What constitutes “inherently accurate “?

[Orange Dust]

It's amazing the mileage this thread has gotten. KUDOS to the OP. Oh and if the next new big thing is the 6.8 PRC will there be a spike in the 6.8 SPC sales from those that are in such a hurry to get on the bandwagon the hop the wrong one?

I wish Bob Hagel's old book was still available. Long out of print, a classic that formed the basis of my knowledge of handloading and cartridge performance. Wish another Hagel, or Ackley would come along and write a current one. Both of those guys wrote stuff you couldnt put down. Young folks need them. I miss them.

 

[MudRunner2005]

A good name for hornady's next cartridge: the 6.5 alchemy. LOL.

If they do, I'll rip them even more of a new one than I already do... Y'all just thought I was bad...This is level 1 crap.

 

[William Bonnie]

It's amazing the mileage this thread has gotten. KUDOS to the OP. Oh and if the next new big thing is the 6.8 PRC will there be a spike in the 6.8 SPC sales from those that are in such a hurry to get on the bandwagon the hop the wrong one?

Maybe most will have a brain fart, or the kid packing on the computer will.

 

[FEENIX]

And again, for accuracy to exist, the attributes of all parts, pieces and components must come together in a (for lack of a better word) symbiotic way.

A cartridge, by itself can't be construed as accurate. It can only have the attributes of accuracy, which are interdependent on everything else working with those attributes.

That's why there are research designs (correlational, causal-comparative, quasi-experimental, experimental, descriptive, etc.) that affords researchers to factor in dependent and independent variables.

 

[Orange Dust]

After years of loading & shooting, I don't base my rifle builds off of "inherently accurate" I base it off of :#1 what particular bullet I want to shoot,#2 what cartridges will get me to the velocity I want to achieve#3 which of those cartridges can I purchase consistent quality brass in,#4 can I get a powder of good temp stability that will give me good case fill ratio #5 how much Barrel twist do I need #6 how long does the throat need to be and will it fit desired action & magazine length.
If all is done correctly your chances of getting a non finicky accurate rifle increases. Then you call it an inherrenitly accurate rifle, LoL.

Yes, This is how an experienced handloader / hunter / competitive shooter decides what he wants most in a new rifle. Folks that don't either have enough experience or funds to do all these things have to depend on companies to do some or all of these things for them. This is what causes the disagreements in this thread, and separates the two die hard factions and leaves everyone else on the fence. Sorta like Republicans, Democrats and Independents. Until recently, it was highly unlikely that you could go into a gun store, buy a rifle, scope, and ammo for under $2k and go out to the range and shoot a decent group at 600yds. There is factory stuff out there now that is as good as the very best I could make seems like 10 years ago, maybe 15. We should all gather together and embrace it. Hopefully, more and more folks will buy this stuff and be somewhat successful, and get the itch to become even more so. Soon it becomes a hobby that turns into a lifelong quest ( or obsession according to my wife). Kudos to both the firearm and ammunition Manufactures for bringing more of what we do to more people. I think it is helping to bring new shooters to both competition and hunting. Cannot be a bad thing.

 

[wildcat455]

@FEENIX , Really?
That's what you're going with?

Ok. Ill go with this.

Would you agree, the best that manufacturers seem to be able to do with stacked tolerances, in pretty much every mass produced component from the ammunition to the gun, that they are willing to stand behind and guarantee, is 1 MOA at 100 yards? (Some product will fall short of this, but most can make the standard.)

Even semi custom and custom rifle makers usually lean on about 1/2 MOA, and that only with a particular brand of ammunition, or hand loading.

There are also those that custom build rifles and work up a particular load for their rifles for the customer that will guarantee 1/4 MOA.

I would offer that at one point, those accuracy figures will drift south, and that you will need to adjust your ammo to compensate.

I guess that it. To answer the question of what makes a cartridge "inherently accurate", you have to look at the manufacturers standard or definition of "accurate"

The thing is, and what I've been trying to tell folks, is every cartridge does in fact fit into the description of "inherently accurate". It really just depends on the individual or the group's definition of accurate.

By saying it, it doesn't mean this "new" cartridge will be any more or less accurate than by what's already out there. What advertisers, manufacturers, and writers are BANKING on, is that everyone will THINK it does mean EXACTLY that!!

Why? Because it has in the past, as evidenced by sales!!

I hand load. Therefore, myself and other hand loaders build in our own definition of "inherent accuracy" by tailoring a particular cartridge to the rifle we own it's chambered in.
Facts are facts, and I don't see a manufacturing entity that can come close to the results of doing so.

That is why when someone says "inherently accurate", I actually read "snake oil".

Now, there are more ways than one to skin a cat, but the results are the same.

You either build a rifle that is tailored to the mass produced cartridge you shoot, or (a less expensive method, and most certainly will yield better results a whole lot quicker) you tailor the ammunition to the particular mass produced rifle you shoot.

 

[FEENIX]

@FEENIX , Really?
That's what you're going with?

Ok. Ill go with this.

Would you agree, the best that manufacturers seem to be able to do with stacked tolerances, in pretty much every mass produced component from the ammunition to the gun, that they are willing to stand behind and guarantee, is 1 MOA at 100 yards? (Some product will fall short of this, but most can make the standard.)

Even semi custom and custom rifle makers usually lean on about 1/2 MOA, and that only with a particular brand of ammunition, or hand loading.

There are also those that custom build rifles and work up a particular load for their rifles for the customer that will guarantee 1/4 MOA.

I would offer that at one point, those accuracy figures will drift south, and that you will need to adjust your ammo to compensate.

I guess that it. To answer the question of what makes a cartridge "inherently accurate", you have to look at the manufacturers standard or definition of "accurate"

The thing is, and what I've been trying to tell folks, is every cartridge does in fact fit into the description of "inherently accurate". It really just depends on the individual or the group's definition of accurate.

By saying it, it doesn't mean this "new" cartridge will be any more or less accurate than by what's already out there. What advertisers, manufacturers, and writers are BANKING on, is that everyone will THINK it does mean EXACTLY that!!

Why? Because it has in the past, as evidenced by sales!!

I hand load. Therefore, myself and other hand loaders build in our own definition of "inherent accuracy" by tailoring a particular cartridge to the rifle we own it's chambered in.
Facts are facts, and I don't see a manufacturing entity that can come close to the results of doing so.

That is why when someone says "inherently accurate", I actually read "snake oil".

Now, there are more ways than one to skin a cat, but the results are the same.

You either build a rifle that is tailored to the mass produced cartridge you shoot, or (a less expensive method, and most certainly will yield better results a whole lot quicker) you tailor the ammunition to the particular mass produced rifle you shoot.

@wildcat455, of course I am going that route because it is true about the ability to factor in dependent and independent variables for the researcher (not gun writer or author).

It is obvious that there is a clear separation on this argument. When there is an acknowledgement of inherent inaccuracy, there has to be an acknowledgement of the counter argument. There is always at least two sides of an argument, i.e., hot vs cold, up vs down, guilty vs not guilty, etc. That is the whole point of a six sigma. Plots of data points will fall from either side of the spectrum/set upper or lower limits for correlation analysis/relationship to prove/disprove hypotheses or phenomenon under study. Like it or not, believe or not, it is what it is.

No where in this post, have I disputed the side of stance you are supporting, becuase I do similar things as you noted, but to say there is no such thing as inherently accurate without empirical evidence is an inaccurate assumption. Yes, I admit it is the easier assumption to make but it does not make it right. This "gap" phenomenon would make a wonderful future research.

50+ years ago there were many skeptics (scientist/subject matter experts) about lunar landing until Apollo 11 proved the world wrong.

ADDED: "IF" my Apollo 11 reference is inaccurate, then I stand corrected.

 

[Orange Dust]

I'll muddy it up even more by stating there are "Inherently Accurate" rifles, not nesc.cartridges. True gems that shoot everything well, and some loads exceptionally well. And muddy even further by stating "Inherently Accurate" has no meaning other than to the Individual evaluating it. One guy may get his deer every year with his trusty '06 Rem 742 and say it is one very accurate cartridge, and recommend it to everyone he knows even though it may not shoot 2wo MOA on its best day. A 1000yd benchrest guy may have a 1/2 min rifle, and get rid of it. To me, a half minute rifle @1000, using hunting bullets is very accurate, better is super cool. To each his own guys.

 

[bigngreen]

The thread wasn't about guns it's about the chamberings!

 

[FEENIX]

The thread wasn't about guns it's about the chamberings!

Yep!

 

[Orange Dust]

The thread wasn't about guns it's about the chamberings!

Yes, the shiny things that conveniently hold the cap, powder, and bullet for easy insertion into the rifle barrel. They go together. You are a gunsmith, from the posts I've read, I suspect a pretty good one too. I'll bet you can build a rifle in 300WM, or RUM, develop a load for it, and it would outshoot any mass produced 6.5 Creed, or .308 etc. with any factory ammo. There are exceptions, but if I was betting, I would put my money on you, and don't even know you.

 

[swe123]

Twenty pages of this? Really?

 

[Orange Dust]

Twenty pages of this? Really?

Slow at work, going to load shells when I get home, but really, nothing better to do right now other than chat with you guys.

 

[wildcat455]

@bigngreen, cartridges actually...
but chambers is close enough...

OK, @FEENIX, but don't you think that the bulk of the heavy lifting has in fact been done by wildcatters, and it's actually rare or never for the manufacturers or "researchers" to start from scratch on something?

In fact, the only time they jump in nowadays, is when someone else is on to something already, AND they know they can make a buck.

I don't have a problem with any of their reasons though. It's their deceptive advertising I have issue with.


Y'all should be able to accept the fact that when someone says "inherently accurate", it doesn't mean it'll shoot better than anything else out there, because if it did, I'd certainly expect them to make those wild claims of smaller groups, and adjust their "standard" accordingly... which hasn't been done. Therefore, the term "inherently accurate" applies to every cartridge it was ever used with, agree or no?

So again, I think you need to recognize the term "inherently accurate" as snake oil. It doesn't differentiate anything from status quo in the cartridge world.