I had the opportunity to test some lots of Eley Match ammo in an indoor tunnel range recently. Here’s some pics and results from my Suhl 150 .22lr benchrest rifle. I wasn't testing anything new with the rifle, just comparing some new-to-me lots of Eley Match against my current stash of "good" ammo.

Our first order of business was borescoping the barrel. We took a look at this same barrel, a factory Suhl barrel, last year and it looks unchanged to my eyes (a good thing). By borescoping before and after this shooting session, I got a much clearer picture (literally) of how this barrel fouls and what my typical cleaning does with it. A couple of "before" pics:



There was a hint of carbon at 12:00 in the leade and after shooting over 200 rounds and pulling three dry patches through the bore ASAP after the last target as I usually do (while the wax and fouling is still warm and soft), a little more had built up with some lead but not much. I expected to see more.



I shot some with my rifle on my two-piece rests, and with a Pappas one-piece rest too.



My rig is just a few inches too long for this bench, but even with a bit of the rear rest base hanging off- it was surprisingly stable as-is with the two piece setup.



The targets will tell us otherwise, but I think the main advantages to a one-piece are convenience and speed. I don't think my rifle shoots significantly better with either setup- at least it didn't this past weekend.

Tried shooting some targets with a Pappas slide on the tuner. Space gun or target rifle?



Here's the view through my Leupold 40x at a fully-ventilated ARA test target, 50 yards downrange. The targets were scanned and measured/scored with OnTarget TDS software.



I fired 30 shots per each lot #, without cleaning or adjusting the scope between switching lots. Results varied from so-so (seen above) to surprisingly good.

Here's one of the test targets I shot and resulting analysis from OnTarget TDS.





Not bad- if only #11 hadn't dropped like that.

For the sake of consistency with testing, we didn't touch the scope after sighting it in so the test targets are scored with the point of impact adjusted to match point of aim. So, the targets are scored based off the calculated center of the group shown with the green crosshairs in the 25-shot group overlay.

If the score on the paper target was the priority, we would have taken the time to zero in the scope dead on. However since we were testing, we let TDS do the adjusting to calculate the potential scores. It does highlight the importance of having your scope zero correct, since that little bit of horizontal and vertical offset makes a big difference in the target score.

If it were a match, the computer would score based on the center of the target as it is on paper and not adjusted like we were doing it.

Again, we were testing for the precision of the rifle with different lots of ammo and not the accuracy relative to the target. As an extreme example, targets like this one below might be awful on the paper itself because we didn't adjust the scope but will look very different when adjusted with the software on the computer.



Here's some more target results.







How about this one? It has the most vertical out of all of the targets (a LOT of vertical), but also has some of the least horizontal dispertion in the groups too. Maybe I was having an issue with my rests after all? A bit of a head scratcher.



What it all boils down to... Happiness is a pile of hot brass

In the early 70s I watched a couple of women shooters culling ammo for their rifles. One of the girls was about 14 or 15 and her dad said he had her test the ammo in the wind because it tended to show the fliers from velocity variations. True or not I don't know.
But the 2 girls were the best shooters I ever saw.
The younger one was Schuyler Helbing and the older one was Sue Ann Sandusky from the team at TCU.

1974 and 1975 Women's gold team World's championship

When I grow up I want a 50-yard indoor range...

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
In the early 70s I watched a couple of women shooters culling ammo for their rifles. One of the girls was about 14 or 15 and her dad said he had her test the ammo in the wind because it tended to show the fliers from velocity variations. True or not I don't know.
But the 2 girls were the best shooters I ever saw.
The younger one was Schuyler Helbing and the older one was Sue Ann Sandusky from the team at TCU.
1974 and 1975 Women's gold team World's championship

I think testing ammo outdoors may have some validity just to make sure there isn't anything funny going on, but I'm a big believer in indoor testing first. We already check the velocity of every single shot with a chronograph and compare it to the results on paper too, and outdoor conditions would probably (definitely) nullify those results if I were pulling the trigger. You know those little bullets are finicky. Since I've built up this rifle myself (and it isn't the first .22lr benchrest gun I've messed with), indoor testing has become invaluable to me for rifle testing, tuning and troubleshooting. Just my experience.

The owner of this indoor range I was shooting in placed second last year at the ARA Indoor Nationals benchrest match and has IHMSA national and state championships to his name so I trust his judgement.

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:
When I grow up I want a 50-yard indoor range...

Me too... gotta have dreams, right?

I finally got my benchrest rig outdoors and shot in an IR 50/50 match this past weekend. Posted three consective 249 scores, with one narrow miss on each target.



The miss on #13 here was pure operator error... was stuck on autopilot and pulled the trigger while watching the flags switch. At least I know it's me and not the rifle.



Some videos from the match:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yco4Gs3o-2A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjJR34sF9aQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-Sl11uS5Bc