Inherent Cartridge Accuracy

[nettlle]

If you don''t think there are any inherently inaccurate calibers try taking a 30-30 to a bench rest match.

 

[Durango_Dave]

If you don''t think there are any inherently inaccurate calibers try taking a 30-30 to a bench rest match.

I have an antique Winchester 1894 chambered in 30-30 that I can't hit anything with. I was thinking it was the gun.

 

[Russ57]

If we are talking American handguns....then we should remember that the "2700 Bullseye matches" were supposed to use a .22 target pistol, the standard issue police revolver cartridge, and the standard issue military cartridge.

Now you could chose to use a .22 revolver, and you could chose to use anything from .32 up for the police revolver part. These days most folks just shoot a .22 pistol and use the .45 acp for the rest.

At one time the .38 was shot a lot. This lead to America making a few very accurate .22 pistols, a couple of very accurate .38 special revolvers, and a cottage industry built around making .45 acp pistols accurate.

The Euro guns are more accurate but cost a lot more. The .32 is a more common in them. The K32 is the only purpose made American target gun in .32 that I am aware.

You can make a 9 mm auto accurate enough, but it is going to cost you more than a .45, so why bother. The generally accepted criteria for "accurate enough" is 2" at 50 yards.

So historically I think it is about America building guns for the match requirements with the necessary accuracy. If the match requirements called for a different cartridge I'd imagine we could have found a way to make a "good enough" handgun. I can attest that a .32 S&W long is capable of being more accurate than a .38 special. That could be because of recoil or it could be that most of the guns so chambered cost a good deal more.

 

[Bazoo]

If you don''t think there are any inherently inaccurate calibers try taking a 30-30 to a bench rest match.

In fact they made a bench rest cartridge from it. Called the 30 American. It’s a very accurate cartridge in a gun that is capable.

 

[nettlle]

I'm sure it set the world on fire but I sure have never heard of it. And it's not a 30-30.

 

[Durango_Dave]

In my case the sights and sight radius, different grip, and heavy trigger pull conspire to make the birdshead less accurate in my mitts.

I have darkened the sights and improved the trigger, but the shorter birdshead still doesn’t shoot as accurately as the longer gun with the full grip does.

Due to the long sight radius you'd think my Schofield would be accurate but it's not. I use a rest, aim carefully but the bullet doesn't go where I'm aiming. It wouldn't be so bad if I had a group that was high or to the side, whatever. But they end up all over the target.

 

[BobWright]

I've often wondered about that statement myself. I'm guessing that originated back when there were heel crimped cartridges and oversized bores.

Bob Wright

 

[Riomouse911]

I'm sure it set the world on fire but I sure have never heard of it. And it's not a 30-30.

Cast bullet shooters love the Rem 788 .30-30 for cast bullet shoots. Contender shooters like them, too. They aren’t one-holers at 200 yards but they are plenty accurate for their mission.

Ya, an 1894 Winchester in .30-30 is no benchrest shooter. But then again, if shooting against dedicated benchrest guns is a criteria for determining an an “accurate” cartridge, then 99,9% of cartridges out there would probably be deemed “not accurate” either.

Stay safe.

 

[doubleh]

Sounds like you've tried several 9mm guns but the first compact I bought was a 9mm Taurus G2C. I couldn't shoot that worth a crap at first. Dryfiring with a laser sight made me realize I was moving the gun as I was pulling the trigger. It was all because of the small size of the gun. I would have to pull the trigger in further into my palm before firing. With practice I have improved a lot. I have also purchased MantisX which also helps tremendously for training.

I am more into full size guns but have owned a Sig 356 XL Romeo. It was the only compact 9mm I have owned. Same deal as all the rest. I haven't gone to the lengths you have but since I don't have the accuracy problems with my other caliber handguns I don't intend to. I have one of the laser sight gadgets, a Christmas gift, but it made no difference and it now rests in it's box.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

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.

And that is the crux of the matter. No matter how good a shot you are, unless you clamp the revolver into a Ransom Rest to eliminate the human factor, you are testing for how well you shoot, not how inherently accurate the cartridge is.

This is a Smith and Wesson New Model Number Three that shipped in 1882 and was refinished at the factory in 1965. This model set many of the accuracy records in the 19th Century at the Bisley Range outside of London England. This one happens to be chambered for 44 Russian, the most common chambering of this model. Before anybody asks, no I am not a particularly good shot with it, but I am OK.






This is a New Model Number Three Target Model note the different shaped front sight. Not so easy to see in these photos is the drift adjustable rear sight.









This particular NM#3 is chambered for the old 38-44 target cartridge. Not to be confused with the later high powered 38-44 38 Special cartridge. Here is a reprint of one page of the 1900 Smith and Wesson catalog. The old 38-44 cartridge was basically an elongated 38 S&W (not 38 Special). The case stretched the entire length of the chamber and the bullet was seated flush to the mouth of the case, so the bullet did not jump across an unrifled chamber throat.




These revolvers were well known to be exceptionally accurate. When the owner was selling it he offered me first refusal. Like an idiot I said no thanks, and I have been kicking myself ever since.

 

[Smaug]

I don't think it applies to handguns or handgun cartridges. It does apply, though probably not as much as advertised, to rifle cartridges.

Yep. I have a book called The Book of the Twenty-Two: The All-American Caliber by Sam Fadala. It covers everything from 22 Short up to the super-fast centerfires. For accuracy, Sam says the sharp-necked rifle cartridges are the most accurate. I think the one he raved about offhand while trying to stay on topic was 6 mm PPC. I don't know why those are inherently more accurate than those with a more gentle neck angle, like 30-30 or 30-06.

 

[CraigC]

And that is the crux of the matter. No matter how good a shot you are, unless you clamp the revolver into a Ransom Rest to eliminate the human factor, you are testing for how well you shoot, not how inherently accurate the cartridge is.

I don't agree with that, at all. If I shoot two guns back to back, one shoots 1/2"@25yds, the other 3"@25yds, what's the difference? Am I just not shooting one as well as the other? Or am I seeing the intrinsic differences between two guns and loads? If I follow that logic, bench shooting is a complete waste of time.

I also think Ransom Rests are overrated.

If you don''t think there are any inherently inaccurate calibers try taking a 30-30 to a bench rest match.

Is that more a function of the cartridge or the rifles that chamber it?

I thought this was the revolver forum.

 

[Smaug]

I also think Ransom Rests are overrated.

Why?
If factory ammo is shot and a Ransom Rest is used, we can determine the inherent accuracy of a gun/cartridge combo.
As in magazine gun tests, when the ammo is the only thing changed and group sizes change, we can see which ammo is most accurate in a given gun.
If we have a good database of such tests, we might find a pattern that certain ammunition is also more inherently accurate overall.

↑ It's all thanks to the Ransom Rest. (or vise, set up correctly)

​

 

[CraigC]

Why?
If factory ammo is shot and a Ransom Rest is used, we can determine the inherent accuracy of a gun/cartridge combo.
As in magazine gun tests, when the ammo is the only thing changed and group sizes change, we can see which ammo is most accurate in a given gun.
If we have a good database of such tests, we might find a pattern that certain ammunition is also more inherently accurate overall.

↑ It's all thanks to the Ransom Rest. (or vise, set up correctly)

All you see are the results. Have you ever used one?

People determine inherent accuracy of a gun/cartridge combo all the time without the use of a Ransom Rest.

 

[Zendude]

Do high velocity rifle cartridges tend to be more sensitive and difficult to obtain accuracy? For example, is a 22-250 more sensitive to things like twist rate than say, a 30-30?

 

[Smaug]

All you see are the results. Have you ever used one?

No, but how is that relevant?

People determine inherent accuracy of a gun/cartridge combo all the time without the use of a Ransom Rest.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but there is still a human factor, therefore the results are not as valuable.

 

[CraigC]

No, but how is that relevant?

How is that relevant? How can you assess the validity of Ransom Rest results if you've never used one? I'm not saying they can't be trusted but I am saying that the advantage they have over traditional bench testing is more perceived than real. Often overstated, usually by people who've never used one.

Yes, but there is still a human factor, therefore the results are not as valuable.

Pure hogwash. I have one and a dozen or so inserts. I've used it and I think they're overrated. As recoil increases, the less reliable they become. I thought, like you and so many others, that it would be the be-all, end-all of pistol testing but I was wrong.

 

[Durango_Dave]

If a Ransom Rest was used. Does this show inherent inaccuracy of the cartridge and or gun.

 

[CraigC]

Ransom Rest was not used. A revolver that shoots a 5/8" group at 25yds speaks for itself.

 

[Onty]

No personal experience, but from what I've heard from others, Inherently accurate revolver cartridges are also 10 mm and 45 AR.

Also, some have high opinion about 41 Magnum. Although, I doubt that long magnum cartridges could be as accurate as short ones, the reason that 41 Magnum is more accurate then rest of the bunch is because of somewhat tighter SAAMI tolerances for 41 Magnum, it was latest of others. Also, demand and production of 41 Magnum revolvers was always considerably less than for 357 Magnum, 44 Magnum or 45 Colt, so production was never as high and pushed as for other three, tooling wasn't used so much, and stayed sharp and in good shape through whole production series.

 

[.38 Special]

If you don''t think there are any inherently inaccurate calibers try taking a 30-30 to a bench rest match.

Here's a guy who won benchrest matches with a 30-30. http://benchrest.com/showthread.php?95849-Why-I-Shoot-the-30-30-in-Benchrest

 

[Macchina]

The cartridge dimensions/proportions themselves are only half the equation. The dimensions of the chamber, barrel, forcing cone, etc are the second half of that equation. Some of these are up to the manufacturer, but some are laid out by SAAMI.
Modern cartridges like the 6.5 Creedmoor have much tighter throat clearances than older cartridges. There's also "match chambers" such as the 223 Wylde to the 5.56.

For instance with handguns:
A 38 Special has a 0.003" diameter difference between jacketed bullet and bore diameter (0.358" - 0.355")


While a 44 Magnum has a 1-1 fit up between jacketed bullet and groove diameter (0.429" [jacketed bullet diameter not shown] and 0.429"):

Also, 44 Remington Magnum has different barrel and chamber dimensions for rifles for whatever reason:




Also, if you look at 2 auto cartridges of similar vintage and how tight their chambers are:

9mm Luger has only a .0003" clearance at the 0.2" reference point (0.3910" cartridge diameter in a 0.3913" chamber):

The 9mm Luger is heavily tapered so it can get away with it.

While the .45 ACP has TWELVE TIMES THE CLEARANCE at 0.0036"! (0.476" cartridge diameter in a 0.4796" chamber):

 

[BobWright]

If you don''t think there are any inherently inaccurate calibers try taking a 30-30 to a bench rest match.

In a bench rest rifle? And equally carefully hind loaded?

Bob Wright

 

[BobWright]

In a bench rest rifle? And equally carefully hind loaded?

Bob Wright

HAND LOADED! HAND LOADED!

 

[Jim Watson]

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.

Ol' Mike said he got good accuracy out of a .44-40, too.

If you don''t think there are any inherently inaccurate calibers try taking a 30-30 to a bench rest match.

Marlin had an advertisement showing a 336 with unturned Microgroove barrel blank threaded and chambered and just a square block as foreend without magazine tube. It shot MOA with factory .30-30. Not benchrest match grade, but not bad and as said, a bolt action will do better. Unfortunately I have not gotten the accuracy out of my 788 but I have not worked with it a whale of a lot vs .223, .308, .30-06.

Also, 44 Remington Magnum has different barrel and chamber dimensions for rifles for whatever reason:

It gets the rifle a rifle type tapering leade instead of a cylinder type chamber. Ed Harris wrote of getting rifle throats in .38/.357 rifles.