Shotgunworld.com
https://www.shotgunworld.com:443/bbs/

AA hulls getting fatter
https://www.shotgunworld.com:443/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=518792
Page 2 of 2

Author:  garrisonjoe [ Sun Sep 13, 2020 9:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: AA hulls getting fatter

The (yellow, 1 ounce) Windjammer II wads will also shorten up the stack compared to the CB1100. They do have the 8 petal design of most windjammer style wads, so be sure your loader will insert and seat them without petal folding.
good luck, garrisonjoe

Author:  Luke485 [ Sun Sep 13, 2020 10:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: AA hulls getting fatter

garrisonjoe wrote:
If you put a lot of seating pressure on those wads, they can bulge out the hull wall plastic where the skirt of the wad fits down into the base piece of the hull. If you can feel the bulge by running your finger over the surface of the loaded hull, about 1/4 to 1/2 inch above the brass, that would be what is preventing drop-in chambering. That CB 11100 pink wad is supposed to be tapered enough to prevent this, but my experience is that it's not always quite enough. A Remington TGT12 wad is about 15 or 20 thousandths smaller diameter, from my samples on the loading bench, and might be a quick fix (it loads very close to the CB 1100 wad). Surprisingly, the CB clone for that (CB 8100) is almost the same diameter as the CB 1100.

Lighter seating pressure, or a more bulky powder, can solve this by holding the shot wad off the base piece.

The STS design with a one piece hull has no ridge to catch the wad skirt, and so does not develop a swelling low on the shell.

Good luck, garrisonjoe


After a further review of a bunch of my reloads, I'm believe the above quote has hit on my problem. I tested a bunch of reloaded shells in my gun yesterday. The one and two time reloaded AA hulls all have a small but noticeable hump just above the brass base. They go into the gun pretty easily but they don't drop in like new ones. I guess I never noticed this little friction when shooting. The third time reloaded hulls are as I described in the OP. They are all slightly tighter and a number of them won't go in at all. All of the bulges are at the same place about a 1/4" above the brass. I'm sure now that the wad is seating onto the extra plastic base piece just barely and producing this bulge.

My solution is going to be to switch to the Remington GC and STS hulls I have in stock. I've had no problems with those hulls and they easily drop into the chambers after 3 reloads. I have a lot of CB 1100 wads and I want to use them up before going back to my AA problem. Then I'll just change wads as suggested and find one that works with my preferred powder which is Clays. Thanks to all who helped me find a solution to this problem.

Author:  garrisonjoe [ Sun Sep 13, 2020 12:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AA hulls getting fatter

That two-piece AA HS hull design with the plastic base wad insert is what made me completely change over to Rem STS/Nitro hulls about 12 years ago. It can cause those ridge bulges on light loads unless you get exactly the right wad and seating pressure. And, the newer plastic formula of the Red AAs seems to only last 3 loads for me. STS hulls and IMR Red powder are letting me easily get 15 target loads (yep, that's right) before the hull mouth gives out (roll splits or petals splitting due to crispy plastic).

Good luck with the Rem's, garrisonjoe

Author:  Nebs [ Sun Sep 13, 2020 2:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AA hulls getting fatter

Luke485 wrote:
After a further review of a bunch of my reloads, I'm believe the above quote has hit on my problem. I tested a bunch of reloaded shells in my gun yesterday. The one and two time reloaded AA hulls all have a small but noticeable hump just above the brass base. They go into the gun pretty easily but they don't drop in like new ones. I guess I never noticed this little friction when shooting. The third time reloaded hulls are as I described in the OP. They are all slightly tighter and a number of them won't go in at all. All of the bulges are at the same place about a 1/4" above the brass. I'm sure now that the wad is seating onto the extra plastic base piece just barely and producing this bulge.

My solution is going to be to switch to the Remington GC and STS hulls I have in stock. I've had no problems with those hulls and they easily drop into the chambers after 3 reloads. I have a lot of CB 1100 wads and I want to use them up before going back to my AA problem. Then I'll just change wads as suggested and find one that works with my preferred powder which is Clays. Thanks to all who helped me find a solution to this problem.
This bulge you refer to is a classic sign of a stack height that is too tall. The crimping function is putting pressure on the side of the hull forcing the plastic to bulge. Normal loading of these hulls will result in the wad seating below the level of the start of the plastic insert. You can see this in the cutaway view of the factory load:

https://winchester.com/Products/Ammunition/Shotshell/AA/AAHA127

The stack height of the load you are using is a bit too tall and needs to be shortened is all. You are not the first to experience this problem. If i was better with the image function I would post a pic of a more extreme version of what you are experiencing, it looks like a "spare tire" above the brass. Threads on this issue crop up periodically and a search will produce many hits.

Author:  Republican [ Sun Sep 13, 2020 2:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AA hulls getting fatter

YevetS wrote:
If they were not colored we would not know which ones to pick out of the dumpster.

Steve

Or which ones NOT to pick out of the dumpster, - good point !

I only pick up (out) clear hulls. Right now that is Fiocchi, and the new Rio Sporting Clays.

Author:  garrisonjoe [ Sun Sep 13, 2020 3:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AA hulls getting fatter

Quote:
The stack height of the load you are using is a bit too tall and needs to be shortened is all.


I have found quite a few Win AA factory loads over the last 5 years that have a sharp-topped bulge evenly around the hull at this critical spot. I know that Winchester is not paying as much attention to QA recently, but this indicates it's not ONLY a tall stack, since the factory would not be throwing in a taller stack in something like 5% of their loads. The Featherlite (Low Noise Low Recoil loads) were real bad about having bulged hulls.

Besides, a taller stack causing this problem would not be skipping over the first or second loading and start popping out a bulge with a 3rd reload, would it?

Good luck, garrisonjoe

Author:  Nebs [ Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AA hulls getting fatter

garrisonjoe wrote:
Quote:
The stack height of the load you are using is a bit too tall and needs to be shortened is all.


Besides, a taller stack causing this problem would not be skipping over the first or second loading and start popping out a bulge with a 3rd reload, would it?
It might. But, except for the primer, that's pretty much a book load. This is the first I've heard of this phenomenon. We don't know what kind of loader he's using. It might be a simple adjustment issue. Hornady gives crimp die adjustments specific to the HS hull that call for raising the crimp die. I load HS all the time and I don't have this problem. I don't think it has anything to do with the number of times the hull has been loaded.

Author:  Luke485 [ Tue Sep 15, 2020 2:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AA hulls getting fatter

Nebs wrote:
garrisonjoe wrote:
Quote:
The stack height of the load you are using is a bit too tall and needs to be shortened is all.


Besides, a taller stack causing this problem would not be skipping over the first or second loading and start popping out a bulge with a 3rd reload, would it?
It might. But, except for the primer, that's pretty much a book load. This is the first I've heard of this phenomenon. We don't know what kind of loader he's using. It might be a simple adjustment issue. Hornady gives crimp die adjustments specific to the HS hull that call for raising the crimp die. I load HS all the time and I don't have this problem. I don't think it has anything to do with the number of times the hull has been loaded.


I'm reloading with a Mec Sizemaster. Yes, this is a book load that I got from the Hodgdon website. I replaced the Win. 209 with the Fiocchi 616 because I couldn't get Winchester Primers often and I found a source close to home that always has the Fiocchi's.

I have my reloader set up with minimum pressure on the wad. The wad height indicator is hardly moving at all at the bottom of the stroke. I'm getting good consistent crimps with both the Winchester and Remington hulls. The Winchester once and twice loaded shells fit snugly but the three times reloaded shells are definitely tight with a noticeably bigger bulge. The Remingtons slip in like factory shells at 3 reloads. It remains a bit of a mystery.

I gotten some good suggestions here and once I get enough Remingtons loaded to last for awhile, I'll go back to the Winchesters and do some adjusting of the crimp die. I'd like to get it right and learn a bit more about the adjustments but I have a high demand for production right now. With both my wife and I shooting a couple of time per week, I'm having to work pretty hard to keep us in ammo. I may have to go with a progressive loader in the future and then I'll have a whole new learning curve.

Author:  wrfish [ Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: AA hulls getting fatter

I have noticed this also with used AAs. It is no problem with an over under but I won't use them in my semi autos.

Author:  casonet [ Fri Sep 18, 2020 12:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AA hulls getting fatter

If you want to shoot AAs that won’t get fat and are a far far better hull than the AAHS, I have several thousand once fired AA compression formed both in 12 and 20. I would part with some

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/