2 3/4” with filler wad vs 2 1/2” without
 

Just thinking out loud: if I had a known safe load for 2 3/4” Hull that used a 1/4” filler wad to allow for good crimping, why wouldn’t that same load be safe without the wad in a 2 1/2” hull?

By the removal of the wad you have only lessened the weight, a small decrease in pressure perhaps but no real change in the load.

That makes perfect sense to me. Thanks

V.M. Starr was a well know shooter back in the day when muzzleloaders were still used along with the new fangle cartridge guns. In events where the guy with the most hits an a playing card at I think 60 paces he would usually win with his old fashion muzzleloader. He jug choked his gun [ another story ] and only used the 1/8 or 1/4" hard over powder card - no cushion wad that was normally used. He claimed the cushion wad did nothing but take up space for shells. I kind a like a cushion wad, but who am I to say. You'll be just fine unless you don't like the recoil or patterns.

Hmmm

Update
 

I test fired, patterned, and chronographed the 2 1/2" version of the load in a modern gun. Very mild 1100 fps 7/8 oz load (16 gauge). Estimated PSI 7800.

Ron what is the load you are using? I have 2 16 ga. guns that I hunt with and am always in search of 7\8 loads.

16.3 grs Unique in a Fiocchi pre-primed hull trimmed to 2 1/2", skived and fold crimped. SG16 Sporting Sixteen wad

Thank you Ron, very close to what I load.