Trapshooters Forum banner
1 - 20 of 54 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
614shooter,
A picture is worth a thousand words so here is a comparison between a proper fitting CB2118 12S3 copy in a paper hull and a DRHF3 wad.




 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Come on. The shell is purposely all flared out on top. Down Range wads are second to none!
The paper hull is 3X fired and is the same hull with the CB2118 wad picture. DownRange wads are very good and I like the XL series and the AA clone. They just messed up the Fed clone with a undersized cup that is more like a AA wad cup.
 

·
L'Étoile du Nord
Joined
·
497 Posts
I have not loaded them yet, so I can't speak from experience, but I did recently purchase this wad to load in my paper hulls. Here are pictures I just took of a once fired hull with the wad inserted as pullit did. Make your own call...


image.jpg


image.jpg


image.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Here is a comparison left to right, DRHF3 - AA clone - CB2118.
Top Gun hull with crimp cut off. Looks like the DR wad is smaller than the AA.

I have not loaded the DRHF3 wad but I did stand next to a person using them in a Top Gun hull and he was experiencing many off sounding shots.
The over powder skirt on one side does not have much flex to seal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
I have been loading them in Fed. papers with 18 gr. Red Dot 1.125 #8's Fed. 209A 1145 fps never any problem.
I have 5000 Fed 12S3'S nowhere near the quality of the Downrange wad. That wad should give no problem in the Fed. papers. Only on my 5th case tho.

Mac
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,596 Posts
614shooter,

A picture is worth a thousand words so here is a comparison between a proper fitting CB2118 12S3 copy in a paper hull and a DRHF3 wad.

Your picture as well as your measurements obviously do not mean squat. I have personally loaded over 20,000 of the DRHF3 in Federal papers and there is no comparing them to a Claybuster.

The Claybuster chronographs slower with the equal matching components and the pattern is minimal compared to the Downrange version.

I would highly suggest that you chronograph your loads as well as hit the pattern board before coming to any more conclusions.

Good Shooting,

Mark




Tour PICTURE
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
853 Posts
These wads are garbage, and you're wasting your time and money, paper hulls or not...

Here is what they look like in a Federal Gold Medal:



Here is what an OEM, and Claybuster CB2118-12 look like in the same hull:



And don't even try to use them in the Euro hulls (Rio pictured here). Notice how inconsistent the thickness of the powder cup lip is (thinner on top than it is on the bottom):



The only way that you are going to get them to seal is to make the O.D. of the powder cup larger :



Why would you want to put yourself thru that torture ?

Plus they seem to self-destruct on firing :



If you are going to take the time to reload, you should do it right. The Claybuster CB2118-12 is the best wad for the job.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
For Federal Paper get the (Claybuster) CB- 3112-AR it is absolutely by far the best wad on the market for the Fed. Paper hull. If you will mic. the diameter of this wad you will find that it is approx .730" in width at the base. Nothing else comes close. Loads great in the Gold Metal Hull also! Try some and I promise you wont be disappointed. I am not a fan of any 12S3 wads whether original or the copies as I have found this diameter situation out many years ago. Besides the 12S3 wad is also perhaps the heaviest wad on the market which for that matter may calculate to more recoil as it is part of the ejecta.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,596 Posts
Sorry, your pictures and measurements mean NOTHING. Load both wads with the same powder load, same primer, same shot load in any Federal Gold Medal Hull, paper or plastic.
Take them out and SHOOT them. Then pattern them. The Claybuster might look pretty in pictures and on your ruler, but it's ballistics and pattern are WEAK at best.
No comparison in "PERFORMANCE" Hands down Downrange vs Claybuster! Please check it out yourself, then you be the judge. By the way, the pictures look very nice,
but the proof is in actual shooting performance.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
853 Posts
Sorry, your pictures and measurements mean NOTHING.
They mean everything. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the undersized diameter, thick, uneven lip of the powder cup isn't going to properly seal. Moreover, the powder migration alone that you get with that gaping hole is going to put your internal ballistic numbers in the dumper.

The Claybuster might look pretty in pictures and on your ruler, but it's ballistics and pattern are WEAK at best.
No offense, but yer living in a dream world there fella ... Besides, what is a "WEAK" pattern ? If the DRF3 wasn't a defective design, why do so many people report bloopers with them?

Please check it out yourself, then you be the judge.
I already did all of that back in 2011 (and posted that in another forum). I spent COUNTLESS hours troubleshooting this defective/undersized powder cup wad, and tested multiple version of them. They suck, plain and simple. If you know anything about shotshell reloading, you should already know that an acceptable EV (Extreme Variation) should be less than about 35 fps, and the SD (Standard Deviation) should be less than 11 (preferably less than 10).

Wads yielding an ES of 240 fps and an SD of 80 (in any load) are junk by anyone's measure ...




But hey, if you still think that these things are the cat's-meow, - well, you just a keep on believing that ...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,596 Posts
They mean everything. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the undersized diameter, thick, uneven lip of the powder cup isn't going to properly seal. Moreover, the powder migration alone that you get with that gaping hole is going to put your internal ballistic numbers in the dumper.


No offense, but yer living in a dream world there fella ... Besides, what is a "WEAK" pattern ? If the DRF3 wasn't a defective design, why do so many people report bloopers with them?


I already did all of that back in 2011 (and posted that in another forum). I spent COUNTLESS hours troubleshooting this defective/undersized powder cup wad, and tested multiple version of them. They suck, plain and simple. If you know anything about shotshell reloading, you should already know that an acceptable EV (Extreme Variation) should be less than about 35 fps, and the SD (Standard Deviation) should be less than 11 (preferably less than 10).

Wads yielding an ES of 240 fps and an SD of 80 (in any load) are junk by anyone's measure ...




But hey, if you still think that these things are the cat's-meow, - well, you just a keep on believing that ...
We will simply have to agree to disagree. I think the problem lies in that your loading in Euro Trash Hulls, &
are data is from Federal Gold Medal Hulls.
Best of luck,
Mark
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
853 Posts
No, the problem lies in the fact that the powder cup diameter on this wad is too small, period.

I've done multiple tests in Federal Gold Medal hulls with this wad in multiple loads involving multiple different powders, and primers and the performance problem manifested itself the same in each of those loads.

If having a smaller diameter powder cup on a 12S3 was somehow a better thing, Federal themselves would be making the OEM 12S3 with smaller powder cups in the factory Federal Gold Medals (paper or plastic).

In every comparison test that I tested this wad against (in Federal Gold Medals), even the undersized taper'd hull wads performed better (Fig-8, blue duster, Claybuster WAA12 clone etc.).

Even though it's not the correct wad for a Federal Gold Medal, Downrange's own Dra-12 wad designed for Winchester/Remington taper hulls performs better than their DRF3 does in a Federal Gold Medal, and that says it all really.

Anyone who would go to battle in defense of this wad is either somehow getting compensated to do so, or is doing it for some other ulterior motive.

But the upshot is that we do agree on one thing: that we agree to disagree. Data talks, and the rest of it walks ...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
I must add again the CB-3118AR is largest diameter wad that I have measured at .730. If you cut a Gold Metal hull approx. 3/8" above the brass insert a Fed 12S3 and then the CB- 3118AR you can really see and feel the difference. Just to let everone know the CB-3118AR was designed to replace the old Fed. C-1 2 piece wad that was used in the Fed. paper hull. The Federal 12S3 diameter is from .717-.719 and the DRF3 diameter measures .697-.700. A Gold Metal hull cut into at approx. 3/8 above the brass has a interior diameter .739-.742. Just common sense will tell you that you are going to get a better seal with the CB-3112AR wad. I would much rather have a wad that is closer to the same diameter with a .004-.006 on each side then .010-.022 on each side of wad (when inserted inside hull at approx. the same place it would be if powder was inside the hull). No POWDER MIGRATION! As for patterning I don't know as I have not patterned these loads but they seem to do a wonderful job on targets at the 25 and 27 yd line. As I have shot thousands at both with this load. JMHO!!!!!!!!!!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
853 Posts
Just common sense will tell you that you are going to get a better seal with the CB-3112AR wad.

I would much rather have a wad that is closer to the same diameter with a .004-.006 on each side then .010-.022 on each side of wad (when inserted inside hull at approx. the same place it would be if powder was inside the hull).

No POWDER MIGRATION!
I've heard good things about this wad (for all of the reasons that you mentioned here, and your original post above).



In 1-ounce, Claybuster's revised CB6100 also works pretty darn well too and is a very good fit in the FGM's (as it's 1-1/8th ounce counterpart, the CB6118). I myself handed up going with the Gualandi Super-G wads, but when those run out, I'll be looking at the CB3118-12AR.

Thanks for the info!
 

·
L'Étoile du Nord
Joined
·
497 Posts
I emailed a copy of this thread to DownRange with a request that they offer comment. Stay tuned.
 
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
Top