I've had a question for a long time that maybe somebody here can clear up (I also posed the question in another forum). In the latest issue of the Rifle magazine, author Stan Trzoniec (whom I have a lot of respect for) was testing a Cooper rifle chambered in 30-06 and made this observation: "...What really grabbed my attention, however, was how close the various bullet weights (150, 165 and 180 grains) were when it came to trajectory. For all practical purposes, all but one could be counted on to hit within one inch or less of each other even out to 400 yards...".
Now I've heard this claim more than a few times in the past but my question is, if one rifle can do it, why not all of them? What is so different about one rifle that can place all of its bullets in one place, regardless of weight, and others can't? I understand that every rifle, even those made the same day off the same line, are going to be dimensionally different from each other in one way or another, but bullet weights and their attendant ballistic properties in terms of trajectory would seem to be a constant, no matter the rifle they're fired from (everything else being as equal as practical in terms of ammunition type, barrel length, twist and type, etc.).
I'd love to hear opinions on this seeming paradox (if it is).
Now I've heard this claim more than a few times in the past but my question is, if one rifle can do it, why not all of them? What is so different about one rifle that can place all of its bullets in one place, regardless of weight, and others can't? I understand that every rifle, even those made the same day off the same line, are going to be dimensionally different from each other in one way or another, but bullet weights and their attendant ballistic properties in terms of trajectory would seem to be a constant, no matter the rifle they're fired from (everything else being as equal as practical in terms of ammunition type, barrel length, twist and type, etc.).
I'd love to hear opinions on this seeming paradox (if it is).