Let me say this differently. Show me the science that supports the contention, then I'll believe. That Lapua makes brass for the .222 and PPC does not insure the same quality. Indeed, Lapua has a vested interest in maintaining the very highest standard for the PPC brass. Find me somebody that has done the research on combustion dynamics that support the 'short fat' theory in regards to accuracy.
How about this: "Cartridges with flash holes smaller than normal for the primer are more accurate." Right or wrong? Prove it.
Think about 10-15 years of BR matches have proven it without any doubt, just go to BR central and ask the question. There are some boys there that will quote data until you cannot take it anymore. 222 was king and the PPC has knocked it off. Lou Palmisano (one third of the trio that came up with the PPC) published his data and articles years ago.
You cannot really think that Lapua has different quality standards on the ppc brass over other calibers.
Almost every really competitive cartridge in LR BR today is based on the short fat 30-40 degree shoulders (6 BR, 6.5-284, 300 wsm, 7wsm, 300 AI, 30 BooBoo etc). Look at the new 6.5 Grendel for the rat guns (AR15). Look at the cartridges David Tubb has designed, tested and used 6XC for across the course shooting.
Now no one has to believe that at all. Everyone is welcome to take their money and time and do what they like and have fun. However, top competitors do not waste money or time on losing theories.
BH, tell you what I'll do. I'll trot right over to BR Central and see if someone there can show me the documentation. Last time I visited the place it seemed mostly like a 4 alarm food fight, but I'll give it a shot. I hear what you're saying, I respect your opinion but I don't share it.
I do not own a .222 or any of the PPC cartridges, and only mentioned the .222 in reference to the quote attributed to Doug Shilen. I have no particular loyalty to any cartridge, though I have a few favorite rifles. In any case, this warm fuzzy thing we are talking about is relative. What would you call "inherently accurate" at 1500 yards or so?
If I should find the "proof" rather than the gab, I'll trot right back over here and fill you in. [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]
Location: The rifle range, or archery range or behind the computer in Alaska
Re: "Inherent accuracy"...
Anybody can say what they want, but there is more to accuracy than just turning a bullet down a barrel. There is a reason the military went from the 30-06 to the 308 despite the 30-06 having more "punch" than the smaller 308 win. It may be true that with good components and good workmanship just about any cartridge can be made to shoot well and most shurely well enough for most hunting tasks. Some will do better than others in some circumstances. When was the last time you saw a .270 or 30-06 on the bench at the national BR competition?? Some are more "inherently" more accurate than others.
Long range shooting is a process that ends with a result. Once you start to focus on the result (how bad your last shot was, how big the group is going to be, what your buck will score, what your match score is, what place you are in...) then you loose the capacity to focus on the process.
.. This is not the original article nor anything "scientific" but it's what I found with a quick search..
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> 22 PPC
Designed in the mid-1970s by Dr Lou Palmisano, a vascular surgeon whose interest in internal ballistics and passion for accuracy gave us the first real proof that there was such a thing as "inherent accuracy" of a cartridge itself. Working with the good doctor was Ferris Pindell, an equally accomplished benchrest shooter and gunsmith, and the other "P" in PPC (Pindell-Palmisano Cartridge).
Palmisano believed that a short squat powder column burns more efficiently, more uniformly and produces less muzzle turbulence. The claim of superior accuracy for his .220 Russian based cartridge was proved conclusively when over the course of a few short years, the .22 and 6mm PPC literally rewrote the benchrest record books
As for the claim of increased efficiency, one has only to check reloading data to see that PPC cartridges do indeed produce higher velocities with less powder.
Though it has taken an inordinately long time for the squat powder column theory to carry over to hunting cartridges, it finally did in 1998 when John Lazzeroni introduced an entire line of cartridges based on drastically shortened versions of the .404 Jeffery and .416 Rigby cases.
Unless I miss my guess, we 11 be seeing further evidence of the PPC influence in cartridges to be introduced by some of our largest firearms and ammo manufacturers -- and soon.
.. I seem to remember seeing an article about this by the good doctors but I haven't located it yet..
..As far as I know this info is good to only 300 yards. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]
I think you guys are looking past the obvious.
While it may be true that some cartridges are more accurate than others.. WHY?
Ever lean towards the guy who builds it.. reguardless of who "he" is.. if the rifle is built right ANY cartridge can be accurate. OR... just maybe some are easier to build for...???
I know some are thinking that well the big 30's have been winning at 1K comps and now the 6.5's are winning, and the PPC's etc. won for years in SR BR... yep you're right but why... maybe, again, some are just easier to build a rifle for...
There are A LOT of factors that go into building a great shooting rifle.. in the same respect there are A LOT of things that make inaccuracy possible. If you can eliminate these factors while building a rifle or eliminate these factors by some characteristics of different case designs, bullet tendencies, actions specifications.. then you can build an accurate rifle...
so.. let's say you pick X cartridge.. and your smith knows that X cartridge shooting Y bullet tends to give Z characteristics of performance ( encompasing pressure, recoil, etc. ) then your smith can say well I need to take this into consideration to build the rifle "this" way...
I believe that the PPC or proven BR calibers and cartridges are some of the ones that are just easier to build for.. not because there design make them more accurate in ballistics terms...
For those looking for evidence that cartridge design can actually have an effect on accuracy, just take a look at the history of 600 yd. rifle competitions. Does anyone doubt that in the '60s the 30-06, which had been the reigning champion for 600 yd. shooting, was moved to an also-ran position by the introduction of the .308 Win? When shooters began to use the .308 Win., the 600 yd. bulleye had to be reduced in size because that cartridge was so much more accurate than the 30-06. There are years of data to show that the .308 is superior to the 30-06 accuracy-wise.
The PPC experience seems to bolster the idea that "short and fat" has a design advantage over "slim and long." But whatever the reason for the effect, it is hardly debateable that cartridge design has an observable impact upon the potential accuracy of the cartridge. The .308 is a better, more accurate cartridge than the 30-06. The legions of competitive shooters are the proof. If the 30-06 could out-shoot the .308, competition shooters would be using it in droves, but they aren't.