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

Yes, the .222 is inherently accurate--but as somebody already pointed out, it's not as inherently accurate as either the .22 or 6mm PPC.

Somebody also asked why the PPC rounds haven't become as popular as the 6.5 Creedmoor. Jordan answered part of it, but the other part is the PPC rounds were designed around relatively light bullets for their caliber, for the specific purpose of tiny groups at 100-200 yards. Neither one was designed to shoot heavy, high-BC bullets for their caliber for the specific purpose of BOTH fine accuracy and less wind-drift at ranges beyond 200 yards--the purpose of of the 6.5 Creedmoor.

I have a very accurate 6mm benchrest rifle, which in relatively mild breezes will shoot 5-shot groups averaging around .15 inch at 100 yards. I've also used it some for varmint shooting out to 500 yards, but again with light bullets in mild winds. The longest bullets it's (typical for the 6mm PPC) rifling twist will handle are around 65-70 grains at around 3000 fps, which do NOT come close to comparing with the 500+ yard performance of the 6.5 Creedmoor with bullets in the 140-grain range at around 2700 fps. Or a 1-18 twist .243 or 6mm Creedmoor with 105-115 high-BC bullets around 2850-3000 fps.

Inherent accuracy for specific purposes such as longer-range shooting also involves wind-resistance, not just tiny groups at 100 yards. Which is why the 6.5 Creedmoor is more inherently accurate at 500 yards than the 6mm PPC.

I'm at 100 rounds in my first 6.5 Creedmoor and so far my experience leads me to agree with MD. It's a cheap RAP with a cheap 6x SS on top. I'm loading IMR4451 into Alpha brass, CCIBR2 and 147 ELDs. Good components, but due to the RA mag's short OAL, no where near the lands or any other accuracy loading process. Just loaded to feed reliably. Groups like below at 100 yards are common place and it almost feels like cheating at 500 meters. What wind? 😉

.1 Mil grid lines on targets, for reference-

Wrongside nice shooting.

One writer I forgot whom (Could have been Layne Simpson, CRS) put various hunting cartridge barrels on an unlimited rail gun and on this platform several cartridges that may or may not have a reputation for accuracy all shot essentially one hole groups. This included some unlikely candidates like the 270 Winchester, 30-30 and 375 H&H plus some others.

There are, without a doubt, some cartridges which by their design, are more accurate than others. I think that's pretty much accepted across the board. But, just like in the old argument of which came first, the chicken or the egg, one must say that without an accurate rifle, there would be no accurate cartridge.

MD told of how he tested the 6.5CM in 4 different factory rifles, and they all put 5 shots into less than an inch, right out of the box. I think that says as much for the quality of todays rifles as it does for the cartridge.......and that's not dismissing the 6.5CM. I can attest to the accuracy of it, from personal experience. However, I've also noticed how accurate today's rifles are when compared to rifles of an earlier era. People on here are always trashing the newer Model 700 Remington's, but I haven't had one that wasn't accurate. The newer ones may not have the fit and finish of an older rifle, but they are made to shoot better, and usually do.

I think that in order to appreciate "inherent accuracy" one must shoot a lot, and most shooters do not. In my case, I am more concerned with my choice of a certain rifle, one that I can shoot well and that I have complete faith in, rather than in the choice of a certain cartridge. For what I do, and I'm strictly a hunter, the "inherent accuracy" of a particular cartridge matters little. The way it performs in the field holds the most interest for me.

That kinda takes the ‘human’ error out of it.

Everybody (?) can shoot a 22 LR better than a 375 HH so... it’s no wonder smaller cartridges turn in smaller groups.


James Jr : Without a doubt there are more accurate rifles today than in the 70s - 80s. There are a few exceptions to that.
When I got serious about ‘shooting’ and hunting I began reading the gun mags. The goal ‘then’ was to make a rifle shoot 1” groups and that was
not a given.

Today that is much easier with many rifles. We’ve come a long way !!


Jerry

"Inherently accurate", well, okay I guess. The whole topic is a rambling episode.

A well known gunwriter and a well known gunsmith did a test several years ago quantifying the efficiency and accuracy of the 300 WSM and the 300 HH, pitting powder charges, targets and velocities through the same exact barrel. Theoretically and through modern technology, the 30 degree whatever shoulder and short, fat efficient column should have ate the ballistic lunch and precision (or perceived lack thereof) of the haggard belted British Super 30.

Much of this stems from cartridge design, or so we're told. I think there are so many other factors out there, if we are being honest, that factor into things beyond a SAAMI drawing.

First, Page's work.
Measuring 40x's against 40x's is leaving a lot on the table. Mike Walker, as has already been discussed, had an inroad to accuracy by being part of designing an accuracy action. He designed a cartridge around this action for his pastime.

It wasn't a 30-338.....but he didn't design his action around that number. Sure, it was made into hunting rifles and larger cartridge chamberings, but for its nominal circumferential size, it was more accurate with smaller cartridges.

I do find it a bit ironic that the same "flair" the Creedmoor is getting credited for could be had in a Custom Shop 40x 30-40 years ago under the 6mm-250 moniker. The quality of brass and bullets however, made it a novelty, although it had good accuracy reputation at the time.

Benchrest and accuracy minded shooters benefit from having rigid, short actions built to tighter tolerances; building feasible (and qualifying) weight actions are easier to do with smaller cartridges. That's when 22 Donaldsons and 22-250's on Mausers and other longish actions left the benchrest scene; Walker had created a factory level of precision and a cartridge that hardware stores couldn't replicate over and over.

Sleeving even the Remington actions then happened; for more action rigidity, more weight. Other actions and machining existing actions appeared, usually to increase levels of precision and consistency.

This brings me to the 222/PPC "inherency". Was it the cartridge design, new ideas in rifles or the greater ability of the 220 Russian case to be modified? A good portion of 222 shooters were firing stock 40x's at the time (read wood stocked 40x's).
Domestic 222 cases, at most, were weight sorted and neck turned. The PPC cases had to be wooed and coddled into final form for the chambers that fired them; since they were, they were also a lot more precise. They were also a lot more precise brass wise from European makers, something even Remington couldn't duplicate in their BR series of brass at the time. If you don't think that matters, neck turn some real runout garbage and turn it into diamonds...
The PPC cases eventually edged out the 222, IMO, in brass precision and the ability to drive heavier bullets in the wind to a greater velocity. Even at 100 yards, more BC and more velocity with the same level of action and chamber precision has the ability to make smaller groups. The fact that the .224 caliber altogether has pretty much been abandoned also hurts the 222. I don't know how long the "Mac" McMillan record stood for, but I believe it lived longer than the competitive life of the 22 PPC in serious benchrest competition.
Randy Robinett told me once he wanted to get the 25 caliber into the winners circle, but regulations (and just having a good enough shooter) made it a dream. He pretty much deduced the caliber issue in numbers of weight and speeds.

Point being is that if anyone has been paying attention is that the "first" 222 Remington was originally a lot closer in case shape to the 221 FireBall at its inception; but it was given a larger capacity for more velocity.....but if the FireBall ever won any appreciable hardware it was a pretty well kept secret.

Yeah, What HawkI said ^^^^^^^😃

Nate,

The .300 H&H/.300 WSM test was primarily designed to determine if case shape had an effect on pressures, not accuracy. Winchester claimed at the time that the .300 WSM was capable of matching .300 Winchester Magnum velocities because the WSM's case shape "burned powder more efficiently," thus getting more velocity out of less powder.

The test compared the .300 H&H and WSM because they have just about exactly the same powder capacity. They got essentially the same velocities with the same powder charge/bullet combinations, in the same barrel, proving the .300 WSM's shape is not "more efficient" in burning powder.

The accuracy results were decidedly secondary, and not extensive enough to prove anything. They only included six 3-shot groups, one of each load in each chambering, and Charlie didn't spend any time sorting brass for consistent case-neck thickness, or testing the loaded rounds for bullet alignment.

Plus, 3-shot groups don't have near as much statistical validity as even 4-shot groups, and SINGLE examples of a load none at all. (I did mention in the article that the accuracy results were "probably not statistically significant," but didn't go on at length about why, because there wasn't space, since it was a back-page column, not a full-length feature.)

Plus, the rifle weighed almost 40 pounds with scope, due primarily to the ultra-heavy barrel. This is probably about half as much as Layne Simpson's rail gun, but is a LOT heavier than any of the rifles any hunter I know carries in the field, even Pat Sinclair's coyote rifle. Super-heavy barrels and rifles tend to reduce barrel vibrations considerably, thus minimizing the effect of muzzle velocity variations on accuracy.

Ferris Pindell and Lou Palmisano did extensive testing with various shoulder angles before settling on 30 degrees in the PPC's, finding 30 degrees produced less variation in velocity than more sloping or steeper angles. The head technician at one of the major pressure-labs told me he's seen the same thing, over and over again, the decades he's been doing ballistic work: Case shoulders of 30 degrees, or close to it, produce more consistent velocities, no matter the size of the case.

Quite a few other professional ballisticians and shooters agree, including David Tubb, who found his original 6mmX cartridge (the .243 with the same shoulder pushed back some, for a longer neck) wasn't as easy to get to shoot accurately as the present 6XC--which has the 30-degree shoulder. This is why so many new "accuracy" cartridges have 30-degree shoulders: The evidence is considerable, and goes back decades (It's probably not a coincidence that the .219 Donaldson Wasp, the first dominant short-range benchrest round, had a 30-degree shoulder.)

The McMillan group held the record as the smallest 5-shot, 100-yard group fired in competition for 40 years, but other than being tiny, it's not statistical proof of anything. No "example of one" ever is. In 1968 Bob Beamon set the long-jump record in Mexico City with a jump almost two feet longer than anybody (including Beamon) had ever jumped before, and he never came close to it again. It took 23 years for his record to be broken, and it's still the second-longest legal long jump ever made, but all it proves is that something special happened ONCE, just like the McMillan group.

Thank you, Tejano. I realize it's only 3 shot groups, but they've been strikingly repeatable. And easy to achieve, without any customizing of the loads. Counter to many of my much more expensive rifles in other chamberings.

I'd love to read that article, if you remember who did the work and wrote it. Sounds like a very interesting read.

Sherlock, is that you??

I don't have a problem with any cartridge. I do have a problem with all the hype from unknown sources. Most shooters aren't talented enough to make a judgment about accuracy of a cartridge. I'm not, and probably shoot more than most of you. At best, others might be qualified to render an opinion on the performance of a cartridge fired from.their rifle. This is a wave of opinions.

I know that some will take issue with what I have said. Over the years, cartridges like the 222 Rem, the 308, the PPCs and others have arrived and made their mark. Are these cartridges inherently accurate? Perhaps, but I do know that a lot of time and money was thrown at them to make them work better.

Twist rates changed. Propellants changed. Stocks changed. Competition shooters and the government invested heavily, making some or all of these cartridges work better. Bullets were made with a specific cartridge in mind. 30 cals, especially the 7.62x51mm/308 Win, were improved tremendously. Even the 5.56x45mm/223 benefited from further development.

The Creedmoors had the advantage of previous technological developments. Improvements continue.

The rifle companies are equal partners in cartridge accuracy. Some might even say more so. It starts with the right trigger and the right twist. The chambers have to be cut properly for the loads. Depending on the bullet, the throat and magazine have to accomodate the assembled cartridge.

What about the bullet manufacturers? Most Americans probably do not know that Europeans have a fondness for 6.5mms. The bullet is right for so many applications - whether it's hunting or target. The US is a Johnny-come-lately.

The US military has got their hands on it and will develop it further to improve mission performance.

Is it inherently accurate? Yes, as much as the collective manufacturers have made it.

Well said Steve. I call them "packages"...
My contention is that Ron Reiber (or Emary, or whomever else) aren't any different than Phil Sharpe, Mike Walker or Warren Page. Or Palmisano and Pindell, since much of what has been a part of in recent cartridge design is really an extension of the PPC cartridges, at least the universal stamp on 30 degree shoulders, shortness and fatness.

They were all charged with creating something special and when the did they all had evidence and examples of why "this is the way to go".
Sharpe ditched the 30 degree Savage case; he didn't have the level of accurate chronographs, but if someone is going to tell me the 300 Savage or 30 TC leaves the 308 Winchester in the dirt for velocity spread, accuracy and precision, let the wholesale replacement commence.... While we're at it, the 223 needs a 30 degree; oops, that one was a [bleep] up at day one!

Tubb's comments on the 30 degree shoulder on the XC that I am aware of centered around less trimming (Berger, Edition 1). I'm sure he's seen enough evidence to be bitten by the 30 degree "velocity efficiency" bug comments to throw that promotion in as well.

John's article on the 300 WSM/300 HH got me to thinking about the hype and hysteria that surrounds new cartridges and promoting them. I don't even like arguing with John because he's usually (always) right and if you don't think he is he has the evidence to back him up.

The problem is, many of us that work in various industries and know how PR, relationships and promotion work. Case in point, the PPC's. Ruger and Sako introduced rifles for the stalwart accuracy cartridges. Problem is, the "package" from the close knit, knowledgeable benchrest circuit didn't and couldn't translate to even most serious prairie dog shooters. It still hasn't, even after everyone has been told numerous times to "know better"...

If a 30 degree shoulder and a short fat case DOESN"T burn powder more efficiently, then why on earth would they produce less velocity variation?
There's decades of evidence out there to support that argument, right?
Ron Reiber, Hornady and Ruger evidently think so, so much they make the powder, brass and bullets around the cartridges they have a stake in.

Mike Walker did the same thing as a Remington employee, as did Jim Stekl, who created the BR's 13 years after the 222. Walker had winners in the 722, 721, 700 and 40x and IMR4198. At the time one could reasonably, statistically say, if it didn't have a 23 degree shoulder or wasn't based off the 222, it wouldn't win. (Even all those magical 30 degree shouldered 219 Wasps). Why? The package.
Never mind the Hart barrel equipment, the largest domestic powder manufacturer, decent factory loads, adjustable non-military trigger, you get the idea....

Lou and Ferris did the same thing as well. At the inception, they were the sole providers of brass and reloading equipment. They were good friends with most people in the discipline at the time and promotion wasn't difficult. Note they weren't peddling stock 40x's, R-P cases and gunning PowerLokt hollow points for promoting their cartridges. I have no idea, but I would bet they were running a Wichita or some custom action for their developments.
They were also both cartridge perfectionists; they trimmed primer pockets to uniform depths, used the DeLeval nozzle in their cartridge brass (which one worked "best", the 30 degree or 45 degree)?, and really took precision to the next level. That next level was even beyond what mass manufacturers were willing or capable of doing for short range benchrest.
Remington pretty much admitted such when they released the dogshit "BR" brass, which was about a friendly as making 219 Wasps.
Today, the large manufacturers are at it again, promoting in the long range shooting sports, where they can be somewhat competitive with winners firing their newer cartridge. Like benchrest in 1975, I'm sure it will change, but the domestic brass situation has changed a lot since then.
The Layne Simpson example reminded me of that Shooting Times article; Layne's wish was to see manufacturing tolerances of both brass and rifles for many standard chamberings to be tightened and promoted as a package for accuracy minded shooters.
I think newer cartridges (like the Creedmoors) have benefitted from something along Layne's thinking; I also think the same thing happened in 1950 with a new cartridge at the time.

The McMillan record, while statistically is an aberration, was for forty years a benchmark and the font from which the PPC, 30 degree shoulders and all sorts of fact, fiction, mystique and utter nonsense has flowed from. A good part of the Creedmoor might be part of that....even if it is a sample of one.

We are always building on what came before. It might be hard for some to accept, but the Creedmoors will be bested. It is the way of things. I'm certain that when Mike Walker's 222 was winning matches, few would believe that something better could be made. I am also certain that people were speaking the same words about the 222 that are being spoken today about the Creedmoors.

But no! It's different!

That's been said before too.

I wonder how many people have given any of the cartridge components any thought? Or the improvements brought by CNC machinery and CAD design? Barrels and steels are better than ever.

I have three 222s. I retired my Rem 788 about seven or eight years ago, but it might be fun to pit a stock HB 788 against a newer Tikka T3 Lite and a Tikka HB. Maybe four or five commercial cartridges and some handloads fired from each. The 222 Rem is an accurate cartridge with the right platform and a competent shooter.

The shooter brings everything together - and that includes how well an "inherently accurate" cartridge groups.

Steve, I read your last two posts...And, I agree with the fact that in the majority of cases, it’s the person shooting who brings the weakness to the “chain”. Speaking about cartridge and rifle combination, taking rimfire rifles out of the discussion, and only using CF rifles and loads that produce some attainable recoil for the sake of acknowledging recoil causes less accuracy by some shooters.

There are some rifles you own, I own, MD owns, etc....That just flat out shoot .25-.03” without any fuss... Throw it over a bag, align crosshairs, hold your air and squeeze. Smack! Dead center. Throw the bolt, repeat same and smack, it’s a 2 leaf clover...Then 3, etc..

Now, I’m sure you own, as I do, rifles that are very accurate as well, and will cold bore, first shot, dead center...Second shot, throws a 1.0”..Then back to dead center...I’am trying to explain, poorly, maybe...That some rifles seem to cycle their best accuracy based on NODS...Where other rifles don’t suffer this and hit exactly where they are pointed every time...Finicky or touchy is sometimes used to describe these rifles, even custom builds can do it...Others, just call it a “Sub MOA 1.0”, or an average day at the range.

I consider any CF rifle that has repeatable accuracy without having to fuss over it much a great find, and worthy of being kept because it does make an average shooter look better than he/she really is...Mark 😎

Interesting stuff Steve. So, can a good shooter "bring everything together" on a non accurate cartridge and make it inherently accurate?

Seems to me that all of these are things that are not inherent in a cartridge.

Hawk1,

I have enjoyed reading your assessments of "inherent accuracy" cartridges and their reason for being "inherently accurate", your thoughts are very well laid out and seem to have great validity to them. It is nice to read well written and logical responses such as yours.

I am not even sure what the definition of an "inherently accurate" cartridge is, I have never seen an agreed on definition of it. IMO opinion a better term would be a "balanced cartridge" - meaning one that is easy to develop loads for, can be used with a wide variety of powders and bullets and give good/great accuracy.
I am in agreement with the "package" statement - one can have the most "inherently accurate" cartridge in the world but if the rest of the package is up the task it really doesn't matter how "inherently accurate" the cartridge is.


drover

Nate,

All interesting points. However:

Ron Reiber hasn't designed any cartridges. He just tests a lot of different cartridges with state-of-the-art equipment.

There is a difference between consistent and efficient burning of smokeless powder. They are NOT the same thing.

A .22 Hornet gets more velocity and hence bullet energy per grains of powder than the .222. THAT is efficiency. The .222 burns powder more consistently--probably because of the case shape and shoulder angle. Same deal with the .300 WSM and H&H.

You might want to read more of Tubb's writing on cartridge design, and rifle accuracy in general. There's a lot more out there than his intro to the 6XC in the Berger manual, including his book (printed with ink on actual paper) THE RIFLE SHOOTER, and his website davidtubb.com. And yes, the design of 6XC involved

Even if you believe in the single McMillan group as some sort of meaningful standard, examples of one are not what proves or disproves accuracy (or anything else). Instead, it's like a guy shooting one half-inch group with his .270 and thinking he has a half-inch deer rifle. Consistent accuracy is proven by results over LOTS of groups, of enough rounds, to statistically predict what can be expected from that rifle, load, etc. in the future.

While 30-degree shoulders might not be The Answer Forever, they've proven themselves often enough in various kinds of accuracy competitions to be The Present Answer. Among the other examples is the 10-shot benchrest record of 10 shots in 2.659 inches at 1000 yards, set by Jim Richards in 2014. That might also be a one-time fluke, but Richards had also set the previous record, another 10-shot group under 3 inches, which had never been done before. (His rifle's chambered for the 6mm Dasher, another of those 30-degree shoulder cartridges.)

No doubt rifle cartridges will keep evolving, along with bullets, powders, scopes, etc.--and shooting skill. All of them are part of the deal, but each aspect also allows shooters to test each particular aspect of accuracy in statistically meaningful ways, not just occasional leaps due to luck or conditions.

The PPC's lack of popularity is an easy combination.

Attention. Only loonies had any idea they excisted.
Availability. Basically no one chambered them in a factory rifle. The Sako's were expensive.
Ammo. Apply above to ammo.
Accuracy. Most "normal" people thought the 222 was the cats assssss in accuracy, the 22-250 was plenty acurate for "normals".
Performance. The PPC's velocities were well behind several established cartridges in both calibers. No big deal, when 200 yard accuracy is everything. Everything, when you
are trying to convince someone to buy this unheard of round, over a 22-250 or 243.

Meanwhile RIO7-at the Long Range Hunting forum- is shooting small groups at 1,000 yards with his .243s.
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...7/1000-yrds-best-group-ever#Post12750917