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.

They did actually. There was more shot on the warehouse that just what is listed in the article.

One thing they found in the warehouse is lighter loads shot better inside, but in real world outside conditions a little more velocity worked better.

+1

Some tidbits from the warehouse. TJ Jackson was a retired U2 pilot. Frank Wilson is a retired accounting firm owner, about 96 yrs old, lives on the golf course in Burnet,Tx, Frank still plays golf most mornings and still shoots, Ralph Council made the Council bullets and a very mean moonshine. John Jones was my fellow native American buddy. John was a toolmaker and made a lot of one off engine parts for the race car folks. Everybody knows that Ed Shilen made barrels and the DGA receivers. Not many knew he made model airplane engines and used to own the Champion Sparkplug model airplane plugs. He assembled and sold therm. Ed was a pilot and also had a powered glider that he flew. Ed had a vintage Formula Ford that he raced and another of his many loves was learning to play the piano. Of course Harold Broughton originated the Broughton barrel Co. and built custom rifles. Harold was instrumental in building the BR range at the NRA Whittington Center. Don Geraci is a hoot. He is an excellent shooter and builds rifles. He built a rifle for Don Trump Jr.
A great group of guys, but a few have passed on.

Quite an interesting list of characters. I learned some stuff.

Thanks for sharing.

DF

. One of the other aspects of why the 6mm PPC was one of the most accurate rifle cartridges ever and has set records that still haven't been broken.
Is the quality of the Lapua 220 Russian brass that it's made from.
27.2 grains of Thunderbird t32 and a 65 grain miles Hollister bullet was my match load.
29 grains of Norma N201 with a 55g ballistic tip.Was my vermin load.

Dave

Does the rifle cartridge case sidewall taper affect "inherent accuracy"? Seems like the newer cartridge designs have less sidewall taper. I once read that a sidewall taper was designed into military cartridges for easier case extraction.

My inherent accuracy should be improving all the time. Haven't tried the longnecks. I recall Mule Deer posting a story about someone having a few before a competition to calm his nerves. Cute story. Must be something to it....grin

IMO, accuracy has less to do with the head stamp and more to do with picking the right reamer, picking a good barrel maker, picking the right gunsmith to put the package together and making good ammo for the package.

Assuming all those things are done equally well, could you see some cartridges simply working a little better than others?

Interesting.............gliders are not powered. contradiction in terms..........was it a powered airplane or a non powered glider ???????????

Powered glider - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_glider#:~:text=A%20motor%20glider%20is%20a,with%20or%20without%20engine%20power.&text=In%20the%20US%2C%20a%20powered,of%203%20kg%2Fm2.

Maybe....for instance if you had the same caliber as well as the same bore to case capacity ratio in two different cartridges, a very good trigger puller might be able to discern a difference. I think it would take many barrels however, to come to any sort of conclusion.

Once bore to case capacity ratio grow further apart, conclusions about cartridge accuracy would be easier to come by.

IMO, inherent accuracy has merit as a concept with evidence it exists. But, from a practical standpoint, most any round can be set up to shoot really well. The difference between rounds, all equally maxed out technically, has to be in minute fractions.

Now, with bench rest and such, minute fractions make or break a competition.

But, for the rest of us, I think this is just an interesting Loony discussion.

So, where one is coming from makes this a big deal, or NOT....

DF

Theories are like azzholes, everybody has one. My theory, if you went out and bought 5 off the rack new rifles in each popular cartridge, tested them on target with commonly available Wal mart grade ammo, certain cartridges would score higher in aggregate....such as the .308.

Every factory rifle I have bought has shot well enough to hunt with , except a 6 mm Remington.. and when it was new I bought 100 gr bullets and it would shoot like a 12 ga with Buckshot.. the dealer that sold it to me dident say anything about not using 100 gr bullets.. I sold it and bought a 243.. it was ok.. the guy that bought my 6 mm remington used 85 gr bullets an killed a truckload of antalopes with it. pissed me off that the dealer diden't know about the twist problem in the new remington caliber.. I really liked the rifle , but never bought another.

Was that a problem with the chambering, or a problem caused by using a bullet too long for the barrel twist? Sounds like the latter.

Okay, let me ask the corallary question: Are there any inherently inaccurate chamberings?

I've heard that 6.5 CM is the whizzbang epitome of inherent accuracy. What would be the anti-Creed? Let's say. . . oh, I don't know. How about the 44 Remington Magnum. It's fat and squat and it has no shoulder, because it's a straightwall cartridge. Is the 44 Mag inherently inaccurate? How about the 444 Marlin. The 44 Mag's big brother. Is that inherently inaccurate?

I'm just asking.

There are 'trends' when it comes to accuracy, in relation to cartridge and many other variables.

Only one way to find out about accuracy in a given application.......

That's my opinion FWIW.

Of a train load of rifles I've owned since 1972 I have ONLY had 1 (one) that would NOT group 4 shots in 1". I'll not call the brand but the company in Morgan Utah (lol) could not make it right. They replaced it -- shock almighty !

IMO inherent accuracy will be found by Competition Shooters.



Jerry

This has been a fascinating thread! I've enjoyed it greatly. Thanks to Hawk and other knowledgeable contributors. It has been rather humbling. I don't have the temperament, skillset, or pocketbook to even think of shooting at a level approaching what serious benchrest guys do. I suppose that when all is said and done, my thoughts are in line with those of Dirtfarmer and Drover. Still, its a great read and I hope there's more to follow.

If one were to suggest the idea is fiction, you'd be saying all cartridges, regardless of neck length, shoulder angle, length, width, throat design, primer size, etc., are all equal. That none of that matters. I don't believe that. I just think other non-cartridge specific factors like the barrel, bolt, bedding, how it all aligns, and so on, makes enough of a difference that it becomes very difficult to know where accuracy is coming from, or what's preventing it on any given rifle. Having loaded for a handful of 6.5 Creedmoors, I believe that it is a good mousetrap. But one with a poor barrel, poor assembly, or whatever will not have the accuracy of countless other rifles in other cartridges that are well executed. There's significant overlap amongst most it seems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory

I have pursed accuracy in shooting, machining, and designing electronics.

I thought I had a feel for how to manage my errors.
Then in 2006 I designed an amplifier that was mass produced and tested by computer.
The auto test computer sent me test data.
The Gaussian distribution of errors in output was a million times more accurate than I expected.
My seat of the pants feel for it did not allow that 100 errors cancel a lot more than they add.

That questions the accuracy rituals of shooting that I abandoned because they did not seem to make a difference.

I realize that the answer will be complex, but I'm really curious what you came up with here

The more subtle the differences, the greater the cohort numbers required to establish statistical relevance.

With too many variables and with really minute differences, it's highly likely that no definitive statistical conclusion will ever be reached.

That's my feeling for what we're dealing with here. There are a LOT of variables associated with shooters, their techniques, rifle quality, barrel characteristics, load differences, on and on. With an almost infinite amount of clutter to deal with, there will probably too much glare to see the light.

DF

I quit truing actions ~2004.
I seldom turn necks.
I don't weigh brass.
I don't weigh metered powder charges.
I seat 25-06, 6.5-06, 270, 280ai, 7mmRM, and 300WM all at 3.34" OAL.
I don't use a gimbal in the lathe, I just count on the 6 jaw's D1-4 mount being lose enough to steer with the spider with a minimum moment arm bending the barrel..

Interesting read. My 6.5 Creedmoor is a very accurate rifle with all the accuracy features, 30 degree shoulder, short powder column, straight side walls..............................but so is my 7x64 with tall powder column, sloping side walls and 20 degree shoulder angle. Hmmm.

That's because it's a 7mm.

I very much enjoyed reading this article. Thanks for the link.

Clark,

There's a difference between not knowing or understanding all the variables involved in a system, and trying to explain contradictions between empirical observations and our physical models of the universe by assuming that there must be some local hidden variables that we don't know about and that uniquely determine the state of a system (as in the case of using the deterministic Hidden Variable theory to try to refute the non-deterministic nature of quantum mechanics). In short, Hidden Variable theory is not applicable here. In metrology, the concepts of uncertainty and error are distinct and meaningful, but are constantly conflated in various disciplines. Uncertainty describes our confidence that our prediction/measurement matches reality (associated with precision/group size), and error refers to the difference between our prediction/measurement and reality (similar to the concept of accuracy). It is a common rule of thumb that if there are multiple sources of uncertainty, but one source is dominant over the others by a factor of ~3 or more, the other sources can essentially be neglected.

The example of rifle "accuracy" is such a case. If our certainty about where each bullet will go has a certain level of precision (which we usually refer to as group size), this is really the addition in quadrature of the many individual sources of uncertainty, from bedding, to barrel quality, to machine work, to bullet consistency, to case design, etc., etc. I think most guys here have correctly identified that in most situations the uncertainty in POI is much larger due to sources like bedding and ammo quality than from inherent case design, so in most cases the case design can be neglected. But when it comes to many BR shooters, where the uncertainty in shot placement due to bedding, ammo quality, barrel quality, etc., has been reduced to the point where those sources of uncertainty are comparable to the uncertainty due to inherent case design, then case design can make a difference and can't be neglected.

I do agree the shorter cases with steeper shoulders appear to be accurate. I own a 6.5x55 and everytime I shoot it I think "boy, the swedes got this right." It seems to defy logic since its neither short nor steep, but it's the least fussy cartridge I've ever loaded for.

dogcatcher,

Actually, the 6.5x55 has a relatively steep shoulder angle and body length, especially when compared to other cartridges of the day--and many later cartridges.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, considerable research indicates a shoulder angle of about (not necessarily exactly) 30 degrees results in the most consistent powder-burn. The 6.5x55's shoulder angle is a little more than 25 degrees.

Well yeah, in the sense that the phrase "hidden variable theory" is more specific than an unknown out of control variable(s).

I took honors physics from Brown before he wrote the book "Quantum Field Theory"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_S._Brown

And I can tell you he was rabidly anti gun.
They fixed his problem. Physics is now explained in terms of baseballs.

Thank you for the reply. You gave me reloading advice for this cartridge years ago and it is much appreciated.

Exactly. The point I was trying to make is that Hidden Variable theory is not about unknown variables in a system, but rather alternative explanations for quantum entanglement.

I had a supervisor when I was doing a thesis in theoretical quantum physics that liked to use the phrase “that’s a smoking gun”, referring to a piece of convincing evidence of some underlying process. I never asked how he actually felt about guns, but he sure didn’t mind talking about them!

I have noticed that Mule Deer is inherently accurate. What confuses me is I don't think he has 30* shoulders, uniform neck dimensions or perfect head symmetry. Maybe it's those load recopies his better half cooks up?

That, or the Varget he sprinkles on his corn flakes and the Bullseye that sweetens his coffee.

DigitalDan and gnoahhh,

Thanks--I think!

Perhaps the two biggest "accuracy factors" I've found when testing rifles are (1) making sure bullets are seated straight, and (2) using wind-flags AT the range.

"Discovered" both about the same time three decades ago. The guy who started me with wind flags was the late Mickey Coleman, a very good benchrest gunsmith, who at a get-together at a West Virginia hunting club where Melvin Forbes was a member, had me shoot one of his superbly accurate rifles (a 6mm PPC) at 100 yards, with several wind flags between the bench and target. This demonstrated exactly how much even tiny wind variations (even on just one flag) can matter when shooting a rifle capable of putting 5 shots into one hole.

This was also confirmed about the same time by reading by Dick Wright's articles in Precision Shooter magazine. Dick is also a noted benchrest gunsmith, shooter, loading-tool maker, and long-time experimenter. He joined the Campfire a few years ago, but quit logging on a couple years back. His articles on shooting in PS always included "TAKE THE DAMN WIND FLAGS."

In the 30 years since have seen ONE other shooter put out wind-flags on a local public range--another Campfire member who knows who he is.

Yep, wind flags....learned about that at a 200 yd BP match in Cody about 10 years back. Full value L-R 10G20. Those puffs will get ya dang near every time.

It was shared here once before; I enjoyed it too the first time it was posted here.

I spent two or three hours talking to Randy Robinett (when I was on the clock). His next foray at that time was 25 caliber bullets (on the PPC case of course).

Inherent accuracy, after a conversation with him, has more to do with the lack of many wanting to experiment in short range BR more than anything else. 25 years the 222, several for the 22PPC, the 6PPC since and the 6x47 and some BRs thrown in.

Ive mentioned these things before, but in theory the 300 Savage and the 30 TC should have the 308 whipped at every turn in whoever's ballistic lab, but they dont, not the least of which is that they dont recoil less than the 308 and actions and capacities are about identical.

Yep!

Which is exactly why, as Jim Carmichel pointed out years ago, the majority of half-inch rifles "if I do my part" are judged on a single 3-shot group.

I have worked with cartridges of similar size but different shapes and am sort of convinced that case shape doesn't mean a lot but some cartridges are certainly more consistently accurate than others.
One group of cartridges were all 30 calibers (sort of). The 308 Winchester, the 303 British, the 30/40 Krag and the 300 savage. All are about the same size. One has a real long neck (30/40) and one a real short neck (300 Savage). The Savage cases was smallest but the other three were very close. Close enough that the brand of the brass would change the ranking. All of them were built as accuracy rifles though the rimmed case rifles were a little less conventional. The 308 and the 300 Savage liked 4895 and 150 grain bullets with the 300 using a couple of grain s less. Both cartridges were used in a Remington 40xBR and used the same Hart Barrel. Both would shoot right at 1/4 moa and both produced the occasional group under .2. I was never able to manage a .250 aggregate with either one because of fatigue, I suspect. This was a 10 1/2 pound rifle and recoil was a factor.
The 30/40 was built on a Ruger 77 and the 303 on a considerably modified P14. I shot 168's in the 30/40 and 174's in the 303. Both rifles seemed to be capable of shooting right at the .300 moa level with the occasional group under 1/4. They also both liked 4895. That the rifles did not shoot quite as well as the 40X is less indicative of any shortcoming as far as cartridge design is concerned than it is indicative that the 40X is a better platform than the Ruger 77 or the P14. By the way, both the Ruger and Enfield used three-lever, 2 oz triggers; a Canjar on the Ruger and a homemade unit on the Enfield. The rimless cartridges seemed to be easier to work with and brass was a bit better.
The other cartridges were the 6x47 Remington and the 6PPC. The 6x47 was built on a 40XBR and I used it a lot, wearing out three barrels. It shot very well and I was able to agg under 1/4 moa whenever conditions and my brain would let me. I won a lot of stuff with that rifle but it was a little bit fussy. I built my first PPC in 1980 and while it didn't shoot an awful lot better, it was so easy to develop a load for, it was almost hard to decide on which components to use. In this particular example, I think there is no question the PPC is better than the 6x47. So is the 6 BR. Whether this is because the cases are short and fat, or because they have 30 degree shoulders, or because they can be loaded hotter without dropping the primer, I can't say but, there it is.
When I started shooting "F" class, I shot a 6.5x55 and had pretty good success with it. I built a few 260's and they worked fine too. Nonetheless, I think the Creedmoor might be better than either one. A lot of this may be due to closer dimensional consistency of reamers and brass.
In the end, I can say that most cartridges seem to work just fine and the rifle is more important than is the cartridge. GD

Always loved the 300 Savage. That case was ahead of it's time. The only thing that is questionable is that short neck.

I could not agree more with you, John.

I dicovered it myself the only time I have shot in a 100 meter indoor gallery where my usual five shot groups with that gun were consistently reduced a 40%.

Alvaro

Pardon Me --- Bears Repeating !



[quote=greydog]I have worked with cartridges of similar size but different shapes and am sort of convinced that case shape doesn't mean a lot but some cartridges are certainly more consistently accurate than others.
One group of cartridges were all 30 calibers (sort of). The 308 Winchester, the 303 British, the 30/40 Krag and the 300 savage. All are about the same size. One has a real long neck (30/40) and one a real short neck (300 Savage). The Savage cases was smallest but the other three were very close. Close enough that the brand of the brass would change the ranking. All of them were built as accuracy rifles though the rimmed case rifles were a little less conventional. The 308 and the 300 Savage liked 4895 and 150 grain bullets with the 300 using a couple of grain s less. Both cartridges were used in a Remington 40xBR and used the same Hart Barrel. Both would shoot right at 1/4 moa and both produced the occasional group under .2. I was never able to manage a .250 aggregate with either one because of fatigue, I suspect. This was a 10 1/2 pound rifle and recoil was a factor.
The 30/40 was built on a Ruger 77 and the 303 on a considerably modified P14. I shot 168's in the 30/40 and 174's in the 303. Both rifles seemed to be capable of shooting right at the .300 moa level with the occasional group under 1/4. They also both liked 4895. That the rifles did not shoot quite as well as the 40X is less indicative of any shortcoming as far as cartridge design is concerned than it is indicative that the 40X is a better platform than the Ruger 77 or the P14. By the way, both the Ruger and Enfield used three-lever, 2 oz triggers; a Canjar on the Ruger and a homemade unit on the Enfield. The rimless cartridges seemed to be easier to work with and brass was a bit better.
The other cartridges were the 6x47 Remington and the 6PPC. The 6x47 was built on a 40XBR and I used it a lot, wearing out three barrels. It shot very well and I was able to agg under 1/4 moa whenever conditions and my brain would let me. I won a lot of stuff with that rifle but it was a little bit fussy. I built my first PPC in 1980 and while it didn't shoot an awful lot better, it was so easy to develop a load for, it was almost hard to decide on which components to use. In this particular example, I think there is no question the PPC is better than the 6x47. So is the 6 BR. Whether this is because the cases are short and fat, or because they have 30 degree shoulders, or because they can be loaded hotter without dropping the primer, I can't say but, there it is.
When I started shooting "F" class, I shot a 6.5x55 and had pretty good success with it. I built a few 260's and they worked fine too. Nonetheless, I think the Creedmoor might be better than either one. A lot of this may be due to closer dimensional consistency of reamers and brass.
In the end, I can say that most cartridges seem to work just fine and the rifle is more important than is the cartridge.
GD

-------------------------------------------------------
THANK YOU !

Jerry

I always thought the 300 savage formed from 308 brass with the neck left long would be perfect. I guess that would be a 30 Creedmoor. I like longer necks and would like to have seen the 6.5 Creedmoor made with full length 308 brass so the neck would be longer. It gives greater latitude when seating bullets of different lengths. The 264 Win Mag would have been vastly better with a neck which was 1/8 inch longer. The 30/06 is perfect, shoulder angle notwithstanding. GD

I think that would have been counter productive to one design goal of the Creedmoor which was to allow for long ogive VLD style bullets to be seated so they fit in a 2.8" magazine without their ogives getting down into the case mouth.

After JB repeatedly over the years harped about wind flags, I am but a recent convert and proponent. Boy was he spot on the money. Small, variable wind issues show up big time when using them. It's really eye opening to say the least.

What are you using for wind flags?

The short answer is yes - there is a balance factor of how the shape, size, and materials perform together to result in less ES variation.

Wind flags are a real eye opener....

A simple 1/4" steel rod, 42" long.

Sharpen one end, drill a hole to accommodate a bent bycycle spoke with a 24" piece of 1/2" red yarn on it. Very, very good wind flag.

Put one up at 15 yards, and the other in front of the target.

You will wonder why it took you so long to learn to use this very simple and cheap tool. They you start looking at your groups, and realize how much you have shot trying to work up a load when it was the wind changing.

Each rifle range will usually have a predominate wind, which you will figure out.

This is no where near rocket science, and the flags will translate to better field shooting also.

I did not find surveyors tape tied on a stick to be very effective, but it is better than nothing at all. I piece of syrveyors tape on your target is practically nothing at all.

Dick Wright passed away a year or so ago.

Am very sorry to hear that. I suspected that might be what happened, but hadn't heard anything.

Thanks,
John

[quote=greydog]

I have worked with cartridges of similar size but different shapes and am sort of convinced that case shape doesn't mean a lot but some cartridges are certainly more consistently accurate than others.


One group of cartridges were all 30 calibers (sort of). The 308 Winchester, the 303 British, the 30/40 Krag and the 300 savage. All are about the same size. One has a real long neck (30/40) and one a real short neck (300 Savage). The Savage cases was smallest but the other three were very close. Close enough that the brand of the brass would change the ranking.

........ The 308 and the 300 Savage liked 4895 and 150 grain bullets with the 300 using a couple of grain s less.
Both cartridges were used in a Remington 40xBR and used the same Hart Barrel. Both would shoot right at 1/4 moa and both produced the occasional group under .2. I was never able to manage a .250 aggregate with either one because of fatigue, I suspect. This was a 10 1/2 pound rifle and recoil was a factor.


The 30/40 was built on a Ruger 77 and the 303 on a considerably modified P14. I shot 168's in the 30/40 and 174's in the 303. Both rifles seemed to be capable of shooting right at the .300 moa level with the occasional group under 1/4. They also both liked 4895.

That the rifles did not shoot quite as well as the 40X is less indicative of any shortcoming as far as cartridge design is concerned than

it is indicative that the 40X is a better platform than the Ruger 77 or the P14. By the way, both the Ruger and Enfield used three-lever, 2 oz triggers; a Canjar on the Ruger and a homemade unit on the Enfield. The rimless cartridges seemed to be easier to work with and brass was a bit better.

The other cartridges were the 6x47 Remington and the 6PPC. The 6x47 was built on a 40XBR and I used it a lot, wearing out three barrels. It shot very well and I was able to agg under 1/4 moa whenever conditions and my brain would let me. I won a lot of stuff with that rifle but it was a little bit fussy. I built my first PPC in 1980 and while it didn't shoot an awful lot better, it was so easy to develop a load for, it was almost hard to decide on which components to use.

In this particular example, I think there is no question the PPC is better than the 6x47. So is the 6 BR. Whether this is because the cases are short and fat, or because they have 30 degree shoulders, or because they can be loaded hotter without dropping the primer, I can't say but, there it is.



In the end, I can say that most cartridges seem to work just fine and the rifle is more important than is the cartridge. GD

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

A LOT of Nuggets.
Food For Thot

Thanks Again

Jerry

Of course the rifle is most important. Given what you've set in bold it seems that's the idea you're strongly attached to. However that's not really the point when it comes to the existence (or not) of cartridge derived inherent accuracy. The evidence for/against that idea must come out of situations where other variables are controlled, variables such as rifle quality and shooter ability. I've highlighted in red what I see as the relevant passage.

It will be two years in June. Dick went downhill rather quickly after he lost his beloved wife Glorya...

This is what I use I have 6 of them, they are green on one side and orange on the other, if you see a color change on one of your flags.......DON"T pull the trigger or you wont like your group!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
windflag

I always have a tail on them also that is not shown on the picture

M M , you said above ^^^

"Of course the rifle is most important. Given what you've set in bold it seems that's the idea you're strongly attached to. However that's not really the point when it comes to the existence (or not) of cartridge derived inherent accuracy. The evidence for/against that idea must come out of situations where other variables are controlled, variables such as rifle quality and shooter ability."

I am not really arguing that there are no inherently accurate cartridges.
I am approaching this from the hunting/practicality standpoint.

ATST those inherently accurate cartridges are so NOT by great margins but REAL esp. in comp. shooting.

For Hunters greydog said,

" The 308 and the 300 Savage liked 4895 and 150 grain bullets with the 300 using a couple of grain s less.
Both cartridges were used in a Remington 40xBR and used the same Hart Barrel. Both would shoot right at 1/4 moa and both produced the occasional group under .2. I was never able to manage a .250 aggregate with either one because of fatigue, I suspect. This was a 10 1/2 pound rifle and recoil was a factor."

That's a pretty small diff.

also, "That the rifles did not shoot quite as well as the 40X is less indicative of any shortcoming as far as cartridge design is concerned than it is indicative that the 40X is a better platform than the Ruger 77 or the P14"

EDIT to ADD > "In this particular example, I think there is no question the PPC is better than the 6x47. So is the 6 BR"

"In the end, I can say that most cartridges seem to work just fine and the rifle is more important than is the cartridge."

I am agreeing about the 'platform' for hunting / hunters. I want to point out I'm talking HANDLOADING those cartridges
and not relying on factory ammo ONLY.

We are not that far apart on this subject.

Jerry

Didn't know the wind blew in Lubbock!

As a student of QuickLoad, I have run a lot of models that are proven at the range.

There are some cartridges that work well with varying barrel lengths, powders, bullet design and weights.

These are usually mid sized cases for the bore diameter, 300 Win Mag being an exception.

What I'm looking for is peak chamber pressure coincides with the powder going from progressive to digressive burn, 95%+ case fill, on a barrel time for barrel length and a low muzzle pressure, with many different combinations of powder , bullet etc. 308 Win, mid sized 6.5mm cases, 6 BR based cases are some.

No, the long bullet could still be seated the same and short bullets could be seated out near the lands (which is probably not that important either). Like I said, I just like longer necks. GD

You said 308 length brass, so that's the same as the 260 which had the ogive in the neck problem. Pushing the shoulder back to lengthen the neck doesn't fix the problem of the case mouth being too far forward on the bullet.

Butch, many years ago I , while in the Air Force, I traveled a lot from Base to Base in West Texas. I always marveled when passing thru West Texas that in Lubbock the ditches were always filled with sand, just like a snow drift. Of course I was stationed in Roswell & we had plenty of dust storms there, as well. I miss the SW, but not the dust storms.

I thought the problem was one of having the bullet below the juncture of neck and shoulder and not one of wanting to have the shank of the bullet 1/10 in ch ahead of the case mouth. In the end, I don't really care; I just like longer necks! GD

It was the mouth end, but I certainly agree having the bullet heel above the shoulder/neck junction is nice too. I had a heck of a time with a batch of WW 7mm08 brass that made more donuts than Dunkin.

Cottonwood fuzz. At a local range the cottonwood trees were spawning and the air was filled with their fuzzy cotton.
It was on of those rare days that you could not feel a breeze. But when looking down range there was fuzz floating left, there was fuzz floating right, there was fuzz rising and there was fuzz sinking. All this in 100 yards and yet you could not perceive it.

I've had two rifles that shot WAY better than anything else I"ve ever owned or shot, a 6mmBR and a ,221 Fireball. Both cases are short, and have relatively long necks. I still have the Fireball, it will be buried with me, I suspect. I really like both cartridges, but I've had excellent killing success with both the .25/06 and .270 Winchester, too, long cases with moderately long necks. This tells me that the main factor in my shooting is me, no real surprise.

Just giving the young man a hard time. I have a son,and daughter in law, nieces, and nephews that went to Tech. Dad was a Reese AFB and Sheppard, and Dyess in that area. I've shot BR in Lubbock and Midland. and you better damn well have good windflags.
Never was in Roswell. A military dependents life is a very great and valuable experience.

this has been great, and every time i hear a conversation like this i marvel at all the variables at every part of the process. in many of the things we do for fun there is equipment and there is skill. the biggest variable is the operator.

i'm mostly your basic hunter. for most of my uses, minute differences in accuracy don't matter. still, at the range i try to develop good loads.

the problem i have in trying to do what you do so well is that i lack patience. it's just the way i am and i've learned that no amount of gunsmithing or rifle and cartridge design can overcome it.

i love reading this stuff and i salute you who can make those tiny groups!

The newest 1000 yard ten shot group is just over 2.6 inches for ten shots all x’s. 300 women. Short and fat round. Maybe something to that theory? The guy is 83 years old.

From reports, he did a great job of tuning his rifles as well. He said the rifle shoots 5 shots into high .1's and low .2's at 100 yds. I have a 17 pound 308 which will do that but to have a magnum, shooting 220's, do that well is really something. excellent performance for sure. GD

Look online for an article written by Mule Deer entitled "The 308 is Great". He addresses the concept of inherent accuracy.

And if the cartridge in question happens to be in .224, 6mm, 6.5mm, 7mm, .30, or .338 caliber, which have a wider selection of bullets and precision "match" bullets available.