ADMIN
Administrator
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,223
This is a thread for discussion of the article, 22-284 Winchester: Life At 40X, By Robert Coles. Here you can ask questions or make comments about the article.
22-284 Winchester: Life At 40X
- Thread starter ADMIN
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
redneckclimbing
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Messages
- 303
I LOVE "wildcatting" myself, and have a couple of theories on what makes an "inherently accurate" cartridge. So I have to know, what was the load density %!
Also, how much better do you think barrels are compared to say 15 years ago? Is that really helping some of these fire breathing cartridges look better?
Thanks
Also, how much better do you think barrels are compared to say 15 years ago? Is that really helping some of these fire breathing cartridges look better?
Thanks
Bob the nailer
Well-Known Member
Looking back on "Quick Load" shows a Load density of 0.931 g/cm3 That's based on my cartridge trim length, bullet seating depth and bullet selection along with the H1000 powder charge of 53 grains.
As for barrels I believe huge advancements have been made in the past 15 years you mentioned. Better metals, tighter machining tolerances and I really think the freezing process helps too.
As for barrels I believe huge advancements have been made in the past 15 years you mentioned. Better metals, tighter machining tolerances and I really think the freezing process helps too.
Attachments
I'm currently waiting on my 6-284 barrel. This will be my first "wildcat". Has been a long, tedious and learning filled experience getting 200 cases set up. So, it seems I will be lucky to get 1,000 rounds through it with good accuracy. Well...The prairie dogs will wish it was 10 rounds!!! LOL. My next set up will hopefully be a 20 Practical. No more mainstream for me. Life is too short!
redneckclimbing
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Messages
- 303
You're absolutely right, life is too short! I've done a couple of wildcats myself and they are a hoot!
Again with the load density question, what percent of the available case capacity is being filled with your powder charges? 90%+ or is it even a compressed load perhaps?
Thanks again.
I believe I will be around 94%
Bob the nailer
Well-Known Member
I figured it to be aprox. 85.71%
redneckclimbing
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Messages
- 303
"Mr. Nailer"-
Thanks a bunch, that's what I was looking for. Not to change the subject too much, but it has been my experience that a "well designed" cartridge (i.e. easy to load for with a variety of powders, and usually extremely accurate) has a few key features:
1. A case capacity that ends up being a slightly compressed max load with a slow powder such as H-1000 or Retumbo.
2. Bullet loaded close to the lands, but also seated out of the cartridge enough so that only the boat tail is below the neck. Or with a flat base bullet is even with the bottom of the neck.
3. Also, I like to have at least 90% of a bullet diamter seated in the beck of the cartridge.
(Good examples: any of the PPC's, 6.5 Creedmoore, 7mm GT (one of mine), .223 with heavy bullets seated long, .308 win, just a few off the top of my head.)
Like I said not to change the subject too much, but I always like to get other wildcatter's opinions and hear their ideas!
I would humbly suggest a new "tag line" as well: "One ragged hole, at ever increasing distances, the quest for accuracy continues."
Sorry to bend your ear, thanks again!
Thanks a bunch, that's what I was looking for. Not to change the subject too much, but it has been my experience that a "well designed" cartridge (i.e. easy to load for with a variety of powders, and usually extremely accurate) has a few key features:
1. A case capacity that ends up being a slightly compressed max load with a slow powder such as H-1000 or Retumbo.
2. Bullet loaded close to the lands, but also seated out of the cartridge enough so that only the boat tail is below the neck. Or with a flat base bullet is even with the bottom of the neck.
3. Also, I like to have at least 90% of a bullet diamter seated in the beck of the cartridge.
(Good examples: any of the PPC's, 6.5 Creedmoore, 7mm GT (one of mine), .223 with heavy bullets seated long, .308 win, just a few off the top of my head.)
Like I said not to change the subject too much, but I always like to get other wildcatter's opinions and hear their ideas!
I would humbly suggest a new "tag line" as well: "One ragged hole, at ever increasing distances, the quest for accuracy continues."
Sorry to bend your ear, thanks again!
TheFishBox
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2010
- Messages
- 719
Have you guys tried the cutting edge 78 grain bullet? I a curious what kind of velocity it could be pushed to.
I think your experience with the 22-284 is closer to the reality others have had and completely pours ice water on the old claims of 6,000+ fps. Your loads are slower than my 22-250AI's, which are using less powder than the 22-284. I can push 75 Amaxes @ 3650 with 7828SSC, but due to having several 8 # jugs of IMR4831, I load 41gr under a 75 Amax @ 3,410 fps in a 26 inch tube. That load is case sparing and shoots in the .2's, and while the 4831 will drive them to 3,550 before pressure signs, the groups begin to increase slightly. 50 gr bullets can reach 4,000+ fps with ease, and with the right powder, 55's will get there also. 40 gr bullets have reached 4,500-4,600 fps, but again, I prefer to keep them in the 4,300-4,400 range.
My barrels are either hand lapped by me, or I use Tubbs Final Finish kits before load development. Copper fouling is greatly reduced and I encounter no erratic pressure spikes nor fliers.
For a while, the 22-6mmAI was to be the hot rod round and proclaimed to be far superior to the 22-243 versions and Cheetah I & II. But like the 22-284, it was reality and the production of readily affordable chronographs that ended those claims. Same has been said about many such claims above the 5,000 fps line.
My barrels are either hand lapped by me, or I use Tubbs Final Finish kits before load development. Copper fouling is greatly reduced and I encounter no erratic pressure spikes nor fliers.
For a while, the 22-6mmAI was to be the hot rod round and proclaimed to be far superior to the 22-243 versions and Cheetah I & II. But like the 22-284, it was reality and the production of readily affordable chronographs that ended those claims. Same has been said about many such claims above the 5,000 fps line.
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
redneckclimbing, every bit of what you describe in design toward accuracy is opposite of reality..
You didn't get any of it right.
You didn't get any of it right.
While some of what you claim "may" work for certain combinations, it is far from the truth with many.
AS for the quest for ragged holes, we old BR shooters have been searching for and occasionally accomplishing this for decades. Try searching and reading the numerous articles on and by various distance BR shooters (6mmBR, NBRSA, IBS, Benchrest.com, etc,etc)
Much of what has been learned by BR experimentation has been incorporated into the modern LR hunting rifles, for the two have very similar goals.
Farmerbrown32
Well-Known Member
How does the 22-243AI stack up against the 22-284? Building one on a defiance today. With a 7 twist bartlein 29" to shoot the 90 grain berger.
