[Down Range Manufacturing]

Hello Folks,

Just to let you know, we now have a clone / copy of the Remington TGT 12. I should have some photos for the site in a couple of days. And we will be doing the sample packages for this wad by the end of the week.

Stay Tuned..........More new wads are on the way!!

Thanks
Kevin @ 402-463-3415

 

[Emerson]

Kevin - That sounds great!!! I'd like some samples as soon as they are available.

Emerson

 

[Mokeman3]

we now have a clone / copy of the Remington TGT 12.

Plop!...( Mokey gets light-headed, faints in disbelief, and falls over backwards )

When he wakes up, he probably won't believe it's true, and will ask for 2X wad sample packs.

hehe...

 

[CZMark]

Now that I can't get Green Dusters super cheap, I'm looking for a new one-ounce wad.

 

[clayflingythingy]

The TGT 12 is my favorite when loading Remington hulls. Looking forward to receiving the samples!

 

[HebrewHammer]

Hello Folks,

Just to let you know, we now have a clone / copy of the Remington TGT 12. I should have some photos for the site in a couple of days. And we will be doing the sample packages for this wad by the end of the week.

Stay Tuned..........More new wads are on the way!!

Thanks
Kevin @ 402-463-3415

Kevin, While you designing new wads would you please take a look at maybe adjusting the shot-charge-diamerter to shot-charge-length ratio to match as closely as possible the "Golden Ratio" of 1 to 1.618. This would be the ratio of the dia-to-height inside the shot cup. You'd have to adjust the distance between the over-powder cup and the bottom of the shot cup; and maybe make the petal walls a little thicker.

I suspecion that Win and Rem are too big and opinionated to even consider this. But this Golden Ratio hasn't been called the Magic Ratio for nothing and it wasn't too outlandish an idea when they laid the foundation for the Great Pyramid and it held up.

 

[Slidehammer]

Kevin, While you designing new wads would you please take a look at maybe adjusting the shot-charge-diamerter to shot-charge-length ratio to match as closely as possible the "Golden Ratio" of 1 to 1.618. This would be the ratio of the dia-to-height inside the shot cup. You'd have to adjust the distance between the over-powder cup and the bottom of the shot cup; and maybe make the petal walls a little thicker.

I suspecion that Win and Rem are too big and opinionated to even consider this. But this Golden Ratio hasn't been called the Magic Ratio for nothing and it wasn't too outlandish an idea when they laid the foundation for the Great Pyramid and it held up.

Well HebrewHammer,

Please take note that the Great Pyramid just stands there motionless; albeit for a long, long, time! Wonder how it would hold up launched at 1300fps?
Everything behind the shotcup in a one piece wad is designed with speed and convenience for the loader.... Once exiting the barrel, everything behind the shotcup becomes like two tails on a hound dog. It is possible for the ol' dog to trip on his tails if they remain attached....
If 1 to 1.618 is this so called "Golden Ratio" of the shotcup, then I assume you mean unloaded as manufactured.... You realize of course, that upon firing and in the barrel, this ratio is changed drastically, in modern back-bored barrels even worse, and even as the wad falls away, it is different than it was when made..... At least to fit your ratio down to and as accurate as three decimal places..... HUMM???

I have patterned tens of thousands of combinations.... I will tell you the "Golden Ratio".
The BEST patterning loads considering uniformity, roundness and even shot distribution (read less core shooting) are made up with a separate over powder gas seal (either plastic or fiber), then fiber filler/cushion wads, then a seperate plastic shotcup. The "Golden Ratio" of the shotcup length is the amount of shot you are loading..... Petals longer that you shot column length can sometimes affect patterns.... Petals too short can also have an adverse effect... Even if the magical 1 to 1.618 happens to be hit on! Over the long haul of thousands of patterns, this combo has patterned the finest for me on average than all the other combinations or wad types tried.

The disadvantage is time! Lots of extra time and even expense to load this way. But it is your true "Golden Ratio"!

We have the hound dog and his two tails strictly because of convenience, cost, and it does almost as well.....

Slidehammer

 

[HebrewHammer]

Slidehammer,

You from Winchester or Remington by chance?

Do you mind revealling the specific over-powder, fiber, cushion, and shot cup you found to give the best patterns?

I look at all these various wads available to today's reloader and I don't understand how one is better; they all look like "ME-TOO" copies; they're not even generic equivalents as far as I can tell. If you've tested thousands of loads, there is no sense in me duplicating them trying to find one that "patterns best".

IMHO, the industry seems to be going downhill to who can produce the cheapest way to throw an ounce of shot up at "low-recoil" speeds with shells that you really shouldn't try to reload. It's like, let the buyer beware, not only about traveling base-wads but about blown patterns.

If the consensus is that the hightest-most-evenly-distributed shot-density of the first foot & a half of shot string is most important to breaking skeet/trap targets, given that it is pointed in the approx direction: My trying to get some useful info on a patterning board is less than ideal in that the aft 5 feet of shot-string will give false pattern density readings.

I know you will claim all guns, with their own forcing cones, bore dia, and chokes will affect the pattern. But the manufacturers could designate these paratmeters also. Wasn't there once a standard bore diameter? Lets stick with that. I don't understand how a wobbling wad in an overbored barrel with gas possibly escaping around its perimeter improve down-range pattern?

I would like the companies' speciific wad packages to designate what bore dia and parameters they work best with or were designed for. That company will get my business. There is a definite difference in wad diameters from the different manufactuers. Please don't just specify "target" shells on the box.

Oh, the three decimal places were only meant to specify the Golden Ratio; I would expect that anything even resembling 1 to 1.6 ratio would be an improvement. You didn't mention if you had ever tried this ratio or a load that came anywhere close to this ratio. Did it occur to you that the pyramid shape very closely resembles the shot-string cone and 21 yds? Please don't dismiss the idea just because you thought up a cute retort.

Just a few suggestions. You can lead a horse to water.

HH

 

[Slidehammer]

Slidehammer,

You from Winchester or Remington by chance?

Well HH,

Unfortunately, no. However a close friend ever since childhood worked for Remington for 25 years. We shared enough conversation during those years that I might almost be considered an "employee by proxy"!
Two of our mutual "good belly laughs" together are the "Ultra Mag" series of cartridges and super fast shotshell velocities that are the fad these days.... What a factory man chuckles about something they sell, well, one should take heed!!

Do you mind revealling the specific over-powder, fiber, cushion, and shot cup you found to give the best patterns?
HH

Well, this is a rather complex subject. Let me be brief as I can... For over powder I have exhausted my supply of Alcan cup-type over powder wads.... Since then I have made the tooling to make fiber cup over-powder wads similar to those used in Winchester/Western factory loads for years. These work great but is labor intensive! (but cheap...)
A Stanley knife, a steady hand, will yield both an over powder cup and a shotcup. Some wads are easier to cut than others. I like Windjammers and even this TGT12 wad we have fell from the subject of!
I have a good supply of Alcan and Winchester fiber wads. Circle Fly makes these as well and my buddies love them. Use the lubricated fiber wads. Circle Fly has Alcan's old equipment to "ring wax" their wads.
Federal used to sell shotcups but alas, you can't even order them from the factory direct anymore as I did the last I got... Most of their factory loads utilize a separate shotcup to boot. So for shotcups I use the cutting method above to get them..

Now don't get me wrong HH! I use a ton of regular "old" one piece plastic wads! BUT...... If I need a specialty load, a handicap load, an "Annie Oakley" or "Buddy Shoot" load, or a special hunting load, you can count on it being tested and tested until it delivers what I want... And most of the time have the wad column I tote as best inside them!
An added benefit not mentioned is much better cold weather reliability, especially when the fiber over powder cup is used in lieu of plastic.

Slidehammer

 

[Slidehammer]

Did it occur to you that the pyramid shape very closely resembles the shot-string cone and 21 yds? Please don't dismiss the idea just because you thought up a cute retort.

Just a few suggestions. You can lead a horse to water.

HH

I see what you are trying to picture. Actually there are two truncated cones in your shotstring, base to base. The lead cone is extremely truncated and short. The rear truncated cone is the "pyramid" resembling cone of which I hear you speak. Actually rather than a cone with straight sides it is probably more ogival and uneven both on the sides and front and back; .....anyway, ... back to your 1 to 1.6....
Are you talking the ratio of the driven cylinder of shot? If you are, then I take it you are talking nominal bore I.D. vs. length?
This is a variable with many facets, being different in the wad because of petal thickness and other conditions such as taper, etc. as compared to in the bore... We better ignore choke in interest of time....

Now I take it you are saying this 1 to 1.6 ratio at start is supposed to equate to this "pyramid resembling cone" downrange?

Why is this particular shot string diameter vs. length ratio the best?

Why would not a shorter yet shotstring even be better?

My opinion is the shorter we can get the shotstring, the better the downrange, and particularly the long range performance will be! Are you telling me this 1 to 1.6 ratio is even better than a shorter cone??

You can lead me to water.... Just make sure you're not seeing a mirage first!

Slidehammer

 

[HebrewHammer]

Slidehammer wrote: "My opinion is the shorter we can get the shotstring, the better the downrange, and particularly the long range performance will be! Are you telling me this 1 to 1.6 ratio is even better than a shorter cone?? "

Don't know Sir, I been at this less than a year, you say you have over 20 years experience and fired thousands of loads. I only noticed some squib loads in the dartk under lights that have that cone shape to the rear. Never noticed any cone to the front. (Isn't a front cone caused by a tight choke?)

I also tried to determine which ***** gun comes closest to the G-ratio. 28 followed closely by 20, but these are crude calculations based on measurements of the unfired wad of only one brand. There seems to be a lot of art and science involved in getting the ideal downrange skeet pattern. The 28 according to my measurement is still a LONG way from the G-ratio. I only ask if anyone has gone after this ratio and what was the result.

Thank you for your posts. Your input is most interesting, informative, and invaluable.

 

[Slidehammer]

Never noticed any cone to the front. (Isn't a front cone caused by a tight choke?)

HH,

Most "experts" call the shotstring an inverted cone... (base going first.)

There is not a square and flat surface leading however. High-speed photography would show you some triangulation towards the front. It won't be a lot, certainly (most probably) not seen by the naked eye. My point was only to say that the lead of the pattern is not a perpendicular (flat) line in relation to the line of flight....

While I have shot thousands of two dimensional patterns; my final testing is always in the field, usually on Sporting Clays..... This is a poor substitute (speaking for myself) as the human element is then factored in. But a good load used several hundred times will give you a pretty good idea if good workable shotstring lengths are being achieved. Said another way, a good pattern doesn't always mean a "real world" good pattern! The odds are in your favor, however....
Someday with digital photograpy advancing as it is, we may have economical equipment to photograph downrange shotstrings.... Boy! that will clear up a lot of speculation!

To close..... I've always thought the 28 gauge broke birds better than it had a right too....... Well past Skeet yardages included. Maybe a "picture worth a thousand words" will someday tell us why!

Slidehammer