Results 21 to 30 of 36
-
22-02-2022, 08:11 #21
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Location
- Port Elizabeth
- Age
- 55
- Posts
- 11,588
Re: A question about inherent "cartridge accuracy"
I am beginning to think now (Yes I know), accurate calibre - accurate cartridge, big difference and I have punting every calibre can be accurate.
I have not been answering the question because I raced ahead again.
Any calibre can be as accurate as any other, but some case designs make for easier accuracy achievement.
What is the factual answer to this?
-
22-02-2022, 09:00 #22
Re: A question about inherent "cartridge accuracy"
Consider the .350 Legend. By all accounts a 1.5 to 1 MOA cartridge. I wanted one for the hell of it. But I cannot accept that kind of accuracy. Looking at it, it headspaces off the case mouth. Ie without a perfectly cut chamber and a perfectly perpendicular cut of the case mouth, concentricity and consistency are out the door. The difficulty in attaining those two suggests to me that the cartridge as whole is inherently unlikely to be accurate.
Last edited by Skaaphaas; 22-02-2022 at 09:10.
-
22-02-2022, 09:35 #23
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Location
- Stella
- Age
- 46
- Posts
- 10,870
Re: A question about inherent "cartridge accuracy"
Just to stir things up a bit :
"They were able to rate the relative accuracy of various benchrest calibers. Under the perfect warehouse conditions, the .22 outshot them all, followed closely by the 6mm."
From https://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/...ifle-accuracy/
-
22-02-2022, 09:50 #24
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
- Location
- Potchefstroom
- Age
- 30
- Posts
- 328
Re: A question about inherent "cartridge accuracy"
I can't say I've come to a conclusion, but if this thread has shown me anything it's that this is a more complicated topic than I initially thought. I also don't think you can separate the cartridge from the chamber design either. Maybe it's better to talk about cartridges that are more conducive to accuracy than others due to the various design factors like neck length and the shape of the powder column in the case.
Sent from my GM1901 using Tapatalk
-
22-02-2022, 10:22 #25
Re: A question about inherent "cartridge accuracy"
I'd say that the available powders favour combustion in certain case dimensions. When a new powder comes out, and someone finds it's fantastic for an old, little used caliber that nopbody ever got good results with, that will be the next inherently accurate cartridge.
Like the .284. It was floating around for decades untill someone put the right bullet and right powder in it, and now it's a F-Class standard.
-
22-02-2022, 10:30 #26
-
23-02-2022, 20:49 #27
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
- Location
- Eastern Cape
- Posts
- 1,302
Re: A question about inherent "cartridge accuracy"
Just buy a 30-06. What you lot on about?Just because I reach X quicker and easier with A rather than B doesn't mean A is better than B. Just means B takes a bit more #insert time,effort, finances etc. B is just less efficient.Fine A is better than B.
-
23-02-2022, 21:06 #28
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
- Location
- Noord van die biltong gordyn.
- Age
- 56
- Posts
- 9,116
Re: A question about inherent "cartridge accuracy"
Methinks there are 2 types of shooters:
1. Those who need to explain to everyone how accurate/expensive/good their rifles, cartridges, points etc. are and
2. Those who put their bullets in the bullseye and the points on the scoreboard.
The first group think that accuracy sits in a rifle, cartridge, bullet or whatever gizmo and that this accuracy can be bought.
The second group know that accuracy is a product of hard work and dedication, and is available to anyone who is willing to put in the required effort.
The people of the 2 groups do not usually get along with each other. They speak different languages, drink different liquids and laugh about different jokes.
-
23-02-2022, 21:29 #29
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Location
- Port Elizabeth
- Age
- 55
- Posts
- 11,588
Re: A question about inherent "cartridge accuracy"
But ???? - AR, are you saying a good shooter will be accurate with a inaccurate rifle ? _ I doubt thats what you mean.
You firstly need a accurate rifle, then you can see what you or the joker drinking oxygenated water can shoot.
I have been questioned so many times as to why I am so interested in my rifles shooting off bags on a perfectly still day with a perfect load. " yerra Treeman you have no bags in the bush and you do not get to choose the weather either, so why you worry so much about off the bench?" The subject has become much heated on a few occasions, and I still stick to my theory, if you have a reading of what the rifle can do, what it is capable of, then and only then can you test your shooting ability.
The rifle is more accurate than you! Well great then, now I got something to aim for. My .303 with my present load will shoot a quarter inch at 100 m, I do not care how good you are, you will not better that.
My .270 shooting GS Customs can shoot 3 touching holes at 200 m - I usually can't, but have achieved this on occasion. Now! at 300 m I am lucky to shoot a 4 inch group (more like 5inch actually depending on how long the fire has been burning) To the best of my know, a rifle that shoots under a inch at 200 m would likely be capable of at least 2 or 3 inch group at 300 m - from this I can deduct that it is I the shooter that is at ability deficit when it comes to 300 m and not the rifle.
I only know this from measured results at a very controlled bench session.
-
23-02-2022, 23:07 #30
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Location
- Port Elizabeth
- Age
- 55
- Posts
- 11,588
Re: A question about inherent "cartridge accuracy"
That Houston Warehouse article is still a good read, even # 20 times.
Bookmarks