"Inherently more accurate"

[J E Custom]

I disagree with the idea the br guys shoot cartridges based on others winning with it while not testing it themselves. They are the most anal reloader/testers/tinkerers out there. They don't spend tens of thousands on gear without making sure the groups are as small as possible.

This is where we get into opinions and that's ok, its just that I have seen many changes over the 55+years in cartridges in that field alone. at one time the 222 Remington was the go to cartridge for bench rest. then the more powerful cartridges came along like the 7/08 AI and for a while it was the cartridge to beat. then the PPC and the 22 PPC came along and with less powder capacity performed equally with less recoil and less harmonics to deal with so a happy medium was found for this type of shooting. when distances were moved out to much longer distances more power was needed but not as much as most hunters needed because shooting game required different bullets and energies under different conditions.

In any competition you will see the cartridge used change if someone starts dominating the competition. Even in the short time I competed in High power
competition (15 Years) I saw many changes in cartridges used mainly because the winner of the overall match was using a different cartridge than others had in the past and they soon were shooting the same cartridges.

If a master gunsmith that really knew what it took, he could take almost any cartridge and build a bench rest style rifle with all the requirements for a bench rest competition it would out shoot most shooters and if the shooters were very good they could compete with most. but this rifle would be worthless for a hunter that had to carry it and shoot it under field conditions.

The times also had a huge effect on what was the preferred cartridge, as we moove along in time the components are getting better that they were and the precision parts have also gotten better. Plus the reloading skills and tools have gotten better. One day another New cartridge will come along and it will become the benchmark
for future cartridges in that arena.

Just saying that there is no comparing the different types of firearms for different uses. It really comes down to what a person needs and likes and normally, it is the latest and greatest that is chosen.

J E CUSTOM

 

[Mram10us]

This is where we get into opinions and that's ok, its just that I have seen many changes over the 55+years in cartridges in that field alone. at one time the 222 Remington was the go to cartridge for bench rest. then the more powerful cartridges came along like the 7/08 AI and for a while it was the cartridge to beat. then the PPC and the 22 PPC came along and with less powder capacity performed equally with less recoil and less harmonics to deal with so a happy medium was found for this type of shooting. when distances were moved out to much longer distances more power was needed but not as much as most hunters needed because shooting game required different bullets and energies under different conditions.

In any competition you will see the cartridge used change if someone starts dominating the competition. Even in the short time I competed in High power
competition (15 Years) I saw many changes in cartridges used mainly because the winner of the overall match was using a different cartridge than others had in the past and they soon were shooting the same cartridges.

If a master gunsmith that really knew what it took, he could take almost any cartridge and build a bench rest style rifle with all the requirements for a bench rest competition it would out shoot most shooters and if the shooters were very good they could compete with most. but this rifle would be worthless for a hunter that had to carry it and shoot it under field conditions.

The times also had a huge effect on what was the preferred cartridge, as we moove along in time the components are getting better that they were and the precision parts have also gotten better. Plus the reloading skills and tools have gotten better. One day another New cartridge will come along and it will become the benchmark
for future cartridges in that arena.

Just saying that there is no comparing the different types of firearms for different uses. It really comes down to what a person needs and likes and normally, it is the latest and greatest that is chosen.

J E CUSTOM

As an example, would you say that John or Mark King could build a 300wsm and a 7remmag, being shot by the same shooter under the same conditions, and both be competitive at the worlds? Thus, nothing inherent, simply the smith, shooter and parts used.

 

[Canhunter35]

Here is a target from a 300wsm hunting setup I just built. Different bullets and powders at 100. Just about everything shows promise.
View attachment 164549

I'm not sure why this concept confounds ppl. I had a 7rem mag built, it's wicked accurate when it's tuned up, but it's taken bullet selection and powder changes to make it happen.

 

[Canhunter35]

I see this term tossed around a lot, especially in any of the many 260 vrs the 6.5 CM threads. It probably comes up in the .243 vrs 6 CM too. I don't know as I don't own either. If you built a 30 CM or a 7mm CM would it be more accurate than a 308 or a 7mm/08? If the CM case design is "inherently more accurate" wouldn't it be?

Can someone define this please? Not looking for opinions, just facts. Using the 260/6.5 CM as examples. Has anyone built two rifles as identical as they can be, found the best loads for both and has the data to back up the 'inherently more accurate" statement? Has the data been verified with other identical (as can be) rifles? Say, 600 yards.

I'm not looking for a debate, argument or you can buy ammo at your local quick stop type replies. There are other post where you can do that.

BTW, I have a 260 but I don't think it's better than a CM but I also don't think it gives up anything either. My rig is a deer rifle, 22" pencil barrel, personally I don't think deer, coyotes or groundhogs can tell the difference.

So, if someone has some data based on testing that defines what makes one cartridge "inherently more accurate" than another cartridge please post it up.

Thanks, Justin

When you think inherently accurate, think easily made accurate. They r easy to tune and stay in tune.
My load for my 308 is still exactly the same after 2500rounds down the tube. There's no need to chase the lands of anything

 

[INVICTUS]

I see this term tossed around a lot, especially in any of the many 260 vrs the 6.5 CM threads. It probably comes up in the .243 vrs 6 CM too. I don't know as I don't own either. If you built a 30 CM or a 7mm CM would it be more accurate than a 308 or a 7mm/08? If the CM case design is "inherently more accurate" wouldn't it be?

Can someone define this please? Not looking for opinions, just facts. Using the 260/6.5 CM as examples. Has anyone built two rifles as identical as they can be, found the best loads for both and has the data to back up the 'inherently more accurate" statement? Has the data been verified with other identical (as can be) rifles? Say, 600 yards.

I'm not looking for a debate, argument or you can buy ammo at your local quick stop type replies. There are other post where you can do that.

BTW, I have a 260 but I don't think it's better than a CM but I also don't think it gives up anything either. My rig is a deer rifle, 22" pencil barrel, personally I don't think deer, coyotes or groundhogs can tell the difference.

So, if someone has some data based on testing that defines what makes one cartridge "inherently more accurate" than another cartridge please post it up.

Thanks, Justin

Inherent accuracy comes from inherently spending hours and hours on the range doing things properly over and over.
Everything else, is inherent marketing .
Marketing terms "knock down" "energy" "velocity" etc etc .
Pick what you like with the external ballistics to get there and shot it all the time . That's inherent accuracy.

 

[treeman]

I see this term tossed around a lot, especially in any of the many 260 vrs the 6.5 CM threads. It probably comes up in the .243 vrs 6 CM too. I don't know as I don't own either. If you built a 30 CM or a 7mm CM would it be more accurate than a 308 or a 7mm/08? If the CM case design is "inherently more accurate" wouldn't it be?

Can someone define this please? Not looking for opinions, just facts. Using the 260/6.5 CM as examples. Has anyone built two rifles as identical as they can be, found the best loads for both and has the data to back up the 'inherently more accurate" statement? Has the data been verified with other identical (as can be) rifles? Say, 600 yards.

I'm not looking for a debate, argument or you can buy ammo at your local quick stop type replies. There are other post where you can do that.

BTW, I have a 260 but I don't think it's better than a CM but I also don't think it gives up anything either. My rig is a deer rifle, 22" pencil barrel, personally I don't think deer, coyotes or groundhogs can tell the difference.

So, if someone has some data based on testing that defines what makes one cartridge "inherently more accurate" than another cartridge please post it up.

Thanks, Justin

I do believe there are more inheirantly accurate cartridges. If you don't believe so look at the record of the 6 mm ppc it has ruled short-range benchrest for a looking time.

 

[purpledragon]

So, shorter, fatter cases with steeper shoulder angles are more accurate than longer, more slender with less shoulder angle cases with similar case capacity cartridges, because they are more efficient.

You got it!

 

[Kenny0709]

Accuracy is what you make it, some cartridges are easier than others.

 

[purpledragon]

Here is a target from a 300wsm hunting setup I just built. Different bullets and powders at 100. Just about everything shows promise.
View attachment 164549

And the 215hyb @ 64grs of R-22 at a COL of 3.108 with a WLRM primer wins this shoot out!!

 

[Mram10us]

Inherent accuracy comes from inherently spending hours and hours on the range doing things properly over and over.
Everything else, is inherent marketing .
Marketing terms "knock down" "energy" "velocity" etc etc .
Pick what you like with the external ballistics to get there and shot it all the time . That's inherent accuracy.

I agree there's a lot of marketing that goes on. However, the BR thousand yard competitors don't care about the Creedmoor or PRC marketing. they care about whatever gives them the smallest groups. It is consistently the same cartridges that do that. Knock down, energy and velocity are all pretty important for us long range hunters

 

[wildcat westerner]

I see this term tossed around a lot, especially in any of the many 260 vrs the 6.5 CM threads. It probably comes up in the .243 vrs 6 CM too. I don't know as I don't own either. If you built a 30 CM or a 7mm CM would it be more accurate than a 308 or a 7mm/08? If the CM case design is "inherently more accurate" wouldn't it be?

Can someone define this please? Not looking for opinions, just facts. Using the 260/6.5 CM as examples. Has anyone built two rifles as identical as they can be, found the best loads for both and has the data to back up the 'inherently more accurate" statement? Has the data been verified with other identical (as can be) rifles? Say, 600 yards.

I'm not looking for a debate, argument or you can buy ammo at your local quick stop type replies. There are other post where you can do that.

BTW, I have a 260 but I don't think it's better than a CM but I also don't think it gives up anything either. My rig is a deer rifle, 22" pencil barrel, personally I don't think deer, coyotes or groundhogs can tell the difference.

So, if someone has some data based on testing that defines what makes one cartridge "inherently more accurate" than another cartridge please post it up.

Thanks, Justin

 

[KyCarl]

My buddy has a 300WSM and honestly at more than 500 yards my 338LM will hang with it? Not counting Recoil..Noise..Cost...? Even at that range you can see a difference in impact 215 Vs.300 Gr.?

 

[wildcat westerner]

Hello, It seems you are asking for serious input, which means this message is not like a lot of other messages on this site. Inherently more accurate is a "huge umbrella" of a description for various facets which aid in achieving higher degrees of accuracy. Its been proven that bull barrels retain their accuracy that lighter weight barrels better when they are shot a lot. You mention your pencil thin barrel. Used for hunting purposes when a very few shots are required normally, this should do fine as long as its accurate to begin with. Brian Litz proved that fluted barrels have a higher degree of P.O.I. change than a barrel without flutes do. In cartridges, its been proven that a powder charge, when encased in a shorter case with larger diameter has a more consistent velocity when shooting a string of shots. Its been proven that the smaller primer provides more consistent shot to shot velocities than the large primer in cases of the same volume. This situation is limited to case sizes up to .308 type dimensions. Its been proven that sharp shouldered cases tend to stretch less when using more powerful loads, and they also last longer. Its been proven that when cases are annealed correctly regularly this also contributes to lower SD's because the brass necks expand and contract when fired more consistently. Its been proven that rifle stocks, when laminated or made of epoxy-fiberglass materials do not expand and contract to weather conditions as a 100% wood stock will. Another condition in stocks that is proven to be a stabilizing factor is fiberglass bedding and also metal inserts used in mating the barreled action to the stock. Expensive custom made barrels are simply more accurate when chambered and fitted properly to an action. When that action is a fine tuned by an accuracy gunsmith that accuracy is increased further. All these items fall within the very basic term "inherently more accurate".
WW
All these f

 

[blackburbot]

Inherently more accurate, NO.... inherently more consistent YES. They were designed to be consistent and more effecient. And a great side effect of this consistency is the ability to lauch a projectile with repeatable performance. Hence what people think is accuracy is REPEATABILITY. Yes there is a differance and by using word association doesn't make it correct.

Very similar to using FFP and MIL scopes. No they are not more accurate than SFP and MOA, but in situations where the majority of people are using/trying them it is easier to gain knowledge and tips when you are talking the same "language". when someone tells you hold 2 up and 3 left, and you hit the the target with the exact same load recipe as you were shooting before, dosent mean you are more "accurate" now, you are just as accurate, but now you are on target.

Some companies are great at marketing. Yes they are good products. But quality internet seaching and spending time behind products allows you to see the differance between actual gains and "in therory gains"