In late November of 2011, I purchased a well-worn 16 gauge
Ithaca Model 37 for around $175. I also
bought a box of the only two 16 gauge loadings at Cabela’s: Fiocchi Golden
Pheasant 1-1/8 oz #5 lead, and Hevi Shot 1-1/4 oz #6. I took it, the box of Hevi Shot, and a
handful of Fiocchis out the next week and splashed down a gadwall and a
wigeon. Not willing to break the law every
hunt, pay the ruinous prices for tungsten-based shot, or put up with the
mediocrity of the big three’s steel shot loads (15/16 oz of #2 or #4 at ~1300
fps), I knew I had to start making my own ammunition. Thus began my slow decline into a far more absorbing
hobby.
Without a proper mentor, I started by buying a Lee Load All
II, a book from Ballistic Products Inc. and a pile of components. Then I purchased an ancient MEC 400 Speedster
in 12 gauge and more books and more components.
I poured over pellet count charts, ballistic tables, and load data
agonizing over what would make the perfect shell. I scoured internet forums for more
information and slowly started chiming in on the see-saw debates, hair
splitting, and bickering. Then I got
into metallic… then 10 gauge… then 20 gauge… Now, I have half a truck bed full of shells,
books, magazines, hulls, wads, powder, primers, shot, presses, bullet molds, tools,
and random bits and bobs—enough crap to make more ammunition than I’ll use in
what’s left of my lifetime.
I’m no expert, but I have learned a decent amount along the
way. As I continue to prowl the
interwebs, there’s always someone spouting out-of-date, unhelpful, or downright
BAD information. Usually, it’s something
they’ve heard on the internet, or an opinion rooted in boomer nostalgia. I feel compelled to help out. As I said above, I didn’t have a mentor when
I started—and I’m not sure if that has been a bad thing or not. If I had had a guide, I’d have avoided a lot
of dead ends, waste, and missed opportunities; then again, stumbling along has led
me into some interesting side channels and eddies. I’d love to give advice to anyone foolish
enough to listen, but out of fear of ruining a possible spirit-journey of
self-discovery, I’ll restrain myself to a few observations.
First, not
all gauges are as easy to handload for as the others. Obviously, since the 12 ga is the most
popular gauge, it has the most support in terms of components and data. The 20 would probably be the next best
supported. The 16 and 10 gauges require
more persistence and creativity. The 12,
and even more so the 10, are also easy because there’s enough room in the hull
to make “normal” duck and goose loads.
The
following is a quick rundown of what you need to know to handload.
Data
The most
important consideration is your data source.
All data sources can be divided into three parts: published loads,
internet hive-mind, and self-produced.
First, there are several companies that publish handloading guides and
they don’t always agree. Some are more
stick-in-the-mud, some are more innovative, but they all have something worth
reading. The trouble is figuring out
what that something is… The prudent
thing is to collect as many sources as possible and triangulate the good
data. I would start out with Lyman’s
manual (specifically, the 5th Edition--unfortunately, the 6th is a little retrograde). It’s fairly conservative, but
trustworthy; if you stopped there, you wouldn’t be far wrong. I’d also recommend supplementing Lyman’s with
manuals from Reloading Specialties (RSI), Precision Reloading (PRI), and
Alliant Powder. Ballistic Products (BPI)
publishes a lot of books, but upon not-too-close scrutiny, a lot of their data
doesn’t make sense: too many components to fit in the hull, velocity and
pressure values dropping off with increases in powder or being wildly different
from other data sources, or just weird combinations (12 ga 3.5” hull with 1.125
oz of shot?). They have some good loads,
but it’s not the place for the beginner.
The second
route of information gathering is off internet forums, YouTube, and other
social media. Here there is a lot of
good data—and a ton of bad. Sifting the
diamonds out of the coal tailings can make a BPI book look like the First
Epistle to the Thessalonians, but it can be worth it. The trick is to be conversant in the
published data already. That way, you
can see the red flags before you go too far down Bubbas’s shotshell log
ride. There are a lot of guys who have a
lot of knowledge and experience—just know that a lot of them are dying off, so get on
the question-and-answer time while you can.
Load data
can be developed yourself—meaning, you can dream up a wildcat load and send it
off to be tested at a proof house. This
is somewhat expensive and time consuming.
If you chose this path, you still at least need the other data sources
for a starting point. So just go ahead
and buy the books and read them.
Tools
There are
many ways to skin a cat, some more minimalistic (just use your teeth), some
less so (operating room). I once saw a
prepper load a shot shell with a screwdriver and a candle, but I’d recommend a
little more equipment as a minimum.
1.
A
good grains scale. Get a good one—not
some nameless Chi-Com rip-off. A lot of
smokeless powders don’t take up a lot of room but build pressure quickly. A double charge of powder can have negative
results; conversely, a half charge of powder could end in a wad stuck in the
barrel, which can have even more negative results. You must be able to confirm you powder
drops.
2.
Press. The MEC 600 Jr is the F-150 of presses, but
there are others. And some old presses
from the 50’s and 60’s can be retrofitted to work with plastic shotshells. They’ve gotten pricy now, but used ones can
still be found cheap(er). If you’re
intending to load non-tox, I’d stick with the single stage press.
3.
Shot
and powder dippers (I use a teaspoon).
4.
Utility
knife or shears for splitting wads and trimming hulls.
5.
Sharpie
for marking shells and boxes.
Alternatively,
some folks forgo the press and buy a roll crimper. The advantage is a lower capitol investment
(assuming you already have a hand drill or drill press), since a high-end roll
crimper costs $50-$60 whereas the cheapest press costs about $75 new. The disadvantage is a lack of versatility,
and more importantly, the requirement to only use new hulls. (I know, this isn’t strictly true. You can deprime and reprime with a punch, a
mallet, and a block with a hole in it.
And for resizing, a MEC Supersizer resizes shotshells and isn’t a press,
but it costs as much as a press. Or you
can get shotshell resizing dies for your metallic press… which is a press. Or you can buy a resizing ring for the Lee
Load All II and force it down over the brass and then off again, but this
requires leverage from some kind of tool—some kind of “press”. Conversely, if you can find an old Lee Load
All kit or one of its Ukrainian rip-offs, you can resize with hand tools.)
You’ll end
up with a raft of small hand tools for preforming small tasks. Magnets for catching primers, plumb bobs for
flaring case mouths, scraps of wood and metal as spacers, punches for poking
things… This is where the true individualism of the handloader shines.
Components
Hulls.
The body, the case, the SHELL of the shotshell, is nothing more than a
plastic tube closed at one end with a paper or plastic plug. That said, it is of utmost importance to know
what kind of hull you’re using. At the
very least, it helps make you look like you know what you are doing, but it
also will allow you anticipate problems with the fit of components. There are many different brands, but they all
fall into two main groups:
Tapered.
These are mostly from target loads like Remington STS (same hull as Nitro
27, Gun Club, Game Load and Federal High Over All) and Winchester AA-HS (High
Strength) or the old style AA-CF (Compression Formed). These are generally best suited for target
loads or some lead and bismuth field loads.
I wouldn’t recommend these for steel shot. (There are some lighter steel loads for them,
but the great advantage these hulls have for target loads, viz. reduced volume,
is a decided disadvantage for steel shot.)
Do NOT use data for a straight-walled hull in a tapered hull. First, it likely won’t fit very well, but if
you do get it to fit, you can create some super high pressure.
Straight.
Federal Gold Medal and Top Gun (new), Fiocchi, Cheddite, and Rio. I’d also include Federal .090” base one-piece
and Hi-Power paper basewasd hulls in this group; Federal has discontinued both
the .090” base one-piece and the fiber basewad hulls in the recent past, but
they’re still bouncing around. These are
all straight walled hulls with flat-ish plastic basewads. These vary slightly in volume, but for all
intents and purposes, load about the same.
Any stack height issues can be solved with a bit of felt or some such
filler. These are the most versatile
hulls. The main difference you’ll
encounter with straight-walled hulls is the primer pocket diameter; the European
primers tend to be a few thousandths larger than American primers. So a Win. 209 will be loose in a Rio
hull. There are tools and techniques for
tightening up the pocket if you feel the need to use eurotrash hulls. Myself, I simply avoid Rio and Fiocchi hulls
for the most part.
It’s
important to know that the name printed on the hull doesn’t necessarily mean
anything. Winchester has used Cheddite
hulls, and Federal has used Rio’s, to name two examples. And even within a company’s line up, names
get thrown around onto whatever hull is in the way. For example, Remington’s “Nitro Steel” uses a
straight-walled hull with a .20” yellow or a .25” black plastic basewad; “Nitro
27” target loads use STS style hulls; and “Nitro Pheasant” heavy field loads
either use an STS-style OR a straight-walled hull with a .20” yellow plastic
basewad. Always check the inside of the
hull!
It is also
important to know that the length of a hull is nominal; manufacturers may cut
them shorter to better fit their loading process. In fact, for the most part, the 3.5”, 3”, and
2.75” hulls from a particular brand have the same basewad profile.
My
suggestion would be to standardize on one hull brand. This is, of course, something I have never
done—and I probably never will. But the
simplicity of the idea seems wise. My
second suggestion is to take one of every new brand and type of hull you
encounter and cut it in half lengthwise.
Keep these cross-sections for reference.
This is something I DO do and have found it to be very informative. Here's some photos of hull cross-sections.
Primers.
You will hear guys refer to primers as either “hot” or “mild” or some
such. What they’re trying to describe is
the brisance, or the shattering capacity of the explosive compound in the
primer. The “hotter” primers ignite more
of the powder at once, and generally produce more chamber pressure. This can be desirable under certain
circumstances, say in cold weather or with harder to ignite powder. Generally, it’s assumed that replacing a
“hotter” primer with a “milder” one will lower PSI. But you know what they say about
assumptions… This is a generally
accepted ranking of the commonly available primers from hot to cold, but I have
seen some place-switching on other lists.
1.
Fed
209A
Rio
G-1000 (or maybe lower?)
CCI
209M
Ched
CX2000
Win
209
Fio
616?
CCI 209
Rem
209P
But there
are also the Nobel Sport 688, Cheddite CX1000 and CX50, Fiocchi 617, and Wolf
209 primers that fit in somewhere. And
then there are old primers that still turn up like Alcan 220 MaxFire, Federal
209, Remington 57* and 97, CCI 197 and 109, and Winchester-Western 209 in the
white box (which some claim are different from the current form). Aaaaa….
AND,
sometimes the “hotter” primer produces a lower PSI in a given load. You can’t really count on primer heat
rankings.
If you’re
loading lead target loads, it’s not such a big deal because there is data for just about
every primer. If you’re using Win AA hulls,
WAA12 wads, and Red Dot for 1-1/8 oz trap loads, you’ll be able to use any primer with a simple adjustment
to the powder drop a grain or two. If
you’re loading hunting loads, especially steel, you’ll most likely want mid to hot
primers--Fed 209A, CCI 209M, Ched CX2000, or Win 209—since slower powders often
require hotter primers to insure proper ignition.
Powder.
There are something like a million different powders, and about half
have some use in shotshells. But to
simplify, you have fast, medium and slow powders. Their use is relative to gauge, i.e. slow
powders work for small bore target loads but large bore magnums. You will find some data for almost all
powders, but a few carry the brunt of the workload. Stick with those powders if possible. Unfortunately, periodically, global politics
conspire to suck up the powder supply into artillery shells, and we handloaders
have to make do with what we can get our hands on.
For the best
steel loads, Alliant Steel powder is king across all gauges, but it is hard to
come by now. There are several other
powders that work, but some are hard to get, discontinued, or have limited
data. If you see these powders, buy
them:
Alliant Steel
Blue Dot—hard to find, lots of data, but not as versatile as Steel
Lil'Gun—not as efficient, limited data for 12 ga, but readily available. Great 20 ga powder.
Vv 3n38—available, some promising data, pricy compared to Hodgdon powders
These powders can be used for lighter 12 ga steel loads:
Longshot
Vv 3n37
HS-6
Pro Reach
Some folks have been working up some promising 12 ga loads with AA #9, Shooter's World Heavy Pistol, and Vv N110 as well.
BPI is
selling some Vectan powders to fill the steel niche: STL, STXL, and ST2XL. Data is only just coming out for them.
There are
some discontinued powders that worked for steel to one extent or another, which
you should buy if you run across them: 800x, 4756, Vv N105, Solo 1500, HS-7/571,
and possibly others.
Wads.
Some wads are meant for lead (and can be used for bismuth), and others
are meant for steel and tungsten shot.
Don’t use steel shot in lead wads.
The tricky part is the naming; there is no industry convention, and
every manufacture or distributer is intent on using seemingly random
collections of letters and numbers for their nomenclature. This is compounded by the American importers
of European wads, namely BPI and PRI.
For example, the Italian company, Baschieri & Pellagri, makes a 12
gauge wad for 1.125 oz of steel shot called simply “STEEL 32 Cal 12 H.7”. BPI sells it as the “CSD118” and PRI as the
“TUWSBL32”. Just rolls off the tongue,
don’t it? It probably has other names
too. The only through this is to read
the literature carefully, look at pictures, and ask folks who know. Sorry.
Each
handloader seems to end up favoring one or two designs (myself, I tend to find
the B&P wads the easiest to work with).
But there are decent loads for all of them. The unfortunate thing is, despite the
suppliers’ marketing blurbs, there’s no way to know which wad will work best in
your shotgun and choke without trying them out.
You WILL end up with partial bags of various wads, so just be OK with
that.
Shot.
There’s not a lot to say here. I
haven’t noticed a difference between the various suppliers in terms of quality
or performance. The plated stuff is nice
and shiny, but I don’t know that it matters to the duck. I say get it where it’s cheapest.
Fillers
and Buffer. In order to get a good crimp, you need to
have the hull filled up to a certain point, however, some loads don’t take up
enough space. In that case, we use
fillers made of bits of felt, cork, cardboard, seeds, cheerios, plastic beads,
foam—basicly anything light weight and fairly smashable. These fillers can be placed in different
places in the hull for different effects: a gas seal or a nitro card between
the wad and powder will raise the wad and shot up in the hull and may provide a
better seal to keep powder gas from escaping; this can increase FPS and
PSI. A disc of felt or cork inside the
wad under the shot can raise the level of the shot and add more cushion to the
wad collum; this can lower PSI. A felt,
cork, or card on top of the shot can provide a nice flat base for the crimp
(especially helpful with large shot); I don’t know that this has any impact on
PSI, but some claim it can disrupt patterns. Loose beads or seeds can be added
under or on top of the shot as spacers, but don’t have a meaningful impact on
FPS, PSI, or pattern (as far as I know).
Buffer is a
fine grained powder used to fill in the spaces between the shot in the hopes of
improving patterns. This is generally
only used in lead and bismuth hunting loads, though some data calls for it with
steel and tungsten. It will raise
pressure in a shotshell significantly.
Some people swear that it improves patterns, but I am more than
skeptical. Just know that if the data
calls for buffer, you can always safely delete it. But do not add buffer to a non-buffered
load.
Process:
This is the
straightforward part.
1.
Resize
the brass
2.
Deprime
(this usually happens at the same time as resizing)
3.
Reprime. Make sure the primer sits flush in the hull.
4.
Add
powder charge. Be sure of the weight.
5.
Insert
wad. There is disagreement about how
important wad pressure is. It isn’t.
6.
Add
shot charge. Again, make sure of the
weight.
7.
Crimp. It needs to be tight and flat (a slight dish
is ok) with a slight inward taper, but not too deep. A lot of guys are concerned about a swirl in
the crimp, but this is more of a cosmetic issue. Of far more importance is the depth—to
shallow can lead to lack luster performance, too deep can cause excessive
pressure.
Just follow
the instructions that came with the press to set up a proper crimp. If that doesn’t make sense, the interweb is
full of tutorials on how to troubleshoot your particular machine. Most presses are designed with lead target
loads in mind, but if you’re loading non-toxic shot, a lot of the steps will
happen off the press. The large sizes of
steel shot used for hunting and several of the powders used for them don’t
meter very well through a charge bar and require hand weighing. This usually isn’t a problem given the lower
volume of hunting loads needed by most of us and the long off-season in which
to load them.
The best
policy is to establish a rhythm to your loading and don’t rush. You might use the stage method, in which you
resize/de-prime all your hulls, then prime all of them, etc. Or you might decide to send shells through
the whole process start to finish one at a time. The important thing is to do the same thing
every time to avoid mistakes. Part of
your rhythm should be periodic quality checks: check the powder and shot
charges, crimp depths, primer seating.
I’d say, start by checking the first ten shells, then another one or two
every box. Depending on your set up, you
may have some drift in charge weights or crimp depth. Just pay attention.
Suggested
Loads?
Unfortunately,
this all depends on what powder you have available.
If you’re
lucky enough to have Alliant Steel, The standard 12 ga 2.75” load, what most
call the HG ( I prefer “The Iron Fist”), is:
12 ga 2.75” Cheddite
Cx2000
34 g Steel
CSD118
492 g #2 steel (you may have to remove a few pellets to
make it fit)
~1450 fps @ <11,500 psi
The 3”
version is similar:
12 ga 3” Cheddite
Cx2000
35 g Steel
B&P wad
1.25 oz steel shot
~1425 @ <11,500 psi.
You’ll note
I’m soft on the fps and psi. The reason
is not some sort of blasé attitude toward safety. Rather, I’m trying to draw attention to the un-uniformity
of shotshell handloading. I can follow a
recipe from a reputable data source to the letter and still end up with
different results. The reason is lot to
lot variation in componants, as well as variation in process especially crimp
depth/tightness.
If you’re
looking to use powders other then Alliant Steel, I’d prowl about the various
forums and make friends. There’s
actually quite a lot of info out there. Especially here.
Handloading: It is NOT a money or time saver. It does NOT make you a better shot or lead to greater hunting success. And it does NOT make you more attractive to women. But it can be an enjoyable way to avoid working around the house.
