Was just going to load some 16 yd trap with about 17 gn did not want to waste all of the 12S3 wads and fiocchi hulls I had aquired. I couldn't find any data for the recipe so I just thought I would ask fellow reloaders.
Lead Shot 12 1 1/8 oz. Clays Win. 209 WAA12 16.3 6,800 LUP 1090
Lead Shot 12 1 1/8 oz. Clays Ched. 209 WAA12 16.7 7,700 PSI 1090
Lead Shot 12 1 1/8 oz. Clays Fio. 617 Fed. 12S3 17.8 5,800 PSI 1090
Lead Shot 12 1 1/8 oz. Clays Fed. 209A Fed. 12S3 16.5 9,100 PSI 1090
Looking at the above data off of the Hodgdon chart does anyone see anything wrong with the following load: Fiocchi hull using Win. 209 primers, Clays powder, and 12S3 wads for a 1-1/8 oz. load? I called Hodgdon not much help other than reading me a chart that I already have that doesn't tell me what I want to know #*!$#
I've seen 18.2 grains of Clays with the Win 209 primer, 12S3 wad, Fiocchi hull, 1 1/8 oz shot. Velocity was around 1140 - 1150 at about 80 degrees. Shot was "volume" measured and was "magnum" shot. Might have been a touch lighter than 1 1/8 oz total. It seemed to be a nice light load. It was used to break 49/50 16s with authority. I didn't load them, but ran the chronograph. I have no way of knowing what the pressure was, but looking at the data provided by Hodgdon, there seems to be enough headroom for a substantial increase in pressure over the Fiocchi 617 primer loads listed.
Just be careful to double check your load against published data. I have no way of knowing exactly what was loaded in the shells we chronographed. I only have the shooters word on what they were. I can tell you what the velocity was, as measured by the chronograph, and that the recovered wads looked like the Federal 12S3 or a very good copy. Personally, I'd start around 17.5 grains in the load mentioned and run some over a chronograph. A call to Hodgdon may or may not result in some advice from that direction.
There's an interesting article titled 'Primer Swapping' in the Sept./Oct. issue of TrapshootingUSA by author Tom Ceretto.
According to the article, indiscriminate swapping of primers is either a swell idea or "the most egregious swap you can make".
The article includes test results. Some tests were conducted by Hodgdon. Others came from Alliant. Some folks insist mild, medium, or hot primers are mild, medium or hot in any old application. The article however, provides specific examples showing no such conclusion can be made.
The article also addresses the question of whether the ballistic characteristics of various primers remain the same from one year to another. Per the article, we CAN'T count on that either. Indeed, quoting from the article, "Dick Quesenberry at Alliant does a primer comparison test every year using various Alliant powders." Ceretto later explains, "One of the reasons Quesenberry makes these primer checks every year is that some primer manufacturers make changes and do not always inform powder companies(especially imports) or reloaders of the changes".
The bottom line? Feel free to load any horsesh!t combination of components you happen to sweep off your loading room floor. However, this article is just one more example in a big stack of examples that suggest we would all be well served to either stick with tested data or to get the blessing of RELIABLE INDUSTRY SOURCES before we deviate.