New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - inherent accuracy
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

inherent accuracy

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  1 2 3>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/10/2008 at 17:43
ckk1106 View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: December/14/2007
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 1435
I've heard this question asked before, but wanted to know what you guys think.  Are some cartridges inherently more accurate, or does it have more to do with precision rifles and ammunition?  What cartridges are considered more accurate if there is a difference?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/10/2008 at 18:06
lucytuma View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: November/25/2007
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Offline
Points: 5389
Any thing based off a short fat case is considered inherenly more accurate ie: all calibers based on the .308 case and the new short mags.  Others more technically advanced will soon chime in.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/10/2008 at 19:58
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
also some magnums can be as well, of course they wont be like any of the .308 based family, but generally stuff like the 300h&h which held many 1000yrd records for many years can be accurate as well, some of the magnums can be very impressive.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/10/2008 at 20:07
Urimaginaryfrnd View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Resident Redneck

Joined: June/20/2005
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Points: 13882
One thing you can use to help you decide is looking at what bullet has the highest (best) balistic coeffecient.   The 6.5x284 is reported to be quite accurate but you would have to hand load for that to work.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/10/2008 at 20:47
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
so is the 6.5x55 swede and the 6.5 creedmoor for the black rifle guys 6.5mms are awesome
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/10/2008 at 23:59
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5087
its a relative statement cateris paribus, ex. cartridges that head space on the shoulder will be more accurate than those head spacing on the rim. ex. overbore cartridges are not as accurate as well balanced etc.  ex. the 222 class of cartridges are inherently accurate.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/18/2008 at 20:23
Graysteel View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/02/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 200
Consistency is the basis of accuracy.  There are many factors that can contribute to the consistency of a round. For instance, a cartridge case that is full of powder will have the same physical layout each time it is fired. If the cartridge is not full, the powder in the cartridge can lay differently in the case. I am not sure that position of the power will have a noticeable effect on accuracy for most people, but I am sure you understand the example.

The shape of the case does have a noticeable effect on the consistency of the pressure curve. A short fat case is initiated closer to the geometric center of the charge and generates a more consistent pressure curve.  

There is some argument that larger bore rifles are more consistent because manufacturing variances of a given magnitude represent a smaller percentage of the overall cartridge's and projectile's dimensions.

Of course, the rifle the round is fired from is just as important.


Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2008 at 01:35
Chris F View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: October/26/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 27
A while ago, Warren Page gained access to the Remington Custom Shop's test firing records for the 40X's.  He plotted out the average accuracy for the various cartridge offerings and came up with some interesting conclusions.  Before I get into that, this was about as good a data set as one could hope for short of having someone like Aberdeen or Rock Island undertake a test as this.  Think about it...hundreds of rifles, each rifle made in the same shop to the same standard (in some cases as many as 150 in just a single caliber), ammo put together by the same folks to the same standards, test fired by the same folks on the same range, under the same conditions.  That folks is removing as many variables as possible in the hopes of isolating cartridge as the only variable.

What he found was that as the cartridge size increased, so did the average group size.  Page does a good job discussing other possible reasons for the results (including available bullet quality for caliber and powder column size), but the graph and data remain striking.  The article appeared in the 1968 Gun Digest under the title "The Bigger the Cartridge".  Creighton Audette revisited the article in the NRA Highpower Series in the 1980's and added his well thought out technical theories on why Remington's data presented as such.

The cartridge/Rifle accuracy of course is but one part of the equation.  What is often overlooked, or misattributed is the "human element".  Some cartridges have gained a reputation for accuracy and deadliness on game for the simple reason that they are easy on the shoulder and allow the shooter to deliver the shot effectively.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2008 at 09:50
lucytuma View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: November/25/2007
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Offline
Points: 5389
Well put, flinching is good not for accuracy.

Edited by lucytuma - October/26/2008 at 11:32
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/28/2008 at 10:00
Tip69 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
Tip Stick

Joined: September/27/2005
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
I would think that in this day and age, they could improve the shooting test by removing the human element..... use a remote trigger pull with the rifle secured to a lead sled or similar.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/28/2008 at 10:17
supertool73 View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar
Superstool

Joined: January/03/2008
Location: Utah
Status: Online
Points: 9533
I am sure they do in all the testing facilities.  They probably have the best barrels mounted in some sort of secure vice with an electronic trigger.  
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/28/2008 at 12:22
Chris F View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: October/26/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 27
I'm hoping that my human element comment didn't give the impression that I felt it was a factor in the Remington Test data.  I think the shooter element largely eliminated there.  But in the "real world" I believe it plays a bigger role in perceptions of accuracy in day to day conversations than it's given credit for.  I'll stick my neck out a bit...  can you say .270?
 
There are and there have been "return to battery rests" for a long time now, and they were around when Page got the Remington data, but the trade-off is/was the testing of such a broad selection of calibers.  Most of the machine rests/rifle cradles that I'm aware of were/are used for very specific calibers.  For example, I have a couple of articles recounting testing done at Frankford Arsenal back in the 1950's using such a rest, but they were in 30-06 only.  Because of the context of their testing, I would imagine they would have been testing just a handful of military small arms calibers.  I also happen to know that a couple of the military teams use such rests/cradles, but they tend to test 223 and 308 only.  There is a whole class in Benchrest for machine rests, but you'll probably see only benchrest specific chamberings and never the volume of comparative groups shot as Page had from the Remington Custom Shop.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/04/2008 at 21:18
Crosswire View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: November/04/2008
Location: West NC
Status: Offline
Points: 67
"A while ago, Warren Page gained access to the Remington Custom Shop's test firing records for the 40X's.  He plotted out the average accuracy for the various cartridge offerings and came up with some interesting conclusions. "
 
Warren Page was a close friend with Mike Walker.  Walker started and headed the Rem. Custom shop for years.  He was the designer of the Rem 721,722, 700 and 40X rifles, invented the .222 and developed several other successful cartridges for Remington.   He also found a way to button rifle bores for WWII, the first time it was successfully done and later helped the Harts get started in the target rifle barrel business.  Both Page and Walker knew their business and both were founders of BR shooting in the US. 
 
Walker knew smaller cartridges were more accurate than the larger.  Page researched the Custom Shop data to find the statistics.  The finished rifles test fired by workers, not machine rests, according to Walker. 
 
On average, they found the .222 is slightly better than the .223, the .223 is slightly better than the .222 Mag, the .308 is slightly better than the 30-06, etc.  What they missed was the small effect of the ratio between case length and diameter, that was found in the PPC line much later. 
 
Even so, the .222 will actually shoot about as well as the .22 PPC but the velocity is so much less that it's more sensitive to wind.  The .222 lost a lot of BR matches because of that.  Even so, the shape of the case is less significant than is commonly thought. 
 
The concept of "inherent" accuracy is geatly over rated, IMHO.  The quality of the build, bullets and powder capacity of the case are much more important to accuracy than the case shape.  So is the recoil level, no one can shoot a heavy kicker as well as they can a lighter cartridge and rifle that can be fired "free recoil."
 
It happens that high quality bullet jackets are easier to make in quanity in .24 caliber than others, thus the .24s tend to show better average accuracy.  But that's not quite the same thing as saying the .24 cartridges are inherently more accurate, is it?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/05/2008 at 00:08
Chris F View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: October/26/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 27
Crosswire,
Thank you for filling in the blanks on the whole Warren Page/Remington Custom Shop story.  Yes, the confounding factors were recoil (and the human element), and quality of bullets available.  BTW, the 308/7.62Nato was not just slightly better than the 30-06.  It was one of the more noticeable gaps.  There also didn't appear to be any trend favoring "short and fat" powder columns as is the oft repeated optimum case design. (sorry Rick Jamison, the Remington data doesn't support your patent).  Being that this was 40 years ago now, perhaps more powders available to optimize the burn would have shown different...but the 6x47 shot tighter than the 6mm Remington which in turn shot tighter than the 6.5 RemMag.

On the subject of the quality of 24 cal jackets.  I had heard it said that Remington made the best 22 caliber BenchRest jackets ever during the 70's/80's.  Something to the effect that Big Green was able to put the resources of DuPont behind the manufacture of near perfect jackets that are coveted to this day.  I still wonder if that statement is true.

Optimum powder capacity for accuracy?  Perhaps.  The 22 and 6BR while accurate, never seemed to dethrone the PPC (although Jim Steckl got some attention with those wonderful groups he shot for the Remington catalogs (perhaps with those perfect Remington jackets).  I'd been told it was a bit overcapacity for short range benchrest.  (...although it seems to be the ticket with a fast twist barrel for Highpower Rifle out to 600yds and sometimes beyond).

BTW, I just had another random recollection.  Did you know that Jim Steckl went to go work for Hart Barrels after leaving Remington?  I got him on the phone there a number of years back.

The Page/Remington data was not perfect.  But I still believe it gives us interesting insights into what might drive accuracy (at least in a 40x).   
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/05/2008 at 00:10
Chris F View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: October/26/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 27
p.s.  I'm a huge Mike Walker fan.  I don't think he get's his due in raising the bar for accuracy standards from factory rifles.  I even have a couple of his Remington scopes!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/05/2008 at 11:39
Crosswire View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: November/04/2008
Location: West NC
Status: Offline
Points: 67
My source of info on that data was Walker himself.  I got acuaited with him and his first wife. Olive, just before he died.  Helped him move most of his stuff to NC from Lady Lake, FL.  We have remained friends but it's hard to visit with him because he is so near totally deaf.  I only know Stekel from Mike's stories.
 
I know the original Rem HPCL .243 bullets shoot extremly well in my .243, by far the best bullet I ever found for it.  Mike says they had plated jackets, not cup, and were dropped because reloaders just didn't buy them in sufficent quanities to continue production.   New Rem .243 bullets, cup and core, also shoot good but not as well as the old ones.
 
Mike still has a large quanity of old parts from his Reminton and BR days. Included enough parts to build a Remington 24X scope, Unertl mounts and all.  I watched him assemble it and then he gave it to me to hang on my old 40X in 6mm International.  The International is another cartridge he designed but it never shot well enough to make a mark in competion.
 
Mike is a real gentleman, I admire him a lot.  He's in the early 90s now, if I remember correctly.  He and his nice second wife live near here.  He is really frail now.   
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/05/2008 at 16:19
Steelbenz View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
ROLL TIDE ROLL

Joined: January/03/2006
Location: Heart of Dixie
Status: Offline
Points: 4917
Originally posted by Crosswire Crosswire wrote:

My source of info on that data was Walker himself.  I got acuaited with him and his first wife. Olive, just before he died.  Helped him move most of his stuff to NC from Lady Lake, FL.  We have remained friends but it's hard to visit with him because he is so near totally deaf.  I only know Stekel from Mike's stories.
 
I know the original Rem HPCL .243 bullets shoot extremly well in my .243, by far the best bullet I ever found for it.  Mike says they had plated jackets, not cup, and were dropped because reloaders just didn't buy them in sufficent quanities to continue production.   New Rem .243 bullets, cup and core, also shoot good but not as well as the old ones.
 
Mike still has a large quanity of old parts from his Reminton and BR days. Included enough parts to build a Remington 24X scope, Unertl mounts and all.  I watched him assemble it and then he gave it to me to hang on my old 40X in 6mm International.  The International is another cartridge he designed but it never shot well enough to make a mark in competion.
 
Mike is a real gentleman, I admire him a lot.  He's in the early 90s now, if I remember correctly.  He and his nice second wife live near here.  He is really frail now.   


Tagged for Cool and WOW factor.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/06/2008 at 14:30
Chris F View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: October/26/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 27
Crosswire,
I dug up my old PS Special Edition with the article on Remington Scopes by Jeff Aberegg (1994).  Rereading it, it's a great history on these scopes.  Mike Walkers account is prominent in this article.  E-mail me if you'd like a copy.  Somewhere in that same time period, PS did an interview with Mike Walker and featured him on the cover.  (He drove an SVX back then).  What I wouldn't give to be in your position to pick his brains on what he's seen and done.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/06/2008 at 17:15
Crosswire View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: November/04/2008
Location: West NC
Status: Offline
Points: 67
Chris, your thoughts made me chuckle.  I understand, would like to get more from him myself.  But ... ever try to talk to a guy who's 'bout deaf as a stump?  It's frustrating to both of us so we mostly just smile and nod as if we understand. 
 
Most of what I got came from his rambling conversation on our two trips to Lady Lake, I dint get many questions in even back then.  He's much worse now.  A wealth of information will be lost when Mike passes. 
 
He has already out lived his first wife and both daughters so he's a tuff ol' guy.
]
Back when I had a FFL, he ordered a Stolle action through me, he had given up trying to make a 40X competetive.  He got a Hart barrel, of course, and installed and chamber it himself in his garage shop.  It really shot well to.  But, he used a Leupold scope on it, not one of his own Remington designs.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/06/2008 at 22:04
mr twister View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: October/21/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Never owned a high quality 22 RF, 222 Remington or 308 Winchester that would not shoot 1/4=1/2 MOA.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/07/2008 at 13:40
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 18347
Originally posted by Urimaginaryfrnd Urimaginaryfrnd wrote:

One thing you can use to help you decide is looking at what bullet has the highest (best) balistic coeffecient.   The 6.5x284 is reported to be quite accurate but you would have to hand load for that to work.

This is a necessary, but not sufficient component of the equation... a lighter, but lower ballistic coefficient bullet pushed at a higher velocity (for the same rifle) can often, usually, provide better overall ballistic performance. Looking at two bullets of the same weight for the same rifle, with the same MV, the one with the higher BC will provide better performance.   The "playing fields" must be equal.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/07/2008 at 22:17
Chris F View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: October/26/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 27
Quote .. a lighter, but lower ballistic coefficient bullet pushed at a higher velocity (for the same rifle) can often, usually, provide better overall ballistic performance.

I would have to disagree with that statement, primarily because of the "usually" part.  While it can happen and does happen, when the BC's are close, it doesn't happen often as the BC's diverge.  Here's a couple of examples;
I am a Service Rifle Competitor.  I'll shoot 80gr and 90gr bullets out of my 20" 223 AR15 at 2600 to 2800fps.  I've also shot 52's at 3300fps.  I'll put money down on the shooter with the 80's and 90's every time shooting against someone with 52's or even 55's.  I'll run the wind drift numbers out of a ballistic program when I have more time for you, but real world experience already tells me that it's not even a contest.

The other example is a more thorough analysis done by a pretty smart guy named Brian Litz.  He just posted his articles on whether a 7mm 168 VLD driven faster or a 7mm 180 VLD out of the same cartridge fared better in a crosswind.
http://bryanlitz.bravehost.com/
The articles are linked on the left side of the page under "7mm VLD".  Right click and save as to download the pdf articles.  If you're pressed for time, skip to the second article, second page under the paragraphs "Slow and Heavy versus Light and Fast".  If you're REALLY short on time,  I'll also give you the short version: The G7 BC's were about .020 pts apart, and the Muzzle velocities were about 100fps apart (same cartridge, same pressure).  The better BC of the 180's actually gave a little less wind drift at 1000yds.

...I really suggest you read the article though,


Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/08/2008 at 10:14
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 18347
The articles are good and provide some good data. However, he ran "20 simulated matches" with the 168 vs 180 gr VLD's and came to the conclusion that even with elite shooters, there was no clear advantage to the heavier bullet. He also did only one test of the 168gr bullets, not exactly a statistical sample, and he shoots the 180gr bullets.   I suggest to you that "20 simulated matches" does not a good simulated study make (nor a comparision basis of 1), and a Monte Carlo simulation, with a minimum of 10000 matches, of the comparison would be the only way to have any firm data upon which to base an assumption.
It is clear, from physics, that a heavier object in motion is less influenced by the same forces as a lighter object. However, wind drift has much more impact on slower moving objects... therefore a faster object can have as good or better ballistic performance than the higher ballistic coefficient object. Then we get to the case of ballistic coefficient calculations. Bullet manufacturers frequently, perhaps even as a general rule, overestimate the ballistic coefficient of their products, some by as much as 25% (from a study by Michael and Amy Courtney, PhD's, on ballistic coefficients of many standardardly available bullets). Litz's paper stated that Berger changed the BC (downgraded) on their VLD's.
I have no problem with your pretty gross comparison of 52 and 55 gr .223 vs 80-90gr.
My comments were that, usually, you can find a lower BC bullet pushed at higher velocities, which will provide similar (and as stated in your quoted article, almost unrecognizeable difference) performance as the higher BC bullet.
I really don't need you to run your ballistics program for me. I have degrees in both Mathematics and Computer Science, and perform Monte Carlo simulations on ballistic performance as a regular course of business.
Perhaps you should read the article again. At best, the "evidence" is inconclusive.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/08/2008 at 21:16
Chris F View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: October/26/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 27
Kickboxer,
I continue to stand by my initial statement;  When BC's are close, speed can sometimes overcome BC.  The example of the analysis by B Litz was one such example that happened to go the other way. 

In absolute terms, the 180 at a lower initial velocity was still better than the 168.  Marginally so at 1000yds (~2 inches), but still better.  The modeling that Mr Litz did was to provide context for what it meant on score for a Highpower Competitor.  The absolute difference in drift remains unchanged and still in favor of the heavier 180.  (btw, I'm not a big fan of Monte Carlo Simulations right now.  the short term hit on my portfolio is overriding my rational mind and Long Run modelling of a Monte Carlo Sim Dead).

I suspect that for a give cartridge, the curve for Wind Drift vs Bullet weight would plot out to something of a "U".  ..and yes, my example of my 223 was taking a point from the left to compare with a point nearer the asymptote.  A gross example yes, but illustrative of an exception to the "usually" in your initial statement (btw, your use of "usually" is all we really disagree on...I'm more thinking "can sometimes").  Using data points closer together in the plot would yield inconclusive results depending on which side of the asymptote the data points fell.  Left would favor weight and right would favor velocity.  At least that's what my gut is telling me.

Regarding advertised BC versus actual BC.  I think it's no big secret that bullet manufacturers overstate BC's probably for marketing reasons.  It's why we're stuck with G1 BC's with folk like Sierra breaking up the curve for different velocity ranges to give better predictive value.  If you read the other works of Brian Litz (I believe much of it is posted on his site, but what I'll be referring to is definitely in his Precision Shooting articles), you'll see that he actually empirically derived his BC's relative to the G7 curve, and actually plots them against the G7 curve in his 7mm articles.  With that said, I would still love to read the article referenced in your post by the Courtney's.  Can you provide a reference for me to chase down?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/08/2008 at 21:46
Chris F View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: October/26/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 27
...never mind, I found the abstract.
http://www.ballisticstestinggroup.org/ballistics.htm

It reaffirms what other's such as Larry Bartholome and Ken Oehler had earlier experienced (theirs out to 1000yds).  I do wish there was more detail on their methodology (validation of chrono's, since they were using two separate units each with it's own unique error values).  I also wish they had used a longer range to minimize chrono error and cover a broader portion of the drag curve).
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2 3>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "inherent accuracy"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Scope for determining 100yd accuracy nincomp Rifle Scopes 11
How to test Laser rangefinder for accuracy? bcraig Laser Rangefinders 1
Powder Dipper Accuracy.. Rothstein1987 Reloading & Ballistics 21
Bushnell 4200 Elite 8-32x40 major accuracy problem Doodaddy Rifle Scopes 1
Accuracy International? cheaptrick Firearms 17
Best long range accuracy for .308 Savage11B Reloading & Ballistics 28
Accuracy International MKI .308 dillon_h Firearms For Sale 0
Factory rifle accuracy Gil P. Shooting 19
17 hmr accuracy problems stork23raz Rimfire / Airgun 29
Sako hunter 308 - accuracy and reloading shooter4 Reloading & Ballistics 1


This page was generated in 0.281 seconds.