In regards the recent thread about "inherent accuracy", rather than bring that back to the fore, I will say only that I have not uncovered any meaningful data to support the contention. I shall keep my eyes open in any event, but all I know is posted on the other thread. I remain skeptical of the theory, and have nothing in hand or enroute to dispell that. I have reviewed a number of noted and respected treatments of internal ballistics, note the regard some cartridges bask in, and am left to conclude that taking care of fundamental issues of design and assembly is the key, not reliance on say-so.
BTW, new NBRSA 1000 yd. record of 1.4" give or take, for 5 shots was fired not too long ago. Just read about it in Varmint Hunter Mag yesterday. Sooooo, how's that 1/2 MOA looking now? I think .25 is a better benchmark, JMO.
You haven't been thinking on that previous thread a bit have you?? [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]
I don't recall the thread too clearly as it was not of considerable interest to me, more of a read and glean issue.
"Inherent accuracy" is a nice term and it perhaps means nothing more than "here's a good starting place, often traveled by others".
I am a little suprised by a five (5) shot 1.4" (+ or - whatever) group at 1000 yards, I'll bet that shooter was pleased and I'd also say there'll be several rifles mimicing his/hers build by others, maybe because of the percieved "inherent accuracy" principle.
Maybe the entire deal is a little like religion(s), if you have enough faith that something is _____ (fill in the blank), then that's good enough.
Also there are those that are happy where they are and there are those that are never happy and live to push the limits and are never quite content.
Forgot what we were talking about, guess it's time to stop babbling.
.. Bad choice of analogies, Dave.. I thought better of you..
... Either of you gents care to show me some gravity or explain how it does what it does.?? Hehehe... [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]
.. And on that note will either of you be entering any 100-300 yard BR competitions with your mags.?? I doubt it.. [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]
.. "Inherent accuracy", as I understand it, is an unquantified measurement(oxymoron?) of how some cartridges seem to be very tolerant of various components and/or easily loaded for.. Accuracy is the ability of the entire setup to set a bullet on the correct path to a point on the target.. After leaving the barrel it's the bullet's job to stay on that path and hopefully the human in the equation chose the right time and condition to pull the trigger..
IMO BR is 25% Equipment, 25% Skill and 50% luck that nothing goes wrong during your time at the trigger.. Close range BR and 1K seem like "turkey shoots" on differing measurement scales (100 yard in .001's and 1K in inches)
Now if you'll exscuse me, I'll be over here donning my asbestos suit.. Most of this post is just for arguments sake and a little chain-yanking.. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]
.. I'm serious as a heart attack about the bad choice for an analogy.. Can't say much for the timing, either.. d:^| JiNC
More recoil equals more overall muzzle movement before the bullet exits. So, this is easy for me to understand why a cartridge producing less recoil will have the barrel nearer to the same location when the bullet exits each time, less prone, or more forgiving to changes in hold or rest type etc. To me, this says nothing of its actual accuracy capability, but rather the practical accuracy capability without a machine rest. So, if you shoot a big boomer, or some setup with lots of recoil, seems it'll be less forgiving to variables in technique, but it may well be equally inherantly accurate as another smaller BR cartridge when both are fired from a machine rest.
I think this would be quite easy to test and prove, but wouldn't it take 30 barrels coming off the line from one manufacturer all lapped and chambered to the same specs for each cartridge being tested? Something like firing 5 match loads through each barrel with 30 round groups, measuring group size after 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 rounds. Test would gather data at 100, 300, 500, 800, and 1000 yards by way of multiple acoustic targets at each interval.
I have a bunch more ideas to follow this test too, so who's going to pony up the money for the barrels and warehouse facility to get this ball rollin? I envision a multimillion dollar facility that begins to answer all of our questions and take all the fun right out of it. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]
Really, it quite amazing that nobody has not went to the exteme of testing all of our cartridges inherant accuracy, specific barrel steels, barrel contours, lengths, barrel thread type and diameter, stock densities, scope mounts, lock time, etc, etc, etc.... Competitions seems to be the only place "so called" testing is done, but just take one look at all the variables in thi "sort" of testing and it's enough to make any methodical scientific type just puke. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] Sure we learn, but how slow have we, what have we overlooked in the process, and what misconceptions have resulted as well... [img]images/icons/confused.gif[/img] Certainly keeps things interesting!
Naw STL, it was interesting, even if not Inherently so. [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img] Got me thinking enough to start digging, and that's when I start learning a few things.
THE GROUP btw, was fired by Bill Schrader during a Colorado Rifle Club shoot. He shot a light rifle in a two gun shoot, 1.473", .300 Win Mag, Remington 700, heavy Hart barrel, McMillan stock, all built by Dan Dowling. Berger 210 gr VLD and H1000 powder. Date of 3/02 reported, don't know if that was a typo or real.
Anyhoo, I enjoyed the discussion. Some years ago I wandered thru the shooting world blissfully ignorant, filled with handed down dogma. As much as I enjoy shooting and hunting, the one thing that amazed me most when my interest deepened, is the crap I don't know. When you start learning about all the stuff that can screw up, it makes me wonder how I ever hit anything at all. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] So, if it's a fact, supportable with science and such, I'll buy off on it. If you got a theory, we can talk turkey, but until I see the paper, it's just theory, nothing more.
Yesterday I couldn't even spell epicyclic precession, now I use one to stir my drinks! [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]
Ohh hell, come on now, shooting is like a religion, you've gotta believe in order for it to work! [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img] I guess that's why I had so little interest in the initial thread, no data to substantiate one side or the other.
Perhaps if we light loaded our magnums and heavy loaded our BRs and PPCs we get similar results, could be nothing more than recoil... I don't know.