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

Hornady 366 Vs PW

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by Grayson Mayne, Apr 26, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Grayson Mayne

    Grayson Mayne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    357
    Please contrast the pros and cons of the 366 versus the newer PW machines. I would like to hear from persons who have had both.
     
  2. skeeljc

    skeeljc Supporting Vendor Supporting Vendor

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,750
    Location:
    Terre Haute Indiana
    I have two Hornady 366's and a P/W 900 with the auto drive.

    The P/W takes a little more effort because of the long shell holding dies. The P/W does a better job of alligning the hull due to the longer shell holding dies. There is more clearance between the wad and the wad insertion ram on the P/W. The primer feed on the P/W is far superior to the 366. The 366 will put a better taper on the finished shell than the P/W. The 366 older style loaders permit the operating handle to be moved to the left side of the loader. I often switch the operating handle when my arm gets tired.

    I prefer the P/W 900 for loading sub-gauge shells. I still load my 12 gauge shells (all except Federal papers) on the Hornady 366.

    Jim Skeel
     
  3. short shucker

    short shucker TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,939
    I've never used or owned a P/W, but the 366 is a very good loader if you are smooth with your stroke. They don't operate well if you have a tendency to yank on the handle. I like them well enough to have 2.

    ss
     
  4. ML

    ML Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    113
    I own and use two 366 Hornady loaders and have a PW 800B. I have updated the PW loader with the new die removal system and one of the new priming systems. In less that a week of putting the new Gold priming system on the loader, the pin that seats the primer bent due to the fact that PW used soft steel to made the seater. I replaced the crimp starter with the new style starter and still have problems. All the time I was working on the PW, shells were being loaded on the 366 loaders. I finally decided to quit spending money on the PW and load shells on the two Hornadys.

    I want to thank Whiz White for all his help on the PW 800B. If it was not for Whiz I would have junked it a long time ago. Whiz knows more about PW loaders that the PW factory trouble shooters.

    The Hornady's just work more trouble free and load more shells for me than the PW loader.

    Regards

    M.L.
     
  5. alfermann66

    alfermann66 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    852
    Grayson, in reality there is no comparison. Which to buy is another matter. In 35 years I've loaded 25k rds per year on my 800B and only replaced the wad guide a few times, but if your requirements are significantly less the 366 is an adequate loader for considerably less money.

    Buz
     
  6. Unknown1

    Unknown1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    3,402
    As much as I hate to say it, any loader that supports the primer hole from the inside while pushing the hull down on to the primer has the advantage over the P-W in this area.

    The P-W design for primer insertion is dated back to the days when hull bases were all soft brass and there were only two primers to choose from. The P-W is simply not good at fully seating all primers in all hulls because of the way it doesn't support the primer hole during that process.

    MK
     
  7. JTEA

    JTEA Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    367
    Location:
    So. East corner PA
    A 366 runs well, but is not as smooth or quick. I find it good for short or quirky runs, easy to take shells out, make corrections. Good for making a small run of hunting loads.

    The 800 and 900 PW's run like clockwork once they are set up. Expect to run at least 500 - 1000 without a single poor crimp, primer problem etc. If you have the full length dies they do a great job with the crimp / taper.

    If your primer seat in a PW is properly set, the primers are set perfectly. I run Gun Clubs for singles and STS's for HCP's. Less the slight abrasion to the hull from the first firing, they are identical to the factory loads.

    JT
     
  8. skeeljc

    skeeljc Supporting Vendor Supporting Vendor

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,750
    Location:
    Terre Haute Indiana
    I will have to agree with "Unknown1" about primer seating on the P/W. If you do not get the hull insertion (station 1) set right you will forever be fighting the primer depth. If everythin is set properly the P/W will do a good job seating primers.

    I have a spring on the primer seating ram on my 366's. This assures that each primer is fully seated in the hull. I will give the Hornady 366 the advantage on primer seating.

    Jim Skeel
     
  9. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    I have owned both a 366 and a PW. Both machines will do a good job, but in my opinion the PW is a much superior machine. I was not unhappy with my 366 but I am much happier with my PW. Which machine is best is very much like asking which trap gun is best.

    Pat Ireland
     
  10. sasquach

    sasquach Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    291
    I started loading with a 366 and used it for a couple years. Got a chance to buy a PW 950 Elite and thought I was moving up. It worked alright for a while but I noticed right away that I could load faster on the 366 than the PW because of having to pause betwee each stroke of the handle to in sert either a wad or a hull. The 366 allows you to put on both at the same time. I never used the PW crimp starter as the guy I bought it from had had issues with it and adapted a MEC crimp starter, which worked fine. I agree with the above poster about shoving the primer into the hull verses pushing the hull over the primer. I'll bet all the uproar over loose base wads a while back was because of this. The PW will load good shells but is over complicated. When you have trouble with it, and you will, get your pocket book out. You can't even buy parts for some of the older ones. Whiz White is a fine fellow and knows a lot about PW loaders and has made some improved parts to address some of their problems but even he has some issues with them. When ordering parts for the 366, they never told me "oh, that was designed to break". Shear pins are desigtned to break, not linkage. In short, the PW is a fancier looking machine, but the old 366 is kind of like the bunny with the drum. They just keep going and going and going---------- Allen
     
  11. thunder

    thunder Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    716
    Location:
    wisconsin
    I have owned two 366 and 1 new PW800 plus. I thought the 366 was smoother and lots easier to reload. Also the 366's loaded faster and with less effort, with a lot less problems than my 800 plus. Also the PW leaks PB powder into the timing gears, had to clean it every thousand rounds or so. Why PW used a plastic cover over the gears is beyond me, they warp and its not due to the o rings (which I replaced many times). If I still owned the PW, I would buy the machined aluminium cover from Jim Skeel and then maybe it might work okay with the PB powder. Another item you should add with the PW is the shovel handle, it makes loading with the PW a little easier and gives more leverage which it needs. The primer system on the 366 is probably the most fool proof and easiest to use on any reloader. The 366 is easier and lots cheaper to maintain, also the factory support is one of the best at Hornady.

    Both reloader's will load very good ammo. I have sold both 366's and wish I still had one of them, sold the PW and glad it is gone. Between the two loaders the 366 is a far better machine. Just my opinion.

    Currently I use a Mec 9000H and the Dillion 9000. Both of these companies offer fantastic customer support.
     
  12. wolfram

    wolfram Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,263
    I have two 366 loaders and use to have a PW800B. I never really got the hang of operating the PW, and that is probably because I had so much time on one of the 366 loaders before I tried the PW.

    As far as materials and machining, the PW is the better tool. For simplicity of operation the 366 is better (IMO). Both machines make good ammo in quantity.

    If for some reason I think I need yet another loader it will probably be a 366 unless I get really brave and decide to spring for a Spolar.
     
  13. himark

    himark Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,427
    Location:
    LINCOLN NEBRASKA
    Ran them both. I loaded thousands with a 366 but I got tired of pulling the handle so made the 366 into a hydraulic. That worked fine but the 366 wouldnt hold up to the hydraulics. Get a bb in wrong spot and the table paw would instantly bend. Pros- hornady is by FAR a superior warranty/parts company. BUT, with this said they have alot deeper pockets than PW and can afford to be.

    As for PW, I am running a 950 elite and after the cross handed learning curve I have it set and its dialed in. I have it running hydraulics also (air/hydraulic) and just last night my 13 year old cranked out 885 flawless shells without one problem. He has loaded 6000 shells in the last 2 months and has never ran a loader until that one. He runs right through them and shells look great.
     
  14. wm rike

    wm rike Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    594
    My 800+ requires a higher degree of effort, but everything works, all the time. Shells don't wobble in the turret so alignment at each station is great. I would call it my go-to loader. My 366 is an older Pacific in 20 ga. I bought used. Right up front, I'll say that I think smaller gauges are a little more finicky, so it's not a pure apples-to-apples comparison. I love the low effort required of the 366 and in that regard it is fast. However, primer drop is not as reliable and alignment (shell to drop-tube(s) or wad) is not as precise. Shells are not supposed to be removable at stations as is the case with the 800+. I engineered a slightly longer center bolt that allows me to put a spring under the top bolt so that the plate is held down by spring pressure and can be lifted for easy shell removal.
     
  15. WNCRob

    WNCRob Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    594
    I have had a PW 800B for about 3 years. Generally,I'm quite happy with the machine, except for primer seating, particularly with Gun Clubs. About 1 in 6-8 fails to fully seat, using Winchester 209's Cheddites, etc. Brass-based hulls (e.g. AA's or STS's) work better..but not perfect. I've adjusted everything properly (I think), but this seems to be a characteristic of this reloader.
    Question: Is this the only reloader that doesn't support the base when the primer is being inserted? Are some reloaders better at this than others?
    Its frustrating.

    Thanks.

    WNCRob
     
  16. Grayson Mayne

    Grayson Mayne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    357
    My thanks to all those who responded in a reasoned and insightful manner. At one time or another I have had everything including a hydraulic Spolar. The one recurring statement is that the 366 is simple. I think that I will try one. I am not a good with problems. I just want to start with a big hammer.
     
  17. 64special

    64special TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2010
    Messages:
    10
    owned a 366 and a 900 p/w sold my 366 don't miss it. Never liked their shell advanceing system. My votes for p/w but I agree with Pat's thread Its all in what you like!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Search tags for this page

loading federal papers on a hornady 366

,

problem with hornady 366 primer insertion