in Handloader #300 ( Feb 2016)

Takes some of the controversy out of the whole "improved" discussion with the usual clear presentation of facts, myths and historical evolution.

Thank you Mr.Barsness !

While the so called "improved cartridges" are fun to shoot and write about they don't do much.

One used High Wall I bought back in the 50's when we had woodchucks is a 219 Improved Zipper. I can't find 219 Zippers now however 225 Winchesters will fire as handloads and the extractor will pull them out.

No more so called AI's for me.

Good grief.

You are taking your meds in the wrong order again.

Kawi, don't you usually post on the elk forum?

Well, gee, Savage99 always insists you can get a lot more info from Internet sites than print magazines these days. He just wanted to prove it again!

Laffin.... this ain't t he "50's" anymore donkey...

I met Lysle Kilbourn at Lymans.

I met Pete Rose once. I still can't hit a major league fastball. Or curve for that matter. I bet you still dress just like Lysle though.

How about a link to the article, after we get done complimenting each other..., or is it print version only?

We're not done yet.

Times change



though I do like old ones, too

I still remember one guy I hunted with ~25 years ago. He had a nice custom Mauser "with an Ackley Iprovement". I asked him what powder he was using and he just looked at me funny and said he didn't handload

www.riflemagazine.com

I get my copy via digital download, much cheaper and fewer hassles for me than the Int'l postage on the print edition.

When I was a kid, I met Santa at a department store, sat on his lap.

To this day, I can't operate a reindeer propelled sleigh...

DF

Thanks to my job, I've met several people known for particular skills, including famous target shooters such David Tubb, highly competent custom gunsmiths Melvin Forbes and Kenny Jarrett, Hall of Fame athletes Wade Boggs and Bob Lilly, and Chuck Yeager. Unfortunately, shaking their hands didn't impart their knowledge or skills.

But that's irrelevant to Savage99's point, which is that improved cartridges are essentially worthless. According to many sources, Lysle Kilbourne came up with the idea of improving rifle cases by blowing them out. Did he tell Savage99 the entire idea was worthless?

"Improved" cartridges are not "useless. They'll definitely kill whatever your hunting.

But you can argue they're unnecessary. That's a different argument

Improved cartridges look cool.Everyone knows that looking cool is the most important thing.

OK, and your point is??????????

AI=Ain't Interested. BTDT, couldn't care less.

Love my 250 Sav AI.

Looks cute yet purposeful.

There are some good improved cartridges. The 308 Winchester is an improved 300 savage. Then 243 Winchester, 260, 7mm08, 358 are all improved 308 Winchesters. The 35 Whelan, 270, 25-06 are improved 30-06. The 300 weatherby in an improved 300HH.

I like the way you think.


Jerry

About the only thing and I do mean the only thing that John and I don't agree on are the improved cartridges. I have what I think are 3 of the best. A 7x57AI, 257AI, and the 250AI. Yes there are some like the 35Whelen AI and the 30-30AI that don't make a lot of sense but there are some that are worth your trouble. Once a man gets 40 fire formed cases he's got a lifetime supply of ammo. powdr

Improved cartridges give gun writers something to write about. It's how they earn the big bucks and go on free hunts.

So your telling me not to read the article because it will hurt my feelings about my 280AI?

Do the AI's still improve brass life of was that a myth too...wait don't tell me.

"Gunwriters, as you know, aren't as informed as their readers are and if it wasn't for the readers, there would be no need for writers..."

They ain't called improved for no reason.

225 Winchester is a fine round in your fine 1885, quite the combo.

I guess Mule Deer missed that.

Why don't you inform him ?


Jerry

I've yet to use an AI that got less speed and shorter case life.

Two sincere ??

Did you get more speed, w/o over pressure loads, and longer case life?


Jerry

What have your experiences with AI's been?

If you can't figure out that more powder equals more than you should visit Don.

When cases don't stretch much, that helps. I really should have typed not needing to trim.

The majority of my loads have been book loads, I don't hot rod, but the fact is, they go faster, period. Lots of rounds ain't worth the effort but some are.

A 250AI is more skookum fit in a SA, regardless of what many say.


Of course it's easy to install a window in a house when someone else has already poured the foundation and framed it.

Yep, I signed up, still waiting for the call back....

Nobody with an "improved" chambering is going to say its useless until after they sell it.

But, they do go to 11.

What does .223 AI mean?

But they do go to 11?????? What the hell does that mean? powdr

Okay, about spit my breakfast on my keyboard. Hysterical.

Thank you; all of my AI's now simply possess "Ackley Improvements." Sounds far more mysterious and elegant.

Sorry to be detained. I had a ditch full of leaves to burn before we are 'supposed' to get heavy rain tomorrow.

Sincerely, I never thot the minimal gains of AIs were worth the expense of chamber reaming and bother of fire forming. I know some don't fire form but that's personal preference.

I read 'this week' here on the fire that the.....

280 AI = 7mm RM performance.

I don't believe that at normal working pressure.


YMMV


Jerry

My 7RM is a 280 AI Improved and 28 Nosler Light. Boils down to handloading IMO, and I'm beginning to run out of give a schit for it.....

I'd believe that.


Jerry

Especially if you Long Throat the 7 !

I'm almost inclined to agree with you on the 7X57, .257 and .250 AI's mainly because SAAMI won't allow data using modern pressures for those cartridges forcing us to go by guess and by gosh working up modern loads for those cartridges. That's been a gripe of mine long before there was an internet. I load for the 7x57 and .257 Bob but have only shot a friend's .250 Sav. while helping him work up reloads for his early Sav. 99. At least with my two cartridges I see no need for improvement. On the 7x57 I load to 7-08 levels and go with that. The Bob is a bit trickier so it's still a work in progress.
Paul B.

^ This

John's article mentions loads for a Better Bob that are just shy of 3" in a NULA 24.
methinks that is a typo, probably a Model 20 w/3" magazine.

long-throating = another dimensional refinement ( improvement )

I love it when you talk Alaskan.

I have not yet seen the issue of Handloader so have not read the article.
No discussion of Improved cartridges is boring.
Certainly two cartridges which epitomize the possibilities of the Improved cartridge shape are the .30-30AI and the .25-35AI. The two cartridges realizing a significant Improvement in performance as a result of higher pressure.

Few of us have read enough of PO’s writing to really understand what his mind set was. PO wrote for the day, not for posterity.

Two of the more interesting articles on Improved cartridges are:

How Improved is it
By William F. Wieman
H. P. White Laboratory
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
DECEMBER 1953


'Improved' Cartridges
By P. O. Ackley
American Rifleman
October 1954

PO in answering his critics left us with two interesting quotes:

“The word 'improved' is an unfortunate choice, and just grew up in connection with certain developments which were made with several objectives. One consideration is increased velocity. Another is mechanical improvement, which results in minimizing certain faults of standard cartridges.”

My all-time favorite PO Quote:

“At the beginning of these comments certain things were pointed out as possible improvements, but nothing was said concerning pressure. Whether the handloader or wildcat enthusiast is right or wrong, he is interested in several things, most important of which are increased velocity and whether the bolt stays in the gun. If he can achieve these two results without serious complications, he is not overly concerned with the actual pressure readings in pounds per square inch.”

powdr
Campfire Tracker

Yes there are some like the 35Whelen AI and the 30-30AI that don't make a lot of sense... powdr

This was posted on P 3 ^^^^^^^^




Apparently opinions vary.

I don't have one on the 30-30 AI.


Jerry

P.O. rechambered my Ruger 77 to 250AI.Been using the same 20 cases since 1982!! [img:center][/img]

Mysterious for sure. A guy at work inherited a "custom 30'06 Mauser". He said it shot great, but did weird things to the brass. I asked him to bring in a fired case and sure enough - "Ackley Improvements"'.

I thought the only way to improve a .25 caliber round was to make it .26 caliber.

Years ago, I used to chat with a gunsmith here in Canada named Ellwood Epps. He and Ackley talked about improving cartridges back in the days when chambers were not created using equipment controlled by computers.

In a nutshell, Ellwood said there were three reasons to improve a case: to clean up the chamber, increase case life and obtain better velocity. Of the three, cleaning up the chamber was the number one reason to improve. Next was case life. Velocity increases ran third.

You have to remember that this was in the days before short and fat were in vogue and most magnums were bottles of champagne. Brass was harder to come by; there were a lot more surplus rifles - including surplus single shots - and civilian industry (Rem and Win) was less involved in cartridge development.

Ellwood sold, repaired and played with a lot of 303 British rifles here. Their chambers were all over the place WRT shape. Some chambers were too long and one firing was all you got from a case. This was unacceptable to him. There had to be a way to fix it.

He consulted with Ackley about improvements. In part, because of the atrocious chambers. He also looked at the 303 cartridge. It was a rimmed cartridge that featured a droopy 19th century design and 16 degree shoulders. The same would be said of the 30-30, the Hornet and others.

Commercial factories like Remington and Winchester didn't have large R&D sections working to change the function and feeding of rifle cartridges. This was back when small gunshops or home experimenters did the lion's share of "R&D".

Ackley started using 35 degree shoulder, as did Ellwood. PO changed to a 40 degree shoulder, while Ellwood stayed with the 35.

Ellwood's primary concern, horrible chambers, was virtually eliminated with a finishing reamer. Like other gunsmiths of the time, he removed the barrel, took a thread off the back and reinstalled it. Then he took a finishing reamer and cleaned up or "improved" the chamber. In effect, it was tighter. A better fit for the unfired cartridge.

He could have simply tightened things up by chambering again in 303 British, but the cases would still distort. It would just take a little longer. Reducing the taper and sharpening the shoulders of the 303, a rimmed cartridge, increased its useful life.

For Ellwood at least, more velocity at the same pressure level was just icing on the cake.

I'm not really sure when "AI-ing" a cartridge was done only for the purpose of increasing velocity, and not to clean up a chamber and improve case life. It seems to me that things got turned around.

A few other things. When experimenters were improving almost everything, there were a lot more rimmed cartridges and single shot rifles around. The feeding problems associated with AIed cartridges were not as much of a problem. In the early part of the 20th century, rimless cartridges took over. Severe tapers and droopy shoulders were great once upon a time, but design requirements changed with increased production and use of the bolt action. AIed cartridges were a logical progression for shooters using smokeless powder and bolts.

Love the 250 whether she's christmas tree or tall timber. Fine cartridge made better by (sorry for the redundancy) improving.

I've never understood the arguments against AI given those two facts. Even if only incremental velocity increases such as with larger calibers, more is more, and the brass will be easier to work with. All good.

He could have simply tightened things up by chambering again in 303 British, but the cases would still distort. It would just take a little longer. Reducing the taper and sharpening the shoulders of the 303, a rimmed cartridge, increased its useful life.



So, when you say cases would still distort in a tight 303 chamber, just what would be the reasoning behind this? GD

The MKIV 303 that we had growing up was a case splitting mofo with anything that wasn't milsurp.

Old, Cordite filled brass had a tendency to do that - made worse by rifles with long chambers. Kind of a one, two punch.

That was the reason I converted my first No 4 to Epps. It was a 1942 Savage 2 groove with a chamber a mile long. Cartridges came out constantly split or separated.

My dad paid $15 for it at a hardware store when he was kid and to this day I've never seen one even remotely close in condition.

I miss the days when you could pick a rifle out of a barrel.

"$15 for anything in the barrel"

I got several 303s, some old Mausers and a Mosin Nagant that way. I still have a couple of them. I have to find an 8x57 again. They weren't anything special, but it was one of the first rimless cartridges I reloaded for.

Got one of my first .303's that way too. I sure didn't know anything about the Epps Improved version then. But we were way out west, and anything that deserved custom gunsmithing work such as rechambering or the like, would have to be a couple rungs up the scale. I'm sure it would've helped as I had many handload attempts that would separate due to case stretch and working in the resize die. I always thought it was due to not having the correct bolt-head on those SMLE's
;-)

The evolution of rimless improved cases seems to have reached it's limit. There really isn't much capacity to be gained from improving anything like a .223, .260, or .243, other than minor volume changes due to a steeper shoulder angle.
Powder capacity isn't increased by much, because the shoulder diameter is already improved at .454".
In these cases Velocity Improvements come more from Long Throating and mostly from Pressure Increases.

The 6.5 CM looks remarkably like an uber improved .250-3000 (.462 shoulder), with a brass manufacturing friendly 30 degree shoulder angle.

Wonder if there's any reason why the new case designs reflect the "Ackley Improvements"? Minimum body taper and no more 17 degree shoulders.

Wonder why?

I'd like to have a .22-250AI at some point, preferably with a fast twist. But that's a "down the road" type of deal.

I'd also be curious to know if a .223AI would function reliably in an AR, but I have never heard anyone vote yea or nay on it.

I had an ongoing letter communication with Ed Mattunis over the .220 Swift in the 1970's. Interesting letters, but we differed.

You are showing your age!! I too remember the Lee Enfields and Mauser's in post-WW2 that cost $15 from a pile or barrel!

Exactly my point - The improvements from minimal case body taper are already designed in. By my calculations, this is where the most capacity increases come from with the AI's
The shoulder angle requires fireforming for the steeper sloped versions. The bonus being better headspace control, and my favourite - less trimming.

A poster in the AR forum has mentioned a couple of times that a pard has a 223AI in an AR and that it works and feeds from unaltered magazines. FWIW...

I hope noone stole my copy because mine hasnt shown up in the mail yet.

Interesting....
I went through the ackley craze my self and really don't have anything against them.. Tho for me I have sold or rebarreled them all.
For me I don't see the point...if I need more power than 30/06 I take the 300 why...why 22-250 ai. Get a swift... I think the spectrom is well covered...
All that said...we do like to tinker and be different and have something to talk about so Ackley away......

You have to remember the time. Remington, Winchester and others were releasing fewer new cartridges back then, and there was more room between cartridges. Increase the power a bit, or get more without needing to buy a new rifle. A different era certainly.

WRT to the companies, I recall that they kept changing the rifles more than the ammunition. They were chambered in different, but existing cartridges. They changed the stocks and/or offered fancier grades. They messed with the checkering or finish.

Remember when the rifle companies went through the "Let's lighten the rifles" phase? A lot of sweat was generated figuring ways to do that. They shaved 0.5 an ounce here and there, to make the perfect 4 or 5 lb magnum mountain rifle.

Hundreds of articles were written about Remington, Winchester or some upstart company/gunsmith saving 2 oz by changing the recoil pads, thinning metal or bobbing barrels (or something equally silly), so everyone could carry a mountain rifle. And we certainly needed more 5 lb. firearms chambered for 300 Win Mag.

I have one improved rifle left, but, like yours, it's going away. I have already ordered a new barrel for a No 4 Lee Enfield action which will be rechambered back to 303 British, but using a 308 barrel. It becomes a 7.62 British. There is a better selection of bullets, and I can use my existing die sets and magazines. No feeding issues either. In that sense, this improves or upgrades the rifle.

I have done this twice before, and the idea is not new. Others did it before me. To my way of thinking, this is a real improvement.

I stamp mine 30-03 British. The Epps is stamped 30-03 Epps.
This just so I could avoid the commie inspired metric designation! GD

I only have 1 "improved" rifle -
I'm VERY happy with my K-Hornet! (Mostly due to brass life)

If the factories had started with straight-sided, steep-shouldered, full-capacity cases, no one would be making the argument for squeezing them down to long slopes and less capacity. Tells you all you need to know right there.

Not seeing any 30wsm un-improved in the future are we?

I'm very interested in whether the bolt stays in the gun. Or not.

It is not like the early cartridge designers didn't know what they were doing. Cases with more taper and sloping shoulders and early on, with round nose bullets, feed very easily and reliably from the magazine to the chamber and extract easily from hot or dirty chambers.

These attributes were very desirable for both military rifles and lever-action rifles. And trimming or reloading the cases wasn't a consideration for the manufacturers.

Even today cartridges like the 250 Savage and the 7x57 are noted for their smooth and trouble-free functioning. Once again, everything in life seems to involve compromises.

I shoot all sort of "Improved" cartridges, they are called Weatherbys. Sorry, couldn't resist...

Yeah.....but it's true! PO did not invent Improved cartridges. Roy and other wildcatters were blowing out cartridges back into the 1940's, and earlier.

Stand by.....

+1




Dave

Yeah and these are IMproved tooo.

"There are some good improved cartridges. The 308 Winchester is an improved 300 savage. Then 243 Winchester, 260, 7mm08, 358 are all improved 308 Winchesters. The 35 Whelan, 270, 25-06 are improved 30-06. The 300 weatherby in an improved 300HH." .... baltz526...P 3


Jerry

At this point I'm beginning to wonder if anybody else except the OP has actually read the article that started this thread, because so far every insight posted here (except for Savage99's cluelessness) was discussed in the magazine, along with some other points.

But hey, as Savage99 points out, the Campfire is free! Read enough posts and you'll eventually get some information! Which is why he's so well-informed.

It seems that a couple of writers these days only write stuff that tries to dispel a myth. Sure gets old.

John, I did not read your article, I was just being flip, for I just have never had any interest in AI cartridges. Even though I load practically all of my ammo, I've never acquired the taste. Cheers, j

Jorge, your post on Weatherbys may have been flip but was right on. The early Weatherby rounds are part of the article, especially the .300, the only improved .300 H&H (and there were several) to become a commercial cartridge.

Savage99 is a treasure trove of knowledge..

I didn't read it because i don't have it yet. I was just agreeing with Jorg.

But I will!

Yeah, one reason not many have read it is the OP has an on-line subscription, so gets his copy at least a couple weeks ahead of the print copies. In late December the delay is probably longer in most places, because of the volume of Christmas mail. I haven't even gotten my "hard copy" from Wolfe yet.

The same for me as well.

If I wanted 'any' improved cartridge I would simply get the next larger. I have had multiple rifles in various cartridges and bought/sold/traded for so many years.... I've spread the shooting around enuff that the advantage of 'longer' case life isn't that important to me.

NOTE: I'm not critical of others who go that route. It's fine with me, just not for me.


Someone of note has said repeatedly, the higher velocity (speed) of AI cartridges comes from excess pressure RATHER than a few more grains of powder.


Jerry




***If you want to improve the 280 Rem get a 270 Win***

Jerry,

The article is about improved cartridges of any kind, including the .22 K-Hornet (which was apparently the very first improved cartridge) and the .300 Weatherby, not just Ackley Improveds.

No, the velocity advantage doesn't come only from higher pressures, though that's a lot of it in many AI cartridges based on modern rounds. How much depends on the round being improved.

Also, velocity isn't the only advantage to improved rounds, and the other advantages are specifically discussed. And the article isn't a knock on improved rounds, as a few people have posted (without reading it) on this thread, from the very first page on.

J. E. Zoerb would have laughed at this!

I don't want to argue with you but the AIs are the only ones I referenced.




Jerry

Thanks, John, I did enjoy your article on rust prevention in Sporting Classics or Sports Afield !

I currently have 2 AI's, or immitations thereof. I have a .35 Whelen Ackley, and a version of the .35/.303 Imp. in a #4 Enfield. The Whelen does 2640 fps. with Nosler 250's and absolutely no pressure indications of any kind. That's the velocity level I wanted - just enough to have a trajectory very closely similar to the .308 Win. round. For the .35/.303, I just wanted to approximate the .358 Win., and the version I have does that very well. The min. body taper and sharp shoulder (45* on mine) make for just about exactly the same internal capacity. I don't load it as stoutly as I could, and in the old Enfield action, I don't want to press it much so I can get good brass life.

Would I do it again? WIth the .35/.303, probably, but with the Whelen, after forming cases, etc., I think I'd likely just get a .338 and leave off the forming, not to mention the greater uncertainty of loading data. For the Whelen, I've just used an avg. charge from a number of manuals with any given powder, plus 5% added to allow for the increased powder capacity, and that's worked great for me. Best powder so far is VV N-540, and that gives me the 2640 fps. with the 250 Noslers. Darn good load, but the magazine feeding and case forming gets old after you've done it a time or two. Have also had .256 Win. and .30 Herrett, too, but got tired of forming those cases also. Loved them all, but we have stuff now that's just less trouble, and I'm gettin' lazier the older I get. Seems to be an epidemic goin' around?

I just got around to reading the article JB wrote in HL-300. There's been plenty of wildcatters thru the years, some with incredulous claims about velocity increases at professed safe pressures.

I'll throw this graphic into the fray. It's one I drew up in AutoCAD a number of years back to show myself the actual differences in some of these "improvements". Will say that my first foray into wildcatting was rechambering a Ruger #1B in '06 to .30 Gibbs. Taught me a lot about wildcatting and what 70+kpsi does to cases and primer pockets.



I did take note of JB's comments about Wby's claim that the double radius shoulder transformed some of the burning powder into pixie dust and thus enhanced velocity (well, not exactly those words). I recall a well know wildcatter and rifle builder with the initials of F.Z. He had posted this gem on his website to "prove" his designs were better than the others.



We had several heated discussions on how this was possible, but his claim and graphic were thoroughly backed up by pressure testing and chronographing, so physics and thermodynamics be damned.

I read the article last night.
I still think J. E Zoerb and Richard Simmons would get a laugh out of the first statements on the K-Hornet.
Harvey Donaldson once wrote his friend M. S. Risley made the first reamer for the Kilbourn Hornet and reamed the first chamber for Lysle Kilbourn.
Donaldson, Risley (and later, Ed Yard) believed there was little actual advantage to the Improved Hornet over the standard case – I will add with the powder available at the time of their writing.
Certainly the .22-3000, the R-2 Donaldson/Lovell and the ,22-4000 appeared prior to the K-Hornet. But these are small matters.

I believe a rimless cartridge chamber reamed with an Ackley Improved reamer with the barrel not set back cannot be referred to as an AI chamber. There are many of these rifles floating around and they muddy the water when discussing Ackley Improved chambers. Not all Ackley wildcats were intended to be able to fire factory ammunition to fire form the case.

The interesting area for discussion is pressure. I do not believe any of the “early” wildcatters had any thought of remaining within the pressure limits of the factory cartridge. Ackley was not the only writer to discuss higher pressures associated with wildcat cartridges. F. C. Ness and others discussed the higher pressures associated with wildcat cartridges many times. The notion the Improved cartridge should be held to the same pressure limit as the factory cartridge appears to have been first brought forward by Phil Sharpe pre-WWII and then the H. P. White Laboratory post WWII.

There is no point in in bringing up E. Baden Powell and Ralph Waldo Miller along with their PMVF cartridges which were undoubtedly an inspiration for Weatherby.

I haven't seen John's article, but the topic reminds me of Gil Sengel's 1986 article in Handloader 123, ".30-06 versus .30-06 Improved." His last sentence was "The answer is: very, very little."

The lgs here has .219 Zipper on the shelf. But then, they have most rounds. You can even get a lifetime supply of 8mm Lebel from them.

I pulled the barrel from a very accurate 22-250 Savage 114V and had the chamber reamed to accept 22-243ai brass. Dies came from 4D.

I like 60 gr bullets in 14 inch twist 22 cal, and this rifle will certainly go places a swift can only dream about. If only for a limited number of times.

A totally boring rifle which had sat unused in the back of the safe for several years instantly became interesting again.

A firearm one is bored with and does not use is of no use and might as well be sold or altered.

I've several "Improved" rifles, too, and will have more in the short future.
I agree wholeheartedly, that they are too expensive to get a standard caliber and "improve" it. They are not enough better to justify the expense. The only way I could justify it, is to quantify how much the "improvement" is.
All of my rifles were custom-built, and the "improved" version was chosen, because the cost was the same, so "Why not?"
Two of them, a .375/348 and a 6.5 TCU (rifle) had no factory barrels to start with anyway, so when the .270 ("improving" took all the "gay" out) .257 and the .219 Zipper were built, it only made sense to use "improved" chambers.
Have fun,
Gene

Read the excellent article. I know they are excellent when I agree with what is written.
My only question is how much are you willing to sell your 35 Whelen AI?

I have read John's article. I believe that his observations are different, but not at odds with, what was happening around here.

I realize that Handloader Magazine is written primarily for a US audience, and my observations are from a Canadian perspective. They are based on my own work and from time spent in Ellwood Epps shop. Epps was also a large mail order business that published a catalog several hundred pages thick. Some of that catalog contained milsurps, converted and improved milsurps and reloading components.

Ellwood's influence on Canadian sportsmen was more than that of Parker Ackley. And most (but not all) of Ellwood's improvements concerned military rifles. He realised that there was a market to sell beat up, former military rifles and make a buck. And he was getting them by the truckload. They had to be sporterized - many using Fajan stocks and aftermarket iron sights - to be hunter friendly. Some had mechanical issues that included poor feeding, mismatched bolts and bad chambers.

It goes without saying that Lee Enfields as well as the other milsurps were abused or hastily assembled. QC was not the best. He stocked Mausers, Enfields, MNs, Mannlichers, SS Remingtons and Lee Enfields. For this short discussion, I will concentrate on Lee Enfields.

Ellwood carried a lot of 303 stuff, and listened to his customers. Many Canadian shooters were familiar with Lee Enfields because of their time in the military. It was just after WWII and Korea. LEs were our primary small arm from 1916 into the 1960s, and there was a huge desire to buy a rifle that you were comfortable with and used while in service. He converted a lot of P14s, No 1 and No 4 LEs before doing that became evil. In fact, it was looked upon favourably by everyone in those days. I have heard that over 7 million Lee Enfield were made.

So where am I going with this? Well, many of the chambers were in need of work. Improving, or rebarreling and rechambering rifles was more common around here in those days. As John mentioned, there were fewer cartridges and powders, so you worked making things better with the tools, components and technology available at the time. That is no longer necessary because we have more cartridges, powders, and technology and design have advanced.

Ellwood read about what Ackley and others were doing. They wrote each other and swapped ideas. I cannot say exactly when he started his work improving milsurps and rifles in general, but I would guess it was in the late 1940s. He opened his first motorcycle shop in 1929, and was repairing rifles as well. He went into the firearms biz full time in the 1930s.

By the 1950s, he was converting, sporterizing and repairing all kinds of surplus rifles. If you are lucky enough to have one of his old catalogs, you will see many pages of his work. He marketed his Epps line of improved cartridges and rifles based on the 303 British in a number of ways.

One of them was a small wooden and plexiglas box he kept for years on the counter in his shop. I cannot recall the exact velocity figure, but he claimed the increase was something in the order of 400 fps over std. 2440 fps was std. with a 180 gr. bullet. I believe he claimed 2900+ fps. That is highly unlikely though and I doubt any of his loads were chronoed back then.

That said, when you talked to him, he stated up front that many of the chambers and barrels were in such bad shape that they needed repair or replacement. His biggest concern was not wringing every last fps out of a rifle; it was cleaning up chambers, making the rifle function better and making it attractive to hunters (buyers).

Improving the chamber improved accuracy, was gentler on the brass, and slowed stretching. Velocity increases were a possible added benefit. In fact, he only pushed velocity increases in P14 rifles.

Velocity increases came in 3rd.

In my work with Epps cartridges, I got an average 130 fps increase (4.5%) with 180 gr. bullets. I got more with my P14, but that was because pressure went up.

Today, I would improve because the cartridge shape might be pleasing to my eye, I had a rifle lying around unused or could do the work myself. Otherwise, it is easier and cheaper to buy another rifle chambered for a cartridge that will get me what I want.

But where's the fun in that?

John's current article is similar to the one he did a few years ago. If I had known what john knew, I would of never of bothered having my 35 Whelan re-chambered to an improved. Live and learn.

powdr : Why doesn't the .30-30 AI make sense ?

Interested in your viewpoint on this, it's always been on my list if the right '94 or Marlin came along.

Sort of like the .303 Epps though, it has to feed, or where is the "improvement" ?

thank you for that interesting perspective