I was talking to a friend yesterday and we got into a discussion about whether one caliber is more accurate by its design and nature than another.  We were mostly comparing the 308 vs 30-06.  I was always under the impression that the accuracy was the same between different calibers in the same rifle.  For example a BDL 308 and BDL 30-06 would have the same accuracy.  I know the biggest variable in shooting is obviously the shooters skills but at the same time, is the caliber going to hold a tighter pattern over another?

The benchrest boys have known that some calibers exhibit better accuracy than others and use them. But for normal guys with normal rifles you probably won't notice. God bless and good shooting.

                                     Mark

I'd say yes...the reputation of rounds such as the 222 Rem or 6mm PPC is for their excellent accuracy.  I've heard that in that calibe if you shoot a .25" group in the benchrest circle it's nothing special.  
 
In my experience, I've reloaded the 270 Win for years.  It's plenty accurate for hunting purposes but in the time I've loaded for it, I'm always testing new load combinations and I've had very large 3-shot groups to groups around an inch with sometimes two, but never three touching.  By comparison, the first 3 rounds I loaded for my 358 Win (based on the 308 Win case) with Rem Core-Lokts, printed all three touching for a group of around .6" from out of the box Browning BLR.  Whether I haven't found the sweet load for my 270 or not I don't know but the first time out with my BLR, I got a tighter group than I've ever gotten with my 270 Win.  So I say yes some rounds are just more accurate than others.

M1,
    Try H1000 ( 62 grains if you can get it in ) and a 140 grain Hornady SST bullet, CCI magnum primer and seat the bullet .025 off the lands. This load shoots sub MOA from my remington 700 and an old beat up model 70 of my buddy's. This is the load I use to bust prarie dogs at 300 to 450 yards. God bless and good shooting.
                                   Mark

I think m gardner's second post is the revealing one with respect to a specific cartridge's precision. Both "caliber" and "accuracy" are being mis-used in this post. Without belaboring that point, the fact that m gardner gets sub-MOA groups from his .270 and M1 gets MOA groups illustates that the same cartridge in different rifles, using different charges can exhibit very different precision.
 
It is my whole-hearted belief that when the human element is removed, EVERY cartridge in the world is capable of exactly the same precision as any and all other cartridges. Is it more difficult to get cartridge "A" to shoot as precisely as cartridge "B" in the "standard" 24-inch-barreled ove-the-counter rifle? Sure. But that's due to trying to fit every cartridge into a "one-size-fits-all" format.
 
In the end, this "discussion" is, as usual, more about "my gun is better than yours" than about the actual, objective, measure of a specific cartridge's precision.
 
Paul

Thanks, I'll try H1000 and see how that works.
 

QuoteIt is my whole-hearted belief that when the human element is removed, EVERY cartridge in the world is capable of exactly the same precision as any and all other cartridges. Is it more difficult to get cartridge "A" to shoot as precisely as cartridge "B" in the "standard" 24-inch-barreled ove-the-counter rifle? Sure. But that's due to trying to fit every cartridge into a "one-size-fits-all" format.

Paul, I agree with much of what you say here but I'm not so sure if I agree with every cartridge is capable of exactly the same precision as any other. One of the things that raises the issue with me is if this is the case, why do such a large percentage of benchrest shooters use the PPC's? There are plenty of other calibers that would seem to work well also. There must be something to them that such a large percentage use them. Now I know that most rifles for them are heavily accurized rifles but I've heard of the PPC's out of the box (Sako's?) grouping well under sub MOA. You make very good points that make me think.  Maybe the PPC's are just super easy to get that accuracy out of??? But I can't imagine the 222 Rem being that much more difficult that they would move away from it and it would lose the popularity that it once had.

QuoteOne of the things that raises the issue with me is if this is the case, why do such a large percentage of benchrest shooters use the PPC's?

My intent here is not to offend, anyone, but that 1) does not surprise me, and 2) matters absolutely not one whit. WRT "1", most people seem to think that BR shooters have some "inside track" to precision. It would be absurd to argue that they don't devote themselves to precision, but I personally know of no other group among ALL people interested in firearms that is more influenced by voodoo, or that spreads more manure. Are there nuggets of pure gold to found among that manure - you bet! but just like real gold-panning, you've gotta sift a lot of manure to find one nugget. Let me give the BR shooters their due, and explain why their chioce of the PPC provides no "light" on this subject.
 
First and foremost, A LOT of BR shooting has very specific restrictions on the firearm. There are MANY "classes" of BR shoots. One, the Palma, restricts the rifle, the cartridge, and the bullet. Guess what, it's not the PPC case. BR shooters want precision of course, but they also want to be able to shoot hundreds of rounds from the bench a day, without being 'beat up' by the firearm. Addtionally, why would you shoot a cartridge that exhibits .1 MOA and requires 100 grains of powder per shot, (like the .378 Weatherby Magnum), when you can get .1 MOA precision from a cartridge that uses 25 grains of powder per shot, (like the 6mm PPC)? Furthermore, bullet selection is a real issue. I do believe there are more bullets made specifically for target shooting in 6mm than there are in .378.
 
And we haven't even touched on the issue of bbls and actions.
 
While no one I know of has taken the time, effort, and money to actually demonstrate or refute my point, I can defend its objectivity with fairly simple logic.
 
Once a bullet leaves the cartridge case, it has no "idea" from whence it came. Bullets do not have brains nor egos. Calibers have diameter - period. Pressure generated by burning gasses is the same whether it comes from an '06 case, a .308 case, or even a PPC case. Therefore, there miust be more involved in what makes a specific rifle "accurate", and more generally, what makes a specific cartridge - like the PPC cased ones - more popular as "accurate". THERE IS. It is the bbl and action from which that bullet is spit. Spend exactly the same amount of time and energy working on the "accuracy" of the.378 Weatherby Magnum, and I'll bet dollars to donuts I can get a machine to shoot that rifle with exactly the same accuracy as I can get a machine to shoot any PPC cartridge. It cannot be otherwise unless you believe bullets can 'think' or... you believe in magic. Of those benchresters I know, many do.
 

QuoteBut I can't imagine the 222 Rem being that much more difficult that they would move away from it and it would lose the popularity that it once had.

Is a legitimate argument to challenge my above examples. The .223 doesn't use 100 grains of powder per shot - it doesn't 'kick' like a .378 Weatherby Magnum - and there are plenty of "target" bullets available from which to choose. In response, I would submit that short, fat, cases appear to make it easier to achieve BR-level precision from the bbls and actions used by today's BR shooters. That doesn't mean that a rifle chambered in .223 can't be made as precise, it just means that maybe (and I have my doubts anyway), with the PPC case it's "easier" - AGAIN, with the hardware they currently use.
 
HOWEVER, at the very same time, I argue that the BR community is notoriously fickle. The whole PPC fad was started when the Americans got their butts kicked by the Russians at, I think, the PanAM games. The Russians were using .223 caliber bullets (the fad at the time), but in 7.62x39 cases (called the 220 Russian). Everybody of course attributed the wins to hardware... no way could Russians really beat Americans based on skill alone. 7.62x39 cases weren't readily available in the US, (gee I wonder why), so Pindell and Palmisano made their own, (Palmisano, Pindell Cartridge), and a legend was born.
 
After a while, the BR community once again grew "tired" of the boring .223 caliber and someone sarted using 6mm bullets. Holy Cow! They won some matches. Holy Cow! I've GOTTA have a 6mm PPC. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
 
Now, some 15 years later after THAT fad has paled, the BRS, once again 'bored', (now with the 6mm), have "discovered" a "new" "best" bullet AND cartridge..... Drumroll please; the 6.5x284. Huzzah! A NEW "most accurate" cartidge.
 
My response I'm afraid, is a yawn. However, you can bet your bippee that the BR community's fickleness will have once again spawned a buying frenzy among 'hunters' who believe that the BR folks MUST know what's "best". Sorry, not me. Fails the "reality" test.
 
By the way... the 6.5 was THE BR caliber to have BEFORE the .223 came out.
 
Paul

Quote from: gitanoHowever, you can bet your bippee that the BR community's fickleness will have once again spawned a buying frenzy among 'hunters' who believe that the BR folks MUST know what's "best".
 
Paul

It is of my opinion that this pretty well sums it up.

Paul,
 
I'm also not out to offend and am not offended at all. On the contrary, I'm very interested in this subject and just looking to learn more about it. So let me play devils advocate some more....
 
Like many others I'm definately no benchrest shooter nor expert and am always trying to stay open minded and learn more about a particular subject. I see the points you make and am in agreement for the most part and also raises other questions. For instance where do the short fat rounds that they claim burning the powder more efficiently come in? Or does it factor at all? Does the powder burn more evenly creating more consisent pressures and more consistent groups? I know that I've had the same loads with the same primers, bullet, brass and charge weighed on the scale show over 100 fps difference.  I know there's variables but that makes me scratch my head a little.  
 

QuoteIs it more difficult to get cartridge "A" to shoot as precisely as cartridge "B" in the "standard" 24-inch-barreled ove-the-counter rifle? Sure.

I agree but at the same time, isn't that more or less saying (or another way of saying) one cartridge is more accurate than another? Could you also say that all rounds shoot the same trajectory, just some rounds are harder to get that same trajectory? Or that all rounds can equally as fast, just others are more difficult to push to a certain velocity? Anyway, hope you're not offended, just trying to make you think and maybe pick your brain at the same time....

I'd also like to chime in here.  Maybe we should revisit what is meant by "inherently accurate". Lets assume for the moment that by "accurate" we mean "precise" as Gitano has so clearly differentiated it for us in another thread (and I'll come back to his definition of Accurate later on).
 
I agree that it is POSSIBLE to get any cartridge to be accurate. But I would say that with some cartridges they are more likely to be accurate without fiddling.  For instance:
* a rimmed cartridge would be more difficult to get to be highly accurate than a rimless one.
* A cartridge that uses a slower burning powder would be more likely to be accurate than one using a fast burning powder (if you look at the pressure graph I would say that with slower burning powders, the variation shot to shot would be less).
*  A short fat cartridge would be more likely to be accurate than a thin long one, both because of the more uniform combustion but also because there would be less flex in a short action than in  a long action, slight alignment variations would have less impact on a short action etc.
 
Certain cartridges are notoriously "fickle", meaning it is difficult to work up a precise load, others are inherently less fickle, meaning that just about anything in that cartridge is accurate (don't know why this should be so but the reports on this phenomenon are too numerous to dismiss).
 
So I do believe that certain cartrdiges are inherently more accurate.
 
Let us just for a second return to the correct meaning of "accurate", meaning how close you shoot to point of aim and not how tight your groups are. In this instance, and from the point of view of the hunter who estimates range not the target shooter who knows his range, a flatter shooting calibre would be more accurate. I.e. if you know the bahaviour of your firearm at a specific range and you shoot to ensure a hit at point of aim, assuming your rifle is precise, your variation from POA will depend on your error in range estimation as well as the curvature of the trajectory.
 
Furthermore deviations caused by wind would be less on a firearm shooting a high BC bullet than one shooting a low BC bullet (everything else remaining costant)(i.e. in this instance the larger calibres beat the .22 calibres everytime).
 
That should give someone some food for reviving the argument.
 
C

Good post C.
As for fast and slow burning powder, it is true that the cartridge might have less of a variation from shot to shot, but then again, cartridges with slow burning powders are considered to be quite inefficient.
 
-Rohann

As for powders and accuracy. I believe that the powder that accelerates the bullet up qnd out of the barrel quickest is best for accuracy. The less time the bullet spends in the barrel the less chance there is of something going wrong with the sight picture. God bless.

                                        Mark

I think we're all in basic agreement, a few idiosycrasies notwithstanding.
 
The key point, at this juncture, becomes the definition of "accurate" (or precise). If the definition include how easy (or difficult), it is to get a specific cartridge to shoot precisely from an over-the-counter "standard" rifle, then my response would be; "Sure some cartridges are more "accurate" than others." But... that's a BIG "if and then" in my opinion.
 
Paul

Just to throw in an experience that was reported in one of our magazines this month.  These people built a 375 H&H.  While it was still in the white, they did some testing for accuracy.  Among others some seriously long range shooting.  They shot a 10shot group at a distance of 1600 meters and the group measured just 4 inches.
 
Two 100 meter 3 shot groups measured 0.7 and 3.5mm respectively (i.e. the one hole 3 shot group measured just 0.7mm larger than calibre size)!! Now that is serious precision and it came from a long belted magnum at that!!!
 
Regards
 
C

Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is my thinking:Frankly, that sounds almost hard to believe...
Considering it has less velocity than that of a .308 Winchester at 500 yards (Trophy Bonded Bearclaw [Federal website ballistics]), and even cartridges designed for long range use such as the .338 Lapua, .408 CheyTac and .50BMG (with match grade ammunition, in match grade rifles) don't get groups nearly as good as that.
 
-Rohann