Wish they would put dimensions on a chart for their clones. I would like to try their TGT clone but don't want to bother if they vary from OEM. Have tried their house style XXL & wound up giving them away, NO bloopers but many off sounding & light feeling recoil, even had others ask what I changed & I said nothing except the wad. They were better in warm weather, but still inconsistent. Went back to OEM & CBs & issues went away. I do shoot a 7\8oz load usually 15--15&1\2 gr. 700X every thing weighed on 2 different scales so I don't think it's a data mix-up. I use the grey WW style or TGT12 interchangeably & can't tell any difference in performance, yes the TGT does dish-in a little. Anybody tried a similar load???? Thanks.
<blockquote><I>"I do shoot a 7\8oz load usually 15--15&1\2 gr. 700X every thing weighed on 2 different scales so I don't think it's a data mix-up. I use the grey WW style or TGT12 interchangeably & can't tell any difference in performance, yes the TGT does dish-in a little. Anybody tried a similar load?</i></blockquote>Don't know how similar but I shoot a 7/8 oz load... Gun Club hulls, Federal 209A primers, DR XXL wads or CB grays and 16.5 grn of Clay Dot. Same performance either wad, no bloopers of odd sounders.
A friend who stays up North during the winter loads the e4xact same data and has no problems at all in cold weather.
I've just tested the CB copy of the TGT 12 with a 7/8 oz load in STS hulls and with 17.3 gr. of Clays. I got perfect crimps, all shells fired as expected, and all broke close Sporting birds with authority. Perhaps the load you quoted, MK, just needs a little more powder to occupy space, maybe even using slower powder to counter the "dishing in." What concerned me initially was that Hodgdon suggests there is a need for a heavier charge of powder with the TGT wad than loading the same but with the Winchester style wad; 12 L. I saw no reason to be concerned but probably won't change wads that have served me well for many years.....breakemall
I was asking about the dia. of the wads, because when I tried pushing them through the bbl.731 bore-- 36 thou. constriction (Rem. 31 TC) with a cleaning rod there was a very noticeable difference in resistance. OEM being tighter than the XXL.It's been a long time ago but I remember them as being sorta red. I load the STS hulls, I almost always use Rem. primers (since about 1962)when I got interested in trap & reloading--maybe I need the Fed. 209As??? the dished crimp was very minor, just enough to be noticeable but was better with WW grey. Obviously I'm not a speed demon as the published data that I'm using show [email protected] about 1150--1175, have been shooting this load since approx.1995. Maybe I just got a bad batch of those wads??? Thanks for the come-backs.--Ross Puls
Unknown1, yeah, I knew your quoted area wasn't your experience but I didn't know how to connect any better with the questioner. Now I see it was Ross. I've been into the weenie loads ever since about 1988 when I developed one for skeet. I now find they are deadly at 16 yards (several 100s) and close sporting shots.
Ross, as I said above, I've dabbled with the weenies for a long time and even spent many a day working with them with a chronograph. My findings suggested they need enough velocity to guarantee a reliable and consistent powder burn. Your 700X may work OK when just at 1150 or so but my records show that, with 700X, I needed around 16.5 grains of 700X before the velocities settled down to mostly single digit standard deviations. With Clays, I like 16.3 or more. I don't find the need in my use for 1300 fps loads we often see promoted by others.....breakemall