Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
.280 AI controversy explained ...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Pdvdh" data-source="post: 1528220" data-attributes="member: 4191"><p>No need to express sorrow on my behalf. I wouldn't be boasting and challenging "experts" such as yourself, if my feelings had been hurt. You misunderstand. I'm high-fiving. Bragging. Boasting. No hurt feelings here. On top of the world. No pity party.</p><p></p><p>Weren't you the one that thought my post was "hilarious"? You must feel differently now, or why complain about attitude?</p><p></p><p>Hilarious is your suggestion that gauging chambers of unknown quality of manufacture will somehow provide a definitive design headspace dimension. There's only one correct dimension for Mr. Ackley's "traditional" 280 A.I. If you disagree with that statement, make that clear. Then we'll know you operate outside the stratosphere. If I was unable to derive the correct design headspace dimension mathematically, maybe I too would use some gauges of uncertain manufactured quality/accuracy. Difference is, I'd never consider the process to provide anything more than chamber measurements of unknown quality, using a gauge of uncertain accuracy. The only reason the uncertainty over the difference in headspace dimensions between the SAAMI and traditional 280 A.I. persists is because of posts from folks like you, unable to process the math.</p><p></p><p>I've committed myself to the correct headspace dimension for the traditional 280 A.I. Why don't you provide us with your headspace dimension for the traditional 280 A.I., and explain how you reached that determination? +/- 0.001" will suffice. Please don't refer us to other Forums, other posts, other "experts", such as the inaccurate Shooters' Forum. I'll be waiting, as your explanation is certain to be..., <em><strong>hilarious</strong>! </em></p><p><em></em></p><p>Until then, all your posts on the subject remain nothing more than <em>yawners</em>. You want to challenge my derived headspace dimension? Then commit yourself to a numerical headspace dimension, and let the fun to begin. Or, keep us yawning, yawning, and snoring with nothing more than opinion based on... others' opinions. You've committed to absolutely nothing. I'm game. Are you? I really doubt it... But I'm willing to spank, if you're willing to commit. It could even prove educational, if you're up to it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pdvdh, post: 1528220, member: 4191"] No need to express sorrow on my behalf. I wouldn't be boasting and challenging "experts" such as yourself, if my feelings had been hurt. You misunderstand. I'm high-fiving. Bragging. Boasting. No hurt feelings here. On top of the world. No pity party. Weren't you the one that thought my post was "hilarious"? You must feel differently now, or why complain about attitude? Hilarious is your suggestion that gauging chambers of unknown quality of manufacture will somehow provide a definitive design headspace dimension. There's only one correct dimension for Mr. Ackley's "traditional" 280 A.I. If you disagree with that statement, make that clear. Then we'll know you operate outside the stratosphere. If I was unable to derive the correct design headspace dimension mathematically, maybe I too would use some gauges of uncertain manufactured quality/accuracy. Difference is, I'd never consider the process to provide anything more than chamber measurements of unknown quality, using a gauge of uncertain accuracy. The only reason the uncertainty over the difference in headspace dimensions between the SAAMI and traditional 280 A.I. persists is because of posts from folks like you, unable to process the math. I've committed myself to the correct headspace dimension for the traditional 280 A.I. Why don't you provide us with your headspace dimension for the traditional 280 A.I., and explain how you reached that determination? +/- 0.001" will suffice. Please don't refer us to other Forums, other posts, other "experts", such as the inaccurate Shooters' Forum. I'll be waiting, as your explanation is certain to be..., [I][B]hilarious[/B]! [/I] Until then, all your posts on the subject remain nothing more than [I]yawners[/I]. You want to challenge my derived headspace dimension? Then commit yourself to a numerical headspace dimension, and let the fun to begin. Or, keep us yawning, yawning, and snoring with nothing more than opinion based on... others' opinions. You've committed to absolutely nothing. I'm game. Are you? I really doubt it... But I'm willing to spank, if you're willing to commit. It could even prove educational, if you're up to it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
.280 AI controversy explained ...
Top