I was just looking at the Hodgdon reloading data center and it seems they no longer list data with Claybuster 28ga. wads. What gives?

I see some for a few powders

Where it says WWA28 i just use Claybuster 28 wads

Right on, me too. But Hodgdon was the only online data site I am aware of that had 28ga. data tested with actual CB5034HS wads. Now it don't...

I'm just wondering if anyone knows why specifically. Did Hodgdon buy Winchester's wad making department putting Hodgdon into direct competition with Claybuster, or something?

Would be my guess, but since both the 28 and 410 wads of CB verse Win's are the same in size, very easy to make the substitution if not given to start with on target loads that are no where near max working pressure.

And it's kind of funny, since a while ago, most of us just go the powder manufacturer site to get loading data, isntead of buying the Lyman reloading book that does have pretty much everything combo list in it of decades past.

So if a powder manufacturer want to start to pick and choice what they are going to publish regarding the different main stream reloading compounds or not (to further their own sales) , may just be time to go back to the Lyman reloading data that will list such instead.

Thanks Dano523.

Maybe they finally figured out it was a waste of time to test them separate from Win WAA28HS wads since the Claybuster wad was intended to be a direct replacement and says right on the bag to "Reference Loading Data WAA28HS".

So how does Alliant get their data for 28ga Claybuster wads ? Or anyone else. I'm looking at a Alliant Reloaders Guide [ not sure of the year ] and they list loads with Fed, Win, and Rem hulls and Claybuster wads. Maybe they just made them up.

Just about like they get their cartridge loading data, or their data for other gauges.

Most of these companies have in-house ballistics technicians who do the work needed to develop a new load (usually with lots of reference to previous loads that worked) when a new component becomes available or a new performance level is desired. Using pressure barrels and accurate chronographs they test fire a load under several temperature and humidity levels, measuring pressure electronically using pressure/strain gages, and the resulting muzzle velocity. They compare the pressures to the SAAMI standards for that gauge to ensure they are going to have high confidence that the load is within established limits. They check for consistent performance, temperature-induced changes in performance, etc. - anything that might make a load unsatisfactory for general use. Some loads may actually be fired to check patterns, especially if testing a new target load that really needs verification of a better-performance claim they want to tout.

Unless they are just "dry-labbing" the development process by counting on proprietary software to estimate the performance of a load that they are not going to actually fire. Not likely that they might admit this if you asked, however.

good luck, garrisonjoe