Magnum loads in low brass target shells.
- Thread starter Hvymax
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
jgt
Buckeye
The length of the brass is only there for an identifier in case the ink marking was worn off. I have loaded many magnum loads in dove load cases. You just need to make sure you know the difference. Anytime other people were involved I always used cases with correct length brass for the load.
I also noticed that the target shells take a crimp way better than the heavier originally roll crimped shells. My life just got way easier. I can just load up the 180 or so slugs I have in the hundreds of empty target hulls I have laying around.
Generally speaking, the length of the brass head has little to do with 'strength' these days. In older shells, 'high brass' cases often had lower(shorter) base wads which allowed more room for powder & shot.
Factoid: the brass head isn't really needed at all. I've loaded and shot hundreds of 'ACTIVE' shells which have no brass at all-just a metal insert in the head to hold improve primer retention and support the head.
Factoid: the brass head isn't really needed at all. I've loaded and shot hundreds of 'ACTIVE' shells which have no brass at all-just a metal insert in the head to hold improve primer retention and support the head.
anachronism
Single-Sixer
So we no longer need to follow established and tested loads, we can just load whatever we want however we want? That's a lot easier than the old way of matching components and data to the manufacturers recommendations.
That's not what I said at all. Most loading data is relative to specific case interior dimensions. The brass head is NOT one of those dimensions.
The only variable I am changing is the hull which evidently isn't an essential variable. The cushion wad even makes up for most volume issues more or less.
anachronism
Single-Sixer
Well then, you do it your way, and I'll continue to follow published data. Thanks for clarifying that.
That's fine. I have been hearing for decades that almost all of it doesn't matter beyond powder and charge weight. According to my experiment they were all right. I'm not advocating crazy powder and payload charges. Just standard loads in different hulls. If it uses a cushion wad you could probably cram a 3" payload into a 2 3/4" shell. Maybe that'll be my next experiment. My 935 test gun shouldn't mind.
Last edited:
OK, try to understand that modern shotgun shells don't use nearly all the space that was taken up by large volumes of black powder and wadding of the early shells.
This excess space is now occupied by plastic wads that are compressible(ish). Basically, the variables are powder charge and shot load weight.
I'm not advocating throwing away the loading manual BUT it's much less of an issue than some are trying to make it.
This excess space is now occupied by plastic wads that are compressible(ish). Basically, the variables are powder charge and shot load weight.
I'm not advocating throwing away the loading manual BUT it's much less of an issue than some are trying to make it.
Exactly. I'm pretty sure as long as the wad is compressible that's irrelevant as well. Who generates and publishes load data? The manufacturers selling you their components. If I have a bag of Winchester Wads and Remington Hulls I don't think the gun will explode from the substitutions. Publishing Data is a huge risk for anyone doing it. One numbnuts takes your 45-70 Alaskan Grizzly Slayer load and shoves it in a Trap door and your Lawyer will be getting a new Mercedes!!! Rifle and Pistol brass is different because there "can" be actual volumetric differences in the brass without a compressible wad filling the void. Even though I use Ballistic Products load data I don't order hundreds of Cheddite hulls everytime I load. I have about 4 5gal buckets full of mixed shells. When I'm doing a batch I usually dig out enough of one type to do them. The low brass shells take a crimp much better than the high brass that prefer a roll crimp which means setting up the drill press etc. I have also compared roll vs fold crimped for accuracy and at 50yds no significant difference. Up until now I always stuck closely to the available data except maybe hull selection. What I have learned over 40 years of experimentation is that if you start with medium low power loads using established data you can safely work your way up watching for pressure/velocity/accuracy concerns.
I see people get all wound up when you stray from the books. Yes, if you don't do it with care and reason things can go bad, but did all experimentation die with Elmer, Jack and P.O.?
Not in my neighborhood. Maybe that's because I learned on wildcats...
Not in my neighborhood. Maybe that's because I learned on wildcats...
anachronism
Single-Sixer
Even if we disregard damascus barrels entirely, not all shotguns are manufactured to the same quality standards. Those barrels are awfully thin
.
.anachronism
Single-Sixer
I'm not against experimentation, in fact some of the best advice I could give people in the past for heavy 45 Colt loads was to not ask for my load data. There's also a big difference between 45 Colt Redhawks and 625 Smiffs.
I have a lot of the books and occasionally find considerable differences in Max/Min loads. I generally like to cross-reference several before I start throwing charges. As long as I am in the ballpark with available data I don't have a problem doing experiments.
Do you know Moleman??? He's the one who Wildcat developed 357Moleman and 400FUW (350&400 Legend) among others to hunt with straight wall rounds.
He would have been second if I had had continued back in about 85.
Similar threads
