Inherent Accuracy???

[Kevin]

Are some calibers of ammunition inherently more accurate than others? I was browsing a local gun store's online selections today, and noticed there are a lot more 1911's being offered in 9mm than 45.

I'm not looking at the 9 vs 45 debate, but wondering if the same platform can be more accurate in a given caliber than another caliber. So for this question simply remove 9 and 45 altogether. I just got to thinking about bullet weight and speed etc. Take the 5.7 x 28 caliber. Everywhere I read about that new gun by Ruger, they talk about how accurate it is. So is it the gun itself, or the caliber?

And are there just some calibers that no matter what the gun it's chambered for cannot be made to shoot all that great?

And while I know a great gunsmith can fine tune a gun to improve a gun, I'm wondering about a straight out of the box gun. If it comes in a variety of calibers, will one outshine the others? I suppose it is hard to get away from the 9 vs 40 vs 45 as this comes to mind about the same gun being available in different calibers.

 

[gramps]

Quite the question Kevin. My take on “inherent accuracy” depends on recoil, ballistic coefficient of the projectile, plus the ergonomics of the platform, weight of the platform etc
gramps

 

[Cholo]

Back in '19 we were discussing gun terms and I had this to say:

Describe Inherently Accurate.

Shoot it out of any lead pipe and it will put them all in the same hole at 100 yds every time. Inherently Accurate

Gun writers are like any other people who write no matter the platform, even the RF. They attach themselves to the term of the week and wear it out. I can't recall that term used more than with the 44 Special cartridge, though I'm sure there are some rifle calibers that could give it a run for the $.

Writers like Keith, Skeeter and Taffin have used the term and I believe they all knew what they were talking about, but they were generally handgunners. I can see in rifle calibers where you deal with neck length and shoulder angles where there could be some issues that don't work as well as others.

Then there's the ammunition. Do the manufactures put the same emphasis on QC when it comes to the 32 ACP as opposed to the 44 Magnum? I'd like to think so, but the 44 Mag is shot in a revolver that is generally more accurate than a 32 ACP semi auto platform. I can now see the proverbial can of worms. I'm just kicking the can here :mrgreen:

Ruger vs Freedom Arms vs Bowen Custom vs Wilson Combat etc and so on...

 

[Mobuck]

"Inherent Accuracy" I agree this often is the result of a "shootable" platform, controllable recoil, and ammunition quality.

 

[Rick Courtright]

Gun writers are like any other people who write no matter the platform, even the RF. They attach themselves to the term of the week and wear it out. I can't recall that term used more than with the 44 Special cartridge, though I'm sure there are some rifle calibers that could give it a run for the $.

Hi,

For rifles, setting aside Jack O'Connors' comments on the "Legendary once he got through praising it" .270, everybody I've known who ever had a .243 made comments that could be heard as "inherently accurate."

Rick C

 

[powder smoke]

Accuracy is good in a room, not so good on a football field! YMMV.

No doubt some guns and ammo are more accurate than others.
It's a reloader's job to find the correct combo! lps

 

[Mobuck]

One should take into account the purpose or intent of the gun/ammo combination. Is exceptional accuracy the intent or 100% function in any circumstance? The AK47/7.62x39 combination is not generally know for it's accuracy but it works under terrible conditions. A rifle utilizing close tolerances and snug cartridge to chamber fit that is "inherently accurate" but not functional in the same environment is the other side of the coin.
A highly trained pointing dog won't tree many coons.

 

[Jimbo357mag]

I think all my favorite cartridges have inherit accuracy and the way I reload them makes them more accurate. I just can't remember why other that testing. :mrgreen:

 

[gunzo]

Case volume to bore area seems to play a big role. A lot of target rounds, often thought of as inherently accurate are grouped together in non-overbore, possibly underbore section of the chart.
Notables; 222 Rem, 223 Rem, 308, 6mmPPC, 6BR, 22PPC, etc. Known winners, & when something new gets developed to beat them it is not usually some fire breathing or overbore. Some think that these cartridges will always shoot well if given good components, barrels & techniques. Inherently accurate.

This is not to say the fire breathers can't be accurate, or be made to be, but not generally known to be inherently, or always accurate across the board. Seems to play this way with the Specials, 38 & 44. Both usually shoot really well, & if not it's likely the gun. Soup them up into magnums & while they might be wonderfully accurate, the extra power is harder to harness & fewer shooters will think of them as inherently accurate.

Just a mind set?

 

[Kevin]

Interesting views, thanks for the comments. I do suppose overall there are just too many variables to boil accuracy down to only the caliber.

But I do suspect there is still something to do with the caliber. Even if it is the shape of the bullets available for that caliber. Other than that yeah, too many variables, from the shooter on down.

Thanks for the insight.

 

[Snake45]

I'm of the impression--which might be incorrect--that .45 ACP is more "inherently accurate" than 9mm.

Back in the heyday of NRA bullseye pistol shooting, three guns were called for: .22, "centerfire," and .45. (You could shoot the .45 in centerfire if you wanted to, but few serious competitors did.) I don't think I ever heard of anyone serious shooting a 9mm for centerfire. Some went to considerable trouble to convert 1911s to .38 Special, and Colt eventually added a Gold Cup .38 Special to its 1911 line, and S&W had the dedicated M52 in .38 Special. 9mm conversions for 1911 existed, and Smith of course had a nice 9mm handgun (which they never did a dedicated "target" version of), and of course there were plenty of other 9mm handguns around, such as Browning and SIG, but few if any tried to rework them into pure target pistols and compete with them in Bullseye. There must have been a reason for 9mm's lack of acceptance in this market. :?

 

[Kevin]

I'm of the impression--which might be incorrect--that .45 ACP is more "inherently accurate" than 9mm.

Back in the heyday of NRA bullseye pistol shooting, three guns were called for: .22, "centerfire," and .45. (You could shoot the .45 in centerfire if you wanted to, but few serious competitors did.) I don't think I ever heard of anyone serious shooting a 9mm for centerfire. Some went to considerable trouble to convert 1911s to .38 Special, and Colt eventually added a Gold Cup .38 Special to its 1911 line, and S&W had the dedicated M52 in .38 Special. 9mm conversions for 1911 existed, and Smith of course had a nice 9mm handgun (which they never did a dedicated "target" version of), and of course there were plenty of other 9mm handguns around, such as Browning and SIG, but few if any tried to rework them into pure target pistols and compete with them in Bullseye. There must have been a reason for 9mm's lack of acceptance in this market. :?

Snake45: Good point.

I remember years ago, my first pistol was a Ruger Mark II. The second, well actually third pistol was a CZ 75. I remember reading back then, that the 9mm was simply not an accurate caliber. This was before the proliferation of all the poly guns, and the 1911's chambered in 9mm.

I wish I could remember where I read that, however it might have been just my general impression after reading several different reviews about the CZ and the 9mm as a caliber. Had to be from gun magazines, as this was pre-internet, and pre-Google.

 

[krw]

I would think that very, very few people could tell the difference in accuracy 45 vs 9mm in pistol platform. The 6mm PPC is the most inherently accurate cartridge in centerfire Rifle configuration, and if you shot it vs say 6BR at 100yds offhand you could not tell the diff

 

[blackhawknj]

IIRC the 38 Super's reputation for so-so accuracy changed when the barrel manufacturers realized it should be head spaced on the case mouth and not the rim.
My Browning HP has always fire lead bullets well, my S&W M639 and M659 require more effort due to differences in rate of twist, depth and width of lands and grooves, etc.

 

[turd]

I would think that very, very few people could tell the difference in accuracy 45 vs 9mm in pistol platform. The 6mm PPC is the most inherently accurate cartridge in centerfire Rifle configuration, and if you shot it vs say 6BR at 100yds offhand you could not tell the diff

And aren't most of the 6 and 6.5 mms claimed to be "inherently accurate"? .243, 6mm PPC, 6mm Creedmoor, 6.5 Creedmoor, .260 Remington, 6X57 Swedish(?) etc. I don't claim to know much, but it seems to me the statement that caliber has something to do with it has some merit.

 

[Pal Val]

Let's see... "Inherent Accuracy"..."Assault Weapon"... "Gun Control"... I'm not running out of undefined terms, just out of patience!

 

[chuck]

Everybody has their favorite cal. my hand gun is 44 caliber special or Mag.
Rifle is 243 and 45-70

 

[Jimbo357mag]

I know for a fact that pistol cartridges fired out of a rifle are not as accurate as rifle cartridges, mostly because of head spacing on the case mouth and the shape of the bullets. In a hand gun it is very hard to tell if one cartridge is more inherently accurate than another unless you use a pistol rest and possibly a scope.