What is the difference between old style Winchester AA and Winchester AA HS hulls?


PDA






au_prospector
June 26, 2012, 09:33 AM
I see Winchester AA hulls segregated between 'old style' and the newer 'HS' style hulls. I have some of both and reload them in the same way. They seem to be fine using the same recipe on both. I cannot figure out what the difference is. No one I ask about this seems to know the difference. The plastic on my older AA hulls seems a bit less pliable is all I can gather.

Anyone?

If you enjoyed reading about "What is the difference between old style Winchester AA and Winchester AA HS hulls?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rg1
June 26, 2012, 09:56 AM
The older Win AA hulls were molded in one piece while the new HS hulls are two piece. Looking inside the new HS hulls you can see the lip of the bottom base that resembles a base wad. Here's an explanation with pics. Winchester says use the same data for both. The older hulls were best!

http://www.ballisticproducts.com/bpi/articleindex/articles/hulls_aa_new/NewAAhull1.htm

243winxb
June 26, 2012, 10:30 AM
The 28 & 410 use different loading data & wads. http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n420/joe1944usa/28GA.jpg http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n420/joe1944usa/28ga2.jpg I hope my old casings last long enough to use up the old wad. :uhoh:

Joatmon
June 26, 2012, 10:18 PM
+1 with the above. The old AA12 hull was superior and could be reloaded more times than the new hulls. The newer two piece can eventually leave part of the hull in the barrel of your gun and you will not like what happens next. I dont make any effort to hang on to the newer hulls for reloading. A couple of cycles and they are pitched. Have moved on to remmington or other one piece hull. Lots of notes on this and other hull questions in the shotgun forums.

ArchAngelCD
June 28, 2012, 02:08 AM
As usual, the difference is it costs less for the manufacturer and we get a sub-standard produce compared to the original. :rolleyes:

243winxb,
Thanks for that information...

oneounceload
June 28, 2012, 12:40 PM
As to the 28 gauge AAHS hulls - there are TWO sizes of them - one has an underline under the AAHS and one does not -v they do not load the same as one hull is slightly longer than the other

Winchester should have left well enough alone with the old CF hulls - those worked great

Uniquedot
June 28, 2012, 03:17 PM
As usual, the difference is it costs less for the manufacturer

Are you sure about that? it seems to me that they would be more costly to manufacture especially considering the change over.

Winchester should have left well enough alone with the old CF hulls - those worked great

Yes, but they still were not as good as the sts, at least i didn't think so. The first time i ever loaded sts hulls was the last time i loaded AA's in 12 ga. I still like the old AA's for 20 ga.

oneounceload
June 28, 2012, 10:32 PM
The first time i ever loaded sts hulls was the last time i loaded AA's in 12 ga. I still like the old AA's for 20 ga.

HALF right, IMO - Remington makes the best hull in 12 and 20, WIN makes the best hull in 28 and 410

nody
June 29, 2012, 02:31 AM
Winchester dropped the old compression formed (CF) hull supposedly because the machines were worn out.

Since they were building new machines, they designed them around a less expensive process, and called it "High Strength," despite that it is not.

America was built by engineers and workers, and is now being strangled to death by politicians and marketing people.

We're literally choking to death on bull*****.

ArchAngelCD
June 29, 2012, 02:43 AM
As usual, the difference is it costs less for the manufacturer.
Are you sure about that? it seems to me that they would be more costly to manufacture especially considering the change over.
Winchester dropped the old compression formed (CF) hull supposedly because the machines were worn out.

Since they were building new machines, they designed them around a less expensive process, and called it "High Strength," despite that it is not.
That would be a good reason and a possibility, no??? I still feel no company makes changes that cost them more. They will always choose to bring more to the bottom line...

able
June 29, 2012, 07:00 PM
I bought 2 k red and dark grey once fired 12 AA-HS hulls 23/4" .what I found out is the HS hulls are 1/16" shorter than my old CF hulls, shot spills out top and ruins my intent to use same load as CF hulls ,but a over shot card does work, wish I'd a bought REM sts's for 2cents more!

blarby
June 29, 2012, 07:22 PM
@ nody : you are 100% correct. !

STS/Gunclub for the win, again.... its amazing how many shells come out of the remington factory with different stamps, and in different colors, but all using the same structure.

I just cannot imagine how it would be easier or cheaper to make anything other than this design... I just dont.

I'm sure it isn't strength, it can't be ease of manufacture, Plastic really is Plastic in terms of cost...the new ones weigh more than the old ones did.... I just don't get it. Maybe it adds a layer of plastic which reduces the internal volume, allowing them to use less powder for the same pressure on the original loading ? Plastic must be cheaper than gunpowder, right ?

My grandfather used to swear by those AA hulls... when the new ones came out, he just swore at them.

Peter M. Eick
July 1, 2012, 12:26 PM
I found that it did not take many reloads and the HS hulls got loose in the basewad. I dumped them all and now only load Rem STS's.

High strength they are not in my experience.

If you enjoyed reading about "What is the difference between old style Winchester AA and Winchester AA HS hulls?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!