Re: "Inherent accuracy"...
I never said anything was a walk in the park! [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] And my only prep for loading the .50 has been to deburr the case mouths. Haven't sorted cases, weighed bullets, uniformed primer pockets or flash holes - none of that.
And by the way, S1 has never been around when I've loaded for or shot the .50! [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]
But you are absolutely correct, I've certainly learned alot from him, and from a few benchrest shooters at our club, and from a lot of reading. And I've practiced a whole lot and refined my technique a bunch.
So my results wouldn't nearly have been the same 5 years ago - that's kinda my point!
Once you find a caliber that's got some velocity and good bullets available, it's then all about the processes around the act of reloading and shooting that matter.
What I continue to believe is that for anyone striving for .5 MOA to say that "one cartidge is inherently more capable of attaining accuracy than another" (remember, .5 MOA is our goal) is wasting time talking and should be out working up a load for whatever they have in hand.
Make sure your rifle is mechanically sound. Go find a good bullet with as high a BC as you can still drive fast enough to beat the flight time game in your caliber. Read info on load development techniques, develop a persistent attitude of continuous improvement in your reloading and shooting techniques. Then get to it!
And I'll bet my next paycheck that whether you shoot a .308, a 7mm Mag, a non-belted 300 WSM or a belted .300 Win Mag - you'll get it and yourself to shoot well enough to go longrangehuntin'...
P.S. Shooting in the .1s with the 100 yard benchrest boys is another matter entirely.
P.S.S Now back to long range hunting...
[ 03-27-2004: Message edited by: STL ]
STL. Principal Consultant and Managing Partner - Association of Bifurcated Tangential Ballistic Apologists, LLP.