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
Lest we forget, the "Short-Fat" technical idea.
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="Mikecr" data-source="post: 1570888" data-attributes="member: 1521"><p>There are efficiency gains with the short/fat ratio's mentioned -especially while combined with improved shoulders, and overbore designs. This is adjusted for in QuickLoad as 'weighting factor'.</p><p>The same adjustment would be made for Gibb's front ignition.</p><p></p><p>I never understood how folks got to thinking that magnum diameter cartridges are suitable for higher pressures. This is just opposite of reality. And many cartridges with great potential have been muddled away from popular because of this thinking.</p><p>Way overbore and mis-design of guns are other issues. </p><p></p><p>Winchester blew it in offering a 22WSSM and 24WSSM, as they had to know they would be barrel burners. They also failed initially to design their guns for WSSM feeding, and to get enough barrel steel around the chambers. At least Savage got this much right.</p><p>Winchester recovered somewhat in offering what they should have begun with, 25WSSM. But they still blew it in that they failed to go to the obvious advantage in 26WSSM.</p><p></p><p>I built a 26WSSM Imp, and I can tell you there is nothing in this cal that reaches it -overall. I get a nice middle velocity node at 3025fps/65Kpsi, with 140gr bullets, 28" barrel, and 47gr of IMR4350. ANY other cartridge in this cal would need a lot more powder or a lot more pressure to do this. I also have over 60 reloads with my cases -with no FL/body sizing, and it's been clear for a while that I will never have to replace them. It's a custom action and chamber designed (by me) for this cartridge, and that's the difference right there between success and failure in short/fat.</p><p></p><p>IMO, nobody should be choosing short/fat without an informed planning of beginning, middle, and end. The big gun manufacturers have demonstrated that (through failures). So short/fat should probably stay in the realm of wildcat designs and custom gun building.</p><p>As an alternative we have Ackley improving. Pick the right bullet to capacity in this, and you will always have a superior result. It can meet magic ratios as well if you make it do so. Ackley improve a 6.5x47, 140gr bullets, fitted chamber (to new cases), coned breech, fine threaded magnum <u>diameter</u> action to get enough barrel steel around the chamber for very high pressure loads with the fastest powder filling the case. Barrel long enough to reduce muzzle pressures for cleanest bullet release.</p><p>A combination of past and future. Could go further still in 260AI with front ignition.</p><p>Scale for other cals.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mikecr, post: 1570888, member: 1521"] There are efficiency gains with the short/fat ratio's mentioned -especially while combined with improved shoulders, and overbore designs. This is adjusted for in QuickLoad as 'weighting factor'. The same adjustment would be made for Gibb's front ignition. I never understood how folks got to thinking that magnum diameter cartridges are suitable for higher pressures. This is just opposite of reality. And many cartridges with great potential have been muddled away from popular because of this thinking. Way overbore and mis-design of guns are other issues. Winchester blew it in offering a 22WSSM and 24WSSM, as they had to know they would be barrel burners. They also failed initially to design their guns for WSSM feeding, and to get enough barrel steel around the chambers. At least Savage got this much right. Winchester recovered somewhat in offering what they should have begun with, 25WSSM. But they still blew it in that they failed to go to the obvious advantage in 26WSSM. I built a 26WSSM Imp, and I can tell you there is nothing in this cal that reaches it -overall. I get a nice middle velocity node at 3025fps/65Kpsi, with 140gr bullets, 28" barrel, and 47gr of IMR4350. ANY other cartridge in this cal would need a lot more powder or a lot more pressure to do this. I also have over 60 reloads with my cases -with no FL/body sizing, and it's been clear for a while that I will never have to replace them. It's a custom action and chamber designed (by me) for this cartridge, and that's the difference right there between success and failure in short/fat. IMO, nobody should be choosing short/fat without an informed planning of beginning, middle, and end. The big gun manufacturers have demonstrated that (through failures). So short/fat should probably stay in the realm of wildcat designs and custom gun building. As an alternative we have Ackley improving. Pick the right bullet to capacity in this, and you will always have a superior result. It can meet magic ratios as well if you make it do so. Ackley improve a 6.5x47, 140gr bullets, fitted chamber (to new cases), coned breech, fine threaded magnum [U]diameter[/U] action to get enough barrel steel around the chamber for very high pressure loads with the fastest powder filling the case. Barrel long enough to reduce muzzle pressures for cleanest bullet release. A combination of past and future. Could go further still in 260AI with front ignition. Scale for other cals. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Lest we forget, the "Short-Fat" technical idea.
Top