"Inherently More Accurate" Cartridges

Winny Fan

Winny Fan

New member
In the 222 Remington thread, I see words stating that, "Some rounds are inherently more accurate than others."

If that is the situation, if we want an "inherently accurate" 6MM, could we just increase the dimensions of the 222 Remington cartridge proportionally to 6MM? And on up through the various bore diameters and to maybe 458 bore diameter and even bigger if we need inherently accurate larger bore rifles?

I guess I'm curious as to what makes one cartridge case more inherently accurate than another to those who advocate such ideas. I do understand that some designs like a 40 degree shoulder result in less case stretching and lengthening which is good, but "inherently accurate" cartridges seem to be a bit illusive when it comes to design definitions for them. Yet we all know that some are more "inherently accurate" even though they don't necessarily all look alike in any ways.

Anyone have any answers? Besides just telling me which cartridges the gun magazine writers have hung this tag on while they are at a key board trying to make money with a good story.
 
The single biggest factor, and you rarely if ever see this mentioned, is recoil...

The 30-06 is no less accurate than the .308, but the .308 wins more matches because it recoils less.

Recoil is something that must be consistently controlled, from one shot to the next. Remember that the recoil arc of the muzzle begins before the bullet exits the muzzle. This is why cheek weld, grip force, etc., are so important.

Of course when you drop the recoil to a certain point, you're losing muzzle velocity, and the slower the bullet, the more time wind can act on it. So we can't simply say the .22LR is more accurate than the 222... the distance you're shooting has to be factored in.

I do acknowledge your question, whereas you suggest that if someone simply took all proportions upward, making an "inherently accurate" 222 a 45 caliber monster with the same case body and neck size proportions, should that monster cartridge shoot just as well as the 222? In theory, and in a ransom rest, it would (provided there was no disadvantage to the 45 caliber bullets, and that they were built in the same way).

But recoil, even then, will stress and bend the receiver, barrel, and the stock to a much higher degree. So now we're going to have to take the entire rifle's size up proportionally... if you see what I mean.
laugh.gif


Dan
 
How about the 22PPC and 6mmPPC. These rounds were designed to be ultra accurate. Their not fast, they just win benchrest matches. The reason they do it is in their design, not magic.
 
I agree with you and your analysis totally and completely, Dan.

Yet the word used with "inherently accurate" is "cartridge" which alludes to design of the brass itself.

For example, the 222 Remington is seen as "a more inherently accurate cartridge" than is a 223 Remington loaded with the same bullet to the same velocity where both have very comparable recoil in similar or the same rifle designs. We can even compare the 222 through a sporter rifle and the 223 through a varmint weight rifle which would minimize the recoil factor. So does that make the 223 Remington a "more inherently accurate cartridge" in a varmint weight rifle than in a sporter rifle?

This part I question is the use of the words together as we normally see them. As in, "it's just a "more inherently accurate cartridge". OK, if so why?. Thanks for your response.
 
Case to bore ratio is the biggest factor here. Cartridges like the 220, 221, Br, 222, their bore to case cap. is ideal. The theroy is you shouldn't burn more than the bullet's diameter. Meaning 20-30grs would be max for the ideal round. The reason I added the 221 is due to the 20VT, if you haven't seen it in action, it's a little wonder. Aam
 
I agree with your assessment too, Adam as being a factor in the accuracy of the cartridges you mentioned. But which one of these is the "inherently more accurate cartridge" than the rest? Can it really be measured precisely and completely? As a retired engineer I'm going to say no without a lot of money spent "engineering away" the variables. Yet you'll see even one particular cartridges of the several you mentioned as each being "inherently more accurate" than the others based on the discussion going on.

I guess my point is that possibly lots of people use the term and throw it around without really understanding what, if anything, is involved in the assessment. Maybe it makes them sound like a gun writer. For example, the 7.62 NATO/308 Winchester was designed as a short cycle machine gun round. If it had never been adopted as a small arms round fired in rifles designed with accuracy in mind, would it ever have been proclaimed as being "inherently more accurate" if used solely as a machine gun round?

I'm not trying to start a debate on ballistics which is not a precise science anyway, and I hope that is not where this goes. Just my mind wandering maybe, so take it for that unless you have the magical, illusive answer..
 
Let me hit you the other way. The .22 Hornet for instance, many consider is "inherently" not too accurate. You definitely don't see a large quantity of them winning contests and or shooting groups in .2's and .3's.

With some cartridges, like the .308 family, many of them are accurate regardless of what you shoot and/or how you reload them.

Why is the .17 HMR typically more accurate than the .22 WMR? They are designed on the same platform. The "inherently" part can come from the available powders, projectiles, rifles, etc. As in, due to all thee above, I don't too many people would argue that the .17HMR is inherently more accurate than the .22 WMR.

Much can be said re: a variety of the bench rest and varmint calibers where the accuracy needs to be. The .45LC for instance, doesn't need to be, and thus the loads, powder, barrels and guns aren't as readily available, thus it doesn't meet the "inherently accurate" standards if you will.

I hope this makes sense as I feel like I was rambling away...
unsure.gif
 
I think it's a misnomer on nomenclature. People mean a more accurate case with little to no work involved. As for measurements, I am sure there is something in the numbers that could bring light to this fact but i am not aware of them. Adam
 
Quote:Just my mind wandering maybe. ..There is nothing wrong with a wandering/wondering mind... That's the way we all learn from each other...

Kind of like my curiosity about how to determine the perfect burn rate for a powder in various lengths of barrels...

There are many individual aspects to the shooting world and not one of us knows everything about them all...
 
"I think it's a misnomer on nomenclature."

Maybe that is the right answer, Adam. Maybe "inherently accurate cartridge" is like "kinda' pregnant". We think we know what it means so we use the term without really knowing if it has any real meaning.

Again maybe my mind is wandering. Sorry psychodog. Don't take any of this too seriously.
 
Originally Posted By: Winny Fan We think we know what it means so we use the term without really knowing if it has any real meaning.


Kinda like "bug holes"?

My mind is wandering too. Forgive me.
 
My theory...........Any cartrige is capable of shooting "bugholes" but the ones that are most effecient are easier to get to shoot "bugholes". AKA "Inherently More Accurate"

Steve
 
If you look at a 222 Rem case, it looks a whole lot like a scaled down 30-06 case.

Wow. I am so beat down tired, I could write a lot on this subject, but want to go to bed more. Forgive me if this sounds like I'm rambling, because I am.

In a nutshell, yes case design plays a part. So does the platform in which the bullet is launched. So does bullet/load combination. So does recoil. So does the shooter. Get them all right, or darn near, and you have what people will deem an inherently accurate cartridge. At least in the minds of the public.

It is quite possible to get extreme accuracy from "lesser" case designs, given the other factors are up to snuff.

IMO, most of the cartridges deemed "inherently accurate" are ones in which the factory actually got it right in terms of these factors. In other words, they loaded the right rounds in the right gun, with the right twist, and enough people were able to shoot it well. The 222 being toward the bottom end, and the 35 Colonel being toward the upper, in terms of size. Both are very accurate cartridges in the minds of the general shooting public, and with good reason. They do not require handloading or custom rifles to obtain their status' as such.

The 375 H&H is a [beeep] fine shooting cartridge, but you won't hear too much about it from the masses, and is therefore not in the the discussion of "inherently accurate cartridges" too often.

There are other cartridges out there that may be just as accurate, but if the factory never got it right, you won't hear it from the masses, even though the experienced handloader may know otherwise.

In other words, "inherent accurcy" is a subjective term, IMO. Lots of people will tell you a 222 is inherently accurate. Even though they've never spent any time behind one. The factory got it right, it was chambered in capable rifle designs, lots of people can shoot it well, therefore, it MUST be a great case design.

I suppose you could call anything on the 308 case "inherently accurate". They all shoot. I'm sure that the fact that they do so with a wide range of powder/bullet combinations only contributes more to their "inherently accurate" status. BUT you must remember, the research has been done, the platforms have been good, they have little recoil, and they are available/used by the masses.

Some cartridges seem to produce a bit better accuracy by changing shoulder angles also. 30° being a popular spec/dimension. Other cartidges have been developed on how consistent they are in terms of extreme spread and standard deviation. Funny part is, unless you are a part of the precision shooting community, you will hear less about these cartridges than the ones the general shooting public have experience with, or have at least heard about.

Is case design a factor of accuracy? Absolutely. But I think it is given too much credit. Many other factors play significant roles. How many of them are "inherent" is debatable.........

JMO........







 
Originally Posted By: dan newberryThe single biggest factor, and you rarely if ever see this mentioned, is recoil...

The 30-06 is no less accurate than the .308, but the .308 wins more matches because it recoils less.

Recoil is something that must be consistently controlled, from one shot to the next. Remember that the recoil arc of the muzzle begins before the bullet exits the muzzle. This is why cheek weld, grip force, etc., are so important.

Of course when you drop the recoil to a certain point, you're losing muzzle velocity, and the slower the bullet, the more time wind can act on it. So we can't simply say the .22LR is more accurate than the 222... the distance you're shooting has to be factored in.

I do acknowledge your question, whereas you suggest that if someone simply took all proportions upward, making an "inherently accurate" 222 a 45 caliber monster with the same case body and neck size proportions, should that monster cartridge shoot just as well as the 222? In theory, and in a ransom rest, it would (provided there was no disadvantage to the 45 caliber bullets, and that they were built in the same way).

But recoil, even then, will stress and bend the receiver, barrel, and the stock to a much higher degree. So now we're going to have to take the entire rifle's size up proportionally... if you see what I mean.
laugh.gif


Dan
.308 is "more accurate" than the 30-06 because it is 50 years younger and is paired with 12 twist barrels (which is optimum for 150 grain bullets @ 2800 FPS) while 30-06 is found only in 10 twist rifles. Most Deer hunters accuracy problems are due to using 150 grain loadings in a 10 twist barrel and 2ndly due to the fact that a FULL charge (for 30-06) of powder comes to around 90% or less cartridge capacity in the 06 case. This was the primary reason the Military wanted to work on the 30-06 in the 50s. They then found that the Ball Powders were on the scene and were the thing to base the new cartridge on. Every Re loading manual out there says in the first paragraph that the 308 in a 30-06 case shortened to use the new ball powders.
They are both designed to throw a 150 grain .30 cal. bullet at 2800 FPS. One uses long cut slow burning powder and they other fast burning ball powder.
If people will use 180 grain bullets with their 30-06 deer guns then they would be getting much tighter groups, But most don't. They cart 150's and maybe 165 grain unbonded soft point's into the deer woods. They come into the gun shops in droves complaining about how they have 2-3" groups at 100 yards and are getting poor performance on the terminal performance.
Well that is because you are using the wrong weight class bullets for your gun/caliber and secondly bonded bullets are not expensive any more. Time to invest in some Bonded bullets, they will delay expansion till its inside the animal then it will put far more force into killing it than a regular no frills soft point could ever do.
 
Originally Posted By: 2muchgunIf you look at a 222 Rem case, it looks a whole lot like a scaled down 30-06 case......

Wow! Can you imagine how much more "inherently accurate" it might be if it looked "a whole lot like a scaled down" 308 Win case, at least for those who believe it is largely due to case design?

If this term was opened up on Wickipedia with reader contributions, it might be one of the longer definitions on the site due to the fact that many, many things beyond what have already been mentioned here can likely be attributed to the still highly nebulus term. From basic thoughts like those mentioned here to maybe nuclear physics level discourse. And through it all, don't forget that no matter how "inherently accurate" a cartridge is, it won't look like it is if you don't "do your part". Even if you're shooting an "inherently more accurate" rifle.

Oh well.
 
Originally Posted By: Ze Stallion .308 is "more accurate" than the 30-06 because it is 50 years younger and is paired with 12 twist barrels (which is optimum for 150 grain bullets @ 2800 FPS) while 30-06 is found only in 10 twist rifles. Most Deer hunters accuracy problems are due to using 150 grain loadings in a 10 twist barrel and 2ndly due to the fact that a FULL charge (for 30-06) of powder comes to around 90% or less cartridge capacity in the 06 case. This was the primary reason the Military wanted to work on the 30-06 in the 50s.

Originally Posted By: Winny FanAnd through it all, don't forget that no matter how "inherently accurate" a cartridge is, it won't look like it is if you don't "do your part". Even if you're shooting an "inherently more accurate" rifle.

Oh well.


Well said, guys. Find the right bullet/powder combination for your rifle and the tie breaker is usually the shooter.
thumbup.gif


Regards,
hm
 
New guy here. Just found the place through silenced America, and it seems like a great place so far (so much so I have to reply to the first thread I read)!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the op is asking if any cartridge designs are inherently more accurate. The basic question, as asked, makes real world details like rifle/barrel/action design irrelevant.
Yes I know, and I'm assuming the op knows that these details (and more) all play a role in an accurate rifle.
But what I think the op originally wanted and what piqued my curiosity was just that, is there a cartridge design that is inherently more accurate.
Or maybe rephrasing the question will get my point across... If one could hypothetically design a gun that will shoot ANY cartridge to its maximum potential would every cartridge design be equally accurate? What qualities would make for a more accurate design?
For instance the powder charge equaling the projectile weight or the shoulder angle or whatever else plays a role...
What makes a design superior? can the question even be answered?
 
Back
Top