[1straightshot]

They are identical except for the printing

 

[USSR]

They are identical except for the printing

Yep!

Don

 

[Agouratactical]

Thank you!

Yep!

Don

Thank you

 

[rapid86]

They are they same for reloading purposes; both are AACF (compression formed) hulls. Where you get into issues is with the newer AAHS hulls. Published reloading data says the AACF and AAHS are the same for reloading but they are not, particularly in getting the correct stack height.

 

[Agouratactical]

They are identical except for the printing

Thank you!

They are they same for reloading purposes; both are AACF (compression formed) hulls. Where you get into issues is with the newer AAHS hulls. Published reloading data says the AACF and AAHS are the same for reloading but they are not, particularly in getting the correct stack height.

Ok. But the ones in the photo are AACF. Correct.

 

[1straightshot]

Thank you!

Ok. But the ones in the photo are AACF. Correct.

Yes they are CF

 

[Abolt243]

Look down inside the hull. If it’s a HS hull, you’ll see the base cup. It may be red or white plastic. I’ve seen, and I think have an example on my bench, of “boxed AA stamped, Winchester head stamped” hulls that were early production HS hulls. I may be mistaken, I’ll look when I get home.

 

[MAH66]

Look down inside the hull. If it’s a HS hull, you’ll see the base cup. It may be red or white plastic. I’ve seen, and I think have an example on my bench, of “boxed AA stamped, Winchester head stamped” hulls that were early production HS hulls. I may be mistaken, I’ll look when I get home.

Manufacturers often fiddle with the specs of a hull to meet the requirements of other components. Low budget hulls are particularly vulnerable to such fiddlings and base wads are a prime target. When a manufacturer needs to change the internal capacity of a hull, for whatever reason, they can do it easily by changing the dimensions or profile of the base wad. It works for their needs, and because they are not selling you a hull to reload they have no reason to tell you that a change has been made. Small base wad changes can make large peak pressure changes, and there is no way to tell by looking at the outside of the hull.

 

[Abolt243]

Manufacturers often fiddle with the specs of a hull to meet the requirements of other components. Low budget hulls are particularly vulnerable to such fiddlings and base wads are a prime target. When a manufacturer needs to change the internal capacity of a hull, for whatever reason, they can do it easily by changing the dimensions or profile of the base wad. It works for their needs, and because they are not selling you a hull to reload they have no reason to tell you that a change has been made. Small base wad changes can make large peak pressure changes, and there is no way to tell by looking at the outside of the hull.

AA hulls are not “low budget hulls”. (Some will argue that point about HS hulls) The change to the HS was made about 2001. There is a difference in internal capacity between CF and HS hulls. Depending on other components used, that sometimes causes problems for some reloaders.

 

[pheasantmaster]

Thank you!

Ok. But the ones in the photo are AACF. Correct.

Yes for sure

 

[Abolt243]

Here’s an example of an early HS hull, marked and head stamped like a CF hull but with base wad cup. In this case red.

[

Here’sthe only example of CF I can put my hands on right now. Sorry, an iPhone and minimag light are not ideal for photography.

 

[Charlie Becknell]

If you search a previous post i put on, you can see some differences in HS and GA hulls. I copied this information.

Charlie Becknell said: ↑

My question is, does the base plastic of GA Hulls migrate more than HS Hulls?

The migration of a few of the base wads in the 1st generation 2-piece hulls... [AA] logo on hull... seems to have been more caused by the reloading process than anything else. PWs and Spolars didn't support (restrain) the base wad during primer insertion and the base wad could be lifted by the primer because it was held in place only by friction. Once the condition was recognized by the factory the hull design was modified so that the base wads in the generations 2 and 3 (HS)... AA logo on hull...hulls are now restrained by a pair of radial ridges around the bottom of the wad that bite into the inside wall of the hull under the brass to keep things from moving.

The locked-in base wad gradually began to appear in hulls well before the "HS" head stamp replaced the "GA" so it's tough to tell which you have if the hull is marked "GA". One characteristic that seems to hold true for restrained-base wad "GA" hulls is that the restrained wads appear to all be made of a milky white translucent plastic regardless of the hull color while the 1stgeneration "slip-fit" wads were made of the same color plastic as the hull.

I personally had 3 base wads of several thousand in 1st generation hulls migrate off the brass... 2 I discovered while trying to reload them and the other I discoveredafter firing it. I have reloaded thousands of the generation 2 and3 (HS) hulls since the redesign andhave not found or heard of any issues with them since. I've loaded,shot and discarded all the 2nd generation hulls I had and now reload only the "HS" hulls.

 

[Steve12]

I remember that thread
Steve

 

[boomhand]

Having dissected several GA stamped HS hulls showed me that they appeared to have a less secure basewad. The basewads on the GAs have a single ridge to lock them to the hull. Later stamped HS brass have basewads with 3 ridges that would appear to make them more secure.

 

[saskbooknut]

I never encountered a migrating base wad in any AA HS hull, because all of my loaders prime with a tube supporting the base of the hull.
The problem is a well known phenomena, discussed over and over on this site.

 

[boomhand]

Up until the last few months it’s been pretty easy to come up with once fired HS hulls at any range I’ve been to. I haven’t seen a need to bother taking the risk of using GA hulls that I occasionally come across.