Winchester Universal Shotshells

farmboy · February 19, 2016, 07:02:46 AM

The other neat thing about this whole thread is a friend dropped off a box full of twenty gauge Winchester universal hulls for me the day before rick posted this thread and I was looking around the web to see if there was any data anywhere. Lots of ideas and people guessing but I could not fund anything solid I have sent emails to two powder companies to see whether they have any info.

sakorick · February 19, 2016, 08:06:09 AM

Results of the speed testing. I use my Browning Citori with modified choke and 28 inch bbls. The box claims 1200'/sec.

1. 1181
2. 1167
3. 1151
4. 1182
5. 1152

Average 1166.6

Two shots close, one marginal and two may have caused cycling issues with some SA's.....especially dirty ones! I will not use these shells for anything except target practice.

Farmboy, look for once fired AA's for your 20 gauge. They show up from time to time and many skeet and trap ranges sell them cheap.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=542753593

farmboy · February 19, 2016, 08:15:26 AM

Do you think the clumps in the powder would cause deviations in the speed?

gitano · February 19, 2016, 08:55:28 AM

Quote from: farmboy;143316Do you think the clumps in the powder would cause deviations in the speed?

It depends on what causes the clumping. If they got "moist", then "yes". If it is from compression, then "no". I have done some pretty drastic things to and with powder and it is not even REMOTELY as "sensitive" as stupid gunwriters (ptooey) would have us all believe. Read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". SERIOUSLY. READ IT! He hits the nail on the head about "propaganda".

I don't think those velocities are too bad considering the claimed 1200. The percent variations are only 1.58%, 2.75%, 4.08%, 1.50%, 4.00%. I don't 'worry' about velocity variations until they approach 10%. Which in this case would be 120 f/s.

The question isn't really velocity, it's pressure. Semi-autos are tuned to function within a specific pressure range, OR, if they are inertia systems, they are tuned to function based on the rise time of the burning powder. If the gas-operated systems don't get enough gas PRESSURE, they simply won't drive the bolt back far enough to get full ejection. The easiest way to ESTIMATE pressure is with velocity. Therefore, if the velocity is below what the manufacturer says it is, it is reasonable to believe that the pressure is also below what the claimed velocity would produce. If, using the powder they use, 1200 f/s produces "just enough" pressure to reliably operate most semi-auto actions, then if the velocity is "below average" the pressure is likely to fail to cycle a semi-auto action EVERY NOW AND THEN. "Every now and then" is unacceptable for most HUNTERS and ALL competitive shooters. This MAY be why they wrote "recreational target shooting" on their box, and not "target shooting" or "competitive target shooting". By doing so, they implicitly acknowledge that there may be "occasional" failures to function.

To me, when planning a hunting trip, one should either make one's own ammo thereby KNOWING how it will perform, OR one should buy ammo that isn't "practice" ammo. Failure to fire (a 'dud'), of one in a HUNDRED shots, is the death knell for any hunting ammo I would use.

There is another issue. The difference in 1.05 ounces and 1.125 ounces has the effect of reducing pressure AND inertia. So you add lower pressure in general ("light" loads), AND lower pressure due to lower shot charges, and you get failure to eject.

There is one more mitigating circumstance that I would mention. Your recent hunting trip was in COLD weather, Rick. That has two COMPOUNDING potential impacts. First, there is NO DOUBT that temperature effects the burning rate of gun powder. If these cartridges are on the "edge" of semi-auto operational pressure anyway and the pressure is further reduced by being cold, it is certainly likely that they might produce more failures to eject. On top of that, cold means less 'lubricity' of the lubricants in a semi-auto action. In cold weather they WILL be more 'sluggish". Add 'lower pressure' to 'sluggish' action, and you will get failure to eject.

I'm NOT making excuses for this ammo.

Rather, I am trying to explain what's "happening" with this ammo, giving the manufacturer the 'benefit of the doubt'. I'm just trying to do a little remote detective work.

It strikes me that if I was out for a RECREATIONAL weekend of shooting clays WITH A SEMI-AUTO, (and there was no MONEY on the outcome), I might be inclined to buy a few boxes of this CHEAP ammo. On the other hand, I would NOT use this ammo for ANY hunting or 'competitive' shooting if the hunt/shoot was 1) in cold weather, 2) MATTERED to me a great deal, or 3) had money bet on the outcome of the shooting.

Paul

sakorick · February 19, 2016, 03:31:44 PM

Quote from: gitano;143320It depends on what causes the clumping. If they got "moist", then "yes". If it is from compression, then "no". I have done some pretty drastic things to and with powder and it is not even REMOTELY as "sensitive" as stupid gunwriters (ptooey) would have us all believe. Read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". SERIOUSLY. READ IT! He hits the nail on the head about "propaganda".

I don't think those velocities are too bad considering the claimed 1200. The percent variations are only 1.58%, 2.75%, 4.08%, 1.50%, 4.00%. I don't 'worry' about velocity variations until they approach 10%. Which in this case would be 120 f/s.

The question isn't really velocity, it's pressure. Semi-autos are tuned to function within a specific pressure range, OR, if they are inertia systems, they are tuned to function based on the rise time of the burning powder. If the gas-operated systems don't get enough gas PRESSURE, they simply won't drive the bolt back far enough to get full ejection. The easiest way to ESTIMATE pressure is with velocity. Therefore, if the velocity is below what the manufacturer says it is, it is reasonable to believe that the pressure is also below what the claimed velocity would produce. If, using the powder they use, 1200 f/s produces "just enough" pressure to reliably operate most semi-auto actions, then if the velocity is "below average" the pressure is likely to fail to cycle a semi-auto action EVERY NOW AND THEN. "Every now and then" is unacceptable for most HUNTERS and ALL competitive shooters. This MAY be why they wrote "recreational target shooting" on their box, and not "target shooting" or "competitive target shooting". By doing so, they implicitly acknowledge that there may be "occasional" failures to function.

To me, when planning a hunting trip, one should either make one's own ammo thereby KNOWING how it will perform, OR one should buy ammo that isn't "practice" ammo. Failure to fire (a 'dud'), of one in a HUNDRED shots, is the death knell for any hunting ammo I would use.

There is another issue. The difference in 1.05 ounces and 1.125 ounces has the effect of reducing pressure AND inertia. So you add lower pressure in general ("light" loads), AND lower pressure due to lower shot charges, and you get failure to eject.

There is one more mitigating circumstance that I would mention. Your recent hunting trip was in COLD weather, Rick. That has two COMPOUNDING potential impacts. First, there is NO DOUBT that temperature effects the burning rate of gun powder. If these cartridges are on the "edge" of semi-auto operational pressure anyway and the pressure is further reduced by being cold, it is certainly likely that they might produce more failures to eject. On top of that, cold means less 'lubricity' of the lubricants in a semi-auto action. In cold weather they WILL be more 'sluggish". Add 'lower pressure' to 'sluggish' action, and you will get failure to eject.

I'm NOT making excuses for this ammo.

Rather, I am trying to explain what's "happening" with this ammo, giving the manufacturer the 'benefit of the doubt'. I'm just trying to do a little remote detective work.

It strikes me that if I was out for a RECREATIONAL weekend of shooting clays WITH A SEMI-AUTO, (and there was no MONEY on the outcome), I might be inclined to buy a few boxes of this CHEAP ammo. On the other hand, I would NOT use this ammo for ANY hunting or 'competitive' shooting if the hunt/shoot was 1) in cold weather, 2) MATTERED to me a great deal, or 3) had money bet on the outcome of the shooting.

Paul

I could have not said it better. You have a great knack of logical reasoning that I lack.....but, I think I'm getting better. There is another worrisome problem with the hulls if used for reloading.......that inner piece of plastic could interfere with the wad making good contact with the powder. The new WW HS hulls use this same extra piece of plastic. You can see it in My original photos. Does it take a special wad???? I just don't know.

gitano · February 19, 2016, 04:37:49 PM

What I don't know about shotgun wads fills volumes.

I can say that I use "obturator" wads with all of my black powder 16 ga loads. Just "makes sense" to me IF the shot cup I'm using doesn't have a built-in over-powder wad.

Paul

sakorick · February 23, 2016, 05:13:36 PM

Shotgun load are not finicky. My current 1 1/8 ounce load using Longshot has a 3 grain window without much change in F/sec. More important is decent wad pressure on the powder(20-40) and a good crimp. The most important stages in SG reloading are the last two stages......Pre-crimp and crimp.Once mastered they will look like this.

farmboy · February 23, 2016, 05:17:49 PM

Nice looking crimps!

sakorick · February 24, 2016, 08:13:19 AM

Quote from: farmboy;143417Nice looking crimps!

Thanks. It takes many fine adjustments and a little patience. If you get it set up perfectly and change either wad or hull you have to start over. STANDARDIZATION: So once I perfect a load, I buy wads and shot in great numbers and my worries are over. Right now I have 3000 WAA20 F1 20 gauge wads(yellow) and 2000 WAA12 ounce 1&1/8 (white) on hand. I use the same Fiocchi 209 primers, AA hulls and Hodgdon Longshot powder for all my 12 and 20 gauge field and target reloads. A good idea is to mark all dies with a paint line that indexes the dies. I can spot one getting a loose nut immediately and avoid do overs. I also marked the tubes with load information so when the grandsons start reloading they will know eggzactly what the recipe is and approximately how much powder and shot is needed per box.

farmboy · February 28, 2016, 06:38:34 AM

Back to the universal hulls. Last night I was trying to setup to load twenty gauge shells I was getting quite a few that were splitting the hull. They were once fired hulls. So for the heck of it I grabbed on of the universal hulls and tryed loading it. It was going to be disposed of no matter what but I was wondering if the hulls I was using were to briddle so when I tried loading the universal hull even though it was shorter and supported in pw full length sizing die it bulged above the brass. Those hulls are in the burning barrel.

sakorick · February 28, 2016, 05:58:04 PM

Quote from: farmboy;143509Back to the universal hulls. Last night I was trying to setup to load twenty gauge shells I was getting quite a few that were splitting the hull. They were once fired hulls. So for the heck of it I grabbed on of the universal hulls and tryed loading it. It was going to be disposed of no matter what but I was wondering if the hulls I was using were to briddle so when I tried loading the universal hull even though it was shorter and supported in pw full length sizing die it bulged above the brass. Those hulls are in the burning barrel.

So what hulls were you starting out with? were they WAA, Remington green/ gold or universal? If none of the above, then you were starting out with junk. If you had a bunch that were splitting, your load may be too stout.

farmboy · February 28, 2016, 06:22:41 PM

They were cheddite hulls. Bought loaded ammo shot the trap loads and that is what I was trying to use.

sakorick · February 29, 2016, 05:49:19 AM

I know one thing and one thing only about hulls......

Hulls. Every reloader I know uses either Remington Premier STS, Nitro Gold or Winchester AA for reloading. The reason is simple..... those 3 hulls use the same AA components so you don't need bags of odd lot wads laying around. They cost a little more but last forever and make near perfect factory crimps. The new style AA hull has a plastic sleeve which holds the powder. These hulls require a new WAA wad that is tapered on the end to slide over the lip of the sleeve. I suppose some day I will use up all my AA hulls and switch over to Remington. I reloaded 2 boxes of Remington Nitro golds last week and they are outstanding. Get ahold of a range up there(trap, skeet or Sporting Clays) and get you hands on those hulls and your reloading woes will be over.

Wads. Either Claybuster WTW-12 Replacement wad or Post PC(pattern control) win length.

Primers. Winchester 209, CCI or Fiocchi 209 replacement

Powder. Hodgdon Longshot for heavy field or Titewad, Clays or Universal for target, doves, Quail, Grouse woodcock etc. Alliant Red dot and green dot 2028 for 20 /28 gauge, Accurate Solo 100 and IMR 700X & 800X

For 20 and 28 gauge the same wad companies, primers and powder. For 410 bore, Hodgdon Lil Gun.

Notes: You just can't beat the Hodgdon powders for versatility. Keep in mind when you deviate from 1 1/8 ounce in 12 gauge, 1 ounce in 20 and 3/4 ounce in 28 you need a different wad so try to keep things standardized when possible. Fiocchi primers work fine in light loads but don't have the horses to ignite heavy and magnum field loads....stick with Win and CCI's for the big boys especially when using longshot.

Here is a good price on premium Remingtons......doesn't get any better than this.

http://www.brownells.com/ammunition/shotgun-ammo/remington-premier-sts-target-shotshells-prod43209.aspx