Paco Kelly Acu'rzr tool review

22 Long Rifle ammo is finicky. Tell us all about it here.
Post Reply
TOP PREDATOR
A Poster
A Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 5:05 pm
Location: N.E. PENNSYLVANIA
Contact:

Paco Kelly Acu'rzr tool review

Post by TOP PREDATOR »

***SOME OF THE PICTURES GOT CUT OFF***


I originally posed a question here http://www.steelchickens.com/forums/vie ... f=4&t=5856 about these resizing tools and results of using them - if anyone is using them.

A fine gentleman passed his Paco Kelly Acu'rzr tool to me, and I had an oppurtunity to use it and produce a bit of a range report.

The principle of the Paco Acu'rzr tool is to resize the diameter of the bullet and change the nose of the bullet for better flight and increased accuracy. According to advertising and others, the claim is that group size is reduced / accuracy is increased using the tool on "bulk type cheap ammo".

There are four components, the main tool that houses the ammo and 3 rods that shape / resize the bullet inside the tool. I used a rubber mallet so as not to have too sharp of a blow to the brass rods and deform them, and I also added a flat smooth piece of aluminum to provide a "hard" surface to put the tool on. Safety glasses should be used.

Image

The main tool (housing) has two sides, one for each resizing to .223 / .224 diameter (Top view).

Image

Top view of the main tool and the three rods. My camera cannot take that good of close up, so I drew what the rods look like on the business end. From left to right is the Acu'rzr (dish type concave nose), Nastinose or phase III (more of a traditional hollowpoint), Scorpion or phase IV (a large dish type hollowpoint with a center post).

Image

Operation is simple, insert (may have to tap in with mallet or push the rest of the way into the tool against a hard surface) ammo.

Image

Place on a hard, flat, smooth surface, make sure the round is fully inserted, insert rod from the top and strike.

Image

To remove ammo, pick up tool, lightly tap on the rod, the ammo pops out. The ammo may stick to the Scorpion rod as it is a more complex nose design.

Image

I put the tool to a test using CCI Blazer ammo, as it was the only "cheap bulk" ammo I had on hand. The Blazers shoot rather well in their own right, so perhaps not the best candidate to see a major difference, but again it is what I had on hand and should give some result to pursue using it on other cheap ammo.

I first micrometered the unresized bullet diameters of the blazers, which actually ranged from .221 to .222 diameter the most being .221, next highest .2215, and finally .222. The diameters were checked at the beginning, middle, and end (where it meets the casing) of the driving band.

When the ammo was processed through the Paco Acu'rzr through the advertised .223 side:

Acu'rzr rod - Actually changed the bullet diameter to a consistant .221 from the front to the end of the driving band. All grooves were made smooth and the bullet was flush with the casing.

Nastinose rod - To see any difference in the bullet diameter, the rod had to be struck strongly - leading to cause major deformation of the hollowpoint and actually caused the bullet to be bent to one side. A lighter strike to the rod produced no change in bullet diameter, but a very uniform hollowpoint. Slight change to the nose cone to allow for the HP space, but the change was uniform with a light strike.

Scorpion rod - Same as the Nastinose.


When the ammo was processed through the Paco Acu'rzr through the advertised .224 side:

Acu'rzr rod - Created a more tapered driving band, from .2215 to .224 (and sometimes .225). Visibly looked as though the lead had been scraped or "mushed" around the case area. Alighter strike to the rod still created the taper, but was less consistant diameter wise as the heavier struck ammo.

Nastinose rod - Much like the .223 side, lighter strikes produced a better uniform HP, heavy strikes really caused major deformations. Light strikes produce no diameter change.

Scorpion rod - Same as with the Nastinose, heavy strikes deformed bullet, HOWEVER in contrast lighter strikes did expand diameter to .224 and sometimes .225.

First thoughts: after resizing 65+ rounds - it appears you have to have a "knack for the whack" when striking the rods. Either you severly deform the entire head making it unsuitable to shoot, or not a heavy enough of a strike doesn't make the larger diameter. To me it appeared the most consistant nose shaping went to the nastinose rod, and the most consistant bullet diameter maker was the Acu'rzr rod. Also would like to note that bullets before resizing did not twist / spin in the case with hand pressure, yet most did spin after processing. There's no real "stop" to regulate the amount of force / pressure you are applying to the rod and IMO too many variables for a consistant result - BUT rimfires sometime contridict what one thinks what makes sence we'll see what happens on paper.

One quick note before range results, I also checked the rim thickness before and after the resizing. Heavier strikes to the rod make the rim thickness shrink slightly, sometimes up to a full thousand of an inch, and for the most part to a consistant .038. The range of rim thickness before being struck ranged from .038 to .0395. So I believe that the rims are getting "squished" slightly with the heavier strikes, lighter struck ammo had no rim thickness differences.

Now for some results.....
Last edited by TOP PREDATOR on Sun Jul 31, 2011 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"a craftsman can't realize his full potential, without finding the potential of the tools he uses...."
TOP PREDATOR
A Poster
A Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 5:05 pm
Location: N.E. PENNSYLVANIA
Contact:

Re: Paco Kelly Acu'rzr tool review

Post by TOP PREDATOR »

[size:17pt]RANGE RESULTS[/size]

82 DEG. f, 40% Humidity, M. Sunny. A Savage MKII BV heavy barrel was used, 10oz. trigger, rifle was leveled and shot off a Harris bipod and rear bag. CCI Blazer ammo was used. It was weight sorted then evenly distributed (mixed) in the magazine to give a true objective mix of ammo weights. Ammo was processed in both .223 and .224 sides of the tool at 50 and 100 yards. A cntrol group of unresized and mixed weight lots was shot for a comparison. 30 seconds were waited between shots, 15 minutes between groups. A 1" circle bull was used at 50 yards, 1.5" bull used at 100 yards.

[color:#FF0000]50 YARDS, .223 side[/color]

Unresized: 1" including a 1st shot flyer, .75" without

Acu'rzr rod: 1.75" including a flyer, -1" without - had difficulty feeding with heavily struck ammo. Appeared that the tip of the nose kept getting hung up going into the chamber.

Nastinose rod: 1" with or without what may be considered a 1st round flyer.

Scorpion rod: 1" still having a 1st round flyer. The fifth round would not chamber, again the nose got hung up.

Image


[color:#FF0000]50 YARDS, .224 side[/color]

Unresized: 1" (first 2 roounds were at least .5" from the last 3)

Acu'rzr rod: 1st attempt - 2 rounds chambered the other three i couldn't close the bolt. 2nd attempt - with a lighter struck ammo made on site 1", BUT 1 round did not feed properly and ruined the tip anyway.

Nastinose rod: .75" no problems feeding or chambering

Scorpion rod: 1.25", had some feeding issues.

Image

50 YARD NOTES: Acu'rzr and Scorpion had noticable resistance to chambering / bolt closing using the .224 side. Nastinose grouped well through the .224 side. Both the .223 and .224 side - other than the Nastinose sized to .224, there was no real eye opening accuracy improvements compared to the unresized ammo. The amount of misfeeds and troouble chambering didn't warrant processing bullets for 50 yards. I do like the Nastinose as a way of changing a favorite ammo that is purely a Round Nose bullet into a Hollowpoint hunting round. Plus it did not change the POI much, and accuracy didn't suffer.

I figured that if any improvement was to be realized or measurable, it would be at a longer distance, so....


[color:#FF0000]100 YARDS, .223 side[/color]

Unresized: 1.5" / 2" with a 1st round flyer

Acu'rzr rod: group was looking great, HOWEVER the last 2 rounds misfed and tips were deformed. I reshot with lighter struck ammo on made one site, no driving band diameter data. -1.25" or +1.25" including 1 flyer.

Nastinose rod: -1", 1.5" with 1 flyer

Scorpion rod: ??? found it difficult to find all 5 rounds shot. For distance over 50 yards this is not the rod to use. Of the 3 rounds that did hit the paper, 1 was 6" away at the 8:00 position, the other was 2" away and at the 5:00 position.

Image


[color:#FF0000]100 YARDS, .224 side[/color]

Unresized: -1.5" one hole in picture is actually from the Scorpion "group"

Acu'rzr rod: -1.5" but inconclusive - only a 3 round group, the other 2 would not chamber and i abondoned any further attempts for safety reasons.

Nastinose rod: -1.5" without counting a round that I know I pulled. -2" including the pulled shot.

Scorpion rod: ??? same as the .223 sized ammo - Horrible groups (no group at all) at longer ranges. Best used at short range.

Image


OVERVIEW: unless somehow used through a press, there's no way of truely regulating the amount of force used and applied while striking the ammo, causing subtle and sometimes major differences - too much force you deform the tip and nose, but resize is achieved to the driving band and a new diameter. Too little force, forms a consistant tip, but no real difference in diameter. Feeding and chambering become an issue, dependability suffers. Of the three rods, the Nastinose hollowpoint maker appears to be the only one of value to convert your match or other Round Nose solid points into more effective hunting hollowpoints. The Nastinose performed well through both .223 and .224 sides of the tool, with only a slight difference in POI at 50 and 100 yards and had no feeding or chambering issues.

As a disclaimer, CCI Blazers was the only ammo tested; it has been reported by others that some ammos thake well to the resizing process and had shrunk groups, other ammos get worse, and some remain the same. But I have not had enough positive results with the Blazers either through processing them or on paper to pursue further testing with other ammo.

Also as chambers and the way ammo feeds differ from firearm to firearm, the issues I had in my particular set up may not occur in yours. For face value though, for the amount of time and effort using the Paco Acu'rzr tool, the time would be better spent weight or rimthickness sorting, or just plainly buying better ammo.
"a craftsman can't realize his full potential, without finding the potential of the tools he uses...."
User avatar
BCloninger
Master Poster
Master Poster
Posts: 1331
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:22 am
Location: Fort Smith, Arkansas

Re: Paco Kelly Acu'rzr tool review

Post by BCloninger »

Good write up! My experiences were similar, and I concluded that it really wasn't worth the trouble but might be worth experimenting with in a press that provided more consistency.
"You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream."
- C.S. Lewis
User avatar
Jason
Uber Master Poster
Uber Master Poster
Posts: 3002
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:36 pm
Location: Snohomish, WA

Re: Paco Kelly Acu'rzr tool review

Post by Jason »

I can't say that I'd expect it to make ammo more accurate. I've been thinking about getting one to turn some of my accurate match ammo into subsonic hollowpoints for pest control. That's actually scary that it changed rim thickness. Smacking live rimfire ammo with a hammer on a tool that smashes the rim sounds like a bad idea.
TOP PREDATOR
A Poster
A Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 5:05 pm
Location: N.E. PENNSYLVANIA
Contact:

Re: Paco Kelly Acu'rzr tool review

Post by TOP PREDATOR »

well i REALLY smacked a couple just to see what would happen. i know, not the smartest thing to do, but i did it while the tool was being held in a vice, and using a snow plow as a make shift blast shield in case it popped off. only 1 hand (with long leather work gloves on) was put at risk.

i would say that the rod would not have to be tapped that extremely to get a result on the bullet tip.

i do think that the nastinose hollowpoint maker would make an excellent hunting round out of match ammo.
"a craftsman can't realize his full potential, without finding the potential of the tools he uses...."
Post Reply