No Definitive Answers

JerrySharrett said:
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??
Click to expand...

Say what??? You use factory ammo for accuracy? And Ol' PO allows you to remain competitive??

Yes we're talking about the same Parker Ackley. I tried for 7 yrs to make the 243AI competitive because AT THE TIME it was the winningest 6mm on the planet in 1000yd. The only thing that threatened Billy Shehanes magical 6-284 barrel. (Of course there were many others, but the 243AI was a resounding favorite)

But times have changed, a gun that would set records in the eighties and nineties won't even get on the board today except thru luck.

your turn

al
 
alinwa said:
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 ;) )
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmmmm So your going ro sell that inacurate, expensive to reload PO Ackley rifle cheap then, Ill bite, what is it and how much? ;)
 
highseas said:
Hmmmmmmmm So your going ro sell that inacurate, expensive to reload PO Ackley rifle cheap then, Ill bite, what is it and how much? ;)
Click to expand...

It's a 270 Win built on a Yugoslavian Mauser imported thru Alexandria VA. It's basically a "Santa Barbara" or an "Interams MK-X." It's an oil finished hunting rifle and still has the original pamphlet.

These early ones were "lettered" by PO using a vibrating scribe. It actually has the 'emdeko' still visible.

If you really are interested PM me.

Or call me at 360 904 6941

al
 
jerrysharrett said:
my turn is to put you back on my ignore list.

You apparently can't even make an intelligent response.
Click to expand...

lol :D, and once again Jerry, GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR you have made my day, I totally agree with you.

Now then, are you going to The Shamrock? See you there.

Dan Honert
 
goodgrouper said:
But Al, well is a relative term! Are you saying you could build a 220 russian, register to compete in the NBRSA, and then beat 6ppc shooters on a consistent basis? QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you actual question is, but will the 220R compete in registered competition??

Yes
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
goodgrouper said:
I think Zip's right. I remember reading somewhere (benchrest shooting primer?) that the Doc and Ferris went through many many cases and ideas before (and after) the PPC was born. Some of their predictions played out and others did not.
Now whether this is true or not, who knows. But I know it was published.
Click to expand...

Grouper

Get a copy of PS Vol 48, No 8. Dick Wright did an interview with Doc P wherin he (Doc) covered the history of the PPC.

Ray
 
In considering the issue of the accuracy of non 6PPC calibers there are a couple of considerations that have not been mentioned in this thread (or I have overlooked them). Many shooters compete with one rifle, that fits into all classes, a 10.5# 6PPC. Because the rules for Sporter class dictate a caliber larger than .22, campaigning a .22 anything means a second rifle, or at least a barrel change, as well as staying on top of tuning two calibers...twice the trouble. There is little incentive to do this, since it has not been proven that anything is BETTER than the 6PPC. Additionally, the small number of shooters that shoot something other than a 6PPC greatly reduces the chance of one of those calibers racking up a record that would cause a shift in caliber selection for Light and Heavy Varmint. For instance, someone of mid pack ability could own a rifle of the very highest potential accuracy, and who would ever know it? Other limiting factors would keep its light under a bushel, as it were, and no one would know what he had. It is only when there is the combination of the best equipment, and shooter that we can see what either is capable of.
 
goodgrouper said:
My question pertains to what I said earlier. Since there have already been folks who have tried to win consistently with a 220 russian and have done so with very limited success, I was wondering if you felt like you could do better? If you think you could build a 220 russian and beat 6ppc shooters consistently in registered competition, then you need to quit backyard shooting, head over to Tacoma, register in the NBRSA, and show the world how Al can do it better than anyone previous. I mean really! I'd love to see it! Add a little variety to those equipment lists!
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: that's kinda' what I figured you were driving at.

It's an old story. I don't know why you want to put words in my mouth but it's a common malady going back 15yrs on this board.

I'll try once more..... no one will ever "beat the PPC" in my opinion. It's a fully realized cartridge with an entire industry built around it. NOR DID I SAY "beat the PPC" I said "competitive." Mike Ratigan is "competitive" with a .22. Does this mean that he or anyone else recommends the .22 over the 6PPC across the boards? Does this mean that Mike's cartridge choice is "better" or that it'll replace the 6PPC??? Of course "competitive" does mean that it CAN beat the PPC, on any given day.

I don't really know how to make my point any clearer although Jackie's T'ree Fitty Chubby analogy is about spot on IMO.

Shooting something other than the PPC costs significantly more. Straight up you're going to spend 3-400 dollars MORE to make anything other than a 6PPC competitive. (as my first post stated, clearly, or at least I thought it did :rolleyes: )

BTW, Kelbly's can build a competitive 220R .....


Building a rifle that's competitive is a different proposition to "showing the world" I can shoot. I don't claim to be a PPC shooter altho I own a Borden Light and Heavy as well as a Time Precision LV and have 8-10 competitive 6PPC barrels. I could compete in Tacoma tomorrow. Is this where you shoot? I've never fired a PPC in competition except at "Bench Rest School" but perhaps you could goad me into it :)

Both Borden built rifles are extremely competitive as PPC's, the Time is finicky to keep in tune but certainly competitive.

And my "creations" have brought home an inordinate amount of wood in NBRSA registered 600yd competition so far. I'll put my 6X47L variant or 30X47L or even my old 308-.200 up against anybody.... as for myself I'm still busy making all the rookie mistakes. I've dropped shots, fired extra rounds on record, blown up bullets, pressured out, held up the entire match cooling my rifle etc..... and STILL brought home a wall full of wood. I'm not ready for PPC comp but wouldn't shame myself.

My real point is that a competitive rifle is a system. It ain't ABOUT magical case dimensions, there are many many 6PPC's out there that are not competitive. To take Jackie's analogy a little further, you can't build a competitive race motor by bolting together parts from the Summit Racing catalog....... but a good BUILDER can make a competitive motor with many brands of parts.

You want a competitive setup you best better call Borden or Kelbly or one of the other BENCHREST gunsmith's to get 'er done. And even then USE THEIR PROVEN SYSTEM to win. This means everything. You can't necessarily use Dwight Scott's dies for a Borden rifle.....

I'm saying that I've spec'd enough cartridge designs that YES, I can spec a winning rifle. I can even put it together now that I finally got a lathe running.

What amazes me is that there are only about 15 gunsmiths on the face of the earth that truly understand that it's in the specifications of fit, NOT in the case dimensions or even the work. There are another 20 or so who can USE the spec's provided by the "6PPC Industry" and through experience accumulated over time can build you a winning rifle system.

But there are blessed few who can make another cartridge competitive.

I can make a competitive 22 or 6mm from the BR case too.

Or from the .308 case, 300WSM or 338 Lapua. I'll hedge a little on the 338 Lapua because I've only got 4 barrels and two actions that I'm testing so far but preliminary testing indicates that it's solid. (this would be the place for you to jump in with "ohhh, so you can make a 338 Lapua that'll compete with the 6PPC???")

In all cases (pun intended) it requires an entire system and in all cases the system deviates wildly from SAAMI spec's. I could not guarantee accuracy on any rifle built to SAAMI specifications. "Min-min SAAMI" ain't gonna' do it. I predict that when someone comes out with "PPC brass" and SAAMI steps in to standardize the round it won't hurt the BR industry at all because it simply won't shoot as spec'd. It can't. It'll shoot just like the 6BR.

Also in no case am I breaking new ground, but I AM combining the work of many giants in the shooting industry. The methods used to make the 6PPC a winner can be applied to many other cartridges.

this doesn't necessarily make it hoovis, just possible

opinionsby


al
 
I don't have sources handy but as I recall the wsm was designed to have a similar powder columb ratio/exhaust as the PPC. with .30 cal projectiles. This was done because the shape of a charge can influence consistancy and efficiency in converting powder to energy and the 6mm PPC had the proper ratio.
 
goodgrouper said:
Al, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I am simply saying that it's easy to "speculate" from the sidelines. But until you actually compete in short range, registered competition, you should realize that there is a possibility that you don't have a perfect knowledge of it simply because you shoot other disciplines. They are not the same. There is no substitute. If you were to sign up and play our game, you might just be surprised to learn that "opinionsbyAl" might change. I always thought the 6br (if done right) could compete with the 6ppc. Well, I found out that yes, it could compete with it, but it can't BEAT it very often. There is a difference.

Another perfect example of this is the 30 br uprising. It shot one "unofficial record" and won a few random aggs here and there and suddenly everybody was saying that the 6ppc was dead. Well, the NBRSA nationals report just came in this months NBRSA newsletter and it would appear the 6ppc is still hanging on since it WON EVERYTHING! In fact, of the top 10 in every grand agg, they were all using 6ppc's except for Larry Fuesse who shot a 6.5 Grendel (which is basically just a 6.5 ppc).
Click to expand...


What's gonna' change??? I'm telling you and anyone else who's reading that IMO the 6PPC is the clear choice.....

As far as I can tell, I'm agreeing with you....

???

As far as your 6BR being "built right," I can't comment on that except to say that I'd probably define "right" very differently than you. I've yet to meet the gunsmith who will build a 6BR "right."

Generally speaking I'll even agree that competition sheds a whole new light but I'm fairly middle-aged old.... old enough to have learned this in many disciplines prior to BR. I haven't been surprised by anything in the 600yd. Even the stupid politics don't surprise me, disappoint yes, surprise no. As far as shooting??? Yup, I suck. Yup, I need more practice. But I'm able to fairly rate my equipment against others.

As far as PPC's go, I've shot with and ordered rifles from extreme competitors. I have a fairly solid idea what it takes to compete in 100-200yd group and I simply can't commit to it. I've got kids and a business that come first. I can be competitive in 600yd because it's still pretty much spray and pray.... and equipment...100-200 isn't. As I've said earlier, it's a fully realized sport. Long Range is still in its infancy comparatively.

this is my opinion (flame suit ON!!)

LOL


al
 
Alinwa,
This is Danintx. :)
You have a PM.

Best,
Dan Batko

"Where are we going and why am I in this basket?"
 
Over the past 12 months I have been searching the web and been looking for books relating to the subject. Most of what I found didn't really tell me anything that I hadn't heard before. Some of the information was even contradictory. Hence my original question to the group.

The best information I came across was from the retired and now deceased propulsion engineer who worked for JPL Tim Conroy. But even he said he couldn't explain why fuel column shapes attributed to more consistent projectile stability.

Andy.
 
goodgrouper said:
I found it. It was not the BSP. It was Glenn Newick's book, chapter 4. Particularly pg 31 and 35. Pretty much contradicts what our esteemed Arizonian found in a PS article. Who's right? Who knows. History is often convoluted.
Click to expand...

The PS article was the history as told by Doctor Palmisano hisself. If Glenn's book contradicts it, he is essentially disagreeing with the Doctor.

Ray
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top