Nomosendero
Well-Known Member
He is likely using a new barrel now, reason enough to revive the thread!!
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
6.5-06 Ackley Improved for long range?
- Thread starter Wallowa Hunter
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Idaho Lefty
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2018
- Messages
- 1,785
The 6.5-06 Ackley Imp., is gaining in Popularity FAST, and it's almost, as Speedy as, the 6.5 PRC,.. PLUS, you can always, find, some, Brass !
A Great Choice for, Long Actions, IMO !
Doubt IF, it's going away,.. anytime soon !
A Great Choice for, Long Actions, IMO !
Doubt IF, it's going away,.. anytime soon !
Last edited:
Hugnot
Well-Known Member
I take it this is an 03 Springfield - unique square barrel/receiver threads.
The 03 was designed for what is now the .30-06 for battle use. It would feed good with .25-06, 6.5-06, .270, .30-06 & such. I don't have a 03 but my FN commercial 98's feed 6mm Rem just fine. There might be some magazine feed issues with the 6.5-06 AI. Long powder columns were not an issue when this rifle was designed. My FN 98's would not feed 6mm AI's - the shoulder of the brass bumped up against the upper receiver inner collar.
The 03 was designed for what is now the .30-06 for battle use. It would feed good with .25-06, 6.5-06, .270, .30-06 & such. I don't have a 03 but my FN commercial 98's feed 6mm Rem just fine. There might be some magazine feed issues with the 6.5-06 AI. Long powder columns were not an issue when this rifle was designed. My FN 98's would not feed 6mm AI's - the shoulder of the brass bumped up against the upper receiver inner collar.
65WSM
Well-Known Member
My 6.5 - 06 Ackley is a Model 70. Have you ever had a feed issue with an Ackley improved case? In what rifle action? I have a couple of 22-250 Ackleys on Model 70s and a .338 - 06 Ackley on a Ruger 77 tang safety. I object to using the sentence "might have a feed problem"? Lets try to keep the advice limited to our experience.
Attachments
Nomosendero
Well-Known Member
I have never experienced a "feed problem" with my 25-06AI, I don't know why a 6.5-06AI would be worse.
I use a Sendero.
I use a Sendero.
Hugnot
Well-Known Member
Me, I & myself are to be included within "our".
19 YO thread with OP & 03 Springfield. My opinion of a 03 "build".
I am assuming the prospective "build" will be an a 03 not an 03A3, a quicky wartime product.
The M70 Winchester controlled feed, is not a 03 Springfield. It is quite similar in that it has a coned breach with an extractor cut in the right side of the cone. My experience with 03's involved shooting some that were rebarreled to .308 for NRA NM with the follower shortened and the magazine blocked off for the shorter cartridge. The 03's in .308 with 168 SiMK's were a joy to shoot - nice smooth sure feeding at 200 & 300 yard rapid fire- my actual trigger pulling experience.
I also used an 03, that was rebarreled to .300WM - that required opening up the bolt face & extractor modification, & modification of feed rails - fed just OK but no more. Assuming the .300WM would be a good choice for NRA NM rapid fire, 200 & 300 yards, that rifle would be a liability. I would not go for a .264WM, 7mmRM or .300WM for the 03. My actual experience tells me this.
The .22-.250 AI usually has a COAL of 2.4 " (plus or minus) far shorter than the 3.3' length 06 rounds the M70 was designed for - the longer 40 deg. shoulder 6.5-06 AI round might feed differently than the .22-.250 AI. I have seen some conrolled feed M70's that fed the .22-.250 & AI round beautiful but that was with a blocked magazine & with both sides of the inner magazine having a vertical retainer silver soldered at where cartridge shoulders would be located. Bolt travel on the short cartridge M70's is controlled by bar attached to the left side of the extractor collar. M70 W's came in both push feed & controlled feed versions. An 03 chambered for shorter rounds than the 06 might have this modification. I had some trigger time with a controlled feed M70W 6.5-06 AI that fed OK but the M70 is not an 03 which is the subject of this discussion.
The Ruger M77 & M77 MKII & Hawkeye - these are radically different than the both the 03 & M70 in that the breach end of the barrel is flat and the sheet metal magazine provides features that would be found in the 03 side rails. The tang safety M77 is a push feed, different from the 03 Springfield controlled feed making any feed comparison speculative. Same with the push feed Remington Sendero. Both not 03's the subject of this discussion.
The 03 controlled feed is not a push feed Remington.
Any evaluation of a 03 Springfield would involve some research as to the date & manufacturer of the rifle in regard to heat treatment. A wartime version, the 03A3 having stamped parts and not as refined was made. The desirable 03's include - SA = Springfield Arsenal, 03 SA, double heat treated steel; SA nickel steel; SA 03 Mark 1 , & Rock Island Arsenal = RA actions. The newer 03 actions can handle high pressure rounds. Lower serial number rifles have alleged problems - best to avoid.
My opinion of the 03 is that it is a superior feeding & handling action best suited for normal, usual & customary hunting use in a light easy to carry rifle. They feed & work so smooth - bolt opens & shuts real easy, rounds go from magazine to chamber just fine. My choices for cartridges would be the pedestrian .270, .30-06, 6.5-06, .308, 260 Rem, .243.The two stage miltary trigger would be replaced. For a heavy barreled long range rifle having a huge optic & massive tactical stock I would select something else, mostly for economic reasons and where easy operation is not a primary factor. Some discussion has been made on the 03's two piece firing pin liabilities but I think that is just talk. Other rifles have more safety features to handle ammo catastrophies (KABOOMS).
No experience with an 03 in 6.5-06 AI, there might be some feed issues. Time to hear some actual hands on experience from somebody that has been there & done that - use of the 6.5-06 AI in a Springfield. I cannot see why it would not work but there might be feed problems.
My FN Mauser FN 98 (controlled feed) would not feed 6mm AI's - the shoulder of the brass bumped up against the upper receiver inner collar - but my Ruger M77 MKII LA (controlled feed), no inner ring collars, feeds the 6mm AI beautiful - actual experience. Both not 03's, the subject of this discussion.
Nice pics of fire formed 6.5-06 AI brass. Done that with COW.
19 YO thread with OP & 03 Springfield. My opinion of a 03 "build".
I am assuming the prospective "build" will be an a 03 not an 03A3, a quicky wartime product.
The M70 Winchester controlled feed, is not a 03 Springfield. It is quite similar in that it has a coned breach with an extractor cut in the right side of the cone. My experience with 03's involved shooting some that were rebarreled to .308 for NRA NM with the follower shortened and the magazine blocked off for the shorter cartridge. The 03's in .308 with 168 SiMK's were a joy to shoot - nice smooth sure feeding at 200 & 300 yard rapid fire- my actual trigger pulling experience.
I also used an 03, that was rebarreled to .300WM - that required opening up the bolt face & extractor modification, & modification of feed rails - fed just OK but no more. Assuming the .300WM would be a good choice for NRA NM rapid fire, 200 & 300 yards, that rifle would be a liability. I would not go for a .264WM, 7mmRM or .300WM for the 03. My actual experience tells me this.
The .22-.250 AI usually has a COAL of 2.4 " (plus or minus) far shorter than the 3.3' length 06 rounds the M70 was designed for - the longer 40 deg. shoulder 6.5-06 AI round might feed differently than the .22-.250 AI. I have seen some conrolled feed M70's that fed the .22-.250 & AI round beautiful but that was with a blocked magazine & with both sides of the inner magazine having a vertical retainer silver soldered at where cartridge shoulders would be located. Bolt travel on the short cartridge M70's is controlled by bar attached to the left side of the extractor collar. M70 W's came in both push feed & controlled feed versions. An 03 chambered for shorter rounds than the 06 might have this modification. I had some trigger time with a controlled feed M70W 6.5-06 AI that fed OK but the M70 is not an 03 which is the subject of this discussion.
The Ruger M77 & M77 MKII & Hawkeye - these are radically different than the both the 03 & M70 in that the breach end of the barrel is flat and the sheet metal magazine provides features that would be found in the 03 side rails. The tang safety M77 is a push feed, different from the 03 Springfield controlled feed making any feed comparison speculative. Same with the push feed Remington Sendero. Both not 03's the subject of this discussion.
The 03 controlled feed is not a push feed Remington.
Any evaluation of a 03 Springfield would involve some research as to the date & manufacturer of the rifle in regard to heat treatment. A wartime version, the 03A3 having stamped parts and not as refined was made. The desirable 03's include - SA = Springfield Arsenal, 03 SA, double heat treated steel; SA nickel steel; SA 03 Mark 1 , & Rock Island Arsenal = RA actions. The newer 03 actions can handle high pressure rounds. Lower serial number rifles have alleged problems - best to avoid.
My opinion of the 03 is that it is a superior feeding & handling action best suited for normal, usual & customary hunting use in a light easy to carry rifle. They feed & work so smooth - bolt opens & shuts real easy, rounds go from magazine to chamber just fine. My choices for cartridges would be the pedestrian .270, .30-06, 6.5-06, .308, 260 Rem, .243.The two stage miltary trigger would be replaced. For a heavy barreled long range rifle having a huge optic & massive tactical stock I would select something else, mostly for economic reasons and where easy operation is not a primary factor. Some discussion has been made on the 03's two piece firing pin liabilities but I think that is just talk. Other rifles have more safety features to handle ammo catastrophies (KABOOMS).
No experience with an 03 in 6.5-06 AI, there might be some feed issues. Time to hear some actual hands on experience from somebody that has been there & done that - use of the 6.5-06 AI in a Springfield. I cannot see why it would not work but there might be feed problems.
My FN Mauser FN 98 (controlled feed) would not feed 6mm AI's - the shoulder of the brass bumped up against the upper receiver inner collar - but my Ruger M77 MKII LA (controlled feed), no inner ring collars, feeds the 6mm AI beautiful - actual experience. Both not 03's, the subject of this discussion.
Nice pics of fire formed 6.5-06 AI brass. Done that with COW.
Last edited:
