was P O Ackley ahead of his time ?

Gavlan · October 14, 2016, 09:03 PM

HI was looking at some of my older "stashed" as in "don't ever use" loading books and came across these two Ackley books from 1959 and some of the suggested data for some of the cartridges , many I have never heard of BTW look pretty stout.
My question I guess is did or indeed does anyone use this kind of info nowadays and was this fella ahead if his time ?.
Like I said I don't use any of this data but find it interesting stuff.
I'll pull it out and dust it off in another 10 years and read it again , if I remember ,,,,

[IMG]

[/IMG]

**Unclenick** · October 14, 2016, 09:36 PM

Old data use is mostly discouraged now for three reasons: 1.) Many powders are now sourced from different manufacturers and most primer formulations and a lot of brass alloys and production processes and some internal capacities have changed. 2.) Most bullets back then were either lead or jacketed bullets made by very similar processes, where today you have a lot more types of differing hardness that affects peak pressure, so it is difficult to know if your modern bullet is going to raise or lower pressure over what the old production did. 3.) Most of the old data was developed based on pressure signs in particular actions. Denton Bramwell showed that even if you stick to one rifle and one lot of cases with the same load history, some of these signs can show up at pressures that are different by almost 2:1. The scatter in pressure signs is very large.

So here you are 55 years later and with all your components different and probably with a different gun. You definitely have to work the loads up over even if you have faith in Ackley.

As to whether or not he was ahead of his time, I think you could argue that in some ways he was. Some of his cartridges demonstrate better efficiency than the parent cartridges were at producing higher velocities. Anyway, the books are probably collector's items now and might auction for something on eBay. You could try contacting the author's descendants to see if they'd mind you scanning them and putting them up online for all to read. They might not, but you need permission.

Since they are so old and are curiosities, I'm not going to enforce the board rule on posting copyrighted materials in this instance, but please do read it for future reference in posting.

Gavlan · October 14, 2016, 10:07 PM

Thanks Unclenick I just read the thread on copyrighted materials and your right I should have read it before posting the pic,, sorry didn't know .
But thanks for leaving it up and not reprimanding me ,,,,

HiBC · October 14, 2016, 11:19 PM

A friend of mine had a Father of Greatest Generation vintage.Like many others,he home sporterized a Mauser 30-06 hunting rifle.This gentleman had an old friend who did the handloading,back in the day.
This friend of mine decided he wanted to hunt with the Old Man's rifle.
well,the Old Man would still meet his old reloading buddy at the café to smoke his pipe,talk about irrigation,etc.
The Old man asked his reloading buddy to make up some ammo for his son and the rifle.
The son,my friend,complained the rifle kicked like a mule ,said something about "black stuff" and the primers falling out."Would I look at it".
I said,yes,but don't shoot anymore.
When I looked at the brass,the primer pockets were splayed out,the case heads distorted.Near wreck pressures.
The load was noted on the box.I forget the bullet weight.Probably 180's.
Powder was H-4895. Recipe was right out of P.O.Ackley's book.A safe and sane load,at the time.
Bruce Hogdon ran out of the old surplus 4895 from WW2 that he got started with.He found someone could make new to that spec.The thing is the new powder required less charge weight.
The Gentleman who reloaded the ammo bought new powder and in good faith made the same old load.I don't think"blue Pill"proof loads open the primer pockets that far.That was close to disaster.

Another example: I don't know the P.O.Ackley data,but from Sierra Data and Hogdon data I used to load 7mmRem Mag.,instead of telling you the load,I'll just say the OLD H-4831 allowed me to have a good load with approx seven grains over the maximum for modern H-4831 with a 160gr bullet.
7 Grains over maximum ....I would not want to shoot,myself.

I enjoyed PO.learned a lot from his writings.The data is obsolete and should not be used.It was safe in its day.Not anymore

Scorch · October 15, 2016, 01:13 AM

Was he ahead of his time? Possibly, but I would say Charles Newton is a better example of someone ahead of his time. PO Ackley was one of those experimenters that put known facts and ideas into practice and had a good business because of it. He took ideas and developed ways for people to have what they were looking for with what was available at the time.

Not to downplay his contribution or abilities, but PO Ackley was a good machinist pushing the ragged edge of cartridge performance without a lot of the tools we now take for granted. No chronographs, no pressure testing equipment, no powder burn rate information. No problem! He helped develop them!

That said, he pioneered cartridge development and help launch the whole "wildcatting" phenomenon. Want a really fast .22 centerfire for varminting? Just put a '06 case behind it. Want more performance without buying a new rifle? Improve the chamber! Some of his ideas are still in use, some aren't. Either way, he was a major force in cartridge development and rifle making.

By the way, I have hard cover copies of the books. Good reading!

brasscollector · October 15, 2016, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Was he ahead of his time? Possibly, but I would say Charles Newton is a better example of someone ahead of his time.

Dang Scorch...beat me to it.

steveno · October 15, 2016, 06:14 AM

if you want more good reading get a copy of Phil Sharpe's reloading manual. it is a good source for information on powders that are no longer available. yes there are newer powders but the principals are still the same. Phil Sharpe's name should also be mentioned as a pioneer along with Ackley and Newton

Longshot4 · October 15, 2016, 07:33 AM

I had a old Remington Endfield sporterized by PO Ackley. It was chambered with a 257 Roberts. It was one of my first rifles I loaded for. Ackley was a good machinist. The barrel was beautiful although I never could get that heavy thing to shoot under a inch.

A friend of mine inherited a rifle from his Grandfather it was built by Newton. It was chambered in 30 Government. Our range range master told us that 30 Government was The 30-06. I don't recall the type of sights on it. Although I can tell you it was the most accurate rifle I ever shot without optics.

Gavlan · October 15, 2016, 09:14 AM

These older books are really interesting as far as how things were done years back , amazes me some of the ideas these fella's had .
Agree Steveno Sharpe's book is a classic, I have that somewhere too ,,

603Country · October 15, 2016, 11:27 AM

I think Ackley was indeed a bit ahead of his time. I have his books and enjoyed reading them, but I don't load to his recommended levels. And if I could sit and have coffee with him, I'd bring up his rave reviews of the 220 Swift for deer hunting. I used mine for a while, and shot a number of deer, and Ackley was wrong. Some of the deer I shot with the 220 appeared semi-paralyzed and dropped on the spot. Some appeared uninjured and just stood there. Some ran off. And don't think it was poor shot placement, since I was very careful in that regard - on purpose. And I had access to better bullets than he probably did. I used reloads and Norma factory loads.

evtSmtx · October 16, 2016, 09:58 AM

Charles Newton? Harumph.
His cousin Isaac invented the fig cookie and gravity - much more impressive

Slamfire · October 18, 2016, 03:36 PM

I consider Ackley an attention seeking snake oil salesman.

Post WW2 Ackley is out there claiming that he has created a series of cartridges which are vastly superior in all respects to factory cartridges, all by the simple act of blowing out the shoulder to 40 degrees and straightening the case walls. This did increase powder capacity, a trifle in most cartridges. At the time there were a number of Wildcatters, each claiming that with a simple trick, their cartridge design was the best, the most, fabulous of them all. Most of the tricks involved increased powder supply, reduced caliber, and variations in shoulders. The most farcical claim Ackley made was that his cartridges could run at much higher pressures than standard cartridges because the straight taper of the case “reduced bolt thrust”. Therefore, the shooter/reloader could push the bullet faster than standard cartridges.

I am certain that the old school Military Arsenal guys at the American Rifleman were upset by Ackley’s claims that he had improved the 30-06 above and beyond anything the US Army Ordnance Department could do. The 30-06 was a beloved cartridge, had been successfully used in two World Wars and a number of bush wars, and the fact some machinist was flapping his jaws over the vast improvements he had made to an Army Ordnance Department cartridge was no doubt galling to the retired Ordnance Department experts on the NRA Staff.

Unlike Ackley, the American Rifleman staff decided to spend some money testing Ackley’s claims. The Dec 1953 article How Improved is it? was the result.

The American Rifleman staff contracted with HP While Laboratories to conduct pressure and velocity tests of a 30-06 and a 30-06 AI Cartridge. They conducted pressure tests at standard pressures and measured the pressure averages for ten data points, and the velocity averages for ten data points. They also conducted one over load test, that is test above industry standard standards. They analyzed the standard cartridge and the AI cartridge for pressure sensitivity at standard pressures and overload pressures. Obviously Ackley had been making claims about his case configuration giving less pressure for more velocity, providing more consistent velocities, and probably a bunch more “you can have your cake and eat it too” sort of arguments.. It is instructive to read within the 1953 American Rifleman article that Ackley, and that generation of Wildcatters have very little velocity data and absolutely no pressure data. These guys were publishing reams of pseudo science within the popular print media, all of which was accepted, but nothing in terms of real data and objective test results. The fact that the American’s Gunwriters still adhere to Ackleyism is a sad reflection on the critical thinking of that segment of the shooting community. Some of these early wild catters, Ackley particularly, had gained a celebrity status in the media. Ackley was a regular contributor to magazine articles and made a lot of money and had a brand recognition. Being a celebrity adds great credibility in the minds of many. The general population accepts that Celebrities have a greater insight into all things, animal or mineral, than non celebrities.

The NRA article had real test data, something of which if you notice, Ackley did not, and the article concluded that the 30-06 Ackley Improved had not changed the laws of physics, nor were the claims by the fan base substantiated by their results.

Quote:

The results of these tests, as shown in table 2, failed to reveal any marked superiority of the improved cases over the standard version.

Quote:

a higher velocity can be reached at a safe chamber pressure with the standard version of the 30-06 than the experimenter can attain with the Ackley Improved 30-06.

Quote:

in all other respect, in so far as we can discover, the Ackley Improved 30-06 can not do anything that the normal old fashioned 30-06 can do just as well or better

The old line Army Ordnance writers of the NRA bitch slapped P.O. Ackley in print, but charlatans tend to be persistent and shameless, and I have seen nothing in Ackley's books or articles of the 1950's that anything the NRA did altered his claims. In the first issue of Handloader, Vol 1 1966, Ackley writes an article titled “Wildcat Pressures” . It is worth looking at this article for the important point that Ackley set out to prove was that shoulder angle/shape meant nothing for velocity. Decades later people have probably forgotten the other Wildcatter’s who were promoting their designs, but one was Roy Weatherby. Roy Weatherby created a double venturi shoulder, and he claimed he got his massive velocities increases at a safe pressure, all due to his special shoulder design. This of course conflicted with Ackley’s claims that his design was better. Ackley claimed that the straight taper of his cartridges reduced bolt thrust, and therefore, it was safe to increase pressure, and velocity, with AI cartridges. Both of these characters were fooling the public, and may have been fooling themselves, never know, but the velocity increases both got were due to two factors: increased powder volume and vastly increased pressures. Their typical cartridge ran at or above factory proof pressures for the standard cartridge.

Ackley’s whole article is a thinly veiled debunking of other Wildcatter’s designs and the punch line is:

Quote:

What we have found is that some loads published for wildcat cartridges cannot be considered safe. It shows that you cannot change the shape of the case and the shoulder angle and revolutionize the industry.

A few interesting data points are that Ackley claims the most common load for the 30-06 Ackley improved, a load of 60 grains IMR 4350 with a 180 grain bullet, gave a pressure of 62,000 psia, and a load of 61 grains (still common) gave a pressure of 66,000 psia. Given that Ackley measured a factory 30-06 at 54,000 psia, it is no wonder that Ackley Improved cartridge move faster. Any fool can push a bullet faster, just increase the pressure. At some point the cartridge pressure exceeds the structural capability of the firearm, and all sorts of high velocity projectiles will be flying. Whoopee!

But what about the bolt thrust claims?, Ackley insisted that his cartridges reduced bolt thrust, therefore it was safe to run his cartridges hot. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but snake oil salesman make lots of unverifiable claims. What I found real interesting in the article is the picture of Ackley’s pressure, velocity and bolt thrust equipment

I for one do not believe in one moment that straightening a cartridge case reduces bolt thrust, because, straightening the case does not thicken the sidewalls. If the case has to carry load, and if you want to case to carry load (a bad idea in all physical universes), than the physical case, the sidewalls and the case head, will be carrying that load. Most of the case is a tube, a thin walled tube. The case head is the thickest part, and that makes the case a pressure vessel. Even though you cannot crush a case in your hand, it is really not very strong. At the operating pressures of a small arm, the cartridge case is the weakest piece in the whole system. When a case blows, bad things happen to a firearm. A thicker case can carry more load than a thinner case but nothing Ackley did made the case walls thicker. He simply took factory made cartridges and blew them out and straightened the sidewalls. Also, reducing bolt thrust does not make the load on the chamber go away. Increasing pressure increases the stress on the case, action, chamber and barrel. Ackley did a version of three card Monte, where he fooled people into thinking that load went away, or he diverted it, none of which he did. And he did not transfer it anywhere, and if it had been transferred anywhere, it would have increased the stress on the other components in the system. What Ackley did with his cartridge designs was to add a little more powder space and a lot more pressure.

And he had a bolt thrust measuring device. Just where is the data? I am of the opinion that Ackley did have the data, did not publish it, because the data would have shown that his fundamental claim to fame was false. I am confident the data would have shown that his case design did not reduce bolt thrust because his cases were simply factory cases blown out and straightened. Instead of publishing that data, he is rubbishing the claims of competing Wildcat designs, but not his own.