Inherently accurate calibers

Ben

New member
I'm not new at guns as my "member since 1999" shows. I've had an honest fascination with things that go BANG since childhood. Physics has always interested me. I'm actually a physics nerd disguised as a police officer.

The QUESTION: Are there calibers that are inherently more accurate just by their very nature? (redundant)? I ask this because competitors tend to gravitate towards certain calibers. I know that each caliber requires a certain twist rate because of the bullet's weight, speed and the limited barrel length; but assuming that each caliber is presented with their optimal twist-rate, IS THERE A BEST?

My head says, NO. But, then why do competitors gravitate towards certain calibers? Is it simple economics? (more platforms are built for so-and-so) If that's the case, why do gun builders build ANYTHING in .38 Super any more? Is it easier to reload? Why is 45 the most prevalent caliber in competition? The ammo isn't the cheapest, and recoil could be more managable in another caliber. Is it just because so many people like the 1911 and they are just sticking with tradition?

What say you?
Ben
 
I think just about any gun in any caliber could be modified to out shoot the shooter... As far as one handgun caliber being more accurate than all the rest, I don't think such a caliber exists... Any handloader can fiddle with loads to produce the most accurate out of their gun, and some guns are more accurate than others, and some shooters are better shots in general than others... It's all very subjective, much like gun choices themselves... I think most competition shooters prefer a 1911 style b/c of it's light single action trigger and many aftermarket/custom options that exist for these guns. Not to mention that a lot of competition handgun shooters most likely grew up around 1911's so that is the design that they're most comfortable with... As for the .38 Super, it offers the familiar, ergonomic, highly customizable, and great shooting platform of the 1911 in a lighter recoiling caliber...

Like I said, it's all very subjective...
 
I've noticed that 9mm and 45 are inherently more accurate than .40.

There are many factors involved, but trim those down to the load itself and yes I do think each load, not just the bullet diameter, are more accurate than others. I also believe that certain loads for each caliber are more accurate than others.
 
The problem with .38 Super accuracy was figured out and solved years ago. Modern guns chambered for that cartridge should be as accurate as similar guns in any other chambering.

I suspect that when you compare similar guns and similar quality ammunition, taking the shooter out of the equation, there's very little difference in accuracy. That assumes that you try enough different loadings to find something that the gun likes. Even a very accurate gun can be a real dog with ammunition that it doesn't "like".

In rifles, where practical accuracy is far more dependent on the ammunition, "inherent accuracy" of various cartridges is hotly debated--in other words there's room for different opinions. In pistols, practical accuracy is affected very heavily by the shooter and various features of the handgun. Barring there being an accuracy problem with a specific cartridge (like the .38 super headspacing on the rim--effectively a design flaw), it would be pretty surprising to me to find that one handgun cartridge had a clear accuracy advantage.

In other words there may be some cartridges that are inherently inaccurate because of design issues, but other than that there aren't significant accuracy advantages in one handgun cartridge compared to the average. You can probably pick out some "losers", but picking "winners" out of the pack is going to be much harder.
 
The best discussion I have ever read of this subject was written by Horace Kephart over 80 years ago. But he was talking about rifles. I doubt if the same considerations apply to handgun calibers. He did point out that some calibers, like the .30-30, were thought of as more accurate than they really were. There were issues like range and so on that came into play and this certainly applies to handguns. Elmer Keith not withstanding, I don't consider handguns to be long range weapons, though if you happen to be in the woods someday, take along a tape measure and see how close 25 yards is. That's a typical indoor range.

Somewhere I've seen a photo of Horace Kephart with a Luger in a shoulder holster.
 
inherent

I used to think that certain pistol calibers were more accurate than others. I no longer do. The gun is much more of a determining factor.
One reads about the marvelous accuracy of the .38 Spl LSWC loads - indeed S&W built it's wonderful Model 52 around that concept. But, y'know, the .44 Spl. loaded properly can shoot as well (though there is no counterpart for the #52).
The .45 ACP is available in extremely accurate firearms. How well it does is as much a product of the adaptability of John Browning's 1911 design as it is of the cartridge. A case in point - the 9mm Luger round. When I started shooting Bullseye matches, no one shot the 9mm in the CF stages. It was described as being unsuitable, "too brittle" (whatever that meant). The the USAMU armorers and others found ways to accurize the Beretta 92. Now you can buy guns that will shoot 50 yard X-ring groups. Did the inherent accuracy of the 9mm suddenly change?
The same is probably true for the 40's. The guns available, fine shooters that they may be in other ways, do not lend themselves to accurizing and commercial loadings are light years away from target fodder. Until someone finds a way.
Pete
 
My limited experience indicates that the individual handgun has potential if matched with the right load. My 1937 brazilian trade in with its lightly pitted barrel is a one holer with hardcast and hardball loads, a mess with swaged or soft cast bullets. I recently acquired a single cavity Keith mold that throws .434 diameter bullets. hand lubed unsized over 15.5 grains of 2400 has made my never accurate 25 year old SAA into a tack driver....when I can see the sights. My other .44 specials or .45ACPs shooters are X2 or X3 this accuracy...when I can see the sights.
 
I sure don't have the answers, but here's a couple of things that are relevant. .38 Super made a name for itself in countries that had laws against civilians owning firearms in military calibers. The .38 Super got very popular because people wanted 1911's and weren't allowed to own .45's.

.38 Super then got popular in U.S. competition because of something called "power factor" which is a mathematical equation having to do with bullet weight and velocity. It's something simple, but I don't know it offhand. In action pistol, you have MINOR and MAJOR. A .45 at some normal speed is major, and 9mm couldn't make major without building over-hot, over-pressure loads. The .38 Super was THE way of taking a bullet that was similar to a 9mm and pushing it fast enough to make major.

The difference between minor and major has to do with the value of your hits outside of the center of the target. Again, this is simple stuff for those shooters, I can't be specific. To put it another way... you are "punished" on score if you shoot the match with a minor caliber as opposed to major.

Why not simply shoot major? Because the idea is that major generates more recoil and makes quicker, accurate follow-up shots more difficult.

Back in the 80s, guys were experimenting on the ragged edge of handloading to send 9mm's loaded outside of SAAMI standards in pursuit of making major. The development of powder and bullets since those days have made it possible and safe to make major with 9mm, but back then, it was a HUGE battle and talked about a lot. Lots of arguments. Unsafe-safe-stupid-practical, everyone went round and round with "Major 9."

Anyhow, that's where .38 Super got so popular... a way to make major with a smaller caliber round, without exceeding pressure limits, and doing it all with a 1911.
 
I am suprised I havent seen what I am about to say yet. My opinion is yes certain calibers will be less accurate. My reasoning is simply physics. I mean I know you can change around the loads, but I think an important part of this is if the shot is hypothetical and in vaccum. If not, but on a bench with no shooter variable, I still say yes. .22s .25 autos .32 cals and the likes I have always seen perform rather poorly. It could be the size of he guns, yea, but a .22 what is more accurate at 100 yards, a .22 or a 9mm. This discussion to me is similar to the Bolt, Semiauto, Lever gun accuracy discussion. It is very situational and shooter dependent. At 200 yards I watched a .308 Lever gun on a bench perform just as well as a bolt. Move that out to 500 or more and the results would probably change. But these are handguns, something for inside 25 yards usually. But I would say that the calibers that are not high velocity higher weights arent going to perform as well when they arent in a vaccum.
 
Part of the "inherent" accuracy of a particular caliber has to do with the longevity of that caliber.

The .38 caliber (.357) started out as a .36 caliber round ball. It became the "jump off" point for development of the .38 caliber cartridge. It's had the advantage of over 150 years of development. The .44 (.429) and .45 (.451/2) calibers have had development for over 130 years. That gives time for a lot of real testng, anecdotal observation, and ballistic studies.

Of course, .45 caliber rifles have been around since before the nineteenth century, first as a round ball (.44x), and a rifle bullet (.451-.458). The .45 caliber was not only used as a rifle cartridge, but it also was used extensively as a muzzleloading bullet. This is tempered somewhat by the fact that these longer range rounds don't stabilize as they leave the muzzle. It takes as much as two hundred yards for a 535 gr, .458 caliber bullet to fly properly.

Not until the advent of smokeless powder and jacketed bullets, did smaller rounds, like the .30 caliber class become popular.

These rounds have long and well-studied track records. Conversely, the .40 S&W has only been around for about 20 years.

One of the phenomena of rifle rounds is that they have more bearing surface than pistol or revolver bullets. This also aids in a bullet's "inherent" accuracy.

Just some hitorical notes to add to the mix.
 
the bullet on a 222 can apparently be seated much further forward than on most ?.224? caliber rounds because of the way the brass is shaped. I was told this allows the rifle to be more accurate all other factors kept the same. I assume there could be characteristics like this for handgun ammunition.
 
If all you want to know is about the cartridge....

The you need to remove as many variables from comparison as practical. For this, the most practical thing would be a T/C Contender. Barrels can be had in all the regular pistol calibers, and you would be using the same frame, so trigger pull would be exactly the same.

That is as close as you can get to comparing the accuracy of the calibers. I have a 9mm barrel for my Contender, that will outshoot most, if not all the autopistols in this caliber. It has certainly done so so far, against every one I have been able to test.

Handguns that shoot 2" groups at 25yds are considered fairly accurate. Many will do better, many will not. But the main ingredient isn't the actual round being fired, it is the pistol shooting it. And the shooter.
 
How about .32 S&W Longs? My girlfriend has a double action Iver Johnson Model 55-A Cadet in .32 Long and that cheap-o clunker is right on. It's only got a 2 1/4" barrel, too, but she hits bullseyes regularly. The weird thing is that the gun's rear sight is hidden from view by the hammer until the trigger is pulled halfway back. I've also found .22 WMR to be very accurate. I have an H&R 676 with a 7.5" barrel that's amazing when used with the magnum cylinder.
 
Last edited:
.32 S&W Long, .38 Special, .44 Russian, .44 Special, .44 Magnum, and .45 ACP all have reputations for being inherently more accurate while .38 Super, .40S&W, and .45 Colt have reputations for not being particularly accurate although those reputations often stem more from issues with the guns rather than the cartridges themselves. Almost any cartridge in a quality firearm will likely yield better accuracy than the average shooter is capable of appreciating without a machine rest.
 
accuracy

A quality Bullseye pistol is expected to be able to shoot 10 shot X-ring groups at 50 yards. That's slightly under two inches. I've no doubt that a the 357 cartridge can be made to do this, as can the 10mm. But.....what current pistol chambered for those cartridges can? Probably easier to find one for the .357 (load it like a .38 wadcutter and you should be good to go.)
Pete
 
The idea that a caliber of bullet is more or less accurate than another inherently is an illusion created by your experiences with each one. As mentioned earlier, the .40 is an excellent example. Not everybody shoots a .40 as well as a .45 or 9mm because it handles totally differently, but it isn't the caliber's fault. To blame the round for the lack of accuracy is to blame the keyboard for a typo. There's a bias towards the .40 that is causing people to spread rumors about it being an inherently inaccurate, and even sometimes unsafe round. The .40 caliber round is an OUTSTANDING performer. I've watched it out shoot 9mm and .45 at ranges up to 80 yards and more, plus it outperforms both in terms of penetration as well which makes it a very nice little round. The myths of round accuracy need to be debunked. The major factors are the weapon and the shooter, not the bullet. The bullet simply moves in the direction that the barrel guides it.

A simple way to put it is this: a round is as accurate as you can make it. Practice, practice, practice!
 
Many years ago,before ramped 1911 bbls were known to me,I had a friend build me a 38 super with a Bar-Sto bbl.It would pretty much drop all the empty cases in a washtub and Ransom Rested 2 1/2 in @ 50 yds.
I did not have anything to do with it,my compliments to my friend and Bar-Sto.

But,I DO think 38 Super is a good example.A whole lot of competition shooters prefer it.Part of it is compensators and shooting fast.These guns are accurate.

But,the original 38 Super setup was poor,and today,the Super comp does away with the rim,its better in mags.

.45 LC is another example.It can be tough to get accuracy.as throat dimensions are often oversize on production pistols,and the case was designed large for black powder.But,that does not mean a Freedom Arms .45 colt won't shoot.

It might be less of a struggle to get accuracy from a .44 special.

There are so many variables! and it is a lot about what component mfg's work on.

If the .380 was the olympic competition round,folks would make it drive tacks.

At 200 yds,if Lapua decided the 30-30 was THE cartridtge,it would shoot with a .308.

If we compare a 9.3x74 R or a 300H+H to a 300 WSM,right now,likely the WSM would group better.Short,fat vs long skinny.But,long skinny worked then.Methinks the 300H+H was a preferred 1000 yd ctg at one time.I think there is some cordite influence in the long cases,they worked for the propellant of their time.

Who makes good brass,bullets,the right powder,etc.Somebody has to want it.

Harry Pope liked the 32-40. I would guess it still does well at Scheutzen matches.I have seen some 1000 yd 45-70 groups (black powder,cast bullet)that stayed on a paper plate.

The mfg's cannot put benchrest accuracy into all combinations.Not many folks worry about how a 35 Rem groups at 300 yds,if its good enough,but in a .308,sometimes a 1/16 in matters.

It is a recipe thing,it all has to come together.

Remember those red,white and blue hotrod Ramblers?They set their mind to it.
 
Back
Top