I owned three Rugers in a row....all M-77s and one wouldn't feed....another wouldn't hold the stock from warping.....I had sanded almost 3/16" from the forend to keep it free floated and the third had both safety and trigger problems....

Sorry friend.....Rugers suck...

I've owned several Remingtons with not so much as a bit of trouble.....

There's a reason that there's no Ruger long guns in this house......and it has nothing to do with accuracy.

That aside it's far from the topic of this thread.....to wit:

quote:

Inherent Accuracy??

quote:

Originally posted by Cheechako:
Two more. Long neck vs no neck. Which is inherently accurate?

the one with the longer neck will be more accurate. There will be less bullet cant and it will enter the rifling straighter. this is one of the bigger complaints of the 300 win mag, very short neck.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

That aside it's far from the topic of this thread.....to wit:

quote:

Inherent Accuracy??

It may not be your experience but if you read historic posts about Ruger's you'll see a high percentage of complaints about the accuracy of Ruger barrels until they have started making their own.
The point is an anology. It matters to people which rifle they feel will most likely to be accurate, so why shouldn't their choice of cartridges?..........................DJ

quote:

the one with the longer neck will be more accurate. There will be less bullet cant and it will enter the rifling straighter. this is one of the bigger complaints of the 300 win mag, very short neck.

There is another point that goes hand in hand with short necks, and that is when they are combined with relatively long bullets that get seated deeply into the case. It stands to reason that shockwaves inside the case may destabilize straight travel for a perfect entry into the bore. Thus the theory is that for better accuracy it is preferable that the bullet gets seated level with rear end of the neck or not much passed it. This is fairly close to what happens when benchrest bullets are selected for the 6mm PPC, 6.5x55mm and .30/8 Win and some others.

Warrior

quote:

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

Well OK, I can respect that. But it has been fun and interesting and, believe it or not, informative!

quote:

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.

Are we, actually? The 308 attains its muzzle velocity quicker than the 30-06 (we are talking identical bullets and muzzle velocity). The 308 fired bullet is therefor subject to less vibrational influences. Then again, the 30-06 bullet in this scenario is subject to less violent vibrational influences. Oh hell, I don't know!!!!

Why does the 6.5 Swede have such a reputation for accuracy?

By the way, my hornet has just gone and confused me even more - it shot rather respectably today! How does a one inch group at 200m (approx) sound?!!!! With both pistol and rifle primers! (The rifle primers were Federal - significant only because they are supposed to be mild).

The 22-250 I mentioned before is now shooting different bullet weights, factory and hand loads, with no discernable shift in POI or accuracy! (It also happens to be a Ruger).

This is a fun thread, so don't leave us now!

So I guess that the concensus is that the term "inherently accurate" can be more contributed to the rifles that a particular cartridge tends to be found in as opposed to being an attribute of said cartridge. ??

Just curious, has anyone ever seen ANYTHING chambered to shoot .30 m1 carbine that was accurate??

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
So I guess that the concensus is that the term "inherently accurate" can be more contributed to the rifles that a particular cartridge tends to be found in as opposed to being an attribute of said cartridge. ??

Just curious, has anyone ever seen ANYTHING chambered to shoot .30 m1 carbine that was accurate??

No on both questions.

Some people were making the point that inherant accuracy may exist but that it was irrelavant. I made the point that people often choose one brand of rifle over another because of the perception that one brand is typically more accurate than another - so why shouldn't they do the same for rounds.

I would again reiterate that I've never said that rounds such as the 30-06 and 7x57 were not more than accurate enough for hunting - millions of dead animals prove that they were and are. It's just that the 308 and 7-08 on average are going to shoot smaller groups on the bench than the two above. Given approximately the same ballistics if you put much stock in small groups you might prefer the latter to the former............................DJ

My experience that every cartridge is "inherently accurate" and any cartridge can be pretty inaccurate also.

Given equal actions, barrels and quality bullets (with a weight and design matched to the twist) any cartridge will show a high level of accuracy with 100% (+/- a little) loading density and consistent ignition ( a low ES with an SD correctly proportional to the ES). There are some cartridge designs that lend themselves to achieving this balance easier and maintianing that balance. Many BR cartridges have this balance but are most used for 1,000 yards shooting? No they aren't but the principles of achieving this balance are used for those long range cartridges.

This is the reason in the military tests of the 7.62 (.308W) vs the '06 that the 7.62 came out ahead. In the military match loads the XM118 7.62 had 100% loading density and achieves a smaller ES. M72 ('06 Match) has about 80% loading density and the ES is about 30+% larger on average. However, when the '06 is loaded up to 100% loading density the ES is comparable to the M118. The "inherent accuracy" is then pretty much equal between the two. The same applies to other cartridges.

Larry Gibson

quote:

This is the reason in the military tests of the 7.62 (.308W) vs the '06 that the 7.62 came out ahead.

That makes things seem much clearer, thanks, Larry Gibson. I enjoy the way you look at things from differenct perspectives, never just accepting what seems obvious at first!

Does the length to volume ratio play a role?
What about just the length, say in the case of two cartridges of the same length but different capacities?
Does the geometry of the case play any role at all in how straight the case might align the bullet to the bore? For example, a short, fat case might align well by virtue of the neck angle and size.
I would appreciate your thoughts, thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
The "inherent accuracy" is then pretty much equal between the two. The same applies to other cartridges.

Larry Gibson

Not so...........................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
The "inherent accuracy" is then pretty much equal between the two. The same applies to other cartridges.

Larry Gibson

Not so...........................DJ

I'm a believer.....DJ has convinced me that "all things considered" the .308 is more accurate than a .30-06. We beat this thing to death on another thread....I'll see if I can find it and post it here.

BTW....that don't make me buy into the "inherently accurate" crowd until such time as the term is defined.....and it's not been done here!

vapodog

I would like to see that thread. I'll bet that "all things considered" goes beyond the realm of the cartridges themselves. My opinion (it's only that and may indeed vary with that of DJ) is based on years of using both cartridges at long range out of bolt guns, of actually being able to not only chronograph the loads of each and their respective SD/ESs but also of recent tests which show very comparable pressure traces, SD/ES and BCs. The Muzzle velocity of the '06 will be on average 100+ vps higher which gives it a slight advantage for wind drift. Then wind drift has nothing to do with inherent accuracy.

The above example is based on equal twists of their barrels. Given Match bullets; if a 12" twist is used in the .308 then it's BC will, on average, be about .02 higher than the same bullet at the same velocity out of a 10" twist '06 barrel. But again, using a different twist between cartridges is not a valid comparison and it certainly has nothing to do with inherent accuracy either. At any rate my scores shooting at 600 yards have alwyas been pretty much equal between the two cartridges. I have "cleaned" the 600 yard line with both. My match M70 .308W has a 12" twist and my match '06s have 10" twists. Group testing at 100 & 200 yards I've always been hard pressed to prove one is more accurate than the other. I'm still hard pressed. I used a 12" twist '06 that was the same barrel length, aciton and stock as my M70 .308W at 1,000 yards once and shot the highest string score I've ever shot at that range (198x12X). I used my usual match load with the 175 gr MK. That is better by 2 points than any of the 20 shot strings of the numerous matches I've shot with the .308 at 1,000 yards. Granted I'm not a great shot but then I'm not too bad either. What I am though is smart enough to realise that if I best my scores first time out then something needs to be considered. I considered that I was not getting caught as bad by changing conditions as the higher velocity/less wind drift managed a few wide 10s for me that probably would have been 9s with the .308. My M70 Match .308W is a 1/2 moa rifle so I doubt the borrowed rifle was any more accurate.

Anyway, that's my experiance and opinion. I'm still interested in that other thread as I like to read others opinions and experiences also.

Larry Gibson

quote:

I'll see if I can find it and post it here.

here it is

vapodog

I read the trhead, interesting but little "proof" as to the inherent accuracy of either. The U.S. test and NATO test mentioned were as I've addressed. I've read about them on numerous sites and even some quotes. The test guns were not identical nor was the ammuntion equally loaded, they simply used what was out there. All either test proved was that the available .308 (7.62 NATO) ammuntion was more accurate out of the rifles used than was the available 30-06 ammuntion in the rifles used. Neither answers the question of "inherent accuracy".

The subject may have been "beaten to death" on that thread but a factual answer was not arrived at. Slamfire came pretty close as did Atkinson to getting it down to "inherent accuracy". Interesting read though.

Larry Gibson

303guy

Thank you for your kind words. I'll try to answer your questions.

“Does the length to volume ratio play a role?â€

Many believe it does and give pretty good sounding reasons why. However in reality they don’t pan out. Look at the accuracy from many “bean field†rifles made by Jarret and others in the ultra sized magnums. Seems the accuracy is definitely there and they are pretty mondo long cases. Granted the rifles are pretty well built but if the cartridge wasn’t “inherently accurate†the quality of the rifle wouldn’t matter.

“What about just the length, say in the case of two cartridges of the same length but different capacities?â€

The inherent accuracy is still there. Take a 30-30 which is about the same length as a .308W or .300 RSAUM. Build them on identical rifles and load them both to the same SD/ES and the “inherent accuracy†is going to be the same.

“Does the geometry of the case play any role at all in how straight the case might align the bullet to the bore? For example, a short, fat case might align well by virtue of the neck angle and size.â€

Your example is correct but that has more to do with the quality of the chamber dimensions in relation to the bore than with the “inherent accuracy†of the cartridge itself. That is why if one is attempt a determination of this question the all testing other than the cartridge case itself must be equal in as close respects as we could make them. This means the rifles and barrels (including twists), chamber tolerances over the cases used, trigger pulls, weight, scope used, conditions tested at, etc. should be as close to identical as possible. It also means that the cartridges should be loaded equally, i.e. the same quality bullets, the same consistent ignition and the same spectrum of SD and ES. However, as to the chambering part of your question; fire form the cases and just neck size and all is equal again. I believe the consistency of ignition of the short fat cases is more a result of them being designed for 100% loading density. Under such conditions similar “standard†cases can be loaded to equal the consistency of the short fat cases.

Thank you for your own input.

Larry Gibson

Larry - IMHO, this is one of the best postings you have ever made. Well reasoned, and right on the money, I think.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
303guy

The inherent accuracy is still there. Take a 30-30 which is about the same length as a .308W or .300 RSAUM. Build them on identical rifles and load them both to the same SD/ES and the “inherent accuracy†is going to be the same.

Larry Gibson

Not true. When shot in test barrels reamed to the same standards some rounds consistantly shoot more accurately.

Also in Rifles that are manufacture to identical tolerances some rounds will consistantly shoot better than others - talk to someone at HS Precision for example.

Reread all the proof that's available, it's ther if you will keep an open mind like Vapodog has............................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

I'm a believer.....DJ has convinced me that "all things considered" the .308 is more accurate than a .30-06. We beat this thing to death on another thread....I'll see if I can find it and post it here.

BTW....that don't make me buy into the "inherently accurate" crowd until such time as the term is defined.....and it's not been done here!

Vapo - Would you not agree that "inherently accurate" would mean accurate to a degree other cartridges might not be? (It carries a connotation of an advantage of some sort, by comparison with those which are NOT inherently accurate, does it not?....)

So I should think the next question would be "Is that advantage always present when using that chambering?

If it is not, is it actually the chambering which is inherently acurate, or the combination of shooter, components, velocity, missile design, etc., are appropriate for the given circumstances of the application, which really make up the advantage?


For instance, some rifles are more accurate with very heavy bullets than others of the same bore diameter are, but that is usually because of either a faster twist, or a higher velocity which may stabilize the bullets just a bit better in the same slower twist. So is the chambering actually inherently accurate, or just better suited when heavy bullets are the order of the day? Ditto cartridges for shorter distances with lighter bullets dfrom slower twists. And circumstances of use has to be taken into acount most times, doesn't it?

For instance, in benchrest group shooting, the chambering used most is 6 PPC. But in "benchrest for score" shooting, the .30-BR dominates. Why? Because although the 6 PPC MAY average minutely smaller groups, the larger diameter of the .30-BR scores higher by virtue of its cutting larger holes. So which is really "more accurate"? The one with the smallest groups by a few thousandths (maybe), or the one which hits more bullseyes and "X"s?

Ghe problem I see with the whole "inherently accurate" mind-set is that it presumes only one set of conditions applies...whether it is "factory-made", shot by just "hunting" rifles, etc.

Accuracy is always part of a system...a system composed of shooter (the primary determinant I believe), the quality of parts and assembly, the circumstances under which the system is fired, the rapidity of the firing, and tons of others.

quote:

Vapo - Would you not agree that "inherently accurate" would mean accurate to a degree other cartridges might not be? (It carries a connotation of an advantage of some sort,

Actually the more we discuss this the more insane it becomes.....To "inherit" to me is a gift.....typically by parentage but may be from any source...

We can define it any way we want but as I've said before.....in the context of a hunting rifle it's totally meaningless.

It's quite like two frogs arguing over who has the largest thickness of hair!

Only in a very controlled environment could one prove such a thing as a cartridge being more accurate than another.....or after hundreds of thousands of trials in nearly as many rifles and circumstances such as was (apparently) done by the military. (read DJ's link on the other thread)

Here's a quote of mine from the previous thread:

quote:

OK....I concede.....I retract my statement and will reword it!....here goes:

While the .308 is ever slightly more accurate than a .30-06.....

1. If you missed your deer last year using a .30-06 then you'd have missed it using a .308 too!

2. Had American GIs used a .308 instead of a .30-06 in WWII it would not have accounted for a single additional German casualty

3. If you traded your .30-06 for a .308 to get better accuracy, you may have made a good trade but only if the target you're shooting at is smaller than a bumble bee at 100 yards.

AC....we're really discussing something that doesn't exist in the world I live in.

A person might find more meaning and be mo more productive by posting on the political forum....
man....what a sewer of waste.

Needless to say, I see all the posting concerning Inherent Accuracy from larry as full of doughnuts.

quote:

Originally asked by larry in the 8x57 thread:
...perhaps you can provide documented information?

to 303Guy.

So, my question to larry would be, "Can you provide documented information to your assertions?"

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
[QUOTE]man....what a sewer of waste.

I'm not having fun with this NO MORE AGAIN. ROGER

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
303guy

The inherent accuracy is still there. Take a 30-30 which is about the same length as a .308W or .300 RSAUM. Build them on identical rifles and load them both to the same SD/ES and the “inherent accuracy†is going to be the same.

Larry Gibson

Not true. When shot in test barrels reamed to the same standards some rounds consistantly shoot more accurately.

Also in Rifles that are manufacture to identical tolerances some rounds will consistantly shoot better than others - talk to someone at HS Precision for example.

Reread all the proof that's available, it's ther if you will keep an open mind like Vapodog has............................DJ

I do have an open mind and so should you. HS Precision is correct; some "rounds" will consistantly shoot more accurately. I venture that the quality of many if not most bullets loaded into 30-30s are not of the same quality as those loaded into most .308W. In other words the accuracy expectation is higher with the .308 than with the 30-30 and they get the better bullets. The "rounds "out there" are just that. What they are really saying is that some bullets and loads are more accurate than others. That is a correct statment also but it does not lead us to a finding of any cartridges "inherent accuracy".

To determine the "inherent accuracy" of a cartridge we must eliminate all variables except the cartridge. That meean, as I previously stated, that the rifles must be as close to the same as we can make them and the ammuntion must be loaded to the same consistancy. That includes the quality of the bullet. The "cartridge" is not a "round" BTW,it is a specific design. Thus it is we are attempting to find if a specific design of a cartridge case is inherently more accurate. The only way to do that is to eliminate all variables except the cartridge case and that includes the variables of the load and the quality of the bullet. Merely testing "rounds" will only lead us to what we already know; some rounds are more accurate than others.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Only in a very controlled environment could one prove such a thing as a cartridge being more accurate than another(

vapodog

That is my point exactly. So if we go back to bartche's original post which started this discussion; "Does anyone realy believe that one cartridge is inherently more accurate than any other cartridge? If so why do you think that is??" I believe we have answered his question.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
I do have an open mind and so should you. HS Precision is correct; some "rounds" will consistantly shoot more accurately.
Larry Gibson

Ok, you are part the way there. To me the definition of inherant accuracy is when in equivelant rifles some "rounds" will consistantly shoot more accurately.

Next I suggest that you read a couple of the reloading manuals. A couple of them mention the specific chamberings that they use to test their bullets. They choose them because they are consistantly more accurate SHOOTING THE SAME EXACT BULLETS than other rounds and give a better indication of the quality of a given lot of bullets. They also typically use very precisely made test barrels with a universal receiver so rifle/bedding etc. are not part of the equation, only the inherant accuracy of the chambering............................DJ

Whatever you say DJ, if that's the way you see it.

Larry Gibson

You're welcome, Larry Gibson. Thank you for your reply!

quote:

... A person might find more meaning and be mo more productive by posting on the political forum....
man....what a sewer of waste.

No! no! ... on the contrary! I am enjoying this discussion immensely and I always appreciate your input on these forums, vapodog.
I know I am not an expert - heavens, I am the student here! - but in my opinion, the envelope of understanding on this one is being extended somewhat. I have read and followed this topic before but this one has exposed new ideas. Great thread!

One point that comes out which may influence our perception of 'inherent accuracy' is wind drift versus velocity. In searching for a suitable long range rifle to build, I considered bullet drop and wind drift. Surely that would come into our definition of "inherent accuracy"? Another is that folks often report better accuracy when rechambering a 22 hornet to k-hornet. After much struggling (in a fun sort of way) with my hornet I seem to have found a load that works - but, I should mention, it is the inspiration gained from the folks on threads such as this one that has led me to find it. (Besides, I am too damn stubborn to give up on such a wonderful cartridge! )

So ... to all you good folks who make this hobby of ours more interesting!

P.S. My hornet out shot that 22-250 I keep mentioning! BUT, they were shooting a hodge-podge of weired and wonderful loads while I was shooting carefully 'hand-crafted' loads.
bartsche, perhaps a thread on 'inherently accurate rifles' would be in order!

Lets see here, our doughnut-eating radar-running larry demands documented information from folks and can't provide any himself.

It sure surprises me he would hold a member of the Board to one Standard ( documented information ) and yet not provide it for his wild assertions. Imagine that!

303 guy

Let's consider that the wind drift is also outside the parameters of "inherent accuracy". If one is looking at the all around accuracy aspects of a cartridge then the BC of the available bullets is most definately a consideration. But the BC only is one part of the inherent accuracy of a bullet if we consider it shot at long range (probably on the order of the last half of the expected effective range) Otherwise the "inherent accuracy" of a bullet is based on several factors of which the BC is not one of them. Good train of thought though as we must consider all aspects to end up with the most accurate load.

Don't give up on that Hornet, I have 4 of them and they are a joy to shoot even though frustrating at times.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Lets see here, our doughnut-eating radar-running larry demands documented information from folks and can't provide any himself.

It sure surprises me he would hold a member of the Board to one Standard ( documented information ) and yet not provide it for his wild assertions. Imagine that!

Hot Core

Obviously you are looking for a pissing contest again. However, let's give you the benifit of the doubt here; where in that thread did I ask for "documented evidence" and in what context? Please do include the context as you always leave it out in your seekings of a pissing contest. Note; If your response is not reasonable that will end my discussion with you here, as I'm not wasting any more time on your pissing contests...is that understood?

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

BTW....that don't make me buy into the "inherently accurate" crowd until such time as the term is defined.....and it's not been done here!

Ill take a stab at it. "Inherently accurate" is an engraciating generalism that is subject to changing times.

IE; During the spanish american war the 7X57 was "inherently accurate". During WWI the 30-06 was certianly an "accurate cartridge".

That being said its hard to diss such reputable chamberings as the 6.5X55, 308, 222 and the PPC's. Ive never seen one of those that didnt shoot well, and Ive also never seen a .30 carbine that did. Does that put me in the "believer" coloumn?

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
...where in that thread did I ask for "documented evidence" and in what context? ...

I realize that clicking on the previous Hot Link and reading the thread is perhaps beyond your ability.

Just to keep Roger's interest level up, let me throw a Tsetse fly in the ointment here.

Shooting competitive benchrest, one quickly learns there may be a difference between accuracy and consistency.

Accuracy comes to the fore in "benchrest for score". In that game, the competitor shoots 1 shot at the "X" dot in the middle of the 10-ring of each of 25 different "record" targets at 100 yards, and another 25 at the same size dot in the middle of 25 more targets at 200 yards. The guy who wins is the one with the highest score AND the most hits on those little "X" dots...often a 500/500 score, with 30 or more "X"s.

That is true accuacy, the ability to hit that which he/she aims at, time after time.

But in "group" benchrest shooting, consistency of the shots going to the same vicinity on the target is more importasnt than hitting what is aimed at with the first shot. To compete in the "group" events, the shooters fire five shots onto each of 5 "record" targets at 100 yards, and then do the same at 200 yards. What is measured is not whether the shots hit the part of the target aimed at, but how close to the first shot on target the other four are, measured from center to center of the widest apart shots.


So, even if the first shot misses the middle of the center ring of the target by 2" or more, what matters is, will he/she consistently miss by that exact amount, and miss in precisely the same direction?

One might even look at group shooting as the quest for perfectly consistent "inaccuracy".


So, that brings up a couple of new questions for you guys to wrestle with....

1. Are some cartridge chamberings more likely than others to produce accuracy in the sense of reliably hitting what the shooter aims at with the first shot on each target?

2. Are some chamberings more likely than others to be "consistent" in placing a series of shots to the same place on a target, even when it is NOT the spot the first shot was aimed at?

3. Are the chamberings which are best, the same ones in each category?

4. If not, why not?

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Just to keep Roger's interest level up, let me throw a Tsetse fly in the ointment here.

Shooting competitive benchrest, one quickly learns there may be a difference between accuracy and consistency.

Accuracy comes to the fore in "benchrest for score". In that game, the competitor shoots 1 shot at the "X" dot in the middle of the 10-ring of each of 25 different "record" targets at 100 yards, and another 25 at the same size dot in the middle of 25 more targets at 200 yards. The guy who wins is the one with the highest score AND the most hits on those little "X" dots...often a 500/500 score, with 30 or more "X"s.

That is true accuacy, the ability to hit that which he/she aims at, time after time.

But in "group" benchrest shooting, consistency of the shots going to the same vicinity on the target is more importasnt than hitting what is aimed at with the first shot. To compete in the "group" events, the shooters fire five shots onto each of 5 "record" targets at 100 yards, and then do the same at 200 yards. What is measured is not whether the shots hit the part of the target aimed at, but how close to the first shot on target the other four are, measured from center to center of the widest apart shots.


So, even if the first shot misses the middle of the center ring of the target by 2" or more, what matters is, will he/she consistently miss by that exact amount, and miss in precisely the same direction?

One might even look at group shooting as the quest for perfectly consistent "inaccuracy".


So, that brings up a couple of new questions for you guys to wrestle with....

1. Are some cartridge chamberings more likely than others to produce accuracy in the sense of reliably hitting what the shooter aims at with the first shot on each target?

2. Are some chamberings more likely than others to be "consistent" in placing a series of shots to the same place on a target, even when it is NOT the spot the first shot was aimed at?

3. Are the chamberings which are best, the same ones in each category?

4. If not, why not?

Let me squish the tseste fly. If under controlled conditions your "group" is not in the center of the target it's merely a matter of sight adjustment to get them there.

Under NON controlled conditions (i.e. outdoors in a match) hitting the center of the target is effected by wind, mirage and other conditions that have nothing to do with the inherant accuracy of a round.

By definition how could environmental conditions effect something inherant in a round itself? I think this is where a lot of people get confused about "inherant accuracy", while a 338 Lapua would shoot better groups at 1000yds than a 22 long rifle it wouldn't necessarily do so indoors at 25 meters. So if you want to define "inherant accuracy" you have to limit the definition to accuracy in controlled condition where external conditions aren't changing things........................................DJ

Wstrnhuntr

I've 2 M1 Carbines that shoot 15 shots (mag full) of cast bullets into 3" or less. They will shoot the Sierra 110 gr HP or the Hornady .308 90 gr XTP into 2", all at 100 yards. Also you might want to try other than milsurp in a Ruger BH or a TC Contender and you'd be very surprised at the accuracy of the .30 carbine cartridge. However that accuracy only relates to tests of the rifle/oad combinations much as the NATO test and the M1 test in .308 vs '06. None have any relationship the the "inherent accuracy" of the cartridge itself.

Alberta Canuck

Good questions but not relevent to "inherent accuracy....DJ gives a good explanation as to why.

djpaintles

"By definition how could environmental conditions effect something inherant in a round itself? I think this is where a lot of people get confused about "inherant accuracy", while a 338 Lapua would shoot better groups at 1000yds than a 22 long rifle it wouldn't necessarily do so indoors at 25 meters. So if you want to define "inherant accuracy" you have to limit the definition to accuracy in controlled condition where external conditions aren't changing things."

By george, I think you've got it!

Interesting to note that this very same question is asked in the "Questions & Answer" section of the November/December "Rifle Shooter" magazine. I picked it up at the airport and was amused to see the same question, "A Matter of Shape", discussed there. Wayne Van Zwoll uses the .300 H&H and the .300 WSM for comparison (a good one in my estimation). Van Zwoll nails it in his last paragraph. Worth looking at.

Guys, thanks for your input. Now excuse me gentlemen while I deal with Hot Core.

Hot Core

Just as I suspected, you are only looking for a pissing contest. You had a chance to enter into this discussion in a reasonable manner but apparently that is not what you chose to do. This ends our discussion.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
Wstrnhuntr

I've 2 M1 Carbines that shoot 15 shots (mag full) of cast bullets into 3" or less. They will shoot the Sierra 110 gr HP or the Hornady .308 90 gr XTP into 2", all at 100 yards. Also you might want to try other than milsurp in a Ruger BH or a TC Contender and you'd be very surprised at the accuracy of the .30 carbine cartridge. However that accuracy only relates to tests of the rifle/oad combinations much as the NATO test and the M1 test in .308 vs '06. None have any relationship the the "inherent accuracy" of the cartridge itself.

Larry Gibson

Well there you go!! That was the gist of my earlier point, that it probably has more to do with the weapon. I think cartridges with a reputation for poor accuracy can mostly be attributed to the weapons they are generaly found in. The real question is does that principle work the other way around when the cartridge has a reputation for shooting well??

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
Wstrnhuntr

I've 2 M1 Carbines that shoot 15 shots (mag full) of cast bullets into 3" or less.Larry Gibson

FYI only! I was issued an M2 carbine that came off the front line in Korea and ,no joke, it hard a hard time holding a 6 foot group at 100 yards. roger

WstrnHuntr

No, I think a worn out rifle/handgun or a shot out barrel are going to be inaccurate regardless of the cartridge. The obviously worn out M2 bartsche mentions is an example. I've seen lots of shotout match M14s that shot improved cylinder with decent match 7.62 (.308W) and quite a few M16s, M1s, M1903s and numerous other milsurps with shot out barrels that wouldn't shoot either regardless of the cartridge or ammo. I've also seen quite a few commercal rifles that normally give excellent accuracy shoot very poorly with shotout of severely corroded bores.

Larry Gibson

Would the bullet typically loaded in a cartridge influence its reputation for 'inherent' accuracy? I have been given the impression that the Lee Enfield was capable of surprizing accuracy from shot out and/or corroded bores. The 303 Brit was typically loaded with a Mk7 174gr bullet which is quite long and all that. Before I rebarreled my LMLE I was told by the range officer Sergent Major to just shoot the rust out the barrel. It didn't help! I did manage to land my shots onto the target at 600m but nowhere near an actual score.

If some cartridges are not inherently accurate, why do bench rest competition shooters tend to stick with a handful of calibers?

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
WstrnHuntr

No, I think a worn out rifle/handgun or a shot out barrel are going to be inaccurate regardless of the cartridge. The obviously worn out M2 bartsche mentions is an example. I've seen lots of shotout match M14s that shot improved cylinder with decent match 7.62 (.308W) and quite a few M16s, M1s, M1903s and numerous other milsurps with shot out barrels that wouldn't shoot either regardless of the cartridge or ammo. I've also seen quite a few commercal rifles that normally give excellent accuracy shoot very poorly with shotout of severely corroded bores.

Larry Gibson

Do you have any Documented Proof to support that??? Same Standard.