Inherent Cartridge Accuracy

[.38 Special]

In a bench rest rifle? And equally carefully hind loaded?

Bob Wright

With Titegrope!

 

[nettlle]

Those of

Here's a guy who won benchrest matches with a 30-30. http://benchrest.com/showthread.php?95849-Why-I-Shoot-the-30-30-in-Benchrest

There are bench rest muzzle loaders also.

 

[Old Hobo]

There are firearm designs that are bad from the get-go. Too, some "high quality" firearms do not shoot well ... with any ammo you try using in it. In the case of rifles, some will go on to free-float the barrel, glass-bed the receiver, and/or thread-on a barrel tuner. Usually, the rifle can be resurrected from the grave. I'd defer to a gunsmith to speak to the tuning of a handgun. Two identical design revolvers are tested and one is found inaccurate. In inspecting the inaccurate revolver, the gunsmith finds a barrel-cylinder gap issue or some other pesky problem. Maybe the gunsmith can fix it at reasonable cost. Maybe not.

But to state that an entire caliber family is either a god-send or a curse, ... uh no, I wouldn't go there. That's just way too global of a statement to make.

And I say this because some reloader and his gunsmith friend, if challenged, will inevitably come up with some decent or better accuracy out of any given firearm/cartridge-loading combo for that supposedly cursed caliber family. They'll create their own accurate weapon chambered in the stated evil caliber just for spite, just to show that it can be done. Tell you the truth, I kind'a like this trait in humans so long as it stays within the realm of the sane.
-------------

 

[.38 Special]

Those of

There are bench rest muzzle loaders also.

This particular guy was shooting heavy bench against people using the 6PPC. He was shooting aggs in the .150 range and beating people. I think it's pretty amusing myself, but there you go.

 

[nettlle]

If you buying a new caliber, rifle or pistol, do some accuracy research on the reloading and shooting of that particular caliber.

 

[Hal]

I always thought the inherent accuracy buzz started when S&W began to push their (then revolutionary) use of a non-heeled bullet.

 

[Smaug]

How is that relevant? How can you assess the validity of Ransom Rest results if you've never used one? I'm not saying they can't be trusted but I am saying that the advantage they have over traditional bench testing is more perceived than real. Often overstated, usually by people who've never used one.



Pure hogwash. I have one and a dozen or so inserts. I've used it and I think they're overrated. As recoil increases, the less reliable they become. I thought, like you and so many others, that it would be the be-all, end-all of pistol testing but I was wrong.

Do you think the gun is moving in the rest or is the rest not fastened to something sturdy enough to withstand the recoil?

I'm just curious how it could've become the industry standard, even though CraigC doesn't approve.

 

[Slamfire]

Ol' Mike said he got good accuracy out of a .44-40, too.

Mike Venturino does take into account bullet diameter, chamber mouth and barrel dimensions. When they are all over the map, such as the 45 LC, no one is going to get good accuracy out of a Colt SAA with .458" chamber mouths and 454 or .452 barrel grooves.

If he posted a pistol of a 44-40 target, fired from a ransom rest, and the group is tight, then it is real.

 

[Slamfire]

I always thought the inherent accuracy buzz started when S&W began to push their (then revolutionary) use of a non-heeled bullet.

These things go through phases. The gunwriter Ken Warner created the term "over bore" and that buzzed around for decades as something undesirable. Based on the cartridges I have seen on the bench that F Class shooters are using, and the groups they get, there is something to inherently accurate cartridge designs. The 6mm Dasher I handled was short, stubby, and would not feed well, if at all, from a magazine. It also has mild recoil.

The shooter who was using it told me how shooting a 308 Win beat him up. I was shooting a 300 Win Mag that day, and around shot five, every subsequent round that went off elicited a cry of pain from me. I fired maybe 20 rounds of 150 grain bullets, then quit after 8 or 9 rounds of 190's. It hurt too much. Let me assure any who might read this, pain leads to flinching. Also, when the rifle recoil tips the front rest over and knocks you and the rifle off in one direction, it is hard to shoot well.

Maybe the cartridge is inherently accurate, but I am not going to try to prove it.

 

[Jim Watson]

Mike has - or had if he traded them for a submachine gun - a set of commemoratives, a .45 cavalry style and a .44 Frontier Six-Shooter. He said they were the nicest made Colts in recent history and the .44-40 was as accurate as anything. I don't remember his remarks on that particular .45.

 

[Jim Watson]

there is something to inherently accurate cartridge designs.

Must be, the 6mm PPC blew the .222 Rem right out of benchrest shooting, and reportedly everybody was glad to see the 6x47 go.

 

[Slamfire]

I don't remember his remarks on that particular .45.

Don't remember if it was Mike or another writer who was upset that his new Colt SAA came with 0.458 chamber mouths.

 

[Durango_Dave]

I use .452 bullets for my 45 Colt. These do not fit through the cylinder on my Vaquero.

Should I ream my cylinder? I've heard of this but I've been scared to do it since it's non reversible.
Both my Vaquero and my Schofield are not as accurate as I'd like but these bullets fit through my Schofield cylinder not my Vaquero.

 

[Riomouse911]

I don't agree with that, at all. If I shoot two guns back to back, one shoots 1/2"@25yds, the other 3"@25yds, what's the difference? Am I just not shooting one as well as the other? Or am I seeing the intrinsic differences between two guns and loads? If I follow that logic, bench shooting is a complete waste of time.

I also think Ransom Rests are overrated.



Is that more a function of the cartridge or the rifles that chamber it?

I thought this was the revolver forum.

I guess .30-30 could count as a revolver cartridge since BFR has SA revolvers in that chambering. I have only seen one in an LGS counter:

https://shopkahrfirearmsgroup.com/firearms/magnum-research-3030-win-revolver-75-inch-barrel.asp

Stay safe.

 

[Seedy Character]

I use .452 bullets for my 45 Colt. These do not fit through the cylinder on my Vaquero.
View attachment 1114322
Should I ream my cylinder? I've heard of this but I've been scared to do it since it's non reversible.
Both my Vaquero and my Schofield are not as accurate as I'd like but these bullets fit through my Schofield cylinder not my Vaquero.

I would contact Ruger. That is undersized.
Just the 1 chamber or others / all?

I had 1 chamber that was tight. A .410 bore swab, drill and some Flitz, fixed it right up.
Go for a few seconds (20) and check fit.
You aren't removing much.

 

[Durango_Dave]

All the cambers in my Ruger 45 cylinder are too tight for the bullets to fit through. This seems to be a common problem with Rugers chambered in 45 colt.
Here's a article on this: https://gunblast.com/Brownells_Reamer.htm
and here's the reamer : https://www.brownells.com/gunsmith-...olver-cylinder-throating-reamer-prod7700.aspx
I read up on this years ago but I was scared to try it.

 

[wbm]

Are certain calibers inherently more accurate than others

Yes.

 

[Russ57]

Slug your barrel before you consider reaming chambers. Supposed ideal (for lead bullets) is chambers 0.001" bigger than barrel.

 

[Durango_Dave]

Slug your barrel before you consider reaming chambers. Supposed ideal (for lead bullets) is chambers 0.001" bigger than barrel.

I have slugged my barrel. It's .450"
I was thinking the bullets should be .002" bigger than the barrel. Before posting I did a google search and found this: https://www.hensleygibbs.com/casting/sluggingthebore.htm

Remember…you are looking for the throats to be ~ .001” larger than the groove diameter of your barrel and your bullets should be ~ .001” larger than the throats. For example, my .45 Colt is a Ruger Bisley. Ruger was/is notorious for making .45 Colt revolvers with .450” throats. The nominal barrel dimension for a current .45 Colt is .452”. This dimensional problem often resulted in poor accuracy and barrel leading in the forcing cone and barrel of those revolvers. The problem was so common, that Brownells started making and selling .4525” reamers specifically for these Ruger revolvers. This was what I did. I had the chamber throats opened up to .4525” - .4530”. That fixed the problem.

 

[DMW1116]

The 9mm is my waterloo. I just can't get the accuracy from it that I do with other calibers. Maybe I just haven't hit the jackpot with the right gun and load combination but I have tried several guns an a lot of different loads. Even my 1911 in 9mm doesn't get close to equaling any of the ones in 45 I have owned.

i have one load in one gun in 9mm that will match my 22 target pistol and Ruger Blackhawk. Otherwise they just have adequate accuracy.

 

[.38 Special]

I have slugged my barrel. It's .450"
I was thinking the bullets should be .002" bigger than the barrel. Before posting I did a google search and found this: https://www.hensleygibbs.com/casting/sluggingthebore.htm

It's a good idea to figure out exactly what diameter the throats are before "fixing" them. If they are .451 or a tad less then they will be ideal with a .450 bore. If they are .450 or under then reaming is a good plan - but .452 or .453 with a .450 bore is not great either. The exact dimensions are not critical; you just want a bit of taper from the bullet to the muzzle. Anything from .0005 (if we're pretending we can measure that accurately) to .001 is essentially perfect. For example, a .452 bullet, a .4515 throat, a .451 lede, and a .4505 muzzle.

 

[Mosin77]

I’ve always read that .32 S&W Long is supposed to be another of these inherently accurate calibers.

A couple of thoughts:

The guns are mostly good quality s&w revolvers. Or even higher grade Euro target guns. There are some Rossi revolvers too but compared to other calibers I haven’t seen a lot of cheap junk chambered in .32 long. The cartridge was once widely used in accuracy competition so I assume a lot of load development was done. Why was it used? I don’t know. Because it was inherently accurate? Or because it was the then police standard?

I will say, shooting mine, the sights are very fine (which means the gun itself has the potential to be shot accurately by a human with good eyes) and must point well because I can barely see said sights yet I can ring steel at longer ranges than I do other guns. And the cartridge is relatively low recoil objectively -though feels stronger than some other guns simply because the revolver I have is a relatively small I-frame Smith.

So, subjectively, there are a lot more factors which might lead the .32 S&W long to be perceived as “accurate,” compared to, say, an AK-47 pistol chambered in 7.62x39. Or a .32 automatic.

This touches a little on the ransom rest question, too. Guns have an inherent finite mechanical accuracy, but they are made to be shot by humans, rather than machines. So although the rest might be able to answer the question of which rifled barrel/breech system/load combination has the greatest theoretical mechanical accuracy potential, they really cannot answer definitively the question of accuracy, because there are many human factors (recoil, fit in hand, balance, pointability, sight type and visibility, perceived loudness, etc.) that may make a big difference in the real world as to whether or not a given gun is likely to be shot accurately.

I would be very curious to know if there is some concrete data pertaining to cartridge pressure, case volume, bore diameter, or ratios thereof, etc. to substantiate the idea that certain cartridges (.32 long, .22, .45acp) are fundamentally capable of greater accuracy potential than others. This is implied by the claim, but like OP I have never seen much to substantiate it.

 

[CraigC]

Do you think the gun is moving in the rest or is the rest not fastened to something sturdy enough to withstand the recoil?

I'm just curious how it could've become the industry standard, even though CraigC doesn't approve.

Industry standard? That's debatable. Maybe in a production environment, daily testing of the same thing over and over again. Most gunwriters, folks who test guns for a living, aren't using them.

I didn't say they didn't work, I said they were overrated. People bench test more rifles than handguns, by far. Where is the rifle version?

 

[Durango_Dave]

Ransom Rest was not used. A revolver that shoots a 5/8" group at 25yds speaks for itself.

You have a gun that you can shoot accurately therefore you say a Ransom Rest is a waste.
You are missing the point. The Ransom Rest is not for guns that are proven to be accurate. They are to eliminate or greatly reduce human error.

For example if someone were to shoot single handed with the gun at arms length and fails to hit the target. He can't blame the inaccuracy on the gun or ammo until he eliminates human movement and error.

Put the same gun in a Ransom Rest. If every bullet goes in the same hole you know the gun is accurate. The earlier misses must have been due to human error.

To eliminate human error you should use both hands and brace the gun on a stable platform. A Ransom Rest goes even further to reduce human error. If you have a rifle a Lead Sled can be used.

If you think the Ransom Rest or Lead Sled are not stable enough that's one thing, but you seem to be saying you can shoot fine without one. That's where you miss the point.

 

[CraigC]

You have a gun that you can shoot accurately therefore you say a Ransom Rest is a waste.

Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

The Ransom Rest is not for guns that are proven to be accurate. They are to eliminate or greatly reduce human error.

The Ransom Rest is for testing guns and ammo. Whether or not the gun being tested is already proven to be accurate is irrelevant. Yeah, I know what they are for.

For example if someone were to shoot single handed with the gun at arms length and fails to hit the target. He can't blame the inaccuracy on the gun or ammo until he eliminates human movement and error.

That why you test g uns from a benchrest, to establish an accuracy standard. You don't have to have a Ransom Rest to do that. You do, however, have to put in the time to develop your bench technique.

To eliminate human error you should use both hands and brace the gun on a stable platform. A Ransom Rest goes even further to reduce human error. If you have a rifle a Lead Sled can be used.

You're telling me like I don't know?

If you think the Ransom Rest or Lead Sled are not stable enough that's one thing, but you seem to be saying you can shoot fine without one. That's where you miss the point.

A lead sled is not equivalent to the Ransom Rest and most people decry them as stock breakers.

A Ransom Rest is a $1000 investment, before you start buying inserts. I don't think I miss the point. Maybe you're missing mine. Once again, a whole lot of pontificating by folks who never used one.