All other aspects of reloading be what they may be, and just for the fun of it... Who do you think had the better Idea so to speak for the improved case, P.O Ackley or Roy Weatherby? Both in accuracy and marketability in real-world considerations.

Phil

quote:

Roy Weatherby?

One does not see a P.O. Ackley rifle company.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

Roy Weatherby?

One does not see a P.O. Ackley rifle company.

How many rounded shoulder cartridges do you see in today's rifle company's?

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:

How many rounded shoulder cartridges do you see in today's rifle company's?

Good point!

There might be more if notable gains in velocity, accuracy or barrel life could be demonstrated by the "Venturi" neck and shoulder.

That means that the gain in turn for added hassle of cutting reamers is only in aesthetics.

Parker did have a rifle company.

he just didn't import actions and screw barrels on them, then sell them as his.
he re-built, repaired, and re-chambered rifles, you know a gunsmith type place.

completely different business models.

The Ackely method of improving cases is the only one which is truly "improved" in the sense that a standard round may be fired in an improved chamber. As with any marginal increase in case capacity, it yielded a less-than-proportional gain in velocity.

The Weatherby design was intended to attract impressionable buyers who were attracted to something that looked different, claimed higher velocities, and cost more. It succeeded in all of those areas and made Weatherby a rich man.

Stonecreek, I couldn't have said it better myself. Weatherby 's have been touted forever as the Rolls Royce of the species + I have owned a few but I prefer my AI's. I remember seeing a photo from the 50s where Roy Weatherby was presenting John Wayne with one of his rifles on a stage. I'm sure that didn't hurt sales one bit.

Oh, + BTW, let us not forget Rocky Gibbs. Another pioneer in the case forming/performance arena. I know in my case on my 30 Gibbs I was getting close to 300 WM performance from a reshouldered 0/6 case.

From a standpoint of ballistic performance, neither did anything new.

Ackley and weatherby gains were limited to a small amount by added powder. I don't think their case geometry did anything for barrel life or velocity.

Weatherby made most of his velocity gains by going to max pressure and having freebore.

Ackley's velocity gains were by not keeping pressures the same as the parent case.

That being said, Ackley's versions did tend to improve accuracy- whether there is any intrinsic value to that form, or if it was just they tended to be held to tighter tolerances in the loading, I can't really say.

quote:

Parker did have a rifle company.

A gun smithing business is not a rifle company.

Ideas or success?

What measuring stick is one using.

I would say that is you asked 99 percent hunters they have heard of Weatherby.

Only rifle cranks like us know of P.O Ackley.

I shot Weatherby rifles never held or shot a P.O Ackley made cartridge chambered rifle.

But after P.O. died so did his business. Not that he didn't have some good ideas.

Weatherby is still out there and doing well.

I believe that Weatherby cartridges were all basically all new cartridges and not modifications, and that the double radius design helped both the gas flow and cartridge chambering. But one thing I find curious is that while so many find the belted mag a hinderance, Mr. Weatherby apparently seemed to think otherwise. As to whether one is better than the other or not. I don't really believe there is any real way to compare the two.

Phil

Phil

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

Parker did have a rifle company.

A gun smithing business is not a rifle company.

P. O. Ackley made and sold barrels, completed rifles, and even a line of scopes branded with his name. Probably some other products, also.

Roy Weatherby marketed rifles, scopes and ammunition made by various contractors.

I think both qualify as "rifle companies", but Ackley was a manufacturer (producer) and Weatherby was a seller (marketer). As is usual in our upside down economy, the producers never make as much money as the marketers.

Agree....Stone.

Then there's Ackley's minimum body taper, to enable higher pressures at reduced bolt thrust/case stretch....etc.

If I recall correctly, wasn't the 250AI his "best" improvement?....nipping on the heels of the 257 Roberts.

Kevin

I think that the original question was who had the better idea for the improved cases? Not who was the better businessman or most successful.

When I first read this my quick answer was Ackley, and if pressed I would stick with him.

But... please allow two anecdotal rifts.
1. Some time ago and i dont recall where i read that if a modern computer were to design a cartridge it would very much resemble the Weatherby design.

2. I have an acquaintance who is a fluid dynamists / rocket scientist and he is also very into hot rods. He has developed what he calls a soft head design that is a redesign of combustion cambers and there are no hard angles. His design is being used at the very highest levels of motor sports (prostock, nitro , F1). He, I.m certain would look at the Weatherby stuff and like it.

Now, when i first started reloading for precision, tolerances were kept very tight and bullets touched the lands. Ten years later we full length resize everything and with the newest bullets we are jumping them more and more.
ps. The Weatherby action with all those lugs does not lend it's self favorably to the stacking of tolerances.

I think that was the original question too.

all I got is Roy did the double radius so other gun smiths couldn't cut his chambers.

Parker did it for certain cases that would benefit from the idea.

they weren't really competing with their ideas.



the 250 was a good one, as was the 257 especially when combined with the plus+P, but IMO his best was the 7X57.
I know for certain it was his personal favorite [he told me]

the increase in case capacity combined with the pressure increase put the round straight into lower end 7mag territory burning 55grs of powder.

Ackley; no question about it. Here are the facts:
Ackley pioneered the straight, minimally tapered cartridge case. That was the most important idea; not the large powder capacities; that part was easy.
Weatherby had one idea (round shoulder design was neutral, contributing nothing substantial to the increased velocities, despite the hype.
What Weatherby had was the SUPER LONG THROAT. Allowing those larger powder charges to build up velocities at normal pressures.
And I think we all agree that now, we wouldn't be caught dead in the field with such a chamber design.
One more thing he had was the fancy stocks; that is what sold his rifles as much as the cartridges. Marketing, not performance. Again, no one on AR would even carry those stocks to the range nowadays.
My take on it, based on fact.

quote:

One more thing he had was the fancy stocks; that is what sold his rifles as much as the cartridges. Marketing, not performance.

Yes, Weatherby was successful in selling the entire package: Hyper (claimed) velocity, voodoo shoulder on the cartridge, stocks taken to the extreme of then-current fashion, and the privilege of paying more than the "common" people. All of this appealed to shooters and hunters who were well-heeled, unsophisticated about guns, and for whom snob appeal was attractive.

That's not to say that Weatherby's cartridges and rifles didn't perform reasonably well; they did pretty well deliver most of the promised velocity, using free-bore and high pressure, and were no less accurate than most off-the-shelf rifles of the day.

By the same token, Ackley's improved cartridges enjoyed most of their increased velocities due to those who chose to "improve" their chambers also being willing to load to higher pressures in order achieve their velocity expectations. Loaded to the same pressures the increase in velocity was minimal. Again, that's not to say that there are not other advantages to the Ackley concept, just that increased velocity alone isn't sufficient to justify the conversion.

True, but look at every cartridge developed in the past 3 to 5 decades; all look like Ackley improved cartridges; minimal taper and sharp shoulders. Those were his best ideas. No one could change the laws of Physics, even though they tried, and his books are full of that. Definitely do not use any of his "load" data.

Ackley's "load" data can be useful. One needs to know, however, that reading between the lines is required. And some of his data is entertaining. He came to be an old, bold reloader.

The minimal taper and sharp shoulder is good for increased accuracy, but not good for field reliability. Notably, Acklely only claimed improved velocity for his wildcats. At the time, I don’t think the science was available to make the difference in case be measurable in accuracy, you need better metallurgy, better powder, and more repeatable bullets to see that difference (and I have my doubts that the design of the case is really provably better even now- gun to gun difference makes more impact, ime.

If you are a gun crank who does his preventative maintenance, and checks to make sure the gun feeds properly, the AI idea of less taper and sharp shoulders gives a modest improvement in intrinsic accuracy.

Recall that the WSM/WSSM family have had lots of issues with feeding compared to the standard ones. What is “best” does depend on your use.

Given the ability for an AI chamber (and don’t forget the .375 Weatherby) to shoot OTC factory ammo, that seems a better mousetrap than freebore (which you could put in an AI if you wanted) and a radiused shoulder.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
True, but look at every cartridge developed in the past 3 to 5 decades; all look like Ackley improved cartridges; minimal taper and sharp shoulders. Those were his best ideas. No one could change the laws of Physics, even though they tried, and his books are full of that. Definitely do not use any of his "load" data.

I think the look is more marketing than anything.

It is well proven, by Ackley and others, that the straight case places less back thrust on the locking surfaces. So it is not all cosmetic.
If you have not read his treatise, he removed the locking lug from a 94 Winchester and fired AI cartridges without incident. Standard versions placed much more stress on the bolt.

Why?

Because of more contact with the case and the force vectors involved.

Bolt thrust of itself has little to do with accuracy, velocity, or recoil. If we had problems with firearms actions disassembling themselves as the round counts increased, I’d buy that is an advantage, but face it, you make new guns out of old actions; that isn’t a major issue.

I agree that Ackely was the more significant innovator of the two, I just think neither really did much other than cosmetic differences.

Again, true; nonetheless; Cosmetic or not, of any value or not;
Ackley's developments/inventions/designs, are still widely used. (No one is developing tapered walled cartridges any more, even though they do feed better.)
Weatherby's ideas, aren't. They are all very dead.
Personally, I like the very tapered cartridges of the late 19th/early 20th century. Classic look. Look at a 300H&H, or 375. No need to Improve them.
AI type brass looks too modern.

quote:

Originally posted by Greyghost:
All other aspects of reloading be what they may be, and just for the fun of it... Who do you think had the better Idea so to speak for the improved case, P.O Ackley or Roy Weatherby? Both in accuracy and marketability in real-world considerations.

Phil

Easy, Roy Weatherby.

He did the full package, the Mark V, factory ammo and factory brass.

His rifle style was copied. Just look at M70 XTRS from the 70s. The Sako Deluxes. Sako even moved from the cylindical bolt shroud to a Mark V style.

There were probably plenty of scientists in Russia who had maybe better ideas on how to get to the moon but it was America that put a Saturn V on the launch pad.

I have no doubt that it was the Weatherby influence that pushed out the 264, 7mm Rem and 300 Winchester.

Roy admiited later on the curved shoulders were so it was hard to copy the reamers.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
It is well proven, by Ackley and others, that the straight case places less back thrust on the locking surfaces. So it is not all cosmetic.
If you have not read his treatise, he removed the locking lug from a 94 Winchester and fired AI cartridges without incident. Standard versions placed much more stress on the bolt.

''

Party tricks, that is all that Ackley did to reduce bolt thrust. Works though, right? You believe he actually pulled a rabbit out of his ass. People are so easily fooled. These charlatan's offer a suggestion and you fill in the rest.

Lot of people believed that Bernie Madoff was making money with his split strike investment strategy. It took one smart guy 30 minutes to figure out Bernie had the world's largest Ponzi scheme. You have to get past the party tricks, but there are 50 billion worth of suckers out there.

Where is Ackley's bolt thrust data?. To repeat where is Ackley's bolt thrust data? He had a bolt thrust test fixture. It is in a picture from the first Handloader. Ackley built a bolt thrust test gage, so where is his bolt thrust data?

It went in the trash can, that is where it went. Real data would have shown that his primary claim to fame was a lie.

Cartridges are not wedges. They are thin tubes that expand under pressure. They are not structural, load bearing devices. If they carry load, they deform. If they are not supported by the chamber they will rupture. Why does anyone want the gasket to carry load? You will blow your head gasket.

In so far as Ackley's cartridges, without him to promote the things, they are quickly headed for the ash heap of history. As for the current crop of straight case cartridges, they sure shoot well. They don't feed well, but that is not an issue for the majority of them are used by guys firing prone with a bipod, or off a 600 lb concrete bench. These guys shoot single shot and don't care about feeding from the magazine. Straight cartridges don't feed well and wildcats drag on extraction. Ackley never looked at hoop stresses and cartridge springback, the current crop of straight cartridges, the guys designing those have CAD programs, they are making sure the cartridge relaxes from the chamber. Ackley never did that, it was beyond his comprehension. He said in one of his reloading handbooks that no one knew how much cartridge thrust an action was supposed to take. Well, he did not. And could not conceive on how to calculate that. He was an attention seeking individual and a machinist. I see no evidence that he had any mechanical engineering education.

Well one fellow here said he has a bucket of Mauser action with setback lugs so bolt thrust must be real...

You must have missed his book in which he posts pictures of the 94 Winchester, with the locking bolt removed, and fired cartridges in which the brass held ALL the pressure.
You are wrong in stating that the brass case can not withstand any pressure at all; of course they can, and do.
While Ackley didn't record any numerical data, he did do the experiments and the pictures prove it. In fact, he unscrewed the barrel and lengthened the firing pin to fire some totally unsupported ammo. Popped the primer, but that is all. So, it is not true that brass does not hold some amount of pressure.
They are, in fact, "load bearing devices" to use your own words. And it wasn't a party trick.
I suppose he could have faked the pictures.......
Oh, that is why the British oil the case before conducting pressure tests, which they do from the base; so the cartridge case does not adhere to the chamber and give lower back thrust readings.
Just facts; that is all.

And straight walled cases can, indeed, also be made to feed well. I do it all the time.
Sure, not as easy as the old tapered ones, but they will. From magazine hunting rifles.

Last night at 3 am; thought of another example of how cartridge brass holds quite a lot of pressure; many of us on AR have owned and fired, old Winchesters that have excessive headspace. Which in, and of, itself, is not a problem at those pressures.
Ever notice the primers backed out of the case? How does this occur? Simply, the cartridge case held ALL the pressure, and in a 30-30, that is 35K psi or so; and the primer backed out until it met the bolt face.
Again, contrary to the belief of some, cartridge brass can, and does, hold a lot of pressure, just as Ackley said, and proved it did, in the 1960s. How much, exactly has not been quantified, that I know of, but let's say, up to in the 30K psi range, brass will hold all the pressure all by it's self. and if we had screwed in primers like tank ammunition does, you wouldn't even need a locking mechanism. Until you oiled the case, then you do.
Just more facts.

Interestingly, as far as case design - shoulder shape and angles specifically, neither of them came up with an original idea.
The 360No.2 Nitro Express had a round shoulder which the Weatherby resembles.
Westley Richards developed a 318WR which had a steeper than usual shoulder which, oddly enough, the AI cases resemble.
I can only suspect that if the steep shoulder on that version in any way inhibited feeding, it didn’t get much use.
dpcd’s post explains the situation quite well.
I’ve read that a brass case fully adheres to the chamber walls, assuming normal tapers of available cartridges, at 10,000psi.

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:
Interestingly, as far as case design - shoulder shape and angles specifically, neither of them came up with an original idea.
The 360No.2 Nitro Express had a round shoulder which the Weatherby resembles.
Westley Richards developed a 318WR which had a steeper than usual shoulder which, oddly enough, the AI cases resemble.
I can only suspect that if the steep shoulder on that version in any way inhibited feeding, it didn’t get much use.
dpcd’s post explains the situation quite well.
I’ve read that a brass case fully adheres to the chamber walls, assuming normal tapers of available cartridges, at 10,000psi.

Just commonsense would suggest the blown out case would go right back and often a gunsmith who could make reamers.

One look at the 22 Hornet, 218 Bee, 219 Zipper, 300 H&H etc and the blow out the case idea would have popped up.

If someone had some real old copies of Guns and Ammo magazines, Robert Hutton would have had a lot of stuff.

ICL catridges, PMVF.

I know in Australia stuff like 228/06 Imp. 303/25 Improved etc and etc goes way back in time but with lots of variations as done with individual gunsmiths and his customers. Straight line loading tool and vice operated FLD die.

Roy Weatherby pulled it all together with factory ammo, factory brass, Mark V and of course who could forget those old Weatherby Catologues.

I think computer operating systems were similar but Bill Gates was the one who got it together and we haad MS DOS.

Actually I don't think the premise of the original post is correct on Ackley Vs Weatherby design and because the "Ackley" design was already all over the place and not just America. I am not sure but I think Australia is, apart from America of course, the main wildcatting country.

Brass cases do hold pressure. There's a reason you stand the case head in water while heating the neck and shoulder.
annealing, and dangers of overdoing it

Every once in awhile a normal pressure KB results from a too-soft case head. And an AR-15 bolt's extractor cut will not stop it from rupturing.

Ahhhh, in my old age I weary of twaddle like this. Mr. A was a trained engineer, Syracuse U, NY, I believe. He set up in the Rocky Mountains when guns were far more important to survival and serviced the trade. IMHO the original tapered cases came from black powder and its pressure curve. Smokeless had far more control and permitted the "improvements" (Jack O'Connor loved to mention MR 17 powder in his musings. (Fore runner of 4064 I believe.)) Mr. A and others marketed. Mr. Epps of Canada did much the same things with the .303 and made .303 Canadian Magnums from P14's and the belted case. In stark, STARK, contrast, Mr. Weatherby was a "marketer" in California, the "breakfast food state: land of fruits, nuts, and flakes." Mr. W had the fastest rifles around and the most powerful. One writer I recall, opined about how many .460 Weatherby Magnums hang on the den wall without ever being fired or the owner owning a single cartridge. Different strokes for different folks. I learned much about firearms from Mr. A; magazine columns and a few personal letters. Now as to promotional BS, I didn't need to write Mr. W. It was all over and little I could or would afford. "White line spacers?" No Thank you. Now as I approach the sunset... Fond memories. Happy Trails...

Straight walled cartridges don't feed??? Well, my 257 Rob Ack Imp feeds very well through my 98 Mauser. My 280 Ack Imp feeds without a problem through my Model 70 Winchester. My 35 Whelen Ack Imp feeds through that old Turkish 98 Mauser. My 219 Zipper Ack Imp feeds great through that old MK4 British Lee-Enfield just fine. While the 400 Whelen isn't an Ackley design it feeds very well through my old 1903-A3 Springfield and I don't think you could find a straighter rimless cartridge than that. That pesky 280 Ack Imp recently became a new standard factory round. I don't think it is heading to the ash heap of history anytime soon.

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Whelen:
Straight walled cartridges don't feed??? Well, my 257 Rob Ack Imp feeds very well through my 98 Mauser. My 280 Ack Imp feeds without a problem through my Model 70 Winchester. My 35 Whelen Ack Imp feeds through that old Turkish 98 Mauser. My 219 Zipper Ack Imp feeds great through that old MK4 British Lee-Enfield just fine. While the 400 Whelen isn't an Ackley design it feeds very well through my old 1903-A3 Springfield and I don't think you could find a straighter rimless cartridge than that. That pesky 280 Ack Imp recently became a new standard factory round. I don't think it is heading to the ash heap of history anytime soon.

I have never had feeding issues with Wby calibres, all have been in the Mark V and not just the centre line feed of the 378 based calibres but plenty of 270 and 300 Wby.

The only problem I have ever seen with AI calibres and Wby calibres when bullets were "bump seated" in a straight line dies and the necks were cover in hard fouling the shoulder could collapse. Also necking down or up Wby stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by NormanConquest:
Oh, + BTW, let us not forget Rocky Gibbs. Another pioneer in the case forming/performance arena. I know in my case on my 30 Gibbs I was getting close to 300 WM performance from a reshouldered 0/6 case.

+1 on the .30 Gibbs. I was getting 2900+ fps with 180 grain Partitions from mine, and for more than 20 years it kept my freezers full of elk and moose meat.

In the mid 70's I bought 2 of P.O. Ackley's books and in 1978 I had my .30-06 re-chambered to .30 Gibbs, and had the same gunsmith chamber a barreled action to .257 Ackley. That .257 Ackley is still my favorite deer size critter rifle.

I have always admired the .300 Weatherby cartridge and the Weatherby stock design. In 2009 I finally bought my first Weatherby rifle, a .300 Wby Vanguard. It quickly became my favorite rifle.

As to the original question of who had the better idea, my vote goes to P.O. Ackley. Having had both Ackley and Weatherby cartridges, I see no advantage with the Weatherby double radius shoulder.

I don’t know which idea was best for everybody but for me Weatherby has the best to offer. I have reloaded for many years and one thing is sure for me, I like to buy the brass, not build it. I shoot two Weatherby rounds, a .257 and .340. I have took much game with both and have never had a brass problem in the reloading process. I have to keep it simple stupid and not have to worry about about the case and concentrate on the other components. Good Shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by phurley5:
I don’t know which idea was best for everybody but for me Weatherby has the best to offer. I have reloaded for many years and one thing is sure for me, I like to buy the brass, not build it. I shoot two Weatherby rounds, a .257 and .340. I have took much game with both and have never had a brass problem in the reloading process. I have to keep it simple stupid and not have to worry about about the case and concentrate on the other components. Good Shooting.

As far as I am concerned Wby and Ackley are the same, blow out cases for more capacity. However, in Roy's case he was just the H&H case, excepting his 220 Swift Improved.

The big difference is as phurley5 says is Weatherby comes as factory ammo or brass and of course the Mark V and some chamberings in the Vanguard.

As I said earlier there would have been plenty of gunsmiths both in America and Australia who were doing the "improved case" by fireforming. One quick look at a 22 Hornet, 219 Zipper or the 303 case would have set things running.

Most of these gunsmiths would have had a local thing with their own customer base and referrals from those customers and were known to very few people. Some like Gibbs and Epps put out a line of calibres and Ackley also put out books. However, Roy Weatherby was able to go the full distance with both brass and ammo and of course rifles so for me his idea gets the gold medal.