1 oz. load stack height | Page 2 | Trap Shooters Forum
  1. Recently members have been receiving an email about confirming their account. Do not click the link. If you have done so and entered your login information, change your password immediately, and ensure the email address on your account is correct. This is a phishing scam designed to take your login information. Details here: https://www.trapshooters.com/threads/confirmation-email-warning.694601/
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Members are required to have 50 posts before using the Classifieds Area, or PM system to contact. Any subversion of these rules will result in action taken against your account. The rules are posted here: https://www.trapshooters.com/threads/rules-for-using-the-for-sale-by-members-want-to-buy-want-to-trade-sections.265247/
    Dismiss Notice
  3. 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

1 oz. load stack height

Discussion in 'Reloading' started by Wfrost, May 12, 2020.

  1. birdk9

    birdk9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2018
    Messages:
    576
    Location:
    Iowa Transplant
    Yes the distance from the bottom of the shot cup to the bottom of the wad, The Crush Section" is primarily what drives stack height. I have not taken the time to fill each powder cup. However, a visual inspection clearly shows the top of the powder cup on the Jammer XL1 is higher than the TGT style wads. The deeper the powder cup the lower the wad can seat in the hull. The CB1100 and the Jammer have about the same height of powder cup. The Jammer cup is much more straight walled compared to the CB110 which is more tapered and rounded. I am guessing the Jammer holds more than the CB1100. The TGT wad and clones have the shortest powder cup and it is rounded but shallower than the CB100. They have the smallest capacity.
    The Jammer would sit the lowest when on the powder, and it has the shortest crush section height. In turn giving it the shortest stack height of the wads shown. The TGT wads have the shortest powder cup and a crush section equal to the CB1100 or slightly taller. They would produce the tallest stack height. The CB1100 would be somewhere in between based on the deeper powder cup but equal crush section length.
    That's the way I see it, and I could be wrong. My experience shows the TGT style wads consistently give me the best crimps with all the powders I have used. I find the TGT to be the most versatile if you will. Most of the time I never have to adjust the press when changing powders as long as I am still using a one ounce load and the TGT type wads.

    More to follow:
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2020
  2. birdk9

    birdk9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2018
    Messages:
    576
    Location:
    Iowa Transplant
    Nebs : You got me thinking and that is always "Not a Good Thing"
    Here are the facts and a few assumptions. With the help of my trusty Hornady Digital Calipers, that are accurate to .0005 of an inch, here are my less than scientific findings.
    Base Height as measured from the bottom of the shot cup, I pulled the slits to get to the base, to the bottom of the wad.
    Powder cup depth: Measured from the bottom of the wad to the flat of the shot cup. Tapered or straight wall powder cups were measured to flat portion of cup. This is as close as I could get with calipers.
    Stack height equals = Base Height - powder cup depth.
    Jammer XL1 Wads: Base Height .940 - minus cup depth .172 = Stack height: .768
    CB1100 wads: Base Height 1.040 - minus cup depth .197 = Stack height: .843
    OEM TGT12 Wads: Base Height 1.040 - minus cup depth .160 = Stack height: .880 .112 taller than Jammer
    Additional assumptions: Bigger power cups cause the wad to seat lower in the hull and take up less overall space when measuring shot, wad and powder. The CB1100 and Jammer may have powder cups of similar size when looking at the depth of the powder cups. Both will hold more powder than a TGT style. This will result in the CB1100 seating higher than the Jammer but considerably lower than the TGT.
    The TGT has the highest Stack height and will sit tallest in the hull because it will wrap the powder the least around the powder cup. Net result is it will take the most room in the hull. Best GUESS is it will be at least 1/8" taller in the hull than the Jammer wad. With bulky powders the wad will need to be crushed to get a crimp. Using dense powders the wad will give a more full hull and provide a better finish crimp.
    Once again, my disclaimer, I could be wrong. I'm sticking with TGT wads in Rem hulls though.
    Thank you COVID19 for allowing the time delve so deep into this matter.
     
  3. paul Harm

    paul Harm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2016
    Messages:
    596
    10-4 to what Nebs said - the cushion height will determine stack height and what the crimp will be. That is the simple answer.
     
    mg1polo and Nebs thanked this.
  4. pheasantmaster

    pheasantmaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,946
    Now that you've gotten the dimensional particulars, just use the TGT or clone and you'll be fine.
     
    acorange thanked this.
  5. birdk9

    birdk9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2018
    Messages:
    576
    Location:
    Iowa Transplant
    Bumped to the top for Youth Shooter - Reloader to find easier. No additional responses required.
     
    Abigaylesdad thanked this.
  6. Abigaylesdad

    Abigaylesdad Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2017
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Georgia
    Great info. Thanks birdk9.
     
  7. 1100 REMINGTON MAN

    1100 REMINGTON MAN Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,675
    Location:
    Upper Mississippi River
    image.jpeg I reload Remington STS hulls and all of these have worked well for me. I just think you need to adjust your reloader.
     
  8. birdk9

    birdk9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2018
    Messages:
    576
    Location:
    Iowa Transplant
    1100 man you are correct. All of the wads will work. I prefer to use components that make me adjust the press the least.
    Example: I can run my one ounce load in a Rem Hull with a TGT12 Wad and then switch to a Federal Gold Medal for 1-1/8 ounce using a standard 12s3 wad and Green Dot and I never have to adjust the press.
    If I adjust the press to use the XL1 wad or the AA Clone, I have to re-adjust it back to get the Federals to work. For me the TGT12 and Figure 8 style wads are the most forgiving for many different powders and I have to adjust the press the least amount when moving to a different load. It's a personal choice. Briefs or Boxers or something low cut in a fish net style.

    Break Em All.
     
    pbansen thanked this.
  9. SteveS1965

    SteveS1965 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    2,760
    i use the TGT12 wads when reloading 1 oz loads in gun club hulls and always have great looking crimps, when reloading the AA-HS hulls i use the claybuster cb1100-12 wads
     
    pbansen thanked this.
  10. Song Dog

    Song Dog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    578
    Location:
    Delmarva - Eastern Shore
    My reloading crimp problem, NOT 1 oz but 7/8's: switched after 40 + years loading 700 X to Clays, burns cleaner. Now trying to over come crimp issue too, hole in crimp and mostly shot crushed on crimp.

    Machine: MEC 9000
    Hull: old style Winchester AA (red)
    16.0 Clays
    Wad Claybuster 12SO
    7/8's of 8's

    Loaded a 100, loose about a dozen to holes in crimp or crushed shot on crimp, I have a back up MEC 9000 so switch to that machine, same problem so its NOT the machine. After reading all these posts, agree even with 7/8's OZ its a volume issue with clays and Claybuster 12SO wad. So looking @ loading manual, other choices are the Claybuster WAA12L or Claybuster TGT so while you have covered the HGT any opinions o experience on the WAA12L was solving crimp issues?
     
  11. Nebs

    Nebs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2012
    Messages:
    4,992
    Location:
    Annapolis, MD
    The problem could be the wad. The wad designed for a straight walled hull with a larger diameter over-powder cup might not be able to make its way all the way down your old-style tapered walled AA hull.
     
    mg1polo thanked this.
  12. pbansen

    pbansen TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2018
    Messages:
    349
    Location:
    Reno, Nevada
    Seems like your best bet would be the Claybuster CB-0178-12 (WAA12L clone), since it is designed for 7/8 loads in a tapered hull.

    The Claybuster TGT clone (CB8100-12), while listed as a potential 7/8 oz load wad by Claybuster, is only ever-so-slightly slightly longer than a CB1100-12: 1.75" vs. 1.716"

    Sorry I don't have any of the CB-0178 wads on hand to compare in the photograph, but here's a TGT-12 clone compared to the WAA12SL clone. Of course, you could try dropping a Cheerio in the 12S0 wad before dropping your powder, but that's a pain in the neck.

    [​IMG]

    Hope that helps a little.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2020 at 8:54 PM
    Song Dog thanked this.
  13. sandcountyalmanac

    sandcountyalmanac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2018
    Messages:
    427
    When I encountered what you have, I went to the Claybuster 4100-12B. That pretty much solved my problem. The WAASL or Claybuster CB1100-12 should be almost as good.
     
  14. Wfrost

    Wfrost Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2019
    Messages:
    15
    An update to my original post. Out of curiosity I ordered some clay buster TGT12, CB1100, and CB178 wads. I loaded some of
    Each with the same gun club hull and 18.4 gr of International and 1 oz shot. The TGT12 and CB1100 had perfect crimps, the CB178 (which is a 7/8 oz wad) had slightly convex crimps. All of which were better than the Downrange wad with the concave crimps.
    I think I am going to use the CB1100, as it is a little cheaper then the TGT12.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2020 at 11:13 PM
  15. birdk9

    birdk9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2018
    Messages:
    576
    Location:
    Iowa Transplant
    Wfrost glad to hear you found a wad that works well for you. Good news is you can use the CB1100 and then switch to the TGT12 clone but the XL1 wads will stay on the shelf until you find a hull that fits it well. I have several bags of wads with about 450 wads in them. I got tired of fighting the press and moved on to a wad the was EASIER to load. In the future you now know you can use both wads and can purchase the one that is cheapest or, and this sometimes a real key, available locally.
    For the 7/8 wads if you can get your hands on the the Down Range DRXXL-Pink wads, the are very forgiving and work with a variety of powders. The top "X" will really crush if you use big fluffy power or will stay stiff with dense powers. The photo is Clay and Field hull using Clays powder and 7/8 of shot.

    Shoot Well
    Hull 06.jpg Hull 03.jpg
     
  16. mg1polo

    mg1polo TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    6,098
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI.
    1. Looking at your photos above, I have come to a conclusion. The issue that you have is entirely to much "wad pressure".
    By utilizing a wad with a softer crush section, you've made the load work for you. I guess that's one way to skin a cat, but not acceptable to me.
    2. Where in the loading data do you see that all of those wads are interchangable?
    Each individual wad, has it's own data.
    Frankly, there your reloads. If your happy with them, that's all that really matters.
    MG
     
    pbansen and phatkaw thanked this.
  17. phatkaw

    phatkaw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    1,885
    Location:
    Western Pa
    Wowzers, looks like too much wad pressure for sure...
     
  18. Curly N

    Curly N Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    486
    Location:
    Near Knoxville, Tn.
    After loading many thousands of that Dr-XXL-1 Pink wad, I can say that even though there looks to be excess wad pressure, there isn't. It takes little force to distort that wad in the upper area. You can leave that loaded shell with that pressure on the shelf for years and it will not tent up the center of the crimp trying to relieve the compression. Those wad perform as good or better than any other wad out there. You can switch between 3/4 and 7/8 oz with no other changes in the load or the press, as long as it is a safe 7/8 oz loading.
     
  19. phatkaw

    phatkaw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    1,885
    Location:
    Western Pa
    The shell on the right , it looks like he can almost use it for a baby rattle. (kidding)
     
  20. ezz555

    ezz555 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2016
    Messages:
    1,002
    Location:
    Central Minnesota
    You are correct, it is too much wad pressure but the problem here is the wrong components were used and in order to get a crimp that would hold the shot in. The wad had to be compressed to accommodate the volume. Like so many people have said, just because a load is published doesn't mean it is going to fit real well into the hull it was published for. If you have wads that seem to be giving you dished crimps you need to find bulkier powder, if the crimps aren't fulling closing or tenting some, you need denser powder. Or you need to find different wads. We all go through learning what gives us that correct stack height. I know we all have our favorite powders and wads but if they are netting you results you can't accept it is time to change things up so you can hit the sweet spot.
     
    phatkaw, mg1polo and pbansen thanked this.