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
Oh god, not another caliber debate thread.
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="MudRunner2005" data-source="post: 1339668" data-attributes="member: 12995"><p>You're not following, you're just trying to be smarta$$...But you're failing at it.</p><p></p><p>The Venturi (round) shoulder of the early 1940's was claimed to be more efficient than a standard squared-shoulder cartridge. But thanks to technology, we know that it's now been proven to be no more or less efficient than a low-taper wall cartridge with a sharp shoulder angle (40º-50º). Technology of the time thought round was better...That's what I mean by "out of date"...The technology in the design, not the guns themselves... Ackley was doing his thing in the late-40's after WWII, and was already improving some of Roy's cartridges with his own designs, merely a matter of years after Roy designed them.</p><p></p><p>A prime example of this is the .300 Ackley. It is basically a 40º square-shouldered lower-taper version of a .300 Weatherby. In fact, you use .300 Wby brass to form cases. You DO get a bit more capacity in the Ackley version, but even Ackley himself stated (back in the day) to use .300 Weatherby load data to start your load workup for the .300 Ackley...But it does produce more velocity thanks to the improved design that adds a few grains of powder capacity over the Weatherby version.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MudRunner2005, post: 1339668, member: 12995"] You're not following, you're just trying to be smarta$$...But you're failing at it. The Venturi (round) shoulder of the early 1940's was claimed to be more efficient than a standard squared-shoulder cartridge. But thanks to technology, we know that it's now been proven to be no more or less efficient than a low-taper wall cartridge with a sharp shoulder angle (40º-50º). Technology of the time thought round was better...That's what I mean by "out of date"...The technology in the design, not the guns themselves... Ackley was doing his thing in the late-40's after WWII, and was already improving some of Roy's cartridges with his own designs, merely a matter of years after Roy designed them. A prime example of this is the .300 Ackley. It is basically a 40º square-shouldered lower-taper version of a .300 Weatherby. In fact, you use .300 Wby brass to form cases. You DO get a bit more capacity in the Ackley version, but even Ackley himself stated (back in the day) to use .300 Weatherby load data to start your load workup for the .300 Ackley...But it does produce more velocity thanks to the improved design that adds a few grains of powder capacity over the Weatherby version. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Oh god, not another caliber debate thread.
Top