Trapshooters Forum banner
101 - 120 of 130 Posts

·
Supporting Vendor
Joined
·
6,164 Posts
When one uses existing recipes from multiple sources, i.e. powder manufacturers and established loading manuals, and one does not use the max powder load, how would that be "overstuffing"?

But yes, the MEC handles the same load like a champ.
If you believe the guys that write the manuals try all the combinations they list in their manual you have a lot to learn.

MEC's final crimp die supports the shell wall down almost to the head making it impossible to mushroom the shell. The P/W shell holder supports most of the shell but the final crimp head allows the unsupported portion to expand slightly. When the shell is pushed out at the last station the push out head will bulge the top of the shell over the shell holder if the shell is too hard to push out. The P/W is not forgiving like the MEC. The bulging can be cured by using a shorter wad or by reducing the shot charge slightly (usually by only 5%).
 
  • Like
Reactions: grizquad and sdive2

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
I had the mushroom problem every once in a while with my 800+. It happened when I was loading 1 oz loads with STS hulls. It beat me up trying to figure it out. When I went to load some 1 1/8 and was changing my shot bushing I found that I had the 5.5 bushing (1 1/16) installed and not the 5 (1 oz). I've come back to 1 oz loads and haven't had a problem .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #105 ·
If you believe the guys that write the manuals try all the combinations they list in their manual you have a lot to learn.
So you are saying that the published loads from Hodgdon and Alliant have not been tested? Where do they get the pressures listed for each load? I may have to call the company on that one.

Thanks Jim, I understand how the MEC and PW machines work and why they do what they do. It is possible to bulge a shell with a MEC but, it does not cause a catastrophic crash.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #109 ·
When I saw the mushroomed shell, stopped, pulled pin, took die out, and cut top of shell off. Placed empty die back in and proceeded to reload.
I did the same thing, when I saw the mushroom before it got to the knockout station. If you don't see it and start the down stroke, the die will be stuck in the machine. The base will be hanging down so far below the die that you can't get it out.

That is when the technique of putting a 3/8" socket on top of the shell works. The socket will push the mushroomed shell out of the die.

But now the problem is, did I just throw a double charge? I had that happen twice. Now, the only option is to clear the machine and knock all the shells out of the dies. On a MEC, you can insert or remove a shell at any station. On a PW (and I think Spolar as well) shells can only be pushed up into the die at station one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
.
I did the same thing, when I saw the mushroom before it got to the knockout station. If you don't see it and start the down stroke, the die will be stuck in the machine. The base will be hanging down so far below the die that you can't get it out.

That is when the technique of putting a 3/8" socket on top of the shell works. The socket will push the mushroomed shell out of the die.

But now the problem is, did I just throw a double charge? I had that happen twice. Now, the only option is to clear the machine and knock all the shells out of the dies. On a MEC, you can insert or remove a shell at any station. On a PW (and I think Spolar as well) shells can only be pushed up into the die at station one.
I supersize all my hulls, they just slide out of the die. Your Mec does this so one less step.
I have a BT99 that will not close on certain hulls if I do not supersize the hull. I got into the habit of doing all my hulls, and now use a auto, which helps when using someone’s hulls from a different chamber.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #112 ·
I supersize all my hulls, they just slide out of the die. Your Mec does this so one less step.
I have a BT99 that will not close on certain hulls if I do not supersize the hull. I got into the habit of doing all my hulls, and now use a auto, which helps when using someone’s hulls from a different chamber.
I kept my Supersizer from back when I was loading with a MEC 650. Definitely a required step with the 650 as you know because the 650 does not resize.

Hindsight, I wish I would have just kept the 650. It rarely ever had an issue that could not be solved easily and made great ammo. It was just a little slower. Not having the resizing station on the 650 allowed the user a great amount of "feel" on the downstroke and made for a much easier pull.

Using a Supersizer on an auto indexed machine that sizes defeats the purpose in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
843 Posts
When one uses existing recipes from multiple sources, i.e. powder manufacturers and established loading manuals, and one does not use the max powder load, how would that be "overstuffing"?
Some of the formulas found in manufacturers' data bases are decades old. Formulas for AA hulls tested and written 20+ years ago when the hulls were 1 piece (compression formed) items will overstuf the new HS hulls if they are loaded with original or cloned original AA wads. The capacity of these hulls decreased slightly when the 2-piece wad was introduced and wads designed for compression formed hulls became too tall for these new hulls. The wads were compressed when they were installed to close the crimps and the resulting pressure cause them to force the finished crimps open slightly during storage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,145 Posts
When I was visiting with Cole to adjust my Spolar he asked for some wads that I was going to use, the hull type and powder type and charge, and the shot charge. When I came back a little later he told me with the components I had, even though the load was listed in the loading manuals, they would not fit in the hull and give a decent crimp. In this case the hulls were severely tented as the stack height was simply to high.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #117 ·
Some of the formulas found in manufacturers' data bases are decades old. Formulas for AA hulls tested and written 20+ years ago when the hulls were 1 piece (compression formed) items will overstuf the new HS hulls if they are loaded with original or cloned original AA wads. The capacity of these hulls decreased slightly when the 2-piece wad was introduced and wads designed for compression formed hulls became too tall for these new hulls. The wads were compressed when they were installed to close the crimps and the resulting pressure cause them to force the finished crimps open slightly during storage.
So, I am using:

  • 1 oz Magnum #8 shot
  • WIN WAASL12 wads (or Claybuster equiv.)
  • 19.5 grains or Hodgdon Clays
  • Win 209 primers
  • Gray Win AA hulls

If you look at the picture below of the shells loaded on my MEC, it looks to me like the crimps are deeper than normal. And, due to the inconsistency of those AA hulls, the crimps vary quite a bit as far as closure goes. This same load (no adjustments made to press) will sometimes leave a small hole, a swirl, or most of the time, be perfect. Out of 300 rounds, two of them were bulged a little.

I don't want to reduce the shot weight or the powder weight. I wonder if there is a better wad? I think the answer might be to put these AA hulls on the shelf until I run out of Remington Nitro's and STS.

1725954
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,145 Posts
I and pretty much everyone I know that loads AAs have the same problem, although my crimps aren't quite as bad as yours. A lot of people use the WAA12 (the wad made for 1 1/8 oz) to help the stack height. Just like they use the WAA12SL when making 7/8 oz loads rather than using the WAA12L. This guy makes a hull trimmer to improve the crimps. (Made? They have been listed as out of stock for months.) Also, if your crimps are too deep you can adjust the crimp cam.

1725992




 
101 - 120 of 130 Posts
Top