Can rimmed cases give the most accurate headspacing?

[savagedasher]

If you machine the rims you could make them the same . Yes
But when you replaced the brass you would have to do it again.
If it was a advantage all the competition shooters would of done it years ago . Larry

 

[Ggmac]

A little off track , not much , anyone have any new 225 win brass ?
I got the itch after reading this to shoot one of my wild cats but seem to have lost the brass .
Thanks , Gary

 

[butchlambert]

A little off track , not much , anyone have any new 225 win brass ?
I got the itch after reading this to shoot one of my wild cats but seem to have lost the brass .
Thanks , Gary

Gary, I have a lot of loaded ammo and may still have some new and once fired brass.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

If it were that great, people would be using it and they ain't.

I don't necessarily agree with this, Butch. Yes, I'm hard headed and I like to tinker...but there is soooooooo much of a follow the leader mentality in this sport, that I honestly don't think we are any longer, the "cutting edge of innovation." The old argument of "that's what all the top shooters use" only goes so far to me. A very good example is a whole lot of PPC shooters bitch and moan..and try everything to get all the n133 that can get into the case, except one thing...moving the shoulder forward a few thou. Lapua 6.5 Grendel brass is top quality, uses small primers, small flash holes, doesn't require forming from another cartridge(220 Russian) and the shoulder is simply a mere .070" forward of a ppc. Does anyone actually believe that that little difference is going to make that cartridge a "loser"? Not me! Particularly when it addresses the issue of people literally compressing powder to the point of having a separate die just to crush the powder into the case, so they can fit more into a ppc. Crushing , breaking and compressing powders has been proven to change burn characteristics. Maybe that's good, but I tend to lean toward using a better method, liking using a different powder, if that's what's actually happening to make the venerable 6ppc scream. I don't think that's what's going on, BTW..but I do think it could cause more problems than it can improve upon in other areas. My point is obviously that I believe that many, many shooters shoot what they do because it's what everyone else does...kinda like the old IROC race cars where everything was suppose to be identical. I don't see that as a good way to advance accuracy. JMHO.--Mike

 

[Tommie]

I don't necessarily agree with this, Butch. Yes, I'm hard headed and I like to tinker...but there is soooooooo much of a follow the leader mentality in this sport, that I honestly don't think we are any longer, the "cutting edge of innovation." The old argument of "that's what all the top shooters use" only goes so far to me. A very good example is a whole lot of PPC shooters bitch and moan..and try everything to get all the n133 that can get into the case, except one thing...moving the shoulder forward a few thou. Lapua 6.5 Grendel brass is top quality, uses small primers, small flash holes, doesn't require forming from another cartridge(220 Russian) and the shoulder is simply a mere .070" forward of a ppc. Does anyone actually believe that that little difference is going to make that cartridge a "loser"? Not me! Particularly when it addresses the issue of people literally compressing powder to the point of having a separate die just to crush the powder into the case, so they can fit more into a ppc. Crushing , breaking and compressing powders has been proven to change burn characteristics. Maybe that's good, but I tend to lean toward using a better method, liking using a different powder, if that's what's actually happening to make the venerable 6ppc scream. I don't think that's what's going on, BTW..but I do think it could cause more problems than it can improve upon in other areas. My point is obviously that I believe that many, many shooters shoot what they do because it's what everyone else does...kinda like the old IROC race cars where everything was suppose to be identical. I don't see that as a good way to advance accuracy. JMHO.--Mike

Amen, Mike!

 

[butchlambert]

I don't necessarily agree with this, Butch. Yes, I'm hard headed and I like to tinker...but there is soooooooo much of a follow the leader mentality in this sport, that I honestly don't think we are any longer, the "cutting edge of innovation." The old argument of "that's what all the top shooters use" only goes so far to me. A very good example is a whole lot of PPC shooters bitch and moan..and try everything to get all the n133 that can get into the case, except one thing...moving the shoulder forward a few thou. Lapua 6.5 Grendel brass is top quality, uses small primers, small flash holes, doesn't require forming from another cartridge(220 Russian) and the shoulder is simply a mere .070" forward of a ppc. Does anyone actually believe that that little difference is going to make that cartridge a "loser"? Not me! Particularly when it addresses the issue of people literally compressing powder to the point of having a separate die just to crush the powder into the case, so they can fit more into a ppc. Crushing , breaking and compressing powders has been proven to change burn characteristics. Maybe that's good, but I tend to lean toward using a better method, liking using a different powder, if that's what's actually happening to make the venerable 6ppc scream. I don't think that's what's going on, BTW..but I do think it could cause more problems than it can improve upon in other areas. My point is obviously that I believe that many, many shooters shoot what they do because it's what everyone else does...kinda like the old IROC race cars where everything was suppose to be identical. I don't see that as a good way to advance accuracy. JMHO.--Mike

So you read what into my post? Read it again!

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

So you read what into my post? Read it again!

Sorry Butch! I thought you were saying, like so many do, that if something else worked better, there'd be more people doing it. That's the point I was countering. Sorry if I took your post wrong.

 

[butchlambert]

The 219 Donaldson Wasp was a great cartridge in it's day. Seeley Masker built one for me. He also built my first other 2 BR rifles. It was accurate, but with the advent of the 6PPC it drifted off into the sunset. That was my statement. It has been many years, but a replacement for the PPC will come. Some folks like to experiment and others do as much as they can with what is working now. Neither is wrong.
All of that said, I would recommend that a new shooter use what has been winning. When they have got all they can out of their combo, go for something better if it is out there.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

The 219 Donaldson Wasp was a great cartridge in it's day. Seeley Masker built one for me. He also built my first other 2 BR rifles. It was accurate, but with the advent of the 6PPC it drifted off into the sunset. That was my statement. It has been many years, but a replacement for the PPC will come. Some folks like to experiment and others do as much as they can with what is working now. Neither is wrong.
All of that said, I would recommend that a new shooter use what has been winning. When they have got all they can out of their combo, go for something better if it is out there.

I know...the naysayers contend that all the stars aligned, but they do for every record. The small group record at 100 yards was held for 40 years by a 222. A short while after being introduced, a Grendel case, necked up to 30 cal, broke that record. A PPC has never held that particular record, in many thousands of attempts and many years.. to break it. But I do agree with your post.

 

[butchlambert]

A little off track , not much , anyone have any new 225 win brass ?
I got the itch after reading this to shoot one of my wild cats but seem to have lost the brass .
Thanks , Gary

Gary, I have about 100 loaded rounds, 100 once fired brass and 1 box of new in the old sealed Winchester-Olin plain box.

 

[Tommie]

Wonder how many times this was said in the 1970's:
"Why use that Russian case with the oddball boltface? You have to firefrom too? The .222 is so much easier and, besides, it's what everyone is using."

But to bring the original question back...isn't headspacing off a rim potentially a more accurate method of headspacing?

 

[savagedasher]

Wonder how many times this was said in the 1970's:
"Why use that Russian case with the oddball boltface? You have to firefrom too? The .222 is so much easier and, besides, it's what everyone is using."

But to bring the original question back...isn't headspacing off a rim potentially a more accurate method of headspacing?

No But also could be. The head space is easy but making all the cases the same would be time consuming . Larry

 

[DaveTooley]

Someone explain to me how you headspace off the rim in a bolt gun when the goal is to have minimum distance between the case shoulder and the chamber . Can an extractor work with that level of precision?

 

[Tommie]

Dave,
I don't know if minimum shoulder/chamber clearance is the goal. Isn't consistent bullet alignment and distance to lands the goal? As far as suitable bolt actions goes, wouldn't something with a non-rotating extractor work?

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Wonder how many times this was said in the 1970's:
"Why use that Russian case with the oddball boltface? You have to firefrom too? The .222 is so much easier and, besides, it's what everyone is using."

But to bring the original question back...isn't headspacing off a rim potentially a more accurate method of headspacing?

If close head space is the goal, why not simply neck size only?

 

[butchlambert]

Dave,
I don't know if minimum shoulder/chamber clearance is the goal. Isn't consistent bullet alignment and distance to lands the goal? As far as suitable bolt actions goes, wouldn't something with a non-rotating extractor work?

I don't think you will start seeing Mauser and pre64 Winchester extractors showing up.
Now let's get on to another item. I think this one has played out.

 

[butchlambert]

Mike, that is not the answer that they are looking for. I wonder what you do when your case grows, either on rimmed or semi rimmed cases? It appears that the opinion is that it doesn't matter on a rimmed case. I must be missing something.

 

[Tommie]

Who said case trimming isn't necessary with rimmed cases?

 

[butchlambert]

Who said case trimming isn't necessary with rimmed cases?

Mr. Tommie, I didn't.

 

[Tommie]

Mr. Tommie, I didn't.

Neither did I. Good, we agree!