Another interesting thing is the overall good accuracy with .22RF ammo in general.

So the problem with inaccuracy seems to be with some rifles and some rifles not taking to some ammo.

Here's a 5 shot 100yd group that a buddy of mine shot with his custom Turbo 22lr bench gun on a good condition day. The shot to the left was his first shot after he brushed the barrel and ran patches through it. He used that shot as a sighter. The last 4 shots are all stacked together.

This group was shot with $2.75 box of ammo.

Here's a 5 shot 100yd group that I shot with my Cooper 57LVT 17HMR.

I was suprised at how well lowly CCI Standard Velocity fared; as good a groups as some of the expensive ammunitions, actually better in some. I bought a few boxes to try in my Kimber 82, and lo and behold, it's the most accurate ammo I've shot in it so far.

Speaking of Kimber 82's, I noticed that Saeed had stated that a Kimber 82 and a Remington 541S were scheduled to be tested along with other rifles. No more results have been posted for quite a while. Is the rest of the shooting tests of these rimfires planned anytime in the near future??

Saeed
I bought a Browning semi-auto so I am awating your results.

I shoot a Ruger 77/22 heavy barreled factory rifle out to 200 yards frequently. I have a Weaver 4-14 power scope on it and I can hit a clay pidgeon consistently at 200 yards using wildcat or UMC .22lr ammo. I like the fact that the ammo is extremely cheap. Approximate drop from 50 yard zero to 100 yards is 7 inches and 14 more from 100 to 200 yards. People ask me what caliber it is all the time when they see me shoot it. I tried out to 300 but the drop is so much that even using the bottom of the verticle crosshair it will not hit paper. I have considered a weaver adapter and some burris rings with the offsets to add more distance but I doubt it would be enough.

As a kid in the 1960's, I shot thousands of rounds of 22 short ammunition, usually Winchester. I used a Savage bolt action with a 3/4" rimfire scope. I have hit many targets in excess of 100 yards using this combination. Have your checked the accuracy of the 22 Short? You may have to wait a second to see it hit the paper but you can see the bullet going down range when the light is right.

CCI Minimags are very accurate in my .22's. You should test them, they are cheap also.

I'm with JAL; the CCI standard velocity seems to be a consistent performer & talk about bang for the buck!

The best 22 rimfire ammo used to be capable of sub 1/2 inch groups at 100 yards. It took the best barrels fitted properly to the best actions properly epoxy bedded and good sights used. That all stopped in the 1980's. Here's what happened.

An explosion at the Eley rimfire ammo plant in Birmingham, England, killed a few people. The priming mixture was very sensitive and somehow a batch got in a situation that detonated it. Eley (and others) changed their priming mixture to make it safer. But at the expense of uniform detonation and powder ignition properties as well as the frit used to bond the chemicals together was more abrasive to barrel steel.

Since the 1980's, best 100-yard accuracy with 22 rimfire ammo has been about 3/4ths inch. If one checks the USA NRA smallbore prone 100 yard records, virtually all the ones established prior to the mid 1980's still stand. Plus those fantastic McMillan rimfire barrels used to set most of the records are no longer available. Rimfire match barrels used to last 50,000 to 60,000 rounds; nowadays they go for about 40,000 rounds.

Bart,
That's a pretty interesting post. But like most interesting posts, it leads to new questions.

One being what do you think of modern barrels like Lilja for instance relative to McMillan? McMillan predates me, so I have no experience there.

Second,I'm under the impression that benchrest rimfire folks are breaking group records pretty regularly. As I only shoot 19th and early 20th century rifles, I have no interest in the modern world, and thus, I may be mistaken. But, my impression is that records are still being made in .22 rf bench work.

Although I do not shoot modern rifles, I find that 3/4" groups quite approachable using a custom Winchester low wall, or Ballard or Martini. With modern equipment, I should think it would be trivially easy.

Anyway, your post surprises me as everyone I know says that ammunition is much better than it ever was.

Brent

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Gentlemen,

We had a number of people shooting different rifles here at our shooting range at 100 yards, and the thing that surprised me is how bad they shot!!

Admittedly, these are all hunting rifles, but some of the groups are quite big!

Next came a request for us to do a combination rifle and ammo test at 100 yards.

Any of you think this might be a worthwhile thing to do?

The test in progress. I will keep this thread at the top of the forums, and update it as we go along.

Scope is the Leupold 35x target model, which we will use on all the rifles. I will shoot all the ammo we can get hold off at 50 yards, then move on to 75, then 100. After each rifle has been shot at all the distances, I will start with a new one.

All groups shown are the average of 3 5-shot groups.

Saeed,
I am responding to you first post. I once spoke to a noted small bore shooter.... I think his name was John Chapman. His daughter and Sue Ann Sandusky practiced their 100 yard prone small bore at my clubs range. John said the competitor could get smaller groups shooting prone with a sling than they could shooting off a bench. I saw many 10 shot groups in the general size range of 1.25 inches fired by those two young women from prone with the metallic sights.
Some the used practice to pick the best lots of Eley and saved them for matches.

I will add my 2 cents to the statistics discussion.
All of the work that Saeed is doing now is interesting. However the small number of groups fired means that he could repeat the test tomorrow and get different results.

In addition the barrel time of the 22 LR is so slow that his technique may add to the groups size.

100yds with the .22rf, we've been doing just that now for more than several years up here in Anchorage.
The "idea" of using only two rounds is simply ignorant, .22lr take a while to "seat" into the bore what with more than several types of lube used these days.
We shoot outdoors so obviously the wind can ruin a group, IME many so called match loads don't work past 50yds.
My Green Moutain barrled Rugers like the basic bottom of the line Wolf Match Target ammo.
A group of us spent a summer here going for bragging rights groups @100yds bagged, any gun any sights.
The top guys all averaged under 1/2moa before subtracting bullet diameter, 1/8moa is possible when everything works out.

Mr. Bobbitt,

It is nice to see you back on these forums. When you left rec.guns it was everybody's loss. I picked up a lot of valuable info on hardware and got a new perspective on how to look at my shooting.

Hope you will stick around.

The info on the Eley mishap is interesting. At the top levels, was Eley really that far ahead of the other manufaturers that it's change in performance drives the best groups that are now available? I was under the impression that Lapua and RWS were pretty good in their own right.

ND

quote:

Originally posted by ireload2:
I will add my 2 cents to the statistics discussion.
All of the work that Saeed is doing now is interesting. However the small number of groups fired means that he could repeat the test tomorrow and get different results.

No doubt, but who says different? Saeed saw some bad grouping. Saeed set out to try a test and for me showed that most .22rf ammo was good stuff. No more no less. Different batches, rifles, time of day, who cares? We all have to shoot with our own rifle which will show it's own preference.

[/QUOTE]
In addition the barrel time of the 22 LR is so slow that his technique may add to the groups size.[/QUOTE]

Again, it was in my understanding, nothing to do with staticics or finding the "best" or anything other than a demo.
Anyone wants to do it different, OK, and post it here so we can all criticize some part of it.

Monte,
Nothing ignorant about two shots. Two shots done several times is what was talked about here, not just two shots.

And if the top guys can all bag averages under a half moa at 100 yards before subtracting bullet diameter, they can come clean up all honors in benchrest competition. But I rather doubt it myself. I even doubt they can bag those size groups as an average with only two shots per group.

Typically BR rimfire at 100 yards is won right under an inch after subtracting bullet diameter. Things must be lots different up there in AK.

Hmm, in short some do and some watch!
One of the shooters is AKFG Lee if ya wanna back check, they are basically AK Troopers up here.
You just gotta make me repeat my self, I'll make it easier!
Bullet lead formula along with the lube DISALLOW two shot groupings! You net boys don't actually go to the range do ya?
The barrel needs to "seat" to whatever particular lead/lube formula you are testing for accuracy so clean barrels still need "seating".
Yer more than welcome to "buzz" on to RFC to my post on dragon fly head shots @ 100yds. John/40 below knows me.
Alaska with it's heavy air is much tougher to group than Colo. where I....well shooters know..

JAL,

quote:

it was in my understanding, nothing to do with staticics or finding the "best" or anything other than a demo.

Without statistical significance the demo is worthless. Why bother.
You started out without a clue and you finished without a clue if the results are not statistically significant.
Your argument is typical of those with no knowledge of statistics.

Monte,

Surely you guys up in AK don't read so poorly. If I fire two shots 5 times it is no different than if I shoot 5 shots twice or 10 shots once as far as lube and such. And once again, since you did miss it Monte, no one was talking about taking two shots, switching ammo, making two shots and calling it good. Nothing of the sort.

And yes I do get out and shoot. And yes you guys aren't averaging half inch hundred yard groups before subtracting bullet diameter. I guess your keyboard accuracy could be that good though.

quote:

Originally posted by ireload2:
Your argument is typical of those with no knowledge of statistics.

Well now, I've never seen such gall.
A fella decides to shoot a few groups any YOU decide it's worthless.
Well just about everyone in the shooting sports shoots groups without statistics, and if you can't understand why that's your problem.

So, lets see you do something, ie a practical demo. And then I'll try some of the same ammo in MY rifle and see how good your statistics are to me.

No more theory crap and whinging, lets see some results.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Any of you think this might be a worthwhile thing to do?

All groups shown are the average of 3 5-shot groups.

Saeed,

I think this is an extremely worthwhile thing to do, and that the way you are going about doing it is also very good and instructive. I commend you for doing it and thank you for the valuable information you are providing.

I do have one question: What means do you use to measure your groups, and how can you measure them to the thousandth of an inch?

I measure groups with a dial caliper, and I have trouble getting them accurately measured to the hundredth of an inch.

If you try to measure them center to center, you often have trouble (or I do anyway) determining just where the center is because that is where the hole is in the paper, and you have to estimate or aproximate where you think the center of that hole is. If you try to measure from the edge of the bullet hole (which is the method I usually use) you also have a zone of unclarity because different bullets will behave somewhat differently when they hit the paper so that sometimes the edge will be (relatively) clear and other times it will be somewhat unclear.

So, although I specify my group measurements in hundredths of an inch, I always think that there is a bit of leeway and unclarity in those measurements, so if I were to do it again I might get a different reading by at least a hundredth of an inch.

Do you use a microscope as part of your measuring process?

Article by Ken Howell:
http://24hourcampfire.com/chronograph.html

Not directly applicable to the rimfire ammo test. But of all things he is using some simple statistics to refine his understanding of his loading practices. Standard deviations, least squares method, etc.

Maybe worth reading for those who for some reason think it makes no sense to use statistics in ammo testing.

quote:

Originally posted by JAL:

quote:

Originally posted by ireload2:
Your argument is typical of those with no knowledge of statistics.

Well now, I've never seen such gall.
A fella decides to shoot a few groups any YOU decide it's worthless.
Well just about everyone in the shooting sports shoots groups without statistics, and if you can't understand why that's your problem.

So, lets see you do something, ie a practical demo. And then I'll try some of the same ammo in MY rifle and see how good your statistics are to me.

No more theory crap and whinging, lets see some results.

You don't know anything about statistics do you?

Nope, nothing. And I can't even see the use of statistics, when every shot is down to me, the weather, the load (consistancy), barrel fouling,
you name it.

What is the point of thinking a shot should go there, when in practise it actually goes somewhere else?

Any answers please keep simple (and practicle)

JAL you seem incapable or unwilling to use any answers. You do realize, that by measuring a group you have already used some statistics? Nah, I am sure you don't. But nevertheless you have.

Well,you stats lads have got yourselfs in knots.

Lets get back to basics.

Someone wants to shoot a few groups.
Nothing scientific is claimed for the results. Just interest.

Then you smart-arce's decide you have a better way to do it, insult the doer, and anyone else that doesn't agree with your approach.

THE BASIC FACT IS ANYONE CAN DO IT ANYWAY THEY LIKE.
And if anyone doesn't like it, tough. Go play with your numbers.

Now, I've been looking at groups for about 50 years. You see what you've got.
Gun mags do tests and state group size for an average of 5x3 shots or 3x5, what ever they think is a guide.
Ammo. and projectile ads have stated group size they require or wish to brag about.

I think if these people put out an ad stating that their group size was determined by computer software and stats. they would get laughed off the range.

Or how about a benchrest shoot where the winner is determined by a statistical group.

And no, I didn't use stats on my groups, I used a RULER.

And yes I am incapable and unwilling. . . due to experences with dopes, dickheads, academics, beatnicks, snakeoil salesmen, any salesmen, wacko's etc. etc.

I have no trouble with anyone who wants to use stats. just those that expect everyone else to do the same. IT IS MY RIGHT NOT TO USE STATS.
Why can't you understand that.?

JAL,

When you fired more than one shot, and then used your ruler, you used statistics. Benchrest shooters are determined by statistical results. You just don't get it is all. You are very determined not to get it. Beats me why? Now you are so upset you are using off color names to demonize those you don't agree with.

I am really sorry for you JAL.

JAL,
You really ought to hush up now. You are making yourself look stupid. You don't understand the concept, much less the details.

Brent

Gee, and I thought nearly everyone knew that statistics was the joke of all the sciences, and to be used only when the result doesn't matter.

I like this quote from Kyler Hamann on the African Big Game Hunting Forum, dated 17/2/07.
"I took stats all the way through grad school and they taught me not to trust them."

Now fact or joke, manys a true word spoken in jest.

So now I have one nutter telling me I'm using stats. and another saying I don't know anything about it. And all the time I thought my ruler was graduated in inches.

Anyway if I am using stats., it must come natural to us geniuses.

JAL, both "nutters", my don't you show plenty of respect, are telling you that you are both using statistics and don't know anything about it. Were you reasonably rational (and you clearly aren't) you might accept someone trying to help you use something in a better way since you are using it.

You are the kind of person described by Clint Eastwood in one of the Dirty Harry movies.
"A legend in your own mind".

Suppose you were going to fly a dangerous combat mission in a helicopter and you have to know that your ammo will fire 100%. The ammo you are given for the mission is from some unknown source and you do not know it's quality.
How will you predict that your ammo will fire 100% without firing 100% of it?

Well, I guess you'd have to shoot off someone elses 100% ? as a trial.
Personally I'd just want A.D.I. ammo. (Aust.made).

The correct answer might be quality control?

But really I'm all ears, if you can keep it simple, because I can't get around the fact that the, or any, dud round may turn up somewhere sometime, no matter what you work out on your software.

quote:

Originally posted by Esldude:
You are the kind of person described by Clint Eastwood in one of the Dirty Harry movies.
"A legend in your own mind".

Yep, back into your dream world, the movies. Of course as we found out in Vietnam and Iraq life is different.

Meanwhile, while the intelligentsia flail around on this thread being no use at all (yet)
the actual test of .22rf ammo goes on regardless. Oh dear. Ho.Hum.

Didn't some one once say respect had to be earned? Maybe it was just in a movie.

I have a Savage MKII Target .22 rifle with Williams front and rear target sights that will shoot five rounds into 5/8" groups at 100 yards with Remington bulk pack golden bullet ammo.

You ought to bring it up and here and see if you can win money with it - a gun like that would be unbeatable if you can do that every time.

Brent

quote:

I have a Savage MKII Target .22 rifle with Williams front and rear target sights that will shoot five rounds into 5/8" groups at 100 yards with Remington bulk pack golden bullet ammo.

I bought a Savage MK11 for my son. It shoots extremely well at 50-60 yards. Beyond that, it bows to the old Marlin model 60.

Interesting thread.....getting accuracy at 100 yards with a rimfire is not difficult.

To break the boredom of punching paper we often shoot flies at 100 yards using .22's. Simply sprinkle some pop on a blank piece of paper and let it dry, flies will land on the surgar and you have an instant target. If there is bug blood around the bullet hole, you got the fly.

Consistentcy of rimfire ammo has long been a problem for rimfire shooters. Every now an then the wild "flyer" wrecks the perfect group. Use of a rimfire thickness gauge will take care of those problems. Eley Tennex and others premium brands rarely need graded out for differences in rim thickness.

Here's an old Winchester ad showing what .22's are capable of at 100 yards.

Those targets really are not that good. At 200 yds, such targets would be okay but not likely match winners.

Brent

That was shot in 1925, with ammo of that era.
They probably didn't deal much with free floating barrels, good triggers, and good barrels back then.

Don