Inherently Accurate

[Ian]

I was only trying to satisfy my own goals, which I mostly did, so other's thoughts of my veracity are pretty much irrelevant to me. I shared exactly how I did the XCB stuff (including my failures in bullet design and alloys) and Brad achieved pretty much the same thing, only he bested my efforts by at least 150 fps, proving that anyone can do it if they take care of certain details, use the right stuff for the job, and don't place artificial limits on themselves.

Well, Ben, you knew certain ones of us were going to make hash of this . I'll shut up now.

 

[Bret4207]

I think most cartridges can be what we'd call inherently accurate if they are given the right platform to perform in and are loaded with the right bullet/powder combo. Some rounds have never been known for high accuracy because of the gun they're marketed in. There was a guy years back took a Ruger #1 (IIRC) and had a custom barrel made for it in 303 British. He played with different loads and it comes as no surprise that the rifle was capable of sub-MOA groups. Tighten up the tolerances and old numbers like the Brit, the 30-30, 8x57, etc can perform. Put them in a shot out, poorly cared platform and things go south. There are likely a few cartridges that rarely get called accurate simply because of recoil or they were offered in guns that were never tack drivers. Back in the late 90's/early 2000's there was a small fad of taking a Ruger 10/22 (again, IIRC, might have been the 77/22) and converting it to fire the 25ACP pistol cartridge. That round was found to be just as accurate when handled right as any other.

Put me in the "It depends on what you fire it out of" crew.

 

[Ben]

Well, Ben, you knew certain ones of us were going to make hash of this . I'll shut up now.

What is happening is what I wanted to happen.
I wanted a variety of views from real experienced shooters.

Ben

 

[Rick]

Can't be any doubt the firearms have a great deal to do with it but still, some cartridges are just plain easy to work with. The 7br is one, a short fattish column of powder, small primer, hard to find a load that isn't at the least reasonably accurate. The 7TCU, you'll spend more time looking for a load that doesn't work reasonably well and it has a long skinny column of powder and almost no neck.

 

[Ben]

Rick,

The farther I go with all this, the more impressed I am with " short powder column " cartridges like the 6 BR, 7 BR, etc.

Ben

 

[Rick]

I shot a custom built XP in 6Br for several years, that gun would shoot the hair off a gnat's hieny at 200 meters. In the BR series the 6 and smaller are pretty tough on throats and barrels. Had a 7BR with so many rounds through it the rifling wore u[ the barrel about 3/4 inch before groups opened up. That's when I discovered the joy of cast bullets in a bottle neck, .002" larger and seated out more and that gun returned to winning form.

 

[KeithB]

I think a lot has to do with how you choose to define the phrase "inherently accurate". I will interpret that to mean a cartridge that is easy to get to perform in a variety of platforms and with a variety of loads. I will go along with the idea that almost any cartridge can be made to perform by perfect loading practices in dimensionally perfect weapons. What about cartridges that perform well in less than perfect guns, and do so with almost any reasonable load?

Based only on my very limited experience I will opt for .38 Spl, .45 ACP, and .222 as being inherently accurate. I have or have had multiple guns (different action types for 2 of the 3) in those calibers and all seemed to shoot well with several different loads. Not really fussy or troublesome to reload for. And all capable of exceeding the shooter's capabilities.

 

[popper]

Kind of a moot question. The cartridges that aren't inherently accurate are no longer around, except maybe for those who just like to tinker. Cartridges are designed with a certain 'task' in mind. Same with guns. Those that don't fit the task disappear. As most cartridges were designed for military use, we modify the 'task' for sporting use, generally by changing the bullet & powder. As we customize around the cartridge and gun for 'best' performance, we negate any perceived 'optimum' performance of the cartridge.

 

[fiver]

the ones that I find to do the best in just about any shape or form are the 25 cal's.
I have shot them in some pretty junky rifles, and in one case 2 rifles made by the same company in the same caliber but with 2 different throat ages [I got rid of the one with the 'better' throat]
even almost 100 year old worn down lever guns seem to shoot better than they should in 25 cal.
for them it seems to be more a matter of finding the weight they like, some don't much care, some want 110-120 and others nothing over 100grs, after that they seem to settle in and take things in stride.

 

[JWFilips]

OK I really don't think I'm qualified to answer based on experience:
however when shooting "cast bullets" I would have to say that my 8x57 GEW 98 has never failed to give me accuracy with any cast bullet type I have put into it!

 

[RBHarter]

What makes a cartridge off the board accurate ...... I may be a parrot here ........

The balance between case capacity and bullet is vital to making it happen . Grab a 308 , 358 and 22-250 off the shelf at Moe's bait and tackle , odds tilt toward the 358 shooting groups faster , in terms of bullet,powder,case combination , that the 22-250 but the 308 is most likely to be the least picky .
Both the 7&8×57 shoot . Neck , shoulder and taper create a reduced capacity in the 7 vs the 8 . Both seem to have that balance .
222 was easier for me to hit a load than 223/556 . Of course I was working with 1946's finest vs a bargain basement AR . Now into bolt guns if the twists were closer it might be easier .

With the 6.8SPC I'm yet to find a bad load having worked autos and bolts and 1-8.5,10&11 twists . Heavies were a bust but that is a bullet problem not a cartridge issue .

Having hit on the small rifles , I didn't enjoy broad success in the 7.62 39 although I did find some very good but unexpected loads . It was neither easy nor cooperative .

I've certainly had no trouble with 38/357 from pistols or rifles or shared loads . 9mm has been cooperative but shown peaks an valleys .

45s ? No kick there . I threw some cartridge parts at a Springfield armory 1911 and had 25 yd groups one .2 gr step above clean cycle and that pistol was reported to wax jack at 75 yd with 185s and 230s with boring regularly . I've 1917s from S&W 1918 . Ms April was butchered before she came to me and aside from shooting 4' high at 50 yd is quite happy with GAP ACP Rowland (length cases and long seating) and Schofield . ( I did make it clear that she was extensively hacked and chopped before I got her didn't I ? ) .
Ms September sans her lanyard loop is bone stock with minimum tolerance all around nominal loads of 200 RNFP and 230s both buff and coat and tie hit close enough to call it combat/bedroom accurate to 25 yd with 250s being about a ft high at 50 and 8".
The High Point carbine is a wonder all it's own . It runs whatever I'm feeding Ms September and will hold a 12×18 steel plate to at least 165 yd if I can .
For broad loading and platform the ACP is hard to beat but it grand parents aren't any slouch either . The S&W and Colts don't seem to be real fussy either as long as the case is close to straight in the chamber and that's lined up with the barrel anyway . I only have 2 rifles and the BlackHawk for full reference but 141 gr RB through 285 HB seem to work fine in them with loads from clear the muzzle to that's my limit .

The 45-70 and maybe it's my platform seems a bit fickle . Falling back to the OM data and it drives like it's on rails stoke it up it becomes less impressive . Hit Bambi with an F100 at 40 mph and the result is the same and the buffalo didn't run off to far so that's enough for me .
45 Raptor got squirrelly when I left X frame data and worked into rifle data tip toeing into 45-70 space .

My conclusions ?
The platform plays a role ,35% . Case capacity to nominal bullet weight per cartridge plays a role , 50% . The last 15% is all about case shape , spec windows and curves .
The last 65% is probably more important than the first 35% in the inherited accuracy .

As hand loaders we fix the relationship between the 35&15% all the time . There is no doubt in my mind that the cartridge deemed to be the most broad range of bullet and platform Accurate would shoot like , whatever , if it were used with a crooked egg shaped chamber and over or under rifled with a bulge or divet under the front sight and a muzzle .005 bigger than the leade .

 

[Chris]

I was turning this over in my mind at work today, there are a couple of elements I can't figure out but have an angle to address it.

Thinking about one of Ben's initial questions: are there inherently accurate cartridges? I looked up the definition of 'inherent' just to be sure... "Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute." Well we can't see the accuracy/precision inside the cartridge so we have to measure by results on target. So are there cartridges that are measurably inherently inaccurate? As someone suggested, most such were weeded out by the marketplace in the past. However, it seems reasonable based on our knowledge that some cartridges are capable of better accuracy/precision than others, all things being equal. Is this due to inherent quality?

Where I'm going is this: the open and free marketplace of shooters selects for inherent accuracy if it is to had, that is to say the competitors and serious shooters/hunters. There are a large variety of rifle competition, but let's take the benchrest crowd as an example. Those guys have the drive, the money, the time, and the interest to chamber their rigs in any caliber they want. Yet you won't see any .22/250's or .30 carbines being shot in those expensive rifles. You see .308's in the longer range contests but no '06's. You do see PPC's and BR's though off the bench, and have supplanted the previous champ .222 Rem.

Seems to me the BR crowd ruthlessly selects for inherent qualities of precision. Long distance guys the same, hence the recent interest in several 6.5 calibers. So why not let the marketplace define inherent precision for competition? If match winners are favoring a cartridge then it's probably the best until something better comes along? So BR's and PPC's in the precise shooting game must have inherent qualities that cause them to be favored by thousands of competitive guys.

Several suggested above that inherent accuracy can be defined by accuracy across different rifle platforms, or differently stated accurate in most rifles. I think Fiver mentioned some .25's as having this quality. I think that is a great definition of inherently accurate and probably the most interesting to non-competitive reloaders like myself.

 

[Rick]

I agree with Keith in post #27. My definition of inherently accurate isn't a cartridge that shoots one hole at 100 and nothing else qualifies. To me it would be a cartridge that is easy to get to shoot well within it's shooting discipline and has a wide range loads that work. Can't compare what would be considered "accurate" in a 2 inch carry gun with a custom bench gun.

 

[JSH]

I have not even cut a sprue compared to some here. As far as cast bullets, caliber wise. I have had the easiest go with all things 35 for the most part. This just seems a natural for CB's, from light to heavy in pistols, revolvers and rifles. Maybe I just got lucky with designs I chose.
Second would be 30's.
I like to tinker and am a sucker for odd calibers.

Jacketed, I won't go there. I own very few that are not MOA or sub, with full length gaschecks.
As of this spring I have gotten ate up with sub caliber rifles, 22,20 and 17's. The 17's are as sensitive as my Winchester 52 was to particular pressures applied to the gun. 17 hornet at 100, I was chugging along with an itty bitty 15 shot group. Was headed for a 20 shot group, Shazam one is 3" out. Must be fouled. Nope the nut on the trigger was loose as usual. Take 2 out of a 20 shot group and it was under 3/8" for 18 rounds.
I find accuracy an interest subject. What one considers accurate others may say it needs a lot more work.

 

[fiver]

the goal of accurate is to put the bullets in the same hole or close enough to be impressed by the results.
inherent would indicate the round itself is capable of doing that all on it's own given a reasonable platform to work in.
to me that would indicate an efficient cartridge.
one that uses all of the case capacity and burns all of it's powder in an effective manner, without stressing the platform it's used in.
well for that to pretty much happen the round itself would have to also set up consistent nodes in the barrel, starting with how the powder is ignited.
the round itself would also have the ability to line up the bullet close to with the center of the barrel regardless of the neck diameters it faces in the rifles.
it would also need a very simple way to maintain a constant distance on the chambers headspace so that the rifles and the ammo easily mesh together no matter who made it.

rounds with about 40-50grs of capacity that have straighter walls to the case shape, and a squared up shoulder shape, should have the better chance at getting the bullet into the barrel the straightest and with the least amount of stress or damage on it's trip.

 

[Ian]

Now were're getting somewhere. Case shape may have more effect on accuracy due to static alignment than it ever did with powder burn. It's a fact that some case shapes are more "efficient" than others when burning smokeless powder, but I submit that efficiency alone has little to do with accuracy or consistency, provided the correct powder burn rate for they system is utilized. By the same token, cartridge cases for very specific jobs (like 200 yard benchrest competition) are invented to deliver a certain pre-determined, ideal payload (not a hunting bullet) to the paper with a certain volume of propellant at a pre-understood ideal velocity, so that may be more a case of chicken before egg because external ballistic requirements of the game at hand are the whole driving force behind the design of the internal requirements. Also on the topic of short and stout, I might add my thoughts that action length (more importantly bolt throw distance), terminal performance on game, and to a lesser extent weight, are the marketing reasons for pushing out new "efficient" hunting cartridges because they will deliver more with less.

So, why don't all long-range hunters use the 7mm TCU or whatever instead of a 7x57 Mauser, or 7mm-08? Well, try to find a good hunting load on the shelf at your local sporting goods store. I'm not sure 6mm PPC (most accurate cartridge ever invented, so much so it's cliche') or PPC USA is even loaded commercially. Why not? Well...there's no money in it because no sporting rifles exist and competitors load for the conditions of the hour, right at the range. It's only supremely accurate because one person spends years loading the same lot of primped cases for one particular rifle, and cries when he finally shoots his favorite barrel out. The kind of tolerances those people work with would not tolerate a piece of pocket lint on a case neck, nor would the tolerate a sudden 30-degree temperature drop.

Next time B.G. Lott stops by the shop I'm going to ask him what he hunts with, should be an interesting discussion.

 

[Rick]

the goal of accurate is to put the bullets in the same hole

I don't agree with that. To say that is the only definition of accurate is to say that only rail guns are accurate and in reality not even all of them. Accurate is a relative term, what is accurate to one is horrid to someone else. A definition of accurate needs a definition of the shooting platform and the shooting goals. A 2 inch barrel on pocket revolver can be quite accurate for what it is, can't compare that with much of anything else. A hunting rifle that routinely does an inch at 150 yards is accurate by most peoples standards but won't compare with a bench gun.

A can of worms discussion. Inherently accurate . . . In what? At what range? For what purpose? And each of those answers will be different from different people.
.

 

[Ben]

Words can carry different meanings for all of us.
We don't interpret things identically.
That should not stop us for sharing our views.
Just part of it.

 

[fiver]

we all look at group size whether it is from a revolver or a shotgun.
yes even shotguns shoot groups, and the goal there is to repeat the holes in the paper.
they might be related as percentages of a whole instead of in inches or parts of inches but the goal of sameness still remains.
one of the things we work on in shotgunning is something called a square load.
that is where your inside the case shot volume comes out to nearly a square shape even though it is in a round hole.
this allows the shot to form a cloud in the sky.
it can be an evenly distributed well filled out cloud or it can be heavily populated in the center or it can be sketchy and blotchy.
the last one is not what you want.
the first two are desired and they are desired at different distances from the shooter.

a 2" revolver might not be capable of a 1" group at 100 [I don't know why it wouldn't]
but we aren't speaking of operator ability what I am thinking here is that a rounds design should add to it's ability to keep everything the same within it's platform.
the better the platform the better the results of course, we all know the key to accuracy is to have a good barrel and a good projectile.
everything else surrounding it either adds to or removes from that ability.
adding in an appropriate cartridge design will help.

this might be within the scope of the question it isn't bullet related but it still illustrates the point of good and not good.
I have been doing scad's of work with shotguns over the years and have been recently delving into some theory's pretty deeply.
mostly pertaining to every day mundane clay target and small bird type shells.
I have been slowly changing what I used to do, to now falling more in line with what the Europeans have been doing for a while now.
they are using thinner more straight wall cases.
tighter fitting and deeper wad base cups.
slower powders at higher pressures.
but with wads that have longer legs.

the slower powders at higher pressures provides the launch we all like to talk about.
the longer legs on the wads lowers pressures even further [which means more powder is needed=longer push time]
but both the powder speed and the wad cushioning protect the shot from deformation better, this in turn allows you to use less antimony in the shot but still retain the roundness.
it also makes each piece of shot weigh more, which means it retains more energy down range.
[you can also manipulate the pattern by adding more antimony to the shot]
and it doesn't stack up as high in the wad cup making the shot column closer to the square shape.
the thinner hull also allows you to use a wider wad, again shortening the stack height of the payload.
once again... getting that payload closer to a square column.
all of it adds up and it all makes a difference.
it doesn't matter if you have a 16" barrel or a 34" barrel, manipulating the internals of the hull and the projectile itself will mean a change on target percentages.
you can change the internal barrel diameter and choke constriction but again a 729 barrel and a 740 barrel are both affected equally by the internal hull and projectile change.

 

[Ian]

A can of worms discussion. Inherently accurate . . . In what? At what range? For what purpose?

How about "in general, all things considered"?

Or, "compared to its peer cartridges in a similar platform"?

If you grab everything you own chambered in .44 Magnum and I grab everything I own chambered in .45 Colt and we meet up at the range and shoot all of them for groups out to 200 yards, at the end of the day you'll win every single time by a wide margin...and the opposite if we switch.....because just about every .44 Magnum firearm made is inherently more accurate than those chambered in .45 Colt by the very nature of the differences in standardized fit between the two. (We'll leave Brad's .44 Ruger out of this for the moment ). Likewise, if you took a sampling of all the the rifles chambered in 7.62x39 and shot them with the gamut of ammo quality, your average group size at any distance would be greater than if you did the same thing with rifles chambered in 30-30.