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

No rifles i have built were as easy to get small groups with as the 308 and 222 Rem

bonefish,

In some instances, an improved cartridge probably can be more accurate than the parent round, due to firmer headspacing on the sharper shoulder. The .22 K-Hornet is an example, because if handloaded correctly it headspaces on the shoulder rather than the rim, and the rims on .22 Hornet brass can vary slightly in thickness. Bullets from a K-Hornet end up a more consistent distance from the lands, which tends to produce finer accuracy.

The same is probably true of some rimless rounds with sloping shoulders. The .300 H&H can be very accurate, but many people report even better accuracy with belted .300 magnums with the brass resized so they headspace on the shoulder. Certainly I've gotten better accuracy from various .300 Winchester Magnums, on average, than the .300 H&H Magnums I've owned and fooled with.

However, to really test whether "improving" results in finer accuracy, it would take a lot of shooting of a lot of rifles. I've owned two .22 K-Hornets, both very accurate, a CZ 527 and my present one, a Brno ZKW 465, the "ancestor" of the 527. Both those rifles are normally very accurate anyway, and I acquired both after they'd been rechambered. Did they shoot more accurately than when they were standard .22 Hornets? Dunno--but I also owned a Ruger No. 1B .22 Hornet that's just as accurate as those two .22 K-Hornets.

For a while I had a NULA in .257 Roberts AI, which was very accurate. But my wife has a NULA in the standard Roberts that shoots just as well.

A sharper shoulder can help some powders burn more consistently, but from what Ron Reiber has observed, a 30-degree does this far better than the 40-degree shoulder of Ackley Improved rounds. Interestingly, the RCBS series of improved cartridges, developed by Fred Huntington, all had 28-degree shoulders. They may have been more accurate than the Ackley Improved rounds, but who knows? They're largely forgotten these days.

Another factor is that a lot of rifles chambered in improved rounds are custom-made, with very good barrels. They're probably more accurate than the average rifle, but how much is due to the cartridge and how much due to the rifle?

While I may lack the experience of many on the forum, I have spent some considerable time building and shooting rifles in different calibers and chamberings and have reached no real conclusion as to the superiority of one case over another. I shot competitive BR with the 222, 219 Wasp, 223, 6x47, 6ppc, 6 BR, 308, and 30/40 Krag (!). The only time I felt the cartridge had much to do with the results was when there was an issue with the brass. This was the case with the 219 Wasp (a difficult forming operation and variable parent brass), the 6x47 (relatively weak brass which limited pressures), and the 6BR (case forming PITA with all sorts of resulting issues. This was before the advent of the BR Norma and Lapua BR brass. Brass was formed from 308 brass with a small primer pocket. I found forming to be much easier when I just paid Cindy Six to do it!).
Otherwise, in similar rifles, cartridges with similar capacity performed much the same and differences were more likely reflective of variations in barrels than in anything else.
I have also built and shot "F" class and fullbore rifles in various chamberings and , again, the differences are difficult to quantify. I have had similar results with the 308, the 30/40, and the 303 British. I have also shot the same barrel on the same action and chambered it in the 308 and the 30/06. I've done this twice and in one instance, the 308 seemed to shoot better while, with the other barrel, the 30/06 has the edge. I've done the same with the 260 and the 6.5x55 and, if there is an advantage in one over the other, I can't see it.
So, after forty years of building and shooting, if I am to be perfectly honest (and I try), I can only say, I don't know. GD

YEP, and some say the 30-06 is boring.

Jerry

Many votes for the 222 Remington as an accurate cartridge. MD's point that specialty cartridges likely have custom barrels may be a major part of the "inherently accurate argument". Most choosing a less popular cartridge like the 222 Remington, 6BR, or even the 260 are likely getting a custom barrel and bedding job. You don't buy a Ruger American or Savage Axis in .222 Rem.

The votes for the 222 as an inherently accurate cartridge stem from it's use as the predominant BR cartridge through the 1960's and early 'seventies. While the 222 is no longer available in the "econo" rifles, having been supplanted by the 223, it was commonly available in these sorts of rifles back in the day.
The only way to determine the inherent accuracy of any cartridge is to establish how accurate it is in a rifle built to allow the cartridge to do perform as well as it can. In other words, a given cartridge can't be given a pass just because it is mostly available in inaccurate rifles. Likewise, a cartridge can't be discriminated against because it is most often used in purpose-built rifles. When you are discussing cartridge performance, all else has to be equal. Otherwise you are discussing rifle performance; not cartridge performance.
By the way, I don't think there is much difference between the 222 and 223 in similar rifles. The 223 may have a bit of an edge because the greater capacity allows greater latitude in the choice of components and allows decent velocities at lower pressures if desired. GD

If I could even remotely justify the need, I would buy a 223 in a sporter rifle.

Pretty easy to justify if you ever want to carry a rifle with which to shoot coyotes or chucks. You can also justify it as a low-cost, low-recoil, practice rifle (everyone needs one of those). I've justified rifles with much weaker reasoning than this. GD

I think a bolt action 223 is a great idea, for the reasons greydog stated.

In fact, the practice element alone is likely worth much more than a second or third big game rifle in a duplicitous BG chambering.

My last trip to the range my 8 twist 223 Tikka put two shots an inch apart at 500 yds. The third shot was out about 1/2 inch. At 300 yds the same day it put 3 shots into .5"

While I attribute most of the accuracy to the fact that it's chambered in a Tikka rifle I haven't been able to reproduce groups such as these in my Tikkas chambered in other calibers. Even though my 223 has given me some of the best results there are many things to consider such as I'm useing different bullet makes in each rifle. My 223 is loaded with a barnes 55 ttsx. I've noted over the years some of my most impressive groups useing barnes bullets.








Shod

I have no chucks where I live. Just justified a 6.5x47L as a backup whitetail and coyote rifle. I am still trying to justify the potential buying of a saltwater skiff while living in TN. My favorite justification for accumulating sporting stuff is that I will use the item with my sons one day.

Perhaps, but within the narrow range it's more accurate than anything else. The question would be better defined as "Does cartridge design make a difference in accuracy?"

As you've pointed out, throughout shooting history there have been certain cartridges that have been the favorites of benchrest shooters. For a while it was the 222 Rem, then the 6mm PPC came along and became the cartridge of choice.

If cartridge design didn't make a difference in accuracy, this wouldn't happen. Benchrest shooters would use whatever cartridge struck their fancy and competitions would be won by dozens of different cartridges. This isn't what actually happens, almost all serious benchrest shooters use the same cartridge.

So cartridge design DOES make a difference. However the difference is small enough that it's only going to be noticeable in full out target guns.

Before the .222 became top dog, the most popular benchrest round was the .219 Wasp, a wildcat based on the .219 Zipper case. Aside from being a rimmed case, it was pretty similar to the .22 PPC, but the trend to using bolt actions (especially the Remington 722) turned the tide in favor of the .222. The .222 is indeed extremely accurate, but the ease of using readily available rimless brass was a big factor, along with the publicity generated by Mike Walker and Remington.

I had Dale Hegstrom of Little Crow Gunworks put a 1-8 twist Brux barrel in 22-250 on a 700 action along with 1-8 Rock and Brux barrels on a pair of short M70 push feed actions in 220 Swift for me. My son bedded two of the barreled actions into Edge stocks while the Rock Swift was bedded into the original wood stock.

Dale did the 22-250 first and I shot the smallest group I had ever shot. When the Swifts were completed, they both matched the 22-250 as far as accuracy with 75 grain Amax or VLD bullets. They will all shoot 55 or 62 grain TTSX's into tiny groups as well. I recently got some 75 grain SII's and am going to see how they shoot in the Swifts.

This is only an extremely small sample of the 22-250 vs the Swift, but from what I have seen the two cartridges will shoot to about the same level of accuracy in these rifles. However, day in and day out, the 22-250 might have an ever so small edge and that might have to do with brass. I am using Lapua brass in the 22-250 and Winchester brass in the Swifts. I have a variety of different brass headstamps for the Swifts but have not taken the time yet of see if there is any accuracy differences vs the Winchester stuff due to the Winchester working very well.

Before my shoulder problems started, I was amazed on how accurate several 7mm Remington Magnums were. I bought my first in the late '60's with several others to follow. All shot extremely well...

Then there is the .300 Savage. I never could see any reason to get a .308 because all of the 300's I've had shot so well.

Seems to me the only way to answer this question is to chamber the same barrel for as many different cartridges as possible and see what happens, a few different times on a few different guns.

Also, the comment about benchrest shooters ending up shooting the same cartridge pretty much says it all. Cartridge does matter.

I had a 222 mag in a Sako Vixen rechambered to .221 Fireball and it shoots better as a Fireball for whatever reason. But maybe it's me, maybe it's the loads.

For my money, the benchresters prove that cartridge choice matters.

22 rimfire, 222 rem, 300 H&H and 450 Bushmaster

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/6312279/all/Juenke

This was tossed around over the years that the Juenke machine revealed that 30 caliber and up bullets is more better consistent in balance. Because of manufacturing limitations.

If so then high B/C higher velocity 30's would be "inherently more accurate" because of more consistent balance and because of beating the wind.

From a math and engineering persepctive.

I don't believe in inherent accuracy. There may be a couple small variables that help, such as a shoulder angle and short powder column that promotes a more consistent ignition and pressure. A cartridge that fits in a short action will have the advantage of a stiffer action. A case with shoulders can be properly head spaced and centers better in the bore.

Aside from that, there is not a lot of difference between cartridges. And to realize the advantages of the above is above is good for a couple hundredths moa.

Well I fall on the side of if the barrel is straight,along with a straight chamber, a good trigger all bedded into a stock with good sights-you then can get most cartridges to shoot at least one or two loads that you can cover with a quarter! For hunting rifles its plenty, shooting varmints or out the the next zip code you may need better than that, it will cost a lot more money. For out of the box, its been my experience that a Sako will shoot about the best and with no having to mess around with bedding and trigger work! Rifles like Ruger M-77's Winchesters and Remington will need some degree of TLC or fine tuning to get them to shoot to there potential, the cartridge is secondary- thou the less recoil the better for those bung hole groups for some people to produce from time to time! I put the sight as #1 because you have to be able to see well in order to shoot well to begin with- glass sights for Irons, you just need good eyes more so than for glass!

30+ caliber bullets may be the most concentric and contribute greatly to accuracy. I have heard that the 300 RUM has great accuracy potential. This is probably true but most people would not spend a day with this cartridge on a bench proving it. Most "inherently" accurate cartridges named seem to have mild recoil.