intrinsically accurate calibers
- Thread starter kcub
- Start date
g.willikers
New member
That would be hard to prove.
There's so many variables that come into play for guns, ammo and manufacturing differences.
But .22 rimfires and .44 Specials do seem to be very accurate in most everything I've tried.
There's so many variables that come into play for guns, ammo and manufacturing differences.
But .22 rimfires and .44 Specials do seem to be very accurate in most everything I've tried.
Cartridges that are shorter have proven to burn powder more efficiently than longer cases resulting in slightly better accuracy. 308 vs 30-06, 300 WSM vs 300 WM, 6.5 Creedmore vs 6.5X55 etc. In every example the shorter case will develop very near the same bullet speeds and with better accuracy than the longer counterpart.
The difference is small and the typical shooter isn't good enough, nor has rifles or ammo good enough to notice the difference. But it is there.
The difference is small and the typical shooter isn't good enough, nor has rifles or ammo good enough to notice the difference. But it is there.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
In my ignorance, I'm guessing that the benchrest crowd has done more experimenting in this area than have most others. Probably more likely to find an answer at one of those websites.
I have read in a number of places that handgun cartridges that don't break the sonic barrier (38 special and 45 acp) are generally more accurate than those that break the barrier (approx. 1100 fps) because breaking the barrier but not greatly exceeding it as most handgun cartridges do causes some destabilization and affects accuracy. Hence 45acp and 38 special have historically been favored by bullseye shooters.
I wonder if the same accuracy principles apply to subsonic 300 blackout.
I wonder if the same accuracy principles apply to subsonic 300 blackout.
It's generally agreed on, in the precision shooting games, that keg shaped rounds with powder closer to the source of ignition and packed into a more dense by case length charge are far more consistent in burning charges.
But then, the 45-70 was once the king. Of precision shooting, and later, the 30-06.
You can resolve the question accurately and easily by looking up bench rest associations, and look up past competition records. The records will include stats on the winning gun.
But then, the 45-70 was once the king. Of precision shooting, and later, the 30-06.
You can resolve the question accurately and easily by looking up bench rest associations, and look up past competition records. The records will include stats on the winning gun.
4runnerman
New member
JMR40 pretty much nailed it. Short , fat cases. Better more consistant powder burn. I can add one to his list. 243 and 243WSM. Not a Bible rule, but pretty much.
FrankenMauser
New member
I agree that 'short/fats' typically seem to be fairly accurate.
But, at the same time, I don't really believe in the 'inherent accuracy' theories.
The barrel is more important than the cartridge. And, most short/fat cartridges were designed for, and are used in rifles that wouldn't be caught dead without damn good barrels.
Was it the chicken, or the egg?
But, at the same time, I don't really believe in the 'inherent accuracy' theories.
The barrel is more important than the cartridge. And, most short/fat cartridges were designed for, and are used in rifles that wouldn't be caught dead without damn good barrels.
Was it the chicken, or the egg?
Yes, the triple deuce is known to be highly accurate. Some pretty amazing groups have been shot with that caliber. My father has a first year rem 700 carbine in just that caliber. Pretty rare gun these days. If i only get one of his guns in the future...it will be that one.
The history of bench rest shooting, all.seventy years of it, is incredibly complicated. God only knows exactly how this evolved. You had groups who all focused on their own things. Warren Paige was action and barrels, Ferris Liddell was cartridges, I don't really know who's the group who drove the development of the VLD designs.
The .222 was the king of short range bench rest, then the ppc cartridges were created for short range and morphed into long range.
Bench shooting was genuine scientific research, just like any other. Bench research created mile long sniping. Garage mechanics led to the hemi.. nerd boy and his thousands of droppings, Eric, I mean drones, created Windows out of a garage.
The .222 was the king of short range bench rest, then the ppc cartridges were created for short range and morphed into long range.
Bench shooting was genuine scientific research, just like any other. Bench research created mile long sniping. Garage mechanics led to the hemi.. nerd boy and his thousands of droppings, Eric, I mean drones, created Windows out of a garage.
mikejonestkd
New member
Xerox had a GUI first.....
There are cartridges that ' should ' be inherently accurate due their design, and most of them are in practice, and then there are cartridges that shouldn't be spectacular but are, in spite of their shape.
t4terrific
New member
If people had to qualify their words with performance, there would be far less advice passed around.
No mention of 7mm Mauser or 7.5x55, yet? Two of the oldest and yet most accurate smokeless rifle rounds out there? Same goes for early pistol rounds which similarly are hard to beat by 100+ years of development (45acp, 9mm Luger and 30 Mauser). It's almost like this exact question was asked, and scientifically solved by engineers before the first cartridges were fielded
Are there any intrinisically inaccurate cartridges? Stuff that isn't made from recycled forks, and loaded to the nearest 5 grains with powder possibly containing the toenails of political dissidents?
The concerns about transonic performance aren't so much a reflection of inherent accuracy, as understanding and respecting the limitations of range. Drag drops rapidly once you get a little further from Mach 1, but once the body is fully enveloped inside a shock cone, its stability/turbulence isn't much different from a faster speed (just the amount of drag force slowing it down)
"Windows was stolen from Apple. Apple had GUI interface long before St Bill."
What, you think it realistic that a text-based DOS interface would remain the standard? Please. At least Gates paid the dude from whom they sniped proto-DOS a fair market value for an underdeveloped product. Despite rose-colored history by hipsters, it's kind of open knowledge that Jobs & crew were a much more ruthless & bridge-burning set of business jerks of the type you'd expect from the '80's, hence their meteoric rise and fall.
TCB
Are there any intrinisically inaccurate cartridges? Stuff that isn't made from recycled forks, and loaded to the nearest 5 grains with powder possibly containing the toenails of political dissidents?
The concerns about transonic performance aren't so much a reflection of inherent accuracy, as understanding and respecting the limitations of range. Drag drops rapidly once you get a little further from Mach 1, but once the body is fully enveloped inside a shock cone, its stability/turbulence isn't much different from a faster speed (just the amount of drag force slowing it down)
"Windows was stolen from Apple. Apple had GUI interface long before St Bill."
What, you think it realistic that a text-based DOS interface would remain the standard? Please. At least Gates paid the dude from whom they sniped proto-DOS a fair market value for an underdeveloped product. Despite rose-colored history by hipsters, it's kind of open knowledge that Jobs & crew were a much more ruthless & bridge-burning set of business jerks of the type you'd expect from the '80's, hence their meteoric rise and fall.
TCB
If there weren't any difference, then serious benchrest shooters would be using dozens of different cartridges. They aren't. The 6mm PPC rules the roost and has for some time.
That said, the differences in accuracy are small enough that they aren't worth worrying about unless you are a benchrest shooter using a full house bench rifle. For example, a 308 is intrinsically more accurate than a 30-06, but I wouldn't let that influence which I chose for a sporting weight hunting rifle.
That said, the differences in accuracy are small enough that they aren't worth worrying about unless you are a benchrest shooter using a full house bench rifle. For example, a 308 is intrinsically more accurate than a 30-06, but I wouldn't let that influence which I chose for a sporting weight hunting rifle.