What constitutes “inherently accurate “?

[Mach 1]

did you ever stop and think that maybe that round is just cheaper than the others?

Are you kidding?? I'm going to drive 300 miles to the nearest benchrest shoot and use a 2,800 dollars khales scope around a 4,000 dollar rifle but I'm going to use cheap ammo? Lapua brass and Bart's bullets are not cheap. If you knew what was used you wouldn't have made that statement.

 

[Mach 1]

If you do not have quality parts to work with the smith can only work with it.there is a saying. You can make chicken soup with chicken ----.Its just more gritty.

I think everyone would agree a cut rifled Krieger barrel is better than a button rifled stauren or green mountain barrel but a good smith chambering the cheaper barrel may very well beat the poorer Smith working with the better components

 

[TwoMore]

I think everyone would agree a cut rifled Krieger barrel is better than a button rifled stauren or green mountain barrel but a good smith chambering the cheaper barrel may very well beat the poorer Smith working with the better components

not if the chamber is inherently accurate that slopped out krieger with a 6br will walk circles

Are you kidding?? I'm going to drive 300 miles to the nearest benchrest shoot and use a 2,800 dollars khales scope around a 4,000 dollar rifle but I'm going to use cheap ammo? Lapua brass and Bart's bullets are not cheap. If you knew what was used you wouldn't have made that statement.

290 a thousand is pretty good price on the barts bullets,

my 3600 dollar ATACR scoped, krieger barreled 7 Ultra Rogue custom rig shoots the cheapest ammo I can build and that includes 6 dollar a pound pull down powder and rem brass

 

[Mach 1]

not if the chamber is inherently accurate that slopped out krieger with a 6br will walk circles

290 a thousand is pretty good price on the barts bullets,

my 3600 dollar ATACR scoped, krieger barreled 7 Ultra Rogue custom rig shoots the cheapest ammo I can build and that includes 6 dollar a pound pull down powder and rem brass

Lol if you say so. Why don't you take it to a bench match and compete. It's a blast

 

[gpo1956]

Not going to read all now 8 pages, but IME an "inherently accurate cartridge" is one that, as others have said, has wide nodes and exhibits low SD & ES characteristics.
"Inherently accurate cartridge" is really the wrong phrase. "Inherently consistent cartridge" is a much better phrase. If a cartridge is consistent then it is much easier for the shooter to be accurate.

Combine an "inherently consistent cartridge" with a rifle tuned to be accurate, that is to say has all of the features known to enhance accuracy while having none of the features known to destroy accuracy, and you have a rifle and cartridge that can make the shooter perform really well.

Probably the smartest post of this entire thread. Someone actually gets it. Actually, I think he is just better at explaining the opinions of the majority of the posters participating. Bravo sir.

 

[TwoMore]

Lol if you say so. Why don't you take it to a bench match and compete. It's a blast

Lol not with that one she gets hot pretty quik thats why I built the 26 wssm, it is more "efficient" for that

 

[DJ Fergus]

Probably the most smartest post of this entire thread. Someone actually gets it. Actually, I think he is just better at explaining the opinions of the majority of the posters participating. Bravo sir.

Inherently accurate is a phrase that I am accustomed to hearing from guys behind the counter of chain sporting goods stores. The first thing that comes to mind is that the guy saying that doesn't reload or hasn't reloaded much and it's the only way he knows how to describe a cartridge that usually shoots pretty good in most but not all rifles. I have an aquantance who is a good fellow, I thought he had been reloading for a long time as I casually talk to him from time to time about shooting and reloading. He tells me his creedmoor will put everything he puts through it into one hole, factory ammo of all sorts and reloads as well. He later tells me he's shooting at 30 yards. So I now see how his rifle does put them all in the same hole at 30 yards, no surprise to that. He later asks me questions about how to find out how long they can be seated cause he always went by book length and book loads. He is a good fellow indeed and I'm not making fun of him. I just said all of this to say that inherent accuracy or just the term accurate means different things to different people but it all goes alot deeper than just a catch phrase about a particular cartridge. When someone mentions particular nodes and node widths about a particular cartridge or throat length etc.., then I know there is a good chance that he has some validty about the cartridge he has loaded for. When someone tells me that the 300 umpty squat is inherently accurate I generally don't pursue that conversation any further.

 

[Don A Parsons]

Inherently accurate is what you make of it with your shooting and reloading skills...

The rifle,,, ammo,,, optic might need to be dialed in on this as well...

If any of the above is not lined up,,, the road """Normally comes to a dead end..."""

Having a rifle that will out shoot your skills,,, ammo designed for that rifle,,, glass to see the intended target...

And my fav,,, getting the package planted to reap the rewards,,, if I can't get set-up,,, it ain't worth my time sending it...

 

[Lee Goodwin]

i see this phase slung around for certain cartridges but what attributes or Ballistically makes a cartridge inherently accurate?

Fat cases on the shorter side, pushing a slightly small caliber for the "fat" powder charge it is sitting on, and, using "Long Skinny" higher BC projectiles...(even though 2600 feet per second may be enough.)
Well made, Faster twist barrels, and plenty long for powder selection.

243 is a necked down 308, and, essentially built for speed of projectiles. Flat shooting means accuracy for most hunters.

6.5 CM by Hornady is a necked down 30 TC (26 TC?), and is an "efficient" cartridge...based on high BC bullets, fast twist, not blazing speed.

A 300 WM would need a long heavy bullet to reach the high BC projectiles used in the 6.5 CM, meaning a 200+ grain bullet, BC .6?
And, at significant more recoil.

A .277 or .284 using the 6.5CM formula of high BC, fast twist, "fat" speed, would be the next place to look for accurate lethality. Hence the new US battle rifle may be 6.8
And, quite accurately lethal.

 

[DJ Fergus]

7mm rem mag is not a cartridge that most would consider inherently accurate, in fact all of the average Joe hunters around here years ago told me that hardly anyone could get them to shoot good. I bought one years ago against all of the local advice. So I guess you could say it was considered inherently inaccurate. I've got wide nodes with mine with several different bullets and multiple velocities. It's a completely factory chamber & barrel. I've saw multiple creedmoor & 270s that wouldn't shoot for reasons that I understand. So to me, the phrase "inherently accurate" means absolutely nothing to me other than someone read it in a hunting magazine and thought it had validity. Hunting magazine writers are much the blame for alot of this. I really believe that most of us on LRH probably have more time on the bench than some of the writers.​

 

[Hal The Slayer]

i see this phase slung around for certain cartridges but what attributes or Ballistically makes a cartridge inherently accurate?

Generally I would say if its in the middle of your forehead:I know there's one in every crowd!

 

[TwoMore]

7mm rem mag is not a cartridge that most would consider inherently accurate, in fact all of the average Joe hunters around here years ago told me that hardly anyone could get them to shoot good. I bought one years ago against all of the local advice. So I guess you could say it was considered inherently inaccurate. I've got wide nodes with mine with several different bullets and multiple velocities. It's a completely factory chamber & barrel. I've saw multiple creedmoor & 270s that wouldn't shoot for reasons that I understand. So to me, the phrase "inherently accurate" means absolutely nothing to me other than someone read it in a hunting magazine and thought it had validity. Hunting magazine writers are much the blame for alot of this. I really believe that most of us on LRH probably have more time on the bench than some of the writers.​

The 7mm rm was one of the cartridges that lit my fire for accuracy 25 years ago

 

[MudRunner2005]

The 7mm rm was one of the cartridges that lit my fire for accuracy 25 years ago

Same here, but only around 20 years for me. Some others that sparked it around the same time for me, were the 7mm STW, .308 Win, .22-250, and 7mm-08 Rem.

If there is a such thing as "inherently accurate", then that very diverse group of cartridges should not all be falling into the same category, as they all possess different characteristics (some being drastic) and dimensions in different capacities, parent cases, and bullet diameters. This proves there is no such thing as an "inherently accurate" cartridge...Only accurate (precision) rifles, being shot by accurate (disciplined) shooters.

 

[Canhunter35]

I thought in the last exchange over this topic us believers that some cartridges display accuracy or consistency easier than others won the argument, but I think in this exchange the believers that all cartridges with a primer, powder, and brass are equal, win this is exchange.

Just one thought, if all cartridges are equal then why do they make small and large primer variations of the same cartridges if they're all equal?