I measured the .467 as .519.

There is definitely room for error in my estimating, particularly since the photo's are not taken perpendicular to the paper but at an angle. Even that small angle skews the results some. My work wasn't perfect but I agree with Gato, there is no way those groups are correctly labeled.

On to other arguments, like whats better, Coke or Pepsi?

DIET DR. PEPPER!

Really my choice.

I think this is more academic than anything else. It's the lot of ammo he has and the gun he's shooting. I used to get decent, not outstanding groups with Thunderbolts. It was the fliers that killed them, 2 bangs a pop and 2 more bangs. My highlight is I took time to use On Target and for a free down load it was easy to use and worked well.

Happy Holidays.

Sam, thanks for the excellent work.

It appears to me that the error in Saeed's measurements is mostly in assuming that the apparent edge of the hole is the actual edge of the hole. The error in Gato's estimation is in assuming that the tag of white target paper in between the two holes represents an actual space between the holes rather than simply a displacement of the paper by a previous shot.

In reality, bullet holes from round nose .22 RF ammunition appear a few hundredths smaller than the actual diameter of the bullet, while the same (or similar phenomenon) can make it appear that there is untouched paper between two bullet holes which actually overlap.

I wouldn't be willing to say what the actual group measurement is without examining the physical paper, but your calculation of .221" is probably very, very close.

For a long time I tried to promote the idea of finding or developing a better target material than paper that would provide clean, full diameter holes with sharp edges that could enable TRULY accurate group size determinations. I even did find one common material that shows it IS possible and posted photos showing clean, full diameter bullet holes in it. The response? Basically all I got for it was resistance, criticism, and even ridicule.

I figure some materials science research (university or industrial labs) could come up with some replacement for the inadequate (for accurate group size measurement) material we seem to be "addicted" to since virtually the beginning of target shooting. But seems I've been a lone wolf at this quest although this thread clearly shows the limitation and problem of using paper (processed wood fibers). Why the heck are we so stuck on using a 16th (or so) century material? Some are even so stupid to say "because it's cheap". Yeah, right...makes sense - you drive your $30,000 car to the range ($500 annual range/club fee), take out your $4,000 target rifle with your handloaded ammo (@ $0.75 - $4 a pop) and then complain about paying $.10 more for the target material to record your results...Uh-Huh

Trouble we have here is not being able to find the right quality paper to print our targets on.

I have been out of the country - I am in Geneva airport right now. And will continue the test as I have being doing.

As I have mentioned earlier, I have had visitors from the US Marines, and have shown them the targets, and how I measure them, and no one found anything wrong.

It seems funny that each time I do a rimfire ammo test, I get some negative views.

Last time we did this, I was told that my tests are meaningless, as the number of groups is far too small!!??

I am not doing a scientific test.

I am shooting all the ammo I can get hold of, in as many different rifles as I can.

This I am hoping will give us an idea how different ammo shoot in different rifles.

And from past experience with rimfire ammo, anyone else - or even me doing the test a year from now - will most likely get a different result.

But, the most important part is, I am finding shooting this test fascinating.

quote:

But, the most important part is, I am finding shooting this test fascinating.

I do too Saeed!! Thanks.

Today I fired 10 shots all over the target, toget individual bullet holes, using ammo from the same box.

My intention was to use a micrometer and measure each bullet hole as accurately as I can, using a magnifying glass.

Hole size varried from 0.191 to the 0.239!

I measured as accurately as I could, from the furthest black mark on the paper.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Today I fired 10 shots all over the target, toget individual bullet holes, using ammo from the same box.

My intention was to use a micrometer and measure each bullet hole as accurately as I can, using a magnifying glass.

Hole size varried from 0.191 to the 0.239!

I measured as accurately as I could, from the furthest black mark on the paper.

Pictures?

Oh and regarding the .191 group in question - how about posting two pics - one showing the reading with the calipers closed and next, measure the group again without changing any settings on the tool and show the reading. Should settle things.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Today I fired 10 shots all over the target, toget individual bullet holes, using ammo from the same box.

My intention was to use a micrometer and measure each bullet hole as accurately as I can, using a magnifying glass.

Hole size varried from 0.191 to the 0.239!

I measured as accurately as I could, from the furthest black mark on the paper.

Further proves my point that something better/other than paper is needed!

quote:

Originally posted by sonofagun:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Today I fired 10 shots all over the target, toget individual bullet holes, using ammo from the same box.

My intention was to use a micrometer and measure each bullet hole as accurately as I can, using a magnifying glass.

Hole size varried from 0.191 to the 0.239!

I measured as accurately as I could, from the furthest black mark on the paper.

Further proves my point that something better/other than paper is needed!

So what do you suggest we use?

Saeed, ever tried OnTarget software? http://ontargetshooting.com/

Saeed, just want to say that however the business of measuring is resolved, your tests do give a meaningful sense of the relative accuracy of the different brands. Look forward to the 100-yeard results too.

quote:

So what do you suggest we use?

Something better developed in some university or industrial materials research lab. I'd think with sll the know-how and resources available in such, they could come up with a better material.

All that would be needed for group size determination would be a small square piece of the material (say 2 x 2) per target/group.

I actually went to all the paper dealers we have here, and got samples from them.

I then fired 10 shots each of the following:

22 rim fire standard velocity
22 rim fire high velocity
223 military ball 55 grains
308 military ball 150 grain.

They were were fired as individual bullets, to create individual bullet holes.

I then measured all of them.

And NONE measure as large as the actual bullet making the hole!!??

One of the paper stock seems to shoe the holes clearer than the rest, so I am going to get some of this paper, and print my targets on them.

NO paper gives clean holes. Some other material then paper is needed. I keep saying that.

Guess I'll have to find and post some pictures of a material I found that worked better, but still not ideal.

Just an update on this test.

I have found some paper which does show the bullet holes much better, and I am using these now.

I have finished shooting the Walther K200 at 100 yards, so that particular rifle is finished.

I have shot the Bleiker F3-F79 at 50 and 75 yards, and now shooting the 100 yards groups.

I have not posted the results, as I have not had the chance to scan the targets. That particular computer which is connected to the scanner seems to be processing videos non-stop..

As soon as I scan them I will post my results.

I have a number of other rifles, and I think a custom Ruger 10/22 is going to be next.

This particular Ruger belonged to my late father. I gave it to him many years ago.

When he passed away, I kept it, and changed the stock and barrel, and gave it to my daughter Hessa.

Her and her friends love to shoot golf balls with it. They really enjoy seeing the balls bounce as they are hit.

Maybe it's just me but someone appears to be particularly "anal",(in every sense of the word), about the results of what must have taken a lot of time and effort. My thanks for providing the info for the rest of us to peruse and use in the spirit in which it was intended. In other words, someone needs to lighten up! I for one appreciate someone taking the time to help me narrow down all the choices or at least compare what I have in stock with the others out there. Many thanks Saeed!!!

Just checking back in to this thread. Back in my smallbore rifle shooting days, before I started shooting double rifles, we used to use a gauge to determine whether the bullet hole cut the ring or not. Saeed, have you tried this? A regular 22 bullet will do as well.
Not sure why we are obsessing about group size measurement. As long as we use the same method to measue all groups, the realtive results will be the same.
Thanks Saeed,
Peter.

I am in the process of measuring the groups - I am afraid it is quite time consuming, and I have reverted to my old method.

That is using a digital caliper and measuring from the outside of the furthest points and deducting one bullet diamer.

I also think I have eliminated a lot of the guesswork in this, as the paper I am using now does show the bullet holes much clearer.

The Walther K200 and the Bleiker have both been shot at 50, 75 and 100 yards.

I have already finished shooting the Ruger 10/22 at 50 yards.

I don't think I will be able to post any more results before March, as we have a busy schedule in February, and I am going to be out of the country for a while too.

I was asked what other rifles we have that we can include in this test.

I will post them here later.

We have teh following rifles:

1. CZ 452
2. Anschutz 1451
3. Anschutz 1416
4. KImber 22 Pro Varmint
5. Browning Gold Medalion
6. Remington 541T
7. H&K 270
8. CZ 452 with a custom barrel we have installed here.
9. Anschutz BR-50
10. Anschutz MSR RX22
11. Sako P04R
12. Walther G22

Currently I am shooting the old Ruger 10/22 which we changed the barrel on.

quote:

Oh and regarding the .191 group in question - how about posting two pics - one showing the reading with the calipers closed and next, measure the group again without changing any settings on the tool and show the reading. Should settle things.

Well??

Saeed

Let me take a moment of your time to express an honest and sincere thanks for sharing the results of your testing with us. I find it meaningful for the comparisons of the different ammo but I must say that you shoot much more exotic .22lr ammo than most lads on this forum.

May I suggest another test, if your time permits? What I would find particularly interesting would be for you to select a brand of ammo that consistently produces the best groups and then shoot that same ammo in a series of off the shelf rifles from major manufacturers of non target rifles but more the hunting and plinking kind. That would give a lot of us a feel for the inherent accuracy out of the rifles that many of us shoot and hunt with.

As far the anal retentive doom-saying engineer asshole types.....screw'em. Thanks for you work

Our mutual friend, George Vais, told me to say hello to you next time we talked.......Hello.

I am sorry for the delay in posting some of the results obtained so far.

I have been traveling quite a bit, and while back here have been busy at the range with many people - mostly kids! - who enjoy shooting.

I might have a slight break in the next few days, and if I do I will post some more details.

I am going to be tied up most of next month, so hopefully I can do more testing in May.

I have just returned to this Forum after being away for some time. I want to thank Saeed for all of this work and for sharing it with us. I really enjoy .22 rimfires and I find all of Saeed's work fascinating.

My wife owned and managed a stationery shop for 31 years. I have looked at hundreds of types of paper in the search for the best target paper. The best you can do is to find a heavy paper that works well through whatever duplicator you use, buy in reasonable bulk and store both the paper and the targets in a dry location.

I am disturbed by the nature of the discussion about Center-to Center group size. I see the group in question and agree that something seems to be amiss.

Saeed has measured many groups, read & transcribed a large number of numbers. Digital measuring devices make the work much easier and reduce eyestrain, but they also introduce more sources for error. Does the accuracy of the digital display vary over time, or as the device warms up while being held in your hand? Are there variations in the power supply? Are batteries failing? Are the internal electronic components stable? If there is a gradual drift in calibration, and if you were working with the instrument over a period of time, particularly with some interruptions, would you notice the drift?

I have a digital scale used for weighing powder and bullets. It came with calibration instructions and a set of weights. The calibration of the scale drifts over time. Why not expect this with other electronic instruments?

My father & grandfather were machinists who worked with small parts back in the pre-electronic age. They used micrometers and calipers and worked in both inch and metric units. They had small reference blocks of known thickness for checking the calibration of their micrometers. They checked more than just the zero readings. Perhaps a set of reference blocks should be added to the equipment in Saeed's shooting room.

Saeed

Thanks again for you work. I would be interested in a testing of just the common ammo available, well sometimes available, to the American shooters. It would help us in choosing the better available ammo to most of us when you have run it through your equipment.

Our buddy George Vais, told me to say hello to you so.....Hello.

Gentlemen,

Thank you for your feedback.

And TEANCUM,

Please give my best regards to George.

I have finished shooting a several rifles, each with about 60 odd types of ammo at three distances.

50,75 and 100 yards.

Due to lack of time, and being busy here at the range, I have given all the measured and scanned targets to a friends young son to size them.

I will process them into HTML format to post here as soon as I get the chance.

This test has been quite an eye opener.

Every time I got people in here who I know are good shooters, I asked them to shoot a few groups for comparison.

The results have always been the same.
We get some great groups, and some pretty awful, from the same lot of ammo and the same rifles.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have updated our tests, the links are in my post at the head of this thread.

All new targets were measured in the old fashioned way.

I,e, by measuring with digital calipers.

Some ammo were shot in some rifles, but not all.

The reason for that because we did not have enough at hand, and will shoot those once we get some more.

Also, certain types of ammo, like the CCI QUIET 22 was no good at 75 and 100 yards.

Others proved to be so bad in a rifle that we gave up on them.

This has been, and continues to be, one of the more enjoyable posts to ever be in AR.
Thank you.

Thanks Saeed! A lot of great information.

Aside-

when I competed-
(the Dark Ages)
We both weighed and mic-ed all our Match ammo-
Mostly we shot Ely and Federal Champion-

By segregating byu both weight and external specs we markedly improved our results

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
Aside-

when I competed-
(the Dark Ages)
We both weighed and mic-ed all our Match ammo-
Mostly we shot Ely and Federal Champion-

By segregating byu both weight and external specs we markedly improved our results

That is what we are planning next.

We will do both, weight and measurements separately, and both together.

I just weighed what is left of a brick of Federal new Gold Medal.

There were 337 rounds left, and they weighed as follows:

1 49.6 grains
12 50.9 grains
30 51.0 grains
58 51.1 grains
101 51.2 grains
56 51.3 grains
53 51.4 grains
23 51.5 grains
3 51.6 grains

I need a minimum of 75 rounds of a specific weight to shot the at the 3 distance, 50, 75 and 100 yards.

I shall weigh some more and then shoot them.

I am trying to sort some of the ammo by weight, to get enough sorted to shoot in 3 rifles.

Above you see our results with the new Federal Gold Medal.

Here is the results of the RWS Target Rifle ammo.

3 52.7 grains
100 52.8 grains
115 52.9 grains
106 53.0 grains
22 53.1 grains
3 53.2 grains.

RWS Rifle Match

1 52.6 grains
7 52.7 grains
65 52.8 grains
108 52.9 grains
196 53.0 grains
100 53.1 grains
33 53.2 grains
5 53.3 grains

Lapua Center X

6 51.5 grains
86 51.6 grains
217 51.7 grains
184 51.8 grains
29 51.9 grains
1 52.0 grains

Holy Moly, you boys don't mess around when you decide to shoot up some ammo! Nice work!

Saeed,

I want to thank you for the time and care you have taken to prepare this and other tests on ammo. The comparison is a big help when done across the different platforms with the same ammo. I have found that each rifle is more accurate with one brand and the next rifle off the assembly line might shoot better with a completely different ammo. I like the fact that you test each rifle with so many different rifles and that you report that sometimes the ammo is obviously at fault for aberrations in groups.

As for the detractors of your work - why don't you spend the time and effort and perform your own tests and then pick apart what you do rather than picking apart the work done by someone else.

As long as all the groups are measure in the same way the "accuracy" of the comparisons is good as gold. That is to say the variations in groups is the same regardless of how they are measured as long as the same process is used. If you think the results are not accurate enough then do your own.

Saeed, I also appreciate all thye time, effort, money, and expertise you put into this .22 test. Your intention was to reveal information to all the good folks on this forum and this you have done very well. I find it very useful as I teach 4H .22 Small Bore Shooting.

As to those detractors: come on guys, lighten up and find the good in all the info you have been presented with.

Regarding group size measurements: my experience is that any group measured by five people will show five different measurements. Seldom will any two be the same.

For shooting match scoring, we have gone to a computerized system since, even on scoring ring scoring, we had times when no three people could agree on whether a shot was a 10 or a 9.

Again, thank you for the information you have presented.

Gentlemen,

We have decided to do a slightly different test.

This was decided on after talking to some of the 22 shooters we have here.

They are involved in friendly contests where individuals use whatever rifle is available to them.

This means no true match rifles, but includes heavy barrel versions.

Most of the people who shoot don't frequent the Internet, and only hear of certain techniques that might be good in improving their accuracy.

So, taking a few points that I have read about regarding the improvement in the accuracy of 22 ammo.

Such as separating the ammo by weight, rim diameter etc.

Also I have heard that some have claimed that the lube affects the accuracy of the ammo.

WE have tried to take all these points into consideration, and have set up the tests as follows.

We will use what we believe the most accurate rifle we have as a yardstick.

Our Bleiker Match Rifle

We have collected about 60 different types of ammo, from different makers.

All ammo shot for this test are from the same lot.

We shot 5, 10-groups at 100 yards from each of the following.

One box of 50 - classified as MIXED WEIGHTS
One box of 50 - selected so that each 10 rounds in a group are the same weight. Classified as WEIGHED.

One box of 50 - selected that each group of 10 has exactly the same rim thickness. Classifies as SAME RIMS.

Shooting was done off the bench.

10 rounds of the same ammo to be tested were fired first to remove any lube from the previous ammo.

I am almost done shooting, and will start marking the targets and scan them.

Them I will post them for you here.

I will also see which rifle is going to be next, and let you know.

I look forward to more testing. Like another poster said, you are able to see the relative accuracy results on the targets even if the calipers lie! Lol

Our new test first rifle is ready, and I am preparing it right now to post.

We have also stopped using the group measuring attachment - and used only digital calipers.

Also, I measured all the groups myself, rather than others measuring some groups.

Saeed, I see you are measuring velocity while doing your accuracy tests. What kinds of variation are you seeing with the various manufacturers and does it seem to correlate to group size at all? I have been running some numbers in a ballistics program and it would appear that with the .22 lr at a 100y and beyond even a 5-10 fps variation in starting velocity could cause a significant change in bullet drop. I am just wondering if real shooting shows this to be true or if it is not worth worrying about?
C.G.B.