Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

JONSON rounds/JAL

Alan Rushing
Hello and G'day folks. I had posted my question yesterday on the General Discussion forum. I appretiate Mr. MT attention, thank you!

I have since thought I might get more hits here on: Ask the Experts and/or Competition Shooting and Reloading, so here goes.
I am looking for specifics re. the rounds developed by Jonson Arms Laboratories. Any knowledge especially personal experience with any of the Jonson rounds and/or rifles? I have heard the rounds were developed taking the best characteristics of the .22 PPC, the .30 PPC. and the .308 (7.62x51mm NATO) cartridge family of rounds.

Those developed were the JONSON: 6.5, 6.8, 7.62, 9, 12.5. The reference info that I have come across seems significant and impressive!

What I've found so far has been reference to the JAL website at http://www.jonsonarms.com/, and
http://www.chuckhawks.com/building_6-5x47_rifle.htm

There is also references to some of these rounds within Wikipedia such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5_Jonson and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62_Jonson

Has the fact that these are based on the .416 Rigby brass stifled more use? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.416_Rigby

In advance, thanks.
0

Comments

2 comments

Date Votes
  • nononsense
    Alan Rushing,

    Welcome to the Gunbroker Forums!

    Since this topic is a part of the business I do on a daily basis, I thought I would add a little bit for consideration. I don't want to write a dissertation so I will keep the comments short:

    First of all, I and/or some of my associates have manipulated most of the cartridges cases available today by necking up and down, shortening and 'improving' to some degree. There isn't much we haven't done to these cases and we have made the dies to manage the work. The .416 Rigby is no exception because we have done just about everything we could to shift it into some other form for short and long actions.

    The biggest difficulties answer your last question:

    Yes, the case is the problem. It's too expensive to be fooling around with for the average shooter and the rim diameter is only contained by certain oversize actions with larger diameter bolt bodies. You can get the Remington to work but the bolt nose perimeter is too thin in my opinion. Mausers will work but again, the rim around the bolt face is very tender. Weatherby has the solution in the Mark V action but they are not available to the general public as actions only and they too are expensive otherwise. The other alternatives are some of the few custom actions made to handle the larger rim cartridges if you can stand the expense. Single shots like the Ruger #1 are sufficient if you want a single shot.

    I have read their website and the various 'articles' written about the cartridges on Wikipedia but that's about all I can locate also.

    Wikipedia is still having problems being accepted as an authority because too many articles haven't been fact checked and as with the instance of the Jonson articles, poorly written and overly subjective to a fault. Several comments need accredited citations before we can accept them as 'fact'.

    The website is purely a sales tool with comments meant to lead you to believe that they have the original short magnum which is a miracle for modern shooters. How many times have we read this same type of stuff in the gun rags? Too many. No one really cares if it is THE first cartridge designed by using a computer or not. In reality, it's probably not as I have some records of other cartridge concepts that pre-date their assertions.

    The idea of extending the design parameters of the PPC to bigger cartridges has been on the minds and in the reloading rooms of thousands of shooters since the inception of the PPC. Some of these ideas have even made it into the public shooting fraternity. The Canadians can actually take credit for the first 'short/fat' magnum cartridge along with Remington for the 6.5/.350 Rem. Mag. cartridges. After that, it's been a cavalcade of stars trotting out their 'new' concept cases modeled after the PPC. McMillan, the fiberglass stock folks, got into the act with the Fat Mac for a little while until they discovered that it didn't meet their desired performance parameters.

    The Jonson design doesn't make a point of telling us that the powder column is actually too wide for the length of the case. The primer can't ignite all of the powder from the center out to the edge while it starts burning forward. They also don't mention bolt thrust and a very odd shaped pressure curve...

    In essence, the verbiage is there to sell you something that won't deliver or if it does, your barrel life will suffer just as it does with other similar designs. If it was truly as great as they tell us, it would be known around the world and embraced by nearly everyone in the shooting industry. Yet, almost no one has even heard one tiny bit about these cartridges or the designers.

    Best.
    0
  • Alan Rushing
    Hello No Nonsense,

    Thanks for the quick, concise and thorough response to my questions re. the Johnsons. Appears that the reason that I found nothing much re. same is that there was a lot of hot air around them, rather than pushing them in the right direction.

    Claims to be the first at something, may or may not really be impressive ... depending on the feat ... being the best, or even one of the best re. ballistics and accuracy is significant, but only if it is indeed true.

    I had been away from this subject/field for a good while and when I came across mention of them, I did not want to ignore them if there was any fact to the fiction!

    I'd realized the general accessibility and expense of the Rigby brass would be a pain.

    Can see too that the bolt face would be of major consideration. (I seem to recall from the dark recesses of my mind, that discussion or consideration in procuring or building up a rifle to handle that case and some of the other large base cartridges ... for folks going after the bigger more dangerous game animals.)

    If one went and built up the solid rifle to handle all of those problems, and then one's expectations of the round fizzled, that would be quite a let down, quite the bummer.

    I wasn't in search of the Holy Grail, but did not want to walk right by it either!

    I figure that most rifles that I have shot are more accurate than I am or probably need to be for any of my needs ... but, if I were ever to get just one more rifle it's be nice if it were different than any I've used or owned in the past.

    Thanks for your time, interest and knowledge, Mr. No Nonsense, your uncommon sense is much appreciated!

    Sincerely, Alan
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity