Inherently accurate/inaccurate cartridges

[sawdeanz]

I was just thinking the other day about whether there are cartridges that are inherently more accurate or less accurate by nature of their design. Assuming you're talking about match grade ammunition in any given caliber, what aspect of the bullet makes it better or worse? Or is it irrelevant and dependent solely on the platform?

 

[rcmodel]

Disregarding the rifle, sights, and shooter?

Very precision bullets make much more difference then the cartridge case design.

Here are some proven winners through the years.

http://www.6mmbr.com/compcartridges.html

rc

 

[Skribs]

One thing I recently read is that short, fat cases place more powder near the primer, resulting in a more uniform burn. Something like 300 Winchester Magnum vs. 300 WSM for example.

I also think longer bullets are more accurate.

 

[Ankeny]

I was just thinking the other day about whether there are cartridges that are inherently more accurate or less accurate by nature of their design.

Yes, some are more accurate by design. The link to 6mmBR is a good one. In fact, the 6mmBR is a good example of an accurate cartridge that is stupid simple to load for and get to shoot well.

 

[d2wing]

Long bullets are not more accurate as beyond a certain ratio they are harder to stabilize. There are optimal shapes and sizes and calibers. That is why the .270 is almost never used in competition. But 7 mm and .30 cal are along with 6mm.
In long range shooting.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Or is it irrelevant and dependent solely on the platform?

The platform and the load. Every cartridge can be made to shoot well, but some have a wider range of acceptable performance WRT accuracy. Cartridges with longer, narrower powder columns are less forgiving of load variation than the short, fat rounds. Other case design features also lend to flexibility or a lack therof.

There are optimal shapes and sizes and calibers. That is why the .270 is almost never used in competition. But 7 mm and .30 cal are along with 6mm

Optimal shapes, yes. Optimal caliber? Only because they're the ones bullet makers cater to for match type bullets.

There is nothing that makes .172", .204", .257", .277", .323" or .358" bore inherently less accurate than .224", .244", .264", .284, .308" or .338". But rifles and ammunition in the former group have always been geared toward hunting rather than competition. There is no reason that a bullet of those diameters cannot have the same accuracy potential as the others, but they've never been popular among the target crowd, so bullet makers don't waste resources on them.