"Inherent accuracy"...

[BountyHunter]

Heres the bottom line. Some will never agree and that is ok, if they want to use a long skinny case go ahead. It will not make a difference on hunting guns at all as long as they are equal components and put together equally.

Now on competition, too many top shooters from David Tubb on down disagree and are going the short fat route. Same thing in the 1k game, almost every cartridge used now is short fat, or improved with sharper shoulder angles. Once again, does not really matter if you believe or not. Just bring what ever you like, shoot it and have fun.

There is many factors that make winners in this game and most have started realizing it is really quality bullets that where the real challenge is now.

BH

 

[a.JR]

I would content that inherent accuracy is not on a level playing field.What works for the point blank guys is not a cut and fast rule when it comes to L/R benchrest.Yes the 6ppc is king at 1/200 and i know for fact that the brass is not equal either,the Lapua 6ppc brass has it's own production line seperate to the rest , a higher design parameter with individual QC inspectors and has a different composition of brass as well..The current king of heavy gun 1K bench is made on a 2.850 case based on the 300 weatherby ,in no stretch of the imagination could u call this a short fat design as it has the same base and length as old 300H&H/375H&H(in'03 the first 7 places in the 6 match aggs at Hawks Ridge are cartridges like the 300 ack..I might add that the nearest short fat design(6.5x284) is at the 13th position..............MAX i believe that u hit the nail square on the head with "Matching the powder burn characteristics to the case capacity" is where the best performances are..I have a long thin case in a 1K H/gun that i will pit against any short fat design in competition anytime and i will not be disgraced..JR..Jeff Rogers

 

[STL_Shooter]

MachV,

I never said anything was a walk in the park!

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!

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 ]

 

[Q-Wagoner]

The only thing missing to this thread is a set of standards in which to measure the inherent values of the given cartridge. At the 100-yard line with a 60 some odd grain bullet the PPC and its variations stand-alone. I think that the principals behind the PPC variations are sound. "Short and fat is where it's at" For the task at hand the shorter "stiffer" barrels are preferred over the 30-inch buggy whips. Why? Would it be correct to assume that the shorter and fatter barrels are just better suited for the purpose or would it be fair to say that shorter fatter barrels are inherently more accurate? I don't know. Like some one said, the word "inherent" is slippery.

If the word "inherent" would directly translate into "better or best" it might help put things into perspective because it would be easier to attach a set of standards to the argument.

Some cartages stand alone in there given field and short range bench rest is and has since conception been dominated by the PPC. If there weren't something special about the PPC then we would see a wide variety of cartridges being used. We don't so I would think it would be safe to assume that the PPC is an inherently accurate short-range bench rest round. The blanket statement that this or that round is inherently accurate can be confusing or misleading.

It is true, a great gunsmith can make any cartridge shine but on the 100 yard line if you had 100 bench rest guns, fifty chambered in 6mm PPC and the other chambered in say, the 30-30 Winchester I know where I would put my money.

Try and look at it this way. It is a fact that a 220gr MK will out shoot a 220gr RN at any competitive range. The reasons are obvious. The MKs are better by design making them (in my mind) inherently more accurate. Wouldn't it be safe to assume the same phenomenon exists in case design? One can "lawyer" his way around accepting anything as fact but the way I see it some things are clearly better than others. When using the word "inherent" there is really to much wiggle room on either side of the ball to come to any definitive conclusion.

Good hunting.

Q,

 

[MachV]

STL
Was just makeing a point and fact finding in my redneck way .My point was the same as yours(from a different angle).For longrange hunting if you do your homework get the right equipment and spend time with it your going to se results.Does MOA realy care how we get there?

 

[STL_Shooter]

Yep, I've seen you shoot a stock pistol to MOR (minute of rattlesnake), so I think you and I are on the same page, MachV!