With today’s powders, what would you say would be the best of the variants? I like the shallower shoulder vs the necked down 7x57.

https://forum.cartridgecollect...rts-257-roberts/6587

Early in the 20th Century, several experimenters and wildcatters were playing with 25 caliber cartridges based on the 30-40 Krag case, similar to what Dr. Franklin Mann had introduced to the world in his treatise The Bullet’s Flight. One of those pioneers was N. H. (Ned) Roberts. He set out to design a rimless case having a capacity similar to the rimmed 25 Krag-Mann, considering the advances in powders since Mann’s experiments. Roberts settled on the 7x57mm Mauser case and began months of testing different bullets, barrels, and chambers. He finally settled on a 15 degree shoulder and a 2.160" case length, dubbing it the 25 Roberts. Michigan rifle maker A. O. Niedner agreed to make barrels, hand formed cases, and complete rifles, and shooters of the day commonly called the new cartridge the 25 Niedner Roberts.

In 1930, New York gun makers Griffin & Howe began to produce ammunition and rifles. They determined that case forming could be expedited if the case was left full length. Roberts tested the longer case, approved it’s design, and it quickly came to be called the 25 G & H Roberts.

In 1934 Remington proposed to legitimize the wildcat and introduce it in their Model 30-S Express rifle. They concluded that the manufacture of new brass cases could be facilitated by simply necking the 7x57mm case to 25 caliber, with no other changes. The new cartridge was named the 25 Roberts and cases were headstamped accordingly. Several noted riflemen raised flags of concern since it could be mistaken for the original 25 Roberts. Within a year the cartridge was renamed the 257 Remington Roberts and the headstamp changed to 257 REM. A year later, Winchester came on board with their cartridge named the 257 Winchester Roberts, headstamped 257 Roberts. With the passing of time both the Remington and Winchester cartridges came to be known as simply the 257 Roberts.

It's not really clear what the options are....having said that, I owned a .257 Roberts in a M-70 featherweight and loved it the way it was.....Not to be changed and most certainly not to become an AI maphrodite.

While the current .257 Roberts will sing in the same choir as the .25-06, it won't hit the high notes quite as well.....

If someone was to lengthen the current shoulder of the Roberts case and load it to 62,000 PSI and maybe call it the .257 Richards....in this manner one could (if he wanted to) lengthen his chamber for the new case and have what the .257 Roberts should have been day one! IMO, it would be better than either the .243 or the 6mm Remington.....The chances of this happening are roughly the same as winning the lottery.

Owners of the "Bob" have learned to overcome the inadequacies by good handloading practices.....

Of these versions, what would you have liked to be the official 257 Roberts?

Boy oh boy, what's it gonna be? Pecan Pie or Peach cobbler. What is best for YOU? I built a 25 Krag on a Martini action after reading Parker's comments on the 25-303 (damned near identical) but dies were unavailable at the time. I still have my 25 Krag dies but the rifle has been gone for years. The other 3 listed are all good in their own rite. Personally, right now I am happy with my 257 bob AI.

I will never understand the thinking behind buying a nice, light recoiling, quite caliber like the 250-3000 or 257 Roberts then trying to make a ballistic endeavor to do away with its best qualities and make it into a 25-06 or 25 Short magnum or 257 Wby...If you want more velocity, more bullet then buy a bigger 25..

If a 7x57 isn't enough then buy a 7 mag. in the meantime enjoy the light calibers for what they are, light calibers..

You buy a 257 Robts, then blow out the case to an Ackley, before you can even load it, and boy does that get expensive, then new dies, and on and on..Wildcatting can get damned expensive, and pretty much has run its course IMO..

I think the best arguments for the Bob is the light recoil. I would want to be able to do +p but that’s about it. I find it interesting that what Roberts designed and what Remington made were two different animals. I would be tempted to have a true Roberts and not a necked down 7x57.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I will never understand the thinking behind buying a nice, light recoiling, quite caliber like the 250-3000 or 257 Roberts then trying to make a ballistic endeavor to do away with its best qualities and make it into a 25-06 or 25 Short magnum or 257 Wby...If you want more velocity, more bullet then buy a bigger 25..

If a 7x57 isn't enough then buy a 7 mag. in the meantime enjoy the light calibers for what they are, light cal

You buy a 257 Robts, then blow out the case to an Ackley, before you can even load it, and boy does that get expensive, then new dies, and on and on..Wildcatting can get damned expensive, and pretty much has run its course IMO..

Not sure I understand, I can neck down a 7x57 to 25 caliber and shoot it in my factory Robts???? I can also shoot 257s in my 7x57 and fireform 7x57, all that changes is the head stamp..?????

That seems to be the “Case”

Your introduction post kinda confused me..I must have read something into it..dunno?

I don't know why you'd go with the original Roberts-requires special dies, gives considerably less velocity than the commercial version.

I like the standard version. With a strong action, you can use +P loads to give a couple hundred more fps, but mine, on a 1909 Argentine Mauser with a Douglas featherweight barrel, gives 2900 fps with excellent accuracy. I could push it further, but it does everything I need at that level.

Clarence

this Is a tough question for me.
I have a win 70 featherweight.
I left it alone as is how is where is and shoot standard brass in it.
all the plus P brass goes to the 7X57 mausers except the one I went past Ackley with and went ICL.

I do have one mickey mouse 257 Bob rifle but it sports a double radius [weatherby] shoulder shape.
why?
why not.
I already have a 250-3000 Ackley Improved [built on a tang safety Ruger] and 2 25-06's, one for 100gr and under bullets and one for 115-120gr bullets.
[shrug] with the 25-20's and the above I'm pretty well covered up and see no advantage in trying to make more out of the round than it is.

As NC said, I will just keep my 257 AI.
Doug

I think Remington made the right case design choice back in 1934. I wish they had made the MAP the same as the 270, however. If they had, perhaps the 243 would not have beaten it up so badly.

I am going to make a different comment. Leave the cartridge alone, it is fine as is.

Instead, change the rifles. I was lucky to be able to buy a pre 64 M70 in 257 Roberts.







Now the pre 64 action was a long action, short cartridges, such as the 257 Roberts, had a short magazine conversion and a collar around the bolt to limit the bolt throw for a short cartridge. For whatever reason, Winchester deep throated these rifles and with the short magazine limiting how far you could seat the bullet. The SAAMI spec is 2.780" The previous smartly removed the short magazine and collar and seated the bullets deep enough to touch the throat. And looky here, it shoots well with the bullet seated out to 2.930". Adding an extra two tenths of an inch in cartridge OAL is an advantage.




I have another, Ruger M77 rifle, and I don't recall a short magazine, Ruger used a long action, much longer than needed for a 257 Roberts. But, they short throated the barrel to the SAAMI length. I don't think there is any reason to deep seat bullets in the case when you have the magazine space to load the bullet to a longer OAL. A greater OAL reduces pressure for the same powder charge, or, allows more powder in the case, allowing more velocity at the same pressure.

I will bet that if I were to look at any other brands I would find the same issue. A long action, allowing bullet seating to 3.30" or more, and yet the throat cut to reduce cartridge OAL to 2.780". That does not make any sense to me.

I think the case is fine as it. I am not a fan of the improved cartridges, this cartridge has all the taper needed for reliable feed and extraction. The shoulder is wide enough to provide a good stop for reliable primer ignition, the shoulder angle promotes smooth feeding from the magazine. Mauser designed a superlative 7 X 57mm cartridge and I don't see any compelling reasons to change case geometry with sharper shoulders and straight sidewalls. Improved cartridges are pretty straight and I suspect that means less reliable feed and extraction, and the added powder will bring some velocity increases. But the decades long ballyhoo over AI cartridge velocities was due to the fact P.O Ackley and his acolytes were running pressures 15,000 psia and more, than the factory specs.

I have always considered P.O Ackley a snake oil salesman and whenever his claims have been tested with instrumentation, he has been proven false. Straightening a cartridge case does not thicken the sidewalls, and since sidewall stretch is what reduces bolt thrust, (only if you are permanently stretching the sidewall do you get reduced bolt thrust!!) Ackley did nothing to "reduce bolt thrust". What he did do was toss a concept out there, let the populace fill in the details how it works based on their individual delusionary understanding of the physical world. Well, it does not work. And reducing bolt thrust does nothing about reducing axial pressures on the barrel, which go way the heck up when you increase cartridge pressures by 15,000. The barrel in fact, carries vastly more load than the locking mechanism.

Lamar,
Id say you have about covered the field of repetition as well as anyone I know...all great calibers...

Ive always picked the std 250-3000 for it killing power on deer and even elk under some circumstances,its light and handy, and if I need more soup, I have many other calibers..I could have lived out my life from childhood with two calibers, a 250 and a 30-06., but I would hate to have done that.

I went with the AI version. It is still a pure pleasure to shoot and the extra velocity makes longer shots pretty easy. Handles the heavier slugs better too. I wouldnt have minded going with the commercial version just for simplicity, but I have no complaints. It is a wonderful round any way you slice it.

quote:

Originally posted by SlamFire:

I have always considered P.O Ackley a snake oil salesman and whenever his claims have been tested with instrumentation, he has been proven false. Straightening a cartridge case does not thicken the sidewalls, and since sidewall stretch is what reduces bolt thrust, (only if you are permanently stretching the sidewall do you get reduced bolt thrust!!) Ackley did nothing to "reduce bolt thrust". What he did do was toss a concept out there, let the populace fill in the details how it works based on their individual delusionary understanding of the physical world. Well, it does not work. And reducing bolt thrust does nothing about reducing axial pressures on the barrel, which go way the heck up when you increase cartridge pressures by 15,000. The barrel in fact, carries vastly more load than the locking mechanism.

We've covered this ground before. A tapered round will have more bolt thrust than a straight one because a straight walled case directs pressure directly at the chamber walls whereas a heavy taper will direct more force towards the larger end of the taper. It's not that hard to understand, and it is also no coincidence that the cases that benefit the most are heavily tapered, under bore rounds. It is also no coincidence that the majority of modern designs are much closer to a straight walled case than a heavy taper like what was used in old rounds like the H&H rounds, the 30-40 Kraig and a number of others. Who makes heavily tapered rounds like that anymore? NOBODY! If Ackley was selling "snake oil", then it started with bench rest designs and is mainstream design to this day.

Hell, Parker said himself that most of them had little improvement. But haters gotta hate.

The court rests. My hat is off to Parker. In the 80s when I was building custom rifles + always thinking about the next "best mousetrap", though I had it then looked up Parkers book + damned if he hadn't done it years before me. I will comment on the fact that 2 of his favorites due to case capacity to bore equivalents were the 257 + the 7x57. When rechambered to AI they are super performers. I shoot them both + agree, Besides,why reinvent the wheel?

One of my best customers and friend, had me build him a 257 AI on a nice pre-64 M70. In the following years he's killed 10 deer while fireforming brass with that rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:

quote:

Originally posted by SlamFire:

I have always considered P.O Ackley a snake oil salesman and whenever his claims have been tested with instrumentation, he has been proven false. Straightening a cartridge case does not thicken the sidewalls, and since sidewall stretch is what reduces bolt thrust, (only if you are permanently stretching the sidewall do you get reduced bolt thrust!!) Ackley did nothing to "reduce bolt thrust". What he did do was toss a concept out there, let the populace fill in the details how it works based on their individual delusionary understanding of the physical world. Well, it does not work. And reducing bolt thrust does nothing about reducing axial pressures on the barrel, which go way the heck up when you increase cartridge pressures by 15,000. The barrel in fact, carries vastly more load than the locking mechanism.

We've covered this ground before. A tapered round will have more bolt thrust than a straight one because a straight walled case directs pressure directly at the chamber walls whereas a heavy taper will direct more force towards the larger end of the taper. It's not that hard to understand, and it is also no coincidence that the cases that benefit the most are heavily tapered, under bore rounds. It is also no coincidence that the majority of modern designs are much closer to a straight walled case than a heavy taper like what was used in old rounds like the H&H rounds, the 30-40 Kraig and a number of others. Who makes heavily tapered rounds like that anymore? NOBODY! If Ackley was selling "snake oil", then it started with bench rest designs and is mainstream design to this day.

Hell, Parker said himself that most of them had little improvement. But haters gotta hate.

I believe it was all about case obturation. Remember the test he did with the 30-30 in a Model 94 lever action with the locking bolt removed? Remember they say you should remove all oil or resizing lube from your cases because if it's there it increases bolt thrust?

Yes.
Go with the standard 257 Roberts and load it up using good load development techniques. Less drama all around and a perfectly capable round.
I have an early Ruger with a long throat, and I seat bullets .1 inch into the case, and use 25-06 data.
But most rifles you can't do that.
You don't gain much with the AI version, if you load the original to modern pressures.

quote:

We've covered this ground before. A tapered round will have more bolt thrust than a straight one because a straight walled case directs pressure directly at the chamber walls whereas a heavy taper will direct more force towards the larger end of the taper. It's not that hard to understand,

See, Ackley suggests something, and you fill in the details with your fallacious theories. People are very susceptible to suggestion, and Ackley suggests that a cartridge case acts as a wedge, and you fill in the details. I have asked others, about why they think Ackley case designs work, and it always comes back to people assuming cartridge cases act as wedges.

Cartridge cases are not wedges, but Ackleyites think of the cartridge case as a wedge.



If you section a case, you find it is hollow inside. It is a thin pressure vessel, not some monolithic chunk of brass.



The intuitive brain works in this world, the ambient world. I am going to call the intuitive brain the monkey brain, because of the image it conjures. The intuitive monkey brain and its knowledge are the accumulation of its experiences, hunches, guess, myths, superstitions, etc. It only knows what it knows, and it makes up the rest. The intuitive brain loves a narrative and will create one to explain the world. The intuitive monkey brain lives in a 14.7 psia world. When the monkey holds a cartridge case, it thinks the cartridge case is strong. Much stronger than a banana, you can’t bite through the cartridge case, you can’t crush a cartridge case, therefore, bananas are weak, and cartridge cases are strong. The monkey does not live in a 50,000 psia world, where that cartridge case has no more strength than a piece of tin foil has in the 14.7 psia world. You can look at Varmit Al’s page, http://www.varmintal.com/a243z.htm, somewhere in here, Varmit Al shows that in the unreal physical state of zero friction, the cartridge case folds up like a piece of tin foil.

Now, think of the case as a gas seal. It is not a structural element, it is a gas seal, no stronger than at pressure, than a rubber o ring in its fitting on the end of an air hose. The action has to support, to protect, that brass case. If it were leather, it would be obvious that the locking mechanism is there to support the case, to keep the case from stretching, to keep the case from rupturing. But, because the case is brass, the monkey brain thinks the case is strong.

Read carefully Boatright’s papers one of which he shows how a 308 case, in a clean chamber, can lock in and hold pressures by itself up to 25K psia.

Go to Jim Boatright’s web page.

http://www.thewellguidedbullet.com/

Look for yielding of the brass case in these studies

http://www.thewellguidedbullet...chanical_studies.htm

However once pressures go above 25K psia, Boatwright shows the brass case stretches and if not supported, the case head will blow off.
Whenever Ackley's famous bolt thrust claims are tested, they are show to be false.
Experimenting with Bolt Thrust https://gundigest.com/gear-amm...ing-with-bolt-thrust

this is the concluding paragraph:
Since .30-30 brass is thick and pressures are low relative to brass strength and case capacity, with most appropriate powders pressure is not a big problem. To be fair, we did find some powders that will develop pressure far beyond SAAMI levels for the .30-30 AI case. Because the brass is so thick, it actually cannot stretch and cause head separations due to excess headspace. In that respect the .30-30 is not a good choice for Ackley to prove that improved designs handle pressure better

The author is this article is an Ackleyite, no doubt worships the man like he was a God, so he uses the words "the 30-30 is not a good choice for Ackley to prove that improved designs handle pressure better" But I think Ackely is a fraud, and I think he chose the 30-30 for very good reasons, perhaps after having the case heads blow off his 30-06AI's!

And where is Ackley's bolt thrust data? In the first issue of Handloader, Vol 1 1966, Ackley writes an article titled “Wildcat Pressures” . It is worth looking at this article for the important point that Ackley set out to prove was that shoulder angle/shape meant nothing for velocity. Decades later people have probably forgotten the other Wildcatter’s who were promoting their designs, but one was Roy Weatherby. Roy Weatherby created a double venturi shoulder, and he claimed he got his massive velocities increases at a safe pressure, all due to his special shoulder design. This of course conflicted with Ackley’s claims that his design was better. Ackley claimed that the straight taper of his cartridges reduced bolt thrust, and therefore, it was safe to increase pressure, and velocity, with AI cartridges. Both of these characters were fooling the public, and may have been fooling themselves, never know, but the velocity increases both got were due to two factors: increased powder volume and vastly increased pressures. Their typical cartridge ran at or above factory proof pressures for the standard cartridge.

Ackley’s whole article is a thinly veiled debunking of other Wildcatter’s designs and the punch line is:

quote:

What we have found is that some loads published for wildcat cartridges cannot be considered safe. It shows that you cannot change the shape of the case and the shoulder angle and revolutionize the industry.

A few interesting data points are that Ackley claims the most common load for the 30-06 Ackley improved, a load of 60 grains IMR 4350 with a 180 grain bullet, gave a pressure of 62,000 cup, and a load of 61 grains (still common) gave a pressure of 66,000 cup. Given that Ackley measured a factory 30-06 at 54,000 cup, it is no wonder that Ackley Improved cartridge move faster. Any fool can push a bullet faster, just increase the pressure. At some point the cartridge pressure exceeds the structural capability of the firearm, and all sorts of high velocity projectiles will be flying. Whoopee!

But what about the bolt thrust claims?, Ackley insisted that his cartridges reduced bolt thrust, therefore it was safe to run his cartridges hot. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but snake oil salesman make lots of unverifiable claims. What I found real interesting in the article is the picture of Ackley’s pressure, velocity and bolt thrust equipment

I for one do not believe in one moment that straightening a cartridge case reduces bolt thrust, because, straightening the case does not thicken the sidewalls. If the case has to carry load, and if you want to case to carry load (a bad idea in all physical universes), than the physical case, the sidewalls and the case head, will be carrying that load. Most of the case is a tube, a thin walled tube. The case head is the thickest part, and that makes the case a pressure vessel. Even though you cannot crush a case in your hand, it is really not very strong. At the operating pressures of a small arm, the cartridge case is the weakest piece in the whole system. When a case blows, bad things happen to a firearm. A thicker case can carry more load than a thinner case but nothing Ackley did made the case walls thicker. He simply took factory made cartridges and blew them out and straightened the sidewalls. Also, reducing bolt thrust does not make the load on the chamber go away. Increasing pressure increases the stress on the case, action, chamber and barrel. Ackley did a version of three card Monte, where he fooled people into thinking that load went away, or he diverted it, none of which he did. And he did not transfer it anywhere, and if it had been transferred anywhere, it would have increased the stress on the other components in the system. What Ackley did with his cartridge designs was to add a little more powder space and a lot more pressure.

And he had a bolt thrust measuring device. Just where is the data? I am of the opinion that Ackley did have the data, did not publish it, because the data would have shown that his fundamental claim to fame was false. I am confident the data would have shown that his case design did not reduce bolt thrust because his cases were simply factory cases blown out and straightened. Instead of publishing that data, he is rubbishing the claims of competing Wildcat designs, but not his own.

quote:

it is also no coincidence that the cases that benefit the most are heavily tapered, under bore rounds. It is also no coincidence that the majority of modern designs are much closer to a straight walled case than a heavy taper like what was used in old rounds like the H&H rounds, the 30-40 Kraig and a number of others. Who makes heavily tapered rounds like that anymore? NOBODY! If Ackley was selling "snake oil", then it started with bench rest designs and is mainstream design to this day.

I got to talk to a cartridge production engineer who was very interested in cartridge design. It was only for maybe 15 minutes, because we were both at a Regional, but what he told me was interesting.

Straight taper cases are the current "fashion" trend. They are showing themselves to be outstanding for accuracy. They do not feed well, so magazines tend to be single stack





Here you see the extreme modifications magazine designers have to go through to make a straight case feed



and I don't know how well that magazine operates, nor how sensitive it is to wear. The 5.56 round is very straight tapered for a short round and the greatest source of unreliability in the AR15 system has been the magazine. Stoner made cheap, "throw away" magazines and the feed lips distort, and the round is quite straight tapered. I have seen lots of double feeds from the things, which I think is due to the straightness of the cartridge. Instead of a spot contact you have this long linear contact between the sides of cartridges and the top round will drag the bottom round with it. And if the lips bend, which they do in time, the shooter experiences failures to feed because these straight cases have to be more precisely aligned with the chamber than the old highly tapered service rounds.

So, either the feeding system is heavily modified for the straight taper cases or the firearms tend to be single shot. I have a number of friends who shoot the 6 mm BR cartridges, amazingly accurate off a bench and bipod, but, single shot only.

These straight taper rounds have to be carefully designed and manufactured so they relax off the chamber walls. But that is not as much of a problem as it used to be, because few shooters are actually shooting rapid fire anymore. In fact, fewer and fewer shooters are hunters. It has been said the average age of a hunter is "deceased". So, feed and extraction and magazine capacity are not as important as paper punching small groups. I shot thousands of round rapid fire in NRA competition and having cartridges reliably feed and extract was important. But if the majority of shooters are punching holes in paper or pranging steel targets, double column magazines and feed from the magazine is very unimportant. They are not shooting that way. Because the market has moved, so has the cartridge design and the rifles. Back in the days when you walked into the woods, a 12 pound rifle with a bipod rest and sandbags for the rear would not have been realistic. Nowadays though, no one walks, they buy an ATV and ride in. And they can pile a refrigerator and a satellite dish in the thing, along with all their shooting gear.

I was told by the Production Engineer that the sharp shoulders of the current cartridges actually create localized pressure increases. That was news to me. But that pressure increase is desired for the ballistics of those short cases. And no doubt, the ballistics at range and the accuracy of those cartridges are quite impressive.

However, if you look at good military designs, and I am going to use these Chinese rounds as examples, they have lots of taper:



Taper is good for feed and extraction, removing taper allows more powder in the case for the same base diameter and length. But straight cases have their own problems and are not the end of history.

I am glad to say that P.O Ackley is at his end of history. Without him to promote his rounds I predict all of his cartridge designs will land on the ash heap of history. I think only the 280 AI is in production or chambered as a factory rifle. Someone will know all the production rifles being made in AI cartridges, I would be interested in the list. Ackley and the rest of his nonsense will eventually rot and putrefy along with his acolytes. Year by year, there are less of you. And that is the way science and society advances: one funeral at a time.

P.O. Ackley was way ahead of his time, he enlightened those that gave him a chance, while the nay sayers pissed and moaned to no avail..Many of Ackleys guns produced substantial velocity and did what he proclaimed. If they did not he was the first to say so, in case the nay sayers never read his books...He was a genius..

My only Ackley today is the 8mm/06 Ackely Imp. and it sure as hell beats the 8x57 and 8x60 all to hell, His 7x57, 250 Savage, and 257 Robts all show about 200 to as much as 300 fps improvements..Some like the o6 and 270 didn't work out so well, according to Ackley and he was correct, and because of that most all of us know that now as fact..

The only reason to pick the std 257 over the Ackely is cost and labor of fireforming, lighter recoil perhaps, rebarreling, chambering, etc, special dies all just a few reasons, vs. a faster more powerful round, longer lasting cases, and over all a better round depending on ones point of view, and both are right and neither are wrong.

Taper? as in the 257, 7x57 and the 300 H&H, If you fire a hot load in these calibers the taper allows you to eject the round as opposed to running a stick down the bore or a coathanger, the 300 and 375 being great examples in a DG situation..It not the smooth feeding that turned the old boys of Africa in,it was theslick chamber that got the hot round out!!

Ray, we are on the same page concerning Parker + his designs. I love the 7X57 + 257 AIs. As to your last comment on smooth extraction, I couldn't agree more. I remember reading that when Bell 1st went to Africa + took on a job as a guard on the railroad against lions, etc. using a single shot, in 303 if I recall that had a tendency to swell the cordite cases in that temp. When you have a TRUE single shot, one tends to learn to be a VERY good shot.

I've enjoyed and have no complaints with my .257 Ackley for the past 41 years. Its been my first choice rifle for deer size critters, and have shot a good variety of animals from prairie dogs to elk with it.

I sold my 257 Ackley, it was expensive to make brass and I didn't need an extra 300 fps, I have a 270 and 30-06 for that..but it was a damn nice caliber just the same..and as everyone must know by now Im a dyed in the wool, 250-3000 fan, and still have my 25-35 mod. 94 SRC..and that's mostly fond memories these days, but I do pop a whitetail with it now and then just out of nostalgia..

I have a very nice Dakota 76LH in .257 Roberts (REM) with a Leupold 2.5-7 scope. It fits into the battery nicely below the 7mm RM and 30-'06. Low recoil, good performance, light weight... what more is required in a deer/antelope/javelina rifle?

In most modern rifles I wouldn't pick the 257 Bob.
In a short action it's not that much better than the 250 savage. If I wanted a bit more in a short action I would use a 250 IMP or something based on the 308 case. I know a lot of you like the 257 Bob in a long action and seat bullets way out to get a bit more. Me if I was to use a long action I would go with a 25-06. Which is more than the Bob ever could be.
If I had a intermediate action with a length of a bit over 3 inches then the Bob might be an option.
Leo

quote:

Originally posted by SlamFire:

quote:

We've covered this ground before. A tapered round will have more bolt thrust than a straight one because a straight walled case directs pressure directly at the chamber walls whereas a heavy taper will direct more force towards the larger end of the taper. It's not that hard to understand,

See, Ackley suggests something, and you fill in the details with your fallacious theories. People are very susceptible to suggestion, and Ackley suggests that a cartridge case acts as a wedge, and you fill in the details. I have asked others, about why they think Ackley case designs work, and it always comes back to people assuming cartridge cases act as wedges.

Thank you for putting words in my mouth, now you can have them back.

First of all the fact that you did some research and posted some links doesnt make your position infallible.

Second, I understand perfectly that a case acts as a seal and isnt monolithic, probably better then you do! When pressure builds it finds the path of least resistance and expands the case walls against the chamber. I think we can agree on that. But the pressure isnt done there! Anyone who has read a reloading manual knows that two things that make the life of reloading brass finite are. A) work hardening. Which usually manifests itself as cracks in the neck first. And B) brass thinning at the case head which can lead to case head separation. Any rifle can and will experience this phenomenon. Some more than others. It is caused by case stretch. First the case expands against the chamber walls then as the pressure grows, precisely because the case grabs on to the chamber walls, the next path of least resistance is the thin brass just above the case head. It get stretched in a rearward direction.

How can brass thinning at the case head occur without the presence of bolt thrust? IT CANT! Bolt thrust is real weather you wish to accept it or not.

As for the taper business, imagine you have two detonation chambers. One is oval or rectangular shaped. The other is cone shaped. The explosive material in either one will have an explosion epicenter determined by the placement of the explosive material. For the Oval or rectangular shaped chamber the combustion epicenter will be in the center, and as I said earlier, the pressure will be evenly distributed in straight up and straight down into the chamber walls. For the cone shaped chamber the explosion epicenter will be much closer to the base of the cone. You cannot move 5-20% of the explosive material closer to the case head and NOT have the center of the detonation shift. And THAT will just accentuate case stretch at the head. And bolt thrust. Do you need pictures to grasp that concept? I hope not, because I dont have the time to make them.

I have two words for you bolt thrust deniers: 22 jet

Haha! I wonder what our dear departed friend Ned would think about this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by SlamFire:
Blaa blaaa blaaaa

Holy crap, you must have been booted out of TSJC.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I will never understand the thinking behind buying a nice, light recoiling, quite caliber like the 250-3000 or 257 Roberts then trying to make a ballistic endeavor to do away with its best qualities and make it into a 25-06 or 25 Short magnum or 257 Wby...If you want more velocity, more bullet then buy a bigger 25..

If a 7x57 isn't enough then buy a 7 mag. in the meantime enjoy the light calibers for what they are, light calibers..

You buy a 257 Robts, then blow out the case to an Ackley, before you can even load it, and boy does that get expensive, then new dies, and on and on..Wildcatting can get damned expensive, and pretty much has run its course IMO..

Ray speaks the truth here. Use the caliber for what it was intended. Not every caliber is destined for the 700 yard club.

But damn it Ray, playing with the wildcats is just so much fun + the expense has always been secondary.

Ill settle for the one I built; plain-jane Bob barrel on a 1908 Brazilian 98 action, no-frills walnut stock--shoots M.O.A. all day with 75gr, 100gr, and the 115 and 120gr Noslers. Don't have any grizzlys in my part of the (formerly) northwet; Bob's fine for everything else, through elk.
windy

NOrman aka Randy,
Now there is an answer that cannot be challenged, and will justify any wildcat out there..

Any AR members with an M77 Tang safety in .257 Bob? I have been reading about them and there is lots of information about "Long throats" and "Not built on a true short action"...Is it better to pass on one of these variants for a different rifle/manufacturer in this caliber?

I'd think with the longer throat you could seat the bullet out to magazine length and should be able to achieve decent accuracy..

I had an old Neb Roberts chambered gun at one time, don't know who chambered it however, I shot 257 Robts REm ammo in it?? So now Ive been advised on AR that they are two different cartridges...Please explain the difference in dimension to me..back then I necked down 7x57 brass and shot it, as I do today with all the difficulty of finding factory WW and REm brass for the 257..oh yeah and the 2000 handloads in my shop. I can't live, at my age, long enough to run out of 250s.

this is the reason Id opt for a 25-06 today were I a pragmatic sort..NOt so with the 250-3000 as I have boxes and boxes of 250-3000 WW and Rem loaded factory ammo...plus more or less 75 years of saved brass, that I treasure like black pearls..

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
plus more or less 75 years of saved brass, that I treasure like black pearls..