6mm PPC Reamers - State of the Art

T

TJUrban

Guest
If you were building a new 6mm PPC benchrest competition rifle, and if you didn't know which bullets you would end up using but wanted to have the best chamber for whatever are the state of the art bullets, which reamer would you pick, to cut which neck, and why?

thanks in advance for your thoughts,

Tim
 
Theres an article about lead on the reamer , written by Brian litz chief ballistition for burger.
He goe into detail about lead angles for specific bullets. Most of the reamers sold today for the ppc are with the standard 1. 5 Degree lead angel. You can order a reamer with your desired lead angle.
There are several styles of bullets being made with different ogives. So you have a pretty wide selection of bullet shapes to find the one best suited for your particular chamber lead angles.
 
I would use a .269 neck, with a .045 free bore, and the standard 1.5 degree lead.

That will cover a wide range of bullets. But, that being said, more and more shooters are matching their reamer, (mainly in the free bore), to a specific bullet. For instance, the difference in the set-up length of a Bruno 00 and a Barts .825 Boat Tail is darned near .080 inch. That is quite. Most of us like the base of the bullet to be just about 1/2 way down into the neck.

Also, there is a tend for shooters to have the Reamer Grinder hand stone the lead on a reamer to more closely fit a particular bullet ogive. That is getting pretty radical, but some think the effort and cost is worth it. I am not doing this as of yet, because after the first 100 rounds, there is probably enough throat errosion to negate such draconian efforts. But that is just an opinion.

I bet you thought this was going to be easy, huh. Just go with a .045, which while being a compromise, will handkle several ranges of bullet shapes............jackie
 
For a short range 6ppc. My current reamer is a .269, 1.5 degree leade and "0" freebore. I see no problems with this setup. My previous reamer was a .268, 3 degree leade, .030 freebore. Other than the 1.5 sticking a bullet once in a while, whereas the 3 degree never stuck a bullet, truthfully I cannot see any difference in the accuracy. I now chamber all my barrels with the .269 neck and would go with a .270 if I had it to do all over again. One quick pass with the neck turner and you are done, as far as neck turning is concerned. Also the thicker necks don't dent so easy. JMO

Donald
 
i got

.268 & .035 chambering ..264 roughing or full length die reamer
 
were did the .262 come from anyway? Why did they decide to take that much material off the brass? A .268 makes better since to me anyway, as those .262 necks are very fragile. Whats the history behind the .262 neck? thanks Lee
 
Skeet, the truth is, a .262 is really no more "fragile" than a .269. I have used both, and as far as I am concerned, the only difference is in the ease in turning of the .269. In fact, that is the one reason I went with the .269, (I like to believe I sort of "pioneered" it).

The .262 has it's roots in the "old days" when the predominant brass was the old Sako. To clean it up, you had to go to .262. Since there were literally multitudes of reamers ground for this, it hung around for a long time, even though it was obvious that the 220 Russian required removing quite a bit of metal in order to get it to .262.

About five years ago, I was ready to order a reamer, and Dave Kiff asked me, "why do you guys turn so much off the 220 Russian". I told him the usual story. I then told him to give me about 30 minutes. I took a 220 Russian, necked it to 6mm, then seated a typical 68 grn Benchrest Bullet. The thing measured darned near .271, so I figured a .269 neck would be perfect. I called him back, and that is how it happenned.

From the beginning, I said that the only reason I did this was because it made turning necks a breeze. Judging from the number of shooters who have switched over to the thicker necks, many agree. I have always adivised shooters who are just starting out, and are not heavilly invested in the .262, to go on ahaead and use the .269.,,,,,,,,,jackie
 
Last edited:
I agree with Jackie. .269 or .268 nk, .045 freebore, 1.5 degree lead. This will work for any bullet out there.

Hovis
 
skeetlee said:
were did the .262 come from anyway? Why did they decide to take that much material off the brass? A .268 makes better since to me anyway, as those .262 necks are very fragile. Whats the history behind the .262 neck? thanks Lee
Click to expand...
I ask Ferris Pindell that very question about 2001. He told me that the brass available at the time of the development of the PPC it took 0.262" to clean up. Other than that no other reason. Ferris went to the 0.266" neck his self later as the quality of brass got better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top