Why weren't any Ackley Improved cartridges ever put into production?

[steelshoot]

Steelshoot: Reread the O'Connor article you posted. He wanted the bullet to pass 3 inches above point of aim at 100 yards. He wasn't accepting a 3 inch spread at 100 yards. He's pretty famous for advising this technique of sighting in a "high velocity" rifle--sight it at 100 yards so that you are 3 inches high and you will be on point of aim at 250 to 300 yards depending on the cartridge". I'd be very surprised if there is a rifle writing that he authored and doesn't say that.

Thank you for your reply. I had some initial doubts as to the veracity of the quoted O'Conner statement also. After further research I've come to the conclusion that a 3 inch high group at 100 yards in a .270 may have been reasonable for some ammunition at the time that O'Connor was active. It seems that O'Connor was one of those sportsmen that actually believed in shooting within a reliable close range within the capability of the rifle and the vital area of the game at hand. A true sportsman.
http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammunition/oconnors_practical_field_ballistics_013111/index1.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_12_56/ai_n56199873/
http://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/guns/rifles/2007/09/270-mystery

 

[Steve Marshall]

P.O. Ackley was an experimenter extraordinaire. His work contributed much to what we now accept as normal. And if you read his works you'll find that he accepted only a few of his improved cartridges as worth the additional expense and effort. The 40 degree shoulder, especially at the time, was problematic for the ammunition factories. That alone was reason enough for the lack of commercial interest. And yes, he was also aware of the effects of longer barrels and velocities. What would you expect, that he'd shorten his barrels? Don't forget that rifles in those days weghed moer than 5 lbs. He, and others like him advanced our knowledge greatly.

 

[steelshoot]

Ackley was loading for a different kind of game. http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111049
http://www.barnesbullets.com/information/product-news/publication-mentions/battlin-bullets/

 

[steelshoot]

You are talking kinetic energy. KE= mass times velocity squared. But KE is not conserved in a collision. Momentum is conserved. ME=Mass Times Velocity. I do not believe that the big increased in KE which happens when you square a small velocity increase really translate to an equivalent increase in stopping power.

I do believe that a velocity increase is good from a trajectory view point.

Some things about the AI’s I think are good ideas, the increase in case capacity and the steeper shoulders. I have a 35 Whelen. It has a slight shoulder and I believe that was a contributor to the misfires and hangfires I experienced in cold weather. I believe the slight shoulder just did not hold the cartridge or cushioned the firing pin blow. A steeper shoulder would have provided more resistance.

Corporations are interested in maximizing profit. If the interest was there they would have chambered rifles in AI’s.

Go to a gun show and see how well those older rifles chambered in AI cartridges sell. They don't. Bubba wants a rifle in a cartridge he recognises. Like 30-06, 270, 30-30.

These guys say it better than I ever could. http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1110

49
http://www.barnesbullets.com/information/product-news/publication-m

entions/battlin-bullets/

 

[Coal Dragger]

I own and shoot a .280AI. I find it worthwhile, but would most likely not have bothered if factory brass and ammo were not available. Nor would I go to the trouble of improving an existing chamber in a barrel that was already mounted on an action. If I were to re-barrel a rifle that would be a different story, and I would strongly consider the .280AI. I have no other experience with other improved cartridges though, so not all of them may be worth the effort.

In my particular rifle, a Cooper M52 Jackson Hunter, I have had no issues with feeding, extraction, or ejection. I can only surmise that everyone theorizing about how the AI rounds will cause trouble with basic functions are making things up, or have experienced rifles put together by complete hacks masquerading as gunsmiths.

At the very least an AI chamber allows the user to safely obtain velocities in the AI that would be borderline dangerous or near max in the parent case. In other words I don't have to load hot loads in my .280AI to outperform a standard .280, I can if I choose, load a middle of the road load and achieve results that would be near max in the standard chamber.