This subject has been argued many times so please forgive me if some of my posts are too assuming. There is plenty of evidence out there if you try and look for it but I shouldn't assume that most of you have read it before.
I beleive it was the Oct-Nov 07 issue of Handloader magazine were John Barsness wrote an article on it. IIRC that's were I read about how he had talked to manufacturers that kept track of the accuracy of different chamberings and some definately were highly accurate more than others. He also had talked to some of the bullet manufacturers that in their testing found some chamberings to be more likely to be accurate than others.
Then there is the Military testing.
When the PPC's came out for benchrest shooting they were competing against other rifles with the same degree of precision manufacturing as other calibers were. As Identical in Quality as rifles can be made to be and yet now the Vast majority of Accuracy records in Benchrest shooting are Held by PPC's and their derivatives. Albert - didn't you once or still hold a benchrest record of some sort? But anyway in the sport that defines Accuracy and Precision shooting the PPC's dominate - they could only hold all the records they hold if they were and are more inherantly accurate than other chambering.

So there is solid proof in Military testing, High Power Competition, Benchrest competition, Bullet manufacturers, Rifle Manufacturers and others that some chamberings tend to me more accurate than others. There's as much solid proof for it as anything in our sport. You can believe solid scientific proof or not. But hey some people don't beleive we really landed on the Moon so why should we expect everybody to beleive this?...........................DJ

DJ,
I have no disbelief at all in your post.....and as I read earlier I have agreed that the .308 typically is more accurate than the .30-06....not by much but at least a little.

There can be no reason to say that a few cartridges are more accurate than others but I really don't think that is what the discussion is all about here.....maybe more so the actual meaning of "inherently".....which I take to mean that it's accurate only because of it's name.....or it's breeding...or parentage....

I take the name to mean that a .308 Winchester will be incredibly accurate if chambered in a M-94 Winchester!....because it's parentage is accurate and this too will be accurate.....inherently! To this understanding I again submit that a .308 Win isn't automatically accurate.....it doesn't just "inherit" it's accuracy by virtue of the headstamp on the case!

The automatic assumption that the .308 or any of it's family is going to be accurate just doesn't hold water.....supposedly because of it's "inheritance"

We can blame Bartsche for this lack of definition of terms.....that wascal!

Ok so the definition should be when:

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
Some rounds chambered in exactly the same rifles have been ARE shown on average to produce smaller groups than others............................DJ

How's that?.....................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
Ok so the definition should be when:

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
Some rounds chambered in exactly the same rifles have been ARE shown on average to produce smaller groups than others............................DJ

How's that?.....................DJ

Boy....you're no fun!!!

At least folks now know that when the term "inherently accurate" is used that it's means very little to nothing!

I'm just waiting for someone to describe their rifle as "incipiently inherently accurate"..... We can have a lot of fun discussing that one!!!

I think that it actually does still mean something. Maybe in practical terms it might be something like if you want to shoot tiny groups with a hunting rifle you are more likely to get them with a 308 than a 7x57 etc..

Not that a good 7x57 can't be accurate enough for hunting -Lord no but on average they don't shoot as small a groups as 308's.

BTW I've got a 7x57 in progress now..........................DJ

DJ
While your technically correct I would like to remind all that this is not a benchrest forum.... It's primarily a hunting website and in that context the issue of producing .050 better groups really isn't of consequence....

I fully admit there's a few folks here that want to wring the last 1/16th inch from their hunting rifles....that said I often get the feeling that some folks think this is necessary.....or worse that moving their bullet to within .001 of the lands will somehow magically cure their 6" groups.....It's posted all too often about loading to the lands.....and I even read of folks that actually shoot 1" groups thinking there's some magic in shooting a .308 over a .30-06....like that's the answer to .02 groups!....like that increases their chance of a clean kill or something.

It's quite personally rewarding to see those 3/8" clover leaf groups and post them here and for those that want these things, we should cheer them on.....but they need to know the frustration in getting there and the number of rounds that will be fired to learn the tricks, and in the end what value it has in the hunting field!

I think I'll return to my statement but modify it a tad..... In the context of a hunting rifle the term "inherently accurate" is meaningless. In a benchrest rifle and possibly even in a varmint rifle it may have some value!

I have an Anschutz 22 Hornet. I didn't mention it beacause, as nice a rifle as it is, it shoots crap! It has a lousy chamber that leaves scary reamer marks on my cases but on the other hand allows me to load some pretty mean numbers. Case life is excellent since I started headspacing on the case mouth! I cannot actually say what the case life is since I have not yet had a case failure! Not from my original lot of cases anyway. I did accidently reload a case with insipient head separation several times before I discovered it and tossed it. BUT, ACCURACY IS CRAP! So why bother? It's been the most fun cartridge I ever loaded! The challange to get the damn thing to shoot straight AND kill the intended quarry. Everyone should have one!

(P.S. Did I mention that accuracy is crap?)

Hah! Here's one for you vapodog. How do you spell insipient? Uh.. incipient ... uhhh.....

quote:

... if you tell us what that 22 hornet bull barreled , commercial, bolt actioned wonder is ...

bartsche, It's the Savage Model 40 .22 Hornet Varmint Hunter Rifle. There is a write up on it at; http://www.gunblast.com/Savage_Model40.htm

quote:

... Accuracy proved to be very good, especially for a .22 Hornet. Factory Winchester ammo grouped into just nine-sixteenths of an inch at one hundred yards ...

djpaintes; When you say that a rifle is twicw as accurate does that mean that if one is 98% accurate the other is 196 % accurate?.
What you describe is precision.
Good luck!

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
...When it comes to the 22 hornet the question is "Why bother"? roger

Maybe because it would show that a fine tuned, well built 22Hornet is not as accurate as a 223Rem????

Then 303Guy tosses in he has an Anschutz and it isn't shooting - like I thought it would. You know that has to hurt to stick that kind of money in a rifle and the Chamber be goofy.

Hey 303Guy, Did you ever contact Anschutz about it? Or perhaps you bought it Used after someone polished the chamber with a Dremel Tool.
-----

By the way, DJ has pretty much tossed all the actual "Facts" into the frey about what the BenchRest folks use. Completely agree with his thoughts, because if a 22Hornet shortened and opened to 25cal would "Win" that is what they would use. Or, if the 223Rem would beat a 22PPC, they would be using them in well prepared, fine tuned rifles of equal precision.
-----

Doesn't everyone Hunt with a BenchRest capable rifle? I keep forgetting some folks still use the occasionally accurate rag M70s and Mousers.

Mine is an old rifle. It does have rust damage in the bore and maybe someone tried to clean rust out of the chamber with a reamer. However, I refuse to give up! Way too much fun. Besides, if I can get 3 shots to go into 1/4 inch then why not five? Trouble is, it gets better with hotter loads and I don't like pushing it! I might of course have an inherently inaccurate scope! Actually, I have pulled of some impressive longer range shots with this rifle. Anyway, if I don't get the accuracy I am looking for, I will rebarrel it. And I still have the 'improved' chamber route to try.

All this gets down to my interest in inherent accuracy!

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:
BUT, ACCURACY IS CRAP! So why bother? It's been the most fun cartridge I ever loaded! The challange to get the damn thing to shoot straight AND kill the intended quarry. Everyone should have one! The "Why bother" was suppose to be my reflection on the thinking of major rifle manufacturors in putting SERIOUS EFFORT into the developement and production of a quality, accurate 22 Hornet"

quote:

... if you tell us what that 22 hornet bull barreled , commercial, bolt actioned wonder is ...

bartsche, It's the Savage Model 40 .22 Hornet Varmint Hunter Rifle. There is a write up on it at; http://www.gunblast.com/Savage_Model40.htm

quote:

... Accuracy proved to be very good, especially for a .22 Hornet.

The mod. 40 is not all bad and tends to prove with a little attention the 22 Hornet will give adequate performance for it's intended use.

A shooting buddy of mine has been working to get his to shoot and at times it will give MOA. He now had it reamed out to the IMP versions and it is starting to show some promise.Wed. I'll be giving him a handfull of 34gr HP Varmint Nite Mares that have proven accurate in most 22 cal. rifles they've been used in.

When I think of a fine tuned rifle I'm envisioning some of the finer tactical and varmint rifles that you see performing at the range.

The Creedmore guys with their 45-70s and 45-90s are also examples of fine tuned rifles. These are not short fat cartridges but they are capable of shootin 5 shot 6" groups at 600 yards or 5 shot 3/4" groups at 100yards. When I chronographed their loads none were going over 1100 fps.and that was with a cast 550gr. bullet.
Again , it's the attention given to producing a good shooting rifle that handles the VAST percentage of what produces accuracy along with a prudent selection of compents used by a knowledgable reloader.

I'm serious when I say I'm not really sure what someone means by the term "inherent accuracy" when applying it to a stand on its own cartridge.

The .338 Lapua is suppose to be a cartridge that is inherently accurate but differs greatly in design from say a 6mm.ppc. We're talking a world of difference in theory and design.What is the common denomenater here? I know not when it refers to Inherent accuracy of cartridges. roger

If a rifle is made to precision standards, it will shoot any load with any decent bullet to reasonable standards. Once a load has been fine-tuned to the rifle's sweetspot, it will shoot even better. There are many steps that could be taken to improve the accuracy of a rifle.

Some of the easy things to do or change are:

Replace the trigger with a better one - a hard-pulling trigger is one of the worst for precision shooting.
The action may need some work/trueing.
Do a bedding job and/or free-float the barrel.
The crown may not release the bullet with equal pressure around the circumfrence of the bullet.
Mount the scope so you have a comfortable view with no stress on your neck muscles.
Experiment with different bullet types.

Then there are more complex/expensive one's:

You may have a dud barrel(the only solution is to replace).
The throat may not line up 100% with the bore.
Get a stock that fits you better.


If it still falls short of your expectation, buy a benchrest rifle or to similar standards. Benchrest standards demand higer precision on both the barrrel, action and trigger, and so they fit very expensive custom components rarely seem on hunting rifles.


Warrior

Speaking of Hornets...

I've told this on Hornet threads here at AR several times recently. I have a rather bastardly appearing misbegotten son of a Martini Cadet in .22 AI Hornet which was left to me by a friend who ate his rifle (a .22LR Chipmunk not the Hornet). Wouldn't shoot worth sour milk for me. Then I tried a friend's "accuracy load" in it. Zingo! it really IS a genuine sub .5 MOA rifle; pretty darned consistently too. It doesn't quite shoot with my 6 PPCs, but then this Martini cost said friend a total of about $275 to build, while my PPCs cost roughly ten times that.

I don't think the .22 Hornet is an inherently inaccurate cartridge, whatever that is. (I would have a couple of years ago.)

The concept of "inherent accuracy" is real to BR shooters, a bunch of ballistic BS to those of use with common sporter rifles.

There are far more "inherent" differences between individual rifles and ammunition than there is between any case shapes. Anyone shooting a common sporter in 30-06 and gettng 2" groups and wants a 308 because it is "inherently" more accurate is likely to be disappointed unless he will be content with 1 3/4" groups, assuming things are equal. He would be much better off installing a better quality 30-06 barrel on his rifle!

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Speaking of Hornets...

I've told this on Hornet threads here at AR several times recently. I have a rather bastardly appearing misbegotten son of a Martini Cadet in .22 AI Hornet which was left to me by a friend who ate his rifle (a .22LR Chipmunk not the Hornet). Wouldn't shoot worth sour milk for me. Then I tried a friend's "accuracy load" in it. Zingo! it really IS a genuine sub .5 MOA rifle; pretty darned consistently too. It doesn't quite shoot with my 6 PPCs, but then this Martini cost said friend a total of about $275 to build, while my PPCs cost roughly ten times that.

I don't think the .22 Hornet is an inherently inaccurate cartridge, whatever that is. (I would have a couple of years ago.)

Could it be that the 22 AI Hornet is inherantly more accurate than a std 22 Hornet?
Have any 22 Hornet rifles had their accuracy improved by simply opening up the chamber to 22 Hornet Ackley Improved or 22 K-Hornet? If so would the 22 Hornet AI and the K-Hornet be inherantly more accurate than the std Hornet???????..........................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
[QUOTE]
Could it be that the 22 AI Hornet is inherantly more accurate than a std 22 Hornet?
Have any 22 Hornet rifles had their accuracy improved by simply opening up the chamber to 22 Hornet Ackley Improved or 22 K-Hornet? If so would the 22 Hornet AI and the K-Hornet be inherantly more accurate than the std Hornet???????..........................DJ

Well, anything is possible, but I don't find that to likely be the situation with MY Hornets. Having that accurate load in the .22 K-Hornet, I tried exactly the same powder and bullet, with the charge reduced 1.0 grain to allow for difference in case capacity in my TCR standard Hornet.

As I said with the Martini, "Zingo!" The TCR standard Hornet went from being a 1" to - 1&1/2" rifle to being a 5/8" grouping rifle. And I suspect the defference btween it and the K-Hornet in this situation is because the TCR Hornet is a break-action rifle, while the Martini K-Hornet is a fixed-barrel rifle.

I have a CZ 22 Hornet and with the Hornady 45 gr V-Max over a stiff charge of WW296 powder it's a consistent 3/8 group rifle. I neck size only with a Lee collet die and haven't lost one case in the years that I've owned and shot it. I wouldn't dare touch this rifle like to chamber it out to a K-Hornet.

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:
I have a CZ 22 Hornet and with the Hornady 45 gr V-Max over a stiff charge of WW296 powder it's a consistent 3/8 group rifle. I neck size only with a Lee collet die and haven't lost one case in the years that I've owned and shot it. I wouldn't dare touch this rifle like to chamber it out to a K-Hornet.

Well, if it ain't broke don't fix it!

I have a couple buddy's with a bad tendency to keep messing with good rifles until they screw them up somehow. But I've talked to several shooters who were unhappy with the std hornet round and got better accuracy by going with the K-Hornet. Just from what I've heard shooters on average have gotten better accuracy from the K-Hornet but that doesn't mean that individual std Hornets don't shoot better than an average K-Hornet................................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
This subject has been argued many times so please forgive me if some of my posts are too assuming. There is plenty of evidence out there if you try and look for it but I shouldn't assume that most of you have read it before.
I beleive it was the Oct-Nov 07 issue of Handloader magazine were John Barsness wrote an article on it. IIRC that's were I read about how he had talked to manufacturers that kept track of the accuracy of different chamberings and some definately were highly accurate more than others. He also had talked to some of the bullet manufacturers that in their testing found some chamberings to be more likely to be accurate than others.
Then there is the Military testing.
When the PPC's came out for benchrest shooting they were competing against other rifles with the same degree of precision manufacturing as other calibers were. As Identical in Quality as rifles can be made to be and yet now the Vast majority of Accuracy records in Benchrest shooting are Held by PPC's and their derivatives. Albert - didn't you once or still hold a benchrest record of some sort? But anyway in the sport that defines Accuracy and Precision shooting the PPC's dominate - they could only hold all the records they hold if they were and are more inherantly accurate than other chambering.

So there is solid proof in Military testing, High Power Competition, Benchrest competition, Bullet manufacturers, Rifle Manufacturers and others that some chamberings tend to me more accurate than others. There's as much solid proof for it as anything in our sport. You can believe solid scientific proof or not. But hey some people don't beleive we really landed on the Moon so why should we expect everybody to beleive this?...........................DJ

Well DJ, the reason I don't believe it is actually several reasons.

First off I don't believe much that benchresters tell me about any one kind of equipment being more accurate than others, whether cartridge chamberings or something else, BECAUSE I was a benchrest competitor (and I think maybe my record is still standing after 10 years, I don't really know or care.) What I saw most in BR was that most shooters copy the last winner, and as a group they are pretty much sheep. If that was not so, there would be many more varieties of cartridges represented on the winners' podium.

Even so, I have seen so many miracle cartridges come, stay absolutely dominant for 1-20 years, and then be replaced by the next miracle, I can hardly believe it myself. (That by itself says there is no one best shape or size.)

Ditto Moly, barrel-tuners, action sleeves, fluted barrels, rifling methods, you name it. What it really boils down to is the most careful/skilled gunsmiths make the winning guns, and the best shooters win with them. The important thing for both, I believe, is their manual skills, not the cartridges their rifles chamber.

High-power competition is much the same, perhaps even more so. Again, I've got a Life Master rating there, so have seen it first hand.

Now, let's talk about the manufacturers. They are in business to do what? Right! Make money, NOT to make the most accurate guns, whether rifles, shotguns, pistols, or harpoon guns. So, exactly how would they know? Most of what they think they know about accuracy comes from finally being dragged into trying out things the Benchresters & High Power shooters tell them anyway, not from extensive (or expensive) original research.

But, I know I'm not gonna convince any of the "true believers" in modern "Knowledge" to think otherwise. They will still believe the "Inherently Accurate" myth even if we CAN go back and show results 100+ years ago, where Rabbeth for instance shot a sub-3/4" 10-SHOT group at 220 yards using cast lead bullets in the super-accuracy cartridge of the day...the .32-40!! He had a very well made rifle, and was a hell of a fine shot. And he shot lots of very similar groups, not just one. We have been snowed so long with statistics by politicians, manufacturers, etc., that if fed more statistics, we usually don't even try to ask the question "So what does that tell us about future performance?" Sure, if everyone on the line shoots a PPC, a PPC will likely win, but does that really tell us it is the best?

I suspect, but don't know absolutely, that NONE of us know as much about what makes rifles shoot accurately as we think we do.

What my own version of life-experience has taught me, though, is that there are many, many things that constitute the variables in shooting, that we absolutely control none of them, and that accurate shooting will always require well-made equipment, truly competent shooters, and a generous serving of well-timed luck!....regardless which cartridge is being fired.


Remember your signature...

Albert, I'm usually of the opinion that there are Liars, Damned Liars and then Statisticians. Statisticians can make things sound differently from what they really are, I'm more of a practical person. But when there's results from hundreds or thousands of individual examples numbers really do start to mean something.
People try and define there way around the truth and/or say that it doesn't mean anything. Sometimes it may not mean that much but not much can still be something.
Simple fact is if you want to buy a certain rifle say a Remchester 77 or whatever, certain calibers like 308 are more likely to produce smaller groups than the same exact model rifle in other calibers. That might not make a difference to you but it does to a lot of folks. Most shooters buy factory rifles vs having custom rifles made and knowing which calibers tend to be more accurate can be important to them............................DJ

Well, DJ, I'm not gonna try to convince you either. Plain fact is, though, that if everyone was to buy the round they are most likely to shoot well with out to 100 yards, they'd probably all be shooting .221 Fireballs.

According to Remington, in each bore diameter the best performing rifle they make (accuracy-wise to 100 yards) is the one with the smallest capacity center-fire case available in that bore. They make that statement from shooting and keeping the results of every centerfire 40-X they have built. The .221 not only is their most accurate round in .224 bore to 100 yards, but it has the least recoil to bother less than fully skilled shooters.

Now, that works to 100 yards, MAYBE. But what is the best at 500 yards? How about in the "average" wind? How about in strong varying winds? There are really not any days that don't have any wind at all to 500 yards. And, of course, that was best for 5-shot groups, which is what Remington was firing. What about for 20-shot groups?

Is there a difference between chamberings for one-shot groups? I.e. for keeping exactly the same zero with no "warm-up" or "fouler" shots?

The plain truth is, we don't know. And it is likely that different cartridges rule for different conditions of shooting and different definitions of "accuracy", at different distances, and with different weights of bullets.

So, sorry, I'll still stick with the theory that the best makers (whether individuals or companies) and the best shooters make the most important contributions to statisitics for the most accurate cartridge chamberings, not vice-versa.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, of course. I'm perfectly happy if I am the only one who agrees with my opinion, on this or anything else except for one thing. The one thing I don't want other people to think differently on is my opinion that Obama is a disaster for American freedom.

Best wishes.

quote:

The "Why bother" was suppose to be ...

Yes, I did miss that one.

quote:

... they'd probably all be shooting .221 Fireballs.

Is that an inherently accurate cartridge then? It is one cartridge I could rechamber my hornet to.

.303 Guy -

I doubt it is more inherently acurate than many other cartridges, IF you are just considering the chambering. It may be so for most people not because of anything magic about the chamber, but simply because they can handle it better.

And, again, though it may be better than the Hornet at 500 yards, I'd rather shoot something with a lot bigger case and higher velocity than either it or the Hornet if I was going to shoot a .22 at that distance.

Point is, "inherent acuracy" depends an awful lot on the ability of the shooter, the conditions during and distances of the firing, and a ton of other stuff. There are probably different sets of "ideal to the cartridge" circumstances which would fit a great many very different cartridges.

Good on ya, Guy

Thanks Alberta Canuck . Perhaps my particular rifle just does better with a little more pressure or velocity. Obviously then, I should explore 'hotter' hornet loads first, then, if not happy, try the AI chamber, then only, consider the 221 as a last resort. In my rifle, the 221 may only be loaded to 45,000 CUP max. That being because my rifle model was also chambered for the 222 Rem. (With a longer bolt travel). That would mean I could load the hornet case closer to 49,000 CUP considering the base area of the case. That would about take me to primer pocket expansion. (I was apparently getting pretty good accuracy and performance when I 'negligently' loaded 60gr bullets on top of my 55gr bullet powder charge - oops!)

Great thread!

Generally accuracy can be improved with careful reloading practices in any caliber. That is why we reload to find out what works best in a particular rifle. Case preparation is important, seating the bullet so there is minimum run-out, etc. - all concentricity issues. Other items such as picking a bullet that your rifles likes and so forth. Just remember that beshrest bullets are more precision made if we are getting predantic about accuracy.

Generally 1 MOA is good enough for hunting purposes and .5 MOA is considered sterling performance. I load very carefully for all my rifles and try to obtain the most accurate load possible. With my 7 x 57 mm, I get 10 mm groupings at 100 yards, which I think is fairly good for a Mauser K98 action. With my 300 H&H, with its much longer case, I get 5 mm one ragged holes. This is contrary to the short case theory, not to mention the substantial recoil differential. Both these rifles have been built on Mauser K98 actions and they fit their purpose very well as hunting weapons.

This leads me to the question, whether or not, the WSM that is supposedly inherently more accurate, will make a practical difference for me in the hunting field? I just cannot see it !!!

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
This leads me to the question, whether or not, the WSM that is supposedly inherently more accurate, will make a practical difference for me in the hunting field? I just cannot see it !!!

Warrior

Yes....exactly.....as previously stated the term inherently accurate is quite misleading and just plain irrelevant in a hunting context.

While it can be successfully argued that some cartridges are more accurate than others, the value of that gain is fleeting at best and the hunter that is able to actually take advantage of it is one I've never met.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
...I know I'm not gonna convince any of the "true believers" in modern "Knowledge" to think otherwise. They will still believe the "Inherently Accurate" myth even if we CAN go back and show results 100+ years ago, where Rabbeth for instance shot a sub-3/4" 10-SHOT group at 220 yards using cast lead bullets in the super-accuracy cartridge of the day...the .32-40!! ...

Hey AC, I'm quite sure no one will ever convince me they could go buy a factory built "off the shelf" 32-40 and have it shoot groups as well as a typical factory built "off the shelf" 308Win.

Same with a factory built "off the shelf" 22Hornet shot next to a typical factory built "off the shelf" 223Rem.

Or any factory built "off the shelf" 25cal(of any size) shot next to a typical factory built "off the shelf" 243Win.

Or any factory built "off the shelf" 300WbyMag shot next to a typical factory built "off the shelf" 300RUM.

Or any factory built "off the shelf" 340WbyMag shot next to a typical factory built "off the shelf" 338RUM.

I've witnessed first-hand way too many "typical" examples of the above comparisons for it to be otherwise.

The big problem with Inherent Accuracy discussions is when a single example is sighted as being representative of the entire class of typical Factory made rifles, whether it has abysmal Accuracy or excellent Accuracy, one example means nothing. It has nothing to do with the overall concept concerning, "Is it possible for me to go buy a factory made rifle that will typically be more Accurate than another Factory made rifle in a totally different Caliber(aka Inherent Accuracy)???" And of course, the answer is a resounding - yes!
-----

Or to put it a slightly different way, all you 22Hornet, 32-40 and 25cal folks who have typical factory made rifles, come on and lets do some shooting. Top Gun gets his Supper paid for. Please come one at a time so I can spread my FREE meals over a few months.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
...I know I'm not gonna convince any of the "true believers" in modern "Knowledge" to think otherwise. They will still believe the "Inherently Accurate" myth

Your are right! Human behavior often dictates to preserve ego one accepts information and knowledge that substantiates thier beliefs and pushes aside or rejects information and knowledge that does not.

What ever a person believes on the subject matter of this thread it sure ain't world shaking, or even close; so we all can just believe what we will.
Why I actually know people who think that a forward mounted scout type scoped rifle is a POS but I KNOW I catch bigger fish than they do. Doesn't mean a big rat's ass but you're right I have had a lot of fun with this one. roger

quote:

Same with a factory built "off the shelf" 22Hornet shot next to a typical factory built "off the shelf" 223Rem.

But isn't this what 'inherent accuracy' is about? The hornet and 223 will have at least the same clearances in the chamber. That makes the hornet a sloppy fit because it is smaller!

No one has yet explained to me why the hornet has the reputation for throwing flyers. Someone must have found the cause!

Oh, ... another point, I have found the hornet to be very sensitive to small variables when using Lil'Gun. Checking the data tables, one sees that the k-hornet develops higher pressure and velocity with the same charge as the hornet. Seating depth, case volume, neck tension etc, make a huge difference to the hornet with Lil'Gun. Accidently using a differend brand of brass resulted in the primer pocket expanding while 'accidently' using a 60gr bullet instead of a 55gr bullet only produced slightly more flattened primers and great performance. There is something 'inherently' weired about the hornet and Lil'Gun in combo!

Hmmm -

Well, what would you believers say about inherent accuracy if we also stipulated that in addition to using a factory built .308"-bore rifle, we were going to shoot 250 grain hunting bullets at 600 yards? Would you still pick a .308 winchester with a 1-in-12 twist over a factory .30-06 chambered rifle with a 1-in-10 twist? Which is the most "inherently acurate" under those circumstances of use?

I really don't see much point in continuing to debate this.

Different applications or available components may demand different chamberings or even non-factory chamberings for best "inherent accuracy".

I don’t know what makes the subject of inherently accurate rounds so volatile with so many people. Do I believe that there are inherently accurate rounds? Yes. Are all rifles chambered in those cartridges inherently accurate? No.

Inherently accurate rounds are cartridges that can produce a constant accuracy with the widest choice of powders and the widest choice of bullets in a given bore size. Inherently accurate rounds also product repeatable accuracy with factory ammunition.

But than again maybe we're just

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
...I actually know people who think that a forward mounted scout type scoped rifle is a POS but I KNOW I catch bigger fish than they do. ...

Oh yeah??? That is because you have an Inherently Accurate Lure!

Can't help you with a 250gr 30cal - I've no first hand experience with them. I'd "guess" they would do right well in a Case the size of a RUM "IF" the Twist was correct. Don't like to speculate though.

Great, mature posting, guys. roger

quote:

I really don't see much point in continuing to debate this.

If two identical bullets leave barrels with the same twist at the same velocity how does the bullet know if it was fired from a .308
or a 30/06?. If you say "barrel vibration then we are talking barrels not cartridges.
Good Luck!

"Most shooters buy factory rifles vs having custom rifles made and knowing which calibers tend to be more accurate can be important to them............................DJ'

Dj, and others, you are right of course but perhaps the question remains of just how much more "accurate" and what does it take to realize that potential.

It takes testing and digesting the "average" accuracy of MANY rifles before any slight edge in accuracy begins to be seen, meaning the differences are small, not great at all.

The whole inherent accuracy concept is based on the "average" accuracy realised in a given number of rifles of a particular cartridge, of which perhaps nearly half will give slightly less accuracy than the rest. And even then, the sporter cartridge accuracy advantage is typically no more than 1/4 MOA. It's sure not cutting the normal groups in half or less.

The advantages of the 6PPC is maybe no more than about 1/16", real but small! And it takes some high precison rifles costing $2-3K to let that advantage mean anything in competition.

So, yes, inherent accuracy is a fact but it means absolutely nothing to the individual who is buying a rifle off a rack at the gun store. He can have no idea of what he's getting until he tries it.

A large percentage of the perceived "accuracy" of any cartridge lies in the bullets available for it. It happens that it's easier to make quality jackets in the .24 caliber range than larger or smaller sizes (so said a ballistics engineer I trust). So, .24 bullets tend to out shoot other calibers, including .22, and that clouds any arguments about the "inherent accuracy" of other diameter cartridges.

I suspect the old .222 would still be competitive in BR IF it had the same quality jackets available as for the .24 calibers.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim C. <><:
So, yes, inherent accuracy is a fact but it means absolutely nothing to the individual who is buying a rifle off a rack at the gun store. He can have no idea of what he's getting until he tries it.

Is one of the reasons Remington 700's typically outsell Ruger M-77's that 700's are perceived to typically be more accurate? If so, shouldn't the same apply to cartridges?.....................DJ

quote:

So, yes, inherent accuracy is a fact but it means absolutely nothing to the individual who is buying a rifle off a rack at the gun store. He can have no idea of what he's getting until he tries it.

That is so. Also if 10 people shoot the same rifle they will obtain 10 different scores. Now let us widen the caliber gap from the same make (say Winchesters) and go up in recoil, then we will see another variable kick in. Let us repeat this, but this time 10 different makes of rifles, and so even more imponderables creep into the equation.

Then we also know that the barrels can differ, as EACH BARREL is an entity on its own.
A good trigger pull will improve groups significantly in a given rifle (human influence).

"Inherently accurate" is an elusive concept.

Warrior.

quote:

s one of the reasons Remington 700's typically outsell Ruger M-77's that 700's are perceived to typically be more accurate? If so, shouldn't the same apply to cartridges?

At least from my experience the reason Remington outsells Ruger is that they are a far better piece of equipment all around.....

does that mean one cartridge is better than another?.....sorry here foolks....this does not follow and the answer is a resounding NO

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

At least from my experience the reason Remington outsells Ruger is that they are a far better piece of equipment all around.....

Let's see, the Ruger has a far superior extractor,better stock, Better safety, safer trigger.
I think you're wrong here. Ruger's would sell far better than they do if they had the same repuation for accuracy that Remington's do. For a long time they had a reputation for iffy barrels. Things have improved since but they haven't caught up yet...........................DJ