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: 1528877" data-attributes="member: 4191"><p>The SAAMI 280 Ackley Improved headspace dimension is set in stone by the SAAMI standard for that cartridge. By definition that dimension is always correct, never wrong or flawed. It remains the same unless/until SAAMI formally changes it. Any chamber cut outside those SAAMI headspace tolerances and provided for use is defective, by definition. 1st failure = manufacture of a defective rifle chamber. 2nd failure = the defect escaping detection with a QA/QC inspection process.</p><p></p><p>Therefore the only headspace dimension up for any debate is that of the original, (commonly called the "traditional") 280 A.I. cartridge. No SAAMI standard was ever established for it, so it's not locked down, codified in concrete. Which is why I calculated that headspace for the "traditional" cartridge following the P.O. Ackley handbook standard for establishing Ackley headspace. The headspace dimension I calculated in this manner is identical to Redding's website description. Undoubtedly because Redding would have completed the identical mathematical analysis before manufacturing their very first 280 Rem Imp 40 Deg resizing die.</p><p></p><p>Math produces all these design specifications and construction drawings and standards. And now your pooh-poohing the math that creates the headspace dimensions as an inferior method for identifying the proper headspace dimensions? Inferior to what? Go gauges?</p><p></p><p>The gauges you reccomend be purchased and used are designed to ensure chambers are cut to design specifications. Not to disprove or change any cartridges' design headspace dimension. Proper gauges support the QA/QC inspection effort to ensure the 'design' headspace tolerances are met before the rifle leaves the shop/plant.</p><p></p><p>I cannot tell you why a rifle chamber gets cut out of spec. Who could? But with properly constructed gauges, even this non-gunsmith engineer could identify a chamber cut with defective headspace. Chambers cut with defective headspace don't create or change the design headspace standards. Neither will headspace measurements on those defective chambers.</p><p></p><p>I thought the purpose of the thread was identification of proper headspace dimension for the "traditional", versus the SAAMI, 280 improved cartridges. There are headspace standards for both cartridges.</p><p></p><p>If the purpose of the thread was instructional on proper chamber headspace measurement tools and methods, then measure away. But don't expect any measurement, opinion, or preference, to change the 'design' headspace dimension/standard for either cartridge.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pdvdh, post: 1528877, member: 4191"] The SAAMI 280 Ackley Improved headspace dimension is set in stone by the SAAMI standard for that cartridge. By definition that dimension is always correct, never wrong or flawed. It remains the same unless/until SAAMI formally changes it. Any chamber cut outside those SAAMI headspace tolerances and provided for use is defective, by definition. 1st failure = manufacture of a defective rifle chamber. 2nd failure = the defect escaping detection with a QA/QC inspection process. Therefore the only headspace dimension up for any debate is that of the original, (commonly called the "traditional") 280 A.I. cartridge. No SAAMI standard was ever established for it, so it's not locked down, codified in concrete. Which is why I calculated that headspace for the "traditional" cartridge following the P.O. Ackley handbook standard for establishing Ackley headspace. The headspace dimension I calculated in this manner is identical to Redding's website description. Undoubtedly because Redding would have completed the identical mathematical analysis before manufacturing their very first 280 Rem Imp 40 Deg resizing die. Math produces all these design specifications and construction drawings and standards. And now your pooh-poohing the math that creates the headspace dimensions as an inferior method for identifying the proper headspace dimensions? Inferior to what? Go gauges? The gauges you reccomend be purchased and used are designed to ensure chambers are cut to design specifications. Not to disprove or change any cartridges' design headspace dimension. Proper gauges support the QA/QC inspection effort to ensure the 'design' headspace tolerances are met before the rifle leaves the shop/plant. I cannot tell you why a rifle chamber gets cut out of spec. Who could? But with properly constructed gauges, even this non-gunsmith engineer could identify a chamber cut with defective headspace. Chambers cut with defective headspace don't create or change the design headspace standards. Neither will headspace measurements on those defective chambers. I thought the purpose of the thread was identification of proper headspace dimension for the "traditional", versus the SAAMI, 280 improved cartridges. There are headspace standards for both cartridges. If the purpose of the thread was instructional on proper chamber headspace measurement tools and methods, then measure away. But don't expect any measurement, opinion, or preference, to change the 'design' headspace dimension/standard for either cartridge. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
.280 AI controversy explained ...
Top