The Hunter's Life

The Hunter's Life (http://thehunterslife.com/forums//index.php)
-   HUNTER'S GEAR REVIEW (http://thehunterslife.com/forums//forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Winchester Universal Shotshells (http://thehunterslife.com/forums//showthread.php?t=18928)

gitano 02-18-2016 11:35 PM

Re: Winchester Universal Shotshells
 
Why do you wish you hadn't posted this? It's good info. What's the trouble?

Paul

j0e_bl0ggs 02-19-2016 02:59 AM

Re: Winchester Universal Shotshells
 
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 02-19-2016 04:11 AM

Re: Winchester Universal Shotshells
 
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 02-19-2016 10:37 AM

Re: Winchester Universal Shotshells
 
Reading my response, it is not a dig at you Farmboy...

farmboy 02-19-2016 10:56 AM

Re: Winchester Universal Shotshells
 
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 02-19-2016 11:02 AM

Re: Winchester Universal Shotshells
 
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 02-19-2016 12:06 PM

Re: Winchester Universal Shotshells
 
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/Vie...Item=542753593

farmboy 02-19-2016 12:15 PM

Re: Winchester Universal Shotshells
 
Do you think the clumps in the powder would cause deviations in the speed?

gitano 02-19-2016 12:55 PM

Re: Winchester Universal Shotshells
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by farmboy (Post 143316)
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 02-19-2016 07:31 PM

Re: Winchester Universal Shotshells
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by gitano (Post 143320)
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.