Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters "Intrinsically Accurate" Cartridges ?

I'd only listen to skilled BR/Target shooters on this stuff. The rest forget it....too many variables.

I don't think a great case design is going to make a poorly built rifle shoot well.

All things being equal, I'm convinced cases with short, squatty powder columns have an inherent accuracy advantage that will show up consistently in apples/apples testing over a large sampling.

But I also doubt it means much for the majority of us hunters...

Exactly....that's why I think it's funny that hunters think it's important.

I'd spend a lot more time and money on the quality of the rifle and fixing accuracy-robbing problems rather than vague, obscure stuff.

I don't understand how a lightning bug can glow in the dark, but it still happens. If there wasn't something to "inherently accurate" the 6mm PPC wouldn't have set so many records...

I have had a bunch of 7 rem mags, Kleinguenther's, Sako's, Remington 700's. The were all accurate. Especially the Kleinguenther's. For the money they are my favorite rifle.

I've done a couple of articles on this subject, but instead of just stating my opinion interviewed a bunch of people, mostly long-time professionals in the shooting business. The majority of them believed there are inherently accurate cartridges, through their experience with using much more accurate pressure and velocity equipment than available to "home" handloaders, and shooting on indoor ranges.

One was Bob Nosler, who said Nosler used to use the .308 Winchester or .30-06 for the regular testing of lighter-weight .30 caliber bullets, and the .300 Winchester Magnum for testing heavier .30's. (They pull bullets randomly off the production line and shoot them in the indoor range to see if they're meeting accuracy standards.) But after the .300 WSM came out they just started using it for all their .30 caliber bullet testing.

Another was Ron Reiber of Hodgdon. Ron said that the 30-degree shoulder featured in so many "accuracy" cartridges over the decades, from the .219 Wasp (the king of short-range benchrest shooting in the early days) to the PPC cartridges definitely results in more consistent pressures and velocities. It doesn't have to be exactly 30 degrees, as anything from 25 to 35 degrees will also work, but 30 degrees is the center-line for that sort of consistency. He also said a shorter powder column also definitely helps. When Ron develops wildcats for his own shooting, he uses a 30-degree shoulder.

I'm thinking a 300 Savage with tightened up throat dimensions would be interesting. (Hat tip to SAAMI for the drawing.)

http://saami.org/PubResources/CC_Drawings/Rifle/300%20Savage.pdf

Get the freebore down to .3085", maybe shorten it a bit since I'm not interested in fat snout round nose bullets, maybe change the leade angle to 1 deg. 30 min. to dupe 308 match reamers.

Oh, yeah, it would shoot well!

In fact, one of the most accurate factory .30 caliber rifles I've ever owned was a Savage 99 EG. It would absolutely bughole 180-grain Federal factory loads at 100 yards--with a 4x scope.

Mule Deer,

Did you once say that Ruger kept records and found the 220 Swift produced tighter groups than the 22-250 rifles they built? I remember this, but I can't find it in writing anywhere.

John, I had the exact 99 EG in 308 with a 2.5 Leupold Alaskan on top and it was easily one of the most accurate rifles I've ever owned. It bug-holed about everything.

barm,

That information was in Jim Carmichel's BOOK OF THE RIFLE, and I've quoted it here and there. But I would assume Ruger was testing with factory ammo, and there may have been something about the ammo that affected results.

My own .22-250's and Swifts, all factory rifles of various kinds, haven't shown any clear pattern either way. I would guess really well-made rifles in both chamberings would shoot well, since most of my factory rifles have shot well--but would also assume the .22-250 would have a slight edge in custom rifles, if somebody did enough shooting in enough rifles.

Might have to ask some bullet companies what their results are with both cartridges when shooting on their indoor ranges.

Given the info from MD, would the .284 Winchester not be a candidate for superior accuracy? Also seems like an ideal "middle buster" for all around shooting of hoofed critters. Close in ballistics to a .280 Remington and ticks most of the "accuracy" criteria. I rarely see the .284 mentioned other than the classic chambering of NULA's. The 6.5x284 is flashier but is known as an "over bore" cartridge.

MD, I think that I remember you saying that some folks report weird pressure spikes on some loads with the 7 Rem Mag. I'm I correct that you were my source on this?

I continue to remain convinced that my hunting enjoyment and successes, to date, would be identical if I had kept my first .270 Win as my only Big game rifle. I was ruined by discovering this website 😡

I find it hard to believe case shape can cause accuracy differences noticeable in anything other than a bench rest rifle. That said, cartridge specs include throat dimensions which may make immense differences in accuracy.

bonefish,

Yeah, the .284 will really shoot. It's problems have been due to several factors. When introduced, many older gun writers didn't "get it," complaining that bullets had to be seated too deeply into the powder space, which is one of the most misunderstood factors in cartridge design. Some even said the same thing about heavier bullets in the .300 WSM when it appeared--and I even heard it from one of the guys at Winchester. But many longer cartridges have their bullets seated well below the neck as well, and nobody complains about them.

Consequently, many writers insisted the .284 should have been chambered in the Model 70, where "bullets could have been seated out where they should be." But the .284 was specifically designed to approximate .270 ballistics in semiauto and lever-actions rifles, NOT for bolt actions. A couple of these writers even went to the trouble and expensive of building .284's on long bolt actions, just to show how it should be done!

Partly because of those sorts of reviews, and partly because hunters back then were buying more bolt-actions that levers and semiautos anyway, the .284 didn't sell all that well. After a while Winchester quit replacing their forming dies for brass very often, and the cases got real sloppy--which didn't do accuracy any good.

Then, when some people occasionally chambered the .284 in short bolt actions, its slightly fatter case and sharper should cause feeding problems.

When Melvin Forbes started making .284's (and his very first Ultra Light was a .284) he made sure it would feed from the Model 20 action. But eventually Winchester brass got so bad he would discourage customers from ordering .284's unless they were advanced handloaders who'd have the time and skill to work over brass, so the rifle would shoot well.

Eventually, however, Norma bringing out the 6.5/.284, so good brass could be simply necked up. Was talking with Melvin about this whole deal again maybe a month ago, and he says Norma's going to make some straight .284 brass as well, with the correct headstamp. So he's back to making a lot of .284's.

I keep trying to explain that the problem with the 7mm Remington Magnum isn't so much "weird pressure spikes" but simply a wider range of pressures, both high and low, with many load combinations, than many similar cartridges in the same power ranges. This was reported to me by more than one pressure lab, one at a major ammo company. With certain powders it's not nearly as much of a problem as others, but there it is--and is probably one reason the 7mm RM never became popular for long-range target shooting.

Again, getting back to my comment about the 4Bs. For many years, Winchester was the only company that manufactured .284 brass and for many years they used a single set of forming dies. Because of this, the brass was pretty bad.

That information comes straight from the lips of my buddy Melvin Forbes and the .284 was one of his most popular chambering in his ULA rifles. Anyway, Mel told me that ".284 Winchester brass needs LOTS of detailing before it will shoot to its potential."

I have absolutely no doubt that the popular acceptance of the 6.5X284 has changed that a lot and that the .284 Winchester is now an exceptionally viable cartridge choice.

Having said that, I'm not a great fan of rebated rims and the possibility of feeding malfunctions. So personally, I'd opt for the 7X308 Ackley (I hate the 7-08 nomenclature) and I've done precisely that. The 7X308 Ackley Improved fully equals the .280 Remington and I've killed oodles of deer and elk with the round.

Below is are a few critters I've zonked with the round.

Blessings,

Steve

Or just neck up 6.5x47 Lapua brass to 30.

The 30x47 has been kicking ass in Hunter BR going on 3 decades....

In my ignorance of competitive BR I may have thought up a good one.

A lot of fake wood trophies have been won with the Savage case.

I preferred wasting a day making 20 cases out of 308 Lapua, pushing the shoulder back, cutting off the excess neck, inside neck reaming, outside neck turning, etc, etc, etc.....

FWIW, the 222, the Swift and 308 all have shoulder angles of less than 25 degrees.

Keeping in mind what Steve has said.
I pretty much lump all the hunting cartridges togeather.
243s 6.5x47s 260s 308s 270s 280s 06 based whatevers, all can and will shoot very accurately keeping Steves 4 B's in mind.
But given the same treatment, there is one round that out shines them all.
The 6mm PPC.
Since the early 1970s no round has been able to match it or best it, at 100 and 200 yard benchrest shooting.
At one point and time it has held and or set every record for measured accuracy.
But its even gone beyond that.
It also holds the record for the most wins at the 500 yard egg shoot.
Thats one shot, no sighters, at one egg, at 500 yards.
People dont show up at those matches running 308s.
Not if you want to win.
"Intrinsically Accurate"?
The PPC has it in spades....

Are there other accurate rounds.
Sure.
The 222 is a very accurate round and will give the PPC headaches at 100 yards.But a duce will not hang with a PPC at 200 yards.
Thats why you dont see any on the line anymore.
Another advantage of the PPC is the case itself.
I have reloaded some of my PPC cases over 100 times.
Let me know how that works out with a 222 for you...

A 6mm PPC has a narrow reloading range?
Only for people that have never owned one.
In the field.

55g Nosler Ballistic tip over 28g of Norma 201 with a 205m Primer.
Will almost agg with my match load and in the field you just never miss.

dave