Sorting by weight question

[TheGerman]

Had the idea to further sort by weight of the ammunition I've tested in my rifle that showed good results. I think that by sorting them by weight I can close the gap even further; for 22LR what weight increment are the rounds sorted by? 1/4 grain, 1/10 grain, 1/2 grain?

 

[TOP PREDATOR]

that would be your preference, i sort mine by 1/10 grain.


most of the time the more quality the ammo the less the amount of deviation in wieght, so to naroow it down more i use 1/10.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

USELESS. Just got done trying to "fix" a shitty lot of Center X. Weighed on lab scales to .001 grams no discernable difference between sorted and unsorted. It is WORSE than weighing brass. If you could know WHAT was weighing heavier or lighter it may be of use. You are litterally weighing 4 components all at once, and quite frankly it is a waste of time. No my most recent adventure was not my first try at this excercise. I have done it before and with the same results. When the chips are down a man will do almost anything, even something he has little hope of working. Unless you are shooting for money or some kind of trophy it is a colossal waste of time to weigh 22 ammo. If you are shooting for the gold, it is still one hell of a hail mary pass.

Sorting by rim thickness is most likely to yield results, BUT, in my experience match ammo especially Lapua tends to have very uniform rim thickness. The biggest descrepancies with rim thickness I have noticed have been with cheaper or bulk ammo. Again, if you are sorting that ammo you are wasting your time, it is what it is and sorting it isn't going to make it great.

Short of it: If you need great ammo, buy great ammo, and be prepared to pay. You can't get $25 a box XAct out of a box of Center X, with a scale and a set of calipers.

 

[lawman29]

Armor...

Well said, in many endeavors you see folks trying to make champagne on a beer budget...Keystone Light still tastes like Keystone Light in a frosted mug...

 

[TheGerman]

USELESS. Just got done trying to "fix" a shitty lot of Center X. Weighed on lab scales to .001 grams no discernable difference between sorted and unsorted. It is WORSE than weighing brass. If you could know WHAT was weighing heavier or lighter it may be of use. You are litterally weighing 4 components all at once, and quite frankly it is a waste of time. No my most recent adventure was not my first try at this excercise. I have done it before and with the same results. When the chips are down a man will do almost anything, even something he has little hope of working. Unless you are shooting for money or some kind of trophy it is a colossal waste of time to weigh 22 ammo. If you are shooting for the gold, it is still one hell of a hail mary pass.

Sorting by rim thickness is most likely to yield results, BUT, in my experience match ammo especially Lapua tends to have very uniform rim thickness. The biggest descrepancies with rim thickness I have noticed have been with cheaper or bulk ammo. Again, if you are sorting that ammo you are wasting your time, it is what it is and sorting it isn't going to make it great.

Short of it: If you need great ammo, buy great ammo, and be prepared to pay. You can't get $25 a box XAct out of a box of Center X, with a scale and a set of calipers.

lol you and your Center X

 

[armorpl8chikn]

lol you and your Center X

Hey what else am I gonna do....sell it to Yoteman? Never happen, I already know his gun likes that particular lot#. I am just gonna hunt with the rest of that lot, it is plenty good for that.

 

[TOP PREDATOR]

i've shot weight sorted and rim sorted vs unsorted (actually weighed and rimmed to make sure that every shot was various weight and thickness) through 3 different rifles at one setting at 50, 100, and 200 Y. seems that rim sorted shoots better at <75 yards, while whatever it is about weight sorting really pays off past that, on average.

vs. "unsorted" there is a difference, at least for picking out the rounds that are well under or over charged, or whatever it is that is causing the "flyer".

when it comes to more top shelf ammo, the differences are hard to pick out - very little between shell to shell.

the mid grade stuff there is enough to notice and sort, and the cheap stuff is more evident.

in the end, you'll never get the cheap stuff to shoot like the midgrade, or the midgrade to shoot like top shelf. but it does take whatever grade of ammo it is to at least a slightly higher level.

then add some lube.

 

[Geno C.]

This is the results of weight sorting SK std+. Sorted in .1 grain increments. I have noticed fewer flyiers. There still are some, but not near as many. I do most of my shooting at 100-200yrds. Some man think it's a waste of their time, it makes a difference I can see so I'll keep doing it when I can.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

I rarely think anything.
After you weigh sort a brick of ammo, you NEED that ammo to do better. A brain plays funny tricks on a man.
Not my first rodeo, I have tried this for years, in different disciplines.
TP is correct, the most likely place to find results are in cheaper ammo. I will go one further, really really cheap ammo.
I have weight sorted and rim sorted SK Plus. I obtained the same results I have always found in sorting match ammo. No discernable difference.
Someone over on Accurrate Shooter or Rimfire central debunked weight sorted ammo a few years back. They actually used a very large statistical sample and shot ALL the ammunition. They had a control group as well. The control shot exactly the same as the sorted...exactlyEDITactually...if memory serves I think the control actually shot a bit better..pretty sure) Still I tried it again, after failing so many times before. I weighed them within .02 grains, that is .02 grains in case you didn't hear it the first time. 2 hundredths of a grain.
Unless you have a sorted batch and a control batch, and approach the whole thing with scientific method, your assumptions and proclivities will skew the results.

Sorry guys. Not calling anyone a liar, but I seriously doubt your methods and your science. I have had that pony buck me enough to know it is a huge waste of time for me. The only reason I ever weighed any again, was from desperation, and I had some spare time.

 

[Va_Gentleman]

This is the results of weight sorting SK std+. Sorted in .1 grain increments. I have noticed fewer flyiers. There still are some, but not near as many. I do most of my shooting at 100-200yrds. Some man think it's a waste of their time, it makes a difference I can see so I'll keep doing it when I can.

Interesting... The ammo shown by weight in this picture closely resembles a Standard Normal Distribution. This is the expected and observed results of all manufactured products; thus, you cannot solve for variability except by decreasing tolerance intervals. i.e... buying match grade ammo and living with the natural variability.

 

[Geno C.]

Yep. Pretty close to the bell curve you would expect.

If my weight sorting is causing me to shoot better, and not making the ammo shoot better, I'll take that too.

I have no rail mounted gun so all I can go by is what I see on paper. Is my science flawed? Sure. Have I taken out every possible variable besides weight? Nope. But doing what I have done has yielded me better results sorting by weight and wasting my time.

I think I'll keep tricking my mind into making my body shoot better.

 

[Geno C.]

Interesting... The ammo shown by weight in this picture closely resembles a Standard Normal Distribution. This is the expected and observed results of all manufactured products; thus, you cannot solve for variability except by decreasing tolerance intervals. i.e... buying match grade ammo and living with the natural variability.

Sorting by weight does decrease the tolerance interval. When I checked 500 Tenex, just for grins, you'll never guess what the distribution looked like. Only difference was ES.

 

[Va_Gentleman]

Hey.. whatever works... like Crash Davis said, "If you believe you're playing well because you're getting laid, or because you're not getting laid, or because you wear women's underwear, then you *are*!"

 

[Geno C.]

That's right! Different strokes for different folks

 

[bunsen27]

Hey.. whatever works... like Crash Davis said, "If you believe you're playing well because you're getting laid, or because you're not getting laid, or because you wear women's underwear, then you *are*!"

Just remember the rose goes in the front big guy!.

 

[Va_Gentleman]

Classic Movie

 

[lawman29]

A very simple test for the sorters to determine if you're just trying harder: Double Blind. Go to the range with your buddy, get set up and have your buddy give you ~ ten rounds of each to test (sorted vs unsorted), only thing is you don't which is which, only your buddy....

Interesting info from rimfire central: http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359863