Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Inherent Accuracy: Fact or Fiction?

What makes a rifle cartridge “inherently accurate”? I often see this phrase in the literature, but in the same piece there is never a discussion as to what attributes actually make a rifle cartridge inherently accurate.

Do the following generalities make a cartridge inherently accurate? I am not advocating any of these as gospel, rather want to see what others have to say about this. Neither is this meant to be a cartridge superiority pi$$ing contest!

1.) Given the same case volume, a shorter cartridge is more accurate due to more consistent powder ignition. TRUE or FALSE?
2.) On rimless cases, a sharp shoulder angle gives better headspace uniformity when the charge is ignited. TRUE or FALSE?
3.) A longer case neck results in more constant bullet seating tension. TRUE or FALSE?
4.) Others?

Is “inherent accuracy” just marketing hype?

Ahhh shiiite….. after writing the above I found the following.

https://www.fieldandstream.com/the-worlds-most-accurate-cartridge/

I suppose if I look there are many discussions and/or published books on the subject….. just want to get other’s opinions.

Flame away.

The Houston Warehouse

According to this article, he used a 22 PPC.

Been my experience that all rifle cartridge combinations seem to show evidence of being inherently less accurate in my hands.....:-)

One thing of interest to me was that they never compared in the warehouse groups to what the same rifle would then do under real world conditions.

Jim

I have never seen a quality rifle chambered in 222 Rem that was inaccurate. So, I consider the cartridge to be inherently accurate.

When you consider shooting in the zero's and ones, accurate, things change a bit.

Short and fat rules, long necks are a HUGE bonus!

I hear ya' Brother.

Ask this question of anyone who has experience with the 9.3X62 and you'll get a rousing "YES".

Recoil, or lack thereof has a lot to do with it as well.

I love my 9.3x62 as a hunting cartridge, but it can't carry the 6mmppc's jockey strap in pure accuracy to 300 yards. Remember the smallest 100 yard 5 shot group tho is .0077" by a local Texas guy, Mike Stinnett. Mike was shooting a 30 cal wildcat based on the 6.5 Grendel case. I believe most all other BR records are by the 6ppc to 300yds.

Petzal left out some reasons for the 6mm PPC's accuracy:

1) Its 30-degree shoulder is pretty much accepted as the angle that results in the finest accuracy. Just about every "accuracy" cartridge since it appeared features a 30-degree shoulder. A few have slightly steeper shoulders, but I have been informed by the top guys at a couple of pressure laboratories that right around 30 degrees normally results in the most consistent pressures and hence velocities. Which is why, after considerable experimentation, Palmisano and Pendell chose 30 degrees.

2) Generally a shorter powder column does result in finer accuracy. The most accurate cartridges in just about any caliber are fatter and wider. One of the major bullet companies used to do all its accuracy testing (on an indoor range) with .30-caliber bullets with the .308 Winchester, .30-06 and .300 Winchester Magnum, depending on the bullet weight. When the .300 WSM appeared they found it shot just as well, and often better, with the same range of bullets.

3) Neck length has something to do with accuracy--but not so much consistent bullet seating tension, which is mostly a matter of consistent neck thickness. But the present trend is toward seating bullets so they don't encounter the potential "donut" (thicker brass) at the neck-shoulder junction. The 6mm PPC avoids this easily, due to using lighter, shorter bullets--but some newer accuracy cartridges (such as David Tubb's 6XC) are designed to avoid it even with very long, heavy, high-BC bullets.

4) Some cartridges that don't follow all these "rules" also shoot very well in many rifles, perhaps due to some happy accident. Among them are the .308 Winchester--and the 9.3x62 Mauser, as luv2safari mentioned, which was designed around 1905.

In fact, the 9.3x62 has a relatively long body, almost no shoulder, and a standard chamber throat that's very long and TAPERED--common back when it was introduced, to accommodate bullets or widely differing weights and lengths. All modern "accuracy" throats are parallel-sided. Yet it's rare to find either an old or new 9,3x62 that doesn't group three shots into less than an inch with almost any ammo, whether factory or handloads. That won't win any benchrest matches, but it's plenty accurate for a "medium bore" big game round!

That would be for practical accuracy, not inherent. Of course, IMHO practical accuracy of the overall system is more important. You can have an inherently accurate cartridge, but if the cartridge has heavy recoil, it's harder to shoot well.

I wasn't comparing the 9.3X62 to a benchrest-specific round. The thread is about "inherent" accuracy. The 6mmppc is "designed" accuracy and a leader in competition.

I've owned A Lot of sporting high power rifles of all flavors. I'm a trade'm looney and like to try everything new and a lot of what's old. As for inherently accurate cartridges, I've found the 9.3X62 (the seven I've owned) have all shot well with whatever I fed them. The most erratic I've owned were 25-06s and 270s. My break open combo guns in 222 Rem shoot like good bolt guns, unusual for combo guns and their shotgun-like triggers.

Butch,

What my friend luv2safari said about the 9.3x62-which I also basically said in my post.

Whether this thread is about "pure" accuracy is another good question. Do we define that as .22 rimfire accuracy at 50 yards, short-range benchrest accuracy at 100-200 yards, or longer-range competition?

It also depends on the rifle. In my experience Tubb's 6XC beats the hell out of the 6mm Creedmoor--but my 6XC is a 13-pound rifle built by Charlie Sisk, while the two 6mm Creedmoors I've owned have been "hunting weight" factory rifles. As is my 6.5 PRC, meaning it weighs under 7 pounds without scope. But Charlie also built it, with a Lilja barrel, and it will consistently group 5 rounds (not 3) of its best handload under half an inch. That won't win any short-range benchrest competitions, but will beat the hell out of any 6mm PPC load from my 13-pound bench rifle at 500+ yards.

Hope all is well in Texas!

Best,
John

Accuracy is relevant to your application...period.

As a former benchrest shooter, hunter,and wild catter, I can tell you that many MOST calibers are unbelievably accurate. Quality of the barrel used, and how well the gunsmith indicated in the barrel is critical...this is an understatement

. Also, the reamer design vs the brass vs the dies used is also critical.

Now consider the stock and bedding.

The end result is handed to many that do not how to reload(if they do), do not know how to clean a rifle, nor have proper cleaning equipment, and do not have a rifle rest(sand bags) or rear bag.

Mule Deer's post as usual is spot on. I would add that the neck length contributes to the "Interference Point" as referenced to by PO Ackley by a lines drawn on the shoulder angle and where it intersects. I refer the readers to the PO Ackley hand books I and II for reference. This "Interference Point" is where the blast of gases intersect either in the throat or throat of the chamber. The further back the lines intersect, the less the throat errosion is. Example is the 6 Rem vs the 243 Win on interference points and where it intersects.

The Interference Point is much more important than most would ever give weight to.

Long necks are not popular yet.

I disagree with a lot of keith's post's..........think he nailed this 100% !!!!!!!!!!!!

This thread is about "inherent" cartridge accuracy, which we hear about from time to time. The 9.3x62mm is known for being inherently accurate. Just as the 222 and 308win are. The list is long and I don't believe the op was asking about the most accurate cartridge known to man. That one you mention is also known to be inherently accurate. Like I said, the list is long and it's growing each year. New cartridges like the 6mm Creedmoor, the PRC's and 6.5 creedmoor, as well as the 300WSM are also "inherently" accurate cartridges...also for the guy that brought up recoil. That is funny, as recoil has absolutely nothing to do with how "inherently" accurate a cartridge is:


Back to the 9.3x62.. Enjoy..

Inherent accuracy is thrown around a lot but it really doesn't have much meaning outside of gunwriter snake-oil sales. Most shooters are not capable of reaching the accuracy level of any cartridge but they will buy a cartridge because it is pimped as being - "inherently accurate".

With that being said - yes, there are some cartridges that are more user friendly to load, some that are easier to shoot, and some that seem to perform above their pay-grade but the term "inherently accurate" is bandied about like it is some cure-all cartridge when in actuality outside some very specific competitions most any cartridge that you like and shoot well will do the job.

drover

Have to disagree with you on this one..........you give me two close to identical rifles one in 223 the other in 222, and I guarantee I can make the 222 shoot better every time...........might not mean anything to you but to some (like me) it does.

I guess I don't "understand" inherent accuracy. I agree with drover that most cartridges are not fully taken to their potential.
Some of you may remember my mentioning Mike Turner in New Mexico. Mike is the extreme 30-30 guru. Mike is a very competitive short range BR guy-up to 300yds. He shoots consistent 5 shot .2 or less groups with his 30-30. That being said I guess all cartridges are "inherently" accurate.
Now about hunting rifles, I think my 9.3X62 may be my most accurate hunting rifle. A 25-06 is a POS.
My opinion.