Shotgun Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
You're dreaming. If you looked at a 2-3/4" slug with a rolled crimp after it wa shot you would see that the amount of shell length required to make a rolled crimp is the same as the amount of shell length required to make a star crimp. If you don't believe me take a new 2-3/4 shell of each type and put them side by side. They will be the same length. Now take both shells, shoot them and again put them side by side. You will see that a finished 3" shell from a 2-3/4" hull is impossible using data for 3" hulls. The casing is just not long enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
658 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Hey shantybuilder -
Sorry, I wasn't specific enough with my question. I'm not looking at loading slugs, but birdshot, with an overshot card held by a roll crimp. If I put a fold-crimped unfired 3" shell next to a new empty 2 3/4", it looks like there's enough there to do the roll crimp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
McKie,
It depends on how much shot weight you are going to try and put in the 2 3/4 in. shell. If it is a lead shell you can put 1 1/2 oz. safely in one now (12 Gauge). I've seen some reloading recipes where an Activ hull was used to load 1 5/8 oz of shot for turkeys.
I've heard of some guys trying this procedure with steel shot. But I would not recomend it.
If you try to stuff a 3 inch load into a smaller shell ( 2 3/4 in.)the pressure would increase to point where it might not be safe to shoot.
I recently purchased some 20 gauge loads with 1 5/16 oz of lead in a 3 inch shell but all my manuals only go to 1 1/4 oz.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,392 Posts
I suspect what you are contemplating is packing the 3" load into a 2-3/4" casing by shortening the wad column. The answer is NO, you cannot do it "safely". Internal case capacity is the reason. The 3" recipes are designed for the much more spacious 3" case. Stuffing a 3" recipe in the MUCH SMALLER 2-3/4" case will absolutely create excessive pressures. Can you do it and live to tell about it? Probably. But, then again, maybe not!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
Well now.....I'm not sure where some of the answers here got their data from? First let's go back to when the 3" shell came out. At that time the hulls being made had a high rolled paper basewad.
In order the get a 1 3/8 load of shot inside....the hull had to be 1/4" longer. Later, with improvements in filler wads.....1 5/8 oz and even up to 1 7/8 oz loads came in. As new hull designs were developed, mainly base wads, the space in the hull of a 2 3/4" shell became as much (and in some cases more) than the capacity of the old 3" hull. This allowed up to 1 1/2 oz loads to be made at the factory.....we put the first 1 1/2 oz - 2 3/4" load out at Smith & Wesson Ammo Co in 1972, called the Waterfowl Magnum. Now....over the years as the 3" hull designed matched the new basewad design...we had to add more filler wads to take up the space. There was little, if any changes in the powder weight or type...just 1/4" more filler. With the newer hulls like Fiocchi, Activ, and others with a 7mm basewad.....there is even more capacity. So.....we see 2 3/4" loads today that match the older 3" loads up to and including 1 5/8. Ballistic Products lists some excellent loads in the Activ 2 3/4" hull for 1 5/8 oz of shot. These loads can also be used in the Fiocchi hull as they have the same internal capacity. Another factor in the increased hull capacity was the fact that slower powders could be used, thus reducing pressure. Also the new plastic shot cups did away with most of the old hard waxed filler wads. New plastic overpowder wads (like BP's X12X) even reduce the space more. Shotshells are not like metallics were the air space is critical to pressure. There is no air space in a shot shell to be concerned with. There is little pressure change in a shotshell just do to the additional 1/4" filler wads.
So the answer is.....get a load data print out from Ballistics Products and look it over. One can load, within safe pressure, 2 3/4" loads in the new hulls that match the older 3" magnun.
Oh yes.....The rolled crimp does not take up as much internal capacity as the folded crimp.......Average .40" for folded crimp vs .15" for rolled crimp. This is verified by Ballistic Products data. Best Regards, James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,964 Posts
McKie, Lets talk safety first...ALWAYS READ THE RELOADING MANUAL! FOLLOW THE RELOADING DATA FOR THE HULL YOUR RELOADING! Bigger is better, big things come in small package's and the such might just get you blown up. A blown up gun, missing fingers, loosing your eyesight or even your life is not worth deviating any loading data. NEVER EVER DEVIATE FROM THE RELOADING DATA! Reloading is a great hobby! Remember SAFETY FIRST... Keith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
Indeed, follow published load recipes, since we helped write mostof them between 1970 and now.
It seems the basis of his question was could the 2 3/4" hull be loaded with former 3" recipes. Again.....if the former load, with exact components went into the new hulls that had the same internal capacity as the former, there would be no pressure difference. We have also found that using cut Stryo wads instead of the hard waxed cut wads (the same height) reduced pressure and gave better patterns.
I never suggest anything other that following published recipes.. We have lost many of our great shotshell developers, like Frances Sell, Maynard Yard, etc. If it was not for them, we would still be shooting obsolete loads. Testing continues today by the few left in developing new concepts, that are later turned over to the companies. There are specialized long range shotshells being tested & shot today that will not show up on the dealer's shelf for years. There are new concepts concerning pressure (and where the peak occurs) that give a much better picture than in the past. High speed photos show better what is happening in as the load leaves the barrels, etc.
Posting ones credentials is nice, but sometimes a matter of over-kill. Sometimes we have to in order to show that we didn't just get off the boat. I have been involved in ammo development for some 26 years, holding postions in three companies. Although retired now, I am still involved. When, as Vice-President & Director of Marketing for Smith & Wesson Ammo Co, I was involved in the development and testing of the entire line.
There are a few new recipes starting to show up in the manuals that show what can be done with the new high capacity hulls and slower powders. We now have 1 1/8 oz and 1 1/4 oz loads in 20 ga. in the new 2 3/4" hulls being published. Ballistic Products data has 12 ga. 2 3/4" loads up to 1 5/8 oz loads. These are well within the pressure limits. I suggest that consideration should be given to these.
Best Regards, James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,964 Posts
Posting ones credentials is nice, but sometimes a matter of over-kill. Sometimes we have to in order to show that we didn't just get off the boat.

I put my credentials in my signature because I'm involved and have been for 20+ years. I enjoy and love working with the youth of today. Maybe just maybe, someone will see my signature and say I should/could be doing that and get themselfs involved. I'm not one to sit on the porch and think I'm somebody or that I have to prove I didn't just get off the boat, I just don't have time. As long as I'm involved my credentials along with my motto will stay in my signature. Keith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
Keith and All.....I was not referring to your signature, but rather my credentials as to whether I was qualified to talk about concept in loading shotshells. I think your work is outstanding and if more people were involved the future of shooting sports would be more positive.
As consumers we make the mistake many times that the Gun and Ammo companies make changes to please the market. They only make changes to save money (thus more profit) or to create a demand when their sales slumps. As long as a product line is selling they do nothing, even if there are better products sitting in their ballistic house. The move to folded crimps was made due to the problems with rolled crimps on the high speed machines....period. That is just one example the rag writers will never write about since they have to push the products of the major advertiser. They have always used the "Quality is as the customer Perceives"......not what the quality really might be! There are shotshell recipes today that would give dense killing patterns out to 65+ yards with heavy shot. I have mentioned before there was a method for shotgun loaders to check the pressures without a pressure gun, as metallic loaders have done for years......I received no interest. This steel shot thing gives more profit at less cost of raw materials for the makers. Bismuth is as common as dirt in South America and sells for a fraction here that lead and antimony does......yet look at the price! My manuscripts on Specialized Shotshells , etc. goes overseas where the shooter, not programed by advertising, are much more interested in concept.
In the USA, the companies, through advertising and rag writers, is "If there is no Demand, create One" as their watchword..
Best Regards, James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,964 Posts
James, Why would you question your own credentials on being qualified to talk about reloading? Your credentials should stand tall on the subject of reloading. On the subject of posting credentials no problem here. Maybe you should post a signature with your credentials, it might just bring out a question that might other wise not get asked. It might be some good info myself or someone else needs to know. Here's one: What happened to the S&W ammo? I saw some about 10-15 years or so ago. Keith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
Keith.....The situation that caused the demise of the Smith & Wesson Ammo Co is sad indeed. Many of you remember the old Alcan Co, owned by Homer Clark, in Alton, Illinois. For many years Alcan had bought a great deal of product from the Fiocchi Spa in Lecco, Italy. Alcan had installed heading machines to make hulls, an injection mold machine for the Flite-Max wad, Dial loading machines, and a primer assembly line. They started building a medium quality line of shotshells, in addition to their component business. Homer Clark wanted to retire and the Fiocchi's ended up with Alcan. Smith & Wesson wanted to expand their line and soon a business agreement came about. It was a strange agreement that had 3 year management changes between Fiocchi and Smith & Wesson.........strange by American standards. Lots of us went over to S&W/Fiocchi. We built the new Smith & Wesson shotshell line from the ground up and retained the Alcan line as a promo line. I still believe that at the time the S&W shotshell line was the best on the market. After extreme effort, we began to get on very good distribution levels only to find out there was a falling out between owners. The Fiocchi, denied their next 3 years of management decided to pull out. That was the beginning of the end.....we left and S&W management, having no background in the ammo business, ran it into the ground. I went with the Fiocchi's. Later, as the European market slumped, went back to Winchester, only to see them spin off the Firearms (that's another story). Of course, that's an over-simplification of a very complex situation.....but that's the highlights. The sad thing is that we had the chance to bring forward an up-to-date shotshell line, that was later copied by Federal (that's when they surged ahead of R-P & W-W) in numbers of shotshells sold a year. The S&W shotshells had:
(1) Nickel plated high brass on all loads
(2) 100% virgin plastics in the hull (no regrind that you see today)
(3)Nickel plated high quality shot in all loads
(4)Flie-Max plastic wads in all loads
(5)The best Swedish powders
(6)High Density loads like the 12 ga 2 3/4" 1 1/2 oz Waterfowl Magnum
It was years ahead of evryone else!
That's about the drill........Best Regards, James
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,392 Posts
Lex, Your info is interesting (especially the S & W info. I still have a bunch of 16ga Alcan wads around.) But, I think you may be looking at it on a different level than the original question. I took the original question to mean could he safely pack current 3" recipes into 2-3/4" hulls. I don't think so. As an illustration, I found data for two loads, one in a 2-3/4" Win compression formed case and the other in a 3" Win compression formed case. Both use Win 209 primer, Blue Dot powder and 1-1/2 oz shot. One uses an RP12 wad and the other an SP12, which I believe are identical except for the length of the cushion section. So basically, the only variable is the roomier 3" casing. The 3" load safely uses 38 grns of Blue dot, while the 2-3/4" uses only 31 grns Blue Dot. Packing that 38 grn recipe in a 2-3/4" hull would surely cause excessive pressures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
You are correct with the example you discuss.....the 12 3/4" AA case and the 3" AA case. But, they do not have the same internal case capacity. I am speaking of new 2 3/4" cases that have the same internal capacity of the older 3" cases. So.....we may be talking about apples vs oranges. Now, lets take the same load of 1 1/2 oz of shot and 38 grs of Blue Dot and see how it applies to a 2 3/4" case haveing the same internal capacity as the 3" AA case. Alliant lists a load with the above componets.....with Activ 2 3/4 case with 1 1/2 oz of shot and 38.5 grs of Blue Dot at 1260 ft per sec with a chamber pressure of 9,600 psi. The 2 3/4" Activ (and the Fiocchi & Federal) hull has the same internal capacity as the 3"AA hull. Ballistic Products have about the same recipe. Another point to consider is the use of a wad designed for a hull that is not tapered used in a tapered case. My point was, and still is.......if the case's internal capacity is the same, identical componets, the pressure will be the same no matter what the length of the shell may be. We have also found that the hardnest of the filler wads, where used, relates to chamber pressure. This and only this is what I am addressing.
Another thing I want to clear up. The writer compared the amount of hull rolled into a slug load vs the amount of a folded crimp. He was correct as far as a slug goes as more hull is rolled down to hold the slug that has no overshot wad. However, when using shot with an overshot wad the amount of hull rolled in is much smaller.
Best Regards, James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
More followup on your AA loads with 1 1/2 of shot. Alliant lists the following:
12 ga 2 3/4" AA hull - 1 1/2 oz of shot - RP 12 wad - 31 grs of Blue Dot - 1150 ft per sec with 9400 psi
12 ga 3" AA hull - 1 1/2 oz of shot - SP 12 wad - 38.5 grs of Blue Dot - 1315 ft per sec with 10300 psi
Note the difference in velocity and pressure.
Best Regards, James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
Lex,

I really enjoy reading your information and have learned quite a bit from you. Thanks. :D
Now, when and if you would like to speak about how to check the pressure with out a "pressure Gun" I am interested.

Thanks ahead of time.
George
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top