[Bill T]

May I ask what weight charge you guys are throwing with the High Gun? My standard charge with Clay's was (is) 16.5 grains with a 1-1/8 ounce of #8's. I think the velocity is right around 1150 FPS. I would like to step that up a bit with the High Gun.

 

[Bill T]

Do you know approximately on a volumetric basis, are Clay's and High Gun similar? I would like to not have to change wads, or have to readjust crimping dies.

The load data on the High Gun jug states with a Win. AA case, and a 1-1/8th ounce AA wad, you can throw up to 18.4 grains and get 1,255 FPS. That is very similar to Clay's.

 

[Bill T]

I think you will need to use a 1 oz wad to get a good crimp.

You will need different wads.

Well that ain't gonna happen

I'm not trying to argue with you guys here, but if all that was true, why does Hodgdon list this load right on the jug? (It's the second load down from the top). Are you saying that load is bogus, and will not stack and crimp correctly? Something doesn't wash.

1-1/8th ounce shot - AA hull - WAA12 Wad - Winchester 209 Primer - 18.4 grains / 1,255 FPS

 

[Bill T]

Things like having to vary wad pressure, and make powder weight adjustments are to be expected. I just don't want to have to change wads in order to get a decent crimp. I already have a case and a half, (close to 3,000) Claybuster 1-1/8th ounce, AA12 equivalent, (CB 1118) on hand.

Which, according to what Hodgdon has printed on the label of High Gun, should work. I'm just trying to verify before I buy any. I don't think this powder situation is going to get any better in the future. And may in fact get worse as time passes.

 

[Bill T]

I have been loading 1 1/8 oz of shot -CB1118 wad - AAHS hull - Cheddite primmer. My stack and crimp are perfect.
I don't know why some say to use a taller wad. Maybe it a STS hull I don't know as I only use TG in a AAHS.

That's good to hear. Are you throwing powder in the 18 +- grain range?

 

[Bill T]

By "AAHS" are you referring to "Double A Handicap Silver" case?

 

[Bill T]

All of my AA cases are marked "12" on the left, and "GA" on the right. Most are quite old. I don't understand why they ever got away from the one piece, compression formed hull? They were rugged as hell, and had tremendous reloadability.

 

[Bill T]

I'm going to hold off on buying any High Gun. There is simply too much contradiction going on about loading it. The jug states that you can successfully load 1-1/8th ounce in a standard AA-12 wad, (or Claybuster CB-1118), in a AA case, and achieve a correct stack and crimp height.

Yet many here say you cannot. I tend to believe people who have actually tried it by working with this powder. So for now I'll continue my hunt for 700X. I know that will stack and crimp correctly, because it is a flake powder just like Clay's.

And volumetrically it is very similar. What little difference there is can be made up for by varying charge weight and wad pressure, and not changing wads. After I use up my supply of Claybuster CB-1118 wads, then I can change over to most anything.

 

[Bill T]

No those are the old compression formed.

AAHS are the latest ones produced the last 20 yrs. Real shiny with a base wad in bottom. Shiny red and dark grey.

I never noticed that. What is the base wad in the newer AA hulls made from?

 

[Bill T]

Plastic

That's good because I always deprime and resize them. Then I run them through the dishwasher. It keeps them nice and clean, and it doesn't pack up all that soot and crap inside the crimping die.

If they had switched to some type of paper or cardboard, I'd be screwed.

 

[Bill T]

Just so you know, not all of the "GA" marked hulls are Compression Formed!

The first 3-4 years of the newer HS (High Strength) some hulls still had the brass base stamped 12 GA

At first glance, the untrained eye won't notice the difference unless you look down in the hull or 'candle' it...

I have some that are damn near identical and from the same years' Grand that are both flavors.

View attachment 1922763 View attachment 1922764 View attachment 1922765 View attachment 1922770 View attachment 1922769

The photo on the far Right was kinda tough to show but if you look closely the Left hull is an HS and the Right hull is a CF.

That's good to know. For my purposes it doesn't matter. I was only concerned that they were 100% plastic. Because as I mentioned, I deprime and wash them before reloading. The only cases I use are AA, Remington STS or Nitro 27.

 

[Bill T]

The changeover hull is also the one many users stated they had the basewad come loose and lodge in their barrel.

If that happens do you get some type of visual warning? For example, will just the brass end be leftover.... Or something that will set off an alarm bell?

 

[Bill T]

Yes you can't see daylight through the barrel!

That's not much help if you shoot a repeater.

 

[Bill T]

How do you know that was caused by a stuck base wad from a AA hull? And not a drastic overload, or the wrong powder, or a dozen other reasons?

That gun came apart right at the chamber / receiver. Not further down the barrel, which is much more typical of wad and other barrel obstructions.

The fact is shotgun blow ups are all over the Internet. Without proper documentation accompanying what actually caused them, they're pretty much worthless.

The fact is, this is the first I've heard of these plastic base wads separating in AA hulls, and getting stuck in barrels. If it was any type of serious repetitive problem, it would be all over the Internet. And there would be recalls published everywhere.

Look at how many factory AA's are fired at the Grand, along with reloads of those same cases, at literally hundreds of other ATA shoots held across the country every weekend, year after year. All encompassing millions of rounds.

I have been shooting AA reloads for over 30+ years, and never had one hull separate. Split yes, they all do eventually. I'm not saying it can't happen. But with the amount of these shells and cases out there, it's not something that concerning.

 

[Bill T]

Your living under a rock or just in complete denial. Usually the base wad is laying close by. It also happens with factory loaded shells . Not just reloads.

I quit using any 12 gauge HSAA shells several years ago . After having to remove several base wads from barrels. Mostly factory loaded. Supposedly this issue has been fixed. But I still see it happen quite often.

I said I'm not arguing that it doesn't happen. I'm saying it's not blowing up or damaging guns every time it does. And it certainly did not blow up the 870 in that photo. Since you live out in the bright sunshine, and not, "under a rock", how many have you seen come apart directly because of a loose AA base wad?

 

[Bill T]

5 to date and counting.

If you say so.

 

[Bill T]

This exact same argument was taking place back in 2008..... It is now almost 2024.

https://www.shotgunworld.com/threads/aa-base-wad-separation.149174/page-2

 

[Bill T]

Its old news. The fact remains that the Win. AAHS hulls are made the same way every other company in the world makes hulls today. With the exception of injection molded hulls that the Remington factory still uses. Its a one piece hull.

If your reloading with a Mec reloader??? You will never run into this issue. As all Mec reloaders install the primers with a tube that pushes the primer into the hull from the inside. Which makes it impossible for the base wad to be raised upward when the primer is installed into the hull. Now if you reload with a Spolar, or another brand of reloader that the machine holds onto the hull from the outside of the hull. Then uses a ram from the bottom to push the primer into the hull from the bottom. Then its possible to get a raised base wad. Since this machine does not hold the basewad in place, as the primer is installed!!! This can happen more often. As you try to reload the same hull 8-10 times. Now the Federal economy hulls are made the same way as the Win. AAHS hulls. All of the European shells are made this way. If you reload with a Mec reloader you can reload any hull without worry!!! I just saw a poster here trying to sell his Win. AAHS hulls for 6 cents a piece. He could not get buyers at this price. So he lowered his price to 5 cents each. They started to sell. But during the same week. I saw folks here pay 20 cents each for Rem. STS hulls. So now ask yourself which hull do you want to reload??? Now ask yourself which reloader you want buy??? You have solved your dilemma!!! Some folks are just funny. they will pay 5 grand for a reloader, so they have to pay 4 times more for the hulls. To save money so they can shoot their 2 grand browning shotgun. All to be able to reload at a fast rate of speed!!! Its impossible to reload a better shell, than the Mec. Sizemaster reloader produce. All you can do is reload the same quality of shell at a faster rate of speed. So just like a race car, its the need for speed!!!! break em all jeff

Thank you for that excellent information! Yes, I reload on 2 MEC presses. An 8567 Grabber, and a older MEC 650 that I purchased back in 1973. It still loads as beautiful of a shell as it did the day I bought it.

I did convert it from the old tube primer feed, to the newer tray feed. I also got rid of the red rubber "handlebar" grips on both the 650 and the Case Conditioner, and replaced them with the newer wooden handles. They give much better leverage and grip.

I added the Grabber back in 1992. I also have a MEC Case Conditioner that I resize and deprime all of my hulls first, as my 650 doesn't resize. All 3 MEC machines run beautifully.

(I don't know why they discontinued the Case Conditioner. The newer one with the collet sizer doesn't deprime).