Walther KK200 50 Yards

Walther KK200 75 Yards


Walther KK 200 100 yards


Bleiker 50 yards


Bleiker 75 yards

Bleiker 100 yards

Ruger 10/22 50 yards

Ruger 10/22 75 yards

Ruger 10/22 100 yards

Sako P04 50 yards

Sako P04 75 yards

Sako P04 100 yards


We received a new batch of ammo, and thought of shooting a few thousand rounds through a few of our 22 rim fire rifles.

Last time we did this test we had quite a number of questions, so we have tried to include all the relative details. Making them easier to see.

The above is at 50 yards.

I have already finished both the 75 yards and 00 yards in the Walther KK200. And will start testing the same ammo in the Bleiker F3-F79.

We are also planning to test two Kinber rifles. One brand new and one we have had for a number of years.

A Sako switch barrel rifle, as well as a Ruger 10/22 and a Remington 541.

So far we have fired over 60,000 rounds of ammo, and the only misfire we got was with 2 rounds from Remington Target ammo. I took the bullets out, there was powder in there, but no priming compound.

I hope you find this of interest.

Ho hum! A really difficult existance.
Good information though, thanks for the effort.

Once again a stupendous job. It would be indeed interesting as more results come in.

Excellent Saeed! Thank you for posting these test results I always look forward to your trials on 22 rim fire. It seems RWS is holding well with Eley and Lapua about tied, Keep up the good work.

Very interesting! Look forward to the next round. Thanks, Saeed.

75 yards results have been posted.

Glad to see you tested the cheap Federal-made "American Eagle" brand.
That is good enough for my plinking and rabbit hunting.
For serious squirrel hunting, I'll try the Lapua-made "Midas L" that scored a 0.035" 5-shot group at 50 yards.
However, one of the groups from that Midas L ammo had a solitary flyer.
Did Walter shoot that group?

RIP,

No, I did all the shooting, and you have highlighted something that has always bothered me about 22 ammo.

Even the very expensive match ammo, one seems to always come across the odd round that wants to behave differently.

Even some of the cheaper ammo. You fire a shot, followed by another one. They both go into the same hole. So take extra care about the next shot - not that one needs to, as the rifle is rested and has absolutely no movement.

The next shot makes a different sound, and goes into its own seperate hole!

Iunderstand that is why Larry Brown - the inventor of BR50? - gave up on it because of the lack of consistency from the ammo.

Lot of fun shooting there.

I hate to be picky but someone isn't doing a very good job of measuring groups. It seems to hold true for all of them, but let's just use the above Lapua center group "measuring" 0.268 inches. To be be a true CTC group of .268 inches it would have to be just very slightly larger than 2 bullet holes touching (2 .22 LR bullets touching exactly at very edge of each would have a CTC of .223), the ".268" center group above obviously has a gap of about a full bullet diameter or slightly larger between the top and bottom bullet holes, that would make it at least a .446" group.

Gatogordo,

You are right, the group measured 0.490.

I use an attachment used for measuring groups mounted on a digital caliper, measurements are taken, and directly read out.

You might see the tear in the target paper causing it to look bigger.

I smooth the target from the back to get a correct reading.

Yes, it is a lot of fun shooting these, but very frustrating too.

We had Dwight Scott visting us a few years ago. Dwight is a member of the Hall Of Fame in bench rest, and has won numerous bench rest championships.

I asked him to shoot a few groups with our match 22 rifles.

He tried all sorts of tricks, but none seemt o work for rim fire.

We got the Walther G22 today, and it would be interesting to test this one.

I will put the same 8.5-25x scope on it.

G22

quote:

Even the very expensive match ammo, one seems to always come across the odd round that wants to behave differently.

Just a thought ..HMMMM ?

How about weighing each loaded round before firing,.. to test, " IF " that might be a variance factor ( Bullet ? / Powder ? ).

PAPI

quote:

Originally posted by PAPI:

quote:

Even the very expensive match ammo, one seems to always come across the odd round that wants to behave differently.

Just a thought ..HMMMM ?

How about weighing each loaded round before firing,.. to test, " IF " that might be a variance factor ( Bullet ? / Powder ? ).

PAPI

WE actually did just that before, and the results were not very encouraging.

But, our main reason for the test to see what the ammo will do out of the box.

In some of the groups, you will see a bullet way out of the rest of that group - especially at the 100 yards test. This one we can clearly hear as being either much louder or much quieter than the rest of the ammo in the group.

There was definitley somethign wrong with that particular round. But, it had come from the same box!

The test is supposed to show the results as they are. All the groups come from the same box. But not all the groups at different distances of the same type are necessarily from the same batch.

Saeed:

My point was that not only was that particular group incorrectly measured but that they all are, at least all the ones that I can see. It would seem to have a valid comparison, the measurements would have to be accurate.

The problem with weighing ammo is there's no way to tell where the variances are coming from. Bullet? Case? Powder? etc.

Saeed did you clean the bore during the testing?

Gatogordo,

Here is how we measure groups.

If anyone has a better idea, I am open to suggestions.

The barrel was cleaned before shooting at a specific distance, then 10 shots were fired before the commencement of the test.

No cleaning was done during each distance test.

I got a rim measurement tool, and have measured a few rounds.

Some seem to vary by 2-3 thou, while others by up to 6 thou.

I only measured a few rounds though.

After I am through with this test, I might trying segregating ammo by rim thickness and weight, and see how that goes.

The tools are only as good as who is using them. Someone can't measure worth a damn. I can give dozens of examples just like above from your "measured" groups. In fact, I don't think any of the groups are correctly measured, and, if they were, it was an accident. Just for an example, of the ten groups shown above on this page, there is not ONE that is correct or even very close.

The group you're showing in your pic of your measuring device is not close either. For instance, the bottom one "measuring" .191 is not correct. To measure .191 CTC you would have to have the maximum width of the group being slightly less that 2 bullet diameters, meaning the fartherest out holes would have to overlap by about 10%. That is obviously not true. My GUESS is that the bottom group is about .30 and the top group is about .60 or a bit larger and my "eyeball" guesses are going to be closer than the measurements shown.

I am also guessing that the problem is the adjustment of your mike, not taking into account the correct offset for the tool.

The measurement method is excellent,
but I won't be checking every group size for typos!

I was taught to never clean a 22RF rifle barrel if
the wax-lubed lead bullet was all that was fired

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
The measurement method is excellent,
but I won't be checking every group size for typos!

I was taught to never clean a 22RF rifle barrel if
the wax-lubed lead bullet was all that was fired

RIP:

See above and why don't you point out a group that doesn't have a "typo".

BTW I'm not pointing this out to denigrate Saeed's efforts in any way. It looks like a lot of fun but if you're going to post group sizes comparing different ammos then the groups should reflect reality. I'm sure Saeed agrees.

Gatogordo,

I am afraid this is the only way I know to measure targets.

i.e. take measurements from the two furthest bullets ousise diameters, and subtract one bullet diameter from that.

The instrument shown above makes that easier, as it is setup to zero with one bullet inside the ring of the right size. So whatever indications one gets as one measures, that is what the group size is.

In my measurements, I try to make sure that the half circle of each side of the measuring tool is as close to the bullet hole circle as possible.

I have tried comparing measuring with normal digital calipers, and subtract a bullet diameter. My measurements always came within 3-5 thou of the measurements taken by the above instrument.

Well, Saeed, I don't know what you're doing wrong, but it's wrong, and that's that.

Just for an example, your first target in the 50 yd link is for Eley 10x and has 5 groups all in the .1s. NOT one of the 5 groups is in the ones. To be in the ones, you have to have a group where there is NOT 2 separate bullet holes visible, otherwise it has to be at least .223. ALL of the above 5 groups have 2 distinct bullet holes visible and thus all are in the .2s at least.

I can "eyeball" the smaller groups and come closer than those published measurements. It is harder on the larger groups because it is harder to "carry over" x number of bullet holes mentally and correctly to get a total CTC. Just for the fun of it, and I am GUESSING by just observing the groups, the first 50 yd Eley 10X groups, top left, top rt, center, bottom left, bottom rt will measure about .29, .43, .28, .38, and .29 respectively, obviously a considerable difference than the .1s groups shown.

First 75 yd group using Eley Match is the same way, they are ALL wrong. The center target at a "measured" .210 is the closest to being accurate but it will still measure about .3 or more. I could go on and on, but it is obvious to the naked eye if you use your head and not your ego about the mistaken measurements.

I'm not going to argue about this any longer, they are your guns, your bullets, and your measurements, so do what you want, but it is a shame to go to all that shooting and have no valid comparable results when it could be fixed so easily. Have fun and good shooting, however you measure it.

Very good info Saeed, thanks for sharing it with us.

Gatogordo,

I have asked a few friends who are involved in benchrest shooting, and all of them have said my way of measurement is correct.

I will repeat it here again.

The instrument I am using has three cut outs.

One for each of 0.224, 0.243 and 0.308.

The instructions state that one should mount them on the calipers, place the correct size bullet - in this case I used a 0.224 bullet - close them and zero the calipers.

I then take measurements from the furthest two bullet holes, and what is indicated is the group size.

There is no other way that I know of measuring group size.

I am sorry you don't agree with this. But, as you have stated, I am doing the test, and to the best of my knowledge, the test is accurate.

GUESSING the group size from half way across the world by looking at a photos which has been resized and optimized for the web does not make your measurements more accurate.

A friend has an old Mauser bolt action 22 - not sure of the model. Will know when he brings it here in 3 weeks time. I will add that to my test.

The plan is to test as many different rifles as I can find.

I have to break off the fun shooting this until after Christmas, as I will be travelling.

Season's greatings to you, your family, and all the members of AR.

Well, let's see. I point out that a group that you "measured" as .268 is wrong, and has to be at least .446 since there were 2 distinct bullet holes visible with a large gap. You re-measured and it was, voila, now .490. I may be "guessing" from half way around the world, but so far my guesses are much closer to correct on the one group you re-measured. Your "way" of measuring groups is correct, it's the results that are wrong.

To be in the ones, there CANNOT be two distinct bullet holes visible or, the group will obviously be .223 or large. THAT IS TRUE OF ALL THE "ONES" YOU MEASURED ON THE 50 YARD 10X.
Now you can talk about method and instructions all you want but 2 distinct bullet holes tell me that a group can not be in the ones and that's that. I am certain that my eye is better than your "measured" results on the targets in question for the simple reason that "ones" groups can't make 2 bullet holes.

It's amazing that you are sitting there, and in this thread, showing a group measuring .191 with your gauge and mike in the pic above, with 2 distinct bullet holes. Tell me how that works. That group is more like .3. The other group in the same pic is wrong too BTW. It's at least .55. Why, because my "eye" from half way around the world can tell that there are very close to 2 bullet diameters BETWEEN the outside holes. I think there may be a bit less than 2 whole diameters, so I gave a half a bullet diameter and came up with .55 (and it's probably a bit more) and that is going to be a helluva lot closer than your .467. To be .467 there can only be just a small fraction over 1 bullet diameter between the inside of the outside bullet holes. That is obviously not true.

I am absolutely done. You are talking about "instructions" and methods when using an absolute minimum of common sense will tell you that you have made mistakes by simply looking at the groups in question. For the 50 yd Eley 10X target I discussed above, if there are not 2 distinct bullet hole diameters, not touching, easily visible, on ALL 5 of the "ONES" groups, I'll eat the target covered in camel shit. Just look at it. To repeat, 2 distinct .223 holes cannot be in the "ones" and that is a physical reality, however one measures it.

Gatogordo,

I had an officer from the US Marines here this afternoon, and showed him this thread, and how I measure them.

He did not see anything wrong!!?

Saeed:

I was done but since you addressed me directly, I'll try this one more time.

I'm not arguing with your method, it is your results that are wrong.

Apparently you're telling me the physical reality that 2 distinct .22LR bullet holes just TOUCHING MUST measure .223 and any farther distance between the holes must be LARGER than that is trumped by your measurements. LOOK AT THE DAMN GROUPS and use your brain not your "instrument". I can be stubborn, but your refusal to use your brain and logic in this is bordering on the ridiculous.

Can you honestly sit there, look at the 50 yd Eley 10X groups (just as one example) and say that you can't see 2 distinct bullet diameters (holes) for each group? So, how can they be in the ones as you have "measured" all of them? Answer: They are not.


Since it's on this page, I'll give another example. It is an absolute fact that if you have 3 .22 LR bullet (.223 diameter) holes in a straight row, all exactly just touching the bullet hole next to it that the group would measure .446 CTC. Now using that information, let's look at the Am. Eagle top left group above. There are 5 shots, 3 in an enlarged hole on the bottom, one above those 3 slightly left and about a bullet hole diameter from the first 3 holes. IF we stopped there, your "measurement" of .473 would be approximately correct BUT the group doesn't stop there, there is the final 5th hole ABOVE and centered on the bottom 3 and it is well over 1/2 a bullet diameter farther out from the center hole. THUS the group will measure somewhere in the area of .75, NOT .473. Simple physical reality and "measuring" it won't change that.

I just glanced thru all the 50 yd groups and at first look they are all wrong and I don't mean by a thousandth or so. I repeat, LOOK at the groups and use your brain.

To measure small .22 rimfire groups measure outside to outside of the smudge marks (they were made by the bullet) and subtract .223. 22 LR bullets and bores measure .223 + or - .001.

I don't intend to enter into this discussion as I believe that both Gato and Saeed are sincere, as well as gentlemen; however, it appears to me that in the last photo with the calipers showing .1915" that the gap between the edges of the caliper "bushing" is slightly less than a .22 caliber hole. Thus, .1915" would be a credible measurement.

There are other groups on which the measurement would appear to possibly be in error, but it is impossible to say in the absence of the actual target.

Using various methods of group measurement, I have always found that the best "double check" to assure that your measurements are close is to simply place the edges of a regular caliper as close to the centers (of any size bullet holes) and take a reading. This is not precise, but it usually keeps you from being "fooled" by inconsistent, torn, or ragged hole edges.

Well, duh, Stonecreek. The gap may be .191 BUT there are obviously 2 bullet holes VISIBLE (see the white target paper between lower left hole and upper rt holes?) which don't touch, thus the GROUP CAN NOT be .191. The object is not to measure some indefinite "gap" but to measure a group, isn't it? So with 2 distinct bullet holes, not touching, how credible can .191 be as a GROUP measurement? Damn, Forest Gump lives.

Let me repeat the obvious for you one more time. If you have 2 .223 bullet holes NOT TOUCHING the GROUP CAN'T be in the ones. Geeesh.

quote:

There are other groups on which the measurement would appear to possibly be in error, but it is impossible to say in the absence of the actual target.

Oh, horse manure. That's ridiculous. No, it isn't. I can go through nearly EVERY group measured in this whole test and demonstrate with 100% reliablility that they are not correct. I would say all of them, but I haven't really looked at each of them thoroughly, but I have NOT seen one group that will pass the logic test. The very first one I pointed out when "re-measured" increased in size by over 80%. That alone should have told Saeed or anyone who cared to use their brains that something was wrong with the measuring process. That was not some fluke or a one time mistake. Instead he and apparently you want to defend the process when the results are OBVIOUSLY incorrect.

Just for starters, of the 10 groups shown in the two targets on this page, THERE IS NOT ONE GROUP THAT IS CORRECT and I can explain why easily enough. The smallest group on there, "measuring" .035 is going to measure at least .07 and thus is off by 100% or more. To be a .035 group your eye MIGHT be able to see a slightly enlarged single hole. INSTEAD there are 2 distinct bullet holes visible that overlap by possibly as much as 2/3, giving the benefit of the doubt, I'm calling it .07, but it might easily be .1 or more. And the beat could go on and on.......

It would be easy enough to fix all the groups and all results would be within a thousandth or two, which is certainly close enough for non-competitive work and FAR closer than what is shown. Simply lay the group down, take a mic and measure fartherest apart outside to outside holes , subtract .223 and, voila, you've got a really close measurement. Want to bet that the "gap" group you're referring to will measure MORE than .446 outside to outside? It will, in fact, be more like .54, minus .223 and you have an approximate .30 group, NOT .1915 and could be larger since I can't really see the width of the holes at the top (the ones with the gap referred to) because it is covered by the tool.

A modest suggestion:

I'm assuming that Saeed has preserved these targets. He could scan a few of them that are in dispute and email them to Gato. Gato could then print them off and make his own measurements and report his results. It should be easy enough with the reference markings on the targets (which appear to be 1/4") , to assure that the scanning/printing process allows the targets to come through accurately dimensioned.

The targets could even be emailed to a couple of other "disinterested" parties to get their measurements.

Would this endeavor help reach a resolution?

By the way, where do you get the caliper attachments, Saeed? I've never seen any like them before (perhaps just haven't been paying attention), but they look like the cat's whiskers for group measurement.

Why bother? They are so obviously wrong and Saeed apparently thinks his "measurement method" is infallible and his results are correct that mine wouldn't make any difference. The emperor apparently, clothed or not, can't be wrong. I mean, the fact that the group measurements are so obviously incorrect, as I have explained and demonstrated why over and over, that it's absurd to even discuss it.

I'll make an offer, have Saeed, take ANY of the above 12 groups, put a plain mic on the outside of fartherest apart bullet holes and let's see what it says. If ANY of them are what is written down, I'll humbly apologize and eat crow.

I note that you didn't want to bet on your .191 "gap group". Good move. Will you even admit that 2 distinct separate .223 bullet holes can't measure in the "ones"?

Finally, I'm am absolutely DONE with this topic.
All I can say is that it is a shame to do all that shooting and have the "measured" group sizes mean absolutely nothing.

I'll leave the readers to make their own conclusions, hopefully from looking at the groups and using a bit of logic.

C'mon, Gato, you're a bigger man than this and much more of a gentleman. It is certainly possible that there are some mismeasurments, and I see some which I would question.

However, with the .1915" group it appears that the two widest holes might very well slightly overlap, which would make them something less than .223". An overlap of only .03" (the difference in a .22 bullet a one from a .25 ACP) is mighty hard to see, especially with a third bullet fired on top of the two. As I said earlier, it impossible to say without having the actual target in hand (and even then, it can be damn hard).

The electronic calipers Saeed is using must be zeroed each time they are turned on to account for the attachments. I have a similar electronic caliper (a couple of them, in fact) and have found that as they are held in the hand and begin to warm that they begin to measure shorter and shorter. It is possible that this phenomenon is at play here and some of the groups were measured short due to the caliper being in use for an extended period without rezeroing. Saeed, you might want to check this.

Even if there are some mismeasurments in terms of standard units of inches or mm, it seems as if the measurements are, relative to one another, fairly consistent. If so, the test is a valid one since the goal was to ascertain the relative accuracy of each brand of ammunition, which the test seems to do. If remeasured, a particular brand/type of ammunition might move up or down the ranks a place or two, but most appear to be ranked appropriately.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
C'mon, Gato, you're a bigger man than this and much more of a gentleman. It is certainly possible that there are some mismeasurments, and I see some which I would question.

However, with the .1915" group it appears that the two widest holes might very well slightly overlap, which would make them something less than .223". An overlap of only .03" (the difference in a .22 bullet a one from a .25 ACP) is mighty hard to see, especially with a third bullet fired on top of the two. As I said earlier, it impossible to say without having the actual target in hand (and even then, it can be damn hard).

The electronic calipers Saeed is using must be zeroed each time they are turned on to account for the attachments. I have a similar electronic caliper (a couple of them, in fact) and have found that as they are held in the hand and begin to warm that they begin to measure shorter and shorter. It is possible that this phenomenon is at play here and some of the groups were measured short due to the caliper being in use for an extended period without rezeroing. Saeed, you might want to check this.

Even if there are some mismeasurments in terms of standard units of inches or mm, it seems as if the measurements are, relative to one another, fairly consistent. If so, the test is a valid one since the goal was to ascertain the relative accuracy of each brand of ammunition, which the test seems to do. If remeasured, a particular brand/type of ammunition might move up or down the ranks a place or two, but most appear to be ranked appropriately.

The caliper are checked for zero each time I uae them.

I think my problem is the paper - I am printing it myself on locally available paper. It is not what one might call "target" paper, as it tears. If one looks at a group after it has been shot, it gives the impresssion of a much larger hole because of the tear.

But, I turn the target over, and smooth the holes together to take my measurements.

As I mentioned earlier, we had a visit from a friend who is marine officer.

I showed him the targets and our measurements and how I do them.

He said "Nothing wrong with that!"

Saeed, why no Wolf match target or match extra in your test? My CZ 452 loves the Match target over any other 22 ammo, high dollar or not,

As spurred by the measure this group thread.

"My 2 cents. It's about .191 center to center. If you use the diameter of the indicater, .22 nominal the caliper is open about the same amount. The center of both outside rounds is with in the middle round.

If someone where so inclined the photo quality is good enough to use On Target to measure all of the groups. The couple I questioned measure near enough on the the screen without going through the hassel."

I don't have a dog in this but there are a couple I'd remeasure, one or two look off but it could be my measurements.

Drawn in Autocad, to 4 decimal place accuracy, if you draw 2 circles of .223 diameter and place them side by side, touching, the distance center to center is .223, therefore they cannot measure .191".
In that closeup with the calipers, there appears to be a third bullet hole below them, giving the appearance that the 2 outermost holes have room between them for even more distance than the claimed .191.

Sorry, but Gator is correct. Groups are measured center to center and would have to overlap to be less than the bullet diameter.

If I get a chance later, I'll post a pdf of it, traced from your picture and sized appropriately.

Interesting.........when drawn and scaled in Autocad, the 22 caliber holes are inconclusive due to their fuzzy outlines; they are too rough to be accurately located by the method I'm using. However, the line spacing of the paper is very close to .191; the orange aiming dot appears to be just about 5/16". Perhaps Saeed can confirm some known measurements for us.

I traced the top portion of the gizmo that Saeed says is for .308 so I'm assuming the arcs of that area are 308" diameter.This is what I scaled the whole drawing to. Done this way, the center to center hole locations taken off those top arcs are very close to the .191" measurement. Ignoring the 22 caliber holes in paper again, I traced the arcs and drew a line from center to center; came up with .195", which I would say is withing the limits of error of what I'm doing.

I'm going to measure one of the American Eagle groups next, the .184" one.

Regarding the AE .184 group, tracing the outline of the dark areas of the paper and picking the center of the holes as best I can due to the imperfect arcs, I come up with a .254 distance center to center of the holes at the 12 and 6 o'clock positions. I scaled it using the .191" line spacing on the paper (if indeed that is what it is); the black aiming dot appears to be .204" diameter or so. The distance from 6 to 3 o'clock center to center is about .259", give or take. I get .55" for the group above it, the one labeled .473. The orange dot there seems to measure .213" or so.

I have to remind myself that a .224 bullet does not leave a hole in paper of .224 so all these measurements simulated but its the best I can do with the photo's.

quote:

However, the line spacing of the paper is very close to .191; t

It is much closer to, if not exactly, 1/4 inch (.250).

Look at the upper rt group on the Am Eagle set, (.374 group) lower left bullet hole which almost exactly centers a pair of lines. If the lines were .191 then the bullet hole would be extending beyond each line. It does not.

"So I played with On Target and centered up the shots over the approximate centers, knowing that the smudge of a .22 round nose is smaller than the bullet size and came up with .219 or .222 inches for the group doing it twice to see how it would come out. Measuring the smudge alown may be .191. I may play with the other groups to see if they are as different as I think they are." My answer in the Measure this group thread.


To determine size I used On Target. My first step was to establish that the distance between the points on the .22 hole on the moving jaw was .224. This sets the scale in the picture then I overlayed the holes by centering over the shot. I repeated this twice to see how big a difference I would come up with.

284 WIN, the third "center" hole is below the center line of the other two holes. Interestingly enough the two outer shots sit on the rim of the center shot. It does not appear that my picture uploaded properly.