Many claim the .308 Win, 300 Win Mag., 6mm BR, 6.5x47 Lapua and others are " intrinsically accurate" vs other cartridges. Fact or fiction?

Perhaps it might be well to read previous multi-page discussions of the topic and draw one's own conclusions?

• [color:#0000ff].308 more accurate than 30-06?[/color]
  .
• [color:#0000ff].308 accuracy again....[/color]
  .
• [color:#0000ff]Surprising Cartridges for Inherent Accuracy?[/color]
  .
• [color:#0000ff]Inherently Accurate Cartridges[/color]

--Bob

I've had two .308's and neither one shot. .30-06's I've had a lot more of and they've been mostly accurate. The two most accurate cartridges that I've experienced in a good representation of rifles have been the .243 and .270 not counting varmint rounds.

Same here. I've also ran into some freakishly accurate 22-250's, 6mm remingtons, and 9.3x62mm's.

Not to forget the reputation the .222 had, back in the day....

That and the 6.5x55.. The 300 WSM is also inherently accurate.

243 and 25-06 have both been in the category of 'intrinsically accurate' for me. Current 308 falls in there as well.
Had one 223 I wish I'd never sold.

I may believe the "inherently accurate" cartridges argument just a little.

In the past, have also bought into the argument that AI versions produce better accuracy than their parents with hot loads.

Almost bought into the short and fat cartridge is better and more accurate argument.

Used to be concerned about the potential accuracy problems surrounding belted magnums.

Have read many times here about the inconsistenct pressure spikes that can be encountered with the 7mm RM. Don't want that

I have been highly concerned with the ballistic coefficient of bullets despite never taking a shot over 400y. Therefore own no .308 or .277 caliber rifles.

There obviously are many more commonly kicked around myths surrounding cartridges.

I've never understood why one cartridge is intrinsically more accurate than another. A cartridge is just a pressure vessel an if all is equal (accurate bullets, accurate powder weight, quality primers, barrel quality, etc., then they should shoot equally well.

I think some are just easier for the average reloader to get accuracy out of.

Personally, I'd ask the question a little differently, and pose it to Mule Deer (and others) who've done objective testing of different cartridges as well as other things that affect accuracy:

What characteristics of cartridges (neck length, ratio of volume to bore size, etc.) seem to make a difference in accuracy?

I believe some might be slightly more accurate, the barrel does the directing and the bullet is the final word. If I was looking for extreme accuracy I would look to the components and assembly of the rifle, quality of loaded ammo, then worry about 308 vs 30-06.

I think that the 17HM2 is an intrinsically accurate cartridge. I've yet to own a bolt action 17HM2 that wasn't capable of shooting sub-MOA groups.

After having shot a bunch of different superb, best quality custom rifles for articles, I believe that a good deal of fine accuracy comes from the four B's.

Finest quality Barrels, Bedding, Brass and Bullets.

Beyond that, barrel fitting, a truly square chamber and trued action undoubtedly help a lot.

As far as cartridge configuration ... I'm an agnostic; maybe, but prolly not.

Blessings,

Steve

I think its more the driver than the cartridge.My Son does not reload and has lots of rifles.He can pick out any one he has or one of mine and shoot groups that will make Riflemen cry.

Every rifle I own is intrinsically accurate, unfortunately, the ammo not so much...:(

I'm sad now...

So you're dismissing the possible benefits of the 30 degree shoulder all together?

One needs to define intrinsically accurate".

IMO opinion the cartridge that is easiest to make shoot well is the 222 Rem. It was developed by Mike Walker a Remington engineer/benchrest shooter specifically for shooting small groups. It turned out that not only was it capable of shooting small groups but it does so with a great many powder/bullet combinations.

While it may be argued the 6 PPC is an "inherently accurate" cartridge on examination this does not hold true since its best accuracy comes only within a narrow range of velocity, bullet weights and powders which IMO opinion removes it from the "inherently accurate" list.

drover

Started shooting on a regular basis enough to become semi serious about it in the late 1960's. Had had a couple converted Milsurps by that point, and backed into a SAKO 579 243 that has spoiled me forever more.

Chased that performance level with only slightly tuned factory rifles and stumble bum reloading techniqes until I again backed into a 1979 1st production run USRAC M70 Fwt 257Rbts that would and did regulary stack factory ST 100gr'ers in dime sized groups...and Nuthin else I built or bought in ammo came close in that'un...and shot the barrel out it. Rocked along until I dug up a CZ 550 American in 9.3x62 and wa lah it was magic, especially with Finn Aagards 270gr Speer load...a former neighbor has the had the same experience in a wider variety of bullets and powder after he became the proud owner at great expense.

Have had numerous Rugers, SAKO's, Winnies, an occasional Remmy and other stuff but those guns from 40 years of paper punching & game performance in days gone by are what I use to judge the new to me shooters by these days....and nuthin so far stands out from that crowd....and of course I no longer own any of them. Oh Well

FWIW most accurate calibers have been 243, 257 Rbt's, 6.5x55, more than a few 270's in several brands and the most consistant overall, 300WMg and 9.3x62...with decent acceptable game performance from 308's, '06's, 7x57, 300Wby & 25'06 in that order.
Ron

My most accurate centerfire rifles have been a Walther barreled Model 70 in 9.3x62 and 2 375 H&Hs (Model 70 and old Mauser action Sako. Most accurate overall is a Cooper 17 HM2.

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

Same here. But mine would have been the 308 Winchester.

You're probably right.

I got the call today that my Beanland 6.5x47L is in process and should be ready by the end of the week. Hoping for the best. If it is not capable of a horn shot on a Unicorn at 500y, I am giving up and buying a pre-64 model 70 30/06 for all hunting purposes.

I want a K-22! Have a Kimber, Anschutz, and want to add a K-22 to the stable. Have never seen a Kleingunther centerfire.

I was impressed with both the .308 and a Steyr rifle. The
guy at the range on the next bench was shooting 300 yard 1" to 1 1/2" groups with NATO ammo that had been made in Portugal.

I should stop reading this board. All this time, I thought the .300 RCM was a silly waste of time. But here it is...

-short-fat proportions for consistent ignition
-fits in a short action
-30-degree shoulder angle
-just a little more capacity than a .30-06

Seems like it should be an outstanding choice for putting heavier, higher-BC .30-cal projectiles right where you want them, really far away.

Yep. But mine was a .30-06. I could have stopped righ there.

Hunting rifles made simple: ".308 and go kill stuff."

When modelling loads through Quickload, the loads with the broadest average/median of the curve usually produces the best accuracy.

The 308 Winchester exhibits this. There are others as well.

Ideally, the powder burn should be optimized at max pressure. With a broad curve the optimization of the powder is less critical as are other factors/variances.

So, to say one is "Intrinsically Accurate" is to say one load is more tolerant to variables than another.

Modelling will take the guess work out of selecting a cartridge, barrel length, and powder.

Field testing will be short with a good model.

Quickload is an educated guess...no?

Yes. At least the data I've gotten from it.

I don't care what accolades are heaped on the 308, or how many formulas show it is intrinsically accurate.

It's the most intolerably boring and uninspirational CF rifle cartridge in existence.

Gees I hate that thing......

Quickload is an educated guess...no?

Yes. At least the data I've gotten from it.


If you delve deeper into the program its secrets will be uncovered.

As in most things you model, test, make minor adjustments, enjoy your sub-moa loads.

I'm curious which are the powders that didn't have the pressure problems.

I've shot '06's all my life and am late to the table with the 7mm RM. The RM surprised me as to how accurate it is.
Still the most accurate rifle I owned was a 06. I did shoot a M40 that shot 3/4" groups at 300 meters with military ammo tho. No, I couldn't keep it, I asked.

The term "easy to load for" is thrown around for some cartridges.

JB seems uninspired by Ackley versions or cartridges. Many manuals show accuracy loads for the 280AI at close to max pressure. My limited experience loading for the 280AI points toward this being true in my rifles. Could be coincidence. If true, some may find this possible trait of AI'd cartridges less than desirable.

Ron Reiber's pressure-lab experience with the 40-degree shoulders of AI rounds is they result in somewhat erratic pressure/velocity rises as powder charges increase--which is one reason he prefers cartridges with 30-degree shoulders.

I'm certainly not anti-AI (or improved cartridges in general), as I've owned several over the years, and two right now--including my second .280 AI. But there is a lot of ballistic BS thrown around about them, which I'm less than impressed with.

Many manuals show accuracy loads for many cartridges at or near max pressure levels. Based on some evidence, I suspect this has more to do with modern rifle powders than case design, since they're generally designed to burn best at the 60-65,000 PSI maximum average pressure of modern bolt-action cartridges.

I do not think that AI cartridges could possibly gain more velocity than should be gained by their slightly increased capacity and slightly raised pressure standard. Just wondered if it was possible that they perform better in the accuracy department than their parent cases. Could they be more "inherently accurate" than their parent?

I have a dislike for that cartridge too Bob. Weird...

bra: I know there's nothing wrong with a 308. Tried to like them. Great at the target range. They just bore me stiff.

Understand how you two feel that way, in that the .270 does the same for me. If I won one I would sell it and certainly wouldn't spend my own money to buy one. 😳

Some family used them well. I always thought they were the ugliest cartridge I had ever seen. Which makes about as much sense as thinking another is boring.

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.