Author Topic: Cut shells for shotguns (Read 28171 times)

The Old Redneck · « **Reply #90 on:** November 04, 2011, 02:42:09 AM »

Sir, you are just too much fun.Tried it in a little .410 double with a couple of birdshot loads at 50 yards. Sort of like playing with a little double rifle. Look forward to having the time to play more later. Lot more fun than slugs.

flmason · « **Reply #91 on:** November 06, 2011, 02:19:14 PM »

With a shot cup, is it correct to say you want the cut somewhere in the compression zone of the cup?

But what of standard wads without a cup? Where would we want the cut?

I'm thinking it needs to be far enough down to make sure the wad stays with the shot?

Given this was done in the Depression era, I'm thinking plastic shot cups weren't around yet?

Frank2 · « **Reply #92 on:** November 07, 2011, 05:17:26 PM »

I tried the cut shells in my Rem 870 18.5" smoothbore. They were accurate out to 35 yards. After that, they opened up bad. But 3 shots at 25 yards and they were all touching and right in the center of the target. Winchester 2 3/4" shell black box #9 shells from Wallmart.

Veral · « **Reply #93 on:** November 08, 2011, 06:31:09 PM »

Plastic hulls came out about in the 60's as I recall. When I first started shotgunning hulls were paper with roll crimps over a cardboard top wad, with the shot sized marked on it. Inner wads were felt with a cardboard cup over the powder, and the bare shot rubbed the barrel. Our fancy shot cups are real modern.

Cut somewhere in the hollow or cushion part of the cup if your ammo has a cup with cushion, or with most 410 hulls there is just a hard overpowder seal cup attached to the shot protector cup. Cut these hulls in the hard part of the seal cup. I think the wad needs to remain intack during flight for best long range accuracy, because it keeps the rear end lighter, like a shuttle cock, somewhat.

Yours is the first report of accuracy falling apart at such a short range. Every gun I've tried them in shot very well out to at least 100 yards. Try another type of shell. If you want to play with them, I think the best loads are the light dove loads, like 1oz for 12 ga or 7/8 oz for 20 guage. These keep the weight more forward, like a shotgun slug with it's hollow base. If you want to use them on big game and are buying for that purpose, get the coarsest shot the store has.

flmason · « **Reply #94 on:** January 20, 2012, 04:39:09 PM »

Just curious, for anyone that was doing this before shot cup wads became available. Where was the cut made with standard flat style wads?

mtbugle · « **Reply #95 on:** January 21, 2012, 04:27:12 PM »

so for a person with a 45/410 would this work for a nice heavy load? I don't have this caliber but sounds interesting.
I have got to try this in my current guages though.
Thanks Don.

The Old Redneck · « **Reply #96 on:** January 23, 2012, 12:39:06 AM »

They work great in a smooth bore. We tried some in a rifled slug barrel and the rifling caused the crimp to open and the shot scattered. I would think a Judge revolver with the forcing cone and rifled barrel would cause the crimp to open. The Judge has a lot of interesting ammo for it on the market now. Later this week if I have time I'll try it in a Judge and post the results. It works out of a little 410 double smooth bore. Pain to cut the little shells, fun to shoot.

stubshaft · « **Reply #97 on:** January 23, 2012, 11:40:08 PM »

Quote from: flmason on January 20, 2012, 04:39:09 PM

Just curious, for anyone that was doing this before shot cup wads became available. Where was the cut made with standard flat style wads?

I used to cut it about 3/16" above the brass, this would put it into the fiber wad itself.

The Old Redneck · « **Reply #98 on:** January 26, 2012, 06:10:12 AM »

On the question about cut 410 shells in a 45/410, I took that to mean a Judge or Smiths revolver. After cutting and trying it in my Judge I would just stay with the ammo made for them. Some rounds work well, the next from the same brand may have the crimp open and spray shot. I loaded them one at a time and checked the barrel each shot to make sure everything cleared. The hull always cleared the barrel even if the crimp opened. I would not trust it enough to load a full cylinder and shoot them rapid fire. I think some crimps open when they hit the forcing cone. It may be the rifling in the barrel that does it like in a rifled slug barrel. Bottom line, some worked, some did not. I enjoy playing with them in a shotgun doubt I will try it again in my Judge.

mtbugle · « **Reply #99 on:** January 28, 2012, 11:32:54 AM »

Thanks for the feed back on rifled barrels. Guess it won't work in my tracker barrel probably.
Thanks Don.

The Old Redneck · « **Reply #100 on:** January 28, 2012, 11:21:04 PM »

Sir, I am not saying it will or will not work for you in your Judge revolver. In my gun some did and some did not, brand or type of shell did not seem to matter. My Judge is one of the older ones for 2 1/2" shells. It has the 3" barrel and my concern was if loaded with a full cylinder and the hull stayed in the barrel what would happen. I bought mine to shoot snakes with #8 or#9 shot and it worked great for that just loading regular shells. The reason i tried the cut shells was just to see how it would shoot them. They make some personal defence loads for the Judge that are impressive at home defence ranges. I would use those if mine was used as a carry gun. I carry a baby Glock in 45 acp so my Judge stays loaded with bird shot just for snakes.

mtbugle · « **Reply #101 on:** February 02, 2012, 03:07:18 PM »

Actually I don't have a Judge. What I actually have is a rifled 12 ga barrel that I was thinking about. But just generally asked about rifled barrels. I may just have to try it a little and see what happens. Thought some others would have already though. The Judge sounds like a neet rig.
Thanks Don.

The Old Redneck · « **Reply #102 on:** February 03, 2012, 09:03:48 AM »

Shot them in both 12 gauge smooth bore and rifled slug barrels. The smooth bores shot them great. The 2 rifled slug barrels both opened the crimp and sprayed shot. Used several brands of shells and shot sizes. A friend has an old H&R single barrel that was cut to a 20" barrel for a snake gun. He soldered a set of sights on it and it shoots cut shells like a rifle. Kicks like a mule even with the recoil pad.

max1138 · « **Reply #103 on:** February 12, 2012, 06:15:34 PM »

the local game wardens in out area are also familiar with cut shells, and will check your ammo for them during seasons other than deer, you dont want to get caught with any in your pocket out of season here. say early squirrel season or such.

Ive never tried it but the fellows in school years ago swore by it, these were people who if they didnt hunt there wasnt a lot of meat for the table so Ive no reason to doubt it at all.

flmason · « **Reply #104 on:** February 13, 2012, 08:06:57 PM »

I realize cut shells are a convenient field expedient, but would it be safer to do as I've seen some suggest... open the shell and basically tape the shot into the cup? Or perhaps even cement a card wad of smaller diameter into the shot cup. Perhaps removing a few pellets in the process?

Anyone know if the wax slug idea causes a pressure increase as well?

Veral · « **Reply #105 on:** February 14, 2012, 08:22:22 PM »

Cut shells have been around for at least 75 years that I know of and with no safety hazard., so lets don't get concerned with doing something "safe" that doesn't work as well. The Wax shell idea just plain does not work. I've tried it with bees wax, which is far tougher than parrifin which is often recommended for that use. The shot scatters as if there were no wax there.

tigger · « **Reply #106 on:** April 04, 2012, 10:20:37 AM »

Recently tried the cut shells again. This time with an Ithaca SxS 12 gauge. Much easier than using the 870 and I did try loading both barrels with the cut shells. With Remington Gun Club 7-1/2 shot shells, the gun would hold a fist sized group @ 15 yards- just pointing the bead. Winchester Dove & Quail loads of unknown vintage did not work at all. The crimps would open up and leave the cut shell in the chamber and shoot a regular shot pattern. Tried some .410 loads in 2&3/4 and 3inch. Mostly went through the backer sideways. Too long and not front heavy like the 12 gauge.

tigger · « **Reply #107 on:** April 25, 2012, 02:40:25 AM »

Veral, you're right about opening the crimp on a shell and pouring in wax not working. The wax would solidify as a cap and have no effect in holding the shot together.
However, if you follow the links to the youtube videos, the way the wax slug is done is to cut off the crimp, dump the shot into melted wax, and then spoon the mixture back into the open shell. Kinda like a big wax bullet, but here the wax is filling in all the space between the shot.
Tried it yesterday, using the winchester shells that didn't act right as cut shells. Worked great and cycled in the 870 and an old Rem Model 11.
For those who have misgivings about the cut shell due to pressure, the wax slug can give them another option to turn cheap birdshot into a longer range projectile.
I made a few in 28 gauge last night that incorporated a .490 cast round ball along with the wax and #8 shot. If it stops raining today I'll give them a try.

Veral · « **Reply #108 on:** April 26, 2012, 04:19:13 PM »

VERY nice report! I tried it some 50 years ago after reading about it in a book about Alaska sourdoughs, but I poured the wax in. It makes a lot of sense that even if the wax did flow in around the shot, heating the shot to the wax melt temp would create a bond that wouldn't exist when pouring around cold shot.

There are many kinds of wax available which are much more flexible than parafine. One that comes to mind is the kind which is used for some cheeze. Very tough. Beeswax is also far tougher than parafine, which gets very brittle when temps are low, which is perhaps what ruined my experiement.

I really like the idea of big game killing shells made from low cost shot shells and most important, having them eject smoothly from pumps and autoloaders. I don't believe such will deliver accuracy as far out as cut shells though, as the wad on a cut shell serves to stabilize the base, methinks.

tigger · « **Reply #109 on:** April 26, 2012, 05:19:09 PM »

More report. The 28 gauge shells did well with the .490 ball plus shot. 5 shots in 4 inches at 15 yards. One shot looked to have some of the #8's leave the pack, and one hole was a bit sideways. Like the .410, the shot column is longer than it is wide, and is not as weight forward stable as the more "square" 12 gauge.
At closer ranges, the wax 12 gauge was every bit as accurate as factory slugs, but at distances over 20 yards they couldn't hold a candle (wax analogy) to Winchester 1 oz. slugs or even cut shells made from Remington Gun Club rounds. I did try a couple on spent commercial freon canisters (look a bit like a 20 lb propane cylinder, but smaller and of thinner metal). The wax slugs tore a huge hole in the canisters.
I wonder if these homemade Glasers from cheap promo loads may be just the ticket for home defense. I will have to do some penetration testing, but I believe there may be advantages. The Winchester WinLites for example, put out an ounce of shot at less than 1200 fps. Thats a whole lot less recoil than a slug load at 1500 for the same weight. I suspect there may be an advantage of concentrated momentum, along with less penetration through walls and such.

Veral · « **Reply #110 on:** May 11, 2012, 07:41:05 PM »

For home defense, I don't believe you can beat #4 or #2 shot. Just regular shells. Any shot size is deadly as lightning, but #2 from a 12 guage will drop a deer INSTANTLY out to 40 yards, with a broadside chest hit. That tells how much poison they carry. Up close its another matter, with minimum penetration, and no over penetration.

flmason · « **Reply #111 on:** May 12, 2012, 02:04:46 PM »

Quote from: tigger on April 26, 2012, 05:19:09 PM

More report. The 28 gauge shells did well with the .490 ball plus shot. 5 shots in 4 inches at 15 yards. One shot looked to have some of the #8's leave the pack, and one hole was a bit sideways. Like the .410, the shot column is longer than it is wide, and is not as weight forward stable as the more "square" 12 gauge.
At closer ranges, the wax 12 gauge was every bit as accurate as factory slugs, but at distances over 20 yards they couldn't hold a candle (wax analogy) to Winchester 1 oz. slugs or even cut shells made from Remington Gun Club rounds. I did try a couple on spent commercial freon canisters (look a bit like a 20 lb propane cylinder, but smaller and of thinner metal). The wax slugs tore a huge hole in the canisters.
I wonder if these homemade Glasers from cheap promo loads may be just the ticket for home defense. I will have to do some penetration testing, but I believe there may be advantages. The Winchester WinLites for example, put out an ounce of shot at less than 1200 fps. Thats a whole lot less recoil than a slug load at 1500 for the same weight. I suspect there may be an advantage of concentrated momentum, along with less penetration through walls and such.

I've written a few of the powder manufacturers trying to elicit safe reload or load development methods using the waxer slug idea. To date, not one has responded.

I guess, technically, these are a form of breaching rounds. To be safe I'd really like some method to be sure that if I reload from scratch, aren't going to blow the gun up.

Granted, empirically, seems a lot of people have been doing it a long time with commercial rounds. So seems that adding the wax, to the same powder load doesn't exceed typical shotguns' strength, but still, for anything but cylinder bore, would feel a lot better with some input from serious ballastic labs.

The idea is too excellent to ignore as it basically means you can shape any sort of projectile you pour.

For example... you could put a little hollow come in the shell and make a nose heavy slug as you pour it. Or make a cup with a wad in the bottom to simulate the Brenneke concept, etc. It's a very flexibly idea.

But worries about pressures I can't estimate or measure worry me.

spooked · « **Reply #112 on:** May 17, 2012, 01:32:36 PM »

I've written a few of the powder manufacturers trying to elicit safe reload or load development methods using the waxer slug idea. To date, not one has responded.

I guess, technically, these are a form of breaching rounds. To be safe I'd really like some method to be sure that if I reload from scratch, aren't going to blow the gun up.

Granted, empirically, seems a lot of people have been doing it a long time with commercial rounds. So seems that adding the wax, to the same powder load doesn't exceed typical shotguns' strength, but still, for anything but cylinder bore, would feel a lot better with some input from serious ballastic labs.

The idea is too excellent to ignore as it basically means you can shape any sort of projectile you pour.

For example... you could put a little hollow come in the shell and make a nose heavy slug as you pour it. Or make a cup with a wad in the bottom to simulate the Brenneke concept, etc. It's a very flexibly idea.

But worries about pressures I can't estimate or measure worry me.

(end quote)
It would be extremely stupid for them to give you any hints on doctoring ammo..Think the major lawsuits they would be hit with when some azz didn;'t follow directions to the T...Nothing but a losing proposition for them.
If it worries ya then don't do it! Keep studying and hold off a few years til you feel confident..

flmason · « **Reply #113 on:** May 21, 2012, 07:19:32 PM »

Quote from: spooked on May 17, 2012, 01:32:36 PM

I've written a few of the powder manufacturers trying to elicit safe reload or load development methods using the waxer slug idea. To date, not one has responded.

I guess, technically, these are a form of breaching rounds. To be safe I'd really like some method to be sure that if I reload from scratch, aren't going to blow the gun up.

Granted, empirically, seems a lot of people have been doing it a long time with commercial rounds. So seems that adding the wax, to the same powder load doesn't exceed typical shotguns' strength, but still, for anything but cylinder bore, would feel a lot better with some input from serious ballastic labs. As opposed to doctoring up off-the-shelf ammo.

The idea is too excellent to ignore as it basically means you can shape any sort of projectile you pour.

For example... you could put a little hollow come in the shell and make a nose heavy slug as you pour it. Or make a cup with a wad in the bottom to simulate the Brenneke concept, etc. It's a very flexibly idea.

But worries about pressures I can't estimate or measure worry me.

(end quote)
It would be extremely stupid for them to give you any hints on doctoring ammo..Think the major lawsuits they would be hit with when some azz didn;'t follow directions to the T...Nothing but a losing proposition for them.
If it worries ya then don't do it! Keep studying and hold off a few years til you feel confident..

Wasn't talking to ammo manufacturers... but powder manufacturers. Was looking for safe *reloading* data for this type of projectile.

Zog the Primitive · « **Reply #114 on:** January 24, 2013, 12:07:40 PM »

For primarily academic reasons does anyone know if crimped 22 shotshells could be made into cutshells or (more likely) wax slugs? I know that your regular 22 round will probably be more effective but I'm still curious as to if it is possible and how effective it will be. On a different note, after reading this forum I'm even more motivated to purchase a shotgun when I get the necessary funds.

45-70.gov · « **Reply #115 on:** January 24, 2013, 01:58:03 PM »

MIGHT DETONATE THE RIM-FIRE CUTTING IT

cut shells are just so field expedient...if your well versed in it..[i am not but want to try it]
like any thing else...you need to learn it and your limitations

if you ''plan'' on needing a slug just buy some and keep them with you

some one needs to autopsy a pig or deer killed with a cut shell
now ya'll have your homework assignment[/i]

Zog the Primitive · « **Reply #116 on:** January 24, 2013, 03:30:47 PM »

I opened up the crimp in one of my 22 shotshells after I posted. I used a little crayon wax to bond the dust shot together. I'll test it in my Heritage revolver over the weekend and post results.

After looking at the construction of the round I think that you're correct that a detonation is possible. Right now with shortages on regular 22 ammo in my area, improvised 22 shotshell loads are looking attractive for testing. I'll likely use true cut shells in future, once I get a shotgun. Right now I'm using bouncing between a Marlin 795 .22lr and the previously mentioned Heritage Rough Rider .22lr/.22mag for all of my shooting needs.

I'd be willing to post pictures of an autopsy on an animal killed by cut shells in future. Proper deer or pigs might be hard to come by. The only herd of deer that I know of lives in a nature preserve just outside of town. Nowadays there are too many hikers in said preserve to safely take any animals with anything louder than a 22 firing subsonics or a bow. Closest approximation to pigs would be javelina and here in AZ you need a special tag to hunt them, unless they're acting aggressively towards you. So therefore the largest animals in my area that could serve as a test bed are nearly wolf sized coyotes. I hope that'll suffice.

Veral · « **Reply #117 on:** January 28, 2013, 05:53:40 PM »

This cut shell thing ain't for 22 shot shells, nor for reloaded shot shells, though one could probably do it with reloaded shot shells if the crimp were made real strong, somhow.

I've found that many of the current brands, probably import, don't send the slug out properly and especially if the load is a magnum, as the long charge of shot seems to be unstable in flight, whereas standard field loads and espeically the light dove and quail loads tend to shoot most accurately at longer ranges. The nose heavy with long light tail seems to stabilize best.

The only way to know is to try whatever ammo you are carrying, and if it works fine, if not you'll know before peppering an amimal and not killing it.

By the way, game laws in Michigan back from 72 when we left and earlier, listed cut shells as a big game load, legal to carry only in big game season. -- In other words, one might cut them johnny on the spot. for immediate use, and beat the no carry rules, but have to do some intense explaining on how he punched a 12 guage hole in a critter with a shot shell!

Someone asked for autopsy reports. That would be real nice. I've shot only a lion close up enough to have the shot act as a cut shell would. The whole wad stayed inside the lions neck, and the lion stayed EXACTLY where it was when the shot hit! I expect a hit in the ribcage would show a well dispersed batch of pellets, but never asked of the people I know who killed deer with them. All have reported kills as quick as lightening, but nothing else. Good enough for me.

Zog the Primitive · « **Reply #118 on:** January 28, 2013, 11:36:30 PM »

I tested my wax .22 shot shells over the weekend. Since the shell construction uses only primer, the projectiles were lightweight subsonic frangible slugs, maybe 30 grains at best with the added weight in wax. I did manage to hit a rabbit at 10-15 yards in the gut with one of the rounds. Died on spot, no twitching, running or anything. Calling the penetration shallow might be overly generous, however it seems all the energy was expended within roughly 3 inches, resulting in fairly large internal cavity. A majority of the meat was edible after I washed out the intestinal juices. I would have taken pictures, but still photos wouldn't effectively conveyed what happened. Video probably would have, but I don't think I could have filmed and shot my revolver at the same time.

While the rounds I was using weren't cut shells, based on other poster's descriptions, I'd consider wax slugs and cut shells to be in the same family of improvised loads.

Quote

Someone asked for autopsy reports. That would be real nice. I've shot only a lion close up enough to have the shot act as a cut shell would. The whole wad stayed inside the lions neck, and the lion stayed EXACTLY where it was when the shot hit! I expect a hit in the ribcage would show a well dispersed batch of pellets, but never asked of the people I know who killed deer with them. All have reported kills as quick as lightening, but nothing else. Good enough for me.

Are you talking about mountain lions or the maned African types? Regardless, that had to have been one exciting experience (not necessarily a good way) if the beast was close enough for your shot to have a cut shell effect. I'll be very eager give you folks a proper autopsy on a much larger animal once I get a 12 gauge pump, could be a several months though, money is tight.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #119 on:** January 29, 2013, 07:49:11 AM »

Ballistic Products sells a bag of sorts to contain steel shot or hevi shot to protect the barrel. If reloading would it be possible to use one of these with the waxed shot ? And also in reloading use the bag and waxed shot in a 3 inch shell which would allow a longer tail . Of course paper or cork wads would be needed to fill the extra space .
The less than factory strong crimp on reloads , could heating the shell at the crimp help or would it make it soft instead of harder ? I was thinking heat gun not flame.

Thanks .