Inherent accuracy myth or fact

[N.H. Yankee]

Inherent accuracy is a term I have heard thrown about throughout the years, myself included. This particular cartridge is known for its inherent accuracy such as the 45acp, and later vintage 38 supers. There are rifle cartridges with the same reputation such as the 308 Winchester.

Do you believe cartridges like the 45acp and 38 super and others that are said to be inherently accurate truly are, or do you believe the platform they are on or their use is more the reason. Many 45acp and some 38 super pistols are made for target use and tolerance in these guns are made tighter. Combat weapons don't have the accuracy requirements of a match pistol or revolver.

I also have noticed with today's computer run machinery most production guns are more accurate due to tighter tolerances, some even rival hand built custom guns. The 38 super suffered from head spacing issues for years and accuracy suffered until Colt changed the way it was head spaced. Some cartridge designs may be more efficient than others also. Also bullet and powder selection can have a profound impact on some guns.

I think with today's technology and computer engineering there no reason for accuracy issues in firearm manufacture. I think that any real issues with modern guns are a result of poor Q/C, poor ammunition or poor design. I have a couple newer 40's and 9mm's that can hang with my custom 45. I think back to the 70's and 80's and production guns weren't even close.

To sum it up, what do you believe or what has your experience taught you, all things being equal in a gun fired from a rest, does true inherent accuracy exist in some calibers?

 

[geetarman]

Quite a post that makes one think.

I have heard for years that .45 acp is inherently accurate. Mine all shoot pretty good. .222 Remington and 22-250 also carry the same mystique.

I think you can get a combination of metal parts all built to blueprint nominal and loads of various calibers of various bullets and get very good loads and accurate results.

Some just seem to work better than others. Paraphrased, they may be very good even with the errors we humans build into the process.

I have some guns I just gravitate toward and I would guess those are the ones that deliver good results even when I fall short of the mark.

Be interesting to see some other views.

 

[publius]

All other things being equal (they never are) yes I beleive there are inheirently accurate cartridges. I went to see my first benchrest competition a few months ago and every single person was using the 6mm BR with N133 powder. If this wasn't an inheirently accurate combo there would have been a greater variety.

 

[darkgael]

follow up

As a follow up to Publius' post about the BR matches.....The same kind of thing may be found at Bullseye matches in the CF stages - one sees .32 S&W, .38 Spl, .45 ACP. Over the last few years, the occasional 9mm, though mostly in Leg matches. 10mm? 40 S&W? .44s? Rare. I've not seen any.
Pete

 

[Buzzcook]

There are cartridges that are more efficient than others. ie the .308win is more efficient than the .30-06.
Cartridges that were designed for black powder or early smokeless powders have excess case capacity. The .45 colt and .45-70 government are examples of that. With room to move around the powder won't burn in a consistent manner and consistency is very important for accuracy.
You could argue that the more efficient a round was the more accurate it could be.

That of course over looks things such as the .45 Colt being very accurate in the right gun.

 

[James K]

It depends on what "efficient" means. I would define it as getting the most "bang for the buck", that is the highest velocity for a given powder charge. But I don't think that has much to do with accuracy.

I really doubt that there are any cartridges that are inherently accurate or inherently inaccurate. Mostly those with a reputation for accuracy are those on which the greatest amount of time and money has been spent, which is why most military and target cartridges are accurate. As an example, some folks say that the .25 ACP is not accurate. But I once knew a man who (having too much time on his hands and a really neat machineshop) built a .25 ACP rifle on a falling block action. It shot one hole groups at 50 yards, and about 1 1/2 inches at 100.

Another "inaccurate" cartridge is the .30-30. But I have taken a Model 94 Winchester, removed all the junk hanging on the barrel, and gotten one inch groups at 100 yards.

In other words, IMHO, accuracy and inaccuracy are more likely to be due to the platform than to the cartridge.

Jim

 

[greyson97]

i read that grass can make a .223 deflect, so i guess its not inherently accurate

ammo that is susceptible to winds at not long distance shooting, like .22lr esp bulk, probabbly

 

[Crosshair]

If this wasn't an inheirently accurate combo there would have been a greater variety.

The other way to look at it is that someone has found a combo that works well and nobody wants to spend the effort to try and reinvent the wheel when they have a proven performer.

 

[qcpunk]

I believe there are 2 distinct schools of thought here. One, that most of the "inherent accuracy" has to do with what the particular round was designed for, thus dictating the platform from which said cartridge is fired from.

Secondly, there are certain rifle cartridges that tend to have flat, long trajectories. This is where the Balistic Coeffecient really comes into play. If you stack enough powder behind a bullet with a low BC, it should, in turn, provide a higher degree of accuracy.

It would be interesting to try and organize a fairly scientific test on everyone's theories. Beyond accumulating enough of the right firearms to test, it really shouldnt be too difficult. Here's my idea.... decide on 3 rifle and 3 pistol calibers first. Secondly, select X number of firearms in each caliber; somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 or 5 platforms per caliber (consistant loads per caliber). Set a distance, maybe 20 yds for pistol and 150 for rifle. Then each platform is fired from a completely hands off benchrest setup. The goal here is to eliminate ALL human factors; using one of those hydraulic trigger-fingers. I would think that woud be a ton of fun and might provide some really usefull information for many different applications.

 

[Hafoc]

My Crackpot Opinion is that given a roughly equal level of technology, accurate cartridges are more accurate because customers expect them to be and demand that they be. People demand accurate .22 LR handguns, but I've never heard anyone demand an accurate .25 ACP. Given what happened when centerfires began to replace rimfires, I'd expect that the .25 should have been the more accurate of the two, given equal development; but there's been a boatload of development work on making the .22 accurate, until it became very accurate. And no such development on the .25, so it isn't accurate.

'Course you can always just do it wrong. The EARLIER .38 Supers were an example of that, back when they headspaced (sometimes) on the semi-rim, instead of headspacing on the case mouth as the newer ones do. I don't know if that counts as inherent accuracy or inaccuracy of the CARTRIDGE, though, since the problem with the early .38 Supers was less with the cartridge itself than with the pistols.