
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 wrote: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
Steve,SteveR wrote: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
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.crs wrote:All - My, what a stir a 40 year old cartridge description created!
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.COSteve wrote:They argue that this class of weapons have no useful purpose except to kill people with.
TWHBC wrote:SteveR wrote: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.
crs wrote:All - My, what a stir a 40 year old cartridge description created!
Amen!Charles wrote: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.
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.AJMD429 wrote: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.COSteve wrote:They argue that this class of weapons have no useful purpose except to kill people with.
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.SteveR wrote:TWHBC wrote:SteveR wrote: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
Hi Paul,AmBraCol wrote: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.SteveR wrote:TWHBC wrote:SteveR wrote: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
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.
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.SteveR wrote: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
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.Charles wrote: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.
Like I said before...COSteve wrote: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'.
Maybe you should take a page from your own sermon.COSteve wrote: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.
COSteve wrote: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.
CO Steve, maybe you should also pay heed to your quote from Dilbert (a fine source of inspiration, by the way).Buck Elliott wrote:Maybe you should take a page from your own sermon.COSteve wrote: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.