jerkface11
Member
Or because 6mm ppc can shoot a bullet with a better ballistic coefficient. But we can go with magic if you guys insist
Or because 6mm ppc can shoot a bullet with a better ballistic coefficient. But we can go with magic if you guys insist
Or because 6mm ppc can shoot a bullet with a better ballistic coefficient. But we can go with magic if you guys insist
Just going back to the bit about how any cartridge design can dominate a precision oriented sport, the 30-30 case did in fact dominate the short-range benchrest game for over a decade as the 219 Donaldson Wasp, it was the gold-standard that won matches every weekend. Then Merle Walker unleashed the 222 case on the sport and overnight shooters using the 222 in the same actions and barrels used by 219 shooters started winning. The fact of the matter is that the 222 groups more precisely over the long strings measured in benchrest than the 219, and shooters are correct to say that it is inherently more accurate.
At the present date, try shooting a short range match with a 222 built by the finest smith using turned lapua brass and your pet load. You will shoot impressively small groups, but you will be beat when looking at aggregates by the guys running the 6ppc and 30br. Simply put, a mountain of data shows that those two cartridges are capable of putting their bullets in tighter groups than the 222 over the long term, and as a result, they win matches.
All that said, I don't think to the average rifleman needs to be concerned with inherent accuracy. The average rifle, and more importantly, the average barrel just cannot show the difference that exists between cartridges.
If he doesn't understand that the same bullet can be used in almost 6mm/.243/.244 rifle, then it's pretty much a lost cause.Or because 6mm ppc can shoot a bullet with a better ballistic coefficient. But we can go with magic if you guys insist
Both the 30/40 Krag and the 7x57mm Mauser round were developed for smokeless powder and chambered in different rifles, the Krag-Jorgenson for the U.S. and for the Spanish the 1893 Mauser rifle.
They met in Cuba where about 750 Spanish troops defended San Juan and Kettle hills against more than 6,500 Americans. The results are well known and the U.S. Army felt so strongly about it that they set out to copy both the Mauser rifle and the 7x57 Mauser round. They did which is how we got the Springfield rifle and eventually the 30-06.
tipoc
Regarding the performance of the Spanish in Cuba; the fact that many of the Americans were still equipped with black powder single shot .45-70s, the Spanish being in field fortifications on higher ground, and the faster reloading speed of the stripper clip magazine reloads of the Mausers compared to individual round magazine reloads of the Krag I think were even more significant factors. You are absolutely correct about the bullet design used in the Spanish rifles making a big impression but apparently not enough to prevent the U.S. from adopting the .30-03 cartridge with its 220 grain round nose bullet in the 1903 Springfield rifle three years before the adoption of the .30-06 with a 150 grain pointed bullet.
The 30-03 was the first attempt to neck up the 7x57 for a 30 caliber round and was done directly in response to the experience in Cuba.
tipoc
Or because 6mm ppc can shoot a bullet with a better ballistic coefficient. But we can go with magic if you guys insist
A cartridge of any kind can only be "inherently accurate" within a prescribed set of circumstances. Outside of this, the term is meaningless.
Change any aspect of those circumstances and the cartridge in question cannot be said to be "inherently accurate" any longer.
The problem with describing a cartridge as "inherently accurate" is that there are two groups of circumstances which have to align themselves in order for this to be true:
- Circumstances describing the characteristics of the cartridge itself.
- Circumstances describing the characteristics of the firearm in which the cartridge is to be fired from.
The two must go hand in hand when describing the performance of the cartridge.
Sorry Chief but I think you are missing the point. The label inherently accurate cartridge should mean the cartridge has, and more specifically the cartridge case, has intrinsic characteristics that make it possible to be more consistent shot to shot than a cartridge that does not have these characteristics. The firearm itself does not make the cartridge inherently accurate because it is just the means to demonstrate the inherent accuracy or lack of inherent accuracy of various different cartridges. Just like human beings, some cartridges have physical characteristics that from inception give them superior accuracy capability. I think much of the confusion and disagreement about the phrase “inherently accurate cartridge” is attributable to semantical differences.
OK.
Take your "inherently accurate cartridge" of choice and fire it from a smooth bore and see what it gets you.
Take your "inherently accurate cartridge" of choice and fire it from a barrel which isn't rifled for a twist rate appropriate for the bullet in your cartridge and see where it gets you.
That is just silly.
If you have two different cartridges, one of which has the physical characteristics of an inherently accurate design and the other does not, and you shoot each in a rifle optimized for it, one cartridge will be more accurate than the other. The more accurate cartridge will be the one that has a case configuration that decades of research has determined creates inherently accurate cartridges. Are you having a hard time understanding this or are you just trolling me? Did you not read all the other posts from numerous people explaining what makes some cartridges inherently more accurate than others?
A cartridge is a combination of primer, brass, powder, and bullet. It's not any single component...it's ALL of them, plus the details that go into tuning the cartridge in question to the specific firearm it's to be fired from AND the conditions under which it's to be fired. In tandem, these factors determine the various ballistics of a given bullet, with the ultimate performance measure being terminal ballistics.
All of this meaning that accuracy is a holistic approach to an entire system.
It seems to me that all these accuracy claims are based on established conditions and setups, outside of which this kind of performance is not achievable with such a cartridge as the 6mm PPC USA. Take benchrest shooting to longer ranges, such as the 1,000 yard range, and this cartridge no longer dominates like it does at 100, 200, or whatever shorter ranges.
So I'm not buying this "inherently accurate cartridge" thing. What you have is a holistic system which works together to achieve a given accuracy standard.
Yes and at that point you have a cartridge that in relationship to another is "inherently" more accurate than the one you are comparing it to. What you have done above is describe the only setting in which one cartridge can exceed the performance of another and in doing so is "inherently" more accurate. Or to look at it another way, you assume the correct rate of twist, assume a quality rifle, scope, shooter, etc. Then you have a case, powder, bullet, primer etc. that together exceed the performance standards of it's competitors. At that point round x is more accurate then round y.
It may be that the "inherently" throws ya. That simply means that one round by it's characteristics, nature or makeup has the potential for greater accuracy than another, of it's class in the tasks it is designed for, if the other applicable factors are equal.
The term in general is overused. In being overused looses for many any sense of useful meaning.
tipoc
Yeah, the term "inherently" is throwing me on this.
"Inherently" means there is some intrinsic nature to the cartridge...... that makes it better at what it does.
That horse has been beaten to death and then some. The answer to your question can be found at 6mmBR. com, Accurate Shooter.com, precision reloading, and so forth.So, WHAT intrinsic characteristics of the components/construction of a particular cartridge makes it "inherently accurate"?
Some cartridges are inherently more accurate than others. Very few benchrest shooters would deny that the 6PPC or variations of the same cartridge in .224 caliber are the most accurate rounds ever developed for shooting out to 200 and 300 yards. The flip side is that some cartridges are not as accurate.
It seems as though some experienced shooters and gunsmiths tend to place too much emphasis on one single characteristic of barrel as it relates to accuracy...
In our opinion this is putting the blinders on, a case of being myopic. All of these properties are important and a serious problem with any single one of them could cause accuracy trouble. But the point is they're all important. To sum up the critical factors we've mentioned, they include: a straight hole of uniform diameter and correct size for the intended caliber; a smooth and uniform surface finish that lays parallel to the rifling; a uniform rifling pitch; stress-free steel; adequate stiffness for the type of shooting it will be used for; and a first-rate installation job with special attention paid to the throat. An accurate barrel is the result of a happy marriage of all of these.