Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Short Fat Vs. Long Thin???

No, you miss the point. The point is that match grade handloads were tested over a period of years in match grade rifles, probably from machine rests.

The definate proof was in the results of the study Remington did.

If you can't understand what I am talking about, you are going to have to get your answers somewhere else. I have explained it a simple and comprehensively as I could. The .22 LR does not even enter into it.

Why do I need a defense? Warren Page, a person whose writing and testing I have much respect for, reported on the test. I have no intention of defending Warren Page, nor John Amber, who published the results.

Nor do I think I need to defend Mike Walker, who was also pretty sharp when it came to accuracy work and development. I will take the opinion of any of these learned gentlemen over your request for methodology and salient information.

The facts are there. You just missed them.

Also, we are not talking about short fats in this instance. There were no short fats around when this article was published.

Comparing a 6 PPC to a cartridge developed for 1000 yard shooting is dumb. Who have you ever heard of using a 6 PPC in 1000 compentention?

The study did include the .300 Win. Mag. and the .30/.338, both cartridges which were regurlarly used for 1000 yard competition during this time period, and both cartridges were frequent winners at the Wembleton and Leech Cup, and other 1000 yard competition. The two above mentioned cartridges were, I think, the exceptions to all the smaller cases giving better accuracy, but I do not remember where they placed exactly.

The information is on this forum, if you know how to search for it. I don't.

I have read your remarks two or three times, and they still don't make sense. Even bad sense.

They make total sense.

Mike Walker, Remington and Warren Page; were these guys shooting past 300 yards in these "tests"?

Bear in mind Page and Walker also had a real hankering for long necks on "target" rounds, another theory some find laughable, others swear by.

To say the 6 PPC/1000 yard comparison is dumb is like saying the 6 PPC killed the 222 Rem. and most other 224's because it kicked their asses at 200 yds and beyond...some "tests" end where others begin and all else equal just ain't.

Oh. You realize you are speaking to one of the Turdlike People, right?

I missed nothing. You say he said...I am underwhelmed. "over a period of years" and "match grade rifles"...you have any idea how many variables that introduces and how seriously it clouds statistical analysis?

In the commentary put forth by Mule Deer he described a sound methodology used by Mr. Sisk which used the same barrel/gun and indoor range and loads as I recall. Such approach eliminates many variables which taint the Remington project you reference, assuming your description is correct.

"exceptions"???? Don't even know where to start with that. I do not care if you are talking small/large, the discussion is little different from the fat/thin question in the original post. Exceptions are the antithesis of proof positive.

Can you not see that a representation of superior accuracy necessarily comes with limitations which define the parameters? A 6 PPC is not a 1,000 yard cartridge, on that we agree. Ergo it's accuracy has defined limits of application.

Now is the 6 PPC more accurate than the .222 Rem.? Perhaps...or not. It might be that the "6" has enough popularity on the 100 and 200 yard lines that component production is superior quality to yesterday's stepchild. Currency of production lends certain quality control benefits, ie finding quality brass for the .222 can be problematic...among other things. And that danged .222 case is smaller than the PPC and generates less bolt thrust. Go figure...

Just because my remarks make no sense to you does not mean they make no sense. I am not attacking Warren Page or the others you speak of, but I do have a problem with your conclusions. Do tell me why the .22 RF does not enter into the discussion. After all, you indicate there is an advantage to small capacity cases.

Missing the point, by that much, takes talent.

"They make total sense."

To certain types of people, I'm sure they would.

I'll try one more time. For several years, Remington kept a record of accuracy results or cartridges tested in 40X rifles. These results showed, over a period of time and many thousands of different cartridges tested, was that the smaller capacity cases averaged better accuracy than a larger case in the same caliber.

For certain of those among us, this would mean that the .222 showed better accuracy over a period of years, under the same testing conditions, than, for example, the .22-250.

As far as I know, all test were done with centerfire cartridges. I don't know if any testing was done with .22 LR. The .22 LR and the 40X were primarily used in small bore competition. I don't know if anyone used the .22 LR in bench rest or 1000 yard competition at the time the tests were being made.

I'll try to simplify, but I have my doubts that I can get to the level of either Digital Dan or Hawk, but, IIRC correctly, during this time, Rem. guarenteed a certain level of accuracy with their 40 X and the button-rifled stainless barrel. They tested each rifle made, to make sure it fell into this range of accuracy. They kept records. Over the years and many tests, the results showed that the smaller capacity cartridges were the most accurate.

I remember reading the article many years ago, and that is the conclusion Rem. came up with. I really don't care if you understand it or not, or even understand what I am talking about.

There are people with whom trying to use logic and reasoning is a complete waste of time. Stating the simple facts as presented in an article I read many years ago would not seem to fall into this catagory.

Got three suggestions for you:

"Rifle Accuracy Facts" by Harold Vaughn
"Modern Exterior Ballistics" by Robert McCoy
"Designing and Forming Custom Cartridges" by Dr. Ken Howell

The authors are as close to expert as you will find in my opinion, maybe you'll pick up a few nuggets from them.

You have a mirror

There is only one bug in your idea, these people are writers they make their living writing and will say what they must to sell their books. and it is only their opnion anyway.

I cannot believe there are people who are so desperate for something to do that they will try to make a big production over something so simple to understand.

JWP475, does your relfection show up in my mirror? Do you have any interest in the discussion or are you just wanting to do something else stupid, as I have seen you do before.



"Got three suggestions for you:"

Got one for you--if someone makes a comment that you do not understand, try to find out the facts before you go running off at your mouth saying a bunch of stupid stuff.

What is even worse, you have brought along a cheering section who don't know any more than you do.

Why don't you and your chering section admit, that what I have presented here is to complicated for you to understand, too complicated for you to ever understand, and the pathetic part is that neither you nor your cheering section have enough sense to realize it.

To get that jwp to agree with you, you must really be desperate for attention.

Hubert, I gave the results of some test Rem. made, as reported by Warren Page. I don't know if either he, Rem. or Gun Digest had any ulterior reasons for getting it into print other than as for information for someone who might be interested.

FWIW, neither comparison negates the other.

Remington's long-term tests were over a myriad of different rifles, actions, and barrels, albeit all of the same "model". The slight variations in barrel, in chamber (which reamers were used), in action, and in the ammunition used could have as easily accounted for any long-term variances as anything else.

Not saying that it proves, or disproves anything other than it is what Remington found, complete with all it's variances within the testing.

And, the Sisk test is a sampling of one. It removed most of the variances (same action, stock, trigger, barrel), but left a couple others (reamer and ammunition), but it is exactly what it is: a sampling of one.

IMHO, and FWIW, I'd rather have a set-up that fed slick'n snot, was dead-nuts reliable, and easy to load for/find ammo for, than one that had a minute, field-irrelevant, edge in accuracy.

Of course, that's as a hunter. A bench shooter would likely have a different desire.

Carry on...

"You're telling me something without submitting salient information or direct expert testimony. In some venues that is called hearsay."

No, I am telling you about some records kept and was reported in Gun Digest. I am telling you just the general over all results.

As I explained, the article was published many years ago, in Gun Digest, and I do not remember all of the salient information and direct expert testimony, but I think there was some of that mentioned.

The accuracy results were given in MOA, so the distance wouldn't matter, although I think the distance was 100 yards. If it was, then that would give a legimitate comparison to all other cartridges that were tested at the same distance.

The results of the tests are available, but I do not know where to find them. If the results are as I presented them here, what is your problem with it?

These were not deliberate tests to determine which is the world's most accurate cartridge. They were tests to make sure all rifles leaving the custom shop met Rem's. criteria for accuracy in that particular rifle.

After many thousands of test rounds fired, it was determined that the lower capacity the cartridge, the better the accuracy that could be expected.

That was also within the realm of the cartridges tested. The conclusion Rem. reached was that, everything else being equal, a large capacity case was not as inheritantly accurate as a larger case in the same caliber.

To repeat, I cannot understand your problem with me telling about the results of some tests ran by Rem. and reported on by Warren Page. I can see no reason that either Rem., Warren and John Amber and Gun Digest would lie about it, just because they did not have anything else to to that day.

Here's the crux of the matter:

"improved internal ballistic performance" is NOT measured in either accuracy at 100 yards, NOR is it measured in meaningful increases in velocity.

Improved internal ballistic performance is measured by more PREDICTABLE performance -- lower shot to shot velocity variations, more predictable performance at very low or very high temperatures.

Velocity consistency just doesn't show up at 100 -- but it sure does at 600 or more.

Does case shape matter as far as velocity? Not enough to find in a sample of one. JMO, Dutch.

Sir, kindly go forth and perform an unnatural act with yourself.

Pressures (base obturation), bullet quality and certainly case quality would also have a bearing on accuracy comparing larger to shorter cases and certainly calibers. Don't forget the 40x action length (rigidity) and barrel length (exit pressure), twist, range, thrown in with all the other glaring variables of the Remington test...

David Tubb never had trouble winning with a 243 Winchester, but he continues to create newer, shorter cases with "more" accuracy. I suspect he has created more barrel life and a market for his wares, just as the others have.

Check out the 22 Waldog. Shorter and fatter than the 222 with the same capacity. It is accurate, again, the same volumetric capacity, so speed is "magically" the same, despite claims of efficiency and "merits" of being shorter. More accurate? Harder to prove.


Everyone but you realizes this "test" is built around a pre-conceived concept with a lot of variables, variables that don't lend things to being equal easily, if ever, even when the guns in question are the same cartridge.

You were replied to in a logical manner and you came back with this little jewel







Then you reply even topped your previous poor posting quality





Wow, not only is your logic flawed but your beside manor makes a raging grizzly look sociable

You may want to use spell check

Thats why I'll take long and thin - every time. I want magazine capacity. I like the fact that after I pull the trigger once, my 375 H&H has four more in the flush-mounted (Sako 85) clip. Short and fat rounds have no real advantage, in my opinion - but one big disadvantage. In most anything you made need a magnum for - you want more back-up power. The short fat rounds usually sacrifice magazine capacity. That's not a theoretical difference - its a real one.

Thank the Lord for Bill Ruger and the 10 shot 22mag...

That too!

[/quote]


Wow, not only is your logic flawed but your beside manor makes a raging grizzly look sociable

You may want to use spell check [/quote]



It's probably good bedside manner to spell check and proofread before calling out somebody else on their spelling ability. Just saying.

I guess that my spell check is flawed, then