The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading Re: improved cartridges..... are they really?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Re: improved cartridges..... are they really? | Login/Join |
| one of us |
Yup, but I think if you need to compare several data sources to establish a definate trend . I DO agree with your basic premise that the improved calibers in most instances do not result in much velocity increase . There is just not enough increase in case capacity.......(see the Barseness rule) | ||
|
one of us |
I still say you are all missing the point.every cartridge I can think of that has been introduced in the last 40 years is along the lines of being "improved".None have been introduced with a sharply tapered case like the H&H magnums.All are short,fat and sharp shouldered. If you try to blow out a 300 magnum,of course your not going to get a big increase in velocity,it is already overbore capacity and has close to minimum taper and good shoulder angle to begin with. Even the new 204 seems to have a sharp shoulder and minimum taper.(I have'nt seen one.) The "improved" case body design allows the handloader to use higher pressure without having difficult extraction and other normally accepted signs of excess pressure,up until case head expansion says you are loading too hot.Its not going to allow you to gain any velocity until you raise the pressure.Its not magic.to compare pressure barrel reading ,to me is just missing the point. Instead try loading a rifle,say a 30-30 marlin 336 up to maximum load using easy extraction and good case life as indicators,then rechamber to the improved version and use these same indicators and you will see an "improvement". start out with a 300 winchester and no,there probably wont be much of a difference. | |||
|
| one of us |
jb, Quote: What kinda an improvement do you think you would see? I can tell you that there will be little to any! If you want to see a difference in your example, you would load the 30-30 to SAAMI spec of ~ 42,000 psi and then load your 30-30 AI to say 52,000 psi and then you would see an improvment. For you information I can easily get my M94 Winchester 30-30 to spit out 170 gr Remingtons at 2300+ fps without any difficult extraction, etc, etc, etc and with only a 20" barrel! Factory loaded 170 gr bullets only clock around 1950 fps in the same rifle, so I can assure you I am running FAR higher than SAAMI spec in the pressure department. Best guess would be around 55,000 to 60,000 psi. The limitation on either the Marlin 336 or the Winchester M94 isn't the brass, it is the barrel tenon and then the front of the receiver. What that means is you can load either of those rifles up as fast as you want, UNTIL THE GUN EXPLODES!!!! Improved case or not, doesn't matter the pressure differential between the factory 30-30 and the 30-30 AI is all but non-existent! Lever actions have a considerable amount of extraction power, far more than any bolt action rifle. If you are feeling sticky extraction what than means is you are VERY CLOSE TO A RIFLE EXPLOSION!!! More than likely you have already begun the yield the barrel tenon, by the time you feel sticky extraction, NOT A GOOD THING!! Playing with explosives can be VERY dangerous even if you do know what you are doing, problem is most people do not! For this reason it is highly adviseable that one follows the recommendations found in reloading manuals, as they are written expressly to save reloaders from themselves! ASS_CLOWN | |||
|
| one of us |
. | |||
|
One of Us |
Quote:"" Nice response! I also at times am a little surprised how some of these threads perk the interest of so many and travel down diverse paths. Perhaps my pepper, fly shit remark was just a little too flipant.  roger  | |||
|
| one of us |
If the chambering saves cases or not, shoots faster or not, easier to load for or not,has less bolt thrust or not.... etc. etc. One thing for sure ... if it makes a person feel all warm and fuzzy inside it must be better, improved or not. | |||
|
One of Us |
It is correct to state that there are no free lunches in physics. But if the issue is of whether there are cases that are actually improved or not, then to simply state that the only way to achive more velocity is to increase the pressure is just not true. If that were so, then why do we dabble with different powders and achive different results from both velocity and pressure standpoints? This varies because of internal ballistics, its not majic, its just a matter of varying results from varying components, and the specific case design most certianly is one determining factor in these varying results. Again this is not to say that all "improved" cases actually will be. But to write them all off as snake oil is also false and results have proven otherwise. As for what is worth while and what is not, only we as individuals can decide that. I consider synthetic stocks to be a waste of my time and money, but that doesnt render other peoples opinions on them invalid. Look at what technology has done for internal combustion engines in the last 2 decades. Still no free lunches, but there are certianly some major milestone improvments that have been made, and to think that a 50 or a 100 year old cartridge design cannot be improved upon is a rediculous assumption. Someone mentioned people having a bias due to a need to justify money spent, that rub goes both ways. | |||
|
one of us |
Roger, Your reply was not flippant at all. How can there possibly be a right or wrong answer to the question of "improve or not to improve" For me it is an easy answer but then again I am a disciple of St. Parker. I like the "improved" ballistics. I like the "improved" longevity of my brass. And to justify another popular argument about "improved" cartridges, I think they really look neat. I like Ackley "improved" chamberings. It is worth it to me from any angle you care to view it from to go "improved" and anyone that doesn't happen to agree with me, well so be it. I think anyone that can't see the advantage of going "improved" is an "unimproved" heathen. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone's got one and that's mine. Anyone that doesn't think it's worth the time and expense, don't do it! But don't tell me I'm wrong because I believe in Parker Ackley or any of the other guy's that preceded or followed him. This would be a pretty stagnant sport if it were not for people like Ackley, Donaldson, Pindell and Palmisano and a dozen others that had the balls to say "what if" and "why not" It's all good regardless of who "improved" what and what motivated them to do so and who was first to do what. Who cares? It all moves the sport forward and that's a good thing. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Jim | |||
|
| one of us |
I ran across another potential winner in the "improved" race. The 38-56Win went from 60.7gr to the mouth (40.0gr w/o neck) to 69.7gr to the mouth (57.9gr w/o neck). 14.8% total increase in capacity to the mouth and a 44.75% increase in the body capacity seems sugnificant. It's such a obscure/obsolete cartridge, that I hesatated to mention it. | |||
|
one of us |
People that "pooh-pooh" the (sometimes) modest velocity gains from "improved" cartridges are missing one of the main advantages of the "improved" case, greatly improved case life @ higher pressure. These highers pressure then allow more velocity gains. I have never had an "improved" case show any sign of head seperation and seldom have I had to trim length. Failure has always been from neck splitting or primer pockets getting loose, after many loadings. Granted most modern designs benifit little from "improving", but why is that? Could it be that they are already "improved"? Take a look @ all the case designs of the recent comers, sharp shoulder angles and little case taper along with higher SAAMI operateing pressure. The metalurgy of the brass case hasn't changed, the "improved" case design of the new cartridges allow for higher operating pressure. I have a M700 CDL in 280 Rem. I have been able to get very good accuracy from it with some bedding work. Would I remove the barrel and "improve" it? No, but if that barrel starts to loose it's "edge" it will be re-cahambered and re-throated in the "Ackley Improved" flavor. | |||
|
| one of us |
wildcatjunkie, Do you know why the Ackley Improved cases have "better" case life than factory chamberings? Would you like me to tell you? Hint: It has NOTHING to do with "minimal body taper"!! Hint2: It has EVERYTHING to do with headspace tolerance!!!! There is NO physics to support, for the AI improvements, either the velocity, thrust force, or the case life improvements. Actually the AI cases will increase bolt thrust, common sense alone should make that VERY clear! Again it all comes back to headspace tolerance. ASS_CLOWN | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: | |||
|
| one of us |
The effect of improving cases on velocity and energy is quite simple because the bore is held constant while the propellant capacity is increased. In addition, cartridge length is usually quite close. To go from 2700 fps to 2800 fps in a rifle one needs: (2800/2700)^3.333 = 1.1289 times as much propellant. In other words, 12.89 % more case capacity. Of course, this assumes constant working pressure. Since this is an exponential relationship, increases in velocity take very large increases in propellant. If you need a 10% increase in velocity, you need a 37% increase in propellant, for example. | |||
|
| one of us |
wildcatjunkie, Quote:  I strongly suggest you delete that post of yours and stop speaking to topics you know nothing of. I really do not wish to make you look anymore the fool than you already have done. Perhaps however, if you desire to further define your ignorance, you might post the mechanical advantage that a Mauser or Mauser derivative possesses with regard to extraction and compare that to the mechanical advantage of a M1894 Winchester, M1886 Winchester, M1895 Winchester or the various Marlin lever actions. If you do this I think you will agree with me and delete that last post of yours. By the way, smokeless powder is an explosive compound, which if used CORRECTLY "burns" instead of "detonates". The difference between "burning" and "detonating" is NOTHING MORE THAN FLAME PROPAGATION SPEED! Believe it or not. If you do not I will, and of course many will undoubtedly tell me I am full of shit, because, like women, you need to believe in a fantasy and ignore reality. ASS_CLOWN | |||
|
| One of Us |
Mr. Day, Once again you are misrepresenting your personal opinions as something factual that is exclusive of all other opinions. What is so "efficent" about spending $10,000.00 on a piece of equipment that at the end of the day does nothing more than what a $400.00 Wally world rifle will do. Shoot bullets. For that kind of Jack I can surround myself in AI chamberings, fireform a lifetime supply of cartridges and pay myself for doing it. That kind of "efficency" is in the eye of the beholder. Same logic from a different angle. But when a company sees the fact that a 30 Gibbs will do the same thing as a 300 magnum with a 20% powder reduction, that can be a real and tangible benefit to those of us who appreciate it whether others like yourself happen to agree or not. And on a sidenote, not everyone who hunts has to board a plane to get there, and standard cartridges can be used in an AI chambering. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The trouble is, there isn't anything "efficient" about the comsumption of time and components required to fire-form cases, plus perform the sundry other rituals required to create these masterpieces of "efficieny", nor is there anything "efficient" about the predicament you'll face if your ammo supply gets permanently seperated from you and your rifle in transit on the other side of the world with the only source of resupply available on your loading bench back home -- some 10,000 miles away. Man, some of these wildcat cowboys are just brilliant theoticians, but absolutely numb in the logistics department, and that is where their lack of experience in the field really begins to show. Now let me see if I am following this logic. What I do with my time and what I enjoy needs to meet with someones standards of efficiency - let me put you in touch with my wife you can commisorate together about how foolish I am to ENJOY!! fire-forming cases, neck turning, reloading etc. And speaking of logic, why is it I always hear about the tragety of going on a hunt with specialty ammo and having the ammo get lost - if something gets lost why is it always the ammo - guns always make it? | |||
|
| One of Us |
vapodog, I do not agree with the numbers in your first posting. My exerience has been that in bench style rifles the accuracy holds to about 200 f/s to 250 f/s higher in the short belted magnums compared to the 30/06 case. There is nothing suprising with those numbers as they basically match up with the percentage increase in velocity being equal to 1/4 of the percentage increase in powder capacity. Some Improved calibres, most notably the 375 H & H Improved do better than the increase in case capacity would suggest, especially with pointed 300 grain bullets. In this case the commony used powders are either too fast or too slow for the standard H & H. Of course the reverse situation could also occur when improving case, that is, available powders may be more suitable for the bore/capacity of the standard non improved case. Mike 280 Remington.......175 grain soft point...2,700'/sec 7MM Rem Mag.........175 grain soft point...2,800'/sec .30-06..............180 grain soft point...2,750'/sec .300 H&H............180 grain soft point...2,800'/sec 6.5-06..............140 grain soft point...2,900'/sec .264 Win Mag........140 grain soft point...3,000'/sec .25-06..............120 grain soft point...3,050'/sec .257 Weatherby......120 grain soft point...3,100'/sec .270 Winchester.....150 grain soft point...2,850'/sec .270 Weatherby......150 grain soft point...2,950'/sec .257 Roberts........120 grain soft point...2,800'/sec .257 Rob. Imp.28 deg120 grain soft point...2,800'/sec .300 H&H............190 grain soft point...2,800'/sec .300 Wby............190 grain soft point...3,100'/sec | |||
|
One of Us |
Mike375 said: Quote: Mike...please note that the data was rounded and adjusted to equal barrel lengths. I, too, was surprised at the little difference when I first began looking at what I was posting.....but some didn't surprise me.....I already knew the .270 Weatherby was little better than the .270 Winchester for example. Please bear in mind that this is not MY data....It's published as recommended max loads from a reputable manufacturer of both commercial ammunition and reloading components. These are max loads as prescribed by SAAMI specs. Yes, it's reasonable to say that one can safely operate at higher levels than SAAMI specs but if that's true with an improved chamber, it's also true of a standard chamber, a magnum chamber.....etc. Again.....this is published data from pressure barrels.....in other words...equal circumstances. It should be noted that the data for the .257 standard Roberts is a +P load....not the usual .257 factory load so common years ago. | |||
|
| One of Us |
vapodog I realise of course that it is not your data. Also comparing velocities at accuracy fall of in bench guns favours the big case capacity for the bore size. Why this is I have no idea. For some reason calibres with a big case capacity for the bore size seem to retain peak accuracy to higher pressures than do 308 and 30/06 type calibres. I do think that the "success" of many immpoved calibres has it basis in powder availability. In the late 60s in Australia we had two basic powders that were generally available and they were 4831 and 4740. The 4740 was the powder used to load Canadian military 303 ammo and was around 3031 burn rate. One of main gunsmiths at the time use to do 218 Improved Bee on the Martinis and the 270 Win Improved on M17s. This was because 4740 was just to slow for the standard 218 Bee as was 4831 for the 100 grain bullet in the standard 270. Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
SDGunslinger wrote: Quote: Well.....I personally know the folks that do the tests.....I trust the data and far prefer it to the published velocities of other commercial ammo manufactures I'm very comfortable with what I posted. Besides.....even if there's an additional 100'/sec difference.....the point is still made..... | |||
|
| one of us |
holy crap. that is one long read! i was always under the assumption that as a general rule: 308 case= x 06 case= x+150fps (general) mag case= 06'case+150fps. the AI case would split the differnce. those numbers were comparing like pressure loads with identical bullets in same twist barrels.... am i off? woofer | |||
|
| One of Us |
Posted by Woofer: Quote: I think you're pretty darn close on that. Others have posted a 2.5/10 rule that means that if one increases case capacity 10% he will potentially gain 2.5 % velocity. That too seems to be a good approximation of what really happens unded equal pressures. BTW 2.5% of 3,000 is only 75 feet/sec....... | |||
|
| One of Us |
vapodog That rule of the percentage in velocity increase equals 1/4 of the increase in case capacity even works well when the difference is very big. For example, 30/06 Vs 30/378. The 30/378 has about 90% more case capacity so increase in velocity should be 22.5%. A 30/06 tops out at about 2850 f/s with 180s and so 2850 X 1.225 = 3490 and that is right in the ball park for top loads in 30/378 and the big Lazzeroni 308 Warbird Mike | |||
|
| one of us |
I think the presently manufactured cartridge list will show that the idea behind the improved cartridge case form is completely valid and adhered to by all the gun industy rifle and ammuntion manufactures.your opinions mean nothing. Ass clown you are either completely bored or a fool.or both.why dont you take your own advise and follow loading manual data.Oh, and just how many times do you load those 30-30 brass? brass bender; what is so hard about firing factory rounds in an improved chamber? vapodog; the data has been adjusted? "FYI the data is direct from the 5th edition Hornady loading manual" either its direct from the manual or you "adjusted" it,which is it? ass clown; smokeless powder is a flammable solid. black powder is an explosive.someone of your claimed intellect should know that. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Quote by jb: Quote: I know it's cold up there in Minnesota and I know how much you folks miss Jesse Ventura and how saddened you are that your man isn't heading for the White House.....May I suggest you pour some more whiskey or learn to read!!!!! | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: .... Now I am confused about something here. Are you saying that there is a cartridge list (a form, paper or otherwise) that is being manufactured presently, with a pictorial and or information that successfully conveys an idea behind an "improved case form" which is "valid" and all gun industries rifle and ammunition manufactures adhere too it? Now... is it the physical list that is valid? Or is it that the idea is valid or is it just the wording of the idea that is valid? Where do the cartridges come into play? Quite frankly your sentence makes little sense too me, probably because you have been drinking again. I want to take this slow... I think the presently manufactured cartridge list will show... Will I be able to get one of these cartridge lists in the future that has cartridges from the present, and have it still be valid even when itself is presently being manufactured?... will show that the idea behind the improved cartridge case form is completely valid... How do they get their ideas validated? What about that future thing again.... ? and adhered to by all the gun industy rifle and ammuntion manufactures.... All of them????!!!! A person would have to be a fool not to adhere!!! Go to jail even, get there whiskey busted over there head, spilt all over the floor. Trappers might even pass you 'round the camp fire, tak'in turns if ur a young enough man. Where is that other part... ohh yeah ... your opinions mean nothing.... Is that opinion or a valid idea your adhering to? Ok I am done being stupid for the night. BTW... you might want to bone-up on your explosives jb | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: I dont miss jesse,and it a good thing for all of us he isnt headed for the white house. I stopped drinking whiskey 20 years ago. So were you quoting figures or "adjusting" them?I notice you failed to answer.not that it really matters.And,I can read just fine. | |||
|
| one of us |
Bone up on my explosives?PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong.I seem to recall smokeless powder and pyrodex being classified as a flammable solid.Easily obtainable at most any sporting goods store. Blackpowder,however,is much harder to find being classified as a class A explosive. And ,in fact,I checked,blackpowder has warnings all over the can,EXPLOSIVE,while smokeless is only EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE.not explosive. As far as the cartridge list goes,a quick glance at available factory loaded rounds show a clear following of the improved line of thinking,rather than sharply tapered case forms. Whether or not it makes alot of difference doesnt seem to matter,all cartridges introduced recently seem to be going that way.as far as your opinion goes,that is only my opinion. and if you really want to be on the side of the ass clown,you carry on. | |||
|
| one of us |
Ray,heh Ray, Wake up you forgot your medication.Tell us if you will, when it was that Parker Ackley made that announcement, I don't recall hearing that one. The truth is you've never had any hands on experience with any of Parker's creations, have you? I didn't think so. Now you go to the blackboard and write: Parker Ackley was a genius 100 times and never let me hear those words out of your mouth again. Ray, i've read your posts on this board for some time now and for the most part respected and agreed with what you had to say, but you went over the top on this one. Brassbender, I don't think you've bent enough brass yet to speak on a subject that you obviously know nothing about. I have been hunting for over 50 years and haven't lost my ammo yet. Am I doing something wrong? Stepchild | |||
|
| one of us |
Allen, You being a senior member here, i'll try to show due respect. I read an article several years ago about David Miller. The article went on about how wonderful his rifles are and how one his creations was auctioned off for $25,000. While reading the article I noticed that the rifles(3) shown in the article were built on mere Remington, Ruger, and Winchester actions all fitted with quality barrels and machined to exacting tolerances. As I remember they all wore laminated stocks, which we all know aren't very costly. I guess he has a sort of cult following and more power to him. I can find more to talk about while sitting around the campfire than the price of my rifle.Ego trip for some. And who in their right mind is going to pay eight times the price of a new one, which in my opinion is already inflated. I guess, using your scale, I'm somewhere between Wal Mart and David Miller.I have a local Gunsmith that can and does do work on a par with David Miller or anyone else for a fraction of the cost. And speaking of cost, that is important to a lot of people on this board, people who are making mortgage payments,etc, trying to raise a family and at the same time enjoying our wonderful sport. JMTCW Stepchild | |||
|
| one of us |
jb, Your knowledge of explosives boggles the mind, NOT! Is wheat dust an explosive, how about coal dust, smokeless powder, black powder, TNT, nitroglyerine, gasoline, etc, etc. The Governments classifications are pointless and are done SOLELY for tax purposes! You understanding of case body taper is miniscule at best too. Actually PATHETIC is a better descriptive word for your knowledge. Last time I counted my 30-30 had 20+ reloads on Winchester brass, the only brass I have ever bought for it. The rifle does have a tight chamber though, that helps with brass life A LOT! Please continue on with your rants against me and namecalling! I personally find it immensely HILARIOUS!! | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have a local Gunsmith that can and does do work on a par with David Miller or anyone else for a fraction of the cost Stepchild, I am curious as to how you that and especially anyone else Mike | |||
|
| one of us |
Mike, Let me put it this way,he has built two rifles for me that are outstaningly accurate and is a Master Gunsmith especially when it comes to bolt action rifles. I'm happy for David Miller and some of the top Gunsmiths who have a large following, for my money, Al Siegrist gets the job done, exceedingly well. Stepchild | |||
|
| one of us |
Stepchild, Is Al Siegrist performing barrel reboring these days? Thanks, ASS_CLOWN | |||
|
| one of us |
AC: In my dim and distant past I passed a course in combat demolitions in the military and had to know something about explosives theory (My home language is afrikaans so my english command of the technical stuff is poor) So all the stuff you list are in fact explosives but they are termed "low" explosives that "explode" by virtue of "deflagation" or production of subsonic pressure waves by virtue of combustion . In case of the stuff you mentioned the burning needs a combustion chamber to capture the combsution process in order to contain and channel the pressure wave ( low speed burning rate in the world of explosives) They need low energy sources to initiate in this case the burning proccess. Black powder and modern nitro as example. High explosives, such as the Plastique and Syntex we used in the military are very stable and need high energy sources to "explode" or actually fragment and in this the proccess is inititiated by the propagation of a high energy shock wave through the medium by means of a detonator. ( the difference being detonation in the true sence ie propagation of a detonation wave in the medium vs a slow burning procces releasing gasses that expand) The detonator initiates the shock wave in one part of the medium and that initiates the reaction measured in m/s. High explosives can off course also burn but then they deflagrate at a low rate and yield no explosive effect. so they can classify as low and high. Anyway I dont know how this fits with your government tax ssytem  but according to my limited knowledge all the stuff you listed are in explosives albeitt of different class and mode of action.So everyone is actually right in this fight...... not so? | |||
|
| one of us |
. | |||
|
| one of us |
anyone currently using a WSM, SAUM, or RUM are subscribing to Ackley's theories (little or no body taper and sharper shoulders) If they can't see that,..they are the type who gets lost in the backyard while looking at the trees 100yds away. Improved brass in my rifles lasts a hell of a long time under what some of the members would consider too high a pressure. That may be because my chambers are cut by a gunsmith who knows how to correctly do it and not some self appointed master of this and that who is far too proud of his work (reflected in labor rates) which in the AI game can be fairly prevalent. My AI's are FASTER and the cases last longer. Fireforming also goes under.5moa in all 3 of the rifles with even factory ammo. I'll stick to the ackleys,..they just plain work for me,...and the look KEWL  | |||
|
| one of us |
JustC, The 500 Jeffery also has a relatively sharp shoulder and minimal body taper, too bad it significantly predates PO Ackley's work. There are good reasons for the sharper angles and blown out shoulder diameters of the more modern cartridges. Unfortunately, these reasons have nothing to do with improved case life. They have everything to do with increasing the efficiency of a given cartridge/bore relationship within the boundaries of modern day propellant properties. When the "Improved" cases were designed there was NOWHERE near the level of refinement in propellants there is today. Without this HIGHLY REFINED propellant evolution there is NO NEED for "improved" cartridges. By the way, your AI chambers are producing increased velocities and INCREASED PRESSURE. Furthermore, the improvements in case life, while real, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MINIMAL BODY TAPER OR SHARPER SHOULDER ANGLES ASSOCIATED WITH THE AI DESIGN! It would seem you have MUCH to learn about firearms and internal ballistics young grasshopper. Alf, Excellent post. I am not sure if everyone was right though, while I never disagreed that "high" explosives are infact explosives, others told me that "low" explosives were NOT infact explosives. Cannot wait to see if anyone tells you that your post is BS. ASS_CLOWN | |||
|
| One of Us |
ASS_CLOWN: Quote: AC....I was thinking it would be a good idea for AR to give an award for the most diplomatic poster of the year.....maybe a free calendar or something.....maybe a buffalo hunt with a .404 AI Jeffery!! Not to worry friend.....you'll not likely be nominated. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading Re: improved cartridges..... are they really?
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |