Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.

Author Topic: Shotshell pressure: Roll Crimp vs Fold Crimp  (Read 11079 times)

RMc

  • Senior Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 2209

  • Offline
Shotshell pressure: Roll Crimp vs Fold Crimp
« on: December 21, 2017, 05:44:33 pm »
Here is a short treatise on shot cartridge pressure with different crimp types.

 https://ballisticproducts.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/does-a-shotshell-roll-crimp-raise-or-lower-pressures-versus-a-fold-crimp/

After reading this, is there any aspect that might lead you to question the conclusion reached?
Alabama

WeTheArmed.com

  • Advertisement
  • ***

    Kaso

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 7209
    • WTA Hardline Antagonist (aka: Jerk)

    • Offline
    Re: Shotshell pressure: Roll Crimp vs Fold Crimp
    « Reply #1 on: December 22, 2017, 07:46:14 am »
    Usually when posting a link to an article, it is customary to provide a summary of the content in the post.  Or in this case, being so short, to just copy and paste the whole thing, so guys can read it without going off site.

    Quote
    Does a shotshell roll crimp raise or lower pressures versus a fold crimp?

    Posted on December 14, 2012   by Ballistic Products    
     

    Roll Crimps vs. Fold Crimps: Pressure differences

    We are often asked, “Does a roll crimp on a load raise or lower pressures?”

    The answer from our Lab:
     It is impossible to test every possible case and combination of fired hulls, etc. Shotshell tests are known as “destructive tests.” This means that they can never be duplicated again and generalizations cannot be derived from perceived patterns within destructive tests.

    We do know this: When roll crimping a new hull (i.e., a hull that has never before roll crimped or fold crimped) and given an equally-loaded and identical load that has been fold-crimped, the roll-crimped load never seems to achieve the pressure level of a fold crimped load. This is to say that lab patterns show that roll crimped loads in parallel load comparisons generally demonstrate lower pressures. Remember, this pattern is only with the loads that the ballistic lab has fired. The ballistic lab has NOT tested every possible load combination with this methodology.

    Here is a list of tested examples that our lab has compared:
    ◾FOLD-CRIMPED LOAD:
    16GA 2.75”    Longshot       XX.X  Z16               7/8oz  ITX6    10500 PSI     1540 FPS
    ◾ROLL-CRIMPED LOAD:
    16GA 2.75”    Longshot       XX.X  Z16               7/8 oz ITX6     9000  PSI     1445 FPS
    ◾FOLD CRIMPED LOAD:
    12GA 2.75”    Red Dot         XX.X   PISK-LITE     3/4oz Lead    10000 PSI      1600 FPS
    ◾ROLL-CRIMPED LOAD:
    12GA 2.75”    Red Dot         XX.X  PISK-LITE      3/4oz Lead     9500 PSI       1560 FPS
    ◾FOLD CRIMPED LOAD:
    12GA 2.75”    Green Dot      XX.X   PT1205         1oz Lead        8100 PSI       1225 FPS
    ◾ROLL-CRIMPED LOAD:
    12GA 2.75”   Green Dot      XX.X  PT1205           1oz Lead        8000 PSI       1210 FPS
    ◾FOLD CRIMPED LOAD:
    12GA 2.75”    Clays              XX.X  PT1215         1oz Lead       10900 PSI      1380 FPS
    ◾ROLL-CRIMPED LOAD:
    12GA 2.75”   Clays              XX.X   PT1215         1oz Lead        9200 PSI       1315 FPS

    RMc

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2209

    • Offline
    Re: Shotshell pressure: Roll Crimp vs Fold Crimp
    « Reply #2 on: December 22, 2017, 02:09:41 pm »
    Usually when posting a link to an article, it is customary to provide a summary of the content in the post.  Or in this case, being so short, to just copy and paste the whole thing, so guys can read it without going off site.

    Thank you Kaso.

    And let me rephrase the question:

    After reading the article, was there anything left out that might indicate these were not exactly "parallel load comparisons"  :hmm
    Alabama

    Plebian

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2604

    • Offline
    Re: Shotshell pressure: Roll Crimp vs Fold Crimp
    « Reply #3 on: December 24, 2017, 10:22:07 am »
    Do we know their testing protocol? There are just tons of assumptions that I must make to trust this data.

    How many shots were taken to establish each pressure benchmark?
    How closely are the reloading protocols followed for each and every shell?
    Are the cases all from the same lot? Is the plastic for these case runs in the same lot of plastic production?
    Did they use a control shotshell for each new day of testing to determine environmental changes?
    Is this just the mean for each load? What is the maximum variance for each load?
    Have they used different equipment for roll crimping and fold crimping? Ideally they would use a selection of fold crimping tools and roll crimping tools.

    These are just a few things I can question in just seconds of thought given to this test. It is exceedingly rare for any 'gun' test to be anywhere close to a useful data collection test much less a truly scientific test protocol/data analysis procedure. 
    Oklahoma"If all our problems are solved, we'll find new ones to replace them. If we can't find new ones, we'll make new ones."

    cpaspr

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2242

    • Offline
    Re: Shotshell pressure: Roll Crimp vs Fold Crimp
    « Reply #4 on: December 25, 2017, 01:39:50 pm »
    Just attempting to use logic, albeit when I'm not fully awake nor at all knowledgeable about shotshell reloading (i.e. I'm spitballing this), it seems it would take less pressure to unroll a roll crimp of maybe 1/8" - 1/4" of plastic that to unfold the more complex (and larger amount of plastic involved) fold crimp.

    Based on that thought, their research, perfect, flawed or somewhere in between, is not contrary to my expectation.
    Oregon

    RMc

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2209

    • Offline
    Re: Shotshell pressure: Roll Crimp vs Fold Crimp
    « Reply #5 on: December 25, 2017, 10:27:33 pm »
    Plebian: You are right that many protocols and even the powder is an unknown factor.  However, this is presented as a general statement that "... given an equally-loaded and identical load that has been fold-crimped, the roll-crimped load never seems to achieve the pressure level of a fold crimped load."

    cpaspr: You are also on point, the conclusion does seem to be what we would expect.

    Now would it also be expected if the premise instead were to read like this?
    "... given equally-loaded and identical fold crimp loads that have been assembled in  2.75" and 3" hulls, the 3" loads never seem to achieve the pressure level of the 2.75" loads."

    Here is an *example example of the alternate premise:
    First and third lead shot loads on the page - both have the same data, both are fold crimped, but one is a 2.75" load and the other is a 3" load.  The 3" load exhibits lower pressure and velocity.
    https://www.ballisticproducts.com/VP53%20data.pdf

    *Note: This copyrighted data would not properly format, so an off-forum reference is shown.

    To cut to the chase: What was not spelled out in the 2.75" Roll Crimp vs Fold Crimp example is simply the Loaded Length of the Roll Crimped load is longer than a Fold Crimped load.  The Roll Crimped loads have a greater loaded internal capacity. So the comparison is not an apples to apples example any more than comparing the same data put up in 2.75" and 3" fold crimp cases.

    For the differences between a roll crimp and fold crimp to be properly compared, the roll crimped hulls would have to be shortened.  That way the finished loads would have the same internal loaded volume.

    A loaded 2.5" roll crimped cartridge would have the same loaded internal capacity as a loaded 2.75" fold crimped cartridge.    :coffee
    Alabama

    Plebian

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2604

    • Offline
    Re: Shotshell pressure: Roll Crimp vs Fold Crimp
    « Reply #6 on: December 26, 2017, 11:38:15 am »
    Plebian: You are right that many protocols and even the powder is an unknown factor.  However, this is presented as a general statement that "... given an equally-loaded and identical load that has been fold-crimped, the roll-crimped load never seems to achieve the pressure level of a fold crimped load."

    cpaspr: You are also on point, the conclusion does seem to be what we would expect.

    Now would it also be expected if the premise instead were to read like this?
    "... given equally-loaded and identical fold crimp loads that have been assembled in  2.75" and 3" hulls, the 3" loads never seem to achieve the pressure level of the 2.75" loads."

    Here is an *example example of the alternate premise:
    First and third lead shot loads on the page - both have the same data, both are fold crimped, but one is a 2.75" load and the other is a 3" load.  The 3" load exhibits lower pressure and velocity.
    https://www.ballisticproducts.com/VP53%20data.pdf

    *Note: This copyrighted data would not properly format, so an off-forum reference is shown.

    To cut to the chase: What was not spelled out in the 2.75" Roll Crimp vs Fold Crimp example is simply the Loaded Length of the Roll Crimped load is longer than a Fold Crimped load.  The Roll Crimped loads have a greater loaded internal capacity. So the comparison is not an apples to apples example any more than comparing the same data put up in 2.75" and 3" fold crimp cases.

    For the differences between a roll crimp and fold crimp to be properly compared, the roll crimped hulls would have to be shortened.  That way the finished loads would have the same internal loaded volume.

    A loaded 2.5" roll crimped cartridge would have the same loaded internal capacity as a loaded 2.75" fold crimped cartridge.    :coffee

    It would seem to me that identical would also include internal volume of the case as that is important to the key data point of pressure. If you are not controlling for all known aspects that could contribute to pressure variance BUT the crimp. Then you are not doing a single point analysis, and you would state as such in your test description. 

    Which is why I say most 'gun' tests are not even very useful data collection sets much less a proper study in the scientific and statistical sense.

    There are also other assumptions that must be made of the test data given the statement of identical. If they have not controlled for a well-known characteristic that effects their tested data point. Then their 'test' was nothing more than a convenient excuse to shoot.   
    Oklahoma"If all our problems are solved, we'll find new ones to replace them. If we can't find new ones, we'll make new ones."

    RMc

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2209

    • Offline
    Re: Shotshell pressure: Roll Crimp vs Fold Crimp
    « Reply #7 on: December 28, 2017, 06:52:33 pm »
    One of my shotshell handloads was designed to use a steel shot type wad and 16 thirty* caliber, 40 grain, high animony lead pellets; stacked in layers of two. This is just shy of 1.5 ounces.  This load is a perfect fit in 2.75"  Reifenhauser type straight wall hull using a roll crimp. Using a fold crimp the load fits perfectly in a 3" version same type of hull.   

    So why use the "old fashioned" roll crimp at all.  Well the old 2.75" chambered Remington 1100 has the action length to feed the long roll crimped length of this tight patterning load. The roll crimp allows me to fit the load to the gun.

    *#1B is nominally .30" but commercial loads are assembled with pellets closer to .286" and 33 grains each.
    « Last Edit: December 28, 2017, 08:41:45 pm by RMc »
    Alabama

    RMc

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2209

    • Offline
    Re: Shotshell pressure: Roll Crimp vs Fold Crimp
    « Reply #8 on: February 15, 2018, 08:57:22 pm »
    Just to clarify a bit: 

    The average case length needed is .40" for folded crimp vs .15" for rolled crimp. 

    Even for the math challenged that comes to a 1/4" difference in loaded length between the two crimp types in the same hull.
    Alabama

    RMc

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2209

    • Offline
    Re: Shotshell pressure: Roll Crimp vs Fold Crimp
    « Reply #9 on: February 24, 2018, 08:25:57 pm »
    The average case length  is .40" for folded crimp vs .15" for rolled crimp. 

    So just a bit of illustration:

    2.50" - .15" = 2.35"    Roll crimp 2.50" hull loaded length is 2.35"

    2.75" - .40" = 2.35"    Fold crimp 2.75" hull loaded length is 2.35"

    2.75" - .15" = 2.60"    Roll crimp 2.75" hull loaded length is 2.60"

    3.00" - .40" = 2.60"    Fold crimp 3.00" hull loaded length is 2.60"



    « Last Edit: February 24, 2018, 08:36:07 pm by RMc »
    Alabama

    Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.