Yesterday I got 6, 5-shot groups using the Bleiker 22f3-F79 Challenger Match rifle, using the Eley Subsonic Hollow Xtra ammo.

First group was an absolute stunner! 0.095"
Second was not band either - 0.152"

Third had 4 clustered together at 0.245" and one dropped straight down to make the group 1.236"

This round did sound slightly off.

Fourth had exactly the same results, 4 together at 0.349" and one straight down again, making the group 1.254"

Fifth group was great again, 0.202"
Sixth was 0.443"

Another funny thing happened when I tried shooting the CCI Quiet 22 ammo after shooting normal ammo.

To get the bullet to hit the point of aim, I had to turn the scope up 105 clicks!!

Scope is Leupold VX6 7-42 X.

Combustion ring? CCI Quiet is a slower round, if I remember it right. I wonder if the leftover lubricant from the Eley was not agreeable with the CCI, too.

You probably know this better than I but...when I test .22 ammo, and my .22's are sporters rather than match rifles, I always fire a five shot group with the new ammo as a means of purging the barrel from the previous ammo's "secret sauce" lubricant. Then I fire a five shot group for record with the new ammo. It usually makes a difference.
Often the higher quality ammo's "secret sauce" will make the lower quality stuff shoot better for a few rounds and not give a true picture of how the new ammo actually performs in any given rifle.

I think the inconsistency is in the cartridges. The fliers drop straight down, indicating a lower velocity, longer time-of-flight, and a longer time for gravity to work on the bullet in flight.

With both Remington and Aguila subsonic cartridges, my shooting mates have experienced a shot at a paper target with no resulting bullet hole. In both cases, the bullet has been found in the barrel; once in the bore and once just half-emerging from the muzzle.

We have since abandoned both brands as being a way to ruin an otherwise excellent barrel.

My suggestion is to sort or segregate by weight a large number of the cartridges and to repeat your tests with cartridges of similar weights.

You might set up the chronograph when you do this. One cannot have too much data.

was walter shooting??

quote:

I think the inconsistency is in the cartridges. The fliers drop straight down, indicating a lower velocity, longer time-of-flight, and a longer time for gravity to work on the bullet in flight.

Exactly!

I could tell that those rounds dropping down were of making much less noise.

Also, we had a visit from two gentlemen from one of the major 22 ammo makers a while back.

And we talked about this and testing 22 ammo in general.

They suggested that we start with a clean barrel.

Then shoot a few rounds of the ammo to be tested.

After each type of ammo has been shot, another clean of the barrel should be done, and so on.

That is what I have been doing.

One thing I have found is that a lot of the ammo leaves what looks like unburnt powder in the barrel??!!

One would have though that with the quantity of powder in a 22 rim fire case, this should not happen??

Early Winchester 40S&W ammo was very dirty powder , leaving lots of residue in the barrel .They then changed to a much cleaner burning powder !
You're second problem of can be poor control of amount of powder. We don't load the 22rf ammo so it's something that often isn't thought of.A chrono would help .
Sometimes in an indoor range you can hear it . Not just less sound but even distinction between ignition and hitting the backstop. One new shooter had problems .First time I saw her the ammo sounded like bangclank but the next time she did poorly but then I heard bang--clank.

quote:

Originally posted by waterman:
I think the inconsistency is in the cartridges. The fliers drop straight down, indicating a lower velocity, longer time-of-flight, and a longer time for gravity to work on the bullet in flight.

There was a time when we'd shoot bricks of cheapies in an afternoon; we'd hear the wimpy ones and know why the shots went off kilter with bolts that didn't cycle.

Remember TQM...Total Quality Management? The Manufacturers of .22 cartridges have no interest in accuracy being the primary goal; cost/profit is their watchword. If primer and powder are tuned the accuracy would become consistant. Consistancy produces accuracy.

It might be instructive to look at the patches with a good magnifying glass or even a microscope. And then pull the bullets from a couple of the cartridges in question. Burn some of the powder in the open and examine the residue.

Next, fire the primed case, sans powder and bullet, examine the barrel and clean it. Examine the patches. Perhaps it is the priming residue and not the powder.

I did that with some relatively new (2009?) Fiocchi Super Match Shorts, with copper cases. I found the gritty residue in the barrel to be ground glass from the primers.

People here have two lines of thought.

One lot think we should disregard the odd flier - which we seem to get from quite a number of ammo.

The other think we should include everything, as every group is shot with the same box of ammo, and what we are trying to see what one would normally get when shooting them, regardless.

A few friends and I shot rimfire BR competition a lot a few years back. We had top line competition guns and are all very experienced shooters.

A lot of practice, experimenting and shooting in matches taught us that the ONLY way to get .22 LR to shoot without fliers is to spend a lot of money on the best you can buy. My last brick of Red Box cost me $200.00. Age is getting to me and I am rapidly losing interest in a lot of competition, especially rimfire BR. I can reload ammo for a good centerfire bench gun and never have fliers that aren't my fault.

I worked as a writer for Precision Shooting magazine for many years and was exposed to a ton of unformation on this subject. Years ago the U.S. International team wanted good U.S. made ammo. A study was done with Federal to determine how to make it. It turned out that you needed very expenive equipment to centrifuge the primer charge to get reliable accuracy. Federal refused to spend the money.

quote:

Originally posted by Dick Wright:
A few friends and I shot rimfire BR competition a lot a few years back. We had top line competition guns and are all very experienced shooters.

A lot of practice, experimenting and shooting in matches taught us that the ONLY way to get .22 LR to shoot without fliers is to spend a lot of money on the best you can buy. My last brick of Red Box cost me $200.00. Age is getting to me and I am rapidly losing interest in a lot of competition, especially rimfire BR. I can reload ammo for a good centerfire bench gun and never have fliers that aren't my fault.

I worked as a writer for Precision Shooting magazine for many years and was exposed to a ton of unformation on this subject. Years ago the U.S. International team wanted good U.S. made ammo. A study was done with Federal to determine how to make it. It turned out that you needed very expenive equipment to centrifuge the primer charge to get reliable accuracy. Federal refused to spend the money.

I wonder what had happened to the special ammo Federal made?

Is it still available?

Is it any better than the better offerings from Eley?

I think the very good Federal ammo exists only in the personal supplies of those who were both competitive enough and affluent enough to buy some before it was discontinued. When we have an attractive match and the weather is good and the old guys are up to it, we see the old Federal ammo in use. But the shooters who bought it are now in their late 70s, at the youngest, and many in their 80s. Time takes its toll.

Interest in accurate rimfire shooting in the US has been declining for decades. 4-position smallbore became 3-position smallbore which became prone-only smallbore. In 2006, we had a "prone" match that drew 24 competitors. This year, our match had only 4 competitors; only one under 50. Those who organized such matches are also elderly.

Ignoring all the political hoopla in the US, like anything else, producing accurate rimfire ammo is a matter of supply and demand. If the demand had been sufficient, Federal would have purchased the necessary machinery and the materials to make it work properly.

I think Eley and Lapua are able to produce high-end accurate ammo because their markets are world-wide. Apparently, Federal did not pursue the world-wide market.

Here is a sample of some of the results we got, Walther KK 200 match rifle.

Average of 6, 5-shopt groups.

LAPUA CENTER X

50 YARDS = 0.1637
75 YARDS = 0.4460
100 YARDS = 0.9450

ELEY TENEX SEMI AUTO

50 YARDS = 0.2183
75 YARDS = 0.3223
100 YARDS = 0.5768

RWS R 50

50 YARDS = 0.3187
75 YARDS = 0.6347
100 YARDS = 0.5283

FEDERAL VALUE PACK

50 YARDSW = 0.6003
75 YARDS = 1.0723
100 YARDS = 1.4475

CCI STINGER

50 YARDS = 0.3893
75 YARDS = 0.7438
100 YARDS = 1.0957

ELEY TENEX

50 YARDS = 0.2778
75 YARDS = 0.4785
100 YARDS = 0.6012

I will post full results with target when I sort them out and put them on the computer.

Spending my time free time making bullets on our CNC machine.

We are out of 338 caliber bullets and I am running some in both copper and brass.

Brass seems to be less than half the price of copper right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

I wonder what had happened to the special ammo Federal made?

Is it still available?

Is it any better than the better offerings from Eley?

I have a couple of boxes of dimpled UM-22; if I ever get good enough to spot flyers in Eley Tenex, I'll shoot them alongside the Tenex to find out.

The best you can buy is the only solution. I just got some Lapua Midas before our scumbag governor rammed the NY gun law through in the middle of the night, and mail order ammo became illegal in NY. Cost me $17 for 50, but no gun store will stock that expensive ammo, and the doomsday folks are hoarding any and all rimfire ammo as soon as it hits the stores-the cheaper the better. Hey, Dick Wright, how's the Porsche running?? Miss the old PS magazine.

quote:

Originally posted by xs headspace:
The best you can buy is the only solution.

I don't know about now, but there used to be rifle shops in Connecticut that stocked good stuff.

I'm just an amateur when it comes to .22 rimfire accuracy, but do have a couple accurate (by my standards) Norinco Model 522 rifles. Today I shot one at 50 yards with a couple different types of match grade ammo most of which I recently bought off the shelf at an area gun store (Willimas Gun Sight in Davision, Michigan). The pictures tell the story as to what worked in this rifle (Wolf Match Target, Wolf Match Extra, RWS Rifle Match) and what didn't (Eley Target and Federal Premium Target). There is quite a difference!

Matt,

It will be interesting if you shoot 5 groups of each ammo.

quote:

Originally posted by xs headspace:
The best you can buy is the only solution. I just got some Lapua Midas before our scumbag governor rammed the NY gun law through in the middle of the night, and mail order ammo became illegal in NY. Cost me $17 for 50, but no gun store will stock that expensive ammo, and the doomsday folks are hoarding any and all rimfire ammo as soon as it hits the stores-the cheaper the better. Hey, Dick Wright, how's the Porsche running?? Miss the old PS magazine.

I agree 100%... the only way to eliminate flyers is to spend top dollar for ammo. I and a couple of friends spent a lot of time testing rimfire ammo when we were shooting BR competition.

I quit shooting ARA competition because of the cost. I usually ended up shooting a box of ammo per target.. Four targets (cards) X $20.00 a box is eighty bucks. Six cards is $120.00. Gimme a break.

The Porsche is running great. I stored it all winter but have had it out several times this spring and, so far, it's perfect. Not bad for a thirty-three year old car. It was born in June 1983.

Red-headed geezer... you wouldn't live in Ohio, would you?

On this outing I did shoot two 5-shot groups with all ammo types, and three with the two different types of Wolf. I did so in a manner that would not give one ammo type an advantage/disadvantage with bore cleanlinessn. The Wolf was consistently best, better than the RWS, but the pictures are of the two 'bragging' groups.

This is a $250 rifle with a scope that cost $160, shooting on a public outdoor range with a mall ninja 10 feet away blasting away. I'm thrilled when I get stuff all touching!

Got a bit of a surprise today.

I weighed a box of LAPUA MIDAS + ammo, and the incredible thing is all weighed exactly the same!

51.9 grains!!

I have weighed 22 ammo before, but I cannot recall a whole box weighing the same!

On another note, while shooting the groups posted for the run out test, First shot on target, then the second goes in exactly the same hole - as far as I can tell on a 32X scope from 50 yards. Then I try to be extra careful with the next one, and it lands relatively way off to the side!!

I am almost certain that the problem lies with the powder and priming compound - something non of us has any control over.

I am delighted to see that the quest continues ans that Saeed and the rest of us are posting on this subject.

We could add powder positioning to the test, holding the cartridge upright or inverted before loading. Might also give a few rounds a shake and see what that does.

And also, someone could test accuracy after some cartridges had been placed in a holder and the holder spun in an electric drill (one direction at a time) for a few seconds.

I offer these ideas to others. I have only an outdoor range with lots of wind. Too many variables to interfere with highly demanding testing. But I do know that the way to high scores is the high priced ammunition.

We try several lots of different lots until I find one that shoots well in my rifle. Then I buy five bricks of that lot. But you have to have a local dealer that will work with you.

We can't adjust rim fire loads, so I do that way.

I have never had any problem with .17 hmr. Anybody else?

We shoot matches each week, varying distance & format. About a year ago, one of the guys brought a high-end .17 HMR. We were all surprised that at 200 yards it was not as accurate as our ordinary target rifles.

I have started to do two things with all my .22 LR ammo:

1. I purchased a rim thickness gauge from Champion. About $6.00. I measure and group the cartridges by rim thickness.

2. I weigh each cartridge. Assumption is that the brass and bullet are nominally consistent. Leaves the powder charge, which is usually the cause, as the component being weighed. Then group the previously sorted ammunition by weights. Actually there are very few that are "out" but those would throw off a shot.

Has made a difference across the board with all types of ammunition brands. Even the cheap stuff shoots more consistently when grouped.

My 2 cents.