Gunsmithing 6.5-08 AI
- Thread starter Travelor
- Start date
Re: 6.5-08 AI
Isn't that a 260AI?
I've never heard of a 6.5-08? A 6.5 based on the 308 cartridge is a 260.
Isn't that a 260AI?
I've never heard of a 6.5-08? A 6.5 based on the 308 cartridge is a 260.
Re: 6.5-08 AI
6.5-08 was the wildcat & later, the A-square designation before Remmy beat them to the punch (some say stole it) having it standardized as a SAAMI spec cartridge IIRC. Then it became the 260 Remington.
6.5-08 was the wildcat & later, the A-square designation before Remmy beat them to the punch (some say stole it) having it standardized as a SAAMI spec cartridge IIRC. Then it became the 260 Remington.
Re: 6.5-08 AI
Here is a link to a good article on Terry Cross and his .260 AI competition rifle with a sidebar on the .260 AI. Although there is no line drawing of the cartridge, there are some good pics for comparison.
http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek046.html
Doug Mann
Here is a link to a good article on Terry Cross and his .260 AI competition rifle with a sidebar on the .260 AI. Although there is no line drawing of the cartridge, there are some good pics for comparison.
http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek046.html
Doug Mann
Re: 6.5-08 AI
Terry,
Any idea how this reamer differs from the .260 Remington "Tactical" reamer from PTG? I was going to go with some sort of .260 National Match reamer, but was steered to the .260 Tactical instead.
Your 2 cents?
Terry,
Any idea how this reamer differs from the .260 Remington "Tactical" reamer from PTG? I was going to go with some sort of .260 National Match reamer, but was steered to the .260 Tactical instead.
Your 2 cents?
Re: 6.5-08 AI
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ranger1183</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Terry,
Any idea how this reamer differs from the .260 Remington "Tactical" reamer from PTG? I was going to go with some sort of .260 National Match reamer, but was steered to the .260 Tactical instead.
Your 2 cents?
</div></div>
+1
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ranger1183</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Terry,
Any idea how this reamer differs from the .260 Remington "Tactical" reamer from PTG? I was going to go with some sort of .260 National Match reamer, but was steered to the .260 Tactical instead.
Your 2 cents?
</div></div>
+1
Re: 6.5-08 AI
Look at the body and shoulder angles and body length dimensions of a 308 and compare that to the drawing above. BTW the drawing above is a generic cartridge, not an actual drawing representative of the actual dimensions. If you don't know how to read a reamer blueprint then the drawing is useless.
Look at the body and shoulder angles and body length dimensions of a 308 and compare that to the drawing above. BTW the drawing above is a generic cartridge, not an actual drawing representative of the actual dimensions. If you don't know how to read a reamer blueprint then the drawing is useless.
Re: 6.5-08 AI
Ranger,
The above print is an "Ackley". Very little body taper and 40 degree shoulder. Must fireform std .260 Rem brass to the chamber and use Ackley dies.
All the other "tactical" and "national match" versions of the ".260 Rem" require no fireforming and use std .260 Rem dies. They are simply tweaked versions of the SAAMI .260 Rem dimensions. Many people do that. I have a Match KMW reamer that I have been using to chamber .260 Rem for the last 10 years. Have not seen the PTG and other match versions so I cannot comment.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NineHotel</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> BTW the drawing above is a generic cartridge, not an actual drawing representative of the actual dimensions. If you don't know how to read a reamer blueprint then the drawing is useless.</div></div>
I don't understand. The drawing is anything but generic. It is exactly the blueprint for the finish reamer. Depending on how well you can setup and machine with it, the print would be representative of the final chamber. The printed dimensions ARE in essence the drawing. George asked for a diagram and I linked that image in answer to his request.
Saying that "if you can't read the print it is useless" is kind of obvious. I'm probably just mis-undertanding your post.
No wind,
Terry
Ranger,
The above print is an "Ackley". Very little body taper and 40 degree shoulder. Must fireform std .260 Rem brass to the chamber and use Ackley dies.
All the other "tactical" and "national match" versions of the ".260 Rem" require no fireforming and use std .260 Rem dies. They are simply tweaked versions of the SAAMI .260 Rem dimensions. Many people do that. I have a Match KMW reamer that I have been using to chamber .260 Rem for the last 10 years. Have not seen the PTG and other match versions so I cannot comment.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NineHotel</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> BTW the drawing above is a generic cartridge, not an actual drawing representative of the actual dimensions. If you don't know how to read a reamer blueprint then the drawing is useless.</div></div>
I don't understand. The drawing is anything but generic. It is exactly the blueprint for the finish reamer. Depending on how well you can setup and machine with it, the print would be representative of the final chamber. The printed dimensions ARE in essence the drawing. George asked for a diagram and I linked that image in answer to his request.
Saying that "if you can't read the print it is useless" is kind of obvious. I'm probably just mis-undertanding your post.
No wind,
Terry
Re: 6.5-08 AI
Terry - So you are saying that the shoulder angle in the picture you posted is a 40 degree angle? Hold one of your cartridges up there and compare the two. I don't think so. It looks to be about 20 degrees.
Travelor, this link gives you a pic of the 243 and the 243 AI. Other than the diameter of the bullet being .264 versus .243, the 243 looks the same as the 260 in their native and AI forms assuming you are looking at the AI 40 degree shoulder variant.
Note that the AI in this pic does not look like the reamer print above.
http://www.6mmbr.com/243Win.html
Terry - So you are saying that the shoulder angle in the picture you posted is a 40 degree angle? Hold one of your cartridges up there and compare the two. I don't think so. It looks to be about 20 degrees.
Travelor, this link gives you a pic of the 243 and the 243 AI. Other than the diameter of the bullet being .264 versus .243, the 243 looks the same as the 260 in their native and AI forms assuming you are looking at the AI 40 degree shoulder variant.
Note that the AI in this pic does not look like the reamer print above.
http://www.6mmbr.com/243Win.html
Re: 6.5-08 AI
Terry,
thank you so much for answering, I greatly appreciate it. That Match KMW reamer specs, are you willing to share it? Not trying to poach, just want to compare it to the .260 tactical print from PTG. No worries if that's proprietary and not for public consumption.
Many thanks!
Terry,
thank you so much for answering, I greatly appreciate it. That Match KMW reamer specs, are you willing to share it? Not trying to poach, just want to compare it to the .260 tactical print from PTG. No worries if that's proprietary and not for public consumption.
Many thanks!
Re: 6.5-08 AI
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NineHotel</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Terry - So you are saying that the shoulder angle in the picture you posted is a 40 degree angle? Hold one of your cartridges up there and compare the two. I don't think so. It looks to be about 20 degrees.
Note that the AI in this pic does not look like the reamer print above.</div></div> Well DUH.
I think you just made my point when you said "it looks to be about 20 degrees". A good diagram breaks that down to a fraction of a degree with printed dimensions. I can just see someone doing some chambering work, staring at the partially cut chamber, sticking their pinky in the hole and saying " yep, that looks to be about 2.810" to the shoulder datum."
George asked for a diagram. Not a photo or specifically a scale drawing. Like I said in my last post, the printed dimensions <span style="font-weight: bold">are</span> the drawing or diagram. He could have gotten about 10,000 images of these cartridges off of the interenet in about 5 minutes. Couple of phone calls would have gotten him some live samples of each. Neither would have told him what he was looking for.
Even if someone had an exact scale drawing of the cartridge, eyeballiing the differences between it and a sample cartridge or photo would be <span style="font-weight: bold">absurd</span>. A lot of the dimensions are measured down to tenths (0.0001"). Many times the differences between a match chamber and a SAAMI chamber are only a couple thousandths here and couple there.
It is for this reason and for simplicity of information distribution that just about every reamer maker in existence uses generalized templates for their drawings that allow exact editing of the specs to be inserted.
The diagrams used in the above 6mmBR link are excellent graphics. However they do not address what is going on in the leade and throat as well as several other dimensions that are usually reviewed prior to having a reamer made. To make my point again, <span style="text-decoration: underline">strip the printed dimensions</span> from those images and you have nothing but a generalized view of the shape of the rounds. If I send you a CAD drawing of a case design with no printed dimensions, there is no way you are going to tell me whether it has a 39 or a 41 degree shoulder. Ditto for other critical dimensions.
BTW, the above referrenced article is extremely well done and the two graphics I critiqued are outstanding for purposes of the article.
I hate not having any context when we bang out shit on a keyboard. How the fuck can you see me talking with my hands to make a point!
It's all good.
Terry
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NineHotel</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Terry - So you are saying that the shoulder angle in the picture you posted is a 40 degree angle? Hold one of your cartridges up there and compare the two. I don't think so. It looks to be about 20 degrees.
Note that the AI in this pic does not look like the reamer print above.</div></div> Well DUH.
I think you just made my point when you said "it looks to be about 20 degrees". A good diagram breaks that down to a fraction of a degree with printed dimensions. I can just see someone doing some chambering work, staring at the partially cut chamber, sticking their pinky in the hole and saying " yep, that looks to be about 2.810" to the shoulder datum."
George asked for a diagram. Not a photo or specifically a scale drawing. Like I said in my last post, the printed dimensions <span style="font-weight: bold">are</span> the drawing or diagram. He could have gotten about 10,000 images of these cartridges off of the interenet in about 5 minutes. Couple of phone calls would have gotten him some live samples of each. Neither would have told him what he was looking for.
Even if someone had an exact scale drawing of the cartridge, eyeballiing the differences between it and a sample cartridge or photo would be <span style="font-weight: bold">absurd</span>. A lot of the dimensions are measured down to tenths (0.0001"). Many times the differences between a match chamber and a SAAMI chamber are only a couple thousandths here and couple there.
It is for this reason and for simplicity of information distribution that just about every reamer maker in existence uses generalized templates for their drawings that allow exact editing of the specs to be inserted.
The diagrams used in the above 6mmBR link are excellent graphics. However they do not address what is going on in the leade and throat as well as several other dimensions that are usually reviewed prior to having a reamer made. To make my point again, <span style="text-decoration: underline">strip the printed dimensions</span> from those images and you have nothing but a generalized view of the shape of the rounds. If I send you a CAD drawing of a case design with no printed dimensions, there is no way you are going to tell me whether it has a 39 or a 41 degree shoulder. Ditto for other critical dimensions.
BTW, the above referrenced article is extremely well done and the two graphics I critiqued are outstanding for purposes of the article.
I hate not having any context when we bang out shit on a keyboard. How the fuck can you see me talking with my hands to make a point!
It's all good.
Terry
