, easy, and cheap. There is a time to roll the dice and take chances, but this is not one of them. Testing is just the common sense way to go.

A load in a gun that gives almost zero felt recoil takes some getting used to, for some of us. If I have shot a lot of sporting with my 12 ga. guns, then shoot a .410, there is an adjustment period where I have to get used to the lack of recoil when I pull the trigger. My body gets used to a certain level of recoil and I can actually shoot heavier recoiling loads better than I can 1/2 oz. to 3/4 oz. loads, until I get re-adjusted to them.

I always struggled with sub-gauge NSCA competition because of this and found I did much better if I shot the sub-gauges in descending order (12 then 20, then 28, then .410), rather than going from a 12 straight to a .410, and my scores were better if I shot a practice five-stand with each of them before shooting for score. It wasn't so much the muscle memory kicking in as it was adjusting to the lack of recoil.

One ounce to one and one-eighths ounce at about 1150 to 1200 is the sweet spot for me in a twelve gauge.

I'm not overly recoil sensitive (I guess I'm just insensitive?) but I suspect that in a light-enough gun, even these AA's will be noticeable. I have two really old 12-bore guns here that I'd planned on for use in the uplands, a ~ 6 1/2 lb hammergun and a 6 lb BLE. I suspect that in both guns these low-recoil Winchester shells will be just fine (both have had their chambers opened up (cleaned-up) by several episodes of honing. In this day and age of a limited availability of lighter 12-gauge shells, I had thought that this option would be of particular interest to the habitués here. The fellow I've been shooting clays with is 85-years old now and he bought them to see if he could reduce his discomfort from an aggrieved shoulder (he'd lost a lot of weight from a COVID episode almost 2-years ago now). These shells are slow enough to need an adjustment on longer crossing shots, but otherwise they work just fine on everything else. As far as lethality on game goes, I can't imaging any 12 gauge load that wouldn't be. I might be convinced to use heavier stuff on pheasants, but on light-skinned birds (such as grouse) I can't imagine a problem.

Any pressure testing one does is only going to give you an idea of the pressure in that lot. Nothing more.

The next lot may, or, may not be, completely different.

Anecdotally, it seems the lot numbers change far more frequently than they did, years ago. Not sure why that is.

Best,
Ted

Ted is 100% correct. And it seems like we continue to have new Threads at least a couple times a month here, where regulars and new guys have questions about factory or handloads that are appropriate for our vintage Double Shotguns.

This takes me back to the question I asked last week about why Ammo manufacturers provide data on the box such as velocity, payload weight, drams equivalent, but they don't tell us the pressure. Ted correctly notes that manufacturers frequently change lots, and they may change components or powders used in different lots. And you can bet that they test the pressures every time they change lots or components, and they keep the results of those pressure tests for liability purposes. It shouldn't be all that difficult or costly for them to give us actual peak or average pressure instead of the outmoded dram equivalent that goes back to days of black and bulk smokeless powders.

Shotgunjones noted that powder manufacturers frequently discontinue many of the better powders that can be used to create low pressure handloads. And even when we may have hoarded stockpiles of PB, SR7625, Green Dot, or some other decent powder, oftentimes we find that one or more other components for a given low pressure load is in short supply. So if we risk changing primers or wads, etc., we are right back to guessing, hoping, and wishful thinking...or sending out samples for pressure testing.

It occurs to me that maybe we have been voicing our concerns or questions to the wrong people. It seems like the Ammo manufacturers should know there is a market and a demand for low pressure loads. They must be aware that there are niche manufacturers like RST, B & P, Polywad, Salt Creek, etc. These small manufacturers of lower pressure shells would not be in business if there was no demand, and they are often unable to meet that demand. And there are plenty of guys on every other Shotgun and Firearm Forum repeatedly asking these same old questions.

That all makes me wonder if we would do better to put our heads together to come up with an effective way to communicate our needs and our demand for lower pressure ammo to the ammo and powder manufacturers. You would think their Marketing Executives would be bright enough to know what the shooting consumer wants and needs. But we all see how these highly paid marketing people have screwed up and lost Billions of dollars by making poor decisions. Look at how much Anheuser Busch lost by trying to market Bud Light Beer to transgenders, and how much Disney Inc. has lost by pushing "Woke" movies and products.

I'm thinking that perhaps something like an online petition that could be delivered to the Top Brass of companies like Winchester, Remington-Peters, Federal, etc. might do more good than complaining among ourselves. Guys here would certainly sign on, and the message with a link to a petition could be put out to every Firearms Forum on the Web. Perhaps some of you might have other ideas on the best way to accomplish something like this.

That might get the Ammo and Powder Manufacturers thinking. It can't be any worse than what we're doing now. The demand is here, and it is real. These companies already serve niche markets when they produce and sell low volume items like certain Non-Tox loads or even these Win. AA low recoil loads. And despite all the doomsayers who have been predicting for all the time I've been here that our guns are obsolete relics that no one will want or shoot, people are still buying them and shooting them. And if there were more readily available options for feeding them, that usage and demand would probably even grow.

Be careful with those shells on a sub-freezing day. I've heard a lot of them that sounded very "poofy" in cold weather.