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
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
cooper 280 ai
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="yawn" data-source="post: 1026392" data-attributes="member: 13540"><p>Thousands of rounds have told me what I need to know for my personal use so this is just a point of curiosity for me, I'm chilled as a chilled thing <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p> Yes the drawings above seem to show a difference. All the "pro difference: proponents quote this. The counter argument is that the new saami drawing was done with CAD for a CNC machine and used a slightly different datum for the neck/shoulder junction, than the older 280 rem,giving the appearance of a change but in reality they are the same. Gunsmith talks experiment seems to back this up with actual measurable data. No one has yet explained why they are wrong or put up anything tangible to counter it. All we get are more copies of the same drawings. </p><p> So who's right and who's wrong? Id kinda like to know and I'm a stubborn bugger.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></p><p> </p><p>This is Gunsmith Talks original warning </p><p></p><p><a href="https://gunsmithtalk.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/280-ackley-improved-alert/" target="_blank">https://gunsmithtalk.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/280-ackley-improved-alert/</a></p><p></p><p> If you read the comments at the bottom , from oct 2010 untill Feb 2012 they also strongly believed there was a difference. They performed the test to prove it . Instead they proved the reverse. It was done with reamer and gauges from PTG.</p><p> </p><p> So Ill ask again , if its wrong, where is their mistake? </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> Edd mine eats everything I feed it with no problems at all.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="yawn, post: 1026392, member: 13540"] Thousands of rounds have told me what I need to know for my personal use so this is just a point of curiosity for me, I'm chilled as a chilled thing :) Yes the drawings above seem to show a difference. All the "pro difference: proponents quote this. The counter argument is that the new saami drawing was done with CAD for a CNC machine and used a slightly different datum for the neck/shoulder junction, than the older 280 rem,giving the appearance of a change but in reality they are the same. Gunsmith talks experiment seems to back this up with actual measurable data. No one has yet explained why they are wrong or put up anything tangible to counter it. All we get are more copies of the same drawings. So who's right and who's wrong? Id kinda like to know and I'm a stubborn bugger.:D This is Gunsmith Talks original warning [url]https://gunsmithtalk.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/280-ackley-improved-alert/[/url] If you read the comments at the bottom , from oct 2010 untill Feb 2012 they also strongly believed there was a difference. They performed the test to prove it . Instead they proved the reverse. It was done with reamer and gauges from PTG. So Ill ask again , if its wrong, where is their mistake? Edd mine eats everything I feed it with no problems at all. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
cooper 280 ai
Top