Sorry for another post on the 6.5 CM but here it is anyway.

Is the 6.5CM considered an inherently accurate cartridge like the .308? Lots of people talk about how accurate their Creedmoors are but is it because of the cartridge design itself, or because of new reamers, new barrels and new tooling? I recently rebarreled a rifle to 7x64 using a brand new reamer in a high quality barrel with a very competent gunsmith. The 7x64 is long and skinny with a fair bit more taper than a .280 which is apparent when viewed side by side. It doesn't fit the norm of inherently accurate cases with short powder columns like the 6mm PPC, Remington's 6mm BR and .308, yet it shoots groups down to 0.35 inch at 100m (3 shots).

So how much of the Creedmoor's accuracy is from the cartridge design itself, rather than from new tooling, barrels and reamers etc.

I hope that makes sense.

It’s the name that makes it accurate.

I have always been under the impression that you can make any cartridge "inherently accurate," all things being equal. Take a 30-30 Winchester for example, design a rifle around it that's built for accuracy, with the right action, stock, and barrel with the correct rate of twist. Load it with a good bullet, and it will more than likely shoot itty bitty groups.

Time for JB to cut and paste the answer he's given other places ad nauseum. Short answer: Yes.

Consider this "all things being equal" scenario: short range benchrest competition. The 222 was king for a while, but the PPC cartridges came in and that was that. The 222 rifles were being built with all the best methods and materials available, but the "inherent accuracy" mojo of the 222 wasn't as strong as that of the PPC.

Caveat: I'm not saying the average shooter/handloader can reliably prove the difference.

I highlighted the biggest part of accuracy/precision. Now get those same ducks in a row but change it to 6mm PPC and see what happens.

It's F'ing Magic.

What I consider to be "accurate," you or someone else might not. I am not a competitive shooter, I just hunt, and the ranges at which I get to shoot probably would top out at the 400-500 yard distance. So, a few hundredth's of measurement in a group that my rifle shoots is not going to mean much. But, it most certainly would if I was shooting in a match.

The 308 has been one of those cartridges labeled as "inherently accurate," yet I've seen some rifles chambered for it that were not. I've also seen some that were, so my thoughts have always been that good accuracy, for me, starts with the rifle, then the ammo, and not the cartridge.

I have a 6.5CM in a cheap Howa rifle, and it is among my most consistently accurate rifles. I don't know if it's the rifle or the cartridge, and to be honest, in my case it doesn't matter. As far as the 6.5 goes, there is a lot of very good components to choose from when working up a load. That helps a bunch.

PFM!

I don't see that as a counterexample to the notion of inherent accuracy. Any cartridge can be built into an inaccurate rifle for a variety of reasons. I agree the rifle and ammo must be good for the finest accuracy in any given situation. Given equally good conditions however, history indicates to me that some cartridges have more mojo than others. PPC vs 222 for example.

Here's an essay I wrote about a decade ago. Obviously, if written today it would include more stuff about new 6.5 cartridges:

FACTORS IN CARTRIDGE ACCURACY

Theories about what makes a centerfire rifle cartridge accurate have changed since 1890. The first smokeless rounds often followed the shape of bottle-necked black powder cartridges, with long, sloping shoulders and tapered bodies. A theory developed among some shooters that a longer, more sloping shoulder promoted better accuracy. The wildcat version of the .257 Roberts, known as the .25 Roberts, was developed on the 7x57 Mauser case in the 1920’s by well-known “gun crank” and writer Ned Roberts. He evidently tried several variations on the before settling on a more sloping shoulder, claiming it resulted in better accuracy. Perhaps it did, at least with the powders of the day, but by the mid-1930’s Remington changed the shoulder angle to the original found on the 7x57.
That still didn’t destroy the notion that a long, sloping shoulder was more accurate, however. Partly the notion hung on because in the late 1930’s Ben Comfort won the Wimbledon Cup, the trophy for “any rifle” 1000-yard target shooting at Camp Perry, with a rifle chambered for the .300 H&H. Before then Wimbledon winners shot .30-06 rifles, but afterward many shooters switched to the .300 H&H. This “follow the leader” syndrome continues today, and not just in shooting.
After World War Two the sport of benchrest shooting became popular. Instead of shooting for score, benchrest shooting was concerned with “pure” accuracy, and most organized shoots were decided by the smallest group. The sport got big boosts because two competitors were Mike Walker, a Remington engineer, and Warren Page, the shooting columnist for Field & Stream magazine—also a friend of Walker’s, and a not-so-subtle booster of Remington rifles.
The first benchrest rifles were often made on military surplus 1898 Mauser and 1903 Springfield actions, chambered for rounds such as the .219 Zipper Improved and the .22-250, then a wildcat cartridge. Soon, however, the more technically-minded bench shooters (and there were many, since the sport attracted gunsmiths) realized the limitations of old military actions, especially slow lock-times and lack of stiffness. They also soon decided that the bigger .22 centerfires kicked too much for sustained accuracy, and started producing smaller wildcat cartridges.
Mike Walker had an advantage on these gunsmiths, namely the Remington company. He was part of the design team that produced the 721/722 Remington shortly after the war, the rifle that became the Remington Model 700 in 1962. The 721 and 722 were long and short versions of the same action. They were largely designed for easy, cheaper production, and the action body itself was essentially a steel tube with various machining cuts. This was a cheaper way to make a rifle, but it also proved to be much stiffer than most previous bolt actions, and the rifles also had very quick lock-times.
In 1950 a new cartridge appeared in the 722, a small .22 centerfire called the .222 Remington, designed by Mike Walker. The .222 became wildly popular among varmint hunters, but also became the first truly dominant cartridge in benchrest shooting. By the 1960’s almost every match was won by the .222, and almost every shooter shot one, or some wildcat variation on the case.
Warren Page continued promoting benchrest shooting, plus fine accuracy in hunting cartridges. In 1967 he published an article in Gun Digest named “The Smaller The Case” that included statistics from Remington’s indoor test-firing of their 40-x rifles in various chamberings. The smallest average groups were made by rifles chambered in .222, and average group size grew as the cartridge and bore grew bigger. To many shooters, this was documented proof that smaller rounds--both in bore diameter and powder capacity--were more inherently accurate.
The .222 dominated benchrest matches until the 1970’s, when the PPC cartridges came along. Developed by Dr. Lou Palmisano and Ferris Pindell, the .22 PPC case was shorter and fatter than the .222 case. In theory the shorter case body promoted more consistent ignition of the powder by the flame of the primer, yet still allowed small rifle primers to be used, which didn’t go bang with the accuracy-upsetting violence of large rifle primers.
The new case also featured a 30-degree shoulder, steeper than the 23-degree shoulder on the .222 case. The new theory was that steep shoulders promoted more consistent powder burning, and hence accuracy. Apparently they did, because the .22 PPC and, eventually, the 6mm PPC dominated the sport of benchrest shooting, and the “short-fat” theory of cartridge accuracy took over not just benchrest but all other forms of target shooting.
It also took a big bite of the hunting market, especially after the .300 Winchester Short Magnum appeared in 2000. Here, however, the short-fat theory encountered two problems. First was recoil. This had already been encountered by every generation of shooters, but each new generation of shooters (by definition younger) at first tends to ignore recoil, because bullets from bigger cartridges drift less in the wind and also kill better, whether when shooting varmints or big game. Benchrest shooters had even flirted with the bigger cartridge theory in the 1960’s, when some turned to the .308 Winchester, hoping to diminish the influence of wind bullets. It worked—except for the fact that the .308 eventually also kicked competitors into flinching.
There’s no doubt that the .300 WSM, and other short-fat rounds, are inherently more accurate than older, longer rounds of the same bore diameter. Bob Nosler, for instance, informed me a couple of years ago that while the Nosler company used to use the .308 Winchester for accuracy-testing lighter .30 caliber bullets, and the .300 Winchester Magnum for heavier .30’s, now they use the .300 WSM for all .30 caliber testing. Plus, cartridges such as the 6.5/.284 and, lately, the 7mm Remington Short Action Ultra Magnum, are being favored by some longer-range target shooters. But some long-range target shooters also favor even smaller 6mm and 6.5mm rounds, and many hunters have discovered that the .300 WSM, contrary to early propaganda, still kicks like a .300 magnum.
The other factor is, well, factory barrels. While the short-fat cartridges do have a definite accuracy edge in custom barrels and gunsmith-built rifles, in the average factory rifle this advantage is hard to find, especially by the average shooter. This is one reason the Winchester Super Short Magnums (WSSM’s) fell on their collectives faces. In factory rifles their finer accuracy was pretty much invisible. Since they didn’t provide any velocity advantage over already established .22, 6mm and .25 caliber rounds, most hunters just shrugged.
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.
Target shooters also shoot a heck of a lot more than most hunters, and understand the subtleties of scopes, wind and handloading. 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.

Thanks John.

BINGO ! ! !

Have shot 3 rifles so chambered only one liked the lighter bullet factory loadings.

Most did best with the 140 grain eld bullet.

The M1A that my brother in law has shoots lights out with them and has shown some promise with the 129 Nosler.

They will require some more effort to really get the last drop out of them.

I actually am real curious to try the 6.5 in an AR10. I've got two of them in .308, and neither can keep 5 shots in less than an inch. I suspect the reduced recoil may give the new round an advantage.

OK no experience at all with the Creed Mo so that qualifies me as an expert. The 30 degree shoulder has proven to be the basis of some very accurate cartridges like the PPCs and BRs. Word has it that velocity, pressure, extreme spread and standard deviation are all more uniform for this type case. Also a medium to moderate sized case seems to be more uniform and flexible. But given all this the case configuration is about fourth or filth down the line on accuracy. Shooter, barrel, trigger, bullets, powder, and then maybe case design. The 300 H&H can provide splendid accuracy and won the earliest 1000 yard bench rest competitions with ease and aplomb. If you pitted a short fat 30 with the H&H I think the better shooter would always prevail in-spite of the theoretical advantages to the contrary.

I'll repeat it for you:

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

instead of inherently accurate one might say - harder to screw up, or easier “not to screw up”.

Personally I get a kick out of the fact that on one talks about the change is rifle chambering an barrel machinery, and accuracy of how chambering is done, not to mention reloading.

No shit?

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

How do you address the historical record with respect to short range benchrest competition? Why is the 222 no longer competitive with a bunch of the best shots using a bunch of the best rifles?

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'm glad I had already swallowed my sip of coffee before I read that.

This is simply outstanding stuff. I particularly like the shrimp/Mobil 1 analogy.

Great post.

I seldom find anything with which I can argue in any of MD's posts and this one is no exception. I'm not convinced a 6.5 Jap, if chambered in the same rifles and to the same degree of precision, wouldn't shoot just as well but, like I said, it's hard to argue with real results. GD

I have spent lots of dollars building 270’s and 280’s over the last 35 years. I bought the best barrels, reamers, actions, and stocks. Then had them assembled by the very best makers I could find. I have never had one that performs as well as MD’s 6.5 CM Ruger American.

Think I will go cry like a man, meaning will have a gin martini or two and some coconut shrimp.

If they dump any more oil in the Gulf we may need to learn to like the Shrimp ala Mobil One.

It would be interesting to see a test of various cartridges maybe shot from the same universal receiver to see if their was a discernible difference. Not only is the Creedmoor a good design but many of the factory loads are loaded to benchrest standards this has to help too.

Tubb's 6XC is along the same lines but with an eye on extending barrel life with a longer neck and slightly less powder capacity., and a better fit in a short action (AR) as MD said. He would burn up 243 barrels before the competition season was over previously.

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.

My guess is whichever one Tubb happens to be shooting would win. I hunt whitetails right next to Tubb's place in the TX Panhandle and have had the luxury of visiting with him several times. He's the freaking man.

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

To me they were always a high tech item, never marketed like the CM line.

So the answer could be one word: Hornady.

DF

Properly twisted factory rifles(from $350 ruger Americans to higher end Barrett seekins etc)and good quality/selection of factory ammo

Yes Hornady

In addition to other factors, the PPC was also too slow to be popular with hunters and the average dude. The Creedmoor with 140’s hits the speeds that people are used to getting with their .30-06’s and 180’s, which is an easier jump to make.

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

Any rifle can be made accurate, especially if you like dumping ridiculous amounts of money on gun smiths. The Creed can be had in inexpensive, factory rifles and they shoot nearly as good as any custom rifle. THAT is why it qualifies as "inherently accurate".

OK, but that still does not mean they don't exist because Average Joe can't resolve them.

John,
222 Remington...I think the 222 Rem is an inherently accurate cartridge that one could argue is like the 6.5 Creedmoor for ease of making it shoot .05” 😎

My 6.5 CM shoots more diverse loads more accurately across the board than any round I have. And I have some good ones.

It’s an older M-700 with a SS Shilen, bedded by me in a McWoody Mtn Rifle stock.

DF

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

John,

You know me and know I have more than just high regard for your work.

I don't have it in front of me, but IIRC Reiber "created" the 6-204 Ruger for one of the Hodgdon manuals. Maybe I don't RC. It featured IMRXBR8208 (not the original "Thunderbird").

I totally "get" the comparison of a one time 270 group and the McMillan group, but 222's were hovering around a long time after that group to call it an aberration.

If David Tubb shot an '03 Springfield chambered for the 6 Lee Navy:
a. It would probably still win
b. Everyone would try to duplicate it.

Dillonbuck,

All excellent points.

The 6mm PPC is a cartridge specifically designed to punch tiny groups in paper at 100-200 yards. It was NOT intended as a prairie dog or coyote round, or a longer-range target or big game round.

I have also pointed out before that the 6.5 Creedmoor case is by no means unique. It's so close to the 6.5x47 Lapua to be almost the same thing.

But instead of being ONLY available in relatively expensive Lapua brass and ammo, in relatively expensive rifles, good brass and ammo are available at average "affordable" prices, and in very accurate, very "affordable" rifles.

We've been through all this stuff on various threads before, yet some keep wanting to argue about all of it--often by arguing that it's all been done before. Well, it has--but not in exactly the same way, though the same factors are always important.

Accurate, affordable ammo, brass and rifles were what allowed the .222 Remington to dominate the benchrest and varmint markets in the 1950's and 60's. It shouldn't be astonishing that the same factors made the 6.5 Creedmoor a success over the past 11 years.

I do have a pretty good collection of older shooting magazines and books, and much the same arguments were made against the 722 Remington back in the 1950's as have been recently made against the Ruger American Rifle and other VERY accurate, yet "affordable," rifles from various manufacturers.

But I haven't found the same sort of venom directed toward the .222 that's been directed toward the 6.5 Creedmoor. That might be due to the relative lack of new ALL factory rounds and rifles back then, due to the Depression and World War II. The .222 and Remington 722 must have seemed to be an astonishing leap, partly because both benchrest and varmint shooting were becoming more popular. Both the rifle and cartridge fit right into the market trends of the 50's.

Well, the 6.5 Creedmoor (and various other rounds) and several "affordable" but accurate rifles have fit right into the market trends since 2000, whether longer-range target shooting and hunting, or smaller-caliber, lighter-recoil cartridges for hunters, thanks to better bullets. This shouldn't seem astonishing to anybody aware of those market trends, though apparently it is.

Many of the same people believe long-range target cartridges stopped evolving with the .300 H&H in the 1930's, or benchrest cartridges and rifles in the 1950's, or hunting cartridges with the .257 Roberts or 7mm Remington Magnum.

Many of those shooters are somehow angry that changes occur--just like some have been angry anytime inevitable changes happen over the generations. This is somewhat astonishing to me, since I own and shoot centerfire rifles made from the 1880's to 2018, and enjoy them all for what they are. I also write about all of them, and often do, a good example being an 1886 Winchester chambered in .33 WCF. Winchester did NOT give it to me, since the rifle was made 97 years ago. Instead I bought it with my own money, at a local store. And I've also purchased every one of the three 6.5 Creedmoor's I've owned with my own money, one at the same store, and the other two off the Campfire Classifieds.

If many of you prefer to believe everything gun writers publish is only due to advertiser pressure, feel free. It usually goes along with the firm belief that ALL gun writers believe (and hence write) exactly the same things, whether or not the gun-writer critic has actually read their published writings or not.

Just a friendly pointer John, the 6 Dasher that Jim used has a 40 degree shoulder, not a 30 like its parent case the 6 BR. Also, Jim has switched to the 6 BRA, as is popular with the 1k BR guys this year. I have been shooting Dasher’s in competition myself, but have considered the BRA for what Jim and others claim it has to offer.

Carl,

Yeah, you're right about the shoulder angle. But it sure isn't UNDER 30 degrees!

Didn't know Jim had switched. I see him about 1-2 times a year and we don't always talk guns! In fact the last time was a couple months ago and the only "gun stuff" was a new set of shooting glasses one of our mutual friends (the host of the party) has recently purchased.

I only know from seeing him at the Indian Creek range when he is an RSO for the monthly steel matches, he’s fun to chat with. I have made a handful the last few years, particularly in the winter months. No shortage of Creedmoor or 6.5x47 based chamberings represented there!

Almost all. You're beginning to get it. I'll give you some more help.

A cartridge is not accurate. No cartridge is. They wait patiently to be loaded into a firearm. In order for a tiny group to form, a number of elements come into play. I call it the "shooter's triangle".

There are three sides. The firearm. The cartridge. The shooter. The cartridge is incapable of being accurate because it takes a rifle and shooter to form groups. Like the fire triangle, all three sides must work together to produce flames, or in this case, tight groups.

Accuracy results from a number of event and material interactions. There is no such thing as an inherently accurate cartridge.

Some have the capacity to be shot more accurately than others; inherently so. After they're assembled and loaded into a rifle, of course. That's a given.

I don't believe you're beginning to get it yet.

To the above add the chamber design interfaces with the cartridge to assure good head space control,
Length and shape of the throat... keeping everything nice and straight, consistent.
Basically, with good manufacturers practices, something like the Creedmore, or even the "ancient" 308!
is able to get close to fireformed, hand loaded fit. With factory ammo. Rifle specific handloads may do better, maybe not.

I'm also frustrated when people keep bringing up "the shooter must be skilled" and "the rifle must be good."

Well, duh.

It seems like the example I cited earlier would take care of those considerations. The firing line at a registered benchrest match ought to be a good place to find skilled group shooters. Somehow I can believe there are a lot of good rifles there too. Furthermore, I believe there are enough of these matches on record for the results to be statistically significant.

Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread. But do you mean to tell me you don't see many .264 Win Mags at benchrest competitions?

I wonder why that is? Shooters must not have figured out the .264 yet.

Wrong twist rate would be my guess...

Points well taken.

Seems there are rounds that are apparently easier to produce tack driving loads than others. That's what I mean when I say "inherently accurate".

DF

But like any equation, you can fix some variable(s) to determine the relative impact of one. In this case you can fix the shooter and firearm and then get a sense for the cartridge.

It's physics and chemistry and computers and talent and luck, all coming together.

WRT ammunition, a better designed and made container is created that is filled with a superior chemical compound; topped with a well made, concentric bullet; fired from a well built mechanism, and operated by a skilled person. It is capable of producing small groups.

One mustn't dwell on the cartridge.

Everything advances. Today's off the shelf Walmart rifles, with the plastic stocks, are mechanically superior to most of the rifles made 20+ years ago.

Today's chemists and engineers are designing better missiles, propellants, cases and launch mechanisms. That's due, in part, to a better understanding of what is required. Computers are a huge part of this.

Many of those funny, plastic stocks are bedded.

The triggers have a lower pull weight, but more importantly, they break more crisply.

The chemistry of propellants/primers has improved. And there are fewer gaps in the burn rate of the compounds - both for canister and non-canister grade propellants.

Scopes have improved.

Barrels are straighter, with good twist rates.

Over all, firearm parts and accessories are built better and with tighter tolerances. Thanks to computer design and computer controlled metal cutting and shaping machinery.

The daze of man, lathe and bar stock wrestling are pretty much gone.

We should all be happy that things continue to improve. All these advances make what people believe is an inherently accurate cartridge. Ave!

And the fact remains that some cartridges are more accurate than others..

One more time: The playing field in competitive BR was level for the 222 and the PPC cartridges. The PPC won out.

Keep your discussion moving, gentlemen. From where I stand you should chase its tail past me a few more times before this has run its course.

Yes, I understood what you meant. You're right, it is easier to make cartridges more accurate. Chemical compositions and polymers, computers and vastly improved manufacturing techniques have really made this easier to achieve.

Over the years, experimenters and designers have learned a few things about cartridge design, propellants, primers and cases. They work everyday to make more accurate products. In the short time from the appearance of the BP cartridge to the standard use of smokeless propellants, they learned that what worked for BP wasn't optimum for smokeless. They learned not to use long necks with droopy shoulders. Because of the higher pressure generated by smokeless, they learned that brass had to be thicker. The bases had to be thickened and standardized. They abandoned the (mostly) BP case designs from the 1800s because smokeless had arrived and there were better ways of doing things. A case is a combustion chamber, so they improved the combustion chambers. And darn it, as much as I hate to say this, rimless cartridges fed from magazines chambered easier and with fewer misfeeds. Headspace measured from the bolt face to the shoulder seems to work better than trusting on a case rim.

But they also learned that tighter groups came from improvements to the rifle and its parts. As a result, we saw better barrels, stock bedding and ergonomics, better bullets, better triggers and rifle scopes. Oh sure, iron sights are still used, but the heavy lifting for the military and police is done by specialty scopes.

Experimenters and designers learned what had to be done to the cartridge, rifle and shooter to improve performance. This collection of improvements are what people mistakenly label as "inherently accurate". They are comparing old technology to the latest, cutting edge developments.

How many Camp Perry's has Tubb won with a 7mm Rem mag? I mean, if all of these new rifles have such straight barrels, great pownder abound, badass bullets, these wonder polymers.....I mean all he has to do is close his eyes, ;pick one, and go win, right?

I would imagine he (Tubb) has forgotten more than Redgwell will ever pretend to know.

No need to get snarky.

Tubb doesn't shoot the same rifles that you and I do. His game is more highly developed. He is an excellent shot. Comparing his equipment and talents to ours is apples and oranges.

I say your FOS.

“I have shot many calibers over the years . . . only the .308 Winchester is as easy to load for as the 6XC. When I started playing with the 115gr DTACs at 1000 yards I could immediately tell that when one gets the unexplained shot (that occasionally happens) the 6XC is much more forgiving in the result — which means instead of wide 10 or even a 9-ring shot, the 6XC’s bad shot is a mid-ring 10.” — David Tubb

You're entitled to your opinion.

He didn't find these cartridges lying on the ground. He created the 6XC. His knowledge and understanding of shooting gave it life. He knows what a cartridge needs to be competitive. He made his magic.

No schittt? In reading your babel I thought all you had to do was pick a cartridge, any cartridge, and you'd have as accurate a setup as anyone shooting anything, given your parameters of all of the straighter barrels, better polymers and bullets, better powders,etc. You said that's all there is to it. Why did he create this specific cartridge if everything is so wonderful as you stated?

He improved what was available. Experimenters and designers do that.

Steve,

So you're admitting Tubb "improved what was available"?

Am now wondering exactly what you're saying--and also how many different rifles (whether factory or custom) in various chamberings you shoot each year in order to come to your conclusion the cartridge doesn't matter.

Yes, he improved what was available.

I never said that the cartridge didn't matter. I said that it's not only the cartridge. The cartridge, firearm and shooter work together. Over the years, improvements have been made to all. This collection of improvements moves accuracy forward.

"Experimenters and designers learned what had to be done to the cartridge, rifle and shooter to improve performance."

No, you said there was no such thing as inherently accurate cartridges, citing all of these improvements . Fact is, Tubb chooses his for a reason, and designed it much as MD outlined.

Like I said, you're FOS.

No, the cartridges that many of you believe are inherently accurate were, in fact, the hard work of many people coming together.

Fact is, Tubb, a designer and experimenter, had some ideas to alter a cartridge which improved it. A man's idea and experimentation improved it. I have no doubt that down the road, another design or alteration to an existing design will do even better.

I accept your apology.

Don't be too sure of that, you snarky SOB. Key word, "pretend."

Or you could have used "pontificate."

I can cut to the chase and paraphrase: "I like to hear myself talk."

I think of it a four sided adding conditions, e. g. standing v. machine rest, driving rain v. calm and sunny, etc.

Fair enough.

I'll stick with pretend, you know, thinking you know more than you know is pretending to know it, while those that do know it know when someone is FOS and likes to hear himself talk.

Well, I believe I owe Mr. Redgwell an apology. Here I was thinking he was talking about everything but the subject of the OP, and after reading it I see that he was actually answering the question.

Yes, some cartridges are more accurate than others, but that wasn't the question.

Carry on.

So, one more time for all the world to see........

Neither the 6.5 Creed, nor Tubb's 6XC is inherently accurate, right?

He said there's no such thing as an inherently accurate cartridge. I said he's FOS. Who's right?

Thank you. I was trying to answer it, but like many threads, they often spin off in another direction.

Tubb is building rifles and long range packages under his own design; he wins because he'd win with about anything.

Too bad Lapua isnt making 6XC brass. It has a reputation of precision and durability (maybe even more inherently accurate) than Norma.
And yet Tubb manages to keep winning.

Tubb uses his stuff because he makes money off of it. No one else is going to promote it better. (Tubb 2000/6 PPC)?

Im sure he'd still be winning if he kept shooting a 243...which is pretty hard on barrels.

So why do you think he chooses to use the things he uses?

I think thats pretty self explanitory; I even explained it.
Are you telling me if he ran a 6 Dasher, 6BR or God forbid the 6x47 Lapua, that without the inherent accuracy of the 6XC, he would get his ass kicked?

I"m saying he uses what he uses because of it's proven accuracy and he kicks everyone's ass with it. He likes that. He doesn't use 7mags.

Again, would he get his assed kicked if he shot a 6 BR, Dasher or 6x47 Lapua, without the inherent accuracy of the 6XC?

Who knows?

I think we need an arm-wrassling wrassle-off. You're both right.

Edited to add: It's obvious to me that some cartridges inherently have the capacity to be shot more accurately than others.

Is the Creedmoor one of those? Beats me. I never thought inherent accuracy was the draw with the cartridge.

Ok just to pee on the parade. Is the 6.5x47 Lapua inherently mo accurate than the Creedmoor? If you pursues some target match results you might think this could be valid. But also there is a lot of follow the leader sort of copy catting in the bench rest arena.

Copy cat?

Of course. Competitors follow winning combos, follow the leader, follow leading trends in technology.

Look at the PPC phenomenon, before that, Mike Walker's .222 with the BR crowd.

Same thing now, just different rounds, different powders, different bullets, different applications including LR, etc.

This new technology is really great, better now than during the half century I've been reloading and shooting.

Some loony type hunters follow these trends. Old timers probably sticking more with what has worked for decades, less enthralled with newfangled fads, like smokeless powder...

DF

Just looked at the Pennsylvania light gun top ten roster. Several 6.5x47s, Dashers and 6XCs but nary a Creedmoor. Heavy gun fewer 6mms but still no Creedmoors. I was a little surprised there was not a one. I am sure either the 6 or 6.5 CM could be competitive but who knows why no one uses it. Bet some of the High Power and other AR platform events would show more Creedmoors.

Apparently, the cartridge does matter...

It do, it do. But not as much as us gun geeks think or perhaps I am wrong on this too.

I was in the Bergara custom shop in Georgia last year, doing a tour along with some other "industry" folks. Someone asked the primary gunsmith what factory ammunition they use to meet their accuracy standard and he gave a few examples for different cartridges. When asked about the 6.5 Creedmoor his answer was "they shoot anything".

I probably tested 10 rifles from various manufacturers last year chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor, I can't recall one of them not shooting really well. Yes, the factory ammo is very good thanks to great brass, bullets and generally low bullet run-out but there's also an inherent advantage to the cartridge design itself.

When/if I go to a 6.5 and its not x284 it will be 6.5x 47 Lapua....but YMMV.

A slightly funny note... David had the 6xc and the new bolt gun, tube 2000 IIRC, and he and I both had totally new rifles to us, going to the state matches in TX that year. Fairly sure David won the match, I never could shoot offhand well enough to have a fighting chance and could often drop a point or so at the rapids to boot.

but that day with a gun I'd never shot at 600, I managed to shoot the first 200 on the range up at Waco TX, and David dropped 4 points IIRC. His 6xc having been beaten by a 223 service rifle.

He was really cool about it too. And its the last time ( and was the first) I've ever been able to beat David in a match. LOL.

I read all about his non trust of 7 mags at long range and still had to built one... IIRC it was something about speed, if not over 280 type speed ok, but if 7 mag type or more... watch out..

The 7mag off the 300 wtby I had built, I'm still blaming the Douglas tube on, but its so far away from being accurate enough to shoot long deer with its not funny. Its barely trustable for 200 yard head shots.

And like others have said, most days David could beat me and everyone else with a 30-30. LOL

Jack O'Connor considered the 270 to be slightly more accurate on average than the 30-06.

Mainly because of the quality of rifles.

In that case, comparing those two rounds, probably true.

DF

rost495, I love the 7mm Rem Mags too. IIRC Tubb had something to say about pressure spike probability/possibility with that cartridge.

I shot a group - cloverleaf at 50 yds, under .2" - with a 30/30 TC Contender, 10" factory barrel, using Factory 150 Corelokts, and a 2x EER.

I guess I must agree.....well in my case it was a handgun

The Swede has a taper, and very accurate....... you can find this on google...

"This can be seen in the fact the 1999 British Long-Range Benchrest Championship was won by a Tikka Continental in 6.5x55. Group size was an almost unbelievable 10 rounds into 4.4 inches at 1,000 yards"

Many variables play into accuracy, but trends show, and the Creed tends to produce great accuracy....perhaps now with Lapua brass, the difference between it and the 47 is nil.......but I'd place my bet on a 47 if shooting for all out accuracy/precision in competition.

[/quote]



"This can be seen in the fact the 1999 British Long-Range Benchrest Championship was won by a Tikka Continental in 6.5x55. Group size was an almost unbelievable 10 rounds into 4.4 inches at 1,000 yards"


[/quote]

If he had only used the Creemoor he might have shot a 4.3" group.

There is more metal, on average, with a 270. (smaller hole)

Maybe it would be useful to kick around a few cartridges considered to be inherently INaccurate, if such exist (and where it can't be blamed on the firearm itself).

Yeah, I read about pressure spikes in the 7RM. From what I understand, the test barrels may have had rough throats.

My 7RM has a new Brux, no erosion. I don't mind running it at full throttle.

I think they said similar about the .243. The 6mm Rem runs faster and at 65K...

DF

More than one of the pressure labs I deal with has noted larger pressure variations in the .243 Winchester and 7mm Remington Magnum than most cartridges--not just "spikes" but lower variations as well. In the .243 its apparently most common with heavier bullets; dunno about the 7mm RM.

Have also read and been told that's why the SAAMI maximum average pressure level (MAP) of both cartridges was reduced after after electronic pressure-testing equipment became common, because it could detect those pressure variations, which weren't apparent with copper-crusher equipment.

No doubt somebody will soon post that they've never "seen" this when handloading for either cartridge.

RE: Pressure spikes - 7RM & 243 I think it could have been due to non canister grade 7828 when it was used in factory loads before it came on the market. MD wrote that it was also possibly due to the wide variation in throat dimensions especially if you factor in European rifles. SAAMI may have done these cartridges a disservice as 7828 and many other powders function best at near maximum pressure. Lower pressures could actually increase pressure fluctuations.. I would like to see these tests run again with a test barrel with a good throat. No idea what factory cartridges are loaded with now but probably some at least are not 7828 or if they are it is newly manufactured.

But if David Tubb says he is seeing the pressure excursions I would believe it.

Inherently inaccurate cartridges? 25 ACP is worthless in my hands. Could be the light short barreled pistols but who knows?

Tejano,

I've seen those "spikes" myself in a 7mm Remington when visiting a pressure lab, with more than one powder in a new pressure barrel. Was also told about the problem with the .243 by a major ammunition company, when visiting the plant (and pressure lab). The problems are well-known in the business, and do NOT just occur with 7828, or any other specific powder, in pressure barrels with worn throats.

MD - Thanks for the clarification. I am having a hard time figuring out what is responsible for this? The 7RM with a 25 degree shoulder should be a good case design in spite of the shorter neck. If case design then why hasn't the 264 WM shown the same excursions? I have heard people say this about the 264 but no lab data to back it up.

The 243 if it is the case them the 260, 7mm-08 and 308 should show it too, but they don't. Case bore ratio?

One reason for setting the MAP's a little lower for some cartridges is because they do show greater pressure variations, NOT "excursions." When this subject has come up before, many people keep saying "excursions," as if the pressure only jumps higher, and jumps a LOT.

Which is why some object when they hear, saying they've never seen "evidence" of high pressures in their handloads. It's not something you're going to generally "see" with traditional pressure signs, or even much on a chronograph, especially typical light-screen chrono with a 1-foot spacing.

Instead it's just a wider range of pressures than many other cartridges exhibit. SAAMI's MAP isn't right at the top end of acceptable pressures for a given round. Instead it involves the possible pressure-spread for a cartridge. If SOME of the cartridges in a test-string go over a certain pressure level, then the MAP is set a little lower, so none of the rounds will exceed a certain upper level.

The maximum MAP, however, that SAAMI allows for any cartridge is 65,000 PSI. A lower level can be set for any number of reasons, including typical actions, or wider pressure variations, or more esoteric reasons.

As far as I've been able to discover (and I've asked a lot of pressure people about it) there of isn't any reason they can figure out for such wider variations. Instead the variations are simply observed during testing.

Here are the SAAMI MAP's for the cartridges you mention. Please note the .260, 7mm-08 and .308 also have MAP's lower than 65,000 PSI, in fact in the same range as the .243 and 7mm Remington Magnum. The .264's is a little higher:

.243--60,000
.260--60,000
.264 WM--64,000
7mm-08--61,000
7mm RM--61,000
.308--62,000

Even some of the Weatherby rounds have different MAPs. Most are 65,000, but the .270 Weatherby's is 62,500.

Your out of touch. Your ignorance of innovation in cartridge design and its effects on accuracy is readily apparent. We are learning to taylor the burning characteristics of a powder column to the utmost efficiency by how we shape the combustion chamber it is burned in, in an effort to produce a bullet that comes out of the barrel with the least amount of harmonic disturbance to the shooting platform it is being fired from.

One reason some powders max published charge is lower than others is a wider range of pressures measured for a given charge.

Don't have one! I have never seen a cartridge that has been given so much hype in such a short time. Reminds me of all the schills found down in the classifieds. May have to get me one if ya'll don't
quit!

Yep, the Creedmoor's gotten an incredible amount of publicity in the 11 short years since it appeared....

Crap.

I forgot that I was going to buy one to support Hornady for thumbing their nose at New York.


Maybe I could just buy some ammo and donate it to a needy farm kid.

Hardly. I first mentioned improvements to brass when they stopped using the older, BP case designs (droopy shoulders and long necks) as smokeless took over. I also said, repeatedly, improvements are ongoing.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...eedmoor-inherently-accurate#Post12888573

Many of you fail to understand that virtually every improvement comes from analyzing and changing existing designs. But developments are also happening with firearms, metals, optics, propellant chemistry, etc. They all combine to improve accuracy.

I wonder if military snipers of the past and present chose " inherently accurate cartridges," or just highly acurate rifles? How about the Russian male and female snipers of WWII, or the Germans, or Americans, or British snipers, and so on...

I just don't understand how a cartridge can be "inherently accurate."
.

I was wondering if Hornady earns any royalties for each rifle chambered in 6.5CM or brass producers in 6.5CM , because they ( copied the 6.5x47L ) "invented" the 6.5 CM?

Northman,

Actually, the 6.5x47 Lapua pretty much copied the 6.5/.250 Savage RCBS Improved. None of these cartridges are as new and startling as their "inventors" would like other people to believe.

The major difference between the 6.5 Creedmoor and 6.5x47 Lapua, as I have pointed out before, is the 6.5 Creedmoor provided far more "affordable" ammunition and components, and was chambered in far more affordable and available rifles. So yes, it became more popular.

The other difference is the size of the primer pocket. The 6.5x47 was designed with a small-primer pocket, for the supposed ultimate in target accuracy. David Tubb disagrees with that theory, but aside from that, many hunters prefer large-rifle primers for cold-weather performance. That's yet another reason the 6.5 Creedmoor became far more popular than the 6.5x47 Lapua. (Of course, if anybody disagrees with Tubb and quite a few hunters, they can buy 6.5 Creedmoor brass with small-rifle primer pockets--made by Lapua.)

But the big reason the 6.5 Creedmoor became far more popular than the 6.5x47 it "copied" is far more widely available and affordable ammunition, brass and rifles. Which is also, of course, the reason the 6.5 Creedmoor became far more popular than the 6.5/.250 Savage RCBS Improved.

And Starline.

Word is they can get 6 XC brass with the same "afflictions" from Peterson, maybe Alpha, I don't recall.


Cartridges with small rifle primer pockets AND smaller flash holes are inherently more accurate than those that use LR priming; the testing of PPC cartridges and later the Remington BR cartridges proved this.....

Tubb says any cartridge with a powder capacity of over 35 grains is more consistently accurate with various powders, in varying conditions, using LR primers. Which is why he designed the 6XC with LR primers.

Totally contradictory to Lapua; who's telling the truth?

The capacities of the PPC and 6 BR cases are well under 35 grains.

So what is considered the absolutely most consistently accurate rifle cartridge case in the world at 100m? The 6mm PPC?

The 30BR is right up there with it! Then the 222.

With almost 3x the competitive barrel life.

I was speaking primarily of the 6x47 and 6.5x47 Lapuas…..

Ask Tubb.........prepare to be humbled.

I have read what Tubb has done so far as testing them in the XC case and ignition issues in cold weather, but there are a lot of other pretty serious shooters out there (not to mention Lapua, the originators of the 6/6.5x47's) that insist on the small rifle primer pocket with Lapua or Alpha cases, citing better case life than the Tubb/Norma offering. Others claim lower ES/SD.

I would think Lapua would have just as much handle on the matter as David would.

Geesh, I thought the Creed was a 6.5 on a 250 AI....seen a comp shooter at the range forming brass for an XC IIRC using 22-250 brass.

I was at SHOT the year the 6.5x47 came out, and right next to the booth was the RUAG booth (makers of the 6x47 SWISS). Let's just say they looked VERY PO'd as all the traffic stopped at the Lapua booth I got the impression RUAG felt either Lapua used the idea of the SWISS round, or stole the spotlight with a similar albeit larger 6.5 ctg. Being a long time 6.5 fan, I was intrigued long ago.

From paper thru deer/hogs, I could happily live with anything 6 or 6.5mm (though barrel life nod goes to 6.5 ) from the BR case thru the 08 case, using quality brass/bullets in quality rifle. The 47, XC, and now Creedmoor seem ideal for the 6mm and the 6.5 gives up very little to the larger 260. All work very well. As JB said, you have such strong industry support. It's just hard to ignore that with the Creed in America. I had an interest in the 6x47 Swiss Match long ago, and a noted BR Hall of Famer who built a few rifles for me loves his 6x47 Lapua....but I don't shoot BR. The new 6mm CM is to me the most sensible 6mm choice for a round that feeds well, and one you can find ready made rifles and ammo. No flies on an accurate 243 or 6mm Rem, but I think in time the 6mm CM will carve a permanent niche in 6 bores. Assuming quality control is adhered as the 6.5, and affordable ammo is mfg in many flavors.

All I know is that one of my Model 70s in 30/06 Springfield, got more accurate right off the bat
when I started calling is a 30/06 Creedmoor instead....

[/quote]
I was at SHOT the year the 6.5x47 came out, and right next to the booth was the RUAG booth (makers of the 6x47 SWISS). Let's just say they looked VERY PO'd as all the traffic stopped at the Lapua booth I got the impression RUAG felt either Lapua used the idea of the SWISS round, or stole the spotlight with a similar albeit larger 6.5 ctg. Being a long time 6.5 fan, I was intrigued long ago.
[/quote]

I wish the Swiss had won out as I am a fan of longer necks for whatever increased barrel life it will provide. Not only does it keep more of the erosion in the neck but allows chasing the lands for a longer period. The Creedmoor a new design? Not really. In addition to the other 250-3000 variations the IHMSA series on the 300 Savage AI case from the 70s is almost a dead ringer but with a 40 degree shoulder. The IHMSA when chambered in the XP 100 pistol is analogous to the Creedmoor package but with out the brass so not a complete package, It still was a revolution for the silhouette crowd back when.