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

Loading data for top gun

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by Terminator, Mar 28, 2009.

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

    Terminator TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    89
    Can I use the same loading data for top gun hulls as I use for gold medal hulls?
    My current load is 209A federal primer, 18 gr of red dot 11/8 oz of shot and a federal 12o3 wad.
     
  2. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,649
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    The differences would be minute if any. There are loads on Alliant's website.

    The fiber base wad makes a slight difference, but I ignore that. I have used the load you list. In a Gold Medal this is 1145 FPS per the website, and medium low (8800)pressure.

    HM
     
  3. jbohio

    jbohio Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    43
    your top gun load will be slower .
     
  4. grnberetcj

    grnberetcj Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,680
    Top Guns, Estates and the Walmart MP's load just fine. I've reloaded approx. 10K of them without any problems.

    Curt
     
  5. dbart1948

    dbart1948 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    94
    RE: Regarding Top Guns & Estates. These empty hulls are plentiful, and I am thinking about reloading them.

    Q1. What receipes do you use to reload them?
    Q2. Is there any published data concerning the reloading of these shells, and if so where is this data located?

    Thanks

    Dave
     
  6. Old Cowboy

    Old Cowboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,988
    Federal "Paper" data will get you closer than Federal "Gold Medal" data
     
  7. Shooting Coach

    Shooting Coach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,358
    Location:
    Nashville Tn
    I will scarf up Top Gun hulls whenever possible and load them twice. LUV 'EM.

    They do seem to be similar to GM Papers.
     
  8. grunt

    grunt TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,924
    Location:
    Thousand Oaks Ca
    Awhile back I e-mailed Alliant and ask the same question. I was told to use the GM data. Ive loaded many of these Topgun hulls and havent had any problems. I like the 700x powder in them with 12so wad.
     
  9. Recoil Sissy

    Recoil Sissy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,651
    Terminator:

    I've loaded Top Guns using Alliant's published data for more than twenty years. I'm not sure why Alliant dropped much of that data from their current online (and hard copy) Reloader's Guide but they did.

    Following is some of that previously published data. This particular recipe is a low pressure 1145 fps load.

    Top Gun hull

    1 1/8 oz. shot

    18.5 grains Red Dot

    Federal 12S3 wad (or clone)

    Federal 209A, or Winchester 209, or Remington 209P primer

    sissy
     
  10. Quack Shot

    Quack Shot Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,003
    Federal 12S0 wad for 1oz and 12S3 for 1 1/8. 18.3 grains of Red Dot/Promo will get you 1200 fps with the one ounce using the Federal 209A primer. 18.7 grains of Red Dot/Promo will do 1200 fps for the 12S3 and 1 1/8 oz of shot. Same primer. The Rio primer can be used on the second loading to help cut down on gas leakage around the primer. I toss the hulls after two loadings. The Rio primer will enlarge the primer pocket, so you can't go back to a standard 209 after using them in a hull. These loads will function a gaspipe quite well.

    The Clones of the Federal wads work pretty well too. The Downrange copy of the 12S3 is decent, but they do not make a direct copy of the 12S0. For that one, the Claybuster clone is OK. I don't use a wad intended for a tapered hull such as the STS or Win AA, since they aren't a great fit in a large straight tube hull like the Federals. Claybuster also makes a generic pair of economy wads (CB6100-12/CB6118-12) for the straight tube hull. There isn't too much data for them, but I would think the loads I listed for the Federal wads would work as a starting point. Contact Claybusters for more info and mash the link I put at the top of the thread. They have some data linked to that page if you look for it.
     
  11. Terminator

    Terminator TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    89
    Just a note to thank all who responded. Your info is greatly appreciated, Thank you all.
     
  12. fritzi93

    fritzi93 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    321
    I used to load them with Red Dot and Claybuster 12S3 clones using data from an older Hercules reloaders' guide. There was a good deal of data in older manuals for Federal Hi-Power (fiber basewad), which is what these hulls are. Gold Medal data was/is (?) very close but not identical.

    [EDIT] What the hell, I dug out the guide, it's from 1992. Here's the load:

    Primer: Fed209; Wad: 12S3; Powder: Red Dot 19.0 grains; 1 1/8 oz. shot

    Listed pressure is 9,300 psi; Speed: 3 dram equiv.
     
  13. Recoil Sissy

    Recoil Sissy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,651
    Terminator and all:

    Note that the load just added by fritzi93 calls for the original Federal 209 primer. For those who might not be aware, the out of production Fed 209 and the current Fed 209A primer are NOT interchangable. Federal specifically says the two can't be loaded the same.

    Notice also that the addition of a mere 1/2 grain of Red Dot (increased from 18.5 to 19 grains) jumps the velocity from 1145 to 1200 fps. Using the Fed 209A it also jumps the chamber pressure by 2000 psi from 7300 to 9300 psi. For some reloaders a half grain powder spread (plus or minus 0.25 grs.) from shell to shell is NORMAL.

    The Top Gun hull loaded with Red Dot is also an interesting example of what can happen when different primers are substituted in a load where nothing else is changed.

    18.5 grains of Red Dot in a Top Gun hull with a 12S3 wad and 1 1/8 oz. of shot and any one of several different primers results in an 1145 fps load. It's the variation in chamber pressure that's really interesting.

    Fed 209A = 7300 psi

    Rem 209P = 8400 psi

    Win 209 = 9100 psi

    These pressures are all well below the SAAMI maximum but notice that the 'hottest' primer of the group (the Fed 209A) produces the lowest chamber pressure. So low in fact, it may not reliably cycle a Remington 1100/1187, a Super X, or the various Beretta automaybees.

    What you are looking at is compelling evidence of three safety critical issues.

    1. Small variations can (and do) result in significant changes in ballistics including psi.

    2. Substituting components (including but not limited to primers) can and does result in significant chamber pressure increases.

    3. Substitution of components can and sometimes does result in unexpected and unpredictable results.

    So... for those who insist on loading self generated untested b@stard loads, carry on at your own risk. Please have the decency to let others in the area know so we can take cover.

    sissy
     
  14. fritzi93

    fritzi93 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    321
    No need to get excited. I just checked the 1995 manual, the load is precisely the *SAME* with the Fed209A instead of the Fed209.

    The 2 3/4 Dram Equivalent load is also precisely the same as in the 1992 manual: speed, pressure, everything. Here:

    Fed209A; 18.5 grains Red Dot; 12S3 wad; 1 1/8 oz. shot. Pressure 7,300 psi. (This load is bound to be dirty due to incomplete combustion.)

    It is interesting that a half grain of Red Dot increases the pressure by 2,000. Just goes to show that it's very hazardous to extrapolate from the tables.

    I suspect that Hercules may have simply plugged the Fed209A into the original recipe without re-testing. If, so, it's significant that a primer substitution was not considered a change with such dire consequences as some folks seem to think. It is also significant that the pressure of the Fed209 recipe is listed as having a very moderate pressure of 9,300 psi. Personally, I would never substitute a primer if the recipe was listed as over 10,000 psi, but I will if it's less.

    [EDIT] I should add that I never make any changes or substitutions of any kind except for primer substitution for a load under 10,000 psi.
     
  15. Recoil Sissy

    Recoil Sissy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,651
    fritzi93:

    Everything you wrote (both notes) is factually accurate. I was not and did not take issue with any of it. Nor am I doing so now.

    The point of my first note was in response to Terminator for Top Gun loading data. My second note expanded on the info you offered. However, the primary point of my second note was to explain why using untested/unpublished component combinations is a BAD idea. Top Gun hulls and Red Dot powder simply provide concrete examples to explain why.

    ____________________________


    The following comments are directed at inexperienced reloaders and those who flaunt published safe loading recommendations...

    Unfortunately, some folks look at limited data and draw faulty conclusions. For example, there are recipes that will work equally well in an STS or AA hull. Another example is Federal Papers, a plastic Gold Medal and/or Top Guns. A few loads overlap. Some loaders look at limited examples like these and jump to the erroneous conclusion, "you can load AA and STS hulls just alike" or "Gold Medals/Federal Papers/Top Guns are interchangable". That simply isn't so.

    Every hull by every maker should be loaded using tested and published data for THAT specific hull. If it were safe and acceptable to load two hulls the same, publishers of data would say so. Sometimes they do. STS, NITRO 27s, and Gun Clubs are an example of that.

    When reloading, it is important to read and follow directions. As an example, the Fed 209A primer was introduced by Federal with a loaders' guide dated January 1, 1993. The first item on the first page of that manual is the following statement printed in red:

    "IMPORTANT: Use 209A Primers only with 209A handload recommnedations. Do not substitute 209A's for 209's."

    There are specific examples where either primer will work but Federal's warning against substitution is pretty clear.

    In MEC's literature, there is a statement to the effect that shells shouldn't be resized with a Supersizer after they have been loaded. Nevertheless on another thread someone was arguing why doing so should be ok.

    There's an active thread this morning started by MIA. On it someone is explaining why it shoud be ok to substitute Cheddite primers for something else in a Hodgdon powder load. Hodgdon has this to say,

    WARNING

    Ballistic data shown in this manual was obtained in Hodgdon's labratory under strictly controlled conditions. You reloads must contain the exact combination listed in this manual.

    The warning goes on to cover other specifics but nowhere does Hodgdon say it is ok to substitute Cheddite primers or ANY OTHER component in a published load.

    When someone expresses an opinion contrary to warnings like Hodgdon's, those opinions are usually based on the erroneous notion that small incremental changes result in predictable and similarly small incremental changes in ballistics. One can't count on that to be true. Indeed in the absence of tested data, one should always assume untested substitutions are NOT safe.

    My bottom line? When an industry source (powder company, wad maker, or manufacturer of reloading equipment) says "something" shouldn't be done, I don't give a rat's ass why someone on ts.c thinks that same "something" should be ok. Why would YOU?? If something were ok to do, industry sources wouldn't publish warnings to the contrary.

    Yours in safe loading.

    sissy
     
  16. fritzi93

    fritzi93 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    321
    I can appreciate not wanting to encourage anyone to "invent" shotshell loads, or to make reckless substitutions.

    On the other hand, powder companies used to publish a helluva lot more data, just about any combination one could think of that was under 11,500 psi. There's less data now for some reason and lawyerese "warnings" seem to be on the increase. Fear of lawsuits probably. Make no mistake, the purpose of court proceedings is not necessarily to find the "truth", the purpose is dispute resolution, nothing else.

    At any rate, I'll explain my reasoning for making that sole exception to the rule: no substitutions. One Winter day I went through nearly all the shotshell data I had looking for the *maximum* difference a primer substitution could make. This was for recipes identical except for the primer, just to be clear. (It was round about 1,000 psi if I recall correctly, but I no longer have the exact figure.) That's why I have no problem changing primers if the published loading is under 10,000 psi. This is not metallic cartridge reloading, which is more critical by an order of magnitude.

    No one out there should take my word for this. And the no substitution rule is a good one. But to be truthful, plenty of experienced reloaders on this forum do as I do, and for the same reasons. The subject is a hardy perennial.

    If you reload, the onus is on YOU.
     
  17. Recoil Sissy

    Recoil Sissy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,651
    fritzi:

    Those are some interesting theories you're postulating. Allow me to comment.

    1. You may be correct but it isn't at all clear, "powder companies used to publish a helluva lot more data".

    In recent years a proliferation of new powders, wads, and primers have been introduced. American Select, e3, and 20/28 are examples from Alliant. Titewad and Titegroup are examples from Hodgdon. New data has been developed and published for all of them.

    Take a quick look at Alliant's current hard copy Reloader's Guide and you will also find listings for wads from Downrange, Duster, and Claybuster. Some of those wads have been around a while but others are new in the last year or two. Separate published data for them is a recent phenomenon - as it is for Cheddite primers. I'm not sure when Fio 616 primers first appeared but they may be another example.

    The bottom line? Much of the data published for these products simply didn't exist a few years ago. So, if companies like Alliant are dropping older data as you suggest, perhaps it is to make room for new data for new products.

    2. It also isn't clear that, "lawyerese 'warnings' seem to be on the increase".

    I have guides from Hercules (now Alliant) and Du Pont (now IMR), Winchester, and Hodgdon. Some date back to the late 80's. Many others are early 90's. The precise language has changed over time but they ALL contain "lawyerese warnings". For example, the following statements appear on page 6 of the Hercules Reloader's Guide revised February 1987:

    "Some primers are more powerful than others (they produce more gas at a higher temperature). Use only the primers specified herein."

    And further down on the same page...

    "Use only the brands of powder and components shown in our tables. Do not substitute other types."

    Clearly, Hercules was concerned about substitution of primers and other components (the issue of our extended discussion) for AT LEAST 19 years ago. That isn't exactly a recent increase.

    3. You wrote, "Make no mistake, the purpose of court proceedings is not necessarily to find the "truth", the purpose is dispute resolution, nothing else."

    The issue isn't 'court proceedings'. The issue is civil liability. Now there's an example of a misnomer AND the use of mutually exclusive terms if there ever was one, but I digress...

    The one and only purpose of civil litigation is the enrichment of attorneys. Some represent plaintiffs. Others represent defendants. Some sit on a bench and are called "judge".

    4. Without exception, reputable industry sources say don't substitute components in the recipes that they publish. So with respect, I don't give a rat's ass why you think switching primers is ok under whatever circumstances you deem it to be acceptable.

    My opinion aside, if switching primers WAS an acceptable practice - in low pressure loads for example, folks like Hodgdon and Alliant wouldn't bother to list separate data for various different primers. They would save tons of paper and barrels of printers' ink by simple saying, "it's ok to use just any danged old primer with this set of components".

    Perhaps you could provide a reference for language like that - assuming you can find it in a reloading manual.

    sissy
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Search tags for this page
american select powder federal top gun shell data
,
can i use loading data for fed gold hulls on fed champion hulls
,
do federal top gun reload the same as gold medal
,

reload top guns like gold medal

,
win gun 321 1200 fps