Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 30-06 inherent accuracy

It's even funnier when someone else mentions it.

Interesting. Thanks, MD. Makes me more curious about shoulder angles/shapes regarding ignition and flow of gas - I'm guessing the most efficient design would be impractical to produce.

Yea, that can be a factor. The steepest shoulder-angle of any commercial rifle cartridge I know if is 45-degrees--in the .416 Rigby. But it isn't a very wide shoulder!

I'd like to see a two-angled shoulder. Start out with that 45 degree from the case wall to half way to the neck then 15-20 degree to the neck. No science here - I just think that would be very inherently accurate!

I would hazard a guess (based partly on a collection of Precision Shooter magazines going back to the 1960s) that not nearly as many benchesters were shooting 6mm PPCs during the first several years after it appeared as there were .222 shooters. This was no doubt due to the .222 being so entrenched, and hence so many gunsmiths, components, handloading tools, etc. concentrating on the .222.

In any sort of technology it takes a while for relatively small advances to become more widespread. Somebody already mentioned auto racing as an example.

Maybe some amibitious benchrester should start shooting a .219 Improved Zipper. Those were evidently the real deal 75 years ago. No doubt the Zipper would shoot much smaller groups with today's barrels, bullets, powders and scopes.

Unfortunately the .222 killed it off....

Hmm.
INHERENT (def.): Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic; existing as a natural or basic part of something; permanently existing in something; inseparably attached or connected; naturally pertaining to; innate; inalienable; essential character of something; a natural or basic part of something; etc..

The definition, from several agreeing sources, speaks for itself. What you have presented is hearsay information from third parties - even though they may be reputable "pressure lab ballisticians". Those folks may be working with insufficient understanding of "inherent", or simply choosing an inaccurate term, or they may be wrong.

The concept that a particular case design (cartridge) in and of itself is inherently "accurate" as compared with others that are not - as an innate inalienable, and essential aspect - regardless of powder, primer, projectile, barrel, twist, etc., etc. - seems a stretch. Experienced comments in this thread tell a story.

It seems difficult, then, to help with your wish for explanation why others. "don't believe they are wrong" - whatever that means.

I have enjoyed and appreciated many of your posts. Thanks.

Even the mighty 6 PPC got killed off by the 30 BR in score shooting, it's a dog eat dog world at the cutting edge of competition.

All this 30-06 "inherent accuracy" bs made me go out and buy another 30-06 rifle!!!! You guys ought to be ashamed of yourselves!!!!

On the other hand you should be ashamed of yourself for the daily garbage you spread here on the fire !!!!

And then there is the Weatherby double radius shoulder, which increases velocity via escaping gasses with a venturi effect. Hey, who knows. It's beyond my pay grade.

Is that because bigger holes cut higher scoring rings even if the center of the hole is a little farther away from target center?

Exactly. Extremely close to the PPC in raw precision, add the bigger hole, everybody switched over.

Sounds like a keeper for sure!

CCCC,

I fail to see how the definitions you pick of "inherently" disprove my points. But I could go to my big printed copies of the Oxford English Dictionary of the English Language and my American Merriams-Webster, and probably find at least one definition that matches better with "mine."
But would also point out that when Noah Webster published his first dictionary of American English in 1828, he chose to define words by "common usage," and none of the ballistics people I interviewed misunderstood what I was asking. My first question also turned out to be the title of my article on the subject "Does Inherent Accuracy Exist?" This was published in the December 2007 edition of Handloader magazine, and the then-editor subtitled it "Barsness Interviews Top Ballisticians."

I named all of them, including Ron Reiber, the long-time head ballistician at Hodgdon, and Bob Nosler. Can't remember the others, and am not about to go through my collection of Handloader magazines to dig out that particular issue. But they all read the article when it appeared, and nobody objected to their quotes included in the article. In fact, some contacted me afterward with further comments.

So no, my previous post was not exactly "hearsay," and all the folks I interview plainly understood my question, apparently due to "common usage."

inherently accurate”
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the.


^^ i just looked this up ^^

Thanks for the reply. I did not provide the definition in order to disprove your point. I did so because you requested that.

It is good that your ballistic sources did not deny their quotes and your entire post did not seem to be hearsay, but that supporting evidence is. Repeated scientifically based observation of consistent high accuracy using a very particular case design - regardless of loading, barrel, sights, etc. - would be demonstration of inherent accuracy of a case design. If, indeed, that does exist. Thanks again.

Inherently accurate? At what range and compared to what? It could be compared to the 30-40 Krag, or any of the other military cartridges loaded with long heavy round nose bullets. But the Germans made it change when they rolled out the 7mm Mauser loaded with a 150gr spitzer.

Was Inherent accuracy a thing in 1906? What we have here is a 17.5 degree shoulder and lots of body taper. It was made to function quickly, feed quickly and meet acceptable accuracy standards. It's a warhorse that can be trained to prance in a parade, but it prefers the the faster action of a Browning 1919. Turns out fast action also happens afield so it's a superb sporting round.

It represents a major development in the arena of military small arms. Logistically is was a step backwards as it's size and bulk limited firepower. At the same time it bolstered confidence being the most powerful chambering to ever serve in active duty. In short inherent accuracy really isn't it's thing, but it really isn't necessary to get the job done.

After working in a gun store, and talking to countless "hunters" coming in the store, i came to the conclusion that there are more "inheretly accurate" cartridges than shooters.

Good point mathman. That's why everyone hated it when I brought my 9.3x62mm to the hunting rifle centerfire shoots at my club in Washington....


One guy tried to keep up with his 338wm, but firing off 10 shots was too much for him.. ha ha.. Now, speaking of "inherently accurate" cartridges, I'll bet that 9.3x62mm cartridge places right up there around the 223..

The Canadian part?