I'm loading 12 ga. 1 1/4 and 1 3/8 ounce loads.

I have load data to test these two Winchester wads:

[/url]

Left - White = WAA12F114
Right - Red = WAA12R

I have read that the longer White wad (specifically designed for the 1 1/4 oz. load) will better protect the lead shot from deformation, therefore producing more uniform patterns. However, the shorter Red wad is lighter (increasing velocity), but does not protect the shot as well.

Which wad do you think will produce the best balance between uniform pattern (more important) and velocity (less important)?

(A) the longer white wad (WAA12F114)
(B) the shorter red wad (WAA12R)

Thanks for your advice!

"Kenati"

You need to match the wad with the hull, powder, and especially the shot charge you are using because the final result needs to produce a column of the right length inside the hull so that you can get a perfect crimp. If the column is too long or too short, you will not be able to crimp the shell properly. That is the central consideration that determines the proper wad for the load you are creating.

Shotshell loading is a cookbook affair. Pick a load out of a recognized loading manual -- one supplied by the powder manufacturer for the powder you are using -- and follow the specifications exactly as to hull, primer, powder, wad, and shot. If you do so you will be able to produce an excellent shotshell load.

As to the two wads you picture, use the f114 wad for 1 1/4 oz loads and the red one for heavier loads up to 1 1/2 oz of shot. (I'm assuming you are using lead shot. If steel shot, you need to get different informatoin for that.)

Same as lloyd, I use once fire hulls remington express, peters,high brass that were factory slugs.
I use a load of ww571 ww209 primers 1-3/8oz.to 1-1/2oz.
# 5 or #6 i set the wad pressure to around 35 on a mec sizemaster turn the crimp die down to where you start to see a small wrincle in the hull and then back it off a 1/8 to a 1/4 of a turn the crimp will be good. after you load a couple let the set for a few minutes if the crimp starts to open up reduce the wad pressure a little and check again. i tried federal cases and they work good as well but not as good as the remington. the federals are a lot thinner plastic and they crush easier

Thanks fellas for all of your good advice.

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but...

As you probably already know, Winchester stopped producing their 571 powder, which just so happened to be a key ingredient in my pet heavy field load. That's why I'm on this which hunt!

I only use Win. AA hulls on a Hornady 366 Auto press. They always seem to crimp consistently once the adjustments have been made.

The Lyman Shotshell Manual has a few "recipes" that interchange the two wads mentioned above using different powders. Example:

1 3/8 oz.

#1
POWDER: 26.5 grains 800-X
WAD: WAA12R (red)
VELOCITY: 1298 fps.

#2
POWDER: 33.5 grains Blue dot
WAD: WAA12F114 (white)
VELOCITY: 1251 fps.

I'm not sure how this would work, but let's pretend for a moment that the column of powder, wad, and shot were of equal heights for the two loads (both filling the hull up to that sweet little crease at the top). Let's further assume that both of them crimped equally well. Then, which round do you think would produce the more uniform pattern?

I know what you're saying at this point... "TEST IT AND FIND OUT, STUPID!"

I plan to do just that next week, but this armchair discussion is both interesting and informative. I like learning from the ol' timers!

Thanks for your help!

Magnum or hard shot shot will give you a more even pattern. Less deformed shot or flyers in the pattern. I use this and then vary the spread with the choke.

Hodgdon loads on line show the WAAF114 for 1 -1/4
and the WAA12R for 1-3/8 and 1-1/2.

I see Alliant published loads in 1-3/8 for the F114.

When I first started loading, there were no shot cups at all.

If you are really worried about the exposed shot. Take a look at the wads offered by Ballistic Products - they have almost anything you can imangine.

The best heavy duck load I ever found was;

Win AA case
39.5 gr. of Win 571
Win AA Red wad
1 3/8 oz of Lead 5's

and then came steel.......
This was before Ballistic Products existed!

Mike

Kenati, 571 powder is the same as HS7 powder from Hodgdon. I've been using it interchangeably for years. Same as 540 is the same as HS6. There is no where that this is stated as fact in writing, but it's a commonly know fact.

As to the wad question, the red AA wad was used for years in the high base wad remington shells. They had little room for powder and heavy shot loads needed the extra space provided by the short red wad. The shotcup is designed to only hold 1 1/8 of lead shot, so anything over that will be in contact with the bore during bore travel. That causes flatened sides on the pellets.

The absolute only way to find out which is best is to load some and shoot at paper, but you know that.

540 and 571 were discontinued because their common use was for heavy lead loading, since the mandatory use of steel, there's few loading heavy lead anymore. Until the growing popularity of turkey hunting, that may change.

From experence the WAA 12F114 wad is superior in patterning in my testesting. I use it with Blue Dot powder and #5's. It makes a good long range pheasant load.

The Win. Red wad is an old hold over as Grizz points out. Many years back Remington introduced the first all plastic target load, it was called the Remington All American. It had a very high base wad hence less room for wad size to carry the 1.125 oz shot. At that same time Winchester introduced a paper shell called the Super Target to compete with Federal's paper Chamopion. It too had a high base wad like the Remington but was a paper case. This is when Win. introduced the Red Wad, it could reload the Super Target and the All American hull. It wasn't designed then to push large loads of shot, just 1.125 oz. It was just pressed into service for that use because of its size.

Your right to guess that the unprotected shot using the Red Wad will contribute to poorer patterns. In general you would be correct. Still gun, choke, velocity, hardness of shot etc. have a role to play. When I go for +1.5 oz of shot I go to Ballistic Products for one of their mag. wads over the Red.

Scout Master 54

When was the last time I said this?

I LOVE THIS FORUM!

You guys are always good for new ideas... thanks for your help.

Since, I'm "rollin' my own", I might bump up to Lloyd's 1 1/2 ounce load with the red wad or one of ballistic products to protect my shot and tube.

Or maybe I'll go back to the ol' reliable load, using one of the Hodgon replacement powders.

At any rate, much thanks to LE270, Grizz, Trigger, Soundman, and Scout.

------------

P.S. I'm gonna start a new thread on hardened, nickel plated, and copper plated shot affecting barrel wear.

270LE - I agree with you on the STS cases vs. the AA's. I get much better life out of the STS's these days. I once did a study on the number of reloads one could get on a hull. It's very much a function of the following: Crimp, Gun type, hull and powder. All have a function in life. The tighter & deeper the crimp the faster to split. Auto are hard on cases as are the slower burning powders.

Federal cases I load once, I feel rich when I can open the action and let the ejectors of my Beretta 686 pop them, they crimp nice but don't hold up. I use to love the old RXP hull, it lasted long and worked well with 700X due to the decreased internal volume this hull had. Have you noticed that the STS and AA huls are very similar in internal cofiguration. Guess Remington did't try to re-invent the wheel.

Scout Master 54