What makes one caliber more accurate than another? Wouldn't the rifle make the caliber more accurate more so than the caliber making the rifle accurate? Let's say for instance a 6br vs a straight up 243 win. What makes a 6br so accurate or a couple of years ago it was a 260 that was the caliber to have for long range shooting. Is it because the design of a specific cartridge is more efficient and burns the powder more uniformed than another? Thanx for any and all replies.
Caliber accuracy
- Thread starter devildogg
- Start date
Widow maker 223
Active member
I think the gun, load and bullet are what make accuracy. Along with the fool using the tool. High BC's and weights of some bullets make them better for long range accuracy. All 3 calibers you mentioned can be highly accurate. But it will be harder to make them all have the same amount of accuracy at long distance 800+. Due to speed and bullet bc. I know the .243 can make it to 1k. But the 6br and 260 will do it easier with less wind deflection amd drop.
JerrySchmitt
New member
It's a mystery to me also and I'd really like to know the answer. The 6PPC, 6 BR and the .243 shoot the same bullet but all the bench rest matches are won by the 6PPC. In long range matches the 6 BR, 6 Dasher and 6X47 Lapua seem to do all the winning.
I have two rifles built by the same smith about a week apart. Both have 26 inch 8 twist Lilja barrels. One is chambered in 6 BR and one in 243AI. Both have 6.5-20 Leupold scopes, same trigger same stock. For me, they shoot about the same with a minor edge going to the 6BR. If I were a great shot, one might shoot better than the other.
I have two rifles built by the same smith about a week apart. Both have 26 inch 8 twist Lilja barrels. One is chambered in 6 BR and one in 243AI. Both have 6.5-20 Leupold scopes, same trigger same stock. For me, they shoot about the same with a minor edge going to the 6BR. If I were a great shot, one might shoot better than the other.
SShooterZ
New member
My uneducated guess has to do with efficiency, bullets, available brass, etc for some rounds.
Take the 6MM for example. Not a very efficient round. In fact, the 6MMBR can do just about all the same velocities with the same bullet in many cases with much less powder. Less powder can equate to less barrel heat, less throat damage, etc. All adding to improved accuracy.
Then take into effect match bullets, BC as mentioned above, etc, and some will shoot better than others. Especially factory ammo.
Take the 6MM for example. Not a very efficient round. In fact, the 6MMBR can do just about all the same velocities with the same bullet in many cases with much less powder. Less powder can equate to less barrel heat, less throat damage, etc. All adding to improved accuracy.
Then take into effect match bullets, BC as mentioned above, etc, and some will shoot better than others. Especially factory ammo.
JerrySchmitt
New member
Originally Posted By: SShooterZMy uneducated guess has to do with efficiency, bullets, available brass, etc for some rounds.
Take the 6MM for example. Not a very efficient round. In fact, the 6MMBR can do just about all the same velocities with the same bullet in many cases with much less powder. Less powder can equate to less barrel heat, less throat damage, etc. All adding to improved accuracy.
Then take into effect match bullets, BC as mentioned above, etc, and some will shoot better than others. Especially factory ammo.
You can rule out bullets and brass in the case of 6BR Vs .243. Both can use the same bullets and Lapua brass. My 6 BR load is about 150 FPS slower than my .243 AI load using 106 AMAX bullets so it is more efficient but I don't see how that effects accuracy.
Take the 6MM for example. Not a very efficient round. In fact, the 6MMBR can do just about all the same velocities with the same bullet in many cases with much less powder. Less powder can equate to less barrel heat, less throat damage, etc. All adding to improved accuracy.
Then take into effect match bullets, BC as mentioned above, etc, and some will shoot better than others. Especially factory ammo.
You can rule out bullets and brass in the case of 6BR Vs .243. Both can use the same bullets and Lapua brass. My 6 BR load is about 150 FPS slower than my .243 AI load using 106 AMAX bullets so it is more efficient but I don't see how that effects accuracy.
Varminterror
New member
Efficiency and consistency of burn are critical for "inherent accuracy" in any given cartridge.
Shooters are finding out that short fat cartridges have more uniform combustion round to round than long, skinny cartridges, which is why you don't see anything by stubby little cartridges on BR lines anymore. Having a huge ES from round to round can at best cause vertical stringing, and can occasionally open your groups up horizontally as well.
Short, fat designs generally get a lot more bang for their buck than long/skinny cases as well, as in a more efficient burn. I don't know if it's necessarily a "more efficient burn" really, since I've never heard anything about what percentage of the powder actually gets burnt, BUT, you certainly do get more velocity/energy per grain of powder.
What I honestly think is happening: the rear face area of the powder is larger, and the column is shorter, so the flame front is broader, and has less distance to travel. That means it's increasing pressure much more rapidly (delta P per fractional inch of case length traveled), and completes combustion much more quickly (length is shorter), so the pressure curve against the bullet raises faster, then maintains longer. W = F * D, F = M * A = P * ax, E = 1/2 M * V^2, run through the numbers, and the physics support what shooters see at the bench.
With the pressure essentially "maxing out" earlier, the deviation in pressure curve from one round to the next is minimized. Compare a 15 number series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10. That's a total of 105. But what if a slight deviation happens, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10. Still 15 numbers (analogous to pressure readings in a barrel of a fixed length), but now the total is 113. But what if the series topped out earlier? 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 10.... The 15 number total would be 131. A slight deviation 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, ... The new 15 numer total would be 128. Not much %RSD, so short fat rounds get more consistent burn rates from round to round.
The efficiency, energy per grain, that they gain, I believe is because the powder column is shorter, and the combustion happens more quickly. Think of hitting a baseball with a bat, versus pushing it with your foot with the same total energy. Even with the same expenditure of work or energy, the resultant velocity of the ball is very different due to the impulse (duration of the energy exchange).
That not only means I get more velocity from my rifle, but I also have lower reloading bills (although I generally end up spending about the same, and just shooting more!!)
So yeah, there ARE reasons that one round is more accurate than others.
Shooters are finding out that short fat cartridges have more uniform combustion round to round than long, skinny cartridges, which is why you don't see anything by stubby little cartridges on BR lines anymore. Having a huge ES from round to round can at best cause vertical stringing, and can occasionally open your groups up horizontally as well.
Short, fat designs generally get a lot more bang for their buck than long/skinny cases as well, as in a more efficient burn. I don't know if it's necessarily a "more efficient burn" really, since I've never heard anything about what percentage of the powder actually gets burnt, BUT, you certainly do get more velocity/energy per grain of powder.
What I honestly think is happening: the rear face area of the powder is larger, and the column is shorter, so the flame front is broader, and has less distance to travel. That means it's increasing pressure much more rapidly (delta P per fractional inch of case length traveled), and completes combustion much more quickly (length is shorter), so the pressure curve against the bullet raises faster, then maintains longer. W = F * D, F = M * A = P * ax, E = 1/2 M * V^2, run through the numbers, and the physics support what shooters see at the bench.
With the pressure essentially "maxing out" earlier, the deviation in pressure curve from one round to the next is minimized. Compare a 15 number series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10. That's a total of 105. But what if a slight deviation happens, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10. Still 15 numbers (analogous to pressure readings in a barrel of a fixed length), but now the total is 113. But what if the series topped out earlier? 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 10.... The 15 number total would be 131. A slight deviation 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, ... The new 15 numer total would be 128. Not much %RSD, so short fat rounds get more consistent burn rates from round to round.
The efficiency, energy per grain, that they gain, I believe is because the powder column is shorter, and the combustion happens more quickly. Think of hitting a baseball with a bat, versus pushing it with your foot with the same total energy. Even with the same expenditure of work or energy, the resultant velocity of the ball is very different due to the impulse (duration of the energy exchange).
That not only means I get more velocity from my rifle, but I also have lower reloading bills (although I generally end up spending about the same, and just shooting more!!)
So yeah, there ARE reasons that one round is more accurate than others.
doggin coyotes
Well-known member
Friggin engineers.
skinney
Director
Originally Posted By: VarminterrorEfficiency and consistency of burn are critical for "inherent accuracy" in any given cartridge.
Shooters are finding out that short fat cartridges have more uniform combustion round to round than long, skinny cartridges, which is why you don't see anything by stubby little cartridges on BR lines anymore. Having a huge ES from round to round can at best cause vertical stringing, and can occasionally open your groups up horizontally as well.
Short, fat designs generally get a lot more bang for their buck than long/skinny cases as well, as in a more efficient burn. I don't know if it's necessarily a "more efficient burn" really, since I've never heard anything about what percentage of the powder actually gets burnt, BUT, you certainly do get more velocity/energy per grain of powder.
What I honestly think is happening: the rear face area of the powder is larger, and the column is shorter, so the flame front is broader, and has less distance to travel. That means it's increasing pressure much more rapidly (delta P per fractional inch of case length traveled), and completes combustion much more quickly (length is shorter), so the pressure curve against the bullet raises faster, then maintains longer. W = F * D, F = M * A = P * ax, E = 1/2 M * V^2, run through the numbers, and the physics support what shooters see at the bench.
With the pressure essentially "maxing out" earlier, the deviation in pressure curve from one round to the next is minimized. Compare a 15 number series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10. That's a total of 105. But what if a slight deviation happens, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10. Still 15 numbers (analogous to pressure readings in a barrel of a fixed length), but now the total is 113. But what if the series topped out earlier? 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 10.... The 15 number total would be 131. A slight deviation 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, ... The new 15 numer total would be 128. Not much %RSD, so short fat rounds get more consistent burn rates from round to round.
The efficiency, energy per grain, that they gain, I believe is because the powder column is shorter, and the combustion happens more quickly. Think of hitting a baseball with a bat, versus pushing it with your foot with the same total energy. Even with the same expenditure of work or energy, the resultant velocity of the ball is very different due to the impulse (duration of the energy exchange).
That not only means I get more velocity from my rifle, but I also have lower reloading bills (although I generally end up spending about the same, and just shooting more!!)
So yeah, there ARE reasons that one round is more accurate than others.
wow...
the difference is not just the consistency of burn for accuracy, you can have and ES of 40fps and shoot a bughole at a quarter mile, its when you get out LR that you start to see significant spread in your groups... think about this, why do people who aren't concerned about velocity, prefer a shorter "fatter" barrel with a faster twist? have you ever seen a longer barrel flex "harmonics" when shot? neither have I but it happens... I think a shorter barrel is more rigid, and possibly just as or more accurate... same principle applies to a cartridge, I watched a Tubb video a month ago, and he goes so far as to measure the "banana" bend in a fired case, then marks it for timing before firing!!! of course I may be wrong, this is just my take.
Another reason some calibers are more accurate @ longer ranges, has to do with ballistics, which is why the 6.5's and the 7mm's are so good, High BC, less drag, more efficient in wind and cutting through the atmosphere, period.
Shooters are finding out that short fat cartridges have more uniform combustion round to round than long, skinny cartridges, which is why you don't see anything by stubby little cartridges on BR lines anymore. Having a huge ES from round to round can at best cause vertical stringing, and can occasionally open your groups up horizontally as well.
Short, fat designs generally get a lot more bang for their buck than long/skinny cases as well, as in a more efficient burn. I don't know if it's necessarily a "more efficient burn" really, since I've never heard anything about what percentage of the powder actually gets burnt, BUT, you certainly do get more velocity/energy per grain of powder.
What I honestly think is happening: the rear face area of the powder is larger, and the column is shorter, so the flame front is broader, and has less distance to travel. That means it's increasing pressure much more rapidly (delta P per fractional inch of case length traveled), and completes combustion much more quickly (length is shorter), so the pressure curve against the bullet raises faster, then maintains longer. W = F * D, F = M * A = P * ax, E = 1/2 M * V^2, run through the numbers, and the physics support what shooters see at the bench.
With the pressure essentially "maxing out" earlier, the deviation in pressure curve from one round to the next is minimized. Compare a 15 number series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10. That's a total of 105. But what if a slight deviation happens, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10. Still 15 numbers (analogous to pressure readings in a barrel of a fixed length), but now the total is 113. But what if the series topped out earlier? 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 10.... The 15 number total would be 131. A slight deviation 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, ... The new 15 numer total would be 128. Not much %RSD, so short fat rounds get more consistent burn rates from round to round.
The efficiency, energy per grain, that they gain, I believe is because the powder column is shorter, and the combustion happens more quickly. Think of hitting a baseball with a bat, versus pushing it with your foot with the same total energy. Even with the same expenditure of work or energy, the resultant velocity of the ball is very different due to the impulse (duration of the energy exchange).
That not only means I get more velocity from my rifle, but I also have lower reloading bills (although I generally end up spending about the same, and just shooting more!!)
So yeah, there ARE reasons that one round is more accurate than others.
wow...
the difference is not just the consistency of burn for accuracy, you can have and ES of 40fps and shoot a bughole at a quarter mile, its when you get out LR that you start to see significant spread in your groups... think about this, why do people who aren't concerned about velocity, prefer a shorter "fatter" barrel with a faster twist? have you ever seen a longer barrel flex "harmonics" when shot? neither have I but it happens... I think a shorter barrel is more rigid, and possibly just as or more accurate... same principle applies to a cartridge, I watched a Tubb video a month ago, and he goes so far as to measure the "banana" bend in a fired case, then marks it for timing before firing!!! of course I may be wrong, this is just my take.
Another reason some calibers are more accurate @ longer ranges, has to do with ballistics, which is why the 6.5's and the 7mm's are so good, High BC, less drag, more efficient in wind and cutting through the atmosphere, period.
Varminterror
New member
I agree about the 40fps and 400yrds. You won't see significant vertical stringing at that level of ES until you get farther downtown, especially for high BC pills.
Regarding barrel harmonics...
Agreed, but the guy wasn't asking about rifles, he was just asking about the inherent accuracy of different cartridges
I wouldn't necessarily say that any given caliber (not cartridge) has an advantage for inherent accuracy, other than the state of the components that are offered. There seems to be a breaking point in current components that for 140-180grn bullets in the 2900-3100fps range, the best combination happens to fall somewhere between 6.5-7mm. A well designed 30cal 180-200grn bullet with a 0.5-0.6 BC at 3200-3400fps would make a fantastic 1,000yrd round, but frankly, it'll be a beast to shoot, so guys lean towards something lighter. No reason to kill your shoulder and bounce your rifle out of the rest just to punch paper. Just considering the bullet in flight, "inherent accuracy" really speaks to its stability and ability to fight off environmentals, then coupled with that, the shot to shot consistency of each round. BC, MV, SD, bullet weight, rotational velocity, etc etc all have an effect on how well a given bullet combats the environmental factors working on it, temp, humidity, pressure, wind, etc. There is more than one "right answer" out there for caliber.
Then in addition to all of the environmental effects on the bullet itself, you add in thermal effects on combustion, the rotational stabilizing forces (and their resultant drift induction), the concentricity AND the co-axiality of the bullet with the bore from throat to muzzle, flexion of the barrel, the parallax error in the scope, lock-time of the striker, flexion of the stock, muzzle jump of the rifle....
Bottom line, there are a whole heck of a lot of factors that come into play at long ranges that all add up to what makes long range shooting so fun, and equally so frustrating. Minimizing variance at all levels is what we're here for, right?
Regarding barrel harmonics...
Agreed, but the guy wasn't asking about rifles, he was just asking about the inherent accuracy of different cartridges
I wouldn't necessarily say that any given caliber (not cartridge) has an advantage for inherent accuracy, other than the state of the components that are offered. There seems to be a breaking point in current components that for 140-180grn bullets in the 2900-3100fps range, the best combination happens to fall somewhere between 6.5-7mm. A well designed 30cal 180-200grn bullet with a 0.5-0.6 BC at 3200-3400fps would make a fantastic 1,000yrd round, but frankly, it'll be a beast to shoot, so guys lean towards something lighter. No reason to kill your shoulder and bounce your rifle out of the rest just to punch paper. Just considering the bullet in flight, "inherent accuracy" really speaks to its stability and ability to fight off environmentals, then coupled with that, the shot to shot consistency of each round. BC, MV, SD, bullet weight, rotational velocity, etc etc all have an effect on how well a given bullet combats the environmental factors working on it, temp, humidity, pressure, wind, etc. There is more than one "right answer" out there for caliber.
Then in addition to all of the environmental effects on the bullet itself, you add in thermal effects on combustion, the rotational stabilizing forces (and their resultant drift induction), the concentricity AND the co-axiality of the bullet with the bore from throat to muzzle, flexion of the barrel, the parallax error in the scope, lock-time of the striker, flexion of the stock, muzzle jump of the rifle....
Bottom line, there are a whole heck of a lot of factors that come into play at long ranges that all add up to what makes long range shooting so fun, and equally so frustrating. Minimizing variance at all levels is what we're here for, right?
Last edited:
ARCOREY
New member
Saying one is more accurate than the other is merely regurgitating internet acquired sewage in my opinion.
By some of these examples, we'd be led to believe that a 243WSSM in a NEF handy rifle is "inherently more accurate" than George Gardeners GAP built 243Win or that a 6BR chambered Rossi would hold a candle to a Dtech 6x45
. I've seen a 30-30 that would outshoot most "inherently accurate" Savage 6BR's, of course it was a custom built falling block shooting handloaded spire points and wearing a Unertyl scope, and well built at that
.
Accuracy is in the weapon, the load made for that weapon, and the shooter. It appears you see so many more accurate 6BR's and 6PPC's because you have to handload them and only someone who is serious enough to put out that much money would have them. Joe Shmoe isn't going to dump several grand into a PPC bolt faced rifle and do all the brass prep with trimming and neck turning and weighing and sorting and checking runout and buy the expensive Lapua Brass and dies and put two grand in optics on it to shoot beer cans on Saturday. He will go to Wally World and get a 243Win in a $400 Savage and a box of Core-Lokts and do it with his Bushnell Banner scope because it is available and obtainable. With the majority of shooters being weekend warriors, you'll have more accurate targets from those who are more prestigeous buyers. The mass of buyers buying shelf grade ammo, guns, and optics and being occasional shooters dilutes the pool. With $6000 in a rifle, you'll find time to shoot it a lot and become proficient or you wasted a lot of money
.
Now velocity, energy, efficiency, and which are appropriate for cetain applications are different matters, but this question was posted as inherent accuracy between calibers and cartridges, which I don't believe exists.
By some of these examples, we'd be led to believe that a 243WSSM in a NEF handy rifle is "inherently more accurate" than George Gardeners GAP built 243Win or that a 6BR chambered Rossi would hold a candle to a Dtech 6x45
Accuracy is in the weapon, the load made for that weapon, and the shooter. It appears you see so many more accurate 6BR's and 6PPC's because you have to handload them and only someone who is serious enough to put out that much money would have them. Joe Shmoe isn't going to dump several grand into a PPC bolt faced rifle and do all the brass prep with trimming and neck turning and weighing and sorting and checking runout and buy the expensive Lapua Brass and dies and put two grand in optics on it to shoot beer cans on Saturday. He will go to Wally World and get a 243Win in a $400 Savage and a box of Core-Lokts and do it with his Bushnell Banner scope because it is available and obtainable. With the majority of shooters being weekend warriors, you'll have more accurate targets from those who are more prestigeous buyers. The mass of buyers buying shelf grade ammo, guns, and optics and being occasional shooters dilutes the pool. With $6000 in a rifle, you'll find time to shoot it a lot and become proficient or you wasted a lot of money
Now velocity, energy, efficiency, and which are appropriate for cetain applications are different matters, but this question was posted as inherent accuracy between calibers and cartridges, which I don't believe exists.
JerrySchmitt
New member
Originally Posted By: ARCOREYSaying one is more accurate than the other is merely regurgitating internet acquired sewage in my opinion.
By some of these examples, we'd be led to believe that a 243WSSM in a NEF handy rifle is "inherently more accurate" than George Gardeners GAP built 243Win or that a 6BR chambered Rossi would hold a candle to a Dtech 6x45
. I've seen a 30-30 that would outshoot most "inherently accurate" Savage 6BR's, of course it was a custom built falling block shooting handloaded spire points and wearing a Unertyl scope, and well built at that
.
Accuracy is in the weapon, the load made for that weapon, and the shooter. It appears you see so many more accurate 6BR's and 6PPC's because you have to handload them and only someone who is serious enough to put out that much money would have them. Joe Shmoe isn't going to dump several grand into a PPC bolt faced rifle and do all the brass prep with trimming and neck turning and weighing and sorting and checking runout and buy the expensive Lapua Brass and dies and put two grand in optics on it to shoot beer cans on Saturday. He will go to Wally World and get a 243Win in a $400 Savage and a box of Core-Lokts and do it with his Bushnell Banner scope because it is available and obtainable. With the majority of shooters being weekend warriors, you'll have more accurate targets from those who are more prestigeous buyers. The mass of buyers buying shelf grade ammo, guns, and optics and being occasional shooters dilutes the pool. With $6000 in a rifle, you'll find time to shoot it a lot and become proficient or you wasted a lot of money
.
Now velocity, energy, efficiency, and which are appropriate for cetain applications are different matters, but this question was posted as inherent accuracy between calibers and cartridges, which I don't believe exists.
I think that if it didn't exist there would be more different cartridges represented in Bench Rest competition.
By some of these examples, we'd be led to believe that a 243WSSM in a NEF handy rifle is "inherently more accurate" than George Gardeners GAP built 243Win or that a 6BR chambered Rossi would hold a candle to a Dtech 6x45
Accuracy is in the weapon, the load made for that weapon, and the shooter. It appears you see so many more accurate 6BR's and 6PPC's because you have to handload them and only someone who is serious enough to put out that much money would have them. Joe Shmoe isn't going to dump several grand into a PPC bolt faced rifle and do all the brass prep with trimming and neck turning and weighing and sorting and checking runout and buy the expensive Lapua Brass and dies and put two grand in optics on it to shoot beer cans on Saturday. He will go to Wally World and get a 243Win in a $400 Savage and a box of Core-Lokts and do it with his Bushnell Banner scope because it is available and obtainable. With the majority of shooters being weekend warriors, you'll have more accurate targets from those who are more prestigeous buyers. The mass of buyers buying shelf grade ammo, guns, and optics and being occasional shooters dilutes the pool. With $6000 in a rifle, you'll find time to shoot it a lot and become proficient or you wasted a lot of money
Now velocity, energy, efficiency, and which are appropriate for cetain applications are different matters, but this question was posted as inherent accuracy between calibers and cartridges, which I don't believe exists.
I think that if it didn't exist there would be more different cartridges represented in Bench Rest competition.
CatShooter
New member
Originally Posted By: JerrySchmitt
"I think that if it didn't exist there would be more different cartridges represented in Bench Rest competition."
In 1,000 yard benchrest (which is the REAL accuracy game these days) there are lots of different cartridges competing.
"I think that if it didn't exist there would be more different cartridges represented in Bench Rest competition."
In 1,000 yard benchrest (which is the REAL accuracy game these days) there are lots of different cartridges competing.
ARCOREY
New member
Take every caliber made in this world in top of the line custom built rifles with same optics and shooters with the best loads developed for them and line them up at 50yds and shoot them side by side in a vacuum tube. Which is "inherently more accurate"? Distance can be a filter for accuracy since every cartridge won't get there in a viable manner. At 2000yds your "inherently accurate" 6ppc's suck. At 100yds a 6x45 can hang with any other caliber out there. "Inherently accurate" is a B.S. term that can be inflated and deflated to fit the individuals wants. For example, distance was never mentioned in the original question. It was inserted to inflate opinion. If the question had been what makes a 260 more desirable at 1000yds than a 300 Whisper then it would be more than an opinionated discussion. So many people believe that a caliber or cartridge can't be accurate because it isn't "the popular or cool caliber" in these forums. So to answer the OP, a crappy gun with a crappy load and a crappy shooter is, well crappy. Regarless of caliber or cartridge.
FWIW....many of the so called "Benchrest" cartridges share several things in common that are definate proven design advantages, and facts that cannot be disputed. One example would be the smaller primer and small flash hole. It would be a fair and accurate statement to say that no large primer/large flash hole cartridge has won more accuracy events{ELR aside} than those with smaller ones.
But rifle accuracy is like intelligence...you first have to define it before you can begin to answer questions about it. Shooting the smallest group at 100 yards is alot different kind of accuracy than at 1000 because so many different things come into play at 1000 that dont concern you at 100.
As far as no cartridges being inherently accurate over another, certainly there are some that consistenly shoot more accurate and they have definate design reasons. Consistent and efficient powder burn helps get tight groups, bullets with a high ballistic coefficient helps with long range work. When the inevitable guy jumps up and starts telling everyone about uncle Joes 30-30 that "put em' all in the same hole every time he fired it" ask yourself why there aren't more 30-30's in benchrest than 6mmPPC's??? The answer is simple and it's a fact, not fairy dust sprinkled up someones skirt.
But rifle accuracy is like intelligence...you first have to define it before you can begin to answer questions about it. Shooting the smallest group at 100 yards is alot different kind of accuracy than at 1000 because so many different things come into play at 1000 that dont concern you at 100.
As far as no cartridges being inherently accurate over another, certainly there are some that consistenly shoot more accurate and they have definate design reasons. Consistent and efficient powder burn helps get tight groups, bullets with a high ballistic coefficient helps with long range work. When the inevitable guy jumps up and starts telling everyone about uncle Joes 30-30 that "put em' all in the same hole every time he fired it" ask yourself why there aren't more 30-30's in benchrest than 6mmPPC's??? The answer is simple and it's a fact, not fairy dust sprinkled up someones skirt.
CatShooter
New member
Originally Posted By: msinc FWIW....many of the so called "Benchrest" cartridges share several things in common that are definate proven design advantages, and facts that cannot be disputed. One example would be the smaller primer and small flash hole. It would be a fair and accurate statement to say that no large primer/large flash hole cartridge has won more accuracy events{ELR aside} than those with smaller ones.
But rifle accuracy is like intelligence...you first have to define it before you can begin to answer questions about it. Shooting the smallest group at 100 yards is alot different kind of accuracy than at 1000 because so many different things come into play at 1000 that dont concern you at 100.
As far as no cartridges being inherently accurate over another, certainly there are some that consistenly shoot more accurate and they have definate design reasons. Consistent and efficient powder burn helps get tight groups, bullets with a high ballistic coefficient helps with long range work. When the inevitable guy jumps up and starts telling everyone about uncle Joes 30-30 that "put em' all in the same hole every time he fired it" ask yourself why there aren't more 30-30's in benchrest than 6mmPPC's??? The answer is simple and it's a fact, not fairy dust sprinkled up someones skirt.
".... and facts that cannot be disputed."
Aw, common!
When the 222 was king of the hill, it set benchrest records that still have not been broken (including world's smallest group), and it is a long, skinny case with a standard flash hole.
George Gardner beat David Tubb and Terry Cross with a plain vanilla, boring ol' .243 Winchester..
"With enough powder capacity to drive the 0.585 BC 115gr DTACs at 3150+ fps, the .243 Win is an outstanding long-range cartridge. George Gardner of GA Precision recently won the long-range Shumway Cup segment of the 2006 Snipers’ Hide Cup shooting a straight .243 Win. In so doing, George bested Terry Cross (.260 Rem) and David Tubb (6XC), so you can see the .243 is a top performer at long distances. In fact, in terms of Wind Drift, a .243 running 115s at 3150 fps beats both the .260 Rem (2850 fps) and the 6.5-284 (2950 fps) running 142 MatchKings."
So, when the plain ol' moldy oldy .222 set records that still stand, and the boring ol' 243 wins 1,000 yd matches, you gotta wonder about it all, and maybe these "hard and fast rules" aren't based on very much science.
So, I think at best,, one can say there are trends.
Keep in mind that most benchrest shooters are followers, not leaders - if Phat Louie wins the nats with a .230 Hurricane and a Fast Eddie barrel... in 2 months, you will see 3,000 .230 Hurricanes with Fast Eddie barrels, and they have no reason why, except that someone else won a match with one... at a typical BR match, about 5% to 10% are good shooters, the rest are wannabees that pray to get lucky.
So the shear numbers of shooters that use something is NOT a guarantee of performance.
When a new cartridge takes the lime light, it is not just the cartridge - there are case quality issues (if Lapua or Sako makes case, it helps a lot), and there are barrel and action considerations...
.... so there are no ".... facts that cannot be disputed."
But rifle accuracy is like intelligence...you first have to define it before you can begin to answer questions about it. Shooting the smallest group at 100 yards is alot different kind of accuracy than at 1000 because so many different things come into play at 1000 that dont concern you at 100.
As far as no cartridges being inherently accurate over another, certainly there are some that consistenly shoot more accurate and they have definate design reasons. Consistent and efficient powder burn helps get tight groups, bullets with a high ballistic coefficient helps with long range work. When the inevitable guy jumps up and starts telling everyone about uncle Joes 30-30 that "put em' all in the same hole every time he fired it" ask yourself why there aren't more 30-30's in benchrest than 6mmPPC's??? The answer is simple and it's a fact, not fairy dust sprinkled up someones skirt.
".... and facts that cannot be disputed."
Aw, common!
When the 222 was king of the hill, it set benchrest records that still have not been broken (including world's smallest group), and it is a long, skinny case with a standard flash hole.
George Gardner beat David Tubb and Terry Cross with a plain vanilla, boring ol' .243 Winchester..
"With enough powder capacity to drive the 0.585 BC 115gr DTACs at 3150+ fps, the .243 Win is an outstanding long-range cartridge. George Gardner of GA Precision recently won the long-range Shumway Cup segment of the 2006 Snipers’ Hide Cup shooting a straight .243 Win. In so doing, George bested Terry Cross (.260 Rem) and David Tubb (6XC), so you can see the .243 is a top performer at long distances. In fact, in terms of Wind Drift, a .243 running 115s at 3150 fps beats both the .260 Rem (2850 fps) and the 6.5-284 (2950 fps) running 142 MatchKings."
So, when the plain ol' moldy oldy .222 set records that still stand, and the boring ol' 243 wins 1,000 yd matches, you gotta wonder about it all, and maybe these "hard and fast rules" aren't based on very much science.
So, I think at best,, one can say there are trends.
Keep in mind that most benchrest shooters are followers, not leaders - if Phat Louie wins the nats with a .230 Hurricane and a Fast Eddie barrel... in 2 months, you will see 3,000 .230 Hurricanes with Fast Eddie barrels, and they have no reason why, except that someone else won a match with one... at a typical BR match, about 5% to 10% are good shooters, the rest are wannabees that pray to get lucky.
So the shear numbers of shooters that use something is NOT a guarantee of performance.
When a new cartridge takes the lime light, it is not just the cartridge - there are case quality issues (if Lapua or Sako makes case, it helps a lot), and there are barrel and action considerations...
.... so there are no ".... facts that cannot be disputed."
SShooterZ
New member
Is there any merit to the belief that if you can do the same with less, you have a better chance of longterm accuracy?
AKA, if Cartridge A uses 15% less powder than Cartridge B and gets similar results, wouldn't Cartridge A be preferred due to less barrel heat, erosion, etc?
AKA, if Cartridge A uses 15% less powder than Cartridge B and gets similar results, wouldn't Cartridge A be preferred due to less barrel heat, erosion, etc?
CatShooter
New member
Originally Posted By: SShooterZIs there any merit to the belief that if you can do the same with less, you have a better chance of longterm accuracy?
AKA, if Cartridge A uses 15% less powder than Cartridge B and gets similar results, wouldn't Cartridge A be preferred due to less barrel heat, erosion, etc?
There has never been a cartridge that uses 15% less powder than Cartridge B and gets similar results...
... it defies the laws of physics.
Cartridge performance is solely dependent on case volume, pressure curve, and barrel length (all other things being equal).
AKA, if Cartridge A uses 15% less powder than Cartridge B and gets similar results, wouldn't Cartridge A be preferred due to less barrel heat, erosion, etc?
There has never been a cartridge that uses 15% less powder than Cartridge B and gets similar results...
... it defies the laws of physics.
Cartridge performance is solely dependent on case volume, pressure curve, and barrel length (all other things being equal).
SShooterZ
New member
Originally Posted By: CatShooterThere has never been a cartridge that uses 15% less powder than Cartridge B and gets similar results...
... it defies the laws of physics.
Cartridge performance is solely dependent on case volume, pressure curve, and barrel length (all other things being equal).
I don't want to argue with you because I respect your input, but I'll throw out this as an example.
Taken from the Hodgdon site:
6MM Remington - 58GR Hornady V-Max - 42.0 Grains of BL-C(2) for 3502 FPS
6MM BR - 58GR Hornady V-Mac - 35.0 Grains of BL-C(2) for 3386 FPS
So, its a 100 FPS difference, which I will admit, is a difference. Is it noticable? Maybe to some, not so much to others.
But if my math is correct, that is a 15% decrease in powder with ALMOST identical results. (Pesky physics defying rounds..)
... it defies the laws of physics.
Cartridge performance is solely dependent on case volume, pressure curve, and barrel length (all other things being equal).
I don't want to argue with you because I respect your input, but I'll throw out this as an example.
Taken from the Hodgdon site:
6MM Remington - 58GR Hornady V-Max - 42.0 Grains of BL-C(2) for 3502 FPS
6MM BR - 58GR Hornady V-Mac - 35.0 Grains of BL-C(2) for 3386 FPS
So, its a 100 FPS difference, which I will admit, is a difference. Is it noticable? Maybe to some, not so much to others.
But if my math is correct, that is a 15% decrease in powder with ALMOST identical results. (Pesky physics defying rounds..)