Could someone tell me the oven temperature and length of time to recondition the wax finish on the paper hulls. I can't seem to find it with the search feature, too many threads. Thank you

Randy, MY OPINION HERE
In the OLD days hulls had a wax finish
In these days, the hulls no longer have the wax finish

Even though I have hull heaters with bees wax reservoirs,
I never use them for today's hulls

BUT here is the answer you wanted
http://www.trapshooters.com/threads/recondition-paper-shells.158803/

Mike

I used to shoot Federal T122s (fiber wadded) for competition at International Skeet, but always threw out the fired hulls, and used reloaded AAs or RXPs for practice. To my mind the paper hulls had too short a "life" to be worth reloading. I do now get some paper hull shells from RST.

The current production Federal paper hulls seem to have less wax in them than those made10-20 years ago. They still last one or two reloads. I was lucky to lay in a lifetimes supply of the old ones. I like them for several reasons. Pressures can be kept very low in them with the right load combo. Paper if lost in the field is mostly gone in a year. Paper hulls just smell right after firing them. They are easy on my shoulder and gun. Plus I know that any Federal paper reload is a low pressure load because that is the only thing I load in them, 5-6,000 psi max. Safe for almost every gun I shoot.

I use 18 grains of red dot and 1 ounce of shot, very nice to shoot and smells right! Same load in a STS or AA has a much sharper recoil feel.

bill

I use 18 grains of red dot and 1 ounce of shot, very nice to shoot and smells right! Same load in a STS or AA has a much sharper recoil feel.

bill

Unless they have picked up a good amount of moisture, there's no need to subject them to the oven. Obviously, the swelling is keyed to the amount of moisture they have been exposed to. It's a spectrum of gray and there is a point of swelling beyond which they cannot be brought back to proper dimensions. I generally discard them if the swelling is in any way visible, like spilling out over the brass head.

If the hulls still look good (some degree of shine and no holes), but are sticky in the reloading dies, 150 degrees for no more than a half hour should be sufficient.

Thank you, the link is what I was looking for. I happen to have paper holes from the 60s and 70s that I would like to use for Low-pressure loads and black powder.

I use 19.5 Green Dot x 1 oz shot in my Fed paper and love it in my old Side x Sides. I get about 3-4 loadings from them.
ABOUT 1160 FT/SEC AND LESS THAN 7M PSI

You will get much better hull life if you avoid black powder. If you want a "period Correct" load use Unique which is virtually the same powder as Infallible powder developed by Lafflin & Rand at the end of the 1800's and the name changed to Unique after DuPont acquired Lafflin and Rand.

The name Infallible stayed long after Hercules took over the double base powders from DuPont. A Lyman loading handbook from 1950 lists Infallible for shotshells & Unique only in pistol, revolver & reduced rifle loads. It has always though been my understanding they were identical powders & the Lyman 55 powder measure charts list the same setting for both for identical weights.

Miller from Klaus Neuschafers history of Laflin and Rand " Laflin and Rand developed there smokeless shotgun powder in 1898 and named it Infallible. In 1907 DuPont bought out Laflin and Rand and continued making Infallible until 1912 when the US Government caused DuPont to break up it's monopoly on the Powder companies and transferred rights to Infallible to Hercules Powder Company which continued to produce Infallible in canister grade until 1937 and beyond for ammunition manufacturers. At some point Hercules was also producing Infallible and marketing it as Unique.

If you are interested here is a link to the Laflin and Rand history: http://www.castpics.net/subsite2/GeneralReference/L&R-Smokeless.pdf

TwiceBarrel;
Thanks so much for that link, very interesting & informative. I did not know all these dates, but new that powder was sold under the Infallible name long after Dupont bought Laflin & Rand & in fact long after it became a part of Hercules.
Also I have finally learned the actual difference between Infallible & Unique. I had always felt there was some small difference, but didn't know just what. Seems their formulations are identical but Infallible is in the form of little round discs of .065" diam by .006" thick with Unique being the same .065" Diam but .008" thick. This would make the Infallible slightly faster burning due to more exposed surface area. This would also explain why it was better suited for a 3DE-1oz load in 12ga than was Unique. To put up this light load in the older paper case with card & filler wadding required a very heavy pressure be applied, around 100 lbs, to ensure adequate ignition. Bullseye it seems has the exact same composition but is in .038" x .003" disc so much faster burning.

There are many low pressure loads with nitro powders. BP will burn through quicker, but they're only good for a couple of reloads anyways so use the BP if you like it better.