Search results

Coned breach: 0.147” unsupported case head Flat breach: 0.822 - 0.675 = 0.147” unsupported case head. Exactly the same. One could argue that the coned breach leads to a stronger system due to the fact that the cone led part of the barrel supports the bolt nose and extractor.

This has been covered many times in the CDG thread. The case head exposure is exactly the same on the coned breach. Here’s a diagram of both types of breach. Do the math and you’ll see that the case head protrusion from chamber face is exactly the same. Bottom left and bottom right diagrams.

1.1 yards, 2.5’, 5.25”, 1.38 MOA, 75.5 degrees Fahrenheit, 3.75 miles. All base ten. Still don’t get it do you?

Yes

Okay, just this one more picture of a boring old pencil sharpener…I mean supercharger blower. This one is in my not climate controlled garage. I had to clean it up before attempting a picture. Like @justin amateur , I use it all the time. I’m guessing similar vintage based upon design of the base.

Are you questioning my seriousity?

It’s the penis sharpener for guys with pencil dicks that know every part of a car…

Me too. Even though it’s very possible that I fall into that category.

Oh! You wanna go?!? 😁😄

It’s always about proper presentation, you flaming twit.

You, my friend, have a sick and twisted sense of humor. 👍🏻👍🏻

Yes. It’s all about fitment between the action, chassis and magazine.

Sigh… Why do you persist?

Because it’s Hollyweird, where reality doesn’t matter and bigger is better. Plus, depending upon the movie and its premise, if one is alone and having to move about all the time, carrying only one long arm to do it all, there might be a tough choice based upon situation, locale and intent.

Who was the best country singer?

And yet, my semi-vintage Stiller TAC AW action has never, yes never, been unreliable using only AW mags its whole life of many barrels. Almost all in .260. I don’t know for sure how many barrels, as I’ve used up three myself and am on the fourth. Each getting in excess of 3300 good rounds...

See? That’s your problem. Still relying on what has always worked, the .270. Missing anything between .260 and .308, I went new fangled (metric, shhhh!) 7PRC. I’m somewhat ashamed while I enjoy the hell out of shooting it. Using a specifically non-metric mil/mil scope…

It’s an angular measurement based upon the radian. It’s not a measurement of length. Nothing to do centipedes or millipedes in any way.