No Definitive Answers

A

Andy Cross

New member
With all we have learned about the accuracy game one thing seems clear in that the design of the cartridge plays a big roll in how much accuracy can be extracted from any given rifle cartridge set up.

However none of the shooters, physicists, explosive experts etc I have asked have ever known the answer as to why cartridge shapes like the PPC shoot better than others. Apparently the designers Pindel and Palmisano couldn't give the reasons. Perhaps someone knows today. I'd be very interested in knowing what laws of physics and chemistry are involved in the obvious increase in accuracy.

Intrigued Andy
 
Ah but as a BR shooter I must care. Knowing the why is essential to future developments of our sport. If we all just sat back and didn't care we probably wouldn't have the sport.
 
BCL/BCS/Bore = .25 Highest Potential of efficiency/stability of burn.

Then variables of Powder, primers, brass, bullet, barrel, action, stock, bedding, optics, trigger, rests, weather conditions and shooter come into play.

The .220 Russian shoots very well. Russians in competition have proven that many times over.

If all was based on case factors, then a person should be able to throw just any powder around a burn rate in and it should shoot well but that is just not the case.



Hovis
 
Last edited:
Mr Cross,
Will you tell me where Palmisano or Ferris indicated that they did not know why the PPC works? Come to the Super Shoot and ask them that question.
Butch
 
zippy06 said:
. . . And Pindel and Palmisano had a lot of trail and error. Work. To get to the 22PPC and then 6PPC.
http://www.6mmbr.com/6PPC.html
Click to expand...

Where was the trial and error? Palmisano was a live varmint hunter shooting a wildcat 6mm based on a short 220 Swift case. Virtually the same as the future 6PPC. He tired of forming cases and happened upon some 5.6x39, a cartridge virtually unknown in the US at the time. A small change in his chamber reamer, a fire form, and voila, the PPC was born. Not rocket science.

Ray
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well it was around the time the ppc's were making their presence felt winning matches in both in the US and here. So I guess around the mid to late 80's. The first article I read was in a magazine called accurate shooter. Don't know whether it even exists now and another in an Oz magazine called Australian Shooters Journal. Both quoted from interviews from P & P. They disclosed that they didn't know exactly why the accuracy potential was greater. I don't know why the reporters would have written that if P&P had given them the answer.

Since then I haven't ever read anything that has explained why or even tried to explain why. So I can only assume from that the question still remains unanswered. I am pretty certain someone out there does it's just that they are not watching this web site. If P&P do know could someone in the group who knows them ask them ?
 
It's not hard to spec a cartridge that'll shoot with the PPC, I've got rounds from .22 to .308 that'll hang with it. What IS hard is to find someone who can build anything but a PPC to shoot. What IS hard is to find a compelling reason to do so. I've spent 20yrs and tens of thousands of dollars to find out for myself what makes the PPC tick and will state unequivocally that unless you're REALLY curious, curious enough to spend money like water, just buy into the fully realized PPC system and learn to shoot.

opinionsby


al
 
Come On Guys

Of course there are chamberings that poccess the same agging capability as does the 6PPC.

The PPC is a lot like the Small Block Chevy of Shooting. There are other engines that will do the same thing, but since there is an entire industry built around the Mouse Motor, the logical thing to do is simply build one, go fast, and win.

That doesn't mean that a Ford, Chrysler, AMC, etc can't perform as well.

As for chamberings that are just as capable, but lack a following, the 25BR comes to mind. Back in 1998, I shot one for a season, won a few yardages, even shot a "teen' agg with it at Tomball. Bullet selection was "one", the 85 grn Fowler, when Jeff wanted to make them. I had to make a choice. The 6PPC won out.

Of course, I know that the 30BR will agg with a 6PPC, but we all know it's true calling is in the score arena. I have a feeling that in the years to come, we will see more of them in Group. Of course, the recoil can be a tad aggravating in Sporter and LV, but brave souls will take the plunge.

In short, the 6PPC is the 600 pound gorilla of Benchrest because it not only poccesses a phenominol agging capability, there is an entire industry built around that very fact, making life for the shooter much easier.........jackie
 
FBecigneul said:
Well, I'm no physicist. I have never been a physicist. But I did drive by a Holliday Inn one time!!!
Just sit there and shoot or gawk.
Click to expand...

Think about why the new short/fats like the WSM family are becoming more popular. Could it be that a short/fat powder column lights up more consistently than a tall slim column that has always given the magnum primers a fit??
 
Last edited:
Cheechako said:
Where was the trial and error? Palmisano was a live varmint hunter shooting a wildcat 6mm based on a short 220 Swift case. Virtually the same as the future 6PPC. He tired of forming cases and happened upon some 5.6x39, a cartridge virtually unknown in the US at the time. A small change in his chamber reamer, a fire form, and voila, the PPC was born. Not rocket science.

Ray
Click to expand...

Chuck, Fb, kevin, ETC. AGAIN. Read the link.
And remember I indicated .220 Russian. NOT a wildcat, derivative, modification, or any other BS. Y'all don't read very well.
Maybe the correct term is RE-ENGINEERED. That indicates they deviated from design specifications.
 
Just trying to help a guy out.
Maybe. I should have told Mr. Cross to go search the data base. Or buy a couple of books.
That's what I was told. Books are real nice reference material. Easier to search for info.
If the author uses the correct terminology. Unlike the internet.
 
Just take what Cheechako [Ray] has to say. He has studied, wrote, and has fired many many cartridges. I think if you knew his extensive background and studies you will just listen and take it to the bank.
If you can find proof that he is wrong, lets see it.
Butch
 
when I read the first post, Parker Ackley came to mind. Bet P.O. would would have a couple of things to say about this subject.

@jackie Have a 300 rum thats grouping very nice, problem is Ive been working on it for 8 years. The bones will only take 15 rounds before the cringe starts. Then a week before the bruises go away. Hard way to do load development, but it does cut the wind. chuckling
 
zippy06 said:
Chuck, Fb, kevin, ETC. AGAIN. Read the link.
And remember I indicated .220 Russian. NOT a wildcat, derivative, modification, or any other BS. Y'all don't read very well.
Maybe the correct term is RE-ENGINEERED. That indicates they deviated from design specifications.
Click to expand...

See the problem is Zippy, it ain't ABOUT "the link." The link to 6MMBR.com is just a person's opinion, a person not a PPC shooter.... folks on this board KNOW P. and P. personally, for 50yrs not the few yrs that 6MMBR.com has been in existence. Cheechako KNOWS these guys, he don't need no steenkin' link!

And as far as the 220R "not shooting" that's pure speculative BS. I can spec and build a rifle that will inhale unmodified 220R right out of the box, in .22 or 6mm, and shoot every bit as well as the PPC. Want proof? Put up the money...... If the rifle I build in 220R isn't COMPLETELY adequate to run with the ubiquitous 6PPC I'll buy it back. We'll document the entire build right here on BRC with pictures..... open book.

I'll even put your name on it..... maybe the ".22 Zipper" eh??


nahhh, wouldn't be prudent! You'll have to come up with a better name.

LOL

al
 
Andy
I don't agree completely.
I think that within reason cartridge design does play some part but my thought is that it isn't nearly as critical as was one thought.
Ted
 
highseas said:
when I read the first post, Parker Ackley came to mind. Bet P.O. would would have a couple of things to say about this subject.
Click to expand...

I think it's worth noting that PO never made any waves in the accuracy world. I was in love with his stuff for about 15yrs. I devoured his books multiple times, had 12-15 Ackley chambers done and even own a rifle built by him. (It's for sale ;) )

IMO the Ackley chamberings are irreperably flawed regarding accuracy. And wicked expensive to boot as it takes at least two, preferably three different chambers/barrels to make your brass.

opinionsby



al
 
alinwa said:
IMO the Ackley chamberings are irreperably flawed regarding accuracy. And wicked expensive to boot as it takes at least two, preferably three different chambers/barrels to make your brass.
Click to expand...


I think considering the time, resources and knowledge base, PO did a wonderfull job. I think he forgot more than Ill ever know about rifles Al.

As far as accuracy, he was all accuracy, precision maybe not,, but his cartridges where accurate

opinions by Ethan
 
alinwa said:
the Ackley chamberings are irreperably flawed regarding accuracy. And wicked expensive to boot as it takes at least two, preferably three different chambers/barrels to make your brass
Click to expand...

Say what??? The big appeal to his designs was that factory ammo could be shot in an AI design chamber, still maintain accuracy, and fireform the Improved brass. Are we talking about the same Parker Ackley??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top