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="Trickymissfit" data-source="post: 835042" data-attributes="member: 25383"><p>to further stir up the quagmire and generate another round of complete chaos, let me add this:</p><p> </p><p><em>* Parker always set his improved chambers up to headspace on a factory round, as we already know. Yet there is some more to this. He did his chambers to seat and headspace on the neck to shoulder junction point, and even then a tight fit. This allows the use of factory loaded 280 Remington ammunition as well as the round the fit the improved chamber design. Why Remington and Nosler decided upon an odd ball headspace is their own business, and have no serious problem with it. Still call it whatever you want, it's not an Ackley chamber! I completely agree with "JE" and his comments, as they are correct. </em></p><p> </p><p><em>Now with Remington/Nosler doing brass that headspaces .014" shorter than what P.O. called out, I find myself somewhat baffled! It would certainly appear to me that it might be border line dangerous to shoot this new brass in a true Ackley improved chamber for what it's worth (I for one never like visiting the emergency room), but as robustly built as the Remington / Savage / Weatherby actions are built these days I doubt we'd know it. Other that some deformed cases. Would be very interesting to compare the Nosler case fire formed in an Ackley chamber (could care less what SAMMI says) to a generic .280 case fired in that same chamber. Although they probably got the correct taper per inch right, I suspect the rest will not be pretty. A trip to the Shadowgraph might change your mind thought! </em></p><p> </p><p><em>Now I personally think Remington did it altogether wrong by simply shortening the headspace .014". Had they shortened the headspace about .078", I think the confusion would have been avoided ( 62mm verses 64mm case length). Doing that would have made the chambers unique to the cartridge design. Plus</em> doubt we'd have seen 50fps difference.</p><p>gary</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Trickymissfit, post: 835042, member: 25383"] to further stir up the quagmire and generate another round of complete chaos, let me add this: [I]* Parker always set his improved chambers up to headspace on a factory round, as we already know. Yet there is some more to this. He did his chambers to seat and headspace on the neck to shoulder junction point, and even then a tight fit. This allows the use of factory loaded 280 Remington ammunition as well as the round the fit the improved chamber design. Why Remington and Nosler decided upon an odd ball headspace is their own business, and have no serious problem with it. Still call it whatever you want, it's not an Ackley chamber! I completely agree with "JE" and his comments, as they are correct. [/I] [I]Now with Remington/Nosler doing brass that headspaces .014" shorter than what P.O. called out, I find myself somewhat baffled! It would certainly appear to me that it might be border line dangerous to shoot this new brass in a true Ackley improved chamber for what it's worth (I for one never like visiting the emergency room), but as robustly built as the Remington / Savage / Weatherby actions are built these days I doubt we'd know it. Other that some deformed cases. Would be very interesting to compare the Nosler case fire formed in an Ackley chamber (could care less what SAMMI says) to a generic .280 case fired in that same chamber. Although they probably got the correct taper per inch right, I suspect the rest will not be pretty. A trip to the Shadowgraph might change your mind thought! [/I] [I]Now I personally think Remington did it altogether wrong by simply shortening the headspace .014". Had they shortened the headspace about .078", I think the confusion would have been avoided ( 62mm verses 64mm case length). Doing that would have made the chambers unique to the cartridge design. Plus[/I] doubt we'd have seen 50fps difference. gary [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
.280 AI controversy explained ...
Top