Inherently Accurate

[JWFilips]

For me "inherently accurate" is one that doesn't disappoint or perplex me when I shove different bullets into the cases. Getting nice round groups using a number of different styles of cast bullets and weights with a number of different powders.
In a nut shell ; not coming home from the range and wondering " what just happened?"

 

[Bret4207]

Maybe I misunderstood the question. Is one CARTRIDGE more inherently accurate than another? Yeah. If you talk standard factory rounds, many are. The 30 Carbine. 6.5 Carcano, 6MM Remington, 22 Savage Hi Power, the 25, 30 and 32 Remington, the 32 WSL and 351 WSL, the 32 Auto and 380ACP. None of those rounds have a rep for inherent accuracy. Not in the terms we understand them. The 220 Swift is another example, as is the 38 S+W. Truth be told the 270 Winchester isn't noted for having "gilt edged accuracy" even though it is offered in the same platform that other more accurate rounds are. But, how much of that goes to the guns they're offered in and how they're loaded vs the cartridge itself? The only way to figure that out is to have one action and a lot of different barrels in a lot of different calibers. Then spend decades wringing out the contenders.Some are bound to be more inherently accurate than others. But, you take a number that was marketed in a take down, lever action rifle with open sights and add in odd duck barrel dimensions and bullets and what chance does that round have? There isn't any real difference between the 22 Savage Hi Power and 219 Zipper (hope I'm remembering the right cartridges!) yet even in the lever action platforms they were offered in the Zipper had a rep for decent accuracy, especially when hand loaded. The case shape is similar, as is the capacity. But twist and bullet weight/diameter screwed the whole thing up. The Savage 99 had a rep for good accuracy in other rounds, so why was the Hi Power kind of a dog? 6MM Rem vs 243 Win, same basic story in a bolt gun. That type of stuff has lot to do with how we interpret "inherent" accuracy.

Some rounds are just dead easy, I'll give you that any day. 44 Special. 45 ACP, 38 Spec, 308, 250 Sav, 257 R, 7x57 if it's in a commercial rifle and not a surplus trophy with a sewer pipe barrel. Some are harder, 22-250, 6.5 Swede, 357 M, 35 rem. Some are just plain tough IME, 6mm Rem, 6.5x06, 280 Rem, 9mm Luger, 380ACP.But I have to add that some of what I may consider "tough" might well be me or the specific platform I'm using.

Questions like this are always going to bring up a lot of opinion based "fact"...in my opinion!

 

[Bret4207]

Maybe the way to put it is to take a 6PPC and chamber it in a take down, lever action, open sighted rifle and load it with 100 gr soft points and see how inherently accurate it is.

 

[Rick]

• In your opinion, are there inherently accurate cartridges ?

Ben

Going back to Ben's OP and this question.

I took it to mean cartridges that shoot well in a variety of loadings in it's given application, cartridges that are easy to work with. If that is the question then yes, there are inherently accurate cartridges.

If the question is to mean an inherently accurate cartridge is one that will shoot one hole groups I would say no, there aren't.

Does the question mean a cartridge that can be tweaked and improved upon? That would be almost any cartridge.

We all strive for that elusive one hole group but not only have I never done it I have never even seen it. I've seen some incredibly impressive groups after sometimes years of tweaking and experimenting but does that make it an "inherently accurate cartridge"?

Inherently accurate will have a different meaning to just about everyone that addresses the question and none of them are wrong. That's fine, that's just as it is with nearly everything shooting, handloading and casting.
.
.
.

 

[RBHarter]

Perhaps it's an adjective thing causing problems .

Maybe we should ask for inherently consistent .
A cartridge that can be relied on deliver an expected maximum group size without regard to platform .

 

[fiver]

the one ragged hole thing is just something we as reloaders try to give ourselves.

I believe the original question was about one or several cartridges giving the better accuracy.

like if you were standing in the gun store looking at varmint rifle and there was 10 different win model 70's sitting there with heavy field barrels screwed on them and 4x16 leupold scopes.
there is a rack full of factory ammo.
your required to pick one of the rifles and 2 boxes of ammo go out back and sight the rifle in and shoot for the best group at say 100 yds with the remaining ammo.
the prize is 100K
just which factory chambered round would you reach for.

you could do the same with 10 freedom arms model 83's. [or Dan Wesson revolvers]
and the target distance was 50 yds.

 

[Brad]

The concept of inherent accuracy in firearms seems to have started many decades ago. Was it the cartridge or the fact the cartridge was standard in a platform that allowed the cartridge to perform at its best?

Problem is trying to separate the cartridge from the firearm.

A 308 makes it easy to get good 600 yard accuracy. Is it because of the cartridge, the rifles it is chambered in, or the availability of bullets and data for that performance?

Target shooting has lead to development of many good bullets and lots of loads that work well in many firearms.

The core answer is hard to really speak to. In the end we all have biases and indivual experiences.

 

[Rick]

I don't think there is a "problem". Just different folks expressing their meaning of the question. I in no way meant to give the impression that anyone responding was wrong. Just saying what inherently accurate is to me.

 

[Chris]

I have a few opinons on cartridges, but I suggest that the competitive shooters have the incentive to find inherently accurate cartridges if they exist. If they aren't already shooting it then they are trying to invent a better one. So take a look at what is winning the matches. I do not compete and I have no interest in their chambering, but I bet they have more inherent accuracy than anything I shoot.

 

[Brad]

Look at NRA Highpower. For a long time the 308 in the M1A dominated service rifle. The AR15 in 223 couldn't cut the mustard at 600 with a 68-69 gr bullet. Someone decides to go with a 1-7 or 1-8 twist barrel and an 80 gr bullet and things change fast.

So, until the late 90s one could say the 308 was inherently more accurate but was it? The AR platform just needed a faster twist and the right bullets to compete.

 

[freebullet]

But what about inherited inaccuracy ...

 

[JSH]

Wow gents, this is an interesting thread for sure.
I kept wanting to come back and look at it, but stepped back for a while. That way I seem to keep more of an open mind into all the angles a subject such as this has.

It's tough to keep gun types, makes and styles out of this for sure.
I made a comment at a place I pass some time on the "best" thing since sliced bread, the 6.5 Creedmoor. My comment was taken wrong for a while. Just a short few years ago, if you made a comment on a 6.5 anything ( in most gun shop crowds) you were looked upon to need some type of professional help.
Today, if your not shooting a 6.5 you are wasting your time. I see this as marketing, good marketing. There are a lot of people that have never shot any kind of 6.5 or knew much of the caliber.

As to the cartridge buddy of mine that has passed on was so excited when the WSM and WSSM came out. He had built quite a lot of rifles and was a good rifleman as well. In a nutshell his thoughts were the short fat reamers would be less inclined for ANY type of flex or wandering off center. That was a reason he considered the BR case superior to others. Yet admitted there was a bit to much case capacity, to a point.

I think most 300 win mags of decent quality to be pretty darn accurate. Read about it at its beginning and it was not met with open arms. Mostly the neck was to short, or so the community thought so.

I will just say I am not a big 270 fan. But, the several I have had pass through my possession all shot well. I snagged up one a few years ago for a build I had/have planned for a 6.5-06. Had the rifle quite a while before I ever shot it. I had a fair bit of odds and ends of 270 ammo to use up. It showed a lot of promise after the intital sight in. It was shooting well enough I flung one at a 400 yard gong. It did a number on it so another was sent in that direction. After that session I drove down and had a look the two fresh "pucker marks"on the steel plate were maybe an inch apart.

I will skip all the blah blah.
I and a buddy studied on it a bit. These were loaded with 150's of an unknown bullet. I had three of them left. I pulled one down to look at powder and bullet. Ran the others over the chrono 2900 fps and change. I am guessing it was H1000. These were left overs from other projects of MY loading and had gotten mixed up some.
Reloader 26 just came on the scene and it had some pretty good looking speeds. Worked up to max with. I am getting 3170 as an average with a 150.
Now to the accuracy. It runs right at 1" @100 when I do my part. It is no more than 1 1/2"@200. I skipped and went to 400 and it holds MOA easily as well.
That is more than accurate for my purpose of white tails and mulies. Along with encroaching on 270 short mag speeds.

To pick a gun off the rack and two types of ammo. For me it would definitely be a 30 caliber. Either an 06 or a 308. I will throw in a third, 300WM.

If we follow the accuracy crowd. Go with the most used, for say the last 10-15 years. Now what do we do for a gun? About 99.9% sure there is not a brand new unfired on the rack, let alone factory ammo. So that seems not fair.

I am more inclined to say a specific parent case rather than a caliber. I would have to point at the BR or PPC parent case.

 

[KHornet]

Getting in on the end of this thread, but my experience says 22KHornet, 222, and 7x57.

Paul

 

[Bret4207]

"One Ragged Hole"! I'd forgotten that phrase. There was a gun writer back in the 90's who constantly used that phrase. Every thing he tried produced "one ragged hole"! Must be HE was inherently accurate!

 

[fiver]

got a chuckle out of that...

 

[KHornet]

I remember the writer Bret, but can't put a name to him. Yep, musta
been him who was inherently accurate.

Paul

 

[4060MAY]

of course
all the answers and discussion is about Fixed Ammo
how about Breech seated
32-40, 32MS, 30-20CPA, 3855

 

[John]

One other that hasn't been mentioned is the 32 Long. It might be the platform of my I frame but everything I throw in it shoots well. SO does the Ruger 32 Mag when I keep it at 32 long speeds or warm it up some.