Trapshooters Forum banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Thorn in your side
Joined
·
8,115 Posts
Another vote for Precision, and agree with mg. Consistency in your test loads is a must in order to have any worthwhile data. Also using all hulls that have been reloaded the same number of times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
Not sure its the correct answer, but many years ago there was a well researched and pressure & velocity tested article in one of the Wolfe owned publications showing that pressures varied based on the # of times a hull had been reloaded, i.e., a once-fired hull, in that article's tests, produced higher pressures than the same hull reloaded multiple times.. or something to that effect, IIRC.
--
My own empirical findings say that if I pointed the gun correctly, the target didn't know the difference and broke anyway. I tend to blame myself more than a particular load or # of times a hull may have been loaded. Just saying.

edit: and that assumes using a load to be within acceptable industry parameters/standards already published or tested to be so. Old worn or shot-out hull mouths will not produce the same pressures as once-fired, just to be more specific. And pressure has nothing to do w/velocity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,444 Posts
Why send a batch of shells somewhere that should be loaded with a recipe published by the powder maker and spend money to get them tested?

Another test barrel is not going to give the same results as the one at the powder maker's. Your barrel will give slightly different results than the test barrels.

Following a recipe will give you good results. Using slow powders for light loads, or fast powders for heavy loads is best avoided. Remember, SAAMI gives ammo makers +- 90 fps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
848 Posts
He ask where and cost - didn't say why. If he wanted someone to know, he would have said. I load 2 5/8" 10ga shells for the last 10 years. Also 2 1/2, 2 1/4, and 2" 12ga shells with fiber wads, and many other loads and there is no data for any of it. Just common sense.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,596 Posts
Why send a batch of shells somewhere that should be loaded with a recipe published by the powder maker and spend money to get them tested?

Another test barrel is not going to give the same results as the one at the powder maker's. Your barrel will give slightly different results than the test barrels.

Following a recipe will give you good results. Using slow powders for light loads, or fast powders for heavy loads is best avoided. Remember, SAAMI gives ammo makers +- 90 fps.
To verify it's accuracy.
Many published loads are not even close to the listed data. Even more so with older data. It's for this reason that many old loads have been discontinued.
MG
 

·
Thorn in your side
Joined
·
8,115 Posts
Why send a batch of shells somewhere that should be loaded with a recipe published by the powder maker and spend money to get them tested?

Another test barrel is not going to give the same results as the one at the powder maker's. Your barrel will give slightly different results than the test barrels.

Following a recipe will give you good results. Using slow powders for light loads, or fast powders for heavy loads is best avoided. Remember, SAAMI gives ammo makers +- 90 fps.
I have sent many loads to be tested. Why doesn't matter, it is what I wanted to do to verify the load was safe, and I wanted to know the velocity. I load DOWN from what I find in the books, because you don't need 1145 to break a 16 yd target. I was curious what the velocity was. All my loads vary slightly from what is published, either with powder charge or primer or such and I shoot them all the time, but not UNTIL I had them tested to be sure they were safe.

You do you, and the rest of us will do as we do.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
533 Posts
What little I know, depending on where you get your published load, powder manufactures changed location therefore changed products in there powder. If you go off old published load ,things change. It wasn't long ago I read somewhere after hodgdon moved and changed stuff around there were BIG differences in pressure in the new powder. Mainly those loading to 1200 fps. To get them tested for me is just peice of mind. I like to see the actual numbers from the loads I'm shooting.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,895 Posts
Out of curiosity, what causes the inaccuracies in the published loads?
Every single component you buy, including the hulls, has a manufacturing tolerance. A "plus-minus" if you will.

Primers, powder, wads, hulls.

Plus, how much crimp you put on your hull may be different from what they did when they tested the loads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,085 Posts
Why send a batch of shells somewhere that should be loaded with a recipe published by the powder maker and spend money to get them tested?
The OP never said he was using a published load. That may be an unwarranted assumption on your part. I am considering getting a 28 ga load tested before I load and shoot them. Hodgdon has a published load for the Cheddite hull, Longshot powder, and Remington PT28 wad. Both Longshot and the PT28 wad cost more in the scheme of things, and I'd like a load with the Claybuster 5034-28HS wad and Alliant Unique powder.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top