boatdoc173
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2014
- Messages
- 219
9mm accuracy, and an accurate 9mm
- Thread starter ACP
- Start date
- Status
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
That may have to do with the fact that there really aren't that many cheap plinking loads for .44 Mag; most of the available loads are rather pricey, and have the consistency and quality control that goes with that price point. .44 Mag is also typically shot from large, well made, accuracy-oriented revolvers with a longish sight radius.
9mm, on the other hand, can be had in anything from match grade target rounds to bargain bulk-pack plinking ammo, and is used in everything from high-end pistols to High Points and other inexpensive guns. That probably skews things a bit in favor of .44 in terms of average accuracy.
What I don't understand is why in rifles, a long and mostly empty case is a drawback (everyone wants short and squatty) yet in pistols a .38 with its long and mostly empty case is more desirable and considered easier to make accurate than the short and mostly full 9mm case. I'll confess, I don't shot nor load top tier match ammo and I'm not a top tier match shooter. What seems to be the common justification for an "inherently accurate" case design in a rifle looks often opposite of that for a pistol.
There are a few designs that are tough to physically reload the brass. Mainly rounds that don't have a sharp neck like a .22 hornet or .30-30, especially as the case size is smaller in the hornet. That doesn't mean the case is capable of less accuracy, just that it's harder to make consistent ammo.
When we hear the term "inherent accuracy" I think what we really are describing is as much "ease of loading accurately and consistently" as we are a case design that in perfect conditions shoots better than others. Then there is also the desired application. Those 100 yard PPC options do well at 100 but tend to be out scored by others at 300-600 yards and put to shame at 1000 yards. A top tier .22lr is extremely accurate at its intended distances but falls off quickly after.
I don't doubt that top tier shooters have issues with the 9mm that wouldn't happen with a 38 or a 45, but there also seem to be plenty who have mastered the secrets to the round and are winning events with it at a very high level.
I'll admit I'm not the most knowledgable person on case design, but every time I see "inherently accurate" brought up online there is a lack of testing to determine the argument. Often the citations will be the current trends. Let's be honest though, as soon as one person does well with a new chambering, everyone is looking to jump to it in hopes they found a slightly better option. popular trends don't prove or disprove the concept of "inherent accuracy".
There are a few designs that are tough to physically reload the brass. Mainly rounds that don't have a sharp neck like a .22 hornet or .30-30, especially as the case size is smaller in the hornet. That doesn't mean the case is capable of less accuracy, just that it's harder to make consistent ammo.
When we hear the term "inherent accuracy" I think what we really are describing is as much "ease of loading accurately and consistently" as we are a case design that in perfect conditions shoots better than others. Then there is also the desired application. Those 100 yard PPC options do well at 100 but tend to be out scored by others at 300-600 yards and put to shame at 1000 yards. A top tier .22lr is extremely accurate at its intended distances but falls off quickly after.
I don't doubt that top tier shooters have issues with the 9mm that wouldn't happen with a 38 or a 45, but there also seem to be plenty who have mastered the secrets to the round and are winning events with it at a very high level.
I'll admit I'm not the most knowledgable person on case design, but every time I see "inherently accurate" brought up online there is a lack of testing to determine the argument. Often the citations will be the current trends. Let's be honest though, as soon as one person does well with a new chambering, everyone is looking to jump to it in hopes they found a slightly better option. popular trends don't prove or disprove the concept of "inherent accuracy".
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
benzy2,
This thread bread a question in my mind about "inherent accuracy "as well. I didn't want to hijack this thread, so I started one of my own on the topic. It's pretty good reading.
I don't know if we really got anywhere, but you may want to take a look.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=774598
This thread bread a question in my mind about "inherent accuracy "as well. I didn't want to hijack this thread, so I started one of my own on the topic. It's pretty good reading.
I don't know if we really got anywhere, but you may want to take a look.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=774598
I think this whole "inherent accuracy" term is something thrown around almost like "which is best" category.
There are, however, certain principles which have helped to define accuracy over the years.
The 30-30 Winchester was considered a great leap forward in its day, when most hunters were using 45 caliber straight walled cases and a lot of them didn't trust that tiny bullet to do what the larger calibers did. But it did establish the concept of a necked down case in America and has been used to great effect for a long time. Most people relate the 30-30 to the various lever action rifles it has been chambered for, and few will claim any great accuracy compared to a properly set up bolt action.
I once had a Savage 340 chambered in 30-30 and while it wasn't a bench rest rifle by any standard, it regularly out shot my friends lever guns. The difference in my mind was the action and bedding of the bolt action itself rather than any superiority in reloading technique. My ace in the hole was that I could use pointed bullets and lose less velocity over distance than their round nose requirement for the magazine.
When the 300 H&H Magnum was introduced, some shooters pounced upon it as "inherently accurate," and it won some medals in competition way back when.
I would guess that a lot of its so-called accuracy was found in its speed, compared to other cartridges. Speed gets you to the target a bit faster, assuming the same bullet, so there is less time for the wind to show effect on the bullet. The idea back then was to use a long, tapered case which was somehow supposed to focus the energy towards the base of the bullet while the pressure built up.
The ballisticians now tell us that a steeply shouldered case keeps the majority of the powder in the case during its burn rather than pushing it down the bore along with the bullet, spreading the burn out. The idea that a short, squat, sharp shouldered case keeps more of the powder located close to the primer for a consistent burn. I think the terms inherent accuracy and consistency get mixed up quite a bit, actually.
The idea here is to use the rifle case as more of a "combustion chamber" and the bullet is the piston. As any builder of high performance gasoline engines will tell you, burning the mixture completely when the piston is near top dead center results in more power and efficiency, while burning fuel after top dead center really doesn't do much more for power as the combustion area is rapidly expanding and the burn becomes less efficient. Engines which have a larger bore than stroke, or "over square" tend to produce more power, especially at high rpm's because you can pack more mixture near the spark plug.
Because the Army did so much experimentation and scientific study on the 30 caliber bullet concerning speed, shape and powders, the 30 caliber was considered an inherently accurate bullet, mainly because there was reportable data on the 30 caliber bullet and all the experimentation done.
Spitzers, various boat tail designs as well as different ogive designs have given us better consistency over distance as we have come to understand the transition from supersonic to subsonic flight of the bullet.
External factors also come into play. The long debate about the 308 Winchester vs the 30-06 being a good one. The 308 has a more efficient "combustion chamber" due to its shape and improved powders. Also, the 308 can be had with a shorter and therefore stiffer receiver action, reducing flex in comparison. Not that you are going to find 2 off the shelf hunting rifles with which to prove that point. That one is going to be more accurate than the other is going to be more of a function of how tight the tolerances are individually than which cartridge one chooses.
Maybe the proper term, especially when it comes to pistol cartridges is how efficient or consistent they are?
There are, however, certain principles which have helped to define accuracy over the years.
The 30-30 Winchester was considered a great leap forward in its day, when most hunters were using 45 caliber straight walled cases and a lot of them didn't trust that tiny bullet to do what the larger calibers did. But it did establish the concept of a necked down case in America and has been used to great effect for a long time. Most people relate the 30-30 to the various lever action rifles it has been chambered for, and few will claim any great accuracy compared to a properly set up bolt action.
I once had a Savage 340 chambered in 30-30 and while it wasn't a bench rest rifle by any standard, it regularly out shot my friends lever guns. The difference in my mind was the action and bedding of the bolt action itself rather than any superiority in reloading technique. My ace in the hole was that I could use pointed bullets and lose less velocity over distance than their round nose requirement for the magazine.
When the 300 H&H Magnum was introduced, some shooters pounced upon it as "inherently accurate," and it won some medals in competition way back when.
I would guess that a lot of its so-called accuracy was found in its speed, compared to other cartridges. Speed gets you to the target a bit faster, assuming the same bullet, so there is less time for the wind to show effect on the bullet. The idea back then was to use a long, tapered case which was somehow supposed to focus the energy towards the base of the bullet while the pressure built up.
The ballisticians now tell us that a steeply shouldered case keeps the majority of the powder in the case during its burn rather than pushing it down the bore along with the bullet, spreading the burn out. The idea that a short, squat, sharp shouldered case keeps more of the powder located close to the primer for a consistent burn. I think the terms inherent accuracy and consistency get mixed up quite a bit, actually.
The idea here is to use the rifle case as more of a "combustion chamber" and the bullet is the piston. As any builder of high performance gasoline engines will tell you, burning the mixture completely when the piston is near top dead center results in more power and efficiency, while burning fuel after top dead center really doesn't do much more for power as the combustion area is rapidly expanding and the burn becomes less efficient. Engines which have a larger bore than stroke, or "over square" tend to produce more power, especially at high rpm's because you can pack more mixture near the spark plug.
Because the Army did so much experimentation and scientific study on the 30 caliber bullet concerning speed, shape and powders, the 30 caliber was considered an inherently accurate bullet, mainly because there was reportable data on the 30 caliber bullet and all the experimentation done.
Spitzers, various boat tail designs as well as different ogive designs have given us better consistency over distance as we have come to understand the transition from supersonic to subsonic flight of the bullet.
External factors also come into play. The long debate about the 308 Winchester vs the 30-06 being a good one. The 308 has a more efficient "combustion chamber" due to its shape and improved powders. Also, the 308 can be had with a shorter and therefore stiffer receiver action, reducing flex in comparison. Not that you are going to find 2 off the shelf hunting rifles with which to prove that point. That one is going to be more accurate than the other is going to be more of a function of how tight the tolerances are individually than which cartridge one chooses.
Maybe the proper term, especially when it comes to pistol cartridges is how efficient or consistent they are?
243winxb
Member
http://s338.photobucket.com/user/joe1944usa/slideshow/FirearmsReloading102/9MM%20Accuracy Some are just more accurate then other, even the same make and model.
That's what alot of people don't get. The groups you shoot are your wobble zone added to what the pistol is capable of.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
