HELP. Trying to find an article in my Precision Shooting library......

[mindcrime]

Howdy shooting friends. I hope your Christmas was a Merry one and here's to a Happy New Year while I'm at it.

I have been rattling my brain looking for an article that I saw in Precision Shooting about a patented wildcat line that had a Radiused Shoulder, similar to the Weatherby's, however it is not a double radius. The wildcat line that I am trying to find in my library does not have the second radius at the neck. It kinda makes the cases look like a wine bottle of sorts. The theory behind the wildcat line was that it focused the unburned powder back into the center of the radiused shoulder to be burned, causing much less throat errosion, and actually burning so much more effeciently that 100fps over even an Ackley case was very common.

If anyone remembers the noted article, please point me in the right direction. I was hoping to find it the first time around as I have about 5 years of mags to go through.

Thanks for any insight that you can illuminate me with!

Jeff

 

[Mikecr]

There was a Varmint Hunter article about one such approach to cartridge design:
McPherson comments on this article

 

[BountyHunter]

That is basically the same article that was in PS on the same line of cases.

BH

 

[mindcrime]

There was a Varmint Hunter article about one such approach to cartridge design:
McPherson comments on this article

Great link! Yes, that was the wilcat line that I was looking for because I remember the "focused powder pictures." Do you happen to know which ISSUE it is in the V.H. because I have 5 years of that to rumage through too. ;^) Perhaps I was looking in the wrong mag?!?

 

[Mikecr]

It's been smoozled across issues #42, 44, 58, 62, yadda, yadda.......
You can read a pamphlet directly:Superior Ballistics Inc.
I'm sure any substance to it should have been covered in ONE good article.

I dropped PS, VH, & all other gunrags because of this kind of BS. I don't like it when people bypass all peer review, before self declaring unique successes -using a magazine's need to fill pages.. I don't like that anything can be said in a magazine, and believed by many, without challenge.
PS did it with Bill calfee's barrel tunning delusions, like 5 or 6 issues!

 

[Trickymissfit]

It's been smoozled across issues #42, 44, 58, 62, yadda, yadda.......
You can read a pamphlet directly:Superior Ballistics Inc.
I'm sure any substance to it should have been covered in ONE good article.

I dropped PS, VH, & all other gunrags because of this kind of BS. I don't like it when people bypass all peer review, before self declaring unique successes -using a magazine's need to fill pages.. I don't like that anything can be said in a magazine, and believed by many, without challenge.
PS did it with Bill calfee's barrel tunning delusions, like 5 or 6 issues!

Bill Calfee!!

That old man runs about eight to ten years ahead of the rest of the shooters. His ideas are often knocked, and then adopted when no one's looking. To take it further, Calfee is known as an inovator while the rest simply follow. Those that don't understand the mechanics of his views will knock him while they also set in the also ran column. As for writing in P.S.; Bill was asked to do them by readers and editors.
gary

 

[mindcrime]

I dropped PS, VH, & all other gunrags because of this kind of BS. I don't like it when people bypass all peer review, before self declaring unique successes -using a magazine's need to fill pages.. I don't like that anything can be said in a magazine, and believed by many, without challenge.

I'm with you Mike, I dumped VH first, and then PS for the same reasons that you stated above. I had a subscription to Tactical Shooter and loved it, until they decided to go all politically correct and start calling the mag. The Precision Rifle.

At one time, I was learning quite a lot from VH and truly enjoyed the subscriptions---same with PS, but both kinda of reminded me of what happened with Guns and Ammo mag. after Bob Milek (Lord Rest His Soul, passed) and Ross Seifried stopped writing all his interesting big bore articles. They just got to the place that none of them were teaching me anything that I had not red before (not to sound conceited, but I'm sure you know what I mean).

SO, does anyone know if there is any TRUE MERIT to the Superior Ballistics theory, or would a .338 Lapua Ackley or .338 Allen XP be just as good.

 

[mindcrime]

Interesting. I've been reading their website, and you just can't "Superior Improve" just any cartridge. You must have a correct head diameter to bore ratio to "make it work." They noted that a .505 Gibbs case is the ideal for the .284" caliber!!! Talk about overbore. Holy moly. Oh well. Looks like a .338 Ackley or AX for me!