The “ACE” Chamber System”......Anybody Tried It?

[Dusty Stevens]

thanks for that link, Dusty. That’s been four years ago. I guess I need to get out more since the thread on Benchrest.com is the first I had heard of it.

I did notice that the comments from 2016 just about mirror the comments being made now. In Post #36, Whatsupdoc inquired about the accuracy. The one I built and put on my HV Neuvo Action Rifle shot just like a Benchrest Rifle.

I think the remarks made by Kurz in his last sentence in post #32 of this thread kinda sums me up.

You are one of the few that could pull it off. No surprise that it shot as normal. Id be surprised if it shot better or if you were able to chamber it faster than a normal barrel though.

 

[orkan]

I generally like to refrain from taking a hard position of opposition until I've had actual first-hand experience with a product.

Without first hand experience, opinions don't carry much weight.

 

[JJMoody]

Head- lines....corduroy.....clever... gonna use that one.

 

[Spook]

Have you heard about the new corduroy pillows? They’re making all the headlines.

its so the millennials can wake up with hashtags on their faces

 

[geo.ulrich]

I generally like to refrain from taking a hard position of opposition until I've had actual first-hand experience with a product.

Without first hand experience, opinions don't carry much weight.

The other way to look at it is, Claims without proof are no more than rhetoric......

 

[orkan]

The other way to look at it is, Claims without proof are no more than rhetoric......

There's a difference between being respectfully skeptical, vs being aggressively opposing.

Besides, what proof could he possibly provide, that would be accepted?

I guess it's too much to ask that people actually have experience with the product they are bashing.

I have no idea if this ACE idea holds water, but I'm not stupid enough to think I'm so smart that I don't need to have tested it first hand, to have my opinion on it be worth anything at all.

 

[geo.ulrich]

I would say being they are making claims it's better than the "1800 technology being used today" which by the way holds all world records than they should prove there claims.....it's as simple as that .... i'm not saying its worse or better just do not make claims that say it's the best....If there is no difference in performance then it's just a sales gimmick..

 

[300_whisper]

@orkan what did anyone say that was negative? I interpreted people as being Skeptical, but not negative. The guys clearly an accomplished rifle maker. I own one of his rifles. Smarter guys than I are questioning one product of his business, not bad mouthing him.

 

[INTJ]

I love innovation and "outside of the box" thinking. Autotricker and Autothrow are innovations that work. There are many others.

I also like it that they developed the ACE chambering method. However, now that we know that it has been around for three years, we know it doesn't meet the original claims. It doesn't solve an existing problem. At best it doesn't hurt anything.

Perhaps they will find an application for it where it will be an advantage.

 

[Tommie]

Head- lines....corduroy.....clever... gonna use that one.

You’re welcome

 

[jackieschmidt]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this...help me understand why you would want an interruption in the structure of the barrel, i.e. seam, (in the area where the bullet leaves the case, where the highest pressure and explosive nature occur? I can see it where the barrel meets the action but at the throat? wouldn't this suggest a whole new erosion concern?

We discussed that at length in the thread on Benchrest.com. We came up with the solution of extending 2/3 of the neck into the barrel, 1/3 in the chamber portion. This allowed the neck to seal the pressure.

I took it apart after I tested it, everything looked good. But that was only after about 50 rounds. I still do not know how Wolfplace addresses this.

 

[Dolomite_supafly]

Would the chamber section make the gun an SBR if the barrel was not permanently attached to it? No different than having a sub 16" barrel with a muzzle device attached to bring the length up to the legal length. And in that case the muzzle device must be "permanent" to count as part of the barrel.

 

[dolek]

There's a difference between being respectfully skeptical, vs being aggressively opposing.

Besides, what proof could he possibly provide, that would be accepted?

I guess it's too much to ask that people actually have experience with the product they are bashing.

I have no idea if this ACE idea holds water, but I'm not stupid enough to think I'm so smart that I don't need to have tested it first hand, to have my opinion on it be worth anything at all.

I agree , some folks just like to find negative in anything they do not understand.

 

[geo.ulrich]

Where are the negative comments?I just reread the whole thing I'm not seeing anyone bashing anything, just a few with questions or a little skeptical with their points of view...

 

[DaveTooley]

It's called peer review.

 

[orkan]

It's called peer review.

Who has experience with the product at hand?

Does anyone?

 

[DaveTooley]

No one has said they have tried it. Jackie has built his own version and reported at least for the short term it was a success. There's a lot of discussion here about setups and process. You can't put it out there that your process is the best thing since sliced bread and not expect to get scrutinized. It what we do. It's how we learn from each other.

 

[300_whisper]

No one has said they have tried it. Jackie has built his own version and reported at least for the short term it was a success. There's a lot of discussion here about setups and process. You can't put it out there that your process is the best thing since sliced bread and not expect to get scrutinized. It what we do. It's how we learn from each other.

Agreed.

 

[orkan]

No one has said they have tried it. Jackie has built his own version and reported at least for the short term it was a success. There's a lot of discussion here about setups and process. You can't put it out there that your process is the best thing since sliced bread and not expect to get scrutinized. It what we do. It's how we learn from each other.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have at least a tiny bit of time using a product, as a part of “scrutinizing” it.

 

[Hohn]

I generally like to refrain from taking a hard position of opposition until I've had actual first-hand experience with a product.

Without first hand experience, opinions don't carry much weight.

That's generally a good idea. As you say, experience not theory.

But sometimes the theory is so befuddled that it's not worth the lab time and cost of testing.

To be clear, I'm not saying it doesn't work or can't be accurate. NOT AT ALL am I saying that. What I'm saying is that it's not *better* because the problems it claims to improve upon aren't actual problems. And the improvement claimed isn't an improvement.

I doubt that in the highly competitive nature of match shooting, a demonstrable improvement wouldn't have everyone converted pretty quickly. As has been said, it's been out a few years.

Can an accurate rifle be chamber with the ACE? Certainly. Has it been demonstrated to be consistently superior inline with the claims?

I think the answer to that last one is at best 'not yet.' And given the time it's been out, the odds of the demonstration occurring decrease by the day.