[Art Sorrentino]

I have heard that the Federal Gold Medal data can be interchanged with with the Federal hunting hulls, aka Wallyworld hulls.

I found one FGM and filled it with powder to the brim and it held 140.0 grains.

I took a Federal hunting hull and did the same thing. It held 136.4 grains of the same powder.

BTW I used Unique because it was handy, although it shouldn't make a difference because the same powder was used in both hulls.

My question is two fold;
1. Is that an accurate way to measure the volume in a hull?

2. Is the 3.6 grains of powder too much of a difference in total volume to safely load both hulls with the same data?

What say you, and why?

 

[Ferdinand]

Art, I'll chime in with my $.02, for what it's worth. It's a scientific question, as you say, and I'm admitadely no scientist. Your sample size of one hull of the two varieties isn't a large enough sample from which to draw a scientific conclusion, IMHO. I'm not sure how hulls are formed, and that variance may be well within the limits of the manufacturing process. A larger sample population may yield different, and potentially more conclusive results.

That said, if your observation is a valid determination of the volume differences in the two types of hulls, I'd say that the data is interchangeable. I have different generation manuals from the same provider, and the load data doesn't jive from one to the next, exactly. I'd guess that you would be OK, especially if you stay at the low side of the listed powder range and monitor the results carefully before building up. I've found this to be true of metallic reloading data also. Use at your own risk

 

[beammeupscotty]

I am no expert either, but I have used a similar method (using shot instead of powder) to compare the volume of standard Remington hulls like Gun Çlubs, to the blue colored Remington Peters hulls that I have come across from time to time at my range. The volume check in that case came out about the same. That said, there is another element in the equasion, the actual construction of the hull. How the hull is made, and what it is made of has a bearing on whether or not it can safely be reloaded, and how many times it can be reloaded. In the case of the Remington Peters hulls, I cut one apart and determined that it was an exact match structurally to a Gun Club in that it was a one piece hull made of roughly the same gauge of plastic. You will find this is NOT the case if you compare the Walmart cheapo Federal hulls with the premium Gold Medals. The volume may be close, but the overall quality of the hull is not. Plenty of people reload the Gold Medal hulls. Some reload the cheapos, but usually only once. Personally, I wouldn't waste my time or risk my shotguns or my well being reloading what most consider to be throw away hulls.

Look around a bit. You should be able to find plenty of Remington hulls lying around which make for much better and safer reloads.

 

[RandyWakeman]

I found one FGM and filled it with powder to the brim and it held 140.0 grains.

I took a Federal hunting hull and did the same thing. It held 136.4 grains of the same powder.

BTW I used Unique because it was handy, although it shouldn't make a difference because the same powder was used in both hulls.

My question is two fold;
1. Is that an accurate way to measure the volume in a hull?

2. Is the 3.6 grains of powder too much of a difference in total volume to safely load both hulls with the same data?

No, Art, it wouldn't be considered accurate or relevant. Hulls may vary quite a bit in unfolded length and that's not the way they are used.

 

[Shoot2reload]

With shotshell reloading case volume isn't nearly as critical as for metallic. Reloaders with metallic experience tend to carry over that line of thinking into shotshells, and it doesn't necessarily apply.

Internal geometry (basewad shape, internal diameter, wall taper) comes more into play than hull height or total volume.

Even if a Federal Gold Medal and a Remington STS had the exact same internal volume the reloading data would not match.

 

[Art Sorrentino]

Well, I guess that answers the question. I knew going in that the sample wasn't big enough but when you only have one FGM hull it kind of limits you.

Thanks to all of you for your answers.

 

[Burnt Powder]

In reality the fact that the cheapo Federal hull has a wound paper base wad and the Gold Medal has an integral plastic base wad makes far more difference than whatever difference you may have found in volume. Your procedure of measuring is very flawed. Hulls are seldom the same size and Unique seldom settles evenly. Unreliable information and measuring process at best.

BP

 

[geometric]

Burnt Powder has it right. Usually the volume in metalics is based on how much water it will hold & the larger the represenative sample is, the better will be the measurements. I don't think a comparison would mean much unless you are comparing hulls of the same type of construction. There is plenty data for Federal paper based hulls out there.

 

[Burnt Powder]

Yes, and when you measure capacity of a metallic case you have to trim them to the minimum length and what you do is weigh the empty case, then fill it with water while weighing it and compare the weight. Otherwise you get water still stuck to the inside of the case that you can't get out. Water still has a specific gravity of one so....

BP

 

[BobK]

From a scientific viewpoint, NO! It is NOT an accurate method.

First of all, the hull case must be "clean". That means a water-break free surface with ALL "contaminants" removed. (That's a subject in itself).

Then water must be poured in at the same temperature for BOTH cases, and be free of bubbles or entrained particles.

The meniscus of the water for both cases must be the same.

Then the volume of water must be measured carefully after ALL water is removed.

Then, your figures will have relevance.

BobK

 

[FullandFuller]

I have heard that the Federal Gold Medal data can be interchanged with with the Federal hunting hulls, aka Wallyworld hulls....

.....
What say you, and why?

First off, the obvious, I have yet to see a reloading manual that shows them as interchangeable hulls. The Gold Medal has more capacity. It is one of the highest capacity hulls out there and that is the reason those hulls are used by 2-3/4" steel shooters. I think you should double check your source on that bit of data.

Jeremiah

 

[goatskin]

The reason FGM is the default standard template (and the usual 1st answer to about any straight-wall hull reloading question) is manifold.

In the 'reloadable' hulls: meaning low, flat basewad 6 or 8-pt star crimp, the FGM is common, known, unchanged for a generation and you can crimp a Buick in it, if you remove the bumpers first.

You can also reliably, repeatably, comfortably use it as a calibration tool for pressurising any other straight-wall hull, meaning that if you have a load that develops 10,000psi, the same load will develop NO MORE than 10,000 in a similar hull.

When you have a paper/fiber basewad, and use FGM template, it is never as high a pressure (or velocity) as the FGM, so using any FGM load that fits, gives a built-in safety factor.

As example, I load the same recipe in uninspected, un-sorted, mine-run Eurotrash (F209A, 17.5gn Bullseye, Fed12C0), caring nothing whether the hull has a plastic or rolled-paper basewad. The hulls that have a plastic basewad chrono about 1180; the paper/fiber basewads chrono around 1130.

Where the data does NOT hold up is at either pressure extreme: 4500 or 11000 psi.

There aren't many constants in re-loading, but FGM is one of them.

GS

 

[Oddgauge]

volume each holds means just that, how much powder fit in each hull. Now what does that info do for you? Not much.

I cut many of my hulls because I roll crimp and need less hull. I use EXACTLY the same in the short hull as I do in the longer hull.

The chemical reaction doesn't care what length of hull it is in.

 

[TexasTon]

I started out using powder as well, back a couple decades ago and quickly learned it can fluff up due to static charge------enough so I couldn't rely on it.

Take a small amount of water and syringe, put 3-4 drops of dishwashing liquid in the water to break the surface tension, then weigh the water it takes to fill the hull.

 

[Art Sorrentino]

Again, thanks to everyone who answered the question. It was just something that was rattling around between my ears for awhile. Now I can file it in the bad idea box and move on to the honeydo list.

Thanks again.