Are smaller bore's inherently more accurate?

Status
Not open for further replies.

horsemen61

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
6,808
I've always felt that smaller caliber's seem to be more accurate here is why. The smallest group i have ever seen shot was with a .222 Remington .127 inches at 100 yards the smaller rounds kick less so you want to practice more. The smaller caliber's use less powder for a handloader so it's cheaper. What say you do you believe there is any truth to this.
 
The answer to your question is legistics
These varmint rounds tend to be higher velocity with a lighter projectile designed to hit a small target that doesn't need a large projectile to kill,
where as the bigger hunting round needs a larger payload to do reasonable damage, this is where legistics comes in you can always make a larger round that would shoot just as flat it just takes more boom like in the case of the 50bmg or 338 lapua,
but pushing a larger slug the same as a smaller slug takes more material in the way of powder and case size, it needs a heavier gun to handle the recoil and to keep the chamber from rupturing, when all its needs to do is hit a plate sized kill zone at a apropriate range,
So in short are smaller calibers more accurate... no not in the least bit in fact they take a much greater wind penalty but they are easier and cheaper to make fairly accurate
 
I think the range you're shooting matters. Smaller calibers are pushed around by wind more as range increases. But generally speaking I think most people will shoot lighter recoiling rounds better at ranges up to 100 yards. I don't think the rounds themselves are more accurate.
 
A lot of it comes down to the typical ballistic coefficients of the bullets that you're using in any given caliber. For example, my .260 Remington is a smaller caliber rifle, but it does better in the wind than most of the .30 caliber offerings due to the high ballistic coefficients of its bullets.

Some of the .243/6mm offerings do even better as far as wind is concerned.

There's no denying that a .260 or 6mm can easily handle 1,000 yard shooting. What you intend the bullet to do at that distance dictates whether it's an appropriate choice or not (hence the reason for the existence of rounds like the .338 LM or .50 BMG).
 
I've shot small groups with .224 caliber bullets and .458 caliber bullets and everything in between. I think some folks are surprised by how accurate larger caliber bullets are. Intuitively, a larger caliber bullet has the potential for greater angular momentum. Personally I'd much rather use a .338 LM for 1,000 yards than a .260 Rem regardless of whether I'm trying to ring a steel plate or drop an elk. A 250gr .338 caliber bullet with a BC of .675 and a MV of 2,950 fps delivered from a rifle that's easy to shoot is hard to beat.
 
horsemen61 said:
The smallest group i have ever seen shot was with a .222 Remington .127 inches at 100 yards the smaller rounds kick less so you want to practice more. The smaller caliber's use less powder for a handloader so it's cheaper.

Aside from being based on a single piece of datum, your argument is all about the shooter, and has nothing to do with the cartridge's "inherent accuracy" (whatever that might be :rolleyes:).
 
I believe the opposite is true. When you account for shooter flinch then the light recoiling rounds will be more accurate.
 
You raise two points to defend your argument:

1) the smaller rounds kick less so you want to practice more
2) The smaller calibers use less powder for a handloader so it's cheaper

How are either of those related to so-called "inherent-accuracy" of a cartridge?
 
Heck guys I don't know how shooting more for less money would help one be more accurate and with less recoil could possibly help I was just asking what yall thought on the subject
 
Your correct in that shooting smaller, less recoil in weapons allows the shooters skill to grow. Inherent accuracy however is a factor of ballistic coefficient and weight of projectile. To my knowledge, the 6.5mm currently is the top of the top on coefficient. It's far from a 22lr, but still not huge. Recoil is very manageable with most 6.5s that I know of so again your assertion holds true that a lot of target rounds are on the small side, but still, that is shooter skill, not inherent accuracy.
 
WestKentucky said:
To my knowledge, the 6.5mm currently is the top of the top on coefficient.

A quick look on Berger's website or any maker of quality bullets will show that the .30 cal bullets have higher BCs. .338 cal match bullets are higher yet and .50 cal match bullets beat .338 cal bullets. If you talk about high BC with low recoil then the 6.5 cal bullets are a good choice. But like I said earlier, a 16lb AI AWM chambered in .338 LM with a 3lb scope and a suppressor is as easy to shoot well as anything out there ... and you get BCs close to or better than .7s with MVs around 2,900 fps.
 
I think bench rest shooters have spent a considerable amount of time trying to optimize things. The 6 BR for out to about 600 yards seems a popular choice. The 7 BR seems a popular choice out to 1000 yards. I'm not good enough or willing to,spend the time needed to justify something so special so I settled on plain jane 308. At best I shoot 1 MOA.
 
I know that F-Class has a max allowable caliber of .35. Are there similar restrictions for bench rest? Also, when you're shooting tens of thousands of rounds per year with no need to kill anything, are you going to spend + $1.00 per round? My point is that there are often a number of variables involved so it's not always as simple as X and Y caliber are the most popular in Z shooting therefore X and Y are the most accurate calibers.
 
I'll lob one out. Maybe the added steel from the smaller bore, say .224 compared to the same O.D. of .308, will make the barrel stiffer.

Opinion: I'll probably get flack for this but I don't really consider shooter skill being a part of inherent accuracy. Bullet selection kind of, because in the case of .257 bullets being not much smaller than 6.5mm, the .257 is rather under served as far as BC goes in comparison to the .260. On the topic of BC: Some of the low BC bullets can out shoot the VLD's or "high BC" bullets within certain distances. Good BC doesn't really help at 100 yds. Some of the good old fashioned flat based bullets with terrible BC print really well close up but will suffer at greater distances.
 
most CF benchrest'ers are using a 6mmBR or similar. That is the most accurate cartridge at *many* distances, including 600 and 1000 yards. The 6mmPPC is a little more accurate at 100-200 yards.

the record for 600 yards is 0.860" for 5-shots, done with 6mmBR. European prone shooters regularly shoot 0.3MOA or better at 300m.

If you can shoot better than this, you need to be either in our Armed Forces or on the Olympic team:

Norma_DL_ProneTarg.jpg
 
Last edited:
Heavy gun (benchrest) 10-shot world record of 2.815" at 1,000 yards with a 300 WSM. I'm going to take a guess that at this level of competition it's all about the process, rifle, conditions and shooter rather than the bullet caliber.

I believe that info is out of date now. Richard Schatz recently set a 1000-yard world record with a .271"-necked 6mm Dasher. AFAIK...
 
well either way, 1000 is all about reading the wind anyway.

100, 200 - 6mmPPC has the record IIRC
300m - 6mmBR
600 - 6mmBR

The little guy has a lot going for it.
 
I think it is pretty well established that smaller cartridges are more accurate at close range but as ranges go up the caliber and mass increase. As already posted, the 6MM is an overachiever. I trust the bench rest guys to figure it out.
 
Different cartridges within the same caliber have different accuracy capabilities.Compare the 222 to the 223.The 222 has a longer neck and a gentler shoulder angle.It's been my experience that the 222 is by a noticeable margin more accurate than the 223.Take 2 theoretically identical rifles,chamber one in 308 and the other in 223 and the 308 will most likely be the more accurate of the two because the case is more conducive to accuracy and the larger bore will better resist fouling.Caliber alone isn't the deciding factor when it comes to inherent accuracy.Why would the 204 Ruger be built on the outdated 222 magnum case instead of simply necking the 223 down to 20 caliber?Because of the 222 mag's longer neck and shoulder angle.If caliber were the only factor in inherent accuracy,the 22-250 would be by far the superior 22 cal round because of its velocity capabilities.The 6mm BR and PPC rounds dominate benchrest because of the 6mm's ability to better resist fouling.Why did the 243 take off and Remington's 6mm fail?Better accuracy in the Winchester round due to a longer neck and its shoulder angle.Overbore rounds seem to be harder to make more accuracy for short ranges,but are far better way out there because of velocity,which makes them shoot flatter and beat the wind better.What it boils down to is what kind of accuracy are you looking for?100 yard benchrest or 1000 yard sniper type shooting?A round that will do one well won't likely do the other so good.
 
Somewhere, in one of my publications on the shelf, was a comparison of rifle calibers from the Remington M40X custom rifle shop. Remington used to ship a target with each 40X showing the capability of the rifle, I think the one I saw was a 308 Win that shot a half a MOA.

The basic trend was the larger the caliber, the larger the group size. I believe that makes sense if the basic rifle platform stays the same weight. The more energy pumped into a structure, the more that structure moves and the vibration mode will change as energy is increased. It is not unusual to see a structure vibrate at least two different ways (modes) as energy input is increased. Whether or not the structure makes it to a third vibration mode depends on a lot of things, because at some energy level the structure comes apart (duh!). Larger calibers obviously pump more energy into a rifle mechanism than smaller calibers, so all other things being equal, you would expect larger movements with the larger calibers. This will result in inaccuracy.

If weight is unlimited, then, I think the heavy calibers will be superior the further you go out. I have not studied this in detail, I don’t know at what distance mass and a reasonable ballistic coefficient start producing better results. Out to 600 yards, heck if I know if bigger is better. I have had buds who were shooting clover leaf groups with 50 Caliber rifles at 300 yards. They claimed they were doing that with ball ammunition. Even the 50 caliber bolt guns are heavy, the Armalite AR50 is 33 pounds. I have heard of some awesome 50 caliber shots by American Snipers, at distances where a lighter bullet would be floating in the wind.

Shooters being human beings, are affected by the muzzle blast and recoil of high horsepower rounds. There are very few people who can shoot flinch free time after time, while all the time being behind something that kicks hard, and is extremely loud. I will tell you, even behind my 22 LR Anschutz M1413, I have to think about flinch, and I have caught myself flinching even though this type of rifle has barely any recoil and is very quite with match ammunition. So what I have seen, is the trend to go with high ballistic, low recoil calibers. The trade off is barrel life.

I was talking to a fellow shooter at the Ben Avery Center, there are so many rifle matches in the area that he prefers to use a 308 Winchester if he can, because the barrel will last a couple of shooting seasons, whereas, the 6.5’s are worn out in one year of competition! Given that once a gunsmith gets to know you, he sits on your rifle, and 6 months is actually a good turnaround for these guys, sometime it goes to a year, you better have more than one sub caliber rifle in the safe, one to shoot, one at the gunsmith, and one ready to use.

Until guided missiles came on the scene, this was the ultimate in large caliber big bore accuracy.

BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN_zps53fe4463.jpg
 
Last edited:
The success of the 30BR in benchrest competition has shown that at short range even the larger bore sizes can demonstrate extreme accuracy. I don't think cartridge accuracy is related to bore diameter so much as it is quality brass and a certain bore to case-capacity ratio. Some argue that the 30BR is doing as well as it is because it closely copies the 6ppc ratio of cartridge design.

I've been working at using my 30BR beyond its short range niche and it shows promise even at long range so long as the wind is not too crazy, for example, this is a half-MOA 7 shot group I shot at 425yds last weekend.

target%20425_zpsweq7exqm.gif
 
One overlooked aspect of accuracy is bullet construction. A rifle bullet out of a typical varmint rifle spins 200-300,000 rpm. An ideal projectile would have a radius approaching zero, since any minute non-concentricity is going to induce wobble, and if the non-concentricity is inconsistent bullet to bullet, your groups are going to open up. Making more perfect bullets is more expensive than making imperfect bullets.

For a given level of "perfectness" (cost), the smaller diameter bullets are going to be more concentric since their imperfections will likely have a smaller moment arm (distance from the axis). I think this is why we see better accuracy from smaller projectiles in general, since most of us don't shoot benchrest quality projectiles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top