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
Throat errosion concerning the large case 6.5's
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="Steve Shelp" data-source="post: 27084" data-attributes="member: 22"><p><strong>Re: Throat errosion concerning the large case 6.5\'s</strong></p><p></p><p>Brent,</p><p> I'm very familiar with the TP angle theory and article that was published. As a matter of fact in the original article when printed had an error in the equation that PA gunsmiths, Jim Borden and Kenny Kleinendorst (and I'm sure others spoke to the author about and a correction was made a couple of issues later.) Kenny did all of my gun work at the time.</p><p> The only thing I don't care for about the whole idea behind it is it's based on the the assumption that the PPC case is the end-all-solve-all to accuracy and I really don't sign up to that theory. There are a lot of things that make that cartridge accurate and the case itself is one of them but not everything. My opinion only. One of my biggest arguements agaisnt the PPC being the "ultimate" case design is look at the powder buring rate chart and see how many powders are available right around what the PPC needs..... you can tune and re-tune that case to do anything you want in any weather condition or bullet weight. But if you size that case up dimensionally to be a 1 to 1 ratio for a 30 caliber case.... if the "ultimate" case design theory is true then you just designed the most accurate 30 caliber case ever. BUT.... is the right burning rate powder available for the increased volume of that case? maybe.... maybe not. </p><p> So take that for however you will that's my opinion only and I'm sure others and maybe yourself will disagree. I've watched guys day in and day out shoot 300 Weatherby Improved cases in competition with that long slender powder column and some of the groups that have been produced are almost incomprehensable. So does the short fat theory really work??? OR have so many people shot the Fed210, 52+- clicks of 322, 68 bullet in the PPC for so many years that you can't win if you try something different because it would take a man 40yrs to gather the info that is available for a PPC when you pick it up from the gunsmiths without ever firing a shot. So it will continue to be the most accurate cartridge for a long time. And myself nor anyone else can argue against it's success whether you like the case or not. It is accurate, question is why? And I beleive that question is answered in book form and not one sentence.</p><p></p><p> I do beleive there is something to the fact that a longer neck simply provides more physical protection to the throat area. But then the successful 300 Win Mag shooters have a pretty good arguement against that theory it also.</p><p></p><p>FYI: the 155 with NOT shoot out of a 9 twist barrel. I've tried out of my 6.5-300 WWH barrel that had a 9 twist (actually measured at 9 1/8"). It shot about 5" groups at 100yds with oblong holes in the paper, so I don't think the WSM case is going to work with the lower velocity.</p><p> I haven't bought any 155 SMK is sevral years, but I had bought at least 1 box of 500 out of each of the previous lots that they made up until '98 or '99.. The very first run were dead-nuts for out-of round but the ogive variation wasn't that good but could easily be sorted into groups. But since then every box that I bought over the year have progressivly gotten worse for out-of round and the ogive variations are some of the worst I've seen in any bullets. I've seen between .020 and .030 of variation for ogive. </p><p> The quality of the 142 is still top notch at present and the BC is only a couple of point shy of the 155 grain bullet and you don't need the tight 8" twist to stabilize it either. That's why you don't see the 155s used or talked about that much.</p><p></p><p>I'll measure those cases up tonight. Going to pick my bolt up at the smiths from having the ejector fixed from the primer rupture a couple of weeks ago. Had to drill and tap the old ejector out. It would not budge. It bent it and locked itself in place. </p><p></p><p>Steve</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Steve Shelp, post: 27084, member: 22"] [b]Re: Throat errosion concerning the large case 6.5\'s[/b] Brent, I'm very familiar with the TP angle theory and article that was published. As a matter of fact in the original article when printed had an error in the equation that PA gunsmiths, Jim Borden and Kenny Kleinendorst (and I'm sure others spoke to the author about and a correction was made a couple of issues later.) Kenny did all of my gun work at the time. The only thing I don't care for about the whole idea behind it is it's based on the the assumption that the PPC case is the end-all-solve-all to accuracy and I really don't sign up to that theory. There are a lot of things that make that cartridge accurate and the case itself is one of them but not everything. My opinion only. One of my biggest arguements agaisnt the PPC being the "ultimate" case design is look at the powder buring rate chart and see how many powders are available right around what the PPC needs..... you can tune and re-tune that case to do anything you want in any weather condition or bullet weight. But if you size that case up dimensionally to be a 1 to 1 ratio for a 30 caliber case.... if the "ultimate" case design theory is true then you just designed the most accurate 30 caliber case ever. BUT.... is the right burning rate powder available for the increased volume of that case? maybe.... maybe not. So take that for however you will that's my opinion only and I'm sure others and maybe yourself will disagree. I've watched guys day in and day out shoot 300 Weatherby Improved cases in competition with that long slender powder column and some of the groups that have been produced are almost incomprehensable. So does the short fat theory really work??? OR have so many people shot the Fed210, 52+- clicks of 322, 68 bullet in the PPC for so many years that you can't win if you try something different because it would take a man 40yrs to gather the info that is available for a PPC when you pick it up from the gunsmiths without ever firing a shot. So it will continue to be the most accurate cartridge for a long time. And myself nor anyone else can argue against it's success whether you like the case or not. It is accurate, question is why? And I beleive that question is answered in book form and not one sentence. I do beleive there is something to the fact that a longer neck simply provides more physical protection to the throat area. But then the successful 300 Win Mag shooters have a pretty good arguement against that theory it also. FYI: the 155 with NOT shoot out of a 9 twist barrel. I've tried out of my 6.5-300 WWH barrel that had a 9 twist (actually measured at 9 1/8"). It shot about 5" groups at 100yds with oblong holes in the paper, so I don't think the WSM case is going to work with the lower velocity. I haven't bought any 155 SMK is sevral years, but I had bought at least 1 box of 500 out of each of the previous lots that they made up until '98 or '99.. The very first run were dead-nuts for out-of round but the ogive variation wasn't that good but could easily be sorted into groups. But since then every box that I bought over the year have progressivly gotten worse for out-of round and the ogive variations are some of the worst I've seen in any bullets. I've seen between .020 and .030 of variation for ogive. The quality of the 142 is still top notch at present and the BC is only a couple of point shy of the 155 grain bullet and you don't need the tight 8" twist to stabilize it either. That's why you don't see the 155s used or talked about that much. I'll measure those cases up tonight. Going to pick my bolt up at the smiths from having the ejector fixed from the primer rupture a couple of weeks ago. Had to drill and tap the old ejector out. It would not budge. It bent it and locked itself in place. Steve [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Throat errosion concerning the large case 6.5's
Top