In my hands it takes a really awful pistol load to be recognizable. At some level of inherent accuracy, the randomness on target is all due to me.
However, I do believe that some pistol cartridges are “more inherently accurate”. I have been reading for over a decade about reloads for the 44 Russian and I was intrigued by an article by Mike Venturino that the 44 Special was nothing special in accuracy, but he showed two high round targets that were one hole groups with the 45 ACP and the 44 Russian as examples of inherently accurate cartridges. Mr Venturino uses a Ransom rest to shoot, so he is eliminating human error.
These articles add substance to Mr Venturino’s claims that the 44 Russian is an exceptionally accurate cartridge.
Reloading an American Classic, John Taffin Aug 2017 Guns Magazine
44 Russian Pet Loads Brian Pearce Handloader Sept 2022
Mr Pearce provides chronograph data, as a typical gunwriter his data set is incomplete, he does not provide sample sizes for his velocity claims. But he does say with certain powders the 44 Russian provides single digit extreme spreads with five shot strings. I consider five shot data groups to be beneath contempt, but if the ES’s were less than 20 fps for large, lets say 40 to 50 shot groups, that would be exceptional. I have few rifle loads that have extreme spreads less than or equal to 20 fps, just scanning a few pages of my pistol data, I see lots of ES spreads in the 80’s, with a 357 Magnum 146 fps. So something is going on inside that 44 Russian case, and I don’t know what it is. Maybe a balance of air space, column height, and primer ignition capabilities. The role of the primer to provide uniform combustion in the case is almost totally ignored in the shooting community. We can’t measure it, so we ignore it.
Something in common with the 44 Russian and the 45 ACP is that they are short and squat and have very little air space. The most successful powders in both are fast burning powders, which over my chronographs, have consistently resulted in tighter extreme spreads and standard deviations.
The 45 ACP is an exceptionally accurate pistol cartridge. It dominates NRA centerfire and 45 caliber Bullseye pistol events and has done so beyond living memory. The 9mm made a short splash about 20 years ago, but faded. I asked those who have, or who have shot the 9mm in Bullseye Competition why they did not like that cartridge, and the answer comes down to recoil impulse. The 9mm has to be pushed fast, close to 1200 fps with 115 grain bullet to be accurate at 50 yards, and probably 25 yards. While its recoil is less than a target 45ACP, the recoil impulse is snappy and throws the good shooters off their timing, and one shooter claimed the recoil knocked his hand off to the side. So sometimes the inherent accuracy of a cartridge is not the ultimate reason you don’t see it in competition, there are other, very subtle human factor issues.
The 38 Special was a top competitive round for decades, and it is very easy to load accurate ammunition, up and down the velocity limits of the cartridge. One of the most popular target rounds used to be a 148 LWC or HBWC with 2.7 ish grains of Bullseye. The desired velocity is a velocity around 700 to 740 fps, for ballistic stability at 50 yards.
Colt Python Stainless Steel, 6" Barrel
24 Sept 1999 T = 78 ° F
Ave Vel = 710
Std Dev 18
ES = 72.02
High = 746.1
Low = 674
N umber rounds= 32
I do believe there are “inherently” accurate rifle case designs. I got to talk to a cartridge case manufacturer at a Regional, limited time for yakking, but I got a flavor of things.
It used to be that pressures were modeled at uniform within the case. This is a reasonable assumption, and since the instrumentation did not exist to test this, this was how combustion versus time was assumed. That the pressure in the cartridge case was uniform through out the pressure curve with time. As pressures went up, pressure in the case was the same pressure at each instant in time.
This is apparently wrong! The cartridge maker claimed that modern cartridge designers are getting 80 kpsia right at the shoulders of their cases. They are measuring pressure variations within the case with time. That is remarkable, not at all intuitive, but nature does its own thing.
I believe this increased, but localized pressures are doing a better job of powder combustion. I do know, raise pressures, and the amount of powder that burns increases. I am going to guess the combustion is more uniform and complete in these cases. Maybe this is one of the reasons these more modern case designs are producing outstanding results at distance. I do know my friends report very tight standard deviations and extreme spreads.
I do know that broad, sharp shoulders and rigid sidewalls are important for primer ignition. Again, the role of the primer for good and proper ignition is almost totally ignored as a factor by the shooting community. But anyone who went from point ignition to high energy ignition can tell you, you see the affects of strong ignition on a cold morning. I am absolutely certain this is true for rifle and pistol cartridges. I have had more misfires and hangfires with my 35 Whelen cartridges than any other, and that case has small, and shallow case shoulders.
It is apparent to me, that the force of the firing pin is being dissipated in sizing the case, and that results in temperamental ignition. I now size 35 Whelan cases to chamber size, or a little crush fit, I use the most sensitive primers I can find (Federal) and I have changed out firing pins to increase firing pin protrusion. This case is extremely sensitive to off center firing pin hits, which cause misfires. After enough monkeying,
my Ruger #1, (sent back to factory to correct excessive firing pin offset)
my M1903 Sporter, (stronger mainspring, longer firing pin, minimum case clearance in chamber)
and my Dumoulin Mauser (longer firing pin, above average strength mainspring)
and now I have reliable ignition in these rifles. Never had a problem with my 2016 Remington M700, and don’t know why. It goes bang very reliably.
Now these modern case designs have their own limitations. They don’t feed well.
This is a 300 H&H and it is the smoothest feeding case I have
it is built like a dart. Not having a case shoulder bump within things on the way to the chamber is good, it increases feed reliability. It also allows for double stack magazines. Have you noticed that modern cartridges need single stack magazines. They have to be placed at height, directly in line with the chamber, or they will jam. I don’t like finicky feed and extraction. Just like I don’t like finicky ignition.
However, to those chasing the smallest holes at the furthest distance, feed and extraction are just buzzing annoyances flitting around. My F Class friends shoot single shot rifles without ejectors. They open the bolt all the way back, put their finger tip on the case mouth, and tip the fired round out.
When you are more concerned about function reliability, than pin hole accuracy, than cases start to look like the 7.62 X 39 Russian, an extremely well designed combat cartridge
A group like this is contemptible to a bench rest shooter
But I am happy when I can do that with a sporter rifle, and Core Lokt’s in a 30-06. Keeping all shots within a seven inch circle at 300 yards is beyond my field capability, as I did not carry a 600 lb concrete bench, and forty pounds of sand bags and rests when I hunted. There are some that do, they load up a ton of gear on a ATV, and unload when they get there. Whatever extra accuracy is gained by more modern cartridges is wasted on me. And I am happy to have cartridge that feed and extra without a bunch of fuss. I love my old 30-06, 270 Win, and even 6.5 Swede cartridges. They do everything I need to be done.
!) 
