I mean, with all the rifles out there, how come they did not make a shoulder on it like the .450 Ackley? I know the .458 AR on the RUM case is a better round, but back then, when the Acley came out?
Or were it made, but considered no success?

LOL well, PO ackley DID "ackley" the 459winmag... the 458 Ackley (heh) as he probably looked at the winmag and said "yeah, and here's a longer improved case"..

the 450 alaskan is what it would look like, sans rim

jeffe

Dear Mr. Fossdal:

I had a 458 Win. Mag. AI print made up by PTG. Do you want it? I can fax it to you.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

quote:

Originally posted by Yale:
Dear Mr. Fossdal:

I had a 458 Win. Mag. AI print made up by PTG. Do you want it? I can fax it to you.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Thanks, Yale, but this is just historical interest, I have noe intention of making one.

A bit confused here, Jeffe, was there ever a .459winmag?
I very well know what it would look like, Q is, were it ever made, and if not, Why?

heck my 2.65" ackley idea makes a lot(t) more sense...

What really makes since is the 458 Lott and the African version with a 3" case is even better.

Genlemen, what an outstanding job you are all doing , talking about everything than the question asked!

So I take it none vere made.
Ain't that funny.

quote:

Originally posted by Bent Fossdal:
Genlemen, what an outstanding job you are all doing , talking about everything than the question asked!

So I take it none vere made.
Ain't that funny.

you got me there bent

Bent,
i meant, with some humor, to say I haven't seen a blown out 2.5" winmag... but I have seen a blown out 2.9", and parker invented it and called it the ackley!!

and he made the 450 alaskan.. which is an ackley'ed 348x45...


jeffe

Dear Mr. Fossdal:

Your retort is accurate, I did not answer your question.

My answer is: I have absolutely no idea why Winchester did not produce a 2.5" Ackley Improved 458 case.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Bent,
I've never seen or heard of one. I agree PO did just about everything else. I'm surprised he didn't do that one as well.

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:
Bent,
I've never seen or heard of one. I agree PO did just about everything else. I'm surprised he didn't do that one as well.

It doesn't surprize me at all! It wouldn't be worth the time and expense of makeing a reamer. The case is already almost straight, as it is in it's factory form, and the tiny shoulder it would end up with wouldn't increase it's powder capacity enough to make a difference! However, he may have tried it, and I have his two book set, and I'll look to see if he mentions it, but I doubt he bothered!

The 450 Alaskan, however, is a fine cartridge, based on the 348 Win case. It does have some powder capacity over the 458 win mag.

The 458 Win Mag has a water capacity of 93.29 grs water , while the 450 Alaskan (458/348 Ackley) has a water capacity of 96.56 grs water

According to Volume #1 of PO Ackley's books, the nearest thing to an Ack Imp 458 win mag was the 458 Smith, which had a blown out sharp shoulder, but had slightly less powder capacity then the factory 458 Win Mag, so was a waste of time, and money!

Even though it wasn't your question, what Ray said is true, the only ones that make sense, is the 458 LOTT,450 Watts, or the African 3 1/4" and one of those is what the 458 win mag should have been in the first place, IMO!

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
It doesn't surprize me at all! It wouldn't be worth the time and expense of makeing a reamer. The case is already almost straight, as it is in it's factory form, and the tiny shoulder it would end up with wouldn't increase it's powder capacity enough to make a difference!

Well, the difference would be the same as for the .458 Lott/.450 Ackley. Wich, I have heard, is about 50 fps. Wich would be of great help in the winmag, as I understand.

But I have no firsthand experience, mostly just what I have read on theese pages.

I'm in the process of building an Ackley. Of all of the data I've gathered about the Ackley, it will comfortably push a 500 grain bullet at 2400 fps -- the Lott will not. Now, I have not loaded or chronographed any Ackley loads -- yet -- so it's all heresay until I do......will keep ya'll posted.

I owned and shot a .450 Ackley Mag with a Buhmiller barrel for about 15 years (1961-1976). I thought it was a splendid round. Mine was bult on a P-14 action. I don't recall if I ever chronographed it, but I got my first chronograph in 1960, so I may well have done so. I'll try to check through some of my old records later in the week and see what if anything I find. I used exclusively 500 gr. soft-points in my loads as when I was young I certainly couldn't afford the time to go to Africa, and had no perceived need for solids here in N.A.

P.O. was basically a practical man. He recommended AGAINST many of the "Ackley Improved" rounds he developed as experiments. I think the reason no .458 Ackleys were likely ever built commercially was exactly what has been said above. I.E., there was no point to doing so, no advantage. If a person wanted more power, Parker would likely have referred them to the .450 Ackley Mag, as he suggested to me.

I dont see any gain in performance of an ackleyed 458. But if you did, the parallel sided neck as opposed to the straight taper of a reg 458 would be an improvement for bullet grip, ignition ect.

Thanks all for inputs!

I have also read about 2400fps/500grs from the Ackley. That is a full 100 fps more than the Lott.

How come this improovement is not taking place in an Acleyriced .458 WinMag?

Lott, Winmag, Winmag fired in the .450 Ackley, Lott fired in the .450 Ackley - and a fully formed .450 Ackley. Some member posted this pic, but I can not recall his nick - thanks anyway!


As we see on this pick of a winmag fired in a Ackley chamber, it does expand and have more room. On a Acleyriced winmag the shoulder would of course come furter to the rear, but it still would increase case capasity....??

Dear Mr. Fossdal:

To answer your follow up question, I asked Mr. Kiff at PTG to make up the 458 Ackley x 2.5" to get rid of the funnel throat in the original 458 Win. Mag., have a parallel sided neck for better bullet tension, possibly reduce the bolt thrust with a straighter sided case and lastly, allow me to shoot standard 458 Win. Mag. ammunition in a pinch. I wanted to improve its mechanical operation by removing some of the 458 Win. Mag.'s engineering flaws incorporated in its design in 1956.

Any small improvement in velocity or reduction in pressure was of secondary concern.

Nevertheless, it appears that a .450 caliber wildcat on the 375 Ruger case may be a better way to go with a real increase in case capacity, possibly 10+ grains of powder and all of the 458 Win. Mag.'s engineering flaws removed. I will probably opt for that cartridge instead. This 450/375 Ruger wildcat may reduce the possibility of demand for an improved 458 Win. Mag. case to nil.

So, there probably isn't sufficient demand to improve the 458 Win. Mag., now or in the past in my opinion.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Mr. Bemis,

Thanks again. Have you made this rifle, or is it being made now? Any crono.results would be higly appretiated. Like you say, the improoved case design will also tolerate higher preassures, beside having larger volume - or is that just theory? Will the Ackley work with higher preassures than the Lott? If you have not made the reamer yet, have you thought of using the .450 Ackley, ream it to desired length and cut the slot for the belt in the lathe? Same thing with the die-set, just chop a .450 Ackley die so it sizes down to your belt.

I know very well that newer case designs are better, and they had the .460 G&A short back in the 70's, but that required opening of the bolt-face.
The .458 AR is the absolutely ideal way to clean up a .458 Winmag chamber with almost no other changes to the gun, having larger case capasity than the .458/.375 Ruger, and using the very cheap and common RUM brass.

My .450 Ackley was on the full length magnum brass, which is about 3/8" longer than the .458 Winchester brass.


Both my Browning Safari-Grade .458 Winchester, and my Model 70 Winchester .458 Win Mag, which I owned at the same time, had an absolute working maximum of 71 grains of IMR 3031 behind a 500 gr. SN bullet, while my .450 Ackley loads routinely used 78 grains of IMR 3031 behind the same 500 gr. bullets.

My records show that I used 80 grains of IMR 3031 with a 350 gr. Hornady bullet as a fire-forming load.

Being a "lot" younger and even a "bigger lot" more foolish then, I experimented with loads clear up to 90 grains of 3031 behind the 350 grain bullet. That was a load which Ackley recommended in his book, but one shot with it would destroy my brass...expanding the primer pocket severely, so after two or three rounds of that, I promptly dropped the load to 85 grains, and then to 80 grains.

Apparently I did not chronograph any of these loads, as the records I reviewed last night show no indications of velocities.

BTW, Bent- are you familiar with a cartridge called the .458 Norma Magnum? It is pretty much identical to the .450 Ackley Magnum.

I have a good friend who has one of the .458 Norma Mags, his being an original chambering in a Riedl single-shot falling-block rifle. He makes his brass just as I did for my Ackley, using the Norma "basic" full length, unformed, magnum brass.

I don't know if Norma actually ever loaded ammo for that chambering, or if it was a name just applied by Riedl to his version of the .450 Ackley in rifles of his own manufacture. Anyway, the two appear very much the same.

Cris - thanks, that was strange news! Never heard of it, and I am pretty sure I would have, if they ever loaded it, but the - then - gunsmith at Norma also did custom projects. People here in Scandinavia are pretty patriotic about the Norma Factory, and a round like that would be known, even if it was just an experiment.

Anyway, my only interest in the .458 AI is why it was never made. Its slight increase in case capasity, its slight increase in preasures because of parallell neck and less taper should give an edge over the standard .458WinMag in a very cheap way.

quote:

Originally posted by Bent Fossdal:
I mean, with all the rifles out there, how come they did not make a shoulder on it like the .450 Ackley? I know the .458 AR on the RUM case is a better round, but back then, when the Acley came out?
Or were it made, but considered no success?

My understanding on making an Ackley out of a factory case is to increase powder capacity.

The 458 Winchester mag is straight, so I would imagine there would have been very little sense in making an Ackley out of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

My understanding on making an Ackley out of a factory case is to increase powder capacity.

The 458 Winchester mag is straight, so I would imagine there would have been very little sense in making an Ackley out of it.

Your understanding of the Ackley is correct, but your understanding of "straight" is somewhat in the twilightsone.
Straight? Not even the .470 Capstick is straight.
The Lott has less taper than the .458WinMag, yet it was still Ackleyrized.

In those days with numerous .458's out there with a bad reputation, and very few Lott's, I was just surpriced it has not been done.

For a 2-3% gain in powder capacity maybe less, I doubt it is worth it. In my experience the big gain from Akley cartridges besides significantly more powder capacity in cases like the 25-06 is a dramatic improvement in accuracy. The Ackley chambers are much better( more concentric) than factory and you almost always see a significant accuracy improvement with them. At least thats been my experience.-Rob

I see no point in any of them now that the 458 Lott is a factory round. Not enough improvement to justify otherwise..BTW with a 26" barrel its no chore to get 2400 FPS with a Lott, however who needs it, 2300 FPS is mild and will hammer any animal on earth with power to spare..What have we here? it must be penis envy! mine is bigger than yours!

I can think of a few reasons, but honestly I bet the #1 reason is that it doesn't look like much of an improvement. Silly as that sounds, the -06 based rounds look like a much bigger improvement.

The other thought is that the fans of the -06 based improved rounds gained their velocity improvements mostly by running much higher pressures. Take a nominal 55kpsi round and run it 65-70 kpsi, and velocities go up, and yes you gain a bit from the slightly larger case, that looks oh so cool.

With the 458 win mag already running 65 kpsi, one coudn't gain speed from more pressure, the powder increase was minimal, and it just didn't look like much of a different round.

I forgot to mention, the 458 AR is nearly 20 grains more than a 458 winmag, in the same length, which gives you lott performance by rechambering a 458 winmag

jeffe

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
I forgot to mention, the 458 AR is nearly 20 grains more than a 458 winmag, in the same length, which gives you lott performance by rechambering a 458 winmag

jeffe

Have you done it as a straight conversion? How was feeding?

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I see no point in any of them now that the 458 Lott is a factory round. Not enough improvement to justify otherwise..BTW with a 26" barrel its no chore to get 2400 FPS with a Lott, however who needs it, 2300 FPS is mild and will hammer any animal on earth with power to spare..What have we here? it must be penis envy! mine is bigger than yours!

I don't know, Ray, it is more to me like what we have here, is a classic example of answering without reading the big Q.

The .458 WinMag was a poor construction, and needed improovement.
Fact is that the .450 Ackley will give about 50 fps more than the Lott, and the same increase in volume would happen to a .458 AI.
Fact is that a parallell neck is a better construction.

But i think Paul has it right, the gain was to little for PO to boast about.
The .450 Ackley was made some ten years before the .458 Lott, so that was his improovement of the Winmag, not the Lott.
That in the hey-days of wildcatting, everybody wanted a new round with their own name on it, I can understand.
That we in the new millennium still favour straight tapered cases, is a bit harder to grasp.

Charles,
yes and no.. not taken a 458 FACTORY and ran the reamer in.. have taken 458 take off barrel and done it, worked great, but the LOTT case is a hair too long for a perfect clean up.

feeding? other than FPs in the 470, we have had very little feeding work when converting factory short HH mag cases, on rugers or winchesters.. rebarrel and go.. the only feeding we have had to do is to make my 470 on a ruger have a windowed box to hold 3 down with no pressure... 30 mins, including polishing and as part of the reblue.

Jimmy's 458 on a left m70 7mag was a rebarrel, period, as well as franks 416, and there's a couple more "was 7mag" that are in process,, all feed really easy...

My .458 Win Mag shoots North Fork 450 gr solids & softs at 2250+ fps very easily with 72 gr of AA 2230. Not real sure why I would want more?????

Thanks Jeffe. Not sure I need more H.P. out of my .458 WM, but since it is a Whitworth it seems the AR would be simpler than the Lott if I decide more is needed.

I made the mistake of calling P.O. "Parker" about the third trip I made to SLC to visit. Jeez, he like to of skinned me alive. Apparently Parker Oliphant Ackley preferred "P.O." for some good reason.

I would have liked to have been about 15 years older from 1955-1975 and have visited guys like P.O. and John Buhmiller and Les Bauska in their prime. The war Ackley fought with C.S. Landis in the American Rifleman over overbore capacity varmint cartridges was acrimonious and extended. Man, I'd like to have been able to write about those guys in those days. They made their living building rifles, and each of them was certain only his work and creations were worthy of purchase. They weren't just about ego, but about making a living.

Rich
DRSS

Because this is NO BENEFIT to be had! The Ackley cases DO NOT improve anything, they are simply OVER LOADED to achieve a higher muzzle velocity (advantage of not having to be SAAMI or CIP spec'd).

DUH!!

I thought you were a smart guy, Bent. You should be able to figure out what powder to use in a 458 Winnie to get it up to Ackley Improved pressure levels (say something like 10% to 15%) above SAAMI or CIP spec (that is how ALL the Ackley Improved cartidges do it).

But hey, you BELIEVE whatever BS you like (don't let facts and physics get in the way).

quote:

Originally posted by ScottS:
Because this is NO BENEFIT to be had! The Ackley cases DO NOT improve anything, they are simply OVER LOADED to achieve a higher muzzle velocity (advantage of not having to be SAAMI or CIP spec'd).

DUH!!

I thought you were a smart guy, Bent. You should be able to figure out what powder to use in a 458 Winnie to get it up to Ackley Improved pressure levels (say something like 10% to 15%) above SAAMI or CIP spec (that is how ALL the Ackley Improved cartidges do it).

But hey, you BELIEVE whatever BS you like (don't let facts and physics get in the way).

Thanks, ScottS.
I was one of the guys who were willing to give you a chanse.
Besides that you did not get the picture, you could have stated your opinion without beeing an ASSCLOWN.

Rob, you prooved me wrog. Leed the way, big guy!

quote:

Originally posted by Robgunbuilder:
Chill-out have some fun, take your anger out on ScottS. Call it a good day!-Rob

Bent,

No problem buddy! I guess you can't deal with the TRUTH about the Ackely Improved cases, too bad really.

Taking anger out on people on the Internet, that just sounds mentally ill to me. I personally don't do that, but I admit to having some fun with the GROSS IGNORANCE posted by some on the internet.

Sorry Boom, rent a movie, or save your popcorn.
It ain't worth it!

quote:

Originally posted by ScottS:
Because this is NO BENEFIT to be had! The Ackley cases DO NOT improve anything, they are simply OVER LOADED to achieve a higher muzzle velocity (advantage of not having to be SAAMI or CIP spec'd).

My apologies, Scott, but I don't agree with this either.

Though many folk did overload Ackley cartridges, one of the major intents of P.O. was to increase powder capacity to where a greater amount of an appropriate slower powder could be used in the improved case while still maintaining at least original pressure levels.

That allowed the same pressure(s) to be reached and held for a longer duration. As you and everyone else probably knows, velocity is the result of pressure applied, times the duration of the application, when everything else remains the same.

I knew P.O. fairly well, as he helped me with countless bits of advice in setting up and running my first gun shop.Believe me, he knew as much about interior ballistics as pretty much anyone else I have ever met. Though his cartridges were in part developed so they would grip the chamber walls better and thus not dangerously increase bolt thrust when loaded to higher pressures, higher pressure was not the primary goal.

Now as to how much of an improvement the increased capacity is, that's still up in the air and depends on the view of the beholder..... Personally, I think it sometimes worked rather well, but would affirm, as P.O. always did also, that it didn't always do anything which fully justified the effort involved.