What constitutes “inherently accurate “?

[Mach 1]

Ummm....No, he doesn't. He aligns everything to the tightest tolerances he can, to help aid in the RIFLE'S accuracy. A crap barrel is a crap barrel is a crap barrel. They will never shoot consistently. I had one that I fought for years.

With a crap smith the barrel is worthless. A great Smith can build a more accurate and reliable rifle with a button rifled Wilson barrel than a crappy Smith can with a single point cut rifled Krieger barrel.

 

[Mach 1]

Ummm....No, he doesn't. He aligns everything to the tightest tolerances he can, to help aid in the RIFLE'S accuracy. A crap barrel is a crap barrel is a crap barrel. They will never shoot consistently. I had one that I fought for years.

Maybe your Smith screwed up your barrel. A lot of problems get blamed on barrels when in reality it was the work done to the barrel.

 

[Rick Richard]

I tend to believe in inherent accuracy or whatever you want to use as a definition since some calibers tend to shoot well with about any load or recipe you put through them.

 

[FEENIX]

Maybe your Smith screwed up your barrel. A lot of problems get blamed on barrels when in reality it was the work done to the barrel.

LL!

 

[J E Custom]

Got to add one more post.

Being an old timer, I have seen many changes in cartridge design, bullet design. barrel quality, powder choices, stock quality, even gunsmith quality. And with all the technology improvements, plus the interest is long range shooting, there have been many improvements in accuracy.

Most bench rest shooters use cartridges that don't have 100+ grain powder capacities for many reasons they also shoot very heavy rifles and have triggers that require 3 to 5 Oz of pull to release them. so we are talking a different requirement for that type of shooting. But some of the very best accuracy I have seen has came from cartridges that don't conform to short fat case design. But i wouldn't go hunting Elk with a 6 mm in a 40 pound rifle ether.

I can remember when the 222 Remington was all the rage and a must have if you wanted to shoot bench rest. It was only eclipsed when a newer cartridge was designed and with the designers doing so well, everyone had to have one. The 7/08 also became a favorite cartridge for the hunter bench rest crowd and now the rage is the 6.5 CM. there are good reasons that cartridges gain the reputation of being inherently accurate mostly from media Hype and the availability of great new bullets and components.

With lower recoil and less powder there is less stress and harmonics
placed on a bench rest rifle so they should be easier to load and shoot. I realy don't think there is such a thing as an inherent cartridge, just a consistent rifle that has everything going for it, starting with all precision parts, good Smithing, good loading and a good shot.

I don't think this one will ever be agreed upon, so each will just have to disagree with the other side because it really doesn't matter as long as you have an accurate rifle that fills your needs

J E CUSTOM

 

[Mach 1]

Got to add one more post.

Being an old timer, I have seen many changes in cartridge design, bullet design. barrel quality, powder choices, stock quality, even gunsmith quality. And with all the technology improvements, plus the interest is long range shooting, there have been many improvements in accuracy.

Most bench rest shooters use cartridges that don't have 100+ grain powder capacities for many reasons they also shoot very heavy rifles and have triggers that require 3 to 5 Oz of pull to release them. so we are talking a different requirement for that type of shooting. But some of the very best accuracy I have seen has came from cartridges that don't conform to short fat case design. But i wouldn't go hunting Elk with a 6 mm in a 40 pound rifle ether.

I can remember when the 222 Remington was all the rage and a must have if you wanted to shoot bench rest. It was only eclipsed when a newer cartridge was designed and with the designers doing so well, everyone had to have one. The 7/08 also became a favorite cartridge for the hunter bench rest crowd and now the rage is the 6.5 CM. there are good reasons that cartridges gain the reputation of being inherently accurate mostly from media Hype and the availability of great new bullets and components.

With lower recoil and less powder there is less stress and harmonics
placed on a bench rest rifle so they should be easier to load and shoot. I realy don't think there is such a thing as an inherent cartridge, just a consistent rifle that has everything going for it, starting with all precision parts, good Smithing, good loading and a good shot.

I don't think this one will ever be agreed upon, so each will just have to disagree with the other side because it really doesn't matter as long as you have an accurate rifle that fills your needs

J E CUSTOM

I agree to disagree. Except with the Creedmoor cartridges, they are nothing but a marketing gimmick...... lol couldn't help myself.

 

[HARPERC]

.....Mostly true. But how many years did the 308 rule the benchrest world and have all that time to set records?.............

I think advancements in optics alone play a role.
"IF" I recall correctly, as I don't look at BR stuff much, the McMillan record was surpassed by a 7.62 round of some sort.

 

[wildcat455]

I tend to believe in inherent accuracy or whatever you want to use as a definition since some calibers tend to shoot well with about any load or recipe you put through them.

You can believe what you want, it doesn't make it true... or factual.

You say calibers, but I think you may mean cartridges?

I have several rifles, some of the same cartridge. Some of those rifles eat anything and shoot well, some rifles (same cartridge) are more finicky. My point here is I see your point as more about the rifle and the cartridge all together, more so than just the cartridge.

Please explain to me the use of a 30-30 bolt action in short range bench rest, and winning. 36 top 3 in 3 years, against cartridges others here have stated were "inherently accurate". Michael Turner was the guys name and he did it on a bet... and won. Allot.

I'm almost certain you and others "believe" the 30-30 to be NOT "inherently accurate"...

My point isn't that any one cartridge is better than another.

Cartridges are CHOSEN for specific tasks to be performed.
The fact that bench rest is dominated by 6mm and 6.5mm, isn't because of the cartridge, it's because of what the shooter and rifle can do with it because of an attribute. That attribute happens to be less recoil, with high velocity.

Really, it's not all fairy dust and unicorn farts.
Yet that's what some here seem to be buying into.

 

[bigngreen]

The issue with these questions is there are only a select few who will have the ability and the desire to question and test, the only platform that allows testing is one that has measurements on paper as a standard and I think range has to be involved to get the resolution needed.
There is without a doubt something to case design, there to much evidence from people who will try anything to shoot small. If a belted 6 Dasher shot smaller by .001 guys would be running it, if neck sizing shot smaller they be doing it, if flutes made them shoot smaller you'd never see a straight barrel. Will they see stuff that is relevant to long range hunting, sure, much of it is applicable but there is stuff that is literally the last thousandths of gain and just not practical for us BUT that does not make it irrelevant or not true.
There's a lot that goes into accuracy BUT if you let it get into your head to the point you over look the simple basics you'll suck!

 

[Wedgy]

While the Creed might be all the rage in 6 and 6.5 it isn't breaking any records except sales.... and tall tales. The BR & BRA are the rage because they are winning and setting new records. Take your trusty 30-30 or whatever but your going home with nothing more than a participation trophy. Thanks for playing.

 

[entoptics]

I think there's some of you that are arguing against "inherently accurate" that don't quite know what "inherently" means.

inherently (adverb) - in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way.

It's that last one you all are missing..."characteristic".

Would you guys argue that a Ferrari is not inherently faster than a Silverado because there's a theoretical limit to how fast either can go based on e=mc2? Sure, the NASCAR trucks can outrun a 458 in a straight line, but that's not inherent. That's actually the opposite of inherent. It takes lots of time and money to change the inherent nature of the truck into something more like a Ferrari.

Some rifles are inherently accurate (good barrels, precise fitting). Some shooters are inherently accurate (good coordination, concentration, and eyesight). Some cartridges are inherently accurate (efficient, suitable for popular aerodynamic projectiles, etc).

4 pages of semantics and pedantry...

 

[FEENIX]

I think there's some of you that are arguing against "inherently accurate" that don't quite know what "inherently" means.

inherently (adverb) - in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way.

It's that last one you all are missing..."characteristic".

Would you guys argue that a Ferrari is not inherently faster than a Silverado because there's a theoretical limit to how fast either can go based on e=mc2? Sure, the NASCAR trucks can outrun a 458 in a straight line, but that's not inherent. That's actually the opposite of inherent. It takes lots of time and money to change the inherent nature of the truck into something more like a Ferrari.

Some rifles are inherently accurate (good barrels, precise fitting). Some shooters are inherently accurate (good coordination, concentration, and eyesight). Some cartridges are inherently accurate (efficient, suitable for popular aerodynamic projectiles, etc).

4 pages of semantics and pedantry...

Yep, that's why I responded as ...

Like it or not there is an inherent accuracy in cartridges, rifles, bullets, etc., that is relative to "x" relationship.

 

[Canhunter35]

You can believe what you want, it doesn't make it true... or factual.

You say calibers, but I think you may mean cartridges?

I have several rifles, some of the same cartridge. Some of those rifles eat anything and shoot well, some rifles (same cartridge) are more finicky. My point here is I see your point as more about the rifle and the cartridge all together, more so than just the cartridge.

Please explain to me the use of a 30-30 bolt action in short range bench rest, and winning. 36 top 3 in 3 years, against cartridges others here have stated were "inherently accurate". Michael Turner was the guys name and he did it on a bet... and won. Allot.

I'm almost certain you and others "believe" the 30-30 to be NOT "inherently accurate"...

My point isn't that any one cartridge is better than another.

Cartridges are CHOSEN for specific tasks to be performed.
The fact that bench rest is dominated by 6mm and 6.5mm, isn't because of the cartridge, it's because of what the shooter and rifle can do with it because of an attribute. That attribute happens to be less recoil, with high velocity.

Really, it's not all fairy dust and unicorn farts.
Yet that's what some here seem to be buying into.

What you say makes perfect sense but then the ceo of savage says they test fire every rifle and for years the 308 across the board proved to be the most accurate in their rifles

 

[Mach 1]

I think advancements in optics alone play a role.
"IF" I recall correctly, as I don't look at BR stuff much, the McMillan record was surpassed by a 7.62 round of some sort.

Yea it was the 30 Stewart. Which is based on a 6ppc casing lol