accuracy, cartridge or rifle?

[smoakingun]

We spend much time discussing accuracy. We compare bullets, cartridges, actions, bedding or free floating, powders, primers, and rifle nuances like lock up. The list of things that add up to accuracy is long. All that being said, What makes the most impact on the overall accuracy of our riflr and cartridge combo? The rifle? Or the Cartridge?

 

[Crosshair]

The rifle of course. Just look at 22 rim-fire guns. Same cartridge, but accuracy varies widely.

 

[jimbob86]

Depends uon the consistancy of the load.... Anybody can make an accurate gun inaccurate, or even down right prone to exploding, by sloppy handloading procedures......

 

[Bud Helms]

The rifle of course. Just look at 22 rim-fire guns. Same cartridge, but accuracy varies widely.

A .22 LR rifle will exhibit different accuracy according to the ammo used also.

It's both. BUT, a rifle is considered to have an inherent accuracy potential as long as you feed it the right ammo.

 

[hooligan1]

Sometimes it's the rifle with the proper load, and sometimes no matter what you feed a certain rifle it just won't shoot, so the answer is there's no real answer... The rifle is the tool in which we send the "pill" with, like Jimbob86 said handloading came make or explode the tool! The question to me is like asking, Which is more healthy, the food or the plate? HeckifIno

 

[Dwight55]

JMHO, . . . the rifle. You can have QC out the yazoo making your cartridges, but if you shoot a rifle that has a leaded up or shot out barrel, . . . you almost may as well hurl rocks.

On the other hand, . . . if you have a really good rifle system, . . . one you know well, . . . mediocre ammo can still do well, . . . in the hands of a competent shooter.

But you do need both to do <moa shooting.

May God bless,
Dwight

 

[smoakingun]

I'm re-reading wy original post, and I don't think I'm asking the right question.

My point lies somewhere in the realm of the inherent accuracy of the rifle vs. the inherent accuracy of the cartridge. For example, the .308 is said to be inherently more accurate than the '06, or the 22 ppc vs the 22 br or the 6mm ppc or 6mm br, balisticly th .308 and '06 are similar, ditto with ppc and br cartridges, benchrest shooters will argue pro's and cons for the 22's all day given the opprotunity, and neither of the 22's are to far off the 22-250. On the other hand, working up truely accurate loads for any of my nagant rifles has proven to be a challenge. I may get 2 or 3 rounds to hold 1 moa, but 5 or 7 rounds? I haven't found the magic load yet, but I have a sportered 7.7mm jap that will drive round after round into 1 moa with the right load.

All that, and I still don't know how to phrase the question.

 

[RaySendero]

smoakingun asked:

We spend much time discussing accuracy. We compare bullets, cartridges, actions, bedding or free floating, powders, primers, and rifle nuances like lock up. The list of things that add up to accuracy is long. All that being said, What makes the most impact on the overall accuracy of our riflr and cartridge combo? The rifle? Or the Cartridge?

In my experience - NEITHER the rifle or the cartridge!

What makes the most impact on the overall accuracy? The shooter!
Old saying - It's the "Indian" - Not the bow and arrow!
I've seen enough "deer rifle accuracy problems" where the shooter was skipped in the trouble-shooting only to eventually find that switching shooters would fix the problem!?


Now having said that, I would agree with those above that; trouble-shooting accuracy problems (after eliminating the shooter) should start with the rifle. Good ammo or reloads won't help a rifle with scope, scope mount, bedding, barrel, chamber, throat or crown problems.

However, I've got a 22LR, a 308 and a pair of 270s that are good examples of a rifle liking and dis-liking certain ammo:

This 22LR likes ammo when the length (the distance from the bottom of the rim to the top of the chamber diameter ring on the bullet) is between 0.760" and 0.772". I figure its due to the "free bore" or jump to the riflings. It absolutely doesnot like CCI mini-mags(0.778") or even match Eley Tenex (0.738") even though many other 22s will shoot'em well. It amazes me how much difference there is in this length from one 22 ammo to another. I suspect that this length variation is one of the reasons many can find a 22LR that their rifles like from just continued experimenting with one ammo after another.

On-the-other-hand, one of that pair of 270s and the 308 both like most any ammo or my reloads over the 150-168 wt range for the 308 and 130-150 wt range for that 270. These are the type of rifles a shooter loves own. The 270 will put my reloads and most factory ammo in what will look like the same 1" group at 100 yds. The 308 also shoots most ammo accurately - At 200 yards I find it will hold 2" with most ammo and will touch 3 with a couple!

The other 270 can shoot well but is very ammo finicky! With Rem 150s at 100 yards you would not be impressed - Average groups are over 2.5" and my all time best was 1.75". Now switch to 150 PMCs and it shoots groups from 5/8 to 7/8". Try the inexpensive winchester 150 PP factory ammo and it shoots some 1/2" groups (see below) and go figure?

 

[smoakingun]

What makes the most impact on the overall accuracy? The shooter!
Old saying - It's the "Indian" - Not the bow and arrow!
I've seen enough "deer rifle accuracy problems" where the shooter was skipped in the trouble-shooting only to eventually find that switching shooters would fix the problem!?

I can't disagree with that at all. I really wish I was better at articulating this question. I am not really trying to solve any one problem, but rather trying to put together in my head a better picture of where rifle accuracy comes from.

 

[MTT TL]

Which makes your car drive better? The engine or transmission?

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Look at it like this:

You have 4 things:

1)A crappy rifle.

2)Crappy ammo.

3)A great rifle.

4)Great Ammo.


In my experience, combine 1 and 2 and you get crap, combine 1 and 4 and you get "crap", combine 2 and 3 and you get "decent", combine 3 and 4 and you get "Wow!".

All of this, naturally, assumes that the nut behind the butt isn't the real problem.

From all of the rifles and ammo combos that I've used, it seems that the "potential" of the gun has a greater effect than does the potential of the ammo. A great gun will shoot crap ammo decently but a crappy gun will not shoot great ammo well at all.

 

[Bud Helms]

I'm re-reading wy original post, and I don't think I'm asking the right question.

My point lies somewhere in the realm of the inherent accuracy of the rifle vs. the inherent accuracy of the cartridge.

Well, there's no such thing as the perfect rifle setup or the perfect loaded cartridge. They are both full of choices.

From your opening post: ...

... What makes the most impact on the overall accuracy of our riflr and cartridge combo? The rifle? Or the Cartridge?

Neither has the most impact in every possible combination of rifle and ammo. Sometimes its the rifle and sometime its the ammo. That's why I said both. It can be either and is always one or the other or both to some degree. 'Truth is, the shooter is the biggest variable and has the most impact. But that isn't what you asked. Your question limited the answers to rifle or ammo.

You said it yourself: ...

The list of things that add up to accuracy is long.

That's it. It is a collection of effects and they are not static, but change day-to-day, hour-to-hour. I'd say ammo is more sensitive to the environment and how it's treated (handled, stored) than the rifle. Not to mention the vagaries of consistency from one round to the next. And consistency in the rifle/ammo combination makes for accuracy.

But in the end, since my rifles are more accurate than I am, I quit worrying about which one, the rifle or the ammo is responsible for my 1 1/4 in groups at 100. I know it's me.

 

[10-96]

So, nestled in there somewhere... One could be asking, "Are Mosin Nagants an accurate rifle?" That's a bad question, unless you had access to say 10 pristine examples and identical ammo to form a sound proof-backed comparison on the firing line. Now, you can weigh all the guys who say "My MN will hold .5moa all day long." Is that an accurate descriptive of MN's as a whole- hardly not! Aside from the few that I've had- surely there must be more that can't manage a 4"/100yd group. Yes, some MN's are/were outstanding- the majority, no. As in the U.S. with the 1903's- early sniper grade rifles weren't purposely built, they shot and examined so many out of multiple batches and chose the ones which performed the best to mount optics on. I may be wrong, but I don't think that changed much until Winchester and Remington civilian type rifles were purchased and pressed into service.

That does bring up a wonderment on rimmed ctg's. In the first decade or two of the 20th century, folks were finding out that their old standby rimmed .22 and .25 centerfires were getting left in the dirt by these new fangled rimless ctg's. Based on that alone without any scientific or practice based proof- I personally would not expect a great deal of accuracy out of a long thin MN bbl that has to deal with heat, thin stock, bolt play designed to contend with battlefield dirtied rimmed ammo, and ammo that was forced into dual roles. That latter part may be a non-issue, but I surmise that if fire formed Lapua brass could be had, it would result in a higher degree of satisfactory results as opposed to "factory standard" brass that will merely reliably function in either a machinegun or a bolt action battle rifle. True, the 7.7 Jap was a battle rifle, however, look at the differences in bolt lockup, stock to metal fit, barrel contour, barrel thickness and dementions, and case design.

I wish I knew what you were trying to ask. However, I kind of suspect you're looking for a single and simple black/white answer. Whatever the answer is- it isn't single OR simple. After all, a tortilla alone doesn't make an enchilada- it requires all that other stuff I probably don't want to know about, and is way above my head anyhow.

Good luck with what your'e looking for.

 

[Zak Smith]

In my experience:

* The better a rifle, the more types of ammunition it will shoot with excellent accuracy.

* Some cartridges are easier to find very accurate load recipes, or there are more "known to be excellent" load recipes. Some cartridges seem to have 2 or 3 "magic loads" and nothing else shoots good.

* The above point can be said for rifles as well.

* The single most important aspect of the rifle for mechanical accuracy is the quality of the barrel, the skill of the work done chambering it, and fitting it to the action.

* For basically rifle shooters, a 0.2 to 0.3 MOA rifle is fantastic and has more capability than the shooter has. The same could really be said for a 1/2 MOA rifle. The only exception to this is competition Benchrest (BR) shooters, whose matches are won and lost in 0.05 MOA increments. Benchrest is where you see a difference between "inherently accurate" cartridges vs. the rest. I am convinced a 0.25 - 1/2 MOA rifle can be built in any cartridge (though I do not have proof).

* The biggest hurdles I have seen for new would-be precision rifle shooters is that their rifles do not fit them (LOP, comb height, and scope position), horrendous trigger pull weight, poor technique, and poor choice in ammunition.

* Rifle accuracy depends on a complex system to work in a very precise and repeatable way. The more unknowns or compromised parts of that system, the less potential the system has.

 

[woodguru]

I've had a slew of Sako's and never one that wasn't out of the box accurate. Several were .243's and none of them shot their best with the same ammo. That said I had developed some universal loads that seemed to be across the board good for all of them.

The rifle has to be capable of making use of the cartridge.

I have two really good same rifle examples. A Remington XB40 and I developed every minute variation of charge, bullet, and primer. Gave up and got Reminton to swap it for a new one after their shop checked it out. The replacement shot the worst loads better than I could get with the best on the first one, it was easy to develop one hole loads for it.

My first .17 HMR was a Savage heavy barrel from Big 5. I put an Elite 4200 8-32x on it and went to the range with over half a dozen cartridge types. The worst were at over three inches and the best were over one and a half. I was really disappointed. I had taken some other targets I had shot with a Remington .223 with a Kahles scope that easily printed half inch groups with handloads. The manager and I talked to their customer service rep and the rep told the manager to give me a new rifle (I had to wait 10 days for it though), I think they sold the old one to someone else. The new one did way better with everything and dished out half inch groups with about one out of four or five flyers at an 3/4 to an inch. The common consensus there is that the ammo is responsible for the flyers. My Anschutz did the same thing, nice tight group of three or four shots and a half to three quarter inch flyer that screwed up the group. The .17's are frustrating to me for that reason, but I love to shoot ground squirrels with them and the HM2's.

Just for grins and giggles here's a picture of a 25 yard target on a brand new rifle I was dialing in the scope on. It's three shot groups for position and change, and as soon as I was dialed I went for three groups of five. I used green dot CCI target rounds and it was a Remington 597 heavy barreled laminate I still have.

Accuracy has always felt like a crap shoot to me but Sako's have never disappointed. Each rifle is only so accurate it is capable of doing.

The Remington 504 .22's seem to reflect that crap shoot theory, some are incredibly accurate tack drivers, some not as precise.

 

[smoakingun]

ok, lets try this. The reason this question came up is because of two rifles. I shot bench rest for a few years. In the beginning, I used a 22-250 I had blue printed and was using on sod pups in wyoming and montana. As I became more involved I had another rifle built in 22 br. The rifles were very similar in performance, but time after time, the bench rifle out performed the 22-250. What I wonder is is it the rifle or the cartridge that makes the difference?

 

[woodguru]

That 22 br had a reputation for excellent inherent accuracy. I had a .22PPC Sako that was the same, it was easier to develop, or should I say more combinations were capable of one hole groups than you'd get developing 22-250 which I also shot.

To me that's what is meant when we talk about the rifle's ability to shoot better than something else.

Certain bullet ballistic coefficients are just better so they have a better inherent potential than something else. By the same token there are cartridge configurations that are more inherently stable than others. Some are meant to be used with compatible rifling twists as well. Cartridges have been sabotaged from the start by manufacturers choosing wrong twists than the bullet is prone to being used for. .223 is one of those that shoots bad if loaded outside of the window the twist of the barrel does well with.

I hope that didn't get away from being pertinent to the observation and question. It's a complicated issue as to whether it's the rifle or cartridge. IMO it's best to start with the known to be accurate rifles and cartridge combos, I really like Sakos in .243 and .22-250.

 

[smoakingun]

To further add to my quandry, the rifles are built on totally different actions. When I made the switch to competing with the br, the difference in groups was measurable, but I still wondered if it is the cartridge or rifle that made the biggest difference

 

[m&p45acp10+1]

Just in my experience. (I am the guy that spends over 30 hours a week at the range on average.) Most rifles with any ammo are more acurate than the people that shoot them. Mine shoot well, though I am quite sure there are more than a few people that can shoot them better than I can with any ammo.

 

[Buzzcook]

imho it's the rifle that is more important.

Work up a perfect load for one rifle and the best you might do is >1moa. Work up a perfect load for a different rifle and you might get one ragged hole.