Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
.280 AI controversy explained ...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Pdvdh" data-source="post: 1527894" data-attributes="member: 4191"><p><strong>yawn</strong>,</p><p></p><p>Do you have any definitive position in the matter? If so, what might that be? Do you disagree with Redding? You have the insider's secret? The hidden truth? Care to share your secret and expertise on the topic? No, I doubt it... Safer to keep us yawning...</p><p></p><p>I went thru an extensive thread over on the "inaccurate" Shooter's Forum about one rear ago. Multiple members on that Forum, including the infamous Dave Kiff from PT&G, banded together against me (a lowly engineer) in claiming that the SAAMI 280 Ackley Improved chamber headspace was something other than Redding's description on their website, compared to the "traditional" 280 A.I.</p><p></p><p>It was me against the gang of 'experts'. There was no relenting from these experts. Turned very personal against me, a lowlife engineer. So I proceeded to rip them a new one.</p><p></p><p>I used Mr. Dave Kiff's own definition of a "traditional" Ackley Improved, which he printed out on a chamber reamer spec sheet I had previously purchased from him. From Mr. Kiff, <em>the Master</em>:</p><p></p><div style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua'">Note: This reamer must be used with a parent case shoulder angle gauge ground -.004 from standard SAAMI min Go Gauge per Mr. Ackley's handbook. The standard Go becomes the No Go and <strong><u>the -.004 gauge becomes the Go Gauge</u></strong> in order to fire form brass.</span></div><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">Using Mr. Kiff's own Go Gauge criteria for a "traditional" Ackley from Mr. Ackley's very own handbook, -0.004" off the SAAMI headspace dimension at the SAAMI 0.375" reference datum on the shoulder of the 280 Remington, I proceeded to mathematically calculate the headspace dimension of the "traditional" 280 A.I. (per Mr. Ackley's definition = "traditional"). My calculations exactly duplicated Redding's description of the difference in headspace between the two cartridges. What did the inaccurate Shooters' Forum 'administrator' do next? Deleted the entire thread, in the effort to protect the tarnished reputations of the long-term member "experts" (and<em> Silver $$ Contributors</em> to their Forum).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">I could run through those calcs again here, but I doubt <strong>yawn</strong>er would learn anything from it.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">Redding has it <u><strong>exactly</strong></u> <u><strong>correct</strong></u>. Any gunsmith chambering a "traditional" 280 A.I. barrel that produces a result differing from Redding's headspace description has used a flawed Go Gauge, a flawed chamber reamer, or has cut the chamber improperly. Same with the cutting of a SAAMI 280 Ackley Improved chamber. I can't control the correctness of the manufactured Go Gauges and Chamber Reamers, or the cutting of the chambers. But I can guarantee the headspace dimension to the SAAMI 0.375" shoulder datum. The math, done correctly, cannot be disputed. Which is why the inaccurate Shooters' Forum deleted the entire Thread. Couldn't allow an engineer to embarrass their <em>Silver $$ Contributor</em> experts. How dare me...</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">They wouldn't eat crow. Couldn't let a low-life engineer humiliate their members, illuminate their lack of expertise - on their very own Forum. Which speaks pretty lowly of their administrator, the Forums' credibility, and the intrinsic value of information posted on their Forum.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">I'm prepared to defend my position on the difference in the headspace dimension between these two cartridges on this Forum. It's the same position as Reddings. Or I'll eat crow on the Forum. Any takers?</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pdvdh, post: 1527894, member: 4191"] [B]yawn[/B], Do you have any definitive position in the matter? If so, what might that be? Do you disagree with Redding? You have the insider's secret? The hidden truth? Care to share your secret and expertise on the topic? No, I doubt it... Safer to keep us yawning... I went thru an extensive thread over on the "inaccurate" Shooter's Forum about one rear ago. Multiple members on that Forum, including the infamous Dave Kiff from PT&G, banded together against me (a lowly engineer) in claiming that the SAAMI 280 Ackley Improved chamber headspace was something other than Redding's description on their website, compared to the "traditional" 280 A.I. It was me against the gang of 'experts'. There was no relenting from these experts. Turned very personal against me, a lowlife engineer. So I proceeded to rip them a new one. I used Mr. Dave Kiff's own definition of a "traditional" Ackley Improved, which he printed out on a chamber reamer spec sheet I had previously purchased from him. From Mr. Kiff, [I]the Master[/I]: [INDENT][FONT=Book Antiqua]Note: This reamer must be used with a parent case shoulder angle gauge ground -.004 from standard SAAMI min Go Gauge per Mr. Ackley's handbook. The standard Go becomes the No Go and [B][U]the -.004 gauge becomes the Go Gauge[/U][/B] in order to fire form brass.[/FONT][/INDENT] [FONT=Tahoma]Using Mr. Kiff's own Go Gauge criteria for a "traditional" Ackley from Mr. Ackley's very own handbook, -0.004" off the SAAMI headspace dimension at the SAAMI 0.375" reference datum on the shoulder of the 280 Remington, I proceeded to mathematically calculate the headspace dimension of the "traditional" 280 A.I. (per Mr. Ackley's definition = "traditional"). My calculations exactly duplicated Redding's description of the difference in headspace between the two cartridges. What did the inaccurate Shooters' Forum 'administrator' do next? Deleted the entire thread, in the effort to protect the tarnished reputations of the long-term member "experts" (and[I] Silver $$ Contributors[/I] to their Forum). I could run through those calcs again here, but I doubt [B]yawn[/B]er would learn anything from it. Redding has it [U][B]exactly[/B][/U] [U][B]correct[/B][/U]. Any gunsmith chambering a "traditional" 280 A.I. barrel that produces a result differing from Redding's headspace description has used a flawed Go Gauge, a flawed chamber reamer, or has cut the chamber improperly. Same with the cutting of a SAAMI 280 Ackley Improved chamber. I can't control the correctness of the manufactured Go Gauges and Chamber Reamers, or the cutting of the chambers. But I can guarantee the headspace dimension to the SAAMI 0.375" shoulder datum. The math, done correctly, cannot be disputed. Which is why the inaccurate Shooters' Forum deleted the entire Thread. Couldn't allow an engineer to embarrass their [I]Silver $$ Contributor[/I] experts. How dare me... They wouldn't eat crow. Couldn't let a low-life engineer humiliate their members, illuminate their lack of expertise - on their very own Forum. Which speaks pretty lowly of their administrator, the Forums' credibility, and the intrinsic value of information posted on their Forum. I'm prepared to defend my position on the difference in the headspace dimension between these two cartridges on this Forum. It's the same position as Reddings. Or I'll eat crow on the Forum. Any takers?[/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
.280 AI controversy explained ...
Top