PO Ackley on the .223 and Black Rifles

[crs]

Taken from his Pocket Manual for Shooters and Reloaders, 5th Printing 1970. In the SUPPLEMENT for stuff even newer than the "too late to classify".
As stated by others on this forum, some of these old writings are interesting from an historical perspective and some provide information not still in circulation, but still of interest to some gun nuts.

On the .223 cartridge:



On Black Rifles:

[SteveR]

Wow, I guess I'm one of those "grown up sportsmen with adolescence tendencies".................but not a "real sportsman", because I own one and am interested in it.

What a condescending douche.

Steve

[nemhed]

Wow, a lot of preaching there for a reloading manual!

[SteveR]

I like the part about 1 gr less than the .22 Magnum, never reloaded any .22 Magnum. How do you reload a rimfire?? I guess when you reach the heights Mr Ackley did then proof reading wouldn't be necessary.

Steve

[TWHBC]

I like the part about 1 gr less than the .22 Magnum, never reloaded any .22 Magnum. How do you reload a rimfire?? I guess when you reach the heights Mr Ackley did then proof reading wouldn't be necessary.

Steve

.222 Magnum is a centerfire cartridge, .22 magnum is rimfire.

[jhrosier]

Wow, I guess I'm one of those "grown up sportsmen with adolescence tendencies".................but not a "real sportsman", because I own one and am interested in it.

What a condescending douche.

Steve

Steve,

That was written a long time ago.
The AR15s sold to the public at that time really were pretty much useless except to lay down 'cover fire.'
I think that Mr.Ackley would be impressed by the reliabilty and accuracy of today's ARs.
He was somewhat conservative, like most of us levergunners, and would fit right in here.
I corresponded with him about a wildcat cartridge that I was working on back in the '60s and found his comments and advice very helpful.

Jack

[AJMD429]

Opinions like his are one reason I cringe when I hear the term 'sportsmen' - 'sportsmen' in and of themselves are simply people who like sports, or in this case, shooting sports. Too many of them do NOT understand or accept the Constitution, which gives ZERO "right" to own "sporting" firearms, as they are no more important Constitutionally than owning a checkerboard or an antique car. It does, however, recognize the inherent right of citizens to own firearms of military-significance - i.e. "EBR's", in that the citizens should always be able to defend themselves individually and en masse, to maintain the integrity and stability of the nation. Technology has evolved from the flintlock, but the basic niche of shoulder-fired small arms weaponry designed for defensive and light offensive purposes should be obvious.

[/rant OFF]

Ackley was an innovator and great ballistic pioneer, however, which redeems him somewhat.

[COSteve]

So much for PO Ackley having a clue!! I've heard that he got on his high horse about ARs back when but that's the first time I've ever seen his statements. I've got two ARs and they are a ton of fun to shoot and hunt with and I'm not afraid to show them either. Plus, I don't give a durn if PO likes them or not!

My RRA lightweight, 14.7" bbl with pined A2 FH, CTR stock, and custom made grip (started life as a G27). It weighs only 6.1lbs and is great fun to take into the woods as a varmint shooter.



My RRA A4, 12x scope, and another G27 grip. It's my P-dog shooter and shoots under 1MOA at 300yds with Hornady 68grn booolits.

[crs]

All - My, what a stir a 40 year old cartridge description created!

[COSteve]

All - My, what a stir a 40 year old cartridge description created!

Rebutting his statements are important because the anti-gunners are using his words as a 'noted authority' to try and ban ARs and similar weapons. They argue that this class of weapons have no useful purpose except to kill people with.

The fact is that his comments are wrong and he was stupid for printing them because he was a noted authority on firearms at the time. He should have realized the potential harm they would cause when used by those against the 2nd Amendment.

[rodeo kid]

I wonder what he would think of the .450 Bushmaster or the .50 Beowulf?

[AJMD429]

They argue that this class of weapons have no useful purpose except to kill people with.

Another irony is that the current class of AW's are designed more to wound than kill, because wounding one enemy soldier ties up another couple to get him to safety, provide first aid, and adds supply and logistics problems for medical evacuation, plus may cause more distraction and poor morale than simply killing one enemy soldier would. So, if anything, one could say that the .223's used by the military are designed NOT to kill. That's not to say they aren't lethal, but the emphasis is on quantity of bullets put out, and the assumption is that as long as the bullet does enough damage to stop the enemy soldier from returning effective fire, it's done its job. A bit different from the mindset of a Springfield-'03 wielding soldier of the last century, to be sure.

[SteveR]

I like the part about 1 gr less than the .22 Magnum, never reloaded any .22 Magnum. How do you reload a rimfire?? I guess when you reach the heights Mr Ackley did then proof reading wouldn't be necessary.

Steve

.222 Magnum is a centerfire cartridge, .22 magnum is rimfire.

That is my point(sarcasm), proof read!! I am sure he meant .222 Mag not .22 Mag that is a rimfire, so if he can't get simple things such as that right, then maybe he was wrong about the rest of his logic on EBR.

Steve

[SteveR]

All - My, what a stir a 40 year old cartridge description created!

I just have had enough of people's opinions on what is "sporting" and what is not. It was true 40 years ago as it is today.

I don't mind what type of gun or how many people have or desire to have.

But I am not a quoted as a firearms expert either.

Steve

[76/444]

" standard twist: 14" "



Hmmmm,.... don't remember that. Must of helped with the infamous "tumble" effect! Today, I assume,... a 1 in 14" twist would be suggested for 40 gr. slugs? I don't remember 40gr. issued ammo. Maybe that was more from the wildcat/development? Which is not my thing at all!!! Obviously

[COSteve]

The original M16s came with a 1:14 twist, however, that was soon replaced with a 1:12 twist in the M16A1 to better stabilize the 55grn M193/M196 rounds. Currently, the M16A4/M4A1 family use a 1:7 twist to stabilize both the Belgian-designed 62grn M855/M856 rounds and 77grn M262 rounds currently in use.

[Charles]

Parker Ackely was a giant in his time and his thinking on the issue at hand was pretty standard for that time. I grew up in those times and if a fellow showed up in a deer camp in Texas with a Remington autoloader, he was pretty much labled as not a rifleman, nor a serious sportsman. He was just a once a year clueless deer hunter.

This thinking persists among shooter of the older generation. If they express their views today, the younger set howls for their heads on a plate. The names of Jim Zumbo and Joaquine Jackson come to mind as such folks.

Times change, thinking changes and attitudes change. It is not good form to bust the chops of the older generation because they see things different. Think and let think and don't waste your time, trying to beat on dead men or men old enough to be your father or grandfather and who blazed the trail you follow.

[Nath]

To me the gun does not determine a sportsman. A sportsman is defined by his actions, commonly when he knows his limitations.

The colour or type of gun has no reflection on this.

It is common in Brit to be stereoised, over here you are frowned on for using an auto or pump shotgun on pheasants no matter how fancy the wood on it, oddly enough a black rifle as mine is for shooting varmints and deer is not!
It is just opinions and snobbery but I forgive them of their short sightedness by trying my best to go against them as often as I can

Nath.

[mikld]

Parker Ackely was a giant in his time and his thinking on the issue at hand was pretty standard for that time. I grew up in those times and if a fellow showed up in a deer camp in Texas with a Remington autoloader, he was pretty much labled as not a rifleman, nor a serious sportsman. He was just a once a year clueless deer hunter.

This thinking persists among shooter of the older generation. If they express their views today, the younger set howls for their heads on a plate. The names of Jim Zumbo and Joaquine Jackson come to mind as such folks.

Times change, thinking changes and attitudes change. It is not good form to bust the chops of the older generation because they see things different. Think and let think and don't waste your time, trying to beat on dead men or men old enough to be your father or grandfather and who blazed the trail you follow.

Amen!

[Buck Elliott]

If ever a man earned the title of "Grand Curmudgeon" it was P.O. Ackley. On the other hand, if you were a serious student of the gun (such as Dick Casull and others) he could be generous to a fault. In my meetings with him, I found him to be courteous and giving --- no "secrets of the trade" to be protected. He was opinionated, as he had every right to be. To say he was "stupid" for publishing his views is reckless and an ignorant view of the day and time and of the man.

(FWIW, no one who knew the man ever called him "Parker." He always said that was just a name his mother had hung on him at birth, and he had further no use for it.)

He was critical of things that fell short of perfection and/or his highest expectations. A job that might "pass" in another shop could be declaimed as "rougher than a boar's (butt) sewed up with a log chain.." That was Ackley. A man of his time -- and beyond.

The "modern" shooting world would be worse off, but for his contributions.

[COSteve]

I stand by my statement that he was stupid for making such a biased, fudd like statement. His thesis is bull, his facts are wrong, and his conclusion isn't worth a darn. Opinionated, brilliant, and experienced, it doesn't matter because he knew that his reputation would add weight to a hurtful statement.

The fact that his statement is oft quoted by the anti-gun lobby as proof that the 'evil black rifle' should be banned is supported by his agreement with that position. Just because he is great, powerful, and an all knowing guru doesn't change the fact that he was and remains dead wrong and stupid for saying it.

[Charles]

Well, I did business with Ackley in face, by phone and letter on several occasions. I always called him Mr. Ackley. There was too much difference in our ages, experience and knowledge for me to call him anything else.

Steve... Standing here in the waters of calm reflection and looking in your rear view mirror you may indeed find his statments not to your liking and out of step with today's thinking. But, be very careful about calling him stupid! He was anything but stupid and you might run into him someday on the other side of the mountain. I would not want to be in your shoes some that event occur. There are good reasons our grandparents taught us not to speak ill of the dead! If you wouldn't say it to his face, and believe me you would not, then don't say it over his grave.

Just a little friendly advise from a kindly old Pastor who has your best interest at heart.

[SteveR]

Charles and Mr. Elliott,

Regardless of who is saying or writing things that I feel are wrong, I will say so. So is JimT less of a "sportsman" when he practiced fast draw in front of mirrors? I don't think I would say that to Mr. Taylor.

I think people who write about firearms should at least keep their opinions and prejudices to themselves, it doesn't help anybody in this sport to be told you are no good for blah,blah,blah........ect.

I, for one do take exception, when people tell me I can't own what I want because it doesn't fit their expectations of a deer rifle or whatever. This is the United States of America last I knew and we are allowed choices to own what we want and buy what we want.

Steve

[Charles]

Steve.. How do folks write about firearms with expressing an opinion about their usefullness for this or that? Anything without opinion or evaluation is just a data sheet. Rethink that one steve.

[airedaleman]

I HEARTILY endorse the comments of Charles and Buck Elliott. I'm 70 years old - have been shooting and hunting since I was 10 years old - and am as opinionated as hell on virtually everything; many of my opinions regarding firearms would wound someone or other, so I pretty well keep any commentary to myself.

Besides, who cares what I think.

[76/444]

Hmmmm,... I don't think an opposing opinion to anyone's published comments that don't quit fit into mainstream pro-gun thinking, is all that egregious.

Wasn't there some sort of national boycott on Ruger Arms, because of a few anti-gun things old man Ruger said a few years ago? And of course, least I go straight to hell for not mentioning the infamous Zumbo fiasco that wasn't exactly taken with the grain of salt by pro 2nd A patriots.

I guess what I am saying is, I have to go with Steve on this one.

Now, that does not mean I may agree with the words/phrases he chose. But, then again,..... who the hell am I to cast a stone for that!!!

[tman]

They argue that this class of weapons have no useful purpose except to kill people with.

Another irony is that the current class of AW's are designed more to wound than kill, because wounding one enemy soldier ties up another couple to get him to safety, provide first aid, and adds supply and logistics problems for medical evacuation, plus may cause more distraction and poor morale than simply killing one enemy soldier would. So, if anything, one could say that the .223's used by the military are designed NOT to kill. That's not to say they aren't lethal, but the emphasis is on quantity of bullets put out, and the assumption is that as long as the bullet does enough damage to stop the enemy soldier from returning effective fire, it's done its job. A bit different from the mindset of a Springfield-'03 wielding soldier of the last century, to be sure.

you sound like a combat vetern. whole idea of the 2 admendment was to use the current military weapon of the day to defend yourself from a tyrannical government. that's it! whether it's a henry, m1 or the next infantry man's rifle. agreed.

[cowboykell]

There is quite a bit of truth in Mr. Ackley's observations. Think about it.

[AmBraCol]

I like the part about 1 gr less than the .22 Magnum, never reloaded any .22 Magnum. How do you reload a rimfire?? I guess when you reach the heights Mr Ackley did then proof reading wouldn't be necessary.

Steve

.222 Magnum is a centerfire cartridge, .22 magnum is rimfire.

That is my point(sarcasm), proof read!! I am sure he meant .222 Mag not .22 Mag that is a rimfire, so if he can't get simple things such as that right, then maybe he was wrong about the rest of his logic on EBR.

Steve

Five times it is written .222 magnum and one time .22 magnum. From the writer's hand to the printer is a long path. To hold him responsible for one mistyped reference is amusing. It would be interesting to see what the original copy said. My guess is typesetter error - five correct to one incorrect reference means the odds are in favor of him having it right in the original. Besides which, the context amply sustains that he knew which cartridge he was writing about.

And many may not like his opions, but opinions are like noses - everyone's got one. I disagree with his ideas as to sportsmen being protected under the Second Amendment, but am also somewhat aware of the political and social climate in which he was writing. Society and ideas tend to change over time. Much of what he wrote was based on fact and experience. Today's AR15 type rifles have come a long way from what was available back then.

[SteveR]

I like the part about 1 gr less than the .22 Magnum, never reloaded any .22 Magnum. How do you reload a rimfire?? I guess when you reach the heights Mr Ackley did then proof reading wouldn't be necessary.

Steve

.222 Magnum is a centerfire cartridge, .22 magnum is rimfire.

That is my point(sarcasm), proof read!! I am sure he meant .222 Mag not .22 Mag that is a rimfire, so if he can't get simple things such as that right, then maybe he was wrong about the rest of his logic on EBR.

Steve

Five times it is written .222 magnum and one time .22 magnum. From the writer's hand to the printer is a long path. To hold him responsible for one mistyped reference is amusing. It would be interesting to see what the original copy said. My guess is typesetter error - five correct to one incorrect reference means the odds are in favor of him having it right in the original. Besides which, the context amply sustains that he knew which cartridge he was writing about.

And many may not like his opions, but opinions are like noses - everyone's got one. I disagree with his ideas as to sportsmen being protected under the Second Amendment, but am also somewhat aware of the political and social climate in which he was writing. Society and ideas tend to change over time. Much of what he wrote was based on fact and experience. Today's AR15 type rifles have come a long way from what was available back then.

Hi Paul,

I was commenting on the attitude of they way it was written, condescending, if one is to make comments wouldn't one want to be sure simple errors were not included in the final print??

Especially in a reloading book, accuracy(no pun intended) is utmost in giving reloading information. What is the new person who has not had much experience in reloading or firearms, supposed to be able to know that the .222Magnum and .22Magnum are the same? I assume he is referring to the .222 Mag and not the .22 Mag, but I have some experience with reloading.

I did not like the way he took issue with the .223 not being fit for "sportsmen", even though Mr. Ackley was very good at what he did, he should have stuck to guns rather than politics.

I have to politely disagree with your point that the .223 has significantly improved since its inception, The type of powder was changed by the US military form what the original was, to a ball type powder, which caused many of the "problems"; as well as the US military's directives not to clean the rifles, it was thought they were self cleaning. If the military stayed with what it was designed with in the first place, it would have not had the bad press that was attributed to it. So, I do take issue with what Mr. Ackley said about the .223, did he ever talk to Mr. Stoner? I bet it would have been a little different if he did.

Steve

[AmBraCol]

I was commenting on the attitude of they way it was written, condescending, if one is to make comments wouldn't one want to be sure simple errors were not included in the final print??

Especially in a reloading book, accuracy(no pun intended) is utmost in giving reloading information. What is the new person who has not had much experience in reloading or firearms, supposed to be able to know that the .222Magnum and .22Magnum are the same? I assume he is referring to the .222 Mag and not the .22 Mag, but I have some experience with reloading.

I did not like the way he took issue with the .223 not being fit for "sportsmen", even though Mr. Ackley was very good at what he did, he should have stuck to guns rather than politics.

I have to politely disagree with your point that the .223 has significantly improved since its inception, The type of powder was changed by the US military form what the original was, to a ball type powder, which caused many of the "problems"; as well as the US military's directives not to clean the rifles, it was thought they were self cleaning. If the military stayed with what it was designed with in the first place, it would have not had the bad press that was attributed to it. So, I do take issue with what Mr. Ackley said about the .223, did he ever talk to Mr. Stoner? I bet it would have been a little different if he did. Steve

Again, if you can't see from the context that he's talking about the .222 magnum then you need to hone reading skills. In the paragraph he talks about the .222 magnum it is printed out correctly five times. And you should take issue with the typesetter over the final copy unless you can show that Mr. Ackley indeed mistyped the designation. Such errors constantly creep into any publication - including reloading manuals. That is why it is always a good idea to consult more than one manual when working up a load.

As for the .223 being improved - I never said that. I DID say that AR type rifles have been improved. In exactly what ways - I'm not sure because they are not my cup of tea, so to speak, but I HAVE read about them here and there. We now have AR type rifles that are capable of astonishing levels of accuracy. 40 years ago they were mostly (completely?) incapable of of competing in long range service rifle competition. Now they are the norm (from what folks tell me) rather than the exception. That indicates both a change in the social makeup of the competitors as well as a change in the capabilities of this class of weapon. The .223 is still the .223. You can load it up or down with light to heavy for caliber bullets, depending on what your rifle is capable of using. Mr. Ackley's issue was with the type of weapon more than with the caliber itself.

It is amusing to see folks get their knickers in a wad over a 40 year old opinion piece. This is a common mistake, to judge the past by current mores and notions. To properly understand Mr. Ackley's opinion you need to place it in the social context in which it was written.

Thank God that there are more folks waking up to the true meaning of the Second Amendment. Our nation allowed the whole "sporting use" issue to cloud the waters. That is not what the Second Amendment is about. I've long been at odds with the NRA over this. Way back when I was a wet behind the ears kid (now I'm just damp in that area) I could not understand why they did not push for a repeal of ALL anti-firearm legislation. And I still don't understand the compromise mentality that gives up small pieces here and there in exchange for not having a draconian measure passed. What we've ended up with is draconian measures by tiny increments. Each anti-constitutional law that is passed eats at our liberty a bit at a time.

Mr. Ackley was a product of his times. I may not agree with some of his ideas, but they were his and he had a right to them. We can disagree with him all we want, but we should do so in a respectful manner. I suggest you boycott all Ackley Improved designs as a sign of protest. Don't use any of his reloading data or cartridge designs. That'll show him!

[COSteve]

Well, I did business with Ackley in face, by phone and letter on several occasions. I always called him Mr. Ackley. There was too much difference in our ages, experience and knowledge for me to call him anything else.

Steve... Standing here in the waters of calm reflection and looking in your rear view mirror you may indeed find his statments not to your liking and out of step with today's thinking. But, be very careful about calling him stupid! He was anything but stupid and you might run into him someday on the other side of the mountain. I would not want to be in your shoes some that event occur. There are good reasons our grandparents taught us not to speak ill of the dead! If you wouldn't say it to his face, and believe me you would not, then don't say it over his grave.

Just a little friendly advise from a kindly old Pastor who has your best interest at heart.

I do appreciate you concern for me but I'm also 'not young' anymore and I've learned a thing or two about how people should act and what opinions they should keep to themselves. Mr. Ackley was old enough and wise enough to understand the impact of his words. Read carefully what he says.

"They [military] have a habit of dumping semi-automatic weapons (which are easily converted to full-automatic) which have no value from a sporting standpoint, but which are ideal for illegal uses, while at the same time, the government tries to control the sale and use of more conventional type of sporting arms. . . . Some large manufacturers are also guilty of the same activities by converting military, full-automatic (complete with carrying handle, plastic stock and stamped parts) to semi-automatic, and then they have the audacity to advertise such a monstrosity as a desirable sporting arm. It can be nothing more than a "sales gimmick' and the sales of such weapons certainly are not going to be to the legitimate sporting public, because no real sportsman would be interested in such a rifle."

Let's looks at those words for a moment.
". . . semi-automatic weapons (which are easily converted to full-automatic) which have no value from a sporting standpoint . . ."

What or who gave him the right to decide what's right for all of us? I guess he's never heard of the CMP and it's related events. We would argue that Mr. Ackley has no idea what he's talking about because the CMP is a sporting event and it uses semi-automatic military type weapons almost exclusively.

". . . large manufacturers are also guilty of the same activities by converting military, full-automatic (complete with carrying handle, plastic stock and stamped parts) to semi-automatic, and then they have the audacity to advertise such a monstrosity as a desirable sporting arm."

So a carry handle, plastic stock, or stamped parts makes a firearm 'bad'? Is he saying that only machined steel and walnut stocked guns are of any value. Absurd!! His words are the height of arrogance and only a megalomaniac would presume to dictate what's acceptable for everyone!

No, like may powerful people in the public eye today, Senators and Golfers to name just a few. Mr. Ackley thought himself and his ideas 'above the masses' where his WORD was as from on high. He did contribute greatly to the sport of shooting and his accomplishments are well known. But when he crosses the line and states that only HE knows what is right for the rest of us, he relinquishes the title 'Expert' and assumes the new one of 'Dictator'.

[SteveR]

Paul,

I do fit the description of get my knickers in a wad, I do think a boycott will show Mr. Ackley the errors of his ways!! (I am joking)

I do agree with your points about how "sportsmen" have clouded the issues about the 2nd amendment.

I have had many, many so called sportsmen commenting on my .357 in a levergun is not enough gun for whitetail deer, or my Freedom Arms 454 is not enough for whitetails @100 yards. Some of these same people complain that the .223 has no use for hunting and we shouldn't own them. Well I don't plan on using my .223 for hunting(deer), but rather punching holes in paper. I also like to be able to own what I want, and not be chastised for what one person doesn't see fit for others to own.

Not to mention back in the "old days" everybody knew those old military rifles were worthless, and nobody blinked an eye when cutting up a nice Springfield 1903 or mint 98K. I guess it was a different mindset.

Steve

[AmBraCol]

No, like may powerful people in the public eye today, Senators and Golfers to name just a few. Mr. Ackley thought himself and his ideas 'above the masses' where his WORD was as from on high. He did contribute greatly to the sport of shooting and his accomplishments are well known. But when he crosses the line and states that only HE knows what is right for the rest of us, he relinquishes the title 'Expert' and assumes the new one of 'Dictator'.

Like I said before...

Mr. Ackley was a product of his times. I may not agree with some of his ideas, but they were his and he had a right to them. We can disagree with him all we want, but we should do so in a respectful manner. I suggest you boycott all Ackley Improved designs as a sign of protest. Don't use any of his reloading data or cartridge designs. That'll show him!

Seriously, to try and correct a man who is long gone from this earth is a waste of time. To use ad hominem attacks does nothing to the discussion. Who was PO Ackley and what forces shaped him? Taking a look at his life span we find that P. O. Ackley was born on 25 May 1903 and passed away on 23 August 1989. He was a prolific gunsmith, author, columnist, and wildcat cartridge developer. His formative years were during the "Roaring Twenties" and the majority of his life was live WAY before the internet and the ease of dissemination of information that it brought about. These facts shed light on what formed Mr. Ackley's opinions. They do not excuse him but they do show why he held some of the opinions he held. Yes, his opinions on this matter go against what we believe, yea verily they go against that which we KNOW. But to resort to calling names is not a manly pass time and it belittles the name caller more than it does the one who's very person is questioned.

If we wish to change the tide of public opinion it does not behoove us to attack our own, even when we seriously disagree. Yes, Mr Ackley did so - should we follow his example in this matter? I think not. Rather it would be a better use of our time to educate folks on the true nature of the Second Amendment and the fact that NO class of weapon need be looked down on as "unfit for sporting purposes". As far as that goes, no class of weapon need be looked down as "unfit for military purposes" as "military purposes" include even the production and distribution of such an oddity as the "Liberator" pistol.

Calm and polite discourse brings about a better environment for all concerned. Should we not endeavor to engage in such rather than ranting and raving over a dead man's words? Anger and name calling do nothing to change minds - and that is where we need to focus our attention, changing minds. Are you capable of arising to the challenge and of seeking a better path that will help us to progress towards regained freedom? I believe you can, if you so desire.

[COSteve]

My responses were neither a 'rant or a rave'. I produced a thoughtful, considered, evaluation of his words. Dead or not, his opinion on the value of the .223 and AR type weapons were his, and his alone. He didn't speak for the prevailing thoughts at the time he wrote that as you claim but rather against them. He didn't give a studied or thoughtful discussion either. What he did do is spout his personal thoughts as Gospel in a reloading manual, not around a campfire or at home among friends, and for that he was wrong.

[Buck Elliott]

My responses were neither a 'rant or a rave'. I produced a thoughtful, considered, evaluation of his words. Dead or not, his opinion on the value of the .223 and AR type weapons were his, and his alone. He didn't speak for the prevailing thoughts at the time he wrote that as you claim but rather against them. He didn't give a studied or thoughtful discussion either. What he did do is spout his personal thoughts as Gospel in a reloading manual, not around a campfire or at home among friends, and for that he was wrong.

Maybe you should take a page from your own sermon.

[AmBraCol]

My responses were neither a 'rant or a rave'. I produced a thoughtful, considered, evaluation of his words. Dead or not, his opinion on the value of the .223 and AR type weapons were his, and his alone. He didn't speak for the prevailing thoughts at the time he wrote that as you claim but rather against them. He didn't give a studied or thoughtful discussion either. What he did do is spout his personal thoughts as Gospel in a reloading manual, not around a campfire or at home among friends, and for that he was wrong.

I'm not really sure what planet you're posting from, but on Planet Earth, North American Continent, United States of America there was a LOT of opposition to the M16 platform and the .223 round at the time of the writing of the manual in question. Therefore, the thoughts and opinions espoused by Mr. Ackley were his responsibility but they were hardly "his, and his alone". Shucks, for that matter there are STILL a lot of folks who don't care for the platform nor for the cartridge. So even if he were writing this today he would have ample company. Now, if you think that "prevailing thoughts" only are those thoughts which belong to those who headed up the campaign to adopt the M16 and ignore the numbers of politically unconnected people who opposed the ideas behind the adoption of that platform and cartridge then you are correct. But go back to the writings of the day and you'll find plenty of opposition to both the platform and cartridge.

As for ranting or not - if we judge you as you have judged Mr. Ackley then you are indeed guilty of ranting and raving in this thread. If we extend to you the same consideration as I believe that we should, then we should take your assurance at face value and accept that you are not (in spite of appearances and impressions) ranting and raving. Unfortunately, Mr. Ackley has passed on and can not explain his writings nor ask for understanding. It behooves us as gentlemen to remember that which gave him his reputation and respect him for that even though we may disagree with some of his stances regarding modern weapons and cartridges. I dare say he had plenty more experience in the shooting sports than you and I combined. Like I tell folks, eat the corn - toss the cob. Mr. Ackley left plenty of corn for us to chew on. The cob can easily be ignored. I did not have the privilege of knowing Mr. Ackley. But I do know Charles and gladly accept his word for the character of the deceased Mr. Akley. Even the best of us have flaws and it hardly behooves us to hold others to a standard we are unable to meet ourselves.

[FWiedner]

The guy is dead. He helped to lay the foundations of our sport and informed us greatly, and we are better for his having been among us for a time.

Would Mr. Ackley's detractors be equally upset reading comments about the earth being flat in some old manuscript?

You need to step back and get a grip. You are trying to judge history by applying a contemporary standard.

What ever happened to "I disagree", or "We've learned a lot since then..."

[Hillbilly]

Ackley doesnt sound any more opinionated than the late Col Cooper did over the years.

I find a lot of truth in what he says... I like the AR platform, and would have been a lot happier if it was issued with a .27 caliber round..

[airedaleman]

My responses were neither a 'rant or a rave'. I produced a thoughtful, considered, evaluation of his words. Dead or not, his opinion on the value of the .223 and AR type weapons were his, and his alone. He didn't speak for the prevailing thoughts at the time he wrote that as you claim but rather against them. He didn't give a studied or thoughtful discussion either. What he did do is spout his personal thoughts as Gospel in a reloading manual, not around a campfire or at home among friends, and for that he was wrong.

Maybe you should take a page from your own sermon.

CO Steve, maybe you should also pay heed to your quote from Dilbert (a fine source of inspiration, by the way).

[Charles]

CO Steve... This whole thing is starting to take on a life of it's own. Folks stake out a position and then feel duty bound to defend it to the bitter end. The discussion ceases, and then folks just yell the same stuff at each other, thinking perhaps if it is said louder, or more often then it will carry more weight.

You are entitled to your opinion about P.O. Ackley and we are entitled to an opinion about your opinion about P.O. Ackley. The bottom line is none of this matters. Ackley was who he was, and did what he did. You cannot diminsh him, nor can I increase him.

I am not offended by Ackley's comments, because they represent typical thinking of his time. Your comments reflect typical thinking of this time. That is about all of the truth we can draw from this thread. I just think it is bad form to dig up a dead man and try and lynch his corpse over difference of opinion. Spend you energy and intellect on dealing with the wrong headedness of the living. At least that might have a chance of producing something positive.

With this...I take leave of this thread, fun though it has been.