To those who shot .262 necks, tried .269 and went back, Why????

CYanchycki

CYanchycki

Club Coordinator
Well guys when I decided I wanted to try this game out I decided to go with a .269 neck versus the thinner .261, .262, .263.

I figured this was going to be my first endeavor into the world of neck turning. So basically why turn all that brass off if it did not need to be and also why have multiple neck turners. The story is that back in the day the brass was so bad that one had to turn them that thin to get good necks. Today that appears to not be the case. The brass is very good.

So we know there have been shooters who have decided to try the thicker necks and have gone back.

My question is WHY? Did you see it on paper?

This is something I am curious about. I am trying to decide if it may be worth the try to give the thinner necks a shot.

The floor is open for discussion.

Calvin
 
I guess I should have reworded my reply. I do not know of anyone personally. I just am using the bad word ASSUMING. I am assuming some may have tried and gone back.
 
CYanchycki said:
I guess I should have reworded my reply. I do not know of anyone personally. I just am using the bad word ASSUMING. I am assuming some may have tried and gone back.
Click to expand...

No problem Calvin. I was just curious if I'd not heard about a big movement back to thin.
I went to a .271" last year (loaded ammo is .2692") and found it every bit as accurate as my .262's. But I had to go back to the .262 to finish out the season. Not because of any problems with fat necks, but because of other unrelated issues with a bad reamer.
 
The story may have been..."Well, it can't hurt"...or..."Why leave anything on the table".
 
I guess I must be wrong in my assumption......................

The only way I may be able to find out is try it for myself.
 
I used to shoot .262.
Last year I went to .269 and have not looked back.
Shot as good or better with it. Necks are easier to turn. But I still do 2 passes anyway. But thats just me.
 
I don't know who the first shooter was who totally committed to the .269, and actually won with it, but he is still hanging around out there.

For a long time, the general consensus was, "well, Tony doesn't use it". Then, it happenned that him, and several others, decided to switch over to thicker necks, so that "allowed" others to follow suit.

The only reason I ever gave for using a .269 was ease in neck turning. I doubt the bullet knows the difference.
 
The biggest problem that I've seen with the .269" necks is that carbide bushings aren't as available as they are for the .262" necks. After you've been shooting .262" necks for a long time you wind up with an assortment of bushings. They are just harder to find for the .269" neck.
 
Vern you mean to say Sinclair has carbide bushings for the .269 shooters out there?

Mike i was using Redding Tin bushings and they were fine but they still marked the necks when sized. I hated that. So I went and ordered 6 sets of 3 bushings from Yilik carbide. Sold the rest of them quick. I am so glad I had them made up.
 
I bought some carbide bushings from Gene Beggs and later some from Bud Mundy that were a little smaller than Gene had for the .269 necked chamber. At the dinner at the Cactus, Gary O'Cock asked for a show of hands of those shooting .269" necks, .262 and .263" necks. The .262" neck far outnumbered either of the other two. I've shot both .262 and .269 necked rifles in both varmint and railguns. How I do with either has far more to do with how much I've been shooting than with the diameter of the neck. One thing though that I've noticed over the years is that everyone wants to shoot whatever is winning whether it's bullets, barrels, actions, stocks, scopes or neck diameters. I'm just as guilty as anyone. I read that Sam Wilson once said that if he won a benchrest match with a wheel on the side of his rifle that the next match there would be more rifles with wheels on the side of the rifle. Benchrest shooters haven't changed much over the years.

Sinclair doesn't show carbide bushings for .269 necks on their web site. Of course, just because they aren't on their web site or I can't find them, doesn't mean they don't sell them.
 
I have barrels in both .262 & .268, several of them (just switched reamers last year). The only real differences I have found, is with my clumsy hands, the .268 necks don't dent when they hit concrete or wood from a short distance and they sure are easier to turn.

Vern,
Don't understand why you turn in two passes. Heck, with the pumpkin turner, I always turned .262 in one pass and held .0005 runout at the most. Just keep the cutter sharp.

Hovis
 
Hovis, you were right. I needed to turn some new brass this morning for a .262" neck and turned it one pass with a sharp cutter. Had cut it in two passes previously and didn't want to change the cutter from where it was set for the final pass. It cut just as well just taking a larger bite turning the case at 185 rpm. It's nice when brass is interchangeable between rifles, but it doesn't always work out that way.
 
Calvin Sorry about that I didnt notice the Carbied. But they do sell the Titanium Nitrite Bushing in the sizes you were discussing.

Hovis, I turn my necks down to within .0001 on thickness. I dont know about the run out of that.
I know after firing a couple of times an empty or loaded round gives me less than .001 total runout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top