1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

AA-HS Generations Help, please.

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by straightshooter1, Jul 9, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. straightshooter1

    straightshooter1 Well-Known Member TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,934
    I was shooting yesterday when I noticed that the Winchester shells I was using (which I "thought" I had purchased at Dicks about two years ago) all had the box around the AA. Further examination, revealed that another flat I'd shot the day before (and which I again "thought" I'd purchased at Dick's about two years ago) had just the AA-no box, no line beneath the AA.

    Neither were marked with the HS.

    I know the AA, no HS, box around the AA, is the first generation of HS hulls. I believe the AA, no HS, no box or line is sometimes called the second generation though some may claim the only difference is the marking on the hull.

    I know that later generations had the base wad locked in and that it is generally assumed that if the hull is marked with the HS, that there are no base wad migration issues. The current generation is marked HS and has the AA underlined.

    I know that the alleged base wad migration was all or almost all with the hulls marked AA with the box around the AA and no HS.

    Here's my questions.

    1. Am I correct in what I said above?

    2. Were there allegedly base wad migration issues with all generations of AA-HS hulls BEFORE they started marking the hulls with the HS? Both the boxed AAs and the plain AAs?

    I say "allegedly" because I know some say there never was any migration issue and I don't know myself. All I know is that I want to mark the hulls which had the alleged migration issues so I don't forget to look down the barrel after firing and find myself "allegedly" wearing part of my barrel on the next shot.

    Bob
     
  2. goatskin

    goatskin TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,781
    I don't know the iterations and generations, but, AFAIK, you are correct, that the only reports of wad migration have been from the _RED_ boxed AA.

    This was a recurring topic on SGW (but not so much these days), and it may/may not be worth your time to trawl the archives in the reloading forum there.

    Winchester corrected the 'problem' pretty quickly, with the barbed basewad, but I don't think they ever have commented abt the 'problem.'

    Bob
     
  3. FLIP

    FLIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    684
    yes the old ones moved
     
  4. Unknown1

    Unknown1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    3,402
    Speculation was that the base wad migration issue was a result of the brand of presses being used to reload the hulls and not a problem with the hulls. There were never any reports (that I am aware of) of base wads migrating in never-fired factory shells and the reports of migrating wads seemed to come from users of P-W and Spolar presses that did not support the base wad from the inside of the hull while pressing the primer into place. I found at least 6 migrated base wads just in what I reloaded while friends who used Mec presses never found any, and their sampling of reloaded hulls was 4 or 5 times the number of mine. Indications seemed to point to the wads being moved upward during primer insertion which allowed them to migrate even further up the hull as it was fired.

    I'd also comment that the "barbed" wads appeared in AA hulls some time before the "HS" head stamp did. I found them in hulls stamped "12 ga." in 1 oz., 1 1/8 oz and "low recoil" flavors months before I found them in "HS" hulls. It would only make sense for Winchester to begin using the revised wad as soon as it became available and while they were working through their inventory of hull bases.

    Keller
     
  5. DanLee

    DanLee Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    Messages:
    185
    And Winchester could have avoided the whole problem by sticking with one-piece hulls.
     
  6. Unknown1

    Unknown1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    3,402
    <blockquote><I>"And Winchester could have avoided the whole problem by sticking with one-piece hulls."</I></blockquote>They could have, but the tooling for the compression-formed hulls was flat worn out and Winchester was faced with 2 choices:<UL><li>replace the CF machinery with expensive custom built equipment, or<LI>convert to the more-readily-available straight-tube-and-separate-tapered-basewad production equipment</UL>They chose the latter for obvious economic reasons.

    I figure you can expect Remington to make the same choice when their production equipment needs to be replaced.

    Keller
     
  7. Pull & Mark

    Pull & Mark Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,419
    Bob, Only problem with them seperating that "I" have heard about is only the lst generation with the box around the AA. As mentioned there seems to be no problems with reloaders who use a Mec reloader or any reloader that pushes the inside of the hull down onto the primer. Now If you are still going to worry about wads seperating from the shell and getting logged into your barrel??? I say just toss them out and forget about it. Buy some new ones and get your 2 dollars back from Win. and go with the newer ones so you don't have to worry about it (Don't buy from that Dicks). Life's to short to have to worry about your shells!!! Good Luck and break em all. Jeff
     
  8. straightshooter1

    straightshooter1 Well-Known Member TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,934
    Thanks Jeff and the rest of you who responded.

    Here's all I have been able to find out. The hulls with base wads migrating upwards were all the ones with the box around the AA.

    There are some posts where there is a claim that some of the plain AA marked hulls-no box, and no line, had base wads that may have migrated. BUT-all of those were cases of "Someone said" or "I heard." I couldn't find a post where someone said "they saw..." with respect to the plain AAs.

    No one said there were any base wad migration problems with any hulls marked HS.

    I simply marked the base of all the boxed AAs and plain AAs after I reloaded them so I will remember to down the barrel after I shoot them.

    As to Dicks, once in a blue moon they have decent prices on shells and I purchased several flats a couple of years ago when they had a good sale. But, these AAs are, I think, too old to be part of the ones I got then and I must have gotten them much earlier.

    Bob
     
  9. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,539
    Location:
    Oxford MA
    "Speculation was that the base wad migration issue was a result of the brand of presses being used to reload the hulls and not a problem with the hulls."

    Lets see it would seem that this statement and others like it, Have explained the problem. Yet as far as anyone should be concerned there is no way a base wad should migrate. It doesn't matter for what reason or what machine is being used. The base wads never should have been able to move for any reason,

    The base wad problem in AA's happened for "economic reasons". In other words the shooter safety is not as important as the company's profits. That is what the "economic reasons" are profit. That is one reason I will never reload or shoot AA's again. JMO

    Bob Lawless
     
  10. Unknown1

    Unknown1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    3,402
    <blockquote><I>"...Yet as far as anyone should be concerned there is no way a base wad should migrate. It doesn't matter for what reason or what machine is being used. The base wads never should have been able to move for any reason..."</I></blockquote>Lawless, you're right... from a technical perspective.

    But Winchester is not building hulls to reload although they may be building hulls that can be reloaded if someone is inclined to do so. As far as Winchester needs to be concerned, they have constructed a hull that fires safely the way they made it. After that, it's out of their hands what happens to the hull or how the buyer uses it after shooting it once.

    I'd consider any of their efforts to secure the wad in place as a marketing decision and not one to address liability concerns.

    Keller
     
  11. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,539
    Location:
    Oxford MA
    So you feel that building an inferior hull that is in your own words, is exceptable. In my opinion it is not and there is no excuse for the poor quality.

    "Winchester is not building hulls to reload" tell us all are they charging less money for these hulls that are in my opinion not for reloading. They may be a little cheaper in price (I don't know as I wouldn't buy them anyway) they are definitely cheaper in design.

    Keller you can say as you please it is your right. By the same token it is the person who asked the question right to all the information. I expressed it as my opinion if he chooses to ignore it that is his business also.

    Again in my opinion any hull that starts out as more than one piece can become more than one piece again. A one piece hull can't.

    Bob Lawless
     
  12. Unknown1

    Unknown1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    3,402
    <blockquote><I>"So you feel that building an inferior hull that is in your own words, is exceptable."</I></Blockquote>Sorry, Bob... the hull is only "inferior" by the standards YOU have established in your opinion. The hull does exactly what it is designed to do: deliver shot to a target 1 time in a reliable manner. It has all the quality it needs to do exactly what it is designed to do...and that's not an opinion; THAT is a statement of fact. The OP has the right to that information as well.

    Keller
     
  13. DanLee

    DanLee Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    Messages:
    185
    UK1, after your comments on the reliability (or legal liability) of Winchester's new type hulls, do you put yourself at risk by reloading them? Or do you just shoot them straight from the factory box and dump the empties?
     
  14. scooterbum

    scooterbum Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,193
    goatskin, What do the "barbs" do?
     
  15. Unknown1

    Unknown1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    3,402
    DanLee...

    I load every HS hull I can get my hands on and do not feel I put myself at risk. When Winchester abandoned the compression-formed hull in favor of a less expensive manufacturing process, people who were used to the CF hull labeled the new hull "inferior" when the wad migration issue surfaced. I guess they felt betrayed or something. My point is that the wad does everything it was intended to do for Winchester and that's all that they're responsible for.

    The two ridges (barbs) that AA molded around the bottom of the base wad lock them into the hull well enough they're even hard to get out when you cut the hull in half lengthwise. The hulls only last about 4 reloads until either they start to blow gases around the primer, the hull splits or it develops a bulge above the brass that makes it hard to extract after firing.

    As I wrote, I found 6 migrated base wads I can remember in hulls that pre-dated those with the "barbed" base wad including 1 that was up at the bottom of the folds in the crimp when I inspected the empty hull. I found that I could tell if a base wad had migrated during loading by checking the height of the shot load in the hull as the hulls passed into view on the back side of the press.

    But I also got into the habit of checking empties with a wood dowel marked at the proper depth while I was resizing hulls on my Mec Sizesmaster. And as further protection, I checked the barrel after each shot for obstruction, an action I still faithfully adhere to with every shot I fire, AA hull or not.

    Keller
     
  16. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,539
    Location:
    Oxford MA
    "the hull is only "inferior" by the standards YOU have established in your opinion. The hull does exactly what it is designed to do: deliver shot to a target 1 time in a reliable manner."

    Standards that "I" have established??? You are kind of behind the times aren't you. Winchester set the standards many years ago when they were the first to develop a hull that was superior to others on the market. Winchester set the standard and now they can't even meet it with their junk.

    Now they have just taken a loyal customer base and thrown them the junk of the shotgun world as hulls. Yet you seem to think "I" established the standard. You sir are very much mistaken they set the standard and for many years, Remington played catch up.

    Well now the worm has turn again and Winchester is going to play catch up. The Winchester people are happy they got their higher profits. Everyone that supported them for decades by buying their shells are now getting the shaft. They would have a difficult time giving me their products. The old saying says it all. You screw me once shame on you. You screw me twice shame on me. That isn't going to happen

    So Keller lets get to the point look at the big company that sh~t all over those that are buying their products. So tell us all why do I owe them any loyalty they showed me none when they replaced the best with inferior junk. That to is my opinion. I figure if other can complain about and refuse to buy the brand of automobiles available only because some took bail out money. Then I will say what I wish about Winchester shells when they show just how little they cared about everyone's safety.

    Bob Lawless
     
  17. Unknown1

    Unknown1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    3,402
    Bob, you're obviuosly convinced that your wrath is going to have an effect on Winchester's business decisions so.... <I>WRATH ON!</i> I respect that kind of motivation!... but I expect you're gonna be one miserable boy if (when) Remington decides to go the same route when the time comes for THEM to replace their worn out CF tooling and Federal decides to switch to fiber base wads in all their shells!

    Keller
     
  18. goatskin

    goatskin TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,781
    Winchester made their reputation on their bullets, not their hulls and how reloadable they were.

    Did they sell more AA so people could reload the hulls? Sure. Did people buy fewer cases of AA b/c they could produce high-quaity reloads? Almost certainly.

    Did it matter much to Winchester that they were competing with themselves? Nah. Sales of competition bullets are less than a rounding error to the ammo makers, and market share matters more than a few incremental dollars ... AND the attendant opportunity cost of making a couple of days of AA, instead of a couple of days of high-$$ 5.53mm, 9mm, or even dove & quail bullets.

    Since most of the cost of a hull is natural gas and the amortised machinery, anyhow, I doubt there is even a percent difference in the cost of a HS and CF hull.

    FWIW, I think you would have a very difficult time making the little-gun reloaders go back to the CF hulls. The HS are a boon to them, and as Keller said, in 12ga, they reload a few times just fine.

    If you want a hull you can load 10-15-20x, buy FGM ... sheesh.

    Bob
     
  19. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,539
    Location:
    Oxford MA
    "I expect you're gonna be one miserable boy if (when) Remington decides to go the same route when the time comes for THEM to replace their worn out CF tooling and Federal decides to switch to fiber base wads in all their shells!"

    Keller by the time that happens to Remington I won't need to worry about it. I will be all done shooting due to age. As far as Federal hulls are concerned they already make fiber base wads in their hulls (topguns and economy 100 packs)Federal papers have a paper base wad. As it is they don't make a one piece hull either maybe that is why I don't load them either. So what is your point?

    You said something that I find interesting.

    "I load every HS hull I can get my hands on and do not feel I put myself at risk."

    The question isn't whether you put yourself at risk. If you do or don't is your business. The question is who might you be putting at risk. The people on the line with you don't deserve one, one hundredth of a chance that it might happen. After all they are designed to,"deliver shot to a target 1 time in a reliable manner" (your words not mine).

    Bob Lawless
     
  20. Unknown1

    Unknown1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    3,402
    <blockquote><I>"...The question isn't whether you put yourself at risk. ... The question is who might you be putting at risk. The people on the line with you don't deserve one, one hundredth of a chance that it might happen..."</I></blockquote>You're right Bob. And if you know anything about ballistics you know that the component BEHIND the powder can do nothing to create a hazard when the shell is fired. And if the barrel is checked and found clear AFTER the round is fired, there will be nothing to create a hazard for the next round. I am as comfortable about my squad mates' safety as I am about my own.

    And I promise I will never knowingly allow you to endanger yourself by shooting anywhere near me!

    Keller
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.