Shooters Forum banner

A.I. imroved or A.I changed

6K views 30 replies 14 participants last post by  sambubba 
#1 ·
I was reading an old thread on Ackley improved cartridges and it made me wonder why people always assume that others do things for the same reason they do. The thread talked about some of the best and and worst improved cartridges and listed the 22-250 as the 4th worst. Now this was the funny part, the reason given for it being such a poor cartridge to improve was that if you use a 55 grain bullet you only gain about 4% in velocity so therefor it would not be worth while. Now that may be true as far as it goes but it is a very narrow view of a 22-250 A.I. First if you are only going to shoot 55 gr bullets then yes maybe why bother. If you put that Ackley chamber in a fast twist barrel and start shooting 75 and 80 grain bullets well that is a totally different gun with gains of over 8% in velocity and the ability to carry a lot of punch well out past the point where a standard 22-250 could even think about. The other point is that having turned my 22-250 into a 22-250 A.I. I found it would have been worth it just for the added brass life.
I also have a 6.5x55 improved and I did not get the imroved version so I could turn it into a hot rod. I did it to see if I could get just a little more speed out of there cartridge by burning more but slower burning powder and keep the pressures down in the hope of longer barrel life. Time will tel if this works or not.
My main point is that I see a lot of posted that praise or trash something because someone is just looking at it from there own very narrow point of view.
I very much like my improved cartridges and enjoy some of the features they bring to the table but I also understand that it could some of the things I like about them that make others hate them .
I would enjoy hearing from others as to why they like or dislike improved or change cartridges. This is not about is the cartridges good or bad but does it work for you.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I have tried the so called improved chambers since the early 60's and I see no real so called improvement. Nor have I seen improved case life. However they are fun for others to make up guns and go shooting.

Nor do I see anything special or better about a fast twist .224" anything. Again just a fun stunt.

You left a letter out of the word 'improved' in the title.
 
#3 ·
Thanks for the "improvement" on the title Savage 99.
There is no right or wrong answer to this one just what is working for you.
The fast twist in a 224 works for me because where I hunt I can use it on deer and using an 80 grain vld in the 22-250 lets me take 1000 FLBs out past 450 yards and rivals the hitting power of some factory 270 loads at that range. That would be unthinkable with a 1:14 twist using 55 grain bullets even if you could start them out at 4000 fps.
But then again if a person does not want to shoot out that far with a 224 bullet you are right the fast twist as little or no advantage until after 300 yards. This is my point for some you are very right there is nothing special and for others it is very special.
 
#4 ·
In firearms, just as with many other things, improvements are often measured by small degrees. Maybe a cartridge that has been AI'd only results in a 5% increase in velocity or 10% increase in case life, but those are measurable improvements. If my 401k account goes up between 5 and 10 percent, I am quite happy. Some people are happy with the status quo, while others want to go one step further, even if it isn't a giant step.

I have 3 cartridges that have a sharp shoulder, minimal taper and short case neck. They pretty much do what other, "standard" cartridges do, with a small improvement in one way or another. They serve a purpose. You might say they are a hammer with a slightly longer handle or a different head...they get the job done.
 
#5 ·
The so called improvement may be indeed a take back. Consider the theory that a minimal body taper cartridge will suffer expansion web thinning sooner than a cartridge with more taper.

All chambers must have some clearance on headspace to start. The chamber with more taper is apt to let a case move to the breechblock or bolt face and not grip the chamber walls. Thus more case life and less stretching! :D
 
#6 ·
And, it also means more bolt thrust, Savage 99. Actually, there's more case stretch with the unimproved cases than with improved. Don't buy into the theory of more wall thinning with an improved case over the unimproved.

One of the touted benefits of improved cases is the longer case life and less trimming. I have several such chamberings and find this is generally true. In fact, one chambering (6.5x257 Robt's A I) had a 20 round box of reloads that reached 22 reloadings before being ditched due to several with small neck splits.
 
#8 · (Edited)
And, it also means more bolt thrust, Savage 99. Actually, there's more case stretch with the unimproved cases than with improved.

If as you say there is less bolt thrust with a less tapered case then whats holding the case back? Its the walls of the case which will stretch more with a so called improved design.

Don't buy into the theory of more wall thinning with an improved case over the unimproved.

Then test it and you will see. They thin more, other things being equal, as the less tapered case walls grip the chamber. Remember that some so called improved chambers have almost zero headspace tolerance making them less reliable in the field.

One of the touted benefits of improved cases is the longer case life and less trimming. I have several such chamberings and find this is generally true. In fact, one chambering (6.5x257 Robt's A I) had a 20 round box of reloads that reached 22 reloadings before being ditched due to several with small neck splits.
I have several chamberings as well and its not true. I have been doing this for 50 years. Just because a case lasted long from neck splits has nothing at all to do with it being so called improved.
 
#9 ·
To each his own, Savage -

I've been reloading an equal 50 years and what's stated above is my own personal findings, whether you believe them or not, that's up to you. You need to reread P.O. Ackley Vol's I & II.
 
#10 ·
All in good humor and fun I offer the following by the gun writer John Barsness.

"I ran a NULA .257 Ackley with a #2 stainless barrel for a while and it was VERY accurate. But I never could see any advantage in the field over the standard .257, so eventually it went down the road. The guy I sold it to also got weary of fire-forming and sold it after one hunting season. But whatever...."
 
#11 ·
I don't mean to pick on you, S99, but gun writers buy and sell guns the way some people go through ball-point pens; they have a constantly rotating stock of them, with maybe a handful that earn a permanent spot in their gun safe. You quote Mr. Barsness as saying, "But I never could see any advantage in the field...". Does that mean he did see an advantage on the chronograph, or at the reloading bench, or on paper targets? If a person were to shoot an elk at 150 yards with a 300RUM, he might not see any "in the field" difference than when he shot an elk at 150 yards with a 308 Winchester. Does this mean that the performance advantages of the 300RUM are of no consequence, and if he happens to then sell the gun, does that confirm it is not a worthwhile cartridge?

Also, how can a guy get "weary of fire-forming" after just one hunting season? How many cases did he fire-form and shoot in such a short time that the process could become so laborious? In the case of the 257 Roberts AI, most folks just shoot factory ammo to get the end product. How time-consuming or wearying can that be? I've got a 30 Herrett that I've shot for more than 15 years and only had to form cases for it twice. Maybe that guy who sold his gun after one year was shooting a heckuvalot more than I do? Or, maybe Mr. Barsness was using an allegory, to persuade readers to his point of view on AI cartridges?

Whether or not the "improvement" is enough to impress you, or make it worthwhile in your eyes, they are improvements, nonetheless. That is the consensus of experienced gunsmiths, reloaders and hunters...and that's good enough for me.
 
#12 ·
My 1917 Remington Enfield 30-06AI is pushing 65-70 years old (Dad made it in the late 40's early 50's) and I'm still using brass that's at least 50 years old.

Nuff said about brass life.

I plan on making my .243VLS AND my .223SPS into AI's. Imagine a .243 at 240 Weatherby velocities with 10-15% less powder and a .223 at 22-250 velocities with almost 20% less powder.

RJ
 
#13 ·
AI improved or changed. Good title actually. Reminds me of the 30-06AI thread I started. Perhaps the 30-06 would be improved for real with you heavy bullets.

Savage99, it seems like you would be happiest with an old Savage 99 in a 300 savage chambering. Why all of the negativity towards the AIs? If you do not like them, then simply do not own one, read about them, or have anything to do with them. Why stress yourself out over something that doesn't affect your wallet or shooting shoulder? Really, who cares? I like the 22-250, it it better than the 220 swift? Don't know, don't care. I'd like to have both in all honesty. Not one OR the other. I want a 30-06 AND a 30-06AI.

That aside. When the day comes that my Savage 12FV 22-250 needs a new barrel. It will I'm guessing in 4 years at the shooting rate that I currently use assuming a 5000-6000 round barrel life. It will be a 22-250AI barrel with a fast twist. I use it mostly for punching holes, and it would be natural to me that a fast twist with heavy bullets would be best for the 600-1000 yard windy shooting range (hayfield) that I have access to.
 
#14 ·
No stress here. I am smiling, not laughing, at the K's and AI's! :)

When I had the .375 AI made up I had it's chamber and dies made up so that I could load it to headspace on its shoulder and not its belt. If there is a cartridge design that I really don't like its those belted rounds that have adequate shoulders that don't headspace on the shoulders.

I looked at the Kimber site and the 84L is listed but not in any 7mm.

I have magnums already. Just looking for an excuse for another rifle. :cool:
 
#15 · (Edited)
Ai

Well the two volumes of Ackleys work that I have were first published around 1964 so almost fifty years ago some of his work is a little dated with the advent of some of todays slower burning powders and some of the cartridges that he once considered not worth perserveering with have really come of age. It would be nice if someone had the time and equipment to repeat Ackley's trials with modern powders and test equipment but when you consider the man spent years at it. There is probably no one that has the time or equipment to commit to such a daunting task let alone get anything out of it to cover the enormous expense.
 
#18 · (Edited)
Well the two volumes of Ackleys work that I have were first published around 1964 so almost fifty years ago some of his work is a little dated with the advent of some of todays slower burning powders and some of the cartridges that he once considered not worth perserveering with have really come of age.


Two of my favorite works to read....

My .25-35 ICL was basically an AI with a long neck for cast bullets (more versatility). 117gr Hornadys went 175fps faster in the improved chamber with no pressure signs out of the 1894's "springy" action. I think that was the main consideration of P.O. Ackley - more velocity with less stress to the firearm. P.O. always considered the action as an integral part of the equation. Case longevity had very little bearing on his thinking - at least that's the impression I got from reading his thoughts. FWIW....
 
#16 ·
Ironically, one of the most common chamberings in the Model 99 Savage, the 300 Savage, is, for all intents and purposes, an "Improved" design! Especially when you consider the contemporary cartridges it competed against during its heyday, the 300 Savage has a very short neck, a sharp 30 degree shoulder and minimal body taper in the case. Mr. Ackley would have certainly approved. :)
 
#19 ·
While I agree that there are many reasons both to and not to use the improved versions of a specific caliber case, I like others, have a hard time with why there is so much hub bub about when folks do choose this route.

To me it is no different than when someone decided they want a .300 WSM over a standard .300 WM, or picks a 7-08 over a 308. IT all boils down to what the individual wants plain and simple. This said I DO see a lot of folks who think that just because they put a different shoulder on the parent case, they are automatically going to get 300fps more velocity out of it.

I have three so called AI chambered barrels, two in a Contender barrels and one rifle, and another while not specifically Ackley, the other is an improvement over the parent in the 7x30 Waters also in Contender.

Starting with the smallest, the .223 AI, I picked it simply to utilize some of the slower powders to, yes, boost the velocity a bit in the 14" barrel. To be totally honest however, I have had the thing going on 10 years, and not even worked a load up for it to date. I began shooting both Winchester and Black Hills ammo from it specifically for the cases. The thing shoot either so well out to 300yds, that I simply banked up on the factory stuff and have not messed with it. The same thing can also be said for my 30-30 AI barrel to a point, since I did work up two different loads for it, however I don't waste the time or effort on them as the factory will stay under 1" at 100yds all day long.

The other AI barrel, is a 28" Broughton 5C 1-9 twist. It was put together specifically for shooting heavier bullets to the longest ranges I wanted. I consulted a noted BR shooter who also builds rifles and together we set it up for this purpose with a minimum chamber. In fire forming the standard load it started off running 200fps faster than my previous standard chambered rifle. This is mostly due to the added 4" of barrel. So when working up the loads, I used this as a stop gap area to look for my max loads. I found what I was looking for with a 120gr load running 3350fps, and showing no signs on the case head measurements or flattened edges of the primers. I accomplished it by using powder which is WAY to slow for the standard case to ever attain such an improvement. This is somewhat less than the actual top end I got, but again the added lenght of the barrel has a lot to add as well.

Are the AI versions for everyone, no, and I realize this. At the same time efficient or not, barrel burner or not, I don't, like others, understand why when Ackley Improved come up in a title there is usually a disagreement lying somewhere within. To me it/s like a Ford - vs - Chevy deal while I drive the best anyway in a Dodge. :D
 
#20 ·
41 Mag,

My 6.5JDJ is an improved case design for which I must neck up 225 Winchester brass before charging and seating the bullets. Accuracy of the fire-forming loads is nothing to sneeze at and they are plenty powerful for both the varmint and deer hunting I use it for, but the added velocity of the fire-formed cases is why I bought the thing. I can't imagine why you haven't reloaded the fire-formed cases for your 223AI and 30-30AI, to see what kind of performance they give, over the factory loads. I'm not questioning your choice, but if you got a V8, you have to put your foot on the floor, once in a while! :D

Maybe I'm missing something, but you don't seem to mention which cartridge your Broughton 5C barrel is chambered in? Based on the 120gr load, I'm guessing something in a 25, 26, or 27 caliber, but you don't really say. Sounds like a good-shooting gun, though.
 
#21 ·
broom -

I too, had a 6.5/225 Win. in a Contender barrel and took a couple of deer with it, having no problem with either. Got another Contender barrel in 6.5 Bullberry (necked down and shortened 30-30 case and blown out), so sold the 6.5/225 to an interested party. The Bullberry has gone by the wayside also, as my interest in chamberings wanes as the most practicable and accurate loads are reached. Sorta like the gun rag writers you mention - have a habit of swapping firearms like they change shirts!

Anyway, like Tom W. says - having a firearm in AI chambering that no one else has is kinda cool at the range! :p
 
#22 ·
broom_jm,

Well to be honest about the .223 and 30-30 AI, they were both purchased for specific uses.

The .223 AI was for doing a little yote eradication and what not even a bit of squirrel hunting. As it has turned out, I have only taken a couple of very weird acting skunks with it and it performed very admirably taking them out with little to no spray. The Winchester ammo I have for it they sadly no longer produce in the 50rd Varmint packs I got them in. Luckily I have plenty to carry me over for quite a while. The little banger will shoot a 5 shot group of around 1/4" at 100yds if I can hold her still, probably better if I clamped it in a vice. So, as you can see for factory ammo running right over 3100fps from the 14" barrel I have a hard time trying to improve on it. Now if the groups were 1.5" then yes you can bet I would have already burned up plenty of powder in the search for just such a load as I already have. This is a group I shot at 300yds just to see how she would do that far out.

The little 45gr bullet was having a hard time in the stiff cross wind we had that day. I had to shoot then go look at the target to see the tiny holes then go back and adjust and shoot again and repeat. Anyway once I got it close I shot three for the group you see between the calipers, then tried to be a smart a$$ and shoot the bull by holding off on the left side of the target. Should have just put the other two in with the three and called it good.

The 30-30 AI, was purchased specifically for up close hog hunting in the dense underbrush we hunt in sometimes. I wanted something that had some horsepower to it and would also reach out with a bit of authority. The 150gr factory Win and Rem loads do this very well and average between them around a 1" group at 100yds. This not paying attention to which I shove off in the barrel. So I did play around with it a bit and have a load which shoot the 150gr Nosler BT into around 1/2" groups very consistently, but with the shortage of primers and powder over the past two years I simply resorted back to the factory stuff for around $9 a box of 20 and called it good. Yes it will easily equal the standard barrel length in velocity, but for what it's worth in the cost of the components, I am at about a draw on price.

You also right about the one I posted with no caliber, it is a 25-06 AI. I have had a standard model for quite some time and I passed it on to my daughter who usually fought me for it when we hunted together anyway. I built the AI version simply to shoot the heavier bullets, and get a tad more velocity. The main reason I didn't post the caliber was that some folks only read what they want to see, and I didn't want someone trying to hit higher velocities with the standard length barrels, as it just ain't gonna happen with out hitting some **** high pressures. With the improved case and a load of around 63grs of Ramshot Magnum, I am in a good area for this particular rifle. Like I said I measured case heads and also checked primers as I worked up to a max load, and what I settled on isn't a whole lot more than the standard version only in a longer barrel. The accuracy however is all I could have ever asked for. The last time I had it out, it was printing easily under 3/4" at 200yds for 5 shots and at 350 which is as far as I can shoot from my shed, it held an honest 1.25" for 5 shots using the older Nosler 120gr Solid Base bullets. So for all practical purposes I now have a 120gr varmint rig.

The biggest surprise came when shooting some 120gr Rem CL's. THey shot very close to the Noslers and I took out a nice feral hog with one at about 110 yards. With the initial velocity running just over 3300 I figured that would have pretty much devastated anything edible on the front end of the boar. To my surprise, while there was some trim, the bullet held together exceptionally well, and I recovered it just under the offside shoulder blade.

Here is a link which has the pic's of the rifle and this and another hog I got with it in one weekend.
http://s49.photobucket.com/albums/f285/41nag/Hunting 2010/
 
#23 ·
All this just by adding a nifty 40˚ shoulder and straight'nin 'er out a bit? Wow!

You're right; us AI users are a curious but adventurous lot. Back in the 50s and 60s there probably was a reasonable and valid need for a line of improved cartridges in the world of available military cartridges out there. Now, truly, not so much. As far as new cartridges go, we're now into splitting hairs and kinda artificially concluding that the WSMs or BR/PPC cases are inherently more accurate than say, their longer, narrower, slope-shouldered or belted predecessors.

Has anyone also noticed, for example, that in the various Gun Mag write-ups of, say, the 300or 325 WSMs, the rifles they test them with still only manage rather unspectacular 1.5 to 1.8 or even 2" groups? I dunno; I get those sorts of groups, and better, all day long with a dead-stock 300 win Mag, or 280 or 30-06. My old, long, belted style .340 Weatherby shoots into less than 3/4 inch. Would a short-fat case outdo this because of some inherent technical advantage? and why do those new cartridges generally look like an Ackley shape?

Having said that, I'm guilty of having several Ackleys. As a gunsmith and afficionado, I just like them, and I like the exclusivity and I like reloading. So:

I have a 250-3000 Ackley Imp in an UltraLight Arms Mdl 20. Very light rifle, 100 gr bullet @ about 3100 fps.

Next, a 6.5-06 AI; a real hot-rod that PO Ackley really didn't test right because he said it worked worse than the standard 6.5-06. He also noted that the 25-06 AI and the 7-06 AI both worked far better than their parent cases. so why wouldn't a 6.5-06 I also show improvement? It does, let me tell you.

We AI'rs do tend to hot-rod the AIs, yep; but within safe pressure indications I see, with a 140gr bullet, and a very slippery 26" bbl, 3280 fps! now that's right there in 7WSM territory, and far better than the 264 Win Mag, factory specs. I had tested loads up to about 3400, but the primers just fell out when I opened the REM 700 action. and a little crul of smoke drifted up from that now-vacated and rather sooty primer hole. Hmmm... Back off, Ranger!

Next, I have a 7X57 AI. Also a nice improvement over the standard low-pressure 7X57 factory loads, but with the 7-08 (or 280 AI...) now readily available, why bother?

Finally, I have two 338-06 AI rifles, which is a far better cartridge than the now standard 338-06s in terms of case stretch, and in terms of performance. A 225 gr spire point @ about 2780 - (Norma/Weatherby/A-Square) 2825 fps (again with a 26" in bbl) is hot stuff on bears, elk, caribou, etc, without all the sturm und drang of the 338 Win Mag or my .340. A very compact and efficient cart, that one.

So... we get to enjoy some exclusivity and curiosity at the range, we get to tinker with a cartridge's potential performance envelope, and we get to hand-make those sexy-looking sharp-shouldered cartridges that look totally unlike, say, a 358 Winchester (a great cartridges but rather pedestrian looking, no?).

What could possibly be more fun? ;)
 
#24 ·
41 Mag, now that you explained how well your AI guns work for you, even without reloading your fire-formed cases, I can better understand why you haven't gone to great lengths to improve on them. Even if the bullets went a wee bit faster, I'm not sure you could do "better" than you're already seeing. Great work on that big ol' hog, too! The one surprise is your references to cost: In my experience, those who play around with AI's and wildcats usually go into it knowing they will spend more money than they would with a standard offering, but then again, these rounds are inherently more interesting, IMHO, so they're worth it.

TDR, it sounds like you and I need to sit down and have a long talk over a couple of cold beers, cuz yer my kinda gun nut! :D Of all the rounds ever Improved, the 250 Savage has shown perhaps the greatest benefit and is THE round that comes to mind when I contemplate P.O.'s body of work. If this round had been designed 35 years ago, it would have been a perennial contender for the Wimbledon Cup. Shorter, wider powder columns have been shown to ignite and burn more consistently, making cases designed as such very popular for benchrest competition. That is not to say the old coke-bottle rounds, that most "seasoned" reloaders find so comforting, cannot be made to shoot tight groups, but they are not as inherently accurate...or, so we're told! ;)

I blame it all on Palmisano and Pindell, bursting onto the scene with an AI'd 220 Russian case and winning all them dang competitions! Since then we've seen many cartridges that basically emulate what they stumbled upon back in 1975; short, fat cases, with minimum taper and a 30 degree shoulder. I'm sure Mr. Ackley is well pleased with the relatively recent turn of events, even if there are still legions of nay-sayers out there who just can't see this forest for the trees.
 
#25 ·
41 Mag, now that you explained how well your AI guns work for you, even without reloading your fire-formed cases, I can better understand why you haven't gone to great lengths to improve on them. Even if the bullets went a wee bit faster, I'm not sure you could do "better" than you're already seeing. Great work on that big ol' hog, too!
Absolutely, when I got them things weren't so hard to find and prices were decent enough I could have worked up to any load I wanted to. However, once I got to shooting them, I quickly realized the diminished returns I was going to probably get trying to gain added velocity and keep the inherent accuracy. I have read quite a bit on the TC barrels and figured to have to work up a load just to gain that accuracy. I did play with a few powders and bullets to begin with on the .223, but simply got bored after not being able to beat the accuracy of the cheap factory stuff.


The one surprise is your references to cost: In my experience, those who play around with AI's and wildcats usually go into it knowing they will spend more money than they would with a standard offering, but then again, these rounds are inherently more interesting, IMHO, so they're worth it.
Your right on the cost as I mentioned above. I have plenty of components to work up the loads for any of them, it's just hard to argue a reason to do so. With the 25, it has shot everything except some 142gr RBBT ULD's from Wildcat bullets into nice tiny 1/2" or so clovers. The 142's are simply a bit much for it being they are right at 1.4375" long, even with the 1-9 twist I just can't get them fast enough to stabilize. I have some 125's and 130's however, that really do rock. In fact the small hog at the top of that link was taken with one of the 125's from around 275yds.

The thing about handloading is you can push the limits, plod along with a plinker load, or pick anywhere in the middle and have something great to shoot. To me I like a little of it all. It's like having a Corvette or a Hemi Cuda, and living across from the Precinct house, every time you come out with it you get attention, and in the back of your mind, you know you have the horsepower to play with if you want too.
 
#26 ·
Huh? Is that an Ackley Improved Hemi?

Hemi Cuda? Man, how we date ourselves so easily here! I wonder what them new-age kids, with their tricky-tuned-up Civics would say if'n you "breathed" on by them with that 426 running at 'bout 6000 rpm, breathing through a pair of 800 cfm Holleys on a Tunnel Ram...

(What's he talking about, mom? His eyes seem to be sorta glassy looking... and what does this have to do with handloading? Huh, mom? )
 
#27 ·
Hemi Cuda? Man, how we date ourselves so easily here! I wonder what them new-age kids, with their tricky-tuned-up Civics would say if'n you "breathed" on by them with that 426 running at 'bout 6000 rpm, breathing through a pair of 800 cfm Holleys on a Tunnel Ram...

(What's he talking about, mom? His eyes seem to be sorta glassy looking... and what does this have to do with handloading? Huh, mom? )
Yea I hear ya.....

I did a brake job on the wifes truck a couple of weeks ago. When I came out of the parts house with the rotors, I heard a VERY distinctive whomp whomp whomp of a nicely tuned big block. When I looked over it was a Hemi Charger that was OH SO cherry. Had the Hurst on the floor and purred so very eloquently as he romped down on her leaving the lot.

I sure was taken back a bit by seeing it, and have to say I was a bit jealous. The kids of today will never know what working on something like that all week so you can roll on Friday night is all about. They all want something that sounds like a bumblebee in a coffee can, and only sits 2" off the ground. If they can't bolt it on, and run it they are lost.

As for the loading references well there are small, medium, and large case calibers, just like CI's, you just got to know how to tune them, to get the results you want from them.

Yea, hand a kid born since '80 a set of feeler guages and tell them to set a gap on a distributer, LOL
 
#30 ·
If Mr. Ackley had set out to convince the gun world to completely rethink cartridge design, then I would say he's been 100% successful. It would definitely be pointless to repeat his experiments today because so many (all?) of the new cases being introduced already adhere to most of his design principles. As mentioned earlier, the PPC line of cartridges, which are nearly perfect AI examples, set the shooting world on its ear and resulted in the short-fat craze. Compare turn of the century (19th) cartridges with those introduced in the last 30 years and you'll notice the long, sloping shoulders and heavily tapered case bodies are gone. That is largely due to the influence of Ackley's work.

You're correct in stating older cartridges that are AI'd don't show radical improvement (that was never the intent?) but if you consider what PO Ackley's body of work has meant to the shooting world, it's impossible to say his effort was a "waste of time".
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top