Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
"Inherent accuracy"...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Q-Wagoner" data-source="post: 32738" data-attributes="member: 1381"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Good hunting.</p><p></p><p>Q,</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Q-Wagoner, post: 32738, member: 1381"] 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, [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
"Inherent accuracy"...
Top