doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Reloading Question

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?