Trapshooters Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi, I began trying out TiteWad to save money over my usual 700X. I was told I could use less to make velocity but the recipe calls for 20 gr. to make 1350fps when before I only needed 19 gr. of 700X with the same components. Why is this? I checked burn rate charts and TiteWad is a bit faster than 700X. Had to switch from 12L to 12SL because of stack height.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I see. I always thought TiteWad was more efficient than most other powders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
474 Posts
It is when used in appropriate windows. Efficiency also comes into play given that it is typically cheaper than 700X.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
Gotcha. So my load would be deemed sort of excessive or just impractical/uncommon? I got it from the Hodgdon site and Lyman manual; only difference is I had to swap wads due to stack height. Swapping these two wads should be okay, right?

The Hodgdon site has my current load listed 20.2 gr. to make 1,350 FPS @ 10,300 PSI and my Lyman manual has 20 gr. to make 1,350 FPS @ 9,700 PSI. Max load on Hodgdon website is 21.4 grains to make 1,400 FPS @ 10,800 PSI and I don't intentionally load more than 1,350 FPS to err on the side of caution and to save some powder.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
are you using the CB0178-12 in place of WAA12L for wads Anti? I have a pound of titewad and want to try the 7/8 loads
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
474 Posts
I would say it is a bit impractical seeing as you probably wouldn't notice a difference if you stepped down to a 1250 FPS load.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I keep them around 1320+ for int'l but I suppose 1250 would work fine.

Yes Im typically using the 0178 but I switched to the 1100 SL clone because of stack height issues
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
474 Posts
You must be loading AAHS hulls.

Higher speed costs more so if you're worried about a grain of powder, you might want to take up fishing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Both AA and Rem as that's what I tend to find. Also considering loading the clear Fiocchis since they're plentiful at the bunkers. Not really concerned about the cost of a grain just the stack height since people say TiteWad tends to be more efficient. I like to stick with as few wads as possible to save space.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
What do you guys think of the 12S0? It'd be the CB clone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,687 Posts
Do the math. 1 pound is 7000 grains. Cost per pound/7000 = $/grain. Multiply $/grain of TiteWad times 20. Then compare $/grain of 700X times 19. (Corrected,Thanks John)

Even if TiteWad is a little more expensive if it meters more consistently than 700X I think that TiteWad will serve you better.

If you compare loading data, 700X is an efficient powder, as you have found out.

Jason

Edit: 12SO is the 1 oz wad for Federal hulls. It should work for Fiocchi hulls with 1 oz loads. Since you are loading 24 gram loads, stack height may be a problem. I don't think it will work well with dense powders like TiteWad or 700X. It may work less dense powders like Red Dot and Green Dot. Claybuster just came out with Win AA style wads designed for hulls like the Fiocchi, CB6100-12. But this is again designed for 1 oz of shot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Thank you guys very much.

Could somebody with the latest BP Advantages manual list some 7/8 oz. 1,350 FPS loads using TiteWad?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,553 Posts
I personally do not like anything Claybuster. I prefer the Federal 12SO, but I use the Downrange clone wads. John is right, powder being measured by weight and not volume. You will be using more powder loading Titewad than 700X. If you can get it, I would stay with you know. Bill
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top