Trapshooters Forum banner
21 - 40 of 54 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,596 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
·
8,596 Posts
I truly believe that YOUR data is completely inaccurate! My data shows
the complete opposite of what you have shown. The only thing accurate is the pretty
pictures that you have posted and I have already given you my opinion on those.
"MEANINGLESS"
As far as powder MIGRATING,

I wonder how the last "ten" trophies I won with these wads felt about this?
OVER 22,000 ATA Registered targets in the last two years.
Maybe they should have theses wads deported, that way you won't have to see them
anymore. For someone that's is not required to use them, you sure have a hard
on for them.
I Remain,
Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Mark,
Please post your data. I would like to see your EV and SD numbers. What is the bore diameter of the gun used for your 22K+ targets?


I truly believe that YOUR data is completely inaccurate! My data shows
the complete opposite of what you have shown. The only thing accurate is the pretty
pictures that you have posted and I have already given you my opinion on those.
"MEANINGLESS"
As far as powder MIGRATING,

I wonder how the last "ten" trophies I won with these wads felt about this?
OVER 22,000 ATA Registered targets in the last two years.
Maybe they should have theses wads deported, that way you won't have to see them
anymore. For someone that's is not required to use them, you sure have a hard
on for them.
I Remain,
Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
I agree with SlickHead.........CB-3118AR is a great wad for Gold Medal and Federal papers.......I have a about 1/2 case left!! For me, I follow the Load directions with Green Dot Powder!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,599 Posts
While all this information on the fit of these wads, and how well they do, or don't seal, may, or may not, hold water, I would like to throw this into the mix. I have loaded all the wads mentioned above, with the exception of the Gualandi's, and I have found that the original Windjammer wads work extremely well in Gold Medals and Papers. I load 1 1/8oz Windjammers in the GM hulls and the 1oz. Windjammers in the Papers and have had absolutely no problems with off sounding or weak loads, ever! While they are smaller in diameter than the CB3118
AR and the CB6118, the powder cup is much deeper, and thinner, than both of those. I believe that this feature allows the skirt to swell more when fired, causing the wad base to seal better in the barrel. I shoot these wads through a Perazzi 34" Seitz barrel that is back bored to 742". Now, that is considerably larger in diameter than the standard .729" barrels that normally come with a Perazzi, yet I still have no problems with them. Based on my experience in this area, I would have to agree with Mark, (mg1polo) above, that the pictures are meaningless. The real proof is in the results you get when shooting targets. If your current wad works well for you, use it. If you have any doubts, change wads until you are happy with it (and let's face it, we are NEVER happy if we think somebody else has something that works better than ours, are we?).... As for me, I use what I KNOW works for my gun and let the rest go..... Just my observation....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,596 Posts
Mark,
Please post your data. I would like to see your EV and SD numbers. What is the bore diameter of the gun used for your 22K+ targets?

I shoot a Perazzi MX 3 Top Single Barrel on a Comp 1 Reciever. - .726 Bore Diameter - Length - 34"- Singles & Handicap - .016 Restriction Singles - .028 Restriction Handicap
Doubles are Comp 1 Barrels - 30" also .726 Diameter. Choked Bottom .014 - Top .029 Barrels are Pigeon Ported, with Briley Thinwall S12's.

Here is my load for singles and doubles.

DATE - 5 - 13 - 2015 HULL - Fed. G.M. Paper

POWDER - Red Dot WEIGHT - 18.0 gr

PRIMER - Fed. 209a WAD - DR.-12 S 3 8 petal

SHOT - # 7 1/2 M.S.G. WEIGHT - 1 1/8 OZ

1,150 fps - 8,800 psi


10 - Shots thru my chrony at 1 yd
1.- 1152 fps
2.- 1171 fps
3. - 1164 fps
4. - 1158 fps
5.- 1175 fps
6.- 1166 fps
7.- 1153 fps
8.- 1167 fps
9.- 1155 fps
10.- 1160 fps

All Shells loaded with Mec. 9000 Hydro.

That's all I got for ya. Just saying, I've loaded the CB wad before, nothing wrong with it either but,
it did not perform as well & the PATTERN did not compare to the DR.



Regards,
Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Mark,
I think your results are from the .726 tight bore and would be quite different if tested in a .740 or larger bore.
Just say'n, if it works well for your set up, fine. I remember a conversation with Kevin about the sealing ability of the shot cup base. Looks like you have first hand experience with that theory.
I had a SX-1 with a Baker .800 bore. Wad selection was very important and like Mr Slick above I found the CB3118AR did seal very well and gave good EV and SD numbers.



I shoot a Perazzi MX 3 Top Single Barrel on a Comp 1 Reciever. - .726 Bore Diameter - Length - 34"- Singles & Handicap - .016 Restriction Singles - .028 Restriction Handicap
Doubles are Comp 1 Barrels - 30" also .726 Diameter. Choked Bottom .014 - Top .029 Barrels are Pigeon Ported, with Briley Thinwall S12's.

Here is my load for singles and doubles.

DATE - 5 - 13 - 2015 HULL - Fed. G.M. Paper

POWDER - Red Dot WEIGHT - 18.0 gr

PRIMER - Fed. 209a WAD - DR.-12 S 3 8 petal

SHOT - # 7 1/2 M.S.G. WEIGHT - 1 1/8 OZ

1,150 fps - 8,800 psi


10 - Shots thru my chrony at 1 yd
1.- 1152 fps
2.- 1171 fps
3. - 1164 fps
4. - 1158 fps
5.- 1175 fps
6.- 1166 fps
7.- 1153 fps
8.- 1167 fps
9.- 1155 fps
10.- 1160 fps

All Shells loaded with Mec. 9000 Hydro.

That's all I got for ya. Just saying, I've loaded the CB wad before, nothing wrong with it either but,
it did not perform as well & the PATTERN did not compare to the DR.



Regards,
Mark
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,596 Posts
Mark,
I think your results are from the .726 tight bore and would be quite different if tested in a .740 or larger bore.
Just say'n, if it works well for your set up, fine. I remember a conversation with Kevin about the sealing ability of the shot cup base. Looks like you have first hand experience with that theory.
I had a SX-1 with a Baker .800 bore. Wad selection was very important and like Mr Slick above I found the CB3118AR did seal very well and gave good EV and SD numbers.[/QUO

I totally agree with you! I too have spoke to Kevin and this was the reason for my answer to the Original OP's question.
Others have also voiced their opinions. Some were not very good. In my gun, I have fantastic results with this wad. No Bloopers, No Off Sounding Shells, No variance in speed.
They're just great. I also really like the way DR attends and supports the larger shoots and all of the customer support they offer.
To lame blast a great vendor is just not right when it is not deserved!
Regards,
Mark
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
853 Posts
To lame blast a great vendor is just not right when it is not deserved!
Nobody here is "vendor" bashing, - we're simply "product" bashing - BIG difference ....

The undersized wad works for you because you are using them in the thicker "paper" FGM's. Even a taper wall wad would work there.

Try to use the wad in a plastic Federal hull, and you will quickly discover that this wad does not match the performance of it's competing Claybuster wads.

Some of the Downrange wads are good, but as others have said (and as data has proven), some of them (such as their Federal wads and the DRV-20) are crap. If they work for you, then that is good. Don't try to minor all those who have spent the time testing these wads in other, "non" paper hull applications.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,596 Posts
Nobody here is "vendor" bashing, - we're simply "product" bashing - BIG difference ....

The undersized wad works for you because you are using them in the thicker "paper" FGM's. Even a taper wall wad would work there.

Try to use the wad in a plastic Federal hull, and you will quickly discover that this wad does not match the performance of it's competing Claybuster wads.

Some of the Downrange wads are good, but as others have said (and as data has proven), some of them (such as their Federal wads and the DRV-20) are crap. If they work for you, then that is good. Don't try to minor all those who have spent the time testing these wads in other, "non" paper hull applications.
Mr. Mokeeman,

The original OP asked: How do these wads work in Federal Papers! I answered that they work great for ME! You said they suck!
This was the original post. I only load that wad in Federal Papers, as my FIRST post stated, period.
Now your going back and forth about other hulls. We're talking about this wad in Federal Papers! "READ THE POST for GOD SAKE"
If you, say they are no good in other hulls, fine. I have no experience with this wad in anything other than Federal Papers as my very post
stated. As I said before and for the last time "I agree to disagree that this wad is nothing but exceptional in a Federal Gold Medal Paper Hull.
I stand by my data and you can stand on your head till your blue in the face, thousands of great shooters use this wad with awesome results,
way more than the handful who have problems!
Good Shooting,
Mark
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
853 Posts
I have no experience with this wad in anything other than Federal Papers as my very post stated.
Fair enough, - thank you for stating this. You made an earlier comment about the Fiocchi hull, and said that is "why" the performance was so poor. But it's good to hear you say that you "have no experience" with that (whereas I do).

As I said before and for the last time "I agree to disagree that this wad is nothing but exceptional in a Federal Gold Medal Paper Hull.
And I agreed with the first half of that, and now that you are walking back your position to only include paper hulls, I agree with that as well.

I stand by my data and you can stand on your head till your blue in the face, thousands of great shooters use this wad with awesome results,
way more than the handful who have problems!
In red is an incorrect comment. I've spent more time talking to Kevin at Downrange about this than you have at your local shoots getting free popcorn, hats, and what not. You are "bought", plain and simple. Not suggesting that this is a bad thing per-se, just stating the obvious.

Kevin from Downrange knows about the problem with this wad (and it's cold temperature issue that hasn't been discussed here). To his credit, Kevin has made numerous changes to this wad with resin composition, and there are more than one mold involved.

If the wad works in your thicker paper hull, than that is great. But you are being disingenuous to the handloading community as a whole in trying to discredit people who've actually spent time, money, and effort to get this wad fixed in the other hulls (and other loads) that it is claimed to work in.

The person(s) who suffer the most are all those who read what people like you say, and the shilling that you do for something that actually does have a problem in certain applications, and then gets the idea that these Downrange Federal wads are a "great" OEM 12S3, or Claybuster CB2118 replacements, then encounters the issues in plastic hulls that don't exist when using OEM Federal 12S3, or Claybuster CB2118 when using this wad, then they are stuck, just like I was when I first encountered the problem (because I listened to others such as yourself going out of their way to shill something that they know nothing about).

If there are corner-case loads where this wad works acceptable (like paper hulls), like I said, I think that's great. But that doesn't mean it works better than the OEM 12S3 and Claybuster CB2118 like you stated.

The post does say "in paper hulls", yes. But you are out of your element challenging anyone who has experience with these things in plastic hulls, be they FGM's, Top Guns, Fiocchi's, or others.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,596 Posts
Fair enough, - thank you for stating this. You made an earlier comment about the Fiocchi hull, and said that is "why" the performance was so poor. But it's good to hear you say that you "have no experience" with that (whereas I do).


And I agreed with the first half of that, and now that you are walking back your position to only include paper hulls, I agree with that as well.


In red is an incorrect comment. I've spent more time talking to Kevin at Downrange about this than you have at your local shoots getting free popcorn, hats, and what not. You are "bought", plain and simple. Not suggesting that this is a bad thing per-se, just stating the obvious.

Kevin from Downrange knows about the problem with this wad (and it's cold temperature issue that hasn't been discussed here). To his credit, Kevin has made numerous changes to this wad with resin composition, and there are more than one mold involved.

If the wad works in your thicker paper hull, than that is great. But you are being disingenuous to the handloading community as a whole in trying to discredit people who've actually spent time, money, and effort to get this wad fixed in the other hulls (and other loads) that it is claimed to work in.

The person(s) who suffer the most are all those who read what people like you say, and the shilling that you do for something that actually does have a problem in certain applications, and then gets the idea that these Downrange Federal wads are a "great" OEM 12S3, or Claybuster CB2118 replacements, then encounters the issues in plastic hulls that don't exist when using OEM Federal 12S3, or Claybuster CB2118 when using this wad, then they are stuck, just like I was when I first encountered the problem (because I listened to others such as yourself going out of their way to shill something that they know nothing about).

If there are corner-case loads where this wad works acceptable (like paper hulls), like I said, I think that's great. But that doesn't mean it works better than the OEM 12S3 and Claybuster CB2118 like you stated.

The post does say "in paper hulls", yes. But you are out of your element challenging anyone who has experience with these things in plastic hulls, be they FGM's, Top Guns, Fiocchi's, or others.
Thank You Mokeman,
Like I stated before, THIS POST STARTED WITH THE OP ASKING HOW THIS WAD WORKS IN A FEDERAL PAPER HULL.
I ANSWERED THAT IT WORKS GREAT! I PROVIDED THE DATA TO BACK IT UP. You my friend showed us your data loaded in EUROTRASH
HULLS & Cute little pictures. Load what ever you want, but please keep your opinions to yourself! THEY SUCK!
Mark
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,347 Posts
Seems everyone has opinions, seems most have expertise in one thing or another. Seems often there are even facts, pictures and graphs and experience to back up statements.
I suspect an opinion about an opinion falls into a class of its own......... Larry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,424 Posts
I never had any issues with the downrange wads in Federal shells and I really liked the way they slid in easier than the Claybusters. Now I know why, because they are smaller. I just went and measured them and the are quite a lot smaller. I do remember a friend of mine, sold me all of his Downrange 12s3 equivalent wads because he was getting funny sounding loads. He was using clays powder. I never seemed to have any issues but I was using red dot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 ·
Just for the record I picked some up this weekend and I have 100 of them loaded into paper hulls with the same shot and the same powder I always use, I will pattern a few and then practice with the rest to form an opinion of my own. I truly do appricate all the info from everyone and the sharing of experiences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,177 Posts
I have had very good luck with the CB2118-12 wad in my Federal Top Gun hulls, and saw some data on the CB 3118-12AR and CB sent me some samples that I will load soon and try in the Federal plastic hulls. I have been using 700X and 1 1/8 oz. Steve
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
853 Posts
I never had any issues with the downrange wads in Federal shells and I really liked the way they slid in easier than the Claybusters. Now I know why, because they are smaller. I just went and measured them and the are quite a lot smaller. I do remember a friend of mine, sold me all of his Downrange 12s3 equivalent wads because he was getting funny sounding loads. He was using clays powder. I never seemed to have any issues but I was using red dot.
One characteristic of a broken load (due to a bad wad) is that the performance figures (EV/SD) will be in the dumper way before you start to "audibly" hear performance degradation. So when you start to audibly "hear" funny sounding reports, the performance figures (EV/SD) are already way off the chart. If you load exceeds an EV (Extreme Variation) of ~35 fps, and your SD (Standard Deviation) exceeds ~11 fps, you need to stop what you're doing and troubleshoot the load (and evaluate your components).
 
21 - 40 of 54 Posts
Top