Cartridge or rifle?

[The Sodbuster]

I reload 4 cartridges:  .22-250 Rem, .257 Wby Mag, .270 Win, & .308 Win.  For the .22-250 and .308, most any load I try from the manuals shoots well.  Granted, some shoot better than others, but they've all been reasonably accurate off the bench at 100 yards.  The .257 and .270 seem more finicky about what they're fed, with some loads yielding 3" groups and larger.  

Is it the cartridge, or the rifle?  Are some cartridges inherently accurate and easy to load for?  Are shorter cartridges more accurate than long ones?  I've noticed target rounds, such as the PPC and BR cartridges are short, fat cases.  Are Winchester and Remington on to something with the the short and super short magnums?  Or is it just the gun? (or for that matter, the scope).

All guns are modern, sporting rifles with just one owner.

[longwinters]

I know there are people who are much better versed in shooting than I am, as a relative amateur, who say that some calibers are more "inherently accurate".  After all look at what calibers the top shooters use.  But for someone like me who is basically happy with MOA or a little better I don't think so.  My best shooting rifle is in the 280 caliber.  My typical shooting with it is about 1/2" at 100.  But 2 weeks ago I shot 3 in the same hole.   :eek: This is with a 3x9 scope not some mega magnifier.  Yet I have the exact same rifle in a 308 that will shoot 3/4" groups all day, but I cannot shoot it better than that. Granted I base my opinion on probably only 20 different calibers that i have shot and all would shoot MOA or better.  And I am not shooting 1000 yds.   But I think it is much more a matter of the rifle and ammo than the caliber.

Long

[Val]

Some cartridges are supposedly inherently more accurate than others but not such that the typical shooter could tell the difference. Bench competitve shooters would probably be able to discern a difference. The likelihood is that the rifles that don't shoot as well are due to the load. You need to do some additional load development. The short fat cartridges are indeed the ones that are considered the inherently more accurate cartridges. However, with proper load development, you'll find that most rifles can be very accurate shooters.

[Lawdog]

I reload 4 cartridges:  .22-250 Rem, .257 Wby Mag, .270 Win, & .308 Win.  For the .22-250 and .308, most any load I try from the manuals shoots well.  Granted, some shoot better than others, but they've all been reasonably accurate off the bench at 100 yards.  The .257 and .270 seem more finicky about what they're fed, with some loads yielding 3" groups and larger.  

Is it the cartridge, or the rifle?  Are some cartridges inherently accurate and easy to load for?  Are shorter cartridges more accurate than long ones?  I've noticed target rounds, such as the PPC and BR cartridges are short, fat cases.  Are Winchester and Remington on to something with the the short and super short magnums?  Or is it just the gun? (or for that matter, the scope).

All guns are modern, sporting rifles with just one owner.

This is the premise behind the new “short-fat” cartridges and it works too.  Powder packed into a short column burns more efficiently than tall narrow columns of powder.  Thus gives greater consistency load to load.  Consistency is the key to accuracy.  Why do you think the “benchrest boys” weight every charge of powder down to the hundreds of a grain?  Each bullet and separate them by weight?  Consistency is why.  As far as the rifles go a shorter action means a stiffer action, thus less torquing/twisting of the action during firing.  A stiffer action just tends to be more accurate.  Again the premise behind the new “short-fat” cartridges.  As for scopes higher the magnification of the scope the easier it is to see and concentrate on the target.  Lawdog
 

[Ramrod]

Lawdog said it all,

Consistency is the key to accuracy.

And some cartridges are just easier to load consistantly, because of their design. But I would have to add, some of those same factors make them less desirable from a hunting, or reliability standpoint. The worlds greatest hunting rounds, like the 7x57 mm, 30-06, .375 H&H, all have a long tapered case, gently sloping shoulder, and long neck. All features diametrically opposed to the benchrest look. But I have never heard of anyone being bit by a paper target. Reliable feeding, and adequate neck tension, to keep bullets from moving out of the case under recoil, are more important than 1/2 inch groups.

[buffalobob]

The 257 weatherby has a huge case capacity for  bore diameter.  This creates the need for a slow burning powder and usually 4350 or 4831 will work.  Despite what weatherby and the manuals say, the reloading police will not come arrest you if you use something different than federal 215s.  Sometimes a hotter or cooler primer will provide more uniform ignition especially when you get up high in pressure.  Finally, weatherbys are freebored (long throats) to allow the bullet to get up some speed and reduce pressure.  This initial  jump is not good for accuracy.  Seating bullets a little long will often help accuracy at the expense of velocity.

I do not have any experience with the 270 Win but the same case is the 25-06 and lots of people find H4831 to be an accurate powder.

The moral of the story is that the price you pay for speed is the arduous search for accuracy.

[Lawdog]

Ramrod,

Reliable feeding, and adequate neck tension, to keep bullets from moving out of the case under recoil, are more important than 1/2 inch groups.

Thankfully these are not a problem with the new "short-fat" cartridges like the WSM and WSSM.  It's like those that like to say that "belts" on cases cause feeding problems.  THEY DON'T.  I have never found anyone that could prove they ever had a feeding problem due to the “belt” on a belted case.  If the newer "short-fat" cartridges do everything that the older cartridges do but do it more accurately then it is an improvement that many do want/prefer.  Lawdog