The solid pilot measures .230″ which is undersized for a barrel, the neck is .271″ in diameter which would work for a 243/6mm bullet. If this is for a chamber it would have been for turned brass as there would be little of no release on the neck.  The shoulder measures .431″.

The dimensions did not match up to any published chamber so it may be a roughing reamer or a die reamer.  There are three grooves cut in the shank of the tool which probably indicated to Ackley what type of reamer it is. Likely for a wildcat that a client ordered.  The case capacity would probably be a little less than a 243 Winchester.

It shows the processes that Ackley used in his shop to make tooling.  The blank was turned between centers and then the relief cuts were made on a mill.  Methodology is very similar to how reamers are made in production today.  Primary difference between this tool and ones made in production, this reamer is hand stoned for relief where modern tools are ground. I had been told by Mike Bellm that Ackley did all his throating separately.  This reamer has no throat, matching up with that concept.

I cleaned it up and then I just had to try cutting a chamber…  I knew from making reamers myself that it could easily do the job.  Just wanted to see what the finish looked like.  You can see from the attached picture of the chamber I started that it sill leaves a great finish, better than some new reamers.

Thanks to Ron, I am proud to add this tool to my collection of tools!

Ackley tells about several hundred Enfield rifles being damaged by an inspector.  I was able to document that it was in fact Kieth who damaged the rifles by forcing the bolt closed on a gauge.  Military gauges are normally, Minimum and Maximum with minimum being equal to a Go gauge and maximum is equal to a Field gauge.  It is possible that the Small Arms Shop and/or the Inspectors at the arsenal may have had gauges that fall in between.  This fact is not specified in the story.

What is know is that Kieth used whatever the Inspectors were using as a gauge to reject rifles for excessive headpace, likely a Maximum, to check Enfield 1917 type rifles.  He apparently put the gauge in the chamber and then forced the gun closed with his considerable strength.  Remember, Kieth was a rancher long before he was a writer.  You will have to read the book to get all the details of the story, and there are many more details.

When I wrote about this event in the book I had not tested any military gauges for hardness.  Recently I acquired a set of US Military 30-06 headspace gauges, so it seemed like a good idea to follow up on this story by hardness testing the gauges.  Testing in multiple locations front and rear of the gauge we found 62.5 Rockwell C average.  Barrel steel in WWI when most of these Enfield guns were produced was softer than modern barrel steels.  Modern Chromoly (blue steel) barrels are normally in the low to mid 30’s on the C scale.  The actions were case hardened, so most of the damage that happened when Kieth forced the bolt closed was to the barrels.

Kieth was so stubborn that he would not admit he was wrong until General Hatcher visited the arsenal after the rejection of the rifles.  Hatcher asked Kieth to demonstrate how he used the gauges.  Kieth was forcing the bolt closed, so Hatcher explained that you should us a light touch and showed Kieth the correct method of gauging.  Kieth was willing to accept instruction from Hatcher, because they were personal friends and he trusted Hatcher.

Just wanted to share one more crumb of interesting detail.

Fred Zeglin wrote a new article telling of the “P.O. Ackley’s Best Improved Cartridges”.  The article approaches the question from several angles.  These days we see Internet debates all the time about which cartridge is best, this piece will certainly add fodder for those discussions.

Fred’s approach is to offer new information and share both tools and methods that work in the real world. He touches on reloading problems and explains how headspace and reloading are tied together.  Pick up a copy of the 16th Edition soon, there are many hours of entertainment in this book.

I can think of   reasons right off the top of my head.

While writing “P.O. Ackley, America’s Gunsmith” I did tons of research, digging for every cartridge that Ackley personally had a hand in developing.  I grabbed my copy off the shelf and did a quick count of the entries.  I came up with 99 cartridges, there are others that I could not prove Ackley designed or tested so I decided to err on the side of caution.

That’s down right impressive, even though he had a 53 year career in guns, it takes a lot of time to work out details, make tools, and test cartridges.  Admittedly, not every cartridge was a success, some were total duds, and P.O. would have been the first to say so.

With that said he had some great success stories as well.  The one that is most commonly known today is the 280 Ackley Improved.  Mainly because Nosler chose to take it to SAAMI and produce both guns and ammunition.  The funny thing is Ackley probably would have suggested another cartridge if he were consulted.  My personal bet would have been the 257 Roberts Ackley or the 30-06 Ackley, but that is more personal bias than any fact I can offer.

I do know that Ackley liked his version of the Roberts.  He also had a soft spot for the 250 Savage Ackley Improved.  It’s equally likely that he might have pushed for his 228 Ackley Magnum.  He favored this cartridge most of his life and I have noted that several of his friends say they had them and liked them.  Of course heavier 22 bullets are available more commonly today so that would make the 228 Ackley even more interesting.  Many folks today make a modified version of the cartridge that uses .224” bullets instead of .227”.

Bottom line, there are way more than 100 reasons to know who P.O. Ackley was.  He literally changed the gun business.  How many individuals can you say that about?

Each book in the series is focused on one narrow subject in gunsmithing.  Written with an audience in mind who want to know every detail of the how and why of gunsmithing.   These books are ideal for instructing classes on the subject of gunsmithing.  The series provides a highly detailed and technical explanation of the subject at hand in a way that any gun lover will be able to understand, whether professional or hobbyist.

“Chambering Rifles for Accuracy” is the third title in the series.  The frist two titles were released in 2017: “Chambering for Ackley Cartridges” and “Understanding Headspace for Firearms”.  These titles dovetail nicely with this new book as the subjects are all clearly connected.

Installation of rifle barrels is a subject that is often seen as mysterious to the gunsmithing customer.  Gritters and Zeglin explain every facet of the subject in a complete and technical way that allows any reader to fully grasp the intent and meaning.  Clear photos and diagrams aid in the explanation of complicated processes.   Albert Einstein said,  “once you stop learning you start dying” that applies to the gunsmith as much as to any other vocation or avocation.

In Part I of the book the work necessary to create a sub MOA hunting rifle is clearly explained. Related material on reloading, triggers, bedding , rechambering of existing barrels for best results is covered as well as dealing with extractor cuts in barrels. In short, this part of the book talks about most all the variables that effect the accuracy of any rifle barrel.

In Part II Gritters lays out a step by step barreling process for the best possible benchrest barreling job, going far beyond the basics,. Gordy leaves no stone unturned in his search for best methods to achieve accuracy, he willingly shares all that experience with the student.

Combine this title with “Chambering for Ackley Cartridges” which explains how to headspace Ackley Improved designs and you are ready to build some extremely accurate rifles.  All can be purchase here.

My Dad was there everyday, a part of my life.   So I knew he was no movie star or bigger than life hero.  In the same way John Wayne’s characters were plausible as real men, they weren’t so far beyond reality that you had to cast reality aside to accept their actions.

When I was about eight years old my parents divorced and I lived with my Mom as was the rule in those days.  In hind sight this only made me crave my Dad’s time and attention more.  Secretly, when I saw a John Wayne movie I was sneaking time with my Dad in a way, that sort of thing works when you’re very young.

Dad was, like the Duke in many ways, a man’s man.  His first career was as a farmer in Iowa.  He loved the outdoors, he was a hunter, and a fisherman.  Dad very seldom had anything negative to say about anyone.  In fact he was one of the kindest and good natured people I have ever known.

As I grew through my teen years I was living with my Mom and part of the time my Sister was with us.  We spent a lot of time with my Mom’s friends who were mostly women.  In many ways this experience shaped me in terms of my communication skills and behavior.  But like most boys in their teens I desired to have a male as a mentor or example.  My Dad was aware of this and when we were together he took pains to be available to me and talk about all the things Dads and Sons should discuss.

When I headed to College I started off by going to business school.  Shortly after I received my degree, I received my first corporate screwing.  I decided right then and there I wanted no part of working at the mercy of others.

In my high school, we took an aptitude test that was designed to offer the student a list of likely career paths that might suit your individual personality and talents.  There were two jobs on my list I still remember; Embalmer and Gunsmith.  As you might imagine the first was not that exciting to me. The job I thought looked interesting was gunsmithing.  I was

not all together sure what that job entailed but I knew it would involve mechanical work and hands on activities.  So, I did some checking and located some schools that taught gunsmithing.  In short, that is how I ended up in my career.

My interest in firearms started with my Dad teaching me to shoot a lever action Daisy BB gun when I was five or six years old.  I suppose guns and John Wayne are a natural connection too.  As a teen I subscribed to several gun magazines.  I wanted to know more about guns and hunting so I could relate to my Dad about our shared interests.  At the time it never occurred to me that my heroes were directing my choices.  However, in hind sight, I can tell you that their influence on my childhood had everything to do with my choice of gunsmithing as a career.

Working over the years I found myself with new people to admire.  It was no longer with the naïveté of childhood but with respect for accomplishments and hard work.  Wildcat cartridges became the focus of my work, almost by accident.  When a business contact stated in his catalog that he saw me as a “young P.O. Ackley for the current generation” my interest in P.O. Ackley more than redoubled.

P.O. Ackley’s career spanned fifty-three years his accomplishments are impressive.   Ultimately, I spent several years researching my book on P.O. Ackley, only to be rewarded with a new hero.  Here is a businessman and a true student of his craft.  Ackley cared deeply about the influence he wielded through his writings and contacts, you will be pleasantly surprised just how much his work impacts the gun industry yet today.  I invite you to learn about my gunsmith hero and his innumerable accomplishments.

P.O. Ackley was a prolific writer.  If people will take the time to read and learn he preserved a huge amount if valuable information for them.  You can literally save years of experimenting at the range by reading the work of those who went before you.

Excerpted from ‘P.O. Ackley, America’s Gunsmith’ by Fred Zeglin

Books were far from the only writing that Ackley did.  He wrote columns for both Guns & Ammo magazine, and Shooting Times magazine.  He started writing for Guns and Ammo around 1960, Ackley offered technical advice in a Question and answer format for the magazine.  Ackley wrote the Gunsmith Column for Guns & Ammo Magazine until 1974.    In the November issue for that year P.O. is listed as the author for the column but J.B. Wood was the actual contributor for that month, in the December issue J.B. Wood is listed as the Gunsmith Column author.  Wood said, “Well, it went like this—In 1974 Parker was doing “The Gunsmith” for both G&A and Shooting Times.  This was a little weird, as these publications were fiercely competitive (if you wrote for one, the other would not accept your articles!)  for P.O. Ackley, they obviously made an exception.  In mid-1974, P.O., who was growing older, told G&A he could no longer do the column for them.  They called me and I did the column from November 1974 to January, 1982.”

In Shooting Times letters from readers, “Times Flyers” October 1962, a J.D. Tanner of Jamestown, Colorado wrote in, “After some twenty years in the gunsmithing field, I feel I can pretty well judge your articles for accuracy.  Parker Ackley is tops and knows his business—always gives proper answers to queries.”

He wrote for “Shooting Times” magazine from it’s inaugural issue in March 1960, an article called, “Those Tricky Barrel Steels” under his column “The Gunsmith.   Ackley wrote his gunsmith Q&A column for Shooting Times until 1981.  His final column for the magazine ran in the January issue 1981.  So, for twenty-two years he was “The Gunsmith” to the readers of Shooting Times magazine.   According to J.B. Wood, “In 1981, P.O. Ackley told Shooting Times that continuing a monthly column was just too much trouble.  The Shooting Times people called me, so for the second time I took over from Mr. Ackley (as they say, a hard act to follow!).”  Since Mr. Wood had taken over to P.O. when he retired from his column in “Guns & Ammo” magazine earlier.

In a letter to a friend P.O Ackley said, “I took on another magazine column lately which I shouldn’t have done.  But they begged so hard that I gave in.  This magazine is a new one called “The Gun Journal”.  It looks as though it may be a success.  Anyway they are a lot easier to work for than any of the others I have ever written for.   One of the reasons is that they agree with me in that all the letters that are sent in for information should be answered.” It is likely that these comments refer to Handloader, Ammunition Reloading Journal and Rifle Magazine, by Wolfe Publishing.  Ackley remained on the masthead of this publication from it’s for the first 31 issues, retiring from it in early 1970.

Ackley did write a sixth book.  I spoke to the people that own it and they are thinking about having it published.  My understanding is that the subject of that book is more about barrel making and P.O.’s experiences in the gun business.

If you found this interesting, there is much more to learn about P.O. Ackley.  Check out the book, P.O. Ackley, America’s Gunsmith.

The P.O. Ackley Micrometer Reamer Stop

It’s a nice honor to bestow upon P.O. Ackley to say this was his design, but all the research I have done says that Ackley never designed this tool.

His reamer stops, non of which have turned up for inspection were much like most gunsmith’s of his time used.  They were collars that fit over the reamer and were set in place by one or two set screws.

A really fancy stop might have had some length adjustment built in, it would have been more crude by comparison than the modern reamer stop, but it was effective.

To be fair, if the evidence shows up that I am wrong about the reamer stop, I will be the first to admit it.

As for the value of the tool, yes they work very well.  They are accurate and save time for both the novice and the professional in setting headspace in a barrel without much chance of an error.  They can be utilized for repeat-ability, either in production or in matching one chamber to another.  Everybody thinks they will reinvent the wheel by setting a special throat length. Micrometer reamer stops provide the ability to precisely set the length of throats with ease.

Ackley may not have designed this particular tool, but I am sure he would have approved of it because it is precise, is a true aid in the chambering process and simplifies the learning process as well.