S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,579
Posts546,660
Members14,425
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 356 Likes: 34
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 356 Likes: 34 |
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.
Last edited by Chantry; 10/04/20 06:50 PM.
I have become addicted to English hammered shotguns to the detriment of my wallet.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,151 Likes: 208
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,151 Likes: 208 |
Answer: It is hard to blow up a good gun if loads are sensible. Don't overthink. End of story.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 213 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 213 Likes: 3 |
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.
"Every one must believe in something, I believe I'll go hunting today."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,203 Likes: 1178
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,203 Likes: 1178 |
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.
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,790 Likes: 444
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,790 Likes: 444 |
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.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,189 Likes: 18
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,189 Likes: 18 |
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.
Last edited by tw; 10/03/20 07:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 603
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 603 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,091 Likes: 486
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,091 Likes: 486 |
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
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,790 Likes: 444
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,790 Likes: 444 |
How many of you have every load tested, and what is the cost?
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,203 Likes: 1178
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,203 Likes: 1178 |
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
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
|