What constitutes “inherently accurate “?

[Big Cherry]

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...

That's a good perspective & way of putting. I like it.

 

[bigngreen]

I'm sorry you can't follow this, sure there are gimmicks but that's not what the conversation is about, it's about seeing some cartridges that have made a dramatic change and all it was is a design change that made something better, the reason we go to Benchrest is it's a form of shooting that is measured and over a lot of rounds so you actually are see performance changes in the little things. I think some of us are trying to talk long range bench rest but short range keeps getting pulled into it, they are two different things, short range they can throw charges and do things that in a long range match you'd be all over the paper, completely different animals!!

 

[TwoMore]

I would call it more inherently efficient than I would "accurate" even an UN-effficient cartridge can be accurate

I cant or wouldn't take my 7 Ultra Rogue to a bench rest match, I would take my 6.5 WSSM. It is far more efficient to run more rounds down the tube in every aspect, but the Big 7 is just as accurate and will beat it 6.5 at long range, same goes with my edge or 338 rum or wsm's, they all have their purposes and every one of them are accurate. IMO it all comes down to what is wanted in the forms of shooting. If I am going to go shoot 400+ rounds a weekend it sure wont be 100 grains a pop, it will be the least amount of everything that it takes to get it done in the best way, that is "efficient"

 

[bigngreen]

The 300 WSM doea very well in long range Benchrest, there are some big 300's and 338's being tested also, some things are being revisited with some design change because of what they see with the smaller cases and changes that yeilded more accuracy.
If you chamber and shoot a lot of stuff you'll see patterns, despite people wanting to deny, I've seen some just stupid level shooting from the 338 RUM, smaller than my Dasher but you do have to deal with the recoil bit having built dozens of them you see a pattern. 300 WSM same thing. There is something there but I don't think anyone has out their finger on the formula though there are some things that seem to be lining up.

 

[Rick Richard]

So, if you look across the board at BR shooters and see most use 6BRs of some kind you would not call that an inherently accurate cartridge? If it were not, than you would see a variety of different cartridges?

Sorry, but I am still stuck on the idea.

 

[INVICTUS]

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

I would say bullets that lend themselves to more efficient external ballistic traits would be inherently accurate, potentially. Just my two cents but I don't know that anything inherits accuracy. There are too many factors.

 

[Marc Gauthier]

if it says 6.5 creedmoor

The 6.5 Creedmoor is just a fad. A weapon caliber that wears out quickly is not suitable for the one who fires regularly. So the weapon will be worn out and lose its inherent assurance quickly. Good only for hunters.

 

[RoyB]

Inherent accuracy means no crazy load development....most any powder and most any bullet shoots great...

I've had extensive experience with three "inherent " accurate cartridges.

6BR
17mIV
6.5CM

 

[Rick Richard]

The 6.5 Creedmoor is just a fad. A weapon caliber that wears out quickly is not suitable for the one who fires regularly. So the weapon will be worn out and lose its inherent assurance quickly. Good only for hunters.

Maybe a fad or not, but there are bunch of them out there now. Not sure how you determined your assessment on barrel life, but all the folks I know including myself are way up in the firings and our barrels are still going strong.

 

[340Wby-4-everything]

There were 6.5s that were smoking accurate 60+ yrs ago long before the cm was even a glimmer of thought. Build any 6.5 with a new style elongated chamber for today's bullets and you have a more accurate 6.5 and many of them simply toast the cm. (.264 win, PRC, 6.5x300wby, 26 nosler to name just a few) But flat out accurate and proven time and again (30-06 has a little more oomph, but could never beat it on a 1000yd target) .308 period.

Carlos Hathcock with a .308 - If you run you'll only die tired.

 

[DJ Fergus]

The 270 win has been called inherently accurate for years. I think a lot of folks tossed that phrase around but didn't fully grasp in depth what it was really supposed to mean. 270 win for an example : My opinion in a nutshell, 270 riflrs were produced almost exclusively in 10 twist which made it perfect for 130 grain bullets and not bad for 140s and would work with 150s of it's day. Most folks shot 130s because flat shooting high velocity projectiles was the thing to do when scopes were not repeatable enough to dial. Case size was good for powders of burn rates that were common for it's time. The 130 grain bullets could and was seated from the factory out far enough in the case that acceptable accuracy could be had and alot of times the factory rifles had correct freebore to match for good accuracy. This doesn't mean that every 270 win is accurate.

All of these things can be said now in our day and time about the 6.5 creedmoor: it's designed around shooting 130-140 grain bullets, has the correct twist in factory rifles, case had good fill ratio when matched with correct burn rate powders that are common. Designed for the 130-140 grain bullets to be seated in the correct place in the case and most factory rifle's have acceptable throats to match 130-140s with acceptable twist rates for those bullets.
The phrase " inherently accurate" is not a phrase that I like to use. Many people take it to mean many different things but I think the phrase can be the source of much misunderstanding for folks getting into this sort of shooting. What it should mean is: rifles with the standardized twist ,chamber dimensions & throat length to shoot standardized rounds with bullets of desired weight that are seated out long enough for their length and matches barrel twist. So there is a fair amount of cartridge designs that does this in factory form and some are a little better than others.

 

[robpiat]

I am better than average at finding faults and identifying fussy stuff

I have identified that my 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5 Grendel, and 6mm Creed will shoot sub MOA groups with a variety of bullets at a variety of charges.

I have also identified that my 308, 223, and 224 Valkyrie need to be very specific on velocity and OAL to achieve similar results.

If you were to take a comprehensive average of 5 rifles x 5 bullets x 5 charges (125 scenarios) I'll bet a dollar that the 6.5 Creedmoor or 260 or 6.5x47 whoops a 22 cal or 30 cal everyday.

The ultimate accuracy capability might be identical, but its ability to work with long, short, fast, slow is just there.

168/175 SMKs might be easy to get shooting in 30 cal, but they are low BC bullets by today's standards.

I think inherently accurate is a misnomer. I think fault tolerant would be a better way of putting it.

 

[PNWdude67]

If the characteristics of a cartridge contribute to the accuracy, then by definition (in her ent ly: in a characteristic way) it is inherently accurate. So now you all can discuss characteristics of cartridges which should be fun.

 

[greenejc]

We really gonna do this again?

Looks like it.