Author Topic: Strange crimp? (Read 1119 times)

the rifleman · « **on:** June 13, 2003, 06:02:02 PM »

As I think I mentioned in a previous post, I was lucky enough to get my hands on approx 1500 of the "old style" AA once fired hulls. These are the one piece compression formed type.

Up to now, I have been loading the "silver" ones (1-1/8oz shot), and have been extremely impressed with the crimps. As factory like as you could ask for!
The other day I decided to try some CCI209 primers out, instead of the W209's I have been using. As the powder charge for the CCI primers is a bit heavier (19.5gr Green-Dot) vs the 18gr for the W209 primers. Both loads by the way with the WAA12 wads.

Now to keep the new loads seperate, for easy comparision, I decided to use some of the old style "red" AA hulls. For some reason or another the red hulls ones did not crimp as nice as the silvers. There were several that did not close up tight in the centre, and would possibly have lost some shot. I put a drop of wax on these, to prevent that, but I am still baffled why the silver hulls, which according to Winchester, are the same as the red hulls, crimped so darn nice, while not all the reds did.
I made no adjustments to my MEC Versamac 700, so I know that shouldn't be the problem. Could the extra 1.5 grains of powder have done it? That is such a slight amount, volume wise, I can't see that being the difference.

Have any of you had a similar expereince???

Now keep in mind these are both the old style compression formed hulls, with no seperate basewad.

Bill

Thomas Krupinski · « **Reply #1 on:** June 14, 2003, 06:37:26 AM »

Bill,

I believe that the difference in the powder volume would be making the combination just a hair too long.

Also there is the possiblity that you may have a little bit of varriation in your charge bar throwing either your powder charge or shot volume just a little heavier on occasion.

When you are near the maximum length for perfect closing, just a little extra will make the difference.

the rifleman · « **Reply #2 on:** June 14, 2003, 11:24:53 PM »

Tom , you could be corrrect about the extra powder in these loads being the culprit, but then how does one go about ,loading the slower powders that require a volume of up to 25gr. of powder, and still get a good crimp?

I wonder if the wad pressure, which as I mentioned in an earlier topic, could be the culprit. Perhaps I better try adjusting it just a tad and see what happens. I am hesitant though as the silvers are turning out perfect crimps. Maybe the answer would be to run some 18gr. loads in some of the red hulls and see how they look.

What hulls, loads are you using?

Bill

Thomas Krupinski · « **Reply #3 on:** June 15, 2003, 04:51:06 AM »

I am using Remington as well as the older red and silver AA's. My load with the AA's has been yours with the Winchester primers and Blue Duster wads. I generally load up a run for seasons supply, so it't been a little while since I had AA's in the presses. I have a couple of 366 progressives that I leave set for 1 1/8 and 1 ounce loads. I reserve the silver for #6 shot and red for #7 1/2. The green Remingtons are 7 1/2 one ounce loads with Green Duster Wads. Sometimes I load Red Dot and sometimes I load with Green Dot.

You might consider reducing your powder charge with those CCI primers to 19.0 or there abouts and see what happens.

the rifleman · « **Reply #4 on:** June 17, 2003, 08:11:33 PM »

Tom I did as you suggested, loading the red AA's with 19gr. They all seemed to crimp quite good except for 3 that I had to put a drop of wax on.

I was quite impressed with the 19.5gr loads and the CCI209 primers. They may have patterned a bit tighter,as the clays I shot with them on Sunday seemed to turn to smoke. I used a modified choke. Hard to say for sure, as some days I am on the game better than others. I don't know if I really need to use the extra powder. Do you think that I could use 18gr. of Green-Dot, with the CCI209? Its odd but when you look at some of the old reloading data, in the early Lyman manuals, the loads using the CCI209 primers seemed to call for less powder then the Win's. The newer manual, calls for more powder, than the Wins. Whats with that?

I actually used the 18gr. load after checking loads on Alliant's web site.It is not listed in the Lyman's at all. Alliant claims it to be approx. 2-3/4 dram load. Unfortunatly they dont have a load combo for the components using the CCI primer instead. :cry:

I managed to pick up 50 STS hulls at a recent ATA shoot at my gun club. I wouldn't mind trying them , as I have heard they are pretty good. Hard to get a hold of those STS. Almost all hulls are kept by the shooters, probably for themselves, a friend, or to sell. I could get an unlimited number of the Clever Mirage hulls, as they are let lie. They look like a decent hull, but do have a seperate basewad, which I am not a big fan of, as I shoot a pump. I sure don't want any basewads stuck in the barrel, when shooting SC, or doubles......That's what worrys me a bit about the new AA hulls.

I recieved a letter today from Winchester, saying that they are not having reports of any problems with the new "high strength" AA hull as they call the shiny ones. They advise me to contact them if I experience any problems. Ok, as long as I am not eating part of my barrel! :shock:

Thomas Krupinski · « **Reply #5 on:** June 18, 2003, 04:33:37 AM »

It has been quite a while since I did my last testing, but from what I remember (don't even remember where I wrote it down) the amount of the powder charge was not especially significant in terms of velocity varriations. Slight varriations in charge weight seemed to have very little to no significant effect in the velocity.

These were the published max loads and below and what I did was a pattern different barrels and their choke combinations and record the velocity by shooting through my Chrony. What I do remember is that the lighter, about midway load, produced more consistant patterns that the faster loads.

Wasn't planning on messing with any shotshells till later on this fall, getting my rig, myself and equipment ready for archery deer/elk/turkey season which comes before bird season here in Arizona. Now is the hardest month of the year waiting for the results of the draw.

the rifleman · « **Reply #6 on:** June 18, 2003, 07:16:25 PM »

You make a good point about the max loads being listed. Alliant does say to start with a lower powder charge on thier site. I should be fine with 18gr. and perhaps even lighter, if thier max is 18gr.
I enjoy the experimenting with loads, still waiting for that magic formula :grin:

I know what you mean about being busy. I am getting ready for holidays, and have to still change the oil in the boat, wax it, check the camper roof out, to see if it needs a re-seal. Plus a long list of other items, yard work, etc.

I am waiting the results of a draw for moose, deer, and roosevelt elk. I'm keeping my fingers crossed on the elk especially, as the odds are pretty high.

Good luck!

Questor · « **Reply #7 on:** June 23, 2003, 04:18:27 PM »

For what it's worth, I tried reloading AA 20 gauge hulls with AA wads and Unique powder. I couldn't crimp the hulls correctly because there was too much powder. The solution was to switch to Remington wads. I checked the Winchester powder for 20 gauge and a charge of powder is much less voluminous.

the rifleman · « **Reply #8 on:** June 23, 2003, 08:42:25 PM »

Questor, what I don't get is the fact that load data would be listed for a batch of certain components, and charge of powder, shot etc., but will not fit a hull properly, to get a good crimp? You think that the load listed would work with the components listed and still crimp, otherwise why list it in a reloading manual? One of lifes mysterys perhaps?

Bill

rickyp · « **Reply #9 on:** June 24, 2003, 02:11:14 AM »

Some things to consider, makers do make changes to their products from time to time and take into account variations from lot to lot and even loading technique.