Illusive load data
- Thread starter Swampman1
- Start date
Shotshell recipes are picky, varying charge weight even with primer and wad brands. If no commercial load data is available for these, my suggestion, if you plan to shoot enough of these to make it matter to your budget, is to invest in a pressure measuring system, measure some commercial loads with it, then work up your own to match.
Good point Uncle Nick. From what I gather, they are becoming more and more popular for home defense-less recoil but still packs a punch at short distances. I see videos showing the reload process, but they aren't specific enough about the load data IMO. I was curious if anyone here might be loading these, thanks.
Schlitz 45
New member
I'd open up factory one & reverse engineer it.
FrankenMauser
New member
CAUTION: The following post (or a page linked to) includes or discusses loading data not covered by currently published sources of tested data for this cartridge (QuickLOAD or Gordon's Reloading Tool data is not professionally tested). USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.
-
Traditional shot shell loads, with natural filler and cushion wads, offer an advantage here.
The filler wads can be reduced or eliminated to shorten the wad stack, without much influence on the pressure curve.
The transition from black powder to smokeless had us packing the hulls with filler materials for about seven decades. The hulls were designed for large amounts of black powder, but, suddenly, there was a ton of extra space in there. We couldn't shorten the shells, because some repeaters depended upon the legacy shell length to function.
So, we just kept stuffing them with filler until the plastic wad was finally accepted, appreciated for its shock absorption and improved patterns, and became widespread.
Today, we can go back in time and use that old data as a starting point to remove filler and hull length to make shorties.
-
Traditional shot shell loads, with natural filler and cushion wads, offer an advantage here.
The filler wads can be reduced or eliminated to shorten the wad stack, without much influence on the pressure curve.
The transition from black powder to smokeless had us packing the hulls with filler materials for about seven decades. The hulls were designed for large amounts of black powder, but, suddenly, there was a ton of extra space in there. We couldn't shorten the shells, because some repeaters depended upon the legacy shell length to function.
So, we just kept stuffing them with filler until the plastic wad was finally accepted, appreciated for its shock absorption and improved patterns, and became widespread.
Today, we can go back in time and use that old data as a starting point to remove filler and hull length to make shorties.
Seedy Character
New member
I played with some mini shells, a little. Lack of data is a big problem.
My experiments weren't overly successful and I gave up.
I like the idea of the mini and factory performance is good, but cost is not enticing.
My experiments weren't overly successful and I gave up.
I like the idea of the mini and factory performance is good, but cost is not enticing.
This seems to be a recipe floating around. I've reloaded handgun and rifle, but never shot shells. What do you guys think?
https://www.ballisticproducts.com/load18_04_27.htm
https://www.ballisticproducts.com/load18_04_27.htm
Seedy Character
New member
Sounds like an awesome load.
I trust it if BP printed it.
I trust it if BP printed it.
FrankenMauser
New member
#4 buck, 2" shell. Whose idea was that one...? 
I would trust it. Just seems like a weird shorty.
(Not saying I don't change shot size in shot shells as long as the mass is the same or lighter, though...
)
I have been looking for my 12 ga mini data. If I find it, I will share. But it has gone walkabout for now.
I load some 2.5" and 2-9/16" shells and roll crimp for feeding in some older shotguns. Since roll crimps are pretty much one time use with plastic hulls, but I am a cheapskate, I cut them down for further stupidity. I work my way back to 1.75", and that is the last firing.
I will admit, however, that I am using plastic wads for those loads.
It was based on some data that BPI published, but has long since deleted, showing pressure changes with their various wads, along with dimensions, seating force, and wad base volume.
If you can find smokeless data for paper shells, however, it is much easier to just adjust the wad column for length. And/or reduce the payload.
I would trust it. Just seems like a weird shorty.
(Not saying I don't change shot size in shot shells as long as the mass is the same or lighter, though...
)I have been looking for my 12 ga mini data. If I find it, I will share. But it has gone walkabout for now.
I load some 2.5" and 2-9/16" shells and roll crimp for feeding in some older shotguns. Since roll crimps are pretty much one time use with plastic hulls, but I am a cheapskate, I cut them down for further stupidity. I work my way back to 1.75", and that is the last firing.
I will admit, however, that I am using plastic wads for those loads.
It was based on some data that BPI published, but has long since deleted, showing pressure changes with their various wads, along with dimensions, seating force, and wad base volume.
If you can find smokeless data for paper shells, however, it is much easier to just adjust the wad column for length. And/or reduce the payload.