» Advanced

Go Back   Shooters Forum > Rifle and Rifle Cartridges > Wildcat Cartridges
Register FAQ Members List Donate Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-05-2011, 05:40 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 74
Rem 722 okay for .257 Ackley Improved??


Registered Users do not see the above ad.


New to wildcats and have a fundamental question regarding suitable starting points for a good action in this caliber.

Is the Remington 722 in the standard .257 Roberts (medium-length action) capable of handling the AI version of this cartridge, or do I need to be looking at longer actions?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-06-2011, 02:04 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Mooresville, IN
Posts: 8,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltman View Post
New to wildcats and have a fundamental question regarding suitable starting points for a good action in this caliber.

Is the Remington 722 in the standard .257 Roberts (medium-length action) capable of handling the AI version of this cartridge, or do I need to be looking at longer actions?
Going to an AI configuration of a cartridge does not necessarily entail a longer cartridge OAL. The brass for a 257Roberts AI is actually .030" shorter than the parent, which should allow bullets to be seated fairly long, without infringing on case capacity.

I guess the best way for you to answer the question for yourself is to determine just how long of an OAL your current magazine and action can handle. If it's "ample" for the standard Bob, it will be just fine for the AI version. From a strength perspective, it should be plenty and if you use a good 'smith, he'll help make sure it turns out to be accurate.
__________________
Ask me about QDMA.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-06-2011, 02:37 AM
Davers's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 2,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltman View Post
New to wildcats and have a fundamental question regarding suitable starting points for a good action in this caliber.

Is the Remington 722 in the standard .257 Roberts (medium-length action) capable of handling the AI version of this cartridge, or do I need to be looking at longer actions?
YEP! I had one once chambered for the .257 IMP. Make certain your Remington M-722 is in good condition though. Mine was chambered for the .244 Rem. Cartridge so I just had the barrel rebored and rechambered for the .257 A.I.

Last edited by Davers; 09-06-2011 at 02:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-06-2011, 03:20 PM
TOG's Avatar
TOG TOG is offline
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Great North Woods of NH
Posts: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltman View Post
Is the Remington 722 in the standard .257 Roberts (medium-length action) capable of handling the AI version of this cartridge, or do I need to be looking at longer actions?
My view is a little different. My .257 is on an Arisaka Type 38 action, and my favorite loads are too long to fit in my Remington 722's magazine. My view is that the 722 is ideal for a .250 Savage (or .22/250), but just a little short for the .257 Roberts, at least the way I like to load it. I suspect Remington would have sold more rifles had they chambered the .257 Roberts in their 721 instead.

I guess it depends on what bullets you want to load in your .257 AI, and how far out you want to load them. OAL should be the same for either case with similar bullets loaded the same distance from the lands. If you're happy with your .257 Roberts loads, you should be with the AI version also -- but I wouldn't be.

The Old Guy
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-06-2011, 05:05 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 74
Interesting. Thanks for your responses.

I just looked at Ken Waters on his .257 Roberts Update. He shows a cutaway view with the 120-grain Nosler bullet seated well below the case neck in the standard .257.. If I read the experts correctly, this is to be avoided where possible, thus the interest in longer actions??

For those of you who have loaded this round, what have been your most accurate bullets for the .257 AI?

Getting back to hardware, what are the sensible and reasonably priced options if a guy wants to go with a longer action on this wildcat?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-06-2011, 05:17 PM
MikeG's Avatar
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,051
Uh, no. People who claim that won't work, probably have not tried it

Cast bullets can be another matter entirely. But, I have loaded many many jacketed rounds where the bullet base was below the neck / shoulder junction, and no problems.

Unless someone can demonstrate a scientific reason, I would chalk it up to OCD....

Frankly, I would use what you have. It will make a dandy little rifle. Much handier than my tang-safety Ruger 77!
__________________
MikeG

Quote:
Originally Posted by faucettb
Welcome to the forum. Rules are simple, be nice and join in.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-07-2011, 03:49 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Mooresville, IN
Posts: 8,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Uh, no. People who claim that won't work, probably have not tried it

Cast bullets can be another matter entirely. But, I have loaded many many jacketed rounds where the bullet base was below the neck / shoulder junction, and no problems.

Unless someone can demonstrate a scientific reason, I would chalk it up to OCD....

Frankly, I would use what you have. It will make a dandy little rifle. Much handier than my tang-safety Ruger 77!
I will second Mike on this, and go so far as to say the MAJORITY of factory-loaded ammo is seated with the base of the bullet well below where the neck meets the shoulder. Heck, some of it is probably loaded to the base of the shoulder, itself! (Insert picture of 300WM with 200gr bullet, here.)

The ages-old argument against this is that it infringes on case capacity that could be used for more powder. In real life terms, especially with smaller diameter, bottle-necked cases, you're splitting hairs. If you have to seat so deep that you're close to the ogive of the bullet, that is another issue, altogether. The 257 Roberts IS a mid-length cartridge...an action designed for such is perfectly suitable for the AI version of it. A full-length action is fine as well, but there is no pressing need to use one, especially since there aren't a lot of really long, heavy-for-caliber bullets in .257", like there are in .264".

Don't make this TOO hard on yourself...if you've got a donor 722 action, USE IT!
__________________
Ask me about QDMA.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-08-2011, 09:38 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 942
Hi Boltman

My take on the venerable Rem 722 is a bit different. Remington adapted their Rem Rob'ts 257 into it. But adapted is the key word, here. The 6mm Rem is right on, and the 7x57 is too long. If you have a 1 in 10 twist bbl., I'd suggest going to a 25x284. This case is only 55mm long. It was designed from the git go to have bullets seated deeply. Remington's factory load for the Roberts was a longish round nosed H.P. bullet, at 120grs. IIRC. I recall using a 100gr. spitzer in my 25-284, on a full length Mark X action, and it was a handful. But you can do 100 to 120gr. bullets in the shorty 722 with aplomb, using the 284, or more recently the 6.5 Norma, necked down to .257". But if you want to be able to shoot factory ammo, then the Ackley version of the Rem Roberts 257 will be the answer. But be aware, that there are still true 257 Roberts reamers out there. An Ackley version of one of these will cause case head separations with the factory Rem Rob'ts ammo. I saw a couple of cases that came apart half way down their bodies. Since it was his wife's rifle, my suggestion was for him to go over to a bin of nickeled 7x57 cases, buy a hundred of them, and then neck them down to the original 257 Rob'ts shoulder lengths. So, if I was to put a 257 Rob'ts, into a 722, I'd make sure it was a Rem Roberts, and then I would leave it stock. What you would lose in velocity, you'd pick up in penetration. My 100 gr. bullets out of the 25x284 at 3500fps, were too light and too fast for Elk. But reading the Robert's field records, show that it was about the lightest big game cartridge readily available back in the fifties. The little 722 was just right for me when I was twelve years old, and fresh out of Hunter safety class, in 1959. Although mine was chambered in the 300 Sav..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-08-2011, 11:33 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Mooresville, IN
Posts: 8,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by carpooler View Post
My take on the venerable Rem 722 is a bit different. Remington adapted their Rem Rob'ts 257 into it. But adapted is the key word, here. The 6mm Rem is right on, and the 7x57 is too long. If you have a 1 in 10 twist bbl., I'd suggest going to a 25x284. This case is only 55mm long. It was designed from the git go to have bullets seated deeply. Remington's factory load for the Roberts was a longish round nosed H.P. bullet, at 120grs. IIRC. I recall using a 100gr. spitzer in my 25-284, on a full length Mark X action, and it was a handful. But you can do 100 to 120gr. bullets in the shorty 722 with aplomb, using the 284, or more recently the 6.5 Norma, necked down to .257". But if you want to be able to shoot factory ammo, then the Ackley version of the Rem Roberts 257 will be the answer. But be aware, that there are still true 257 Roberts reamers out there. An Ackley version of one of these will cause case head separations with the factory Rem Rob'ts ammo. I saw a couple of cases that came apart half way down their bodies. Since it was his wife's rifle, my suggestion was for him to go over to a bin of nickeled 7x57 cases, buy a hundred of them, and then neck them down to the original 257 Rob'ts shoulder lengths. So, if I was to put a 257 Rob'ts, into a 722, I'd make sure it was a Rem Roberts, and then I would leave it stock. What you would lose in velocity, you'd pick up in penetration. My 100 gr. bullets out of the 25x284 at 3500fps, were too light and too fast for Elk. But reading the Robert's field records, show that it was about the lightest big game cartridge readily available back in the fifties. The little 722 was just right for me when I was twelve years old, and fresh out of Hunter safety class, in 1959. Although mine was chambered in the 300 Sav..
I'm sure I must be missing what you're trying to say here, but I need to point out a few things...

The 6mm Remington is a 7x57 necked down, as is the 257 Roberts. All three cases are within .002" of each other, in length. If a Remington 722 is too short for one, it is too short for all of them. Unless you are referring to magazine length, or maybe the throat in the chamber?

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by saying the 284 was "designed from the git go to have bullets seated deeply". In what way is the 284 Win designed for bullets that are seated way into the case? It's true that the magazine length in the rifles it was chambered for mandated that the longer, heavier bullets be seated deeply, but that really had nothing to do with the case...did it? I can't begin to imagine how one would go about making a case better suited for how deep you seat bullets in it, one way or the other. It's just a brass neck, of a given length...how far you put the bullet in is determined by magazine length, throat length, and desired pressures.

The 284 is .065" shorter than the 7x57 family of cartridges, but less than a tenth of an inch isn't going to make any practical difference. With that being said, I'm sure it would be a fine parent case for just about any mid-length action. However, the death knell of the 284 was the myth of how those deeply seated bullets made it ineffective, so a lot of guys go with a full-length action for the 284 and it's off-spring.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-08-2011, 01:00 PM
MikeG's Avatar
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,051
Yeah, I don't understand the reasoning either. Sorry Carpooler ..... at a loss to figure out your post. I'm sure you are trying to help but something isn't coming across.
__________________
MikeG

Quote:
Originally Posted by faucettb
Welcome to the forum. Rules are simple, be nice and join in.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-08-2011, 01:45 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 942
Long necks vs. Stubbies

Gentlemen, the .284 was designed about 1962 because the Winchester Engineers couldn't get the necessary velocities out of a 308 case necked to 7mm. It was always fated to go into 308 length detachable magazines in the M-88 and M-100 Winchesters. So those same engineers put a sharp shoulder and a stout, albeit, stubby neck into their 284 brass. I feel the 1950's vintage 243 bullets never stuck out nearly as far as the long semi pointed 120 gr. 257 Rem Roberts factory ammo did. But back when the 175 RN was the norm for the 7mm Mauser factory stuff, they were too long for the short 722's. I never saw the need for the 244 Rem to be chambered in a 721, because those lighter bullets weren't all that long to begin with. I personally think Boltman would be happier with just doing the std. 257 Rem Roberts in his 722. If he wants to press the limit, then there's the almost ideal capacity 25x284, or now the 25x6.5 Norma. The old 284 Win. rims pulled off in my 25-284 RCBS file/trim forming die, but I've never tried any of the newer Norma stuff. FWIW, I never pulled off a rim when firing a round off in either my Mark X or my Win. mdl. 88. I've only had this happen in reloading and trimming back fired cases. So maybe the chambering reamer for my 25x284 was a bit on the generous size, as compared to my RCBS file trim die. Having said that, the 284's necks are tougher by design than my 270's. And the similarly 55mm long, 6.5 Rem belted Mag. is tougher yet. So I would rate the .284 Win. as a sub magnum case with a weak extraction rim.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-09-2011, 03:29 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltman View Post
Interesting. Thanks for your responses.

I just looked at Ken Waters on his .257 Roberts Update. He shows a cutaway view with the 120-grain Nosler bullet seated well below the case neck in the standard .257.. If I read the experts correctly, this is to be avoided where possible, thus the interest in longer actions??

For those of you who have loaded this round, what have been your most accurate bullets for the .257 AI?

Getting back to hardware, what are the sensible and reasonably priced options if a guy wants to go with a longer action on this wildcat?

I have a 722 in 222mag.

One problem you have with the 257 roberts on a short action is OAL and as TOG pointed out alot depends on bullets you want to shoot.

I've build one 6RemAI on a Rem short action case is same length as the 257 roberts I had to seat some bullets pretty deep which took up case capacity. Next one I had build used a long action live and learn.

I just think some cases do better on a long action not that they won't work on a short action. When Ruger build their 284 they use a standard action.

As to long action what I do is talk to your gunsmith he may have a line on something that work. Well good luck Almost forgot my 284 is on a standard action seating the bullet out to 3.100"
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-27-2011, 06:39 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bakersfield Ca
Posts: 254
257 Ackley

I have had built several 257AI,the first one build by Parker himself.I have never had brass separation problems,but I have always used long actions.I have built on long actions the 284 family,from 22-284 thru the 6.5-284.I feel when you use a short action it should be for a light weight project.The other things to be considered are the trend towards lead free bullets that are longer for their weight than lead bullets.I have a 257AI now with a 12 twist the will not shoot 100 gr Barnes,but will shoot 115 Noslers fine.I would suggest to you use a long action and save yourself problems in the long run,unless you want a 5 1/2# rifle.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-27-2011, 02:40 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 942
Maybe the twist is the determining factor here

After reading Jim Love's take, I can see his point. Maybe the slower the twist the better the fit. If I did a 1 in 13 inch twist, then the shorter bullets for the improved .257 Rob'ts wouldn't stick out too far. But going to solid copper, might be counter intuitive. But an improved rifle cartridge should, IMO, be able to accurately shoot at least one weight of bullet, loaded in present factory ammo. A one in thirteen or fourteen twist may indeed use a short enough bullet to fit in a 722, but what factory round would it also shoot? Remington flipped flopped on it's 244 Rem.. First it was too slow, then later, it was a little quicker than needed. If I put a 1 in 14 twist barrel in a 257 imp., then it would be truly exotic, but it would be more of a 250-3000, extra long.
So a 25-284 with a short throat, and a 1 in 10 twist, would cover the wildcat end, and a 257 imp. Roberts, would cover the improved end. But to get to the hot rod trajectories of the lighter bullets in the old 244 Remmie, you need some more room for the powder, in the quarter inch bore. And whatever you come up with, It's gotta feed smoothly through the 722. These same parameters doomed the original 6mmRem BR. It was left to Norma to figure out what to do with that case. But neither of them feed worth a hoot. So I'm guessing that using a 722 means that he wants a repeater?? But I would have thought that Remington would have learned their lesson, with their 244 Rem debacle. But I've reluctantly given up on ever buying a box of factory ammo with the 100 gr. Remington Core-Lokts, for my Rem 6mmBR rifle. They are just too hard to find. Whichever version of the 257 Roberts, he uses, it had better shoot accurately with the 117 gr. factory ammo. Then at least he has a loaner rifle, that will be safe for an in law or friend to hunt with. What we are building today, could well, come out of a grandchild's closet in fifty years. And all things being equal, the factory ammunition will have the much longer shelf life. Fifty years ago, who would have thought that wild hogs, in the South, and Canadian sub arctic timber wolves would be so menacing today?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Forming 25 Rem brass from 30 Rem BenT Handloading Procedures/Practices 5 02-20-2010 07:54 AM
Remington's $20 721 and 722 repair miata55 Rifles and Rifle Cartridges 6 02-19-2010 07:32 AM
Any recent Recalls/warnings with REM 30-06 150 grain? wgaboy Rifles and Rifle Cartridges 1 01-08-2008 10:14 AM
.223 Ackley Improved gunsmith PatrickRaymond Gunsmithing 5 12-12-2005 09:36 AM
35 Rem. Ackley Improved DryBranch Leverguns and Their Cartridges (General) 4 12-14-2002 11:14 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:20 PM.

< Contact Us - Shooters Forum - Archive >

 
 

All Content & Design Copyright © 1999-2002 Beartooth Bullets, All Rights Reserved
View Privacy Policy | Contact Webmaster | Legal Information
Website Design & Development By Exbabylon Internet Solutions
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2