Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Does Inherent Accuracy Really Exist? Article in Oct-Nov Handloader by John Barsness

I have not read the article so won't comment on it.

What I will say is, that the general public commonly has an exagerated view on accuracy. This is why you always see single groups on a target shown as proof positive of the inherent accuracy of a given rifles or load.

Inherent accuracy means that in a range of so chambered rifles, shot with an array of loads, the accuracy obtained is reliably consistent as opposed to having and odd group shoot well.

Writers in general, are not terribly well respected by the barrel makers and match rifle manufacturers because of this. They too commonly publish a single group that shines and the general public seases upon this as something to be expected once they put the check on the counter. (I plead guilty by the way)

I like to shoot a range of groups and if there is one that shines, great, but it is the ability of the rifle to repeat that group size or near to it that makes a rifle interesting.

Another thing I have found is that you do not necessarily have to shoot the groups one after the other as that is applying a lot of expectation on the firearm as the barrel heat is not consistent between the groups and you will be fatigued whether you realize it or not.

I like a rifle that can shoot a nice group on different times out over a period of time. Some times this is not possible, particularly if you load all your ammo and dip into it from session to session as the case mounths can relax and apply differing release stress upon the bullet. If you use a lubricant that sets after time, it can work the opposite and grip the bullet as a light adhesive would.

You will note that bench rest shooters are seen walking around with a tray of unloadsed brass so they can tweak the load for the shooting conditions and then load the batch for the days shoot.

There is a lot to shooting good groups and inherent accuracy in the firearm is only part of it. It obviously does exist and some cartridges can also provide a measure of inherent accuracy not commonly seen in that same cartridge simply by chambering that cartridge in a properly set up match grade rifle.

As JB said recently in another post, bullets have become much better balanced in recent years and they will shoot very well compared to a decade or two past.

AGW

Current opinion, then, on the 308 vs. the 30-06 is consistent with what target shooters discovered at least 50 years ago.

AD

Also remember that accuracy is hugely dependent upon shooter control. The less recoil, the more control. It is a factor in accuracy.

AGW

A very good post by AGW. I've seen variations in group sizes over the years in my hunting rigs. They were negligable (sp?) but noticeable. I've keep somewhat decent records in the last couple years and I've learned a heckuva just by shooting and comparing notes. Sorry to get off topic.

Not reading through all the posts but I was a bit amused at the reference to Charlie Sisk who now refuses to chamber a .257 STW because he 'has to go through several barrels to get one to shoot accurately'..

The original article in "Shooting Times" printed quite a list of loadings; many of which were, at best, so-so in the accuracy department. However, there were a handful of loads that really dialed it in and IMHO, for a chambering such as this, it's the LOAD that is fairly critical in the STW..

Redneck
I was not aware Charlie Sisk refused to chamber the 257 STW because it took several barrels to get an accurate one. I'll look him square in the face tomorrow morning while I'm shaving and ask him. I'll have a straight razor in my hand so he better not lie. I suspect he will say that it has some huge pressure swings, and thats why he doesnt chamber that round.
I did read through all these post (though rather quickly) and didnt see anything about that.
Charlie

My copy of Handloader was at the PO yesterday, so I have finally read the article.

I also remember the Warren Page Gun Digest article with the Remington M40X data. When I bought a benchrest rifle a few years later I got a M40XBBR in 6X47. With handmade bullets it would shoot in the 2s or 3s as long as I read the conditions correctly. This was in the days before Ferris Pindell and Lou Palmisano started cranking on the .220 Russian case. The PPC cartridges would have to be inherently accurately, but then my 6X47 was too. Just not as much.

jim

Charlie,

When you talk to Charlie Sisk about it, remind him of the conversation ("interview") he had with the author of the article, a year or so ago. The author's note indicate that Charlie Sisk did indeed say he often had to try several barrels on a .257 STW in order to find one that shot well enough to satisfy the customer. According to Charlie Sisk, this cut down on the profit margin considerably, often putting it in the red.

Then again, both the interviewer and interviewee could have been under the influence of other factors.

JB