[redbone99]

I was reloading AA-HS hulls on a PW 375.I noticed the shot was too near the top of hull as I moved it to pre crimp station.I dumped shot and tried to reseat the wad.It wouldn't move.I had to cut top of hull off to get it out of resize die. When I pulled wad out and dumped powder,which I weighed and then looked in hull.I could see about a 1/4" between the top of the primer and the base wad.This was a Ceddite primer which are .001-.002 larger in diam. than win. I can only guess that the way PW seats primers and the primer being a little larger might have pushed the base wad forward.I can't remember if this is the newer HS or the first ones. The second picture shows a lighter powder burn mark about a 1/4" lower on inside of hull and than darker one starting above that. It appears as though it was reloaded & fired with the base wad foreward once before. Possibly the wad collasped enough to not be noticed. I hope I can figure out how to load pictures. Thanks,Dave

 

[miketmx]

I know that a PW 375 is a single stage loader. I load exclusively new AA 2 piece hulls on my PW900 progressive loader. I'm using Cheddite primers and I believe they are the same diameter as Win 209 and I have no problem with them or Fiocchi primers either. I read on ts.com that the early 2 piece AA hulls with the base wad problem had AA surrounded by a square box (like your picture) where the newer ones do not have the box. I believe that Winchester quietly fixed their problem.

 

[redbone99]

ttt

 

[Unknown1]

Does that hull actually have "HS" stamped on the base? Not all 2-piece hulls are "HS".

The newest incarnation of these hulls has 2 annular ridges molded into the base wad that make corresponding grooves in the inside of the hull sleeve during manufacture. This locks the base wad in place. I don't see any evidence of these easily-visible ridges/grooves in the hull in any of your photos. That leads me to think that yours is not the newest "HS" mod hull.<center>
View attachment 245303
</center>

MK

 

[Didreckson]

I am trying to figure out at the same price point why anyone would take even a 1 in a million chance on a wad, plus the Remington hulls seem to have a much longer life?

I know old habits die hard, as AA was the defacto standard for years. I don't know how much market AA has lost to the green/gold hulls (not to mention the throw away shells), but it must be significant?

 

[miketmx]

Winchester has a distributor in Western Canada and their prices are competitive. Remington does not seem to have a distributor or marketing plan in Western Canada.

 

[goatskin]

He has what appears to be a very early AA-HS, and there were some noted issues w/basewad movement in that first couple of years.

The tip-off is the boxed AA. Newer versions are not boxed.

Bob

 

[redbone99]

I couldn't remember which were the newer HS hulls. I think I will only use these in a break action single shot, so I can check barrel after each shot. I will inspect the hulls closer and I don't think I will load any more of them on the PW press.Dave

 

[dverna]

redbone99,
I had a similar occurrence on a PW800+. It happened just the one time (that I know of) after about 25,000 reloads. Like you, I suspected the primer (Fiocchi) had pushed the base wad up. After that, I converted to the Win AA 209 exclusively for use in AA hulls.

I have likely loaded 25,000 rounds using only AA primers and not had it happen again.

Don Verna

PS This is one aspect of the MEC that I like. It is near impossible to have a base wad separate during primer seating.

 

[Unknown1]

<I><blockquote>"...The current scenario is that this "empty" space under your powder charge can lead to detonation, with catastrophic results, although, to my knowledge, this has yet to be proved."</blockquote></I>

...and it never will be! Detonation!? Somebody is pulling your legs... hard!!

MK

 

[Quack Shot]

Old two piece hull. If it has the box around the "AA" and is a two piece hull, it's one of the early ones and may have issues. The newer ones seem to have the issue corrected. I have loaded many thousands of these hulls and have never had a loose or migrated base wad evident. I also inspect EVERY hull on the inside and outside. I don't trust my Mec to reseat a basewad either. The PW priming method may make it worse, but the basewad would have to be loose to begin with.

 

[Pull & Mark]

I agree with the others that what you have there is the first run of the HS before they fixed it. Winchester found and fixed the problem pretty quickly even though they do not admit they even had one. That hull would have loaded nicely on a Mec as well. Enjoy those Remingtons while you can!!! When Remington's machines wear out they will be made this way in the future as well. Break-em all. Jeff

 

[redbone99]

Thanks for all the replies and info. I discovered another one by checking inside with a maglite. The flashlight makes it easier to spot.I've had these quite awhile.I bought 10,000 hulls and about half were the old style and the rest were these HS.According to an article in TrapShooting USA Nov./Dec.2009
reporting measurements of all popular primers,the Ceddite is 1 to 2 thousands larger than Win. I prefer Win. but being retired I buy what I can afford. I will take more time to check the hulls. Thanks again,Dave

 

[RSVP410]

This is an interesting tread. I think the best advise so far is that if you are reloading 2 piece AAs check them over closely before reloading. Better yet use only the new HS version with the interlock....and always check your barrels

I have on my desk at the moment a gray AA with the box around the AA and no HS headstamp (old one). This one has been reloaded a number of times but the crimp is still in good shape. After firing this reload, the base wad has migrated all the way up to the top just below the crimp. It also split on the side vertically about an inch starting at the top of the base wad. If I had not caught it, I'll bet my PW loader would have pushed it back in and it may he crimped OK and who know what would happen on the next firing.

Be careful out there.

Scott

 

[Quack Shot]

BROWNST100

Looks like that hull was buckled by improper crimping or finishing during the loading process. A few adjustments to your loader may be able to eliminate that. Can't make it out well, but looks to be one of the "old" new styles with the box. It also looks to have been loaded quite a few times. Can't really tell without some better views. That is a hull separation and not a basewad migration.

 

[alfermann66]

redbone99, don't believe everything you read. here are mic readings on cheddite and ww209 primers.

<a href="http://s32.photobucket.com/albums/d26/mobuzz/?action=view¤t=Primers3003.jpg" target="_blank">

</a>

<a href="http://s32.photobucket.com/albums/d26/mobuzz/?action=view&current=Primers3004.jpg" target="_blank">

</a>

<a href="http://s32.photobucket.com/albums/d26/mobuzz/?action=view&current=Primers3006.jpg" target="_blank">

</a>

<a href="http://s32.photobucket.com/albums/d26/mobuzz/?action=view&current=Primers3005.jpg" target="_blank">

</a>

Buz

 

[Stan B.]

I have five of these failures, sectioned, on the desk in our clubhouse..... They are all 'reds' marked with the heavy black 'box' around the AA. (first generation HS?) They range from barely separated, to the base wad half way up the hull. All show black streaking between the base wad and the tube, indicating gas leakage.

I picked up on the failure because of the MEC 8567/9000 method of de-priming/re-priming. The loader would not fully cycle downward with the bad hull in the first station. When this first happened, I thought the shell lifter/collet resizer was screwing up intermittently. I would remove the hull from the first station, and the loader would function normally. I then noticed that the only hulls that gave me any problems were SOME of the 'black box' AA's..... I started to visually inspect the interior of all the hulls before processing, using a light. About 40 out of 400 showed signs of actual separation. Another 30 or so showed signs of gas leakage ...dark streaks... between the base wad and the tube, but no separation YET. Any hull that shows damage is discarded

The hulls that showed failure had been reloaded 2 to 4 times and showed no exterior damage ( no burned or split crimps). The reload used was 16.5 gr Red Dot, DRXXL wad, Win 209 primer, 7/8 oz shot.

I'm currently using these hulls in my O/U only, because I can easily check for obstructions. I will not use them in my pumps or auto.

I use Win AA HS in 20ga and .410 and have had NO problems with these. I have had no problems with newer 12ga HS hulls, but I still check them closely.

Stan B.

 

[Brian in Oregon]

I remember a few years back some folks here adamantly stating that it was impossible for an AA to do this.

 

[Dirtyharry357Mag]

Your all Freaking me out!!!! Good thing I'm loading Remington Hulls And loading on a Mec 9000 Loader.. lol Mec Loader... Thats the key. When Loading AA Hulls ...

 

[Hap MecTweaks]

I used AAs from day one till the (improved hull?) came about. I still use MECs but when my supply of the old compression hulls are gone, no more AAs for me. I hate the inner lip which limits wad use, not at all like the AA hulls of old where one could use several listed wads/loads. They won't miss me a lick and thats ok too.

Hap