Shotgun Forum banner
1 - 20 of 75 Posts

·
Premium Member
Latest addition is a LH Caesar Guerini 12 gauge, previously a 725 and a Citori back in the '70's
Joined
·
525 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I feel it would be in everyone's best interest to avoid duplication if we had a sticky by gauge of loads sent in for testing by members. Presently I have proven data to use, but if nothing shows up when that is gone, I will be sending in two loads using WST and posting the results here. What do you think about this idea?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,861 Posts
I think it’s a great idea, and agree it should be a photo of the results, then hopefully no questions asked.
First, it should be up to the person who obtained the results whether they want to write it up or post a pic of the test sheets. Second, I'll report this post to Curly and suggest it's not a bad unless there is some reason I'm not thinking of. Ii think only the mods can do the sticky thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
First, it should be up to the person who obtained the results whether they want to write it up or post a pic of the test sheets. Second, I'll report this post to Curly and suggest it's not a bad unless there is some reason I'm not thinking of. Ii think only the mods can do the sticky thing.
Disagree sir, if you write it, you can make a mistake or just put down whatever you want. Pictures are worth a 1000 words.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,861 Posts
Disagree sir, if you write it, you can make a mistake or just put down whatever you want. Pictures are worth a 1000 words.
This will be up to the mods.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDV

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,148 Posts
And when someone posts that the load they had tested used 20gr of XYZ and they had no clue how much they were actually using and it turns out that they were actually only loading 15gr? ...and someone else takes the posted info as gospel and actually loads 20gr and blows his gun up?

I don't think SGW wants the liability exposure. I sure don't which is why if I post something about a load I use or have had tested, I include some form of disclaimer... "YMMV" or "for entertainment purposes only", etc.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,680 Posts
A thread like that would be handy. Especially so if it was limited to scanned pressure test load sheets and limited or no comment posts to clutter it up.
ROTFLMAO.......no comments on SGW???? You are a funny man!!! Or delusional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hal4son

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,680 Posts
You know, there are a lot of loads sent in to various labs. I happen to know one lab fairly well.......some of that data isn't worth much because the quality of the reloads isn't always what it should be.

Sounds like a good thought, but who knows. Just pay attention to some of the posters, they tell you flat out as long as it goes bang they are happy......not who I want to be the source for my target or hunting loads.

There was a thread on here maybe 2 years ago, I don't remember all the particulars but something was messed up with the performance of the load. Anyway the guy posted a picture of the loads he sent in to be tested.....the crimp depth was 1/8"......no kidding really? Imagine that, the performance of the load was bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
I thought I was interested, if it's a picture. I've changed my mind already. Here's why.

Below is a picture of a load I had tested where you can see the entire document including lab name, date, load details, results, comments and the tech's name. However, two items are missing. "TYPE SHOT" and "WGT". I know what type of shot it was and the weight because I loaded the shells. You don't know, so how are you going to find out? I'd have to tell you and you'd have to trust me - we're right back where we started - typing in data. That's reason #1 I'm against this. I'd have to add something additional to complete the load information. (I could hardly believe this when I found the problem 5 minutes ago, but there it is)

Reason #2: Someone might read just the picture, skip my add-on to the picture, and assume this is a lead shot recipe and they would be wrong. I'm not going to risk that, hence all my red lines crossing out the good stuff.

Reason #3: Technicians make mistakes like any other person. In this case it was a mistake of omission, not serious for me, but it is for you. How do you feel about that?
Handwriting Font Rectangle Material property Parallel



So where do you draw the line? I'll stick with recipes in books and on line and my own tested recipes sent to labs.

Thanks, but I won't be participating.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
I thought I was interested, if it's a picture. I've changed my mind already. Here's why.

Below is a picture of a load I had tested where you can see the entire document including lab name, date, load details, results, comments and the tech's name. However, one item is missing. "TYPE SHOT". I know what type of shot it was because I loaded the shells. You don't know, so how are you going to find out? I'd have to tell you and you'd have to trust me - we're right back where we started - typing in data. That's reason #1 I'm against this. I'd have to add something additional to complete the load information. (I could hardly believe this when I found the problem 5 minutes ago, but there it is)

Reason #2: Someone might read just the picture, skip my add-on to the picture, and assume this is a lead shot recipe and they would be wrong. I'm not going to risk that.

Reason #3: Technicians make mistakes like any other person. In this case it was a mistake of omission, not serious for me, but it is for you.
View attachment 48592

So where do you draw the line? I'll stick with recipes in books and on line and my own tested recipes sent to labs.

Thanks, but I won't be participating.
I see what your talking about, however, the wad type does give some indication of the load, but not always. I would be ok with that added before it was added here.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
23,667 Posts
While it's a decent thought, the whole thing is fraught with problems that have only begun to be thought about.
I think we will leave the shell recipes to those that publish them.
We are not stepping into that muddy puddle with both feet when we can't see the bottom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
While it's a decent thought, the whole thing is fraught with problems that have only begun to be thought about.
I think we will leave the shell recipes to those that publish them.
We are not stepping into that muddy puddle with both feet when we can't see the bottom.
Disappointing, but reasonable and correct imo.
 

·
Premium Member
Latest addition is a LH Caesar Guerini 12 gauge, previously a 725 and a Citori back in the '70's
Joined
·
525 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
It seemed to be a good idea on the surface; however it does seem to have too many potential pitfalls unfortunately.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
Too bad , I think a lot of us are substituting cheddites ( as an example) and little if any load data with those. Just saw something in Alliant listing of a 12 ga load with cheddites -

I would think the company doing test would sacrifice one loaded shell to check & weight powder & shot etc.. ?

Why don't we discuss any questionable aspects - crimp depth etc and just use the info from lab as informal data . Large Disclaimer - not recommended , use at your own risk etc..

There are certain facts in the report that can be assistance . A given load - gives a specific ft/sec. & pressure That's what the report should show
 
1 - 20 of 75 Posts
Top