6PPC - .262 or .269 (or to turn, or not)

[sfulton]

Hi all,

So after far too long, and one economy related job-loss, I've saved up enough to seriously consider my first BR rifle.  At the moment I'm strongly considering a Borden-built Rimrock rifle.  Money is still tight, so I'm curious what you think about .262 or .269 necks.  The hundred or so saved by avoiding neck turning does mean more powder and bullets for me to practice with.  So as a newbie, am I doing myself a favour by choosing a no-turn neck chamber?

-- Stephen

[rpollock]

You will still be neck turning with a .269", just not as thin. Unfortunately there is no money to be saved between the 269 and the 262. The 269 is a "light turn" neck. 272 would be a no turn neck, but this has proven not be as competitive.

[sfulton]

You will still be neck turning with a .269", just not as thin. Unfortunately there is no money to be saved between the 269 and the 262. The 269 is a "light turn" neck. 272 would be a no turn neck, but this has proven not be as competitive.

Thanks Rick, but I feel the need to write that I have no intention of competing out west this year or next, so are you suggesting that a .262 is a better performer on average than a .269? 

[rpollock]

The 272 neck is not competitive. 262 and 269 are a toss up.

[sfulton]

Thanks Rick!

[K Hope]

Stephen

I think you should call Jim up and ask him what he thinks.  He not only builds them he shoots them and, very well at that. Give him a call.

Ken

[DanO]

One of the interesting comments that has come out in resent years, is that bulk of .262" - .263" current uses are doing so because there reamer or gunsmiths reamer is this dimension.
Any one that I know that uses a .268" - 269" neck will not return to the small neck diameter, for a couple of reasons.
One, it is easier to turn the larger neck cases and there has been no reported loss of accuracy because of it.
An additional benefit is that the case neck is not as easily damaged when dropped, and we all drop cases at the most inopportune time.
DanO

[sfulton]

Thanks for sharing Dan, I did not occur to me that the case neck could be damaged by dropping.  It seems .269 will be the way I go.

[Bill Gammon]

JUST FACTS, when I was selling the neck trimmers last year, for every "1" .269 I sold, there would be "20" .262 necks. A lot of shooters who had .262 necks, tried the .269 and for some reason always came back to the .262, why??

[DanO]

Bill, asks the question why?
While there are still a lot of .262" users out there, which may be the reason for sales to be higher.
I do know of many of the shooters in the West changing to .268"-.269", maybe some of them will
step in and speak to there reasons.
I would be interested in hearing from those who tried the larger necks and returned to the thinner one.
My real questions is did they see any difference in on target results?
DanO

[Fergus]

I think one reason that .262/.263 necks remain so common is that people are hesitant to change something that works for them. Nothing wrong with that, but a lot of people continuing to use a .262 neck doesn’t necessarily prove anything about whether a .269 neck can compete.

Also, for people with a lot of barrels, it becomes a bit of a pain to go through the transition of making cases for both. If you only run one or two barrels, this is not so big of a deal. In my case, I have 3 PPC bag guns and a rail, so once I committed to the change, I either had to dice the barrel, or rechamber with the bigger neck to keep everything in my gear consistent.

I always used to turn .263 cases with 2 passes. I never liked turning brass, so the option to cut my workload by 50% had some appeal. If there is any cost saving in running bigger necks, it is the fact that I only needed to dedicate one turning tool with carbide mandrel, whereas the tighter necks I was using required me to dedicate 2 neck turners preset to the two different cut I needed to make.

After seeing results from some early experimenters that seemed to be getting aggs consistent with thinner necks, I made the decision to order a .270 neck reamer. As noted, a .272 neck is basically “no turn” with Lapua brass. I believe my actual reamer dimensions give a neck cut closer to .269 than the .270 I specified, but I’d rather that that be out the other way. I run several thou clearance in my loaded rounds, so I still take off plenty of material from the case neck. There is no way I am only making partial contact over the full neck length.

In terms of effectiveness, I am convinced the .269/.270 neck gives-up nothing to thinner necks. For example in South Africa for the WBC in 2009, many will know that Australian teams placed 1st and 4th. What may not be so well known is that I believe 10 out of the 12 Australian competitors were using .269/.270 necks. Just highlighting this as I don’t think the case neck thickness was any kind of a handicap. I went to a .270 nominal neck in 2007, and have personally shot my best aggs in that time.

Another benefit of thick necks that I never anticipated is that necks seem to grow at about half the pace of thinner necks. One other consideration – if you are planning to use Norma 6PPC brass, you may want to stick with a .262/.263 neck, as a .269 will pretty much be a no turn neck.

[RobS]

I started out with .263 Nk ppc. When I bought my own reamer I decided on a .269Nk. .269 completely cleans up on Lapua brass over the last 6 years of lots I have used. I don't believe there is an accuracy advantage one over the other. I like the one pass turning.

Robert

[cyanchycki]

Thanks Ferguson for your thoughts. I think this may help eliminate some of the voodoo surrounding thin versus thick necks. I knew a few of the guys in the west (Canada) we're running .269 necks. I am one of those guys but I don't have the experience to say one where are you or the other. I went that route as the initial invesent is less and more so I cut in one pass. I have yet to see Lapua brass not clean up in one pass.

[sfulton]

Thanks guys!  What are you using for neck turning tools?  Part of me is tempted to buy the Pumpkin, since I don't have a lathe, but the cost is pretty high for a cutting tool. 

[RobS]

The Pumpkin is beautiful tool, quick to set up and very nice to use. There are others that do and equal job but may take more time to set up. I don't know what a Pumpkin runs nowadays.

http://www.21stcenturyshooting.com/Neck_Turning_Tool.php

http://www.sinclairintl.com/.aspx/pid=35271/Product/Sinclair-Premium-Neck-Turning-Kit

Robert

[cyanchycki]

I use K&M but if I were to do it again I would probably go with a Pumpkin or any of the turners that have a Micro adjustable cutter with clicks.  In reality once your cutter is set you should NEVER have to adjust it again unless you want to try different clearances.

The important thing is to make sure you buy the expander mandrel to match the mandrel of your turner.  In other words DO NOT mix brand names.  If buying a Pumpkin get his expander.  Sinclair, buy there's.

[pac11]

I think that back when the brass wasn't good it paid on the targets to have the thinnest necks but now since there are so many willing to pay for good .220 cases I doubt it will go back to the way it was.

Of all the Lapua I've tried there is always lots of brass to turn off for my .269 necks. May not be the same with Norma brass... but why use Norma brass?

Mike

[Bill Leeper]

In the early days of the 6PPC, the only brass available was Sako .220 brass. The original chamber neck diameter, as designed by Pindell and Palmisano, was .264" but the Sako brass would not clean up at a large enough diameter to allow the use of a fitted neck in a .264 chamber so most went to a .262 neck. I beklieve fred Sinclair, not wanting to leave anything to chance, went to .261.
My first reamer was a Hugh Henriksen reamer with a .264 neck. Of the brass I had, about half of them were thick enough to allow me to turn them to .0003" clearance and run them fitted. The other half, I had to turn down a little more to clean up and they required sizing. I shot both batches and could see no difference in performance so I turned them all so that they required sizing.
I later got a .262 reamer just because that seemed to be the popular size and most rifles I chambered were cut with that reamer. All of my own, I chambered at .264 because I had enjoyed pretty good success with that chamber. I always felt that the brass which was turned to give about .0015 clearance (diametric clearance) was less sensitive than those which were closely fitted.
Today, there are some brass choices but the Lapua seems to be the brass of choice and I see little reason to mess with anything else.   Regards,   Bill.