Hodgdon - Rumor or truth?

Silver_Is_Money · Jan 7, 2023

It doesn't surprise me when new technology and low charge weight shotshell powders fall by the wayside. The reloader is dissatisfied with dished in crimps, fails to notice that there is a roughly 25% savings in powder charge weight/cost that is causing the problem, plus fails to notice that this is a wad design problem and not a powder design problem, and complains that Powder Brand X is trash and dishes my crimps, then lastly gets on multiple forums and badmouths dished crimps (while perhaps tossing in powder migration and/or dirty barrel residue as bonuses whereby to pad the rant), and soon no one is buying Powder Brand X.

painter* · Jan 7, 2023

Many of the available 28 gauge wads are Euro made. Many of the Euro powders are flake type single based. Little incentive for those wad makers to change their design.

Silver_Is_Money · Jan 7, 2023

painter* said:
Many of the available 28 gauge wads are Euro made. Many of the Euro powders are flake type single based. Little incentive for those wad makers to change their design.

True!

Steve Y · Jan 7, 2023

garrisonjoe said:
More expensive and time consuming for a wad molder to have a new injection mold set carved out and tested.

I spent 17 years in the injection molding industry at the end of my career, 7 years ago. To build a multi cavity tool as complex as a wad tool has to be to make all the legs, powder cup, shot cup with 4 slit petals and have them all eject from the tool is going to be pushing $100,000. Then to keep all the "slides" and "cores" in it working, yes it has moving parts, it has to be pulled routinely for cleaning and lubing. On a tool that complex, 2 - 3 days of maintenance. Because you dont want to see what happens if something does not move.
Steve

Silver_Is_Money · Jan 7, 2023

Is a powder such as Win. 572 ultimately doomed due to wad manufacturers reluctance to invest in molds accomodating powders that offer 25% (or greater) end user savings? If so, then perhaps the onus is upon the powder manufacturers to either provide proper fitting wads themselves, or assist those like ClayBuster and Downrange (and others) to design accommodating wads, else their new powder will become yet another flop.

painter* · Jan 7, 2023

For now, Hodgdon offers a powder that fits with available wads. Why would they want to make any investment in wad production?

Silver_Is_Money · Jan 7, 2023

painter* said:
For now, Hodgdon offers a powder that fits with available wads. Why would they want to make any investment in wad production?

Agreed, but when they transition to powders that duplicate their aging current fare while requiring 25% or so less charge weight, they may see things differently. As to why they "will" transition, the consumer will eventually figure out that 25% less charge weight means 25% less cost.

painter* · Jan 7, 2023

At that point Hodgdon will raise the prices so there will be no savings. It's the American way.

dogchaser37 · Jan 8, 2023

Charge weights haven't changed only the density of the powder. W572 is such a powder. The charge weights for W572 is the same as Universal, Unique or 20/28 for a 20 gauge 7/8 oz. load at the same velocity. The same is true for the 28 gauge 3/4 oz. load at the same velocity. If you are comparing those four powders to Longshot, then yes there is a savings, but Longshot is quite a bit different than those other 4 powders. Charge weight equals powder gas volume. You can't get around that unless you change powder composition and to my knowledge nitro-cellulose is still being used as the main propellant. Unless that changes.......and it hasn't

Universal, Unique, W572 and 20/28 all have extremely similar charge weights, at least in the 20 and 28 and for the most part in the 16 gauge also for 1 oz. loads.

Aging powders? Hodgdon and Alliant are going to keep making any powder they can sell at a reasonable price (to them) that they can make cheap. The numbers of shooters and especially hunters is falling. The numbers of folks reloading is also falling. How do you think Hodgdon got the rights to sell and distribute all these powders(including distributing Alliant powders)? If it was all that profitable that wouldn't have happened. If you have really been paying attention, how many new powders have you seen in the last 20 years? 2 may be 3 or 4. The 2 that I know of are W572 and Extra-Lite and maybe 20/28 and Longreach.

Nebs · Jan 8, 2023

Silver_Is_Money said:
Agreed, but when they transition to powders that duplicate their aging current fare while requiring 25% or so less charge weight, they may see things differently. As to why they "will" transition, the consumer will eventually figure out that 25% less charge weight means 25% less cost.

Am I reading this correctly,? The Clays powders are "aging fare?" How long has Unique been on the market? 100 years? How about Red Dot? The technology for making smokeless powder was developed in the late 1800s. The most significant development in production probably was the advent of ball powders. There's only a few places on the planet where smokeless powder is made and it take very significant capital investment to build a new production facility to bring to market something new. What that might be, I don't know.

joe kuhn · Jan 8, 2023

Steve Y said:
I spent 17 years in the injection molding industry at the end of my career, 7 years ago. To build a multi cavity tool as complex as a wad tool has to be to make all the legs, powder cup, shot cup with 4 slit petals and have them all eject from the tool is going to be pushing $100,000. Then to keep all the "slides" and "cores" in it working, yes it has moving parts, it has to be pulled routinely for cleaning and lubing. On a tool that complex, 2 - 3 days of maintenance. Because you dont want to see what happens if something does not move.
Steve

Steve, what about a wad for 1-1/8 oz of steel shot. There is no cushion section. And the petals could be cut in by hand. There's a shot cup and a powder cup. That's it. How much would you estimate that to cost?

Silver_Is_Money · Jan 8, 2023

@Nebs, Win 572 has a burn rate similar to IMR Blue and Blue Dot and a tad faster than Win 571/HS-7.

Purely hypothetical example for a 28 Gauge 3/4 Oz. load @ 1,200 FPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) IMR Blue and Blue Dot = ballpark 17.5 to 18 grains
2) 571/HS-7 = ballpark 19 grains
3) Win. 572 = ballpark 13.5 to 14 grains

Per Handloader Magazine:
Win 572 represents "New Technology" and 571/HS-7 represents "Old Technology". And "New Technology" can accomplish what "Old Technology" accomplishes with a ballpark 25% reduction in charge weight.

By inference to the 2019 dated Hodgdon Burn Rate Chart (the latest one published to my knowledge) one can presume that Blue Dot would also be in the "Old Technology" camp, as on that chart Win. 572 sits smack between kissing cousins IMR Blue and Alliant Blue Dot.

Burn Rate for Burn Rate, Win. 572 accomplishes what the two Blues that it splits accomplish with a ballpark 25% reduction in charge weight.

dogchaser37 · Jan 8, 2023

Silver_Is_Money said:
@Nebs, Win 572 has a burn rate similar to IMR Blue and Blue Dot and a tad faster than Win 571/HS-7.

Purely hypothetical example for a 28 Gauge 3/4 Oz. load @ 1,200 FPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) IMR Blue and Blue Dot = ballpark 17.5 to 18 grains
2) 571/HS-7 = ballpark 19 grains
3) Win. 572 = ballpark 13.5 to 14 grains

Per Handloader Magazine:
Win 572 represents "New Technology" and 571/HS-7 represents "Old Technology". And "New Technology" can accomplish what "Old Technology" accomplishes with a ballpark 25% reduction in charge weight.

By inference to the 2019 dated Hodgdon Burn Rate Chart (the latest one published to my knowledge) one can presume that Blue Dot would also be in the "Old Technology" camp, as on that chart Win. 572 sits smack between kissing cousins IMR Blue and Alliant Blue Dot.

Burn Rate for Burn Rate, Win. 572 accomplishes what the two Blues that it splits accomplish with a ballpark 25% reduction in charge weight.

Blue Dot is not nor has it ever been a favorite 20 or 28 gauge powder for target loads. Not even by Alliant/Hercules. Stop looking at burn rate charts as gospel. 571 was not a favorite for 20 or 28 gauge target loads either. 572 is not a replacement for Blue Dot or 571.

Hodgdon's description of the powder is specifically for 12 gauge 1 1/4 oz. loads @1330 FPS, 20 & 28 gauge target and field loads and 16 loads. That is not a description for Blue Dot or for 571.

Too much time spent talking about stuff and not enough time spent using it.

Silver_Is_Money · Jan 8, 2023

Let's add "Old Technology" 540/HS-6 to the mix. Per the same 2019 Hodgdon burn rate chart HS-6 is noticeably faster burning than 572. For decades 540/HS-6 was a powder (if not the powder) of choice for the 28 gauge, and many surmised it to be the factory 3/4 Oz. @ 1200 FPS 28 Gauge powder back in the longstanding era of the AA-CF hull.

Let's look at actual current Hodgdon Data for a 28 Gauge 3/4 Oz. load @ 1,200 FPS:

Example #1, Old Technology
--------------------------------------
Hull = AA-HS
Primer = Win. 209
Wad = WAA28HS
Powder = 18.0 grains HS-6
Pressure = 10600 PSI
Velocity = 1200 FPS

Example #2, New Technology
---------------------------------------
Hull = AA-HS
Primer = Win. 209
Wad = ClayBuster 5034-28 (used by many as a drop in replacement for the WAA28HS)
Powder = 13.8 grains 572
Pressure = 10600 PSI
Velocity = 1200 FPS

Steve Y · Jan 8, 2023

joe kuhn said:
Steve, what about a wad for 1-1/8 oz of steel shot. There is no cushion section. And the petals could be cut in by hand. There's a shot cup and a powder cup. That's it. How much would you estimate that to cost?

It would still need a core for each wad shot cup, so moving parts and maintenance, costs would be in the $75000 price range IMO.
Steve

PennSkeet · Jan 8, 2023

Silver_Is_Money said:
I agree that there need to be wads designed to accommodate ball powders in the 28 Gauge, and that what few wads are available are designed for noticeably less dense flake powders. But aside from this there is also going on at present a transition from "old technology" to "new technology" smokeless shotshell powders, regardless of their being flake or ball, with the "new technology" powders requiring up to 25% less charge weight. This is not a reflection upon some perceived lesser quality for ball powders, but rather a reflection that wad manufacturers are stuck upon designing wads around "old technology" powders, and ignoring the crimp issues that this brings to those choosing to burn "new technology" powders.

In 28 gauge, for 3/4 Oz. @ 1,200 FPS, and sticking with ball powders (of generally similar density) I offer this example set:

Old technology 571/HS-7 was in the vicinity of 19 - 20 grains
Old technology 540/HS-6 was (and is) in the vicinity of 17 - 18 grains
New technology 572 is in the vicinity of 13.5 - 14.5 grains (even though its "burn rate" is much slower than 540/HS-6, and rather close to 571/HS-7)

Clearly wads designed to yield decent stack heights for these much older technology powder examples will cave in the crimp with 572. It is not 572's fault that it applies new technology, but rather it is the wad manufacturers fault for being stuck in an old technology mindset. But rest assured that in the coming years "old technology" powders (flake, ball, etc...) will all eventually be phased out and replaced with "new technology", such that at some juncture the wad makers will seemingly have to take notice. Or they will loose business and fall to the wayside of wad manufacturers who do stand up and take notice. The early bird gets the worm.

Exactly.

As long as the legacy powders that match well with the current wad designs are still offered for sale, there's no incentive for new wad designs.

I have no problem with the legacy powders as some of them are as good or better than some of the new powders. They should not be eliminated.

New wad designs are necessary to keep up with the new powder offerings, where necessary.

I keep waiting for Claybuster to come up with a 20 gauge wad for straight walled hulls.

Federal no longer sells a 20 gauge wad so we're stuck with either using a tapered hull Claybuster wad or the more expensive Gualandi straight walled wads.

The price for a 250 count bag of Gualandi wads is the same as a 500 count bag of Claybuster wads.

Since Remington, Winchester, and Federal once fired 20 gauge hulls are becoming more difficult to find, reloaders are turning to the Euro hulls that have been prevalent since the pandemic.

Those are all straight walled and it seems to me a market has opened for an affordable straight walled wad. Maybe Claybuster will reevaluate the need and start producing a new wad.

ru31trap · Jan 8, 2023

dogchaser37 said:
I DID NOT write the following but it has been posted on 16ga.com by a respected member. I do not know how true it is but......maybe someone on SGW can get to the bottom of it. Randy Wakeman perhaps?

"Hogdon has confirmed that it is ceasing production of it's Clays series of powders for 3 years due to a large government contract. I was told this at a reloading supply store. I posted this on the Parker Forums and a member emailed Hogdon and got a reply confirming it.
Tighten your belts fellows."

There’s truth to this post but it’s not unique to Hodgdon. Both Winchester and Remington are dealing with an unprecedented number of government contracts and from what I was told they are obligated to fill those contracts before addressing any other order.

AHI · Jan 8, 2023

Silver_Is_Money said:
Let's add "Old Technology" 540/HS-6 to the mix. Per the same 2019 Hodgdon burn rate chart HS-6 is noticeably faster burning than 572. For decades 540/HS-6 was a powder (if not the powder) of choice for the 28 gauge, and many surmised it to be the factory 3/4 Oz. @ 1200 FPS 28 Gauge powder back in the longstanding era of the AA-CF hull.

Let's look at actual current Hodgdon Data for a 28 Gauge 3/4 Oz. load @ 1,200 FPS:

Example #1, Old Technology
--------------------------------------
Hull = AA-HS
Primer = Win. 209
Wad = WAA28HS
Powder = 18.0 grains HS-6
Pressure = 10600 PSI
Velocity = 1200 FPS

Example #2, New Technology
---------------------------------------
Hull = AA-HS
Primer = Win. 209
Wad = ClayBuster 5034-28 (used by many as a drop in replacement for the WAA28HS)
Powder = 13.8 grains 572
Pressure = 10600 PSI
Velocity = 1200 FPS

You do relize the volume differance is (MEC) a #13 vs #13A bushing. In actual use.

dogchaser37 · Jan 8, 2023

PennSkeet said:
Exactly.

As long as the legacy powders that match well with the current wad designs are still offered for sale, there's no incentive for new wad designs.

I have no problem with the legacy powders as some of them are as good or better than some of the new powders. They should not be eliminated.

New wad designs are necessary to keep up with the new powder offerings, where necessary.

I keep waiting for Claybuster to come up with a 20 gauge wad for straight walled hulls.

Federal no longer sells a 20 gauge wad so we're stuck with either using a tapered hull Claybuster wad or the more expensive Gualandi straight walled wads.

The price for a 250 count bag of Gualandi wads is the same as a 500 count bag of Claybuster wads.

Since Remington, Winchester, and Federal once fired 20 gauge hulls are becoming more difficult to find, reloaders are turning to the Euro hulls that have been prevalent since the pandemic.

Those are all straight walled and it seems to me a market has opened for an affordable straight walled wad. Maybe Claybuster will reevaluate the need and start producing a new wad.

You answered your own question/solved the problem. The Gualandi and Bascheri & Pelagri wads are already made and properly fit all straight wall hulls made. They are good wads. If you were Claybuster, at this moment in time would you invest in a new set of molds for a wad that other companies already make? For a market that can't get components and the components that are available have price increases that are ridiculous?

I suppose that Claybuster could make a couple of 20 gauge wads that mimic the CB61XX series in 12 gauge, but that might be overestimating how many 20 gauge wads are sold.

AHI · Jan 8, 2023

Also I have never had a dishing problem loading 28 gauge. If anything there's not enough room in the shell. That's why Claybuster redesigned there CB5034-28HSB wad. Good Dense powders are a God sent. For loading 28 gauge IMO. Being able to drop from a #20/21 bushing . Down to #12-14 has helped a lot. Still testing but so far 572 is a great powder for 28 gauge. Once my Cf hulls are worn out May not keep as much Unique on hand.

Hodgdon - Rumor or truth?

Silver_Is_Money

painter*

Silver_Is_Money

Steve Y

Silver_Is_Money

painter*

Silver_Is_Money

painter*

dogchaser37

Nebs

joe kuhn

Silver_Is_Money

dogchaser37

Silver_Is_Money

Steve Y

PennSkeet

ru31trap

AHI

dogchaser37

AHI

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities