I've been looking for information on loading smokeless power with fibre wads and it seems few and far between. I'm wondering if I could use fibre wads instead of plastic wads for any reload recipe. Given pressure from a fibre wad is less than plastic, all things otherwise equal, if I choose a recipe with plastic that was within the pressure range I am looking for would I be safe to say if I exchanged it for fibre the pressure would be somewhat less and still safe to shoot?

After spending much of this year learning to load fiber wads, the answer is no. We speak about fiber as if it it is all the same, and the only thing that matters is "fiber". That is not how it works. For example, I created one load that reached 18kpsi using fiber and a reasonable amount of Red Dot.

I concur that the answer is NO, you cannot simply swap fiber wad in lieu of plastic proscribe by the tested data. As the previous poster points out there are more factors at play and your swap could create the same, higher, or even pressures so low the load becomes a blooper.

Variations from tested data are possible, but they require some experience and specific knowledge.

This is interesting. Fibre wads seem less tight than plastic are more frangible so it would appear they have less resistance to sliding out of a shell. Also I have read ‘somewhere’ that fibre wads produce less pressure than plastic. What part am I not understanding ?

I’ve been loading 2.5 inch shells using 3.5 dram black powder with 1 oz shot and fibre wads for years. I’ve never measured the fps or had pressure tested but all seems okay on my guns. Now trying to experiment with smokeless powder.

On another note I know how to experiment with rifle loads and what to look for in pressure and fps. Is there not something to also look for with shotshell instead of sending them off for pressure testing?

Fiber wads are all different and it matters with respect to how well it seals the chamber. They can produce more pressure or less pressure depending on how they are made, whether they are lubed, what sort of lube is done, and all the different options for nitro cards and so forth. There is a whole lot more to worry about than just fiber vs. plastic.

As for testing, something that Tom Armbrust will tell you but Precision Reloading will not, is that the test chamber is really critical, esp with fiber loads. Precision Reloading uses 3" chambers in their 12 gauge test gun. With fiber wads, the data they produce is nothing like what you will see in your shorter chamber. In my case, 2" chambers are almost unbelievably different that 3" chambers so far as velocities produced and (presumably) pressures.

I've been told countless times that you cannot read pressure warnings from spent hulls. Loose or flatten primers mean nothing, nor are there other symptoms of being near the ragged edge of safety. So, it would be best to develop a protocol of how you are going to select starting loads, test them yourself for velocity, and then winnow down the possibilities to a somewhat large set that you will eventually send off to a testing facility.

If you are loading for short shells like 2.5s and 2" 12s, I would talk with Bruce Ducksworth in Mt. Vernon, GA first. He actually tests with short chambers (I think, but am not certain, he has a 2.5" 12b test gun). When you go with fiber, chamber length is critical. I can provide his phone and email. He is a really nice guy that will promptly test your loads for $7/shot (he likes batches of 6 per recipe).

I would like to also load fiber wad ammo for my 2.75" guns, but the amount of information out there is just short of terrible and a lot of what there is, is just bad. After investing over $500 in testing, I learned a lot, and I have good, safe loads for my 2" 12b. I'm sure I could find good loads for the other guns much easier now, but even so, I'm reluctant to take the plunge. It's a good bit of work.

In my late high school and early college days when we were loading Federal paper hulls, the trap load from the Lyman manual was 23-grains of Red Dot a nitro card & two 3/8-inch fiber wads with 1 1/8-ounce of shot. When we replaced the nitro card with the Alcan Plastic Gas Seal (PGS) we dropped the powder charge to 19- or 20-grains of Red Dot.

Reversing this from plastic to fiber and guessing you need another 3-4 grs of RD is where you can get into seriously huge trouble.

In developing 2" 12 ga. loads with all fiber and nitro cards and no plastic, we relied on pertinent information contained in Lyman's reloading manual from 1953. What was important then is important now. The fiber wad seating pressures on the powders listed (only Red Dot is available now) was surprising--up to 70 lbs. We were on a desert island regarding 2" shells--other than 2 higher pressure (8400 psi) loads at Hodgdon's site, no published data in the pressure ranges desired for our old guns. Gil

n working up and testing loads for a 2" gun I also learned quite a bit about fiber loading of shotshells. Also I came upon an interesting paragraph in the Chapter "Unraveling Rivelling" in the book Shotgun Technicana by Michael McIntosh and David Trevallion: "We also have a notion that rivelling is more likely to occur from cartridges with fiber wads than with polyethylene wads, simply because fiber is capable of setting up more friction than the slicker, smoother plastic.(This isn't to say you should avoid fiber wads, but we do recommend that you be extra diligent about keeping your bores clean if you shoot them.)

Can you explain what rivelling is? I thought you meant wrinkling the cartridge walls, which I have not had happen with fiber wads thought it does happen with plastic. But a clean bore would have nothing to do with that, so apparently I do not understand rivelling.

Washboarding the barrel metal in one or various degrees. I don't think I've actually seen it or at at least never noticed it. So I'm not so sure it's relevent to todays guns and steels. Though for thin walled S&S's maybe so.

Thanks. I was just reading through an older thread on the subject. It is news to me.

I'll send you a PM on 2" loads.

On many a gun that has had the barrels reamed I have clearly seen what might be described as washboarding. I don't notice any difference in felt recoil or fps from my loads compared to other guns without washboarding.

I am wondering show important is a gas seal when using fibre wads? I have never used them and always use a lubed fibre wad. I know my fps are always around 1200 fps but no idea what they might be using a gas seal. I also note that I have never been able to pick up an intact fibre wad after firing a load. They are usually split in many pieces or disintegrated.

I cut the cups off of some WAA style wads and used them over the powder with a fiber cushion. There was pretty strong increases in velocity and pressure. But these were 2" loads in 3" chambers, so that data may not transfer particularly well.

I will share this from my own observations and findings, all empirical and no lab testing. I did as the OP mentioned, substituting some assorted 'fiber' wads from earlier times using load data that was published as quite safe in the original CFAA 12 ga. hulls [LUP was the pressure units used specified on some and psi on others and some were just published by the powder or wad maker(s) w/o pressure data] and quickly noticed that the hull length was stretched considerably after firing and also that the crimp folds were ironed out and disappeared! Had similar results w/several types of card & fiber wads, inclusive of Alcan's in several iterations, Federal, Winchester, &c. The worst offender was the Ljutic Mono Wads, which surprised me.

I also had similar results in some plastic 28 ga. hulls, most notably Remington's with the Riefenhouser(sp?) hulls that I had a lot of at that time, though it would tear the hull's mouth off altogether at times.

After giving it some consideration, I concluded that the pressures had to be much higher w/those fiber wads than plastic ones and in looking a bit at the fired hulls and cutting numbers of them apart, it is apparent that the inside of a previously fired plastic hull is considerably rougher than it was when new and smooth, so further concluded that the fiber wad is being compressed into that 'rough' surface, perhaps even before it gets moving good and that's what causes the hulls stretching and probably is also increasing pressures dramatically, though I never sent any to be tested. What I did was to stop the practice and use tested plastic wads in plastic hulls and load the fiber wads only in paper hulls. Paper hulls tubes remain smooth on their insides after firing and only experience burn through at the juncture with the brass after some firings. Have not experienced a problem of stretched hulls or ironed out crimps since.

Doubt it would happen with using a fiber/card wad in a new plastic hull for one-time use. Never noticed a fired RST card wad round loaded in a plastic hull to have stretched after firing. Others here could speak to that issue when using other brands of ammunition loaded in plastic hulls w/card &/or fiber wads.
--

Different FWIW, issue encountered several years ago was with some older AA12 wads that had become brittle in their original packaging. The wad fingers would snap off if tested by hand. I was scoring very poorly with them even tho they 'sounded' normal. Went to the grease plate and discovered that they were apparently shattering and turning into molten plastic by the burning powder that was blown up into the shot and leaving the bbl. as a semi-solid projectile, much like the old classic 'whistler' one sometimes got from a paper hull loaded too many times w/with too many pin holes in it and everything from the brass head forward went out the bbl. usually making a whistling noise when it did so. Solution to that issue is to put any wads whose petals are brittle in the trash and do not load them.

I can corroborate that. My experience was with the WAAF114 and a Winchester Ball Powder. The wads were about 10 years old and looked and felt fine. They left melted plastic in the bore. I've used Claybuster and Remington wads twice that age with no such issues.

I don't load fiber wads as I have no application for them. This thread is however interesting.

I wonder how much the crush section or lack thereof plays a part. Seems like gas sealing might be only a part of it.

I don't know the validity or accuracy of testing 50-60 years ago but I have been using the MEC data and old reloading manuals from that period for all my Fiber Wad loads ever since.

It has been shown time and time again that fiber wads produce less pressure and more often less velocity with the same powder charge than their plastic counterparts. From years of testing and experience, I generally shoot plastic wads thru all of my guns including black powder loads because they simply pattern and perform better. Yes, there is some plastic fouling with black powder but that can be cleaned up with no problem.

I too have had old plastic wads to become brittle and "rotten", when in the original plastic bags. No particular brand is suspect.

With fiber wads I was able to obtain consistent velocities due to seating the wads with at least 60 lbs. pressure. I concluded that it wasn't powder compaction, but the downward pressure on the wad causing it to bulge against the walls of the hull effecting a more consistent seal against the gases bypassing the wad. I also used honey bee wax to coat one of two nitro cards used in my recipe for 2" 12 ga. loads. While the the velocities were consistent for my purposes they weren't as consistent as plastic wads. The old rule of thumb regarding switching from plastic to fiber was that 10-15% more powder was needed to offset the relative inefficiency of fiber compared with plastic. Gil

Gil's advice on wad pressures greatly helped me develop consistent loads, but there are other things that can happen with fiber wads that might surprise you. The idea that you can add a few extra grains and substitute just any old fiber for plastic is really misleading and potentially dangerous.

For example, here are two loads, but using 21 grs of American Select, and identical shot loads (7/8 oz), and hulls, but different fiber wads tested on the same day by Precision Reloading.

fps pressure
1292 8820
1320 10410
1344 12140
1356 12060
1368 1140

The second load
1312 9170
1423 18080
1339 12850
1373 13230
1369 12950

The second load is well over SAAMI and not the sort of thing you would want to stick in an English 2" gun. The first load is too hot as well, but not nearly like the second.

Also, these were shot in a 3" test gun. Another no-no for really learning what a 2" fiber wad load will do.