what CALIBERs do you consider inherently inaccurate ??

track said:
I don't know if you mean calibers or cartridges? Anyway, I'll go with cartridges: 222, 223 rem, 243 win, 240 wby, 257 wby, 260 rem, 6.5x55 SE, 6.5x284 norma, 7mm WSM, 308 win, 300 H&H.
Click to expand...


I think you misread the question, I doubt you find all those cartridges inherently inaccurate lol
 
I hear anything in a .234 caliber can't hit a barn from the inside.....well, that's just what I heard on the "inherently inaccurate" topic anyway.... Must be true, it was on the Internet!! =)
 
I certainly notice a difference in tuning ability of long vs short cases. 270 win is harder to tune than a .260, a 7 rem mag is harder to tune than a 7wsm. I think it's pretty clear that some cases will get better burn consistancy than others. Take a 6ppc vs 7RUM for example.
 
c-fbmi said:
nothing shooting a .277 dia bullet is accurate, they are all junk and it is most certainly a product of the caliber..............This caliber is so inaccurate that I can prove it.
Click to expand...

what planet are you on?

 
Last edited:
Remembering when the 300 Win Mag came out. Gun rag folks made lots of $ claiming the short shoulder would make it both inaccurate, and hard to reload. Both are total BS BTW.
The cartridge is now in use as a snipers cartridge.
Many so called inaccurate cartridges, are listed as such, due the the rifle that fired them.
Some are that way not because of design, but bullet choice.
Often a little tuning can turn a lemon into a gem.
 
track said:
Oooops, me bad, did misread it. I guess the .323 was never to be very accurate.
Click to expand...


Don't tell my 8mmWSM that! Never figured out why they called it the 325, most people have no clue it's an 8mm or .323 bullet....

Had a 8mm rem mag that shot well at one time too, then I heard about this wildcat called the 7mmSTW and had it rebarreled. Lol
 
Someone mentioned "coffee". Come'on now .. nobody faces a day without it. Seriously!
I ALWAYS have 3 or 4 mugs of very strong coffee before I go to the range. Need it just to wake up.

Anyway, back to topic: My assessment is that EVERY rifle I own or have owned .. is either INACCURATE ... or chambered for inherently INACCURATE ammunition !!!

Sold ALL my Sakos .. 7mm08, 30-06, .243, .308, .270 ... stupid things could't group worth a darn !
Keeping my Kimbers .. BUT .. only because they are pretty !

*grumbles*
 
P1010009%204.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]
 
Cleftwynd said:
Don't tell my 8mmWSM that! Never figured out why they called it the 325, most people have no clue it's an 8mm or .323 bullet....

Had a 8mm rem mag that shot well at one time too, then I heard about this wildcat called the 7mmSTW and had it rebarreled. Lol
Click to expand...
The .323 and the .312 are not noted calibers for their inherit accuracy. Not very many chambering's for these calibers for some known reason.......probably note accurate. You will have to question Winchester why they called it the 325 WSM.
 
Last edited:
First .270 Winchester I ever shot produced MOA groups with cheap Winchester factory ammo and a 4x Bushnell Banner. The .308 in the same session kicked harder and gave me 2.5 inch groups. This was more a function of a 24" push feed Win 70 sporter vs a lightweight 18.5" Rem Model Seven.

The .270 Win is a grand chambering. It's a fine combination of mild recoil and .300 win mag trajectories. A happy middle ground between the 6.5x55mm and the .30-06 which produces qualities that neither have.

.270 bullets are never in short supply because the target shooters don't have a milder cartridge to shoot it in. The 6.8 SPC may develop a following but who knows. IMO a .270-08 cartridge with 130 grain bullets would sell pretty well if the 260 and 7mm-08 weren't already well established. And so at present there is no reason to make target ammo for the .270.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom