Winchester Universal Shotshells

[sakorick]

Here is a typical hyped up product that is IMHO junk. Take a look at the fancy packaging. How about that USA shooting team logo. Wow anything used by the US Olympic team must really be good, right? Wrong, they use Winchester AA target loads or Remington Nitro 27 target shells just like 99.9% of every Skeet, Trap and Sporting Clays shooter in the country. Now for the analysis. I cut the top off the shell and carefully weighed the shot......it was not 1 1/8 ounce, it was eggzactly 1.05 ounces. Then I removed the wad which is supposed to reduce recoil and increase velocity.....now that is total garbage.....it's a standard AA Winchester wad. Then I weighed the powder which had clumps in it and some stuck to the bottom of the hull. The mildest listed 2 3/4 dram load using TSX powder is 18 grains, the powder weighed in at 17.4 grains. It's starting to stink. I called Hodgdon and asked if they have a published load for the new universal hulls......nope and no planned for development. So we have a shell that is short on powder, short on lead and caused 2 SA shotguns and one pump to malfunction on our recent Pheasant hunt and cannot be safely reloaded as there is no data. One last thing, the box says heavy lead......HEAVY LEAD? They are not what they are hyped up to be.......beware of things that come in fancy packaging.....it's junk.

[gitano]

I can't believe an ammunition manufacturer would exaggerate claims of performance. You must be mistaken.

Paul

[farmboy]

Well I have read elsewhere on the web that load them the same as AA the fellow posted that alliant techs told him that. If you wanted to do that I would confirm that with alliant. Did the shot look round and all the same size? In the rcbs shot shell reloading manual they have a picture of an economy shell cut open and shot is all mis shaped . on the price of the reloaded shells they suggest that a person compares there reload price against  double a or Remington sts loads. That is if we reload with premium components you have to compare against factory ammo with premium components in them.

[sakorick]

The shot looked too good actually....I believe it is a alloy as it doesn't look like pure lead......it was perfectly uniform. Alliant? What does Alliant have to do with Winchester. Winchester is in cahoots with Hodgdon not alliant. I was trying to determine what might have caused the malfunctions......and I believe I did. They are not using AA components in those shells. They have steel bases not brass, a double plastic lower hull for the shot and is not a heavy field load......in fact it is an anemic target load that causes SA's to jam. The wad is also a giveaway.....it should be white not pale yellow. The Winchester yellow wad is for ounce and 1/4 loads.

[gitano]

I gotta say that I believe that about 90% of the stuff claimed about the "profound" effects of using different wads is flat out VOODOO. Certainly there is difference in shot performance as a function of different wads, but when two wads look exactly alike in construction, I have a REALLY difficult time believing that shotguns are so SENSITIVE that it is actually the make-up of the plastic that accounts for HUGE differences in performance. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Explosions - even 'controlled' ones - are highly variable. SAMPLE SIZES MATTER.

To me, the "big" deal(s) here are 1) the misrepresentations of the marketing, and 2) the actual performance (or lack thereof).

When someone STARTS OFF lying to me - the misrepresented information on the box - everything else is suspect and in fact becomes not worth considering in my opinion. When you lie to me once, how do I know when you are telling me the truth thereafter?

When the things fail to cycle semi-auto actions, that's pretty much the end of the story. HOWEVER, semi-auto firearms are VERY finicky. ALL OF THEM. They are TUNED to specific operational parameters. Get outside those perameters - especially PRESSURE - and they fail to function.

The only way I can see how a shotgun cartridge could jam a pump action is if the fired hull was too long and caught the front edge of the ejection port. Not being a pump shotgun expert, I assume there are other potential causes of FTE - maybe rim thickness or something like that - but that's a 'configuration' issue. Again, a big deal for semi-auto and pump users, but not so much for single shot and side-by-side users.

Does the box have a velocity claim? Given the "light" load, (1.05oz actual vs. 1.125 claimed), I would be interested in what the actual velocity was relative to the claimed velocity. As for the "clumps" of powder, I have compressed loads that had clumps when disassembled. However, given that this appears to be a very light charge, "compression" is not likely an issue. Can you chrono 5 or so of them? It would be best if Winchester actually makes a velocity claim, but even if they don't, a high level of variability would indicate 1) poor quality control, and 2) a high probability of failure to function in semi-autos.

I note that the box doesn't say "USA OLYMPIC Shooting Team". Maybe they legally "get away" with this labeling claim by having a "team" of shooters called the "USA Shooting Team". IMPLYING the US Olympic team, but not actually violating the letter of the law. Just a thought.

You've convinced me not to buy these shotgun shells. However, since I only shoot 16s and 28s, and I doubt seriously they make them for 16s, and probably not for 28s, I probably wouldn't be buying them anyway.

Paul

[gitano]

I went looking. Here's what I found. First the OFFICIAL - TRADEMARKED - Olympic Brands:
http://www.teamusa.org/brand-usage-guidelines

Second, look at this:
http://www.usashooting.org/

This says "Olympic" ALL OVER IT, but NOWHERE does it use ANY of the trademarked logos of the OFFICIAL Olympic team. It is so blatant that I am still wondering if there is some sort of official connection, but this site does not use ANY of the official Olympic logos. That's very suspicious to me.

Here's the 'bottom line' from the "USA Shooting" site:
About USA Shooting

USA Shooting, a 501c3 non-profit corporation, was chartered by the United States Olympic Committee as the National Governing Body for the sport of shooting in April 1995. The organization implements and manages development programs and sanctions events at the local, state, regional, and national levels.

Paul

[sakorick]

Yep, the 2d one clearly shows their logo. I have been a supporter and donate regularly to the team. Clearly marked so on the box.

[farmboy]

The shot looked too good actually....I believe it is a alloy as it doesn't look like pure lead......it was perfectly uniform. Alliant? What does Alliant have to do with Winchester. Winchester is in cahoots with Hodgdon not alliant. I was trying to determine what might have caused the malfunctions......and I believe I did. They are not using AA components in those shells. They have steel bases not brass, a double plastic lower hull for the shot and is not a heavy field load......in fact it is an anemic target load that causes SA's to jam. The wad is also a giveaway.....it should be white not pale yellow. The Winchester yellow wad is for ounce and 1/4 loads.

On this other forum this fellow said that the techs at alliant said to use the same data as Winchester AA hulls if you were going to reload the universal hulls. I would check with someone not just go by someone's posts. If allaimt was recommending that I would check with them if they have any data available.

[sakorick]

On this other forum this fellow said that the techs at alliant said to use the same data as Winchester AA hulls if you were going to reload the universal hulls. I would check with someone not just go by someone's posts. If allaimt was recommending that I would check with them if they have any data available.

Farmboy, I am not going to check with alliant on winchester reloads and wished I had never posted these findings. If you want to reload these hulls using winchester data for the AA hulls, then be my guest. I strongly recommend you do not as it's apples and oranges. If you can show me reload numbers from a Winchester or Hodgdon source for this universal hull, I will be all ears.

[farmboy]

Sorry did not mean to cause any stress.  I did find your finding interesting. I never even thought about how much shot would be in factory loads.

[gitano]

Why do you wish you hadn't posted this? It's good info. What's the trouble?

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

The empirical data is good Rick, don't feel that you have to worry about 'what some guy on the internet said' - that is how most of the horse pucky gets a start!

[sakorick]

I'll proceed with chrony tests. I have never shot a shotgun charge through my chrony. How far back should the muzzle be from the device?

Disregard....the manual says 5 feet.

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Reading my response, it is not a dig at you Farmboy...

[farmboy]

No not taken that way I was also wary of the sites that said that. Reloading info on the net is scary. I have a friend that thinks there are a lot of kids that think guns are cool post things online and have never held a gun. I got basically kicked off another forum for suggesting that the poster read some loading manuals before he followed the other advice that was posted. The fellow was having to open the bolt on his rifle with a hammer. The other advice given was to increase the powder by two grains in his next batch of reloads! I am bad on these things as I tend to fall off topic and treat it some what like we are all sitting around a campfire or coffee shop.I enjoy being part of this group and feel a kinship to everyone one here.

[farmboy]

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]

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]

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

[gitano]

Do 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]

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

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]

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]

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]

Nice looking crimps!

[sakorick]

Nice 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]

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]

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.

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]

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

[sakorick]

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