Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="retrieverman" data-source="post: 4324990" data-attributes="member: 24452">I finally got the TPS wads in to try loading tungsten in a 410 and was able to do a little testing.&nbsp; I’m still not sure the stuff will be the stone cold turkey killer out 70 yards like so many fanboys say, but I can testify to its effectiveness at 40.&nbsp; The data called for 3” Cheddite hulls, so I had to shoot a few to have some to work with.&nbsp; I also tried the same recipe in a 3” Remington hull, and from initial testing, it appears the Remington hulls patterned better. <img src="/images/smilies/anyone.gif"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":anyone:" title="Anyone&nbsp; &nbsp; :anyone:" data-shortname=":anyone:" /> As I’ve said before, I’ve loaded for 12 and 20 for 30 years and can pretty much do it in my sleep, but 410 loading has been much more of a challenge (at least for me).I’m sure I’d be better off to just go buy tungsten ammo, but it’s sure fun loading and testing my own.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="retrieverman, post: 4324990, member: 24452"] I finally got the TPS wads in to try loading tungsten in a 410 and was able to do a little testing. I’m still not sure the stuff will be the stone cold turkey killer out 70 yards like so many fanboys say, but I can testify to its effectiveness at 40. The data called for 3” Cheddite hulls, so I had to shoot a few to have some to work with. I also tried the same recipe in a 3” Remington hull, and from initial testing, it appears the Remington hulls patterned better. :anyone: As I’ve said before, I’ve loaded for 12 and 20 for 30 years and can pretty much do it in my sleep, but 410 loading has been much more of a challenge (at least for me). I’m sure I’d be better off to just go buy tungsten ammo, but it’s sure fun loading and testing my own. [/QUOTE]

Verification