[highflyer]

I shot in a sporting clays tournament this weekend and had a primer come out and jam my gun open. I didn't know this until I got the gun home and took it apart. I was reloading Remington and Winchester hulls with Winchester primers. I have had this happen one time before. Because I didn't know what happened at the time I don't know what type of hull it came out of. What I wanted to know was is it better to reload with Remington primers for Remington hulls and Winchester primers for Winchester hulls. Are some brands of primers loose in some hulls? I don't want this to happen again.

 

[Shady Creek]

You picked up an empty that someone had been loading Chedite or another large primer in. "Once" I picked up some hulls that a friend threw away,(he used Chedite)the next day One Winchester primer came out in my gun and one fell out in my vest pocket...Winchester hulls. GOOD LUCK

 

[Quack Shot]

Rio, Nobel Sport, and a few other obscure primers are oversized. Reloading a hull with a standard sized primer after one of the larger primers had been used is probably the cause of the problem. Cheddites are usually standard size, as are Fiocchi 616. The Fiocchi 615 and some older Cheddite primers can be oversized. In general, you can use any standard sized primer in any standard sized primer pocket, provided you pay attention to the differences in loading data. Primer changes can change pressures dramatically.

Shells that have been factory loaded with oversized primers require an oversized primer for reloading them. That would apply to Rio, Kemen, and pretty much all of the UEE manufactured ammo. I just don't understand why someone would prefer to load those hulls. They have other issues besides primer size.

There are some that will tell you to use the primer brand that is the same as the hull. That works for some people and I won't argue with it. I am one that will use cross branded components and have had good results doing so.

 

[Didreckson]

I have been loading Winchester 209 primers into STS and Nitro hulls exclusively. Never been close to loose, but actually rather tight. The first pressing is harder than subsequent runs.

I started out believing I would be loading Winchester AA's exclusively, thus I bought several bricks of Winchester 209's. Even before all the hand wringing over AA's coming apart, I just felt the Remington hulls performed better, as in nicer crimps and hull life. Thus my cross component life started.

That said, I really like my loads, and intend to continue doing exactly that. The only difference is using Downrange wads, instead of OEM or Claybuster. While the claybusters work ok, the Downrange are noticeably slicker, load better, and don't cost any more. There is a slight amount of plastic build up with them, but that is not a major issue.

I suspect an oversized primer would cause a standard 209 to be very loose, if not slip out.

 

[Shooting Coach]

Having loaded tens of thousands of 12 ga UEE hulls, I wonder what kind of "issues" they might have. I have had less issues with these hulls than with any of the domestics.

AA's have the base wad separation issue.
Cheapie WW hulls have the "are not worth a darn" issue.
Remmy hulls have varying over all length issues.
Fed GM's have hull separation issues.
Fed Game hulls have the "don't get the fiber wad wet" issue.

UEE hulls, used with Rio primers, are generally free, load without issues two or three times, then they are tossed. They are ideal for bulky powders like Red Dot, Green Dot, Unique, Clays, Intl' Clays (my new does it all powder), Univ Clays, etc, and wads made for straight walled hulls.

Rio primers are hot, work in cold weather, and are very over/under friendly.

I have a fabulous low pressure, Martian Death Ray handicap load for this hull/primer combo.

What's not to love?

 

[Quack Shot]

Issues? Basewad migrations, oversized primers (spotty availability), flimsy construction, lack of loading data, etc. I had about three out of ten loose basewads in several different UEE branded hulls when inspecting some before loading. They never did get loaded after seeing this. The basewad issues were observed over a long enough period of time and across different brands to suggest that it was not isolated to a small batch. The lack of concern from the manufacturer was also rather troubling. These were all once fired hulls. I did not see any basewads that had exited the hulls, but someone using a PW or other press that does not support the basewad during the priming stage could be in trouble. If rumours are enough to prevent some people from loading AA hulls, why do they insist on loading these?

<a href="http://s61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/nospoda/?action=view&current=IMG_0138cropped.jpg" target="_blank">

</a>

<a href="http://s61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/nospoda/?action=view&current=Kemen4.jpg" target="_blank">

</a>

<a href="http://s61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/nospoda/?action=view&current=Kemen3.jpg" target="_blank">

</a>

<a href="http://s61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/nospoda/?action=view&current=Kemen2.jpg" target="_blank">

</a>

There are a lot of people that swear by these hulls and many that swear at them. I prefer to take my chances with something else.

 

[Hatshooter]

A good read here. Some here load the UEE once or twice & toss em. I'm sure others load them many times.

 

[Shooting Coach]

I have not seen one single UEE hull with a migrated basewad, and part of my inspection routine is to eyeball every one of them under a light.

Another part of my routine is to make sure my ejected hull is complete, not separated, and take a peep down the pipe.

No, I do not shoot a fixed breech shotgun on the clay target field.

 

[phirel]

Shooting Coach- Have you ever seen a AA hull with a loose base wad or are you relying on others about this problem? I know that in my shot, using many tools, it is much easier to get the base wad out of a UEE hull than a AA hull.

Pat Ireland