Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 6.5 Creedmoor Inherently Accurate?

The following except is from the last PP of MD's post above.


"The average hunter simply isn’t going to notice the tiny advantages of a super-accurate round might provide when shooting without wind flags and using a scope that isn’t adjustable for parallax, even when shooting off as benchrest. So in reality the biggest factor in hunting cartridge accuracy is the well-known “nut behind the bolt,” just as it has been since some German cut spiral grooves in a barrel 500 years ago."


I agree and the Absolute Best Shooter can't shoot itty bitty groups with a sorry rifle/bll. I simply don't believe in "inherently accurate".

Jerry

...

Some cartridges are indeed inherently accurate, and the fact that other factors can cancel this quality has nothing to do with that fact. It's like saying shrimp isn't inherently delicious because frying it in Mobil One results in a disgusting taste.

...

Some people apparently refuse to get it.

Some cartridges are indeed inherently accurate, and the fact that other factors can cancel this quality has nothing to do with that fact. It's like saying shrimp isn't inherently delicious because frying it in Mobil One results in a disgusting taste.

Here's another example from well-known target shooters David Tubb. If you don't know who Tubb is, he's been winning major target-shooting competitions for many years, and isn't just a shooter but major innovator in rifle and cartridge design, and really knows his way around a handloading bench as well.

He started with the .308 because it was the typical round used back then, in part because of its inherent accuracy. But like other shooters, he eventually recognized the .308 recoiled more than necessary, and the ballistic coefficients of its bullets were lower than in smaller calibers able to obtain the same velocity. He switched to various 6.5's for a while, but eventually went even smaller to the .243, and then other 6mm rounds he designed. His present round is the 6XC, based on the .22-250 necked up, with the shoulder moved back and changed to 30 degrees. (It fits even better in a short magazine than the 6.5 and 6mm Creedmoors.) After coming up with the 6XC, he said it's the easiest round to "get to shoot" (meaning it shoots accurately with just about any good bullet and suitable powder) he's ever encountered since using the .308, the round he previously considered the most inherently accurate.

Here's why I consider the 6.5 Creedmoor inherently accurate. I've now owned three, and fooled around with two others. Four of the five have been factory rifles, the most expensive a Ruger Hawkeye. Of those four factory rifles, ALL fired 5-shot (not 3-shot) groups of 1" or less on their FIRST range session, right out of the box with no "accurizing."

The Hawkeye shot a 5-shot group of .6 inch with factory Hornady ammo loaded with 140-grain A-Maxes. The very FIRST group at 100 yards fired from the cheapest of the four factory rifles, a Ruger American, measured .33". It wasn't with factory ammo, but a handload many people have found shoots well in most 6.5 Creedmoors, 41.5 grains of H4350 and any good bullet in the 140-grain range, in this instance the 140 Berger VLD.

The LEAST accurate of the four factory rifles still grouped 5 rounds into less than an inch. Again, that's FIVE shots, not the three fired by typical Campfire members. Five-shot groups average about 1-1/2 times as large as 3-shot groups from the same rifle, so 3-shot groups in that rifle would average around .65" with the same load.

Would love to hear from anybody who's shot four out-of-the-box factory rifles chambered in another round that equals that sort of accuracy, because it hasn't happened with the last four OTB, bolt-action .223 Remingtons I've owned, or the last four .308's. It definitely hasn't happened with a bunch of other cartridges from the .243 Winchester to .300 Winchester Magnum.

If that isn't an example of inherent accuracy, I don't know what is.

I seldom find anything with which I can argue in any of MD's posts

I wonder which would win out of the 6PPC, 6BR, 6XC and 6 Creedmoor? I think it would come down to the range they were shot at with the smaller two maybe doing better at 100 and the last two better at 1000 but that is just a guess. Probably like splitting gnat hairs.

So what prevented the PPC cartridges from gaining the traction the Creedmoor has?

So what prevented the PPC cartridges from gaining the traction the Creedmoor has?

Where did I say a bad shot and/or bad rifle could be overcome by some special cartridge properties?

Hey MM --- no muss - no mas. I wasn't attacking you at all.

M D also said this.....

"There’s also a third factor. The incremental accuracy advantages in newer cartridges are only detectable by a minority of shooters, in certain situations. Target shooters not only shoot at known ranges, from steadier positions (whether from a benchrest or snuggled into a shooting jacket), but some are allowed to use wind flags."-- P 2.

My point is for the 'average shooter' or majority of hunters.....

Without a good rifle/ barrel NO cartridge will shoot very well and some will be horrible. Check the Kimber Roulette recent threads.
[/b]* IMO, * IMO the minute ("incremental") advantages of the C M are lost on the average hunter.[b]

I've had more rifles than I can count from 223 -- 338 WM. Out of ALL those only ONE would NOT group 4 or 5 shots w/in 1 1/2".

Some will NOT believe this but it's the truth. The TWO most accurate rifles I've owned were both Rem 700s.
One was a BDL 6mm Rem - it was almost unbelievable. I had my reason for trading it but I SHOULD have kept it.
The other was an ADL 30-06.

Following close on their heels are TWO I have now. Tikka T 3 Lite 270 and Tikka T3x 7 RM.

I am NOT saying they were/are Target or Competition quality but they WOULD shoot beyond the capabilities of many 'hunters'.
I am ONLY expressing my opinions.


Jerry

Some people apparently refuse to get it.

Some cartridges are indeed inherently accurate, and the fact that other factors can cancel this quality has nothing to do with that fact. It's like saying shrimp isn't inherently delicious because frying it in Mobil One results in a disgusting taste.

Here's another example from well-known target shooters David Tubb. If you don't know who Tubb is, he's been winning major target-shooting competitions for many years, and isn't just a shooter but major innovator in rifle and cartridge design, and really knows his way around a handloading bench as well.

He started with the .308 because it was the typical round used back then, in part because of its inherent accuracy. But like other shooters, he eventually recognized the .308 recoiled more than necessary, and the ballistic coefficients of its bullets were lower than in smaller calibers able to obtain the same velocity. He switched to various 6.5's for a while, but eventually went even smaller to the .243, and then other 6mm rounds he designed. His present round is the 6XC, based on the .22-250 necked up, with the shoulder moved back and changed to 30 degrees. (It fits even better in a short magazine than the 6.5 and 6mm Creedmoors.) After coming up with the 6XC, he said it's the easiest round to "get to shoot" (meaning it shoots accurately with just about any good bullet and suitable powder) he's ever encountered since using the .308, the round he previously considered the most inherently accurate.

Here's why I consider the 6.5 Creedmoor inherently accurate. I've now owned three, and fooled around with two others. Four of the five have been factory rifles, the most expensive a Ruger Hawkeye. Of those four factory rifles, ALL fired 5-shot (not 3-shot) groups of 1" or less on their FIRST range session, right out of the box with no "accurizing."

The Hawkeye shot a 5-shot group of .6 inch with factory Hornady ammo loaded with 140-grain A-Maxes. The very FIRST group at 100 yards fired from the cheapest of the four factory rifles, a Ruger American, measured .33". It wasn't with factory ammo, but a handload many people have found shoots well in most 6.5 Creedmoors, 41.5 grains of H4350 and any good bullet in the 140-grain range, in this instance the 140 Berger VLD.

The LEAST accurate of the four factory rifles still grouped 5 rounds into less than an inch. Again, that's FIVE shots, not the three fired by typical Campfire members. Five-shot groups average about 1-1/2 times as large as 3-shot groups from the same rifle, so 3-shot groups in that rifle would average around .65" with the same load.

Would love to hear from anybody who's shot four out-of-the-box factory rifles chambered in another round that equals that sort of accuracy, because it hasn't happened with the last four OTB, bolt-action .223 Remingtons I've owned, or the last four .308's. It definitely hasn't happened with a bunch of other cartridges from the .243 Winchester to .300 Winchester Magnum.

If that isn't an example of inherent accuracy, I don't know what is.