Traditionally inaccurate cartridges

[DLSJR]

The .264 Win Mag has a reputation as one of the less accurate cartridges. Mine didn’t get that memo…

 

[lockingblock]

Many cartridges are not considered very accurate by many because of their history as traditional hunting cartridges. Such as 270, 30-06, 7x57, 257 Robb. And many dangerous game cartridges.
What guns do you all have that disprove these claims ,and show groups too if you can.

It’s not so much the cartridge as it is the chamber spec, rifling, barrel quality, and rifles.

When Hornady rolled out their Creedmore line, the real secret was that Hornady drew up the chamber specs that went to SAAMI and that spec was tight with very little freebore or slop. Add good bullets and low SD…presto.


the SAAMI chamber specs on older cartridges are huge and sloppy.

 

[fourfive8]

It's the whole package working together.... or not. For the best accuracy: The bullet has to be good. The bullet has to be correct for the twist and geometry of the lands and grooves and diameters. The bore/barrel has to be straight. The bedding has to be right. The action has to be stress free and in line with the bore. The shooter has to shoot straight. Also, for cartridge guns after the first shot with new ammo or new brass, the reloading dies have to correctly fit the chamber. The reloading specs have to be specifically set up for the individual rifle and chamber.

Obviously if you see unusually large or odd groups something is not right. Many times I've watched and listened to shooters at the range talking about their loads, rifles and subsequent targets. But IMO over half the time they are completely misinterpreting what the target is "saying". Unless they ask for a second opinion, I just agree or talk about something else. Some shooters do have a preconceived notions about things.

In order to compare apples to apples, here are a few targets shot by a variety of my rifles in different calibers all at 50 yards. For years I've watched new or wanna-be muzzleloader BP shooters struggle with Minie' conicals out of new, reproduction rifle muskets in perfect condition. After struggling, most throw in the towel and resort to something like a modern fast twist ML using pellets, sabot'd jacketed bullets and scopes Just as with cartridge guns, the load, components and technique have to match the gun! Most of the time when they first try shooting Minies' the groups are large patterns with some key holing Old style MLs shooting cast lead bullets and BP have long had a rep for being inherently less than accurate. I added a couple of targets examples below, shot by original rifle muskets shooting hollow base Minies' to counter that misconception.

Full power load, Montana M99, 450 Watts, 450 gr GS flat point solid, 2 1/2 X Leupold, 3 shots, 50 yards

45-110, C Sharps, 460 gr GG bullet, 2F blackpowder lightly compressed, globe front and tang aperture, 5 shots, 50 yards

Original M1854 Mississippi, 54 cal Minie', 55gr 2F blackpowder, open sights, 5 shots, 50 yards

Original M1863 Springfield rifle musket, 58 cal Minie', 60 gr 2F blackpowder, open sights, 3 shots, 50 yards

 

[Buffalo1]

The only caliber that I had accuracy problems with was a .35 Whelen. That caliber and never bonded. Several rifles and many different grain bullets and ammo brands.

 

[Sika98k]

If the 270,30-06 and 7x57 were inaccurate rounds they would never have become popular hunting cartridges. I can’t speak for the 257 Robert’s as it’s popularity has never made it over the pond.

 

[CBH Australia]

Not sure who thinks those cartridges are inaccurate. Second question is how do you define accuracy?
270 win is my favorite cartridge and quite accurate. I have a cooper 270, 2 kimber 270s and a tikka 270 that all shoot .5” at 200 with Aframes or partitions. My win 70 supergrade 30-06 shoots 1” or less at 200 depending on the load. I think any cartridge has the ability to be very accurate - the big variable is the rifle and then the shooter
The groups below are all with hunting scopes - mainly 3-10 power

View attachment 507504View attachment 507505

Using a Tikka gives you an unfair advantage, they all seem to be fairly accurate.

As for the op question.
I don't recall reading about any cartridge or specific chambering being inherently inaccurate.

Old military rifles etc might not stand up to modern standard bit that's to be expected. Build a new .303, 7x57 or 7.62x 39 in a decent bolt action with quality parts and good ambition they should all shoot accurately.

I once read the .30-30 has the ability to be a great round of it's built and chambered in a bolt action but its just it's popularity came about in lever action and the people who want them want them in lever actions.

Even the old superceded.222 is still considered to have the potential to be more accurate than the .223 all things being equal.

 

[John the Electrician]

So, I have a different take on how this thread is to be interpreted.

I am old enough and read enough to have heard of “inherently” accurate cartridges. The .308 and God forbid the 6.5 stuff, so on and so forth.

What I feel was trying to be articulated by the OP is if we believe in the concept of inherently accurate cartridges, then there should be cartridges that are inherently “not” accurate. Forget that he mentions some classic chamberings in his initial post (probably distracted us from the context of the question) and think of it as a question about must be on the other side of the coin?

 

[perttime]

There might be cartridges that are not ideal for some particular purposes. Especially sport purposes. like Benchrest competition or Precision Rifle Series. On the other hand, rifles that are good for those might not be ideal for stopping a buffalo or carrying over a mountain in a snow storm.

 

[CBH Australia]

So, I have a different take on how this thread is to be interpreted.

I am old enough and read enough to have heard of “inherently” accurate cartridges. The .308 and God forbid the 6.5 stuff, so on and so forth.

What I feel was trying to be articulated by the OP is if we believe in the concept of inherently accurate cartridges, then there should be cartridges that are inherently “not” accurate. Forget that he mentions some classic chamberings in his initial post (probably distracted us from the context of the question) and think of it as a question about must be on the other side of the coin?

John, I think many of us are noting what was asked.

Are there any cartridges that are generally known for poor accuracy?

Not that I know of.
Many have the ability to be great in the right platform.

Are certain rifles inherently "inaccurate" Yes, cheap and nasty ones. Generally speaking

 

[SaintPanzer]

Many cartridges are not considered very accurate by 6.5 Creedmore Users because of their history as pre-dating the Creedmore. Such as 270, 30-06, 7x57, 257 Robb.

Fixed it for you.

 

[CBH Australia]

Fixed it for you.

Sorry, another edit

Many cartridges are not considered very accurate by new shooters who are 6.5 Creedmore users.
"Some" new shooters with no experience pre-dating the Creedmore disqualify the classic hunting cartridges such as 270, 30-06, 7x57, 257 Roberts.
This mentality brings on some stupid claims of being more capable than existing choices.
Those claims are a result of listening to a sales pitch from a millennial salesperson at a city gun store who is misquoting the Hornady marketing people

 

[shark_za]

All calibers can be accurate, rifles and people can sometimes not.

Big kicking magnums, well used .303 Enfields, etc.

 

[mark-hunter]

All day long, or 3 shot group accuracy? Recoil issue.

In that sense, accuracy limit is around caliber 308 win, and less.
The shoulder can take all day shooting with 308 win, much less with 30-06, and even less with 300 win mag or more powerful.
And there rests the "popularity". So "most accurate" ones ae 308 win and smaller.

For three shot groups, there is no scientific definition on which caliber is more or less accurate.

But depending of type of the gun, this can roughly divide calibers in "more" or "less" accurate.

Lever action calibers and double rifle rimmed calibers, due to problem of regulating the barrels.
But this goes not to caliber per se, but to construction of the gun, and design specifics.

So, in general, bolt action rifle calibers could be considered as more accurate. Or the cartridges used in bolt actions.

 

[Daggaboy375]

Methinks the OP might be judging "accuracy" by what shows up in the top tiers of current competitions.

PRS, F-class, Palma, etc.

DB

 

[mark-hunter]

In top tier of f-class today there are several, 284 Winchester comes to mind, in f open.

 

[IvW]

Never heard of anybody who wants to Palma a buffalo, PRS a kudu or F class a leopard....
So me thinks all the old proven classic calibers are the ones to use.....

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Hi!
To me there are not "inacurate" cartridges per se! Another "urban myth".
There can be inacurate rifles, inacurate shooters, not well made factory cartridges, not well made bullets, not so good handloading procedures, etc.
By the way, Walther Gehmann won a World Championship in the '30s with a 7x57...

 

[Hogpatrol]

Not an expert in every cartridge but when reloading, there are some that are easier to tune and can use different powders and bullets to shoot accurately.

 

[BourbonTrail]

Sorry, the engineer in me is screaming:

Accuracy = the alignment to truth

Precision = Repeatability of a measure

Y’all are talking about Precision.

Now, my $0.02:

The impact that a cartridge has on repeatability has to do with the shape of its bearings surfaces on repeatable chamberings, and the repeatability of its powder burn and neck tension (as they apply to repeatability pressure curve resulting in consistent muzzle velocity).

However, chamber dimensions are are more important in the 1st, and powder type and case prep in the second.

Also, my 1943 rifle chambered in 30-06 shoots 1/2 MOA.

 

[Tokoloshe Safaris]

I do have a question about one caliber 30-30 win. and I do not mean fired through a M-94 carbine? This is a question only.