Moderator said:Sure makes me wonder what all the fuss is about.
A 243 with a 30-degree shoulder,35??) it looks like.
joesr said:. . . Longer neck for added accuracy and longer body for added case capacity.
rcw3 said:Joe
It looks like I stirred up a hornets nest by posting the photo showing the 6CM. I still think the cartridge is neat and I can't wait to try it out. To me it does not matter whether Ackley or someone else may have dabbled with a similar case design, where did they ever go with it? Measuring things up, the 6CM clearly has a longer neck and a longer body than the 243Win and I don't know why people have such a hard time accepting the fact that that might be possible.
Robert Whitley
Cheechako said:joesr said:. . . Longer neck for added accuracy and longer body for added case capacity.
Joe & Robert
Seems like this just won't go away quietly.
OK, so it's a 31 Degree 243 Ackley. Ackley hisself did the 30 degree and Warren Page did the 35 degree, both with the same results.
An Ackley chamber is a crush fit with factory ammo and .004" short chamber headspace. Much more than that and closing the bolt becomes problematic so I can't really see where neck length can be increased very much beyond that. ,Remember the 220 Wilson/Woytkins Arrow that used the same principal but required that the factory case be reformed before it could be chambered?)
But Joe, all that aside, I seriously question your statement above that claims "longer neck for added accuracy". How did you arrive at that conclusion? Recent experiments by a couple of score shooters seem to contradict that,30 Wolf Pup).
Ain't wildcatting fun?
Ray![]()
ballistic64 said:I dont have much for experience in benchrest and Im not trying to cause hate and dissension,but if added capacity and a longer neck make a better br case as compared to the 243,why isnt the 6mmAI a winner?
joesr said:This is no Ackley. Ackley improved his cartridges by straighting the wall of the case and then blowing the shoulder out to what ever degree he chose.
jb1000br said:OK, something is not adding up here...here is the original pic I got from Joe showing:
243 - 6CM - 6xc
![]()
Then Robert's pic showing:
243 - 6CM - 6superX
![]()
I know the initial 6CM design employed a pushed back shoulder,0.100" IIRC) as that was my reservation that Joe and I discussed RE: shoulder brass now being in the neck...
Actually, here is the quote from an email from Joe:
"Actually the shoulder is 31 degress and the neck is .01 longer than a 243"
What gives??