Can bad ammo cause serious accuracy issues?

[Leuchtkafer]

It remains fascinating that some continue to promulgate the falsehood that every rifle will shoot "good" ammo well, despite having no evidence to support such a magnificent claim in the face of all the contraindications towards it. Truly fascinating.

"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind" (Proverbs 18:2). This proverb emphasizes that a fool lacks interest in true comprehension, favouring arrogance and self-expression over learning. They prefer airing opinions, causing conflicts, and focusing on themselves rather than acquiring wisdom or listening to others.

 

[Meroh]

It is far from just marketing hype. Have you ever owned and reloading for a 6.5 creedmoor? I have been since 2011, still own the first rifle I bought chambered in it, and have owned and loaded for over a dozen other rifles. From the cheapest to moderate priced offerings.

It is extremely easy to load for, very forgiving, and inherently accurate, and very efficient with its 30° shoulder angle. I have never had a rifle chambered in it that shot bad other than the 120 grain gmx bullets. Other than that, every rifle, with any powder and bullet combination, shot moa or well below sub moa groups. Every rifle with any 140 grain bullet, with 40.5 grains of rl-17 or H4350 shot 10+ shot groups under moa for break in.

I understand the 260 Remington had a slight edge over it in the early years when better brass was only available for the 260, but that isn't the case anymore. The 6.5x55 is an amazing cartridge but it is built for a long action. As with any other 6.5 saami cartridge before it, they are all different in different ways. Can they all shoot the same grain weight bullet relatively the same speed? Sure they can. But it doesn't change the fact that there is differences. I own a 30-06, 30TC, and multiple 308's. They all shoot the same bullet relatively the same, the 30-06 gaining a good advantage as bullet weight goes up. But I still own all of them, shoot all of them, and enjoy all of them.

The 6.5 Creedmoor became popular quite awhile after I owned my first one, and there was only 2 factory loadings for it. But it was by far the best shooting and easiest cartridge to load for. People hate it because it popular, but it's not popular because of marketing, it took 10+ years for it to become popular after it came out. People just starting seeing other people at ranges shooting lights out with it, with a cheap rifle they bought off the shelf.

The Grendel is probably my favorite 6.5 cartridge though, and it needs more people falling in love with it. Another great case design, and probably the best youth hunting cartridge there is.

So is the 6.5 x 55, No more difficult than the Creed, and I have been reloading it since about 1977 ir 78. i load 85 gr up to 158 gr round nose, and the point of impact does not varry more than an inch in elevation between loads at 100 yards. Still relevant after 130 years. The creed works well, but why??? They (Mauser) had the fast twist/heavy bullet thing figured out back to 1896.

Cheap little rifle off the shelf? Lots of control feed Mausers available starting at about $250.00; Tika chambers in it. When Zastava's were being imported, about $600 got you a brand new one, a 98 Mauser, with bluing like a colt python and a really nice piece of Turkish Walnut; that shoots cloverleaves out past 100 yards. I know, I bought one a few years back. I have upgraded the scope since that photo was taken. I wish we could still buy the Zastavas. Short action M80 would work well with the creed I think.

I have a really old one, 1900 Obendorf, it also is not picky with loads and is a laserbeam.

From Left to Right; Zastava, 1943 Husky M38, 1900 Obendorf. Below is the Obendorf with the bayonet attached; my buddies wife is holding it; I told her to look fierce:



But the Creed was absolutely necessesairy and pre-ordained by God.

 

[Meroh]

Your assumptions about this brand performs better than this brand which performs better than this is misleading. Lot numbers are what matters. You could shoot five lots of the same ammo and none might shoot the same as the other! None of the five might shoot well either! You might find a lot of Tac22 that shoots extremely well and the next three not so much with probably variance between all of them. The only real way is like Jerry stated, Send lead downrange!
Not really sure what centerfire cartridges have to do with rimfire ammo. Bald or folicaly challenged people can shoot all the Creed varieties!! Not for just manbunners haha

5 lot numbers and counting on the Tac 22, way more on the SV. I saw a lot more variation in Federal automatch lot to lot; it always shot well in my High Standard pistol until about 5 years ago to present. The high standard shoots CCI SV (various lots) better than Tac 22 Various lots.

If you are, or want to be, a super elete competator, maybe it is worth the effort. I am generally happy to get a few bricks when I can.

This is my experience, yours may vary.

 

[Denver Steve]

The creed works well but why? You didn't even read all I wrote if you said the 6.5x55 is the same. They are not.

Why does the 308 exist when you could just buy a 30-06. Exact same thing. Short action, and close to the same performance. But why not. I have both. I like both. I like having options, and I like different rifles, and different cartridges. I find a difference in cycling a short action and a long action, in a bolt, in a lever, whichever.

Not the same, not redundant. And you can use that argument for most cartridges. Even extremely old ones.

I own almost a dozen different 6.5 rifles in different cartridges. Love them all. I have more 6.5's than 30 caliber rifles. But why would I own any 30 calibers other than the 300RUM I own? I can load any grain weight bullet in it, at any velocity I want. I can shoot it at 30BR, 308, 30-06, 300 win mag, and 300 wby, ect. velocities. So it makes all those calibers useless and meaningless. Do you see how dumb that argument is?

If ammo is not readily available for a cartridge, or good brand name brass is not available for a cartridge, that's a good argument. But arguing you can do something with a cartridge another one can is a useless argument. Might as well just buy a 9.3x62 and use it from varmints to African game. Because you can buy light varmint rounds for it. So it would cover one spectrum to the other. But people like having options. And I very much enjoy having many rifles chambered in different cartridges. No matter if they are similar or not.

 

[Longstud]

It remains fascinating that some continue to promulgate the falsehood that every rifle will shoot "good" ammo well, despite having no evidence to support such a magnificent claim in the face of all the contraindications towards it. Truly fascinating.

"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind" (Proverbs 18:2). This proverb emphasizes that a fool lacks interest in true comprehension, favouring arrogance and self-expression over learning. They prefer airing opinions, causing conflicts, and focusing on themselves rather than acquiring wisdom or listening to others.

Another proverb is that only fools that live in glass houses throw stones! If your trying to impress with your vocabulary then I think knowing the meaning of the word is advisible before using it! Contraindications is a medical term regarding procedures that could be dangerous to the patient! So not really following as well as the reference that Every rifle will shoot good ammo well?? It’s almost reminiscent of people measuring targets that are false, who is really being fooled? Example would be let’s say to achieve a quarter inch group with a 22 rimfire, the maximum spread from smudge to smudge would be.250+.22 =0.47. Though most serious shooters know the bullets out of most barrels are smaller and in the .218 area! Taking this into account means .250+ ..218=..468 so only a space of 0.032” can be between bullets to TRULY be 1/4”! Just in case Rabbid is wondering

 

[Leuchtkafer]

Another proverb is that only fools that live in glass houses throw stones! If your trying to impress with your vocabulary then I think knowing the meaning of the word is advisible before using it! Contraindications is a medical term regarding procedures that could be dangerous to the patient! So not really following as well as the reference that Every rifle will shoot good ammo well?? It’s almost reminiscent of people measuring targets that are false, who is really being fooled? Example would be let’s say to achieve a quarter inch group with a 22 rimfire, the maximum spread from smudge to smudge would be.250+.22 =0.47. Though most serious shooters know the bullets out of most barrels are smaller and in the .218 area! Taking this into account means .250+ ..218=..468 so only a space of 0.032” can be between bullets to TRULY be 1/4”! Just in case Rabbid is wondering

Darn auto-correct... Contradictions was what I meant to type. Forgive this poor old fool, proof-reading is not always his strong suit, nor is he infallible.

You're more than welcome to submit your evidence to underthegun and have Rabid's successful 1/4" challenge entry removed if by some stretch of the imagination it was legitimately falsified and you can back up what seems to be baseless, malevolent slander at first glance. Perhaps you're jealous your name does not appear on the successful list. Oh well. More time at the range with your rifles instead of behind a whiskey bottle and perhaps you can make that a reality. Take care.

 

[grauhanen]

It remains fascinating that some continue to promulgate the falsehood that every rifle will shoot "good" ammo well, despite having no evidence to support such a magnificent claim in the face of all the contraindications towards it. Truly fascinating.

Myke, what's even more fascinating is the instinct of some people to simply keep repeating things they learned on the internet, such as "each rifle barrel will tell you what lot of ammo it prefers". You may choose not to remember, but robust evidence has been posted on this forum several times to support the view that different good rifles will shoot the same good, consistent ammo well.

It's nonsense to think that good barrels won't shoot good, consistent lots well. Good, consistent ammo all share the same characteristics and that's precisely why they will perform well in good barrels. Good barrels are made to do the same thing, and that's to shoot good, consistent ammo well.

Why would anyone choose to believe that some barrels will shoot ammo that's not good, consistent ammo better than ammo that is good and consistent?

There's no such thing as a rifle barrel that will "fix" or "cure" ammo that's not consistent. In other words, barrels don't change the ammo. They tell shooters what it does. The better the ammo, the better the results.

 

[Leuchtkafer]

Glenn, you overestimate the "robustness" of the evidence you presented. Is it worth my time to explain to you the deficiencies in your process and therefore in the conclusions you drew? You won't listen, you never do. You're wrong though, figure it out.

Never have I said some barrels will shoot ammo that is not good better than a good consistent lot, I have maintained a certain level of quality in the ammo is necessary as a prerequisite. It's not "nonsense" that good barrels won't shoot some good consistent ammo well. It is a fact. Until you realize this, you haven't done enough testing. Take care.

 

[grauhanen]

It's not "nonsense" that good barrels won't shoot some good consistent ammo well. It is a fact. Until you realize this, you haven't done enough testing. Take care.

Myke, your use of double negatives might confuse a logophile. In any case, if some barrels shoot good ammo similarly so will others. Barrels do the same thing -- which is to use very similar ammo to do the very same thing.

The evidence is there even if you are unfamiliar with it.

I'm not going to waste time arguing with you. Before you were banned as the poster RabidM4U5, you frequently sought to pick a fight. As I've said in the past, if you want to fight, join the army or get married.

 

[OkayShooter]

Here we go again!! This thread is about lack lustre performance from rimfire ammo. Nothing about egos or people looking down on anybody! When you find a good lot number for a particular ammo then buy as much of it as you can. As stated sooh many times, price doesn’t guarantee performance but GENRALY better results are achieved with sub sonic target ammo!

If an individual buys higher end ammo that doesn’t mean they look down on anyone and Im not sure how you come to your conclusion. Many shooters have different requirements out of their firearms hence the difference in varieties and price. Do you think someone that has a nice sports car or pickup truck looks down at you cuz of your vehicle? Kindah a ####ty way to go thru life thinking so! I drive a 2016 Toyota so that means people look down at me? If they do I don’t really care and neither should you.

I do agree with most of what you said. Thanks.

Trying to say this in respect manner. I don't think you will understand my conclusion, esp when I cannot articulate in the way I want to say. I feel in the community there are ones that suggested match ammo, saying you need this or that to shoot accuracy to people when they don't shoot match guns. Because they think everyone wants to be like then and it be like running 94 octane in a 91 Jetta. When you said there is no guarantee it will.


2016 Toyota is all I drive.

 

[Williwaw]

OP, bet you are wondering how it got here. LOL.

I saw where you got your answer on Friday. Good luck on the journey.

 

[Big Bad]

I would generally agree, more consistency, but not always brand to brand speaking. Tac 22 gives me accuracy that I could not have dreamed about 10 years ago, but now I treat as a baseline. CCI SV never shoots as well; Aguilla SV never groups as tight as CCI. SK Std+ only shows a slight advantage if you measure your 10 shot group with a precission caliper, just to eyeball, it is virtually impossible to see any difference. Same holds for

I would agree, but not saying that someday one might find one lighter or more likely heavier, that would shoota bit better.

I would try this stuff if I could find it:


View attachment 1131683

That's really interesting look ammo. But in the end it is of course the rifle that decides if a given ammo shoots well and I've been really disappointed by the performance of some impressive looking ammo in my best one, SK Long Range for instance, and now if none ever turns up here in Canada I can tell myself it's probably no good anyway.

 

[BK85]

OP, bet you are wondering how it got here. LOL.

I saw where you got your answer on Friday. Good luck on the journey.

I thank everyone for their initial responses, and wish everyone good luck in this new debate lol