22 LR weight feedback, does it helps or is a myth?
- Thread starter armyvet
- Start date
You have to give some context. What rifle and ammo. If the firearm and ammo is only average to low quality, don't waste your time.
If you are competing in benchrest, perhaps.
If you are competing in benchrest, perhaps.
As I’ve said in the past, I’m a cheap ammo king. I’m sure I’ve given friends heart pains from some of the crap I’ve shot through my guns over the years. That said, I decided to conduct tests years ago with a selection of mid grade ammo. I sacrificed a 50 round box, disassembled each round and weighed the separate components.
Next I took a few bricks and sorted first by rim thickness, by weight, and then a combination of both.
The sorting method ended up with 12-18 trays of as close to identical rounds by the different methods. I then tried multiple blind tests- taking one round from each tray for a group, and taking the same number of identical rounds from the extreme ends of the sorted rounds. In every test I saw about a 30% improvement of groups in rim thickness and weight sorted over groups fired where every single round in the group was definitely different.
Groups from ammo sorted both ways were approximately 60% better.
When I would travel to compete, I would sort ammo to get as much in my favor as possible. When I stopped such trips, I stopped sorting and just accepted the good with the bad.
Next I took a few bricks and sorted first by rim thickness, by weight, and then a combination of both.
The sorting method ended up with 12-18 trays of as close to identical rounds by the different methods. I then tried multiple blind tests- taking one round from each tray for a group, and taking the same number of identical rounds from the extreme ends of the sorted rounds. In every test I saw about a 30% improvement of groups in rim thickness and weight sorted over groups fired where every single round in the group was definitely different.
Groups from ammo sorted both ways were approximately 60% better.
When I would travel to compete, I would sort ammo to get as much in my favor as possible. When I stopped such trips, I stopped sorting and just accepted the good with the bad.
Only if got too much time on your hands to go thru all that then go for it. I am just shooting for enjoyment but not this extreme though.
I'll say that 95% of detrimental accuracy is due to the person behind the gun.
I'll say that 95% of detrimental accuracy is due to the person behind the gun.
Interesting. What sorting criteria did you use - for example, rim thickness sorted into "slots" of .0420-.0425, .0426-.0430, .0431-.0435?
I wonder if sorting is more effective for low-mid tiers of ammo as compared to higher tiers. Kinda like tuner testing... I found a tuner had much more significant effect on my now-sold CZ than my Vudoo.
I used digital calipers with a home made sleeve I dropped rounds in for rim thickness. Please note it only measured the thickest portion of the rim, and said rounds were not “clocked” in the chamber.
I would like (at some point) to sort/test for length based on measuring from ogive to rim base.
Weight sorting was with a digital powder scale, of course they have dramatically improved over the years both in accuracy as well as speed!
I believe repeated blind testing was the only way to avoid any “placebo effect”.
I still question the validity of rimfire concentricity gauges as the crimp on some ammo is quite weak and all these steps involve disturbing/displacing the slug’s lubrication.
Sorting is not a reliable method of improving cartridge quality.
Why? A rimfire cartridge is a multivariable equation.
Individual component weights vary. Bullets do not weigh 40.000 grains
Powder and primer amounts vary not only by volume, weight but also chemistry.
Assembly tolerances vary over time due to wear, temperature and technician input.
Temperature and humidity at time of manufacture and use changes results.
Measuring dimensions and weight does not relate to muzzle velocity or trajectory uniformity.
Simple mathematics:
Given A + B + C + D + E = X
Can you solve for X if you can only establish values for A, B and C?
Small sample sizes will produce incorrect conclusions.
Especially when dealing with the assembly line lottery.
One thing sorting is good for, it keeps us busy.
Need something to do when the weather reeks.
Why? A rimfire cartridge is a multivariable equation.
Individual component weights vary. Bullets do not weigh 40.000 grains
Powder and primer amounts vary not only by volume, weight but also chemistry.
Assembly tolerances vary over time due to wear, temperature and technician input.
Temperature and humidity at time of manufacture and use changes results.
Measuring dimensions and weight does not relate to muzzle velocity or trajectory uniformity.
Simple mathematics:
Given A + B + C + D + E = X
Can you solve for X if you can only establish values for A, B and C?
Small sample sizes will produce incorrect conclusions.
Especially when dealing with the assembly line lottery.
One thing sorting is good for, it keeps us busy.
Need something to do when the weather reeks.
Tell that to this ARA competitor. He won a fair amount of wins and outscored me all the time.
And all these guys who compete in silhouettes, no benchrests here. The majority of them sort by weight and rim thickness.
As a plinker I don't weigh or sort.
Yea, I don’t weigh or sort at all for any discipline, not worth my time. I am used to getting 1-3 turds per box on even the premium tiers of ammo. I will take that drop in score
For silhouette I zero for whatever current case of 5000 SK Standard+ I’m currently using ( I do see poi shifts between case lots, enough to actually care about and spend the time to re zero). My anschutz 1712 is under 1.5” at 100 meters with SK+, usually under an inch and that is good enough for me for the silo game. Someday I’ll get my mental game together and quit being a lazy shooter and do better than this:
For silhouette I zero for whatever current case of 5000 SK Standard+ I’m currently using ( I do see poi shifts between case lots, enough to actually care about and spend the time to re zero). My anschutz 1712 is under 1.5” at 100 meters with SK+, usually under an inch and that is good enough for me for the silo game. Someday I’ll get my mental game together and quit being a lazy shooter and do better than this:
Nobody has time for that.
Just buy quality ammo, send the gun to Lapua or Eley to get lot tested.
I know an old guy that died with countless piles of rim and weight sorted 22. We piled it all back into a big tub and gave it to some kids for plinking ammo. He didn't keep very good notes, and nobody else was going to die in that house trying to sort out his mess.
Just buy quality ammo, send the gun to Lapua or Eley to get lot tested.
I know an old guy that died with countless piles of rim and weight sorted 22. We piled it all back into a big tub and gave it to some kids for plinking ammo. He didn't keep very good notes, and nobody else was going to die in that house trying to sort out his mess.
My personal belief is that most shooter/rifle combinations are not accurate enough to gain any benefit from sorting 22lr ammunition by any factor, IF, it could be proved objectively that there was any benefit to be gained.
Performing objective testing is not something that the average person can accomplish, no matter what you are testing.
-Richard
Performing objective testing is not something that the average person can accomplish, no matter what you are testing.
-Richard
While I respect your opinion, I feel if anyone sees a difference in lot numbers and rifle compatibility, they may just shoot well enough to benefit from sorting mid-grade ammo. I shoot with people who don’t seem too concerned with dropping 10K on a rimfire, but rather than sorting rounds- either accept that they will have to shoot lesser ammo or spend 15-25 a box to get what their rifle prefers. Ammo availability has ebbed and flowed like the tides. When times are good, most accept the odd fliers, as they believe in “the good stuff”, blaming either themselves (bad wind call) or dope, etc. when a shot goes awry. Most just buy the best ammo and run it
The OP is about weighing 22lr ammunition and not about rifle/ammunition compatability/accuracy!
That is an entirely different subject.
I believe that the real factor is the difference between ammo manufactures and when it comes to high level competition, lot #'s.
For competition, I use ELEY Tenex for everything up to 100yds for bolt guns, ELEY Semi-Auto Benchrest for 10/22 and Lapua Super Long Range for bolt guns at 200 yds.
Expensive!!!
But I just don't have the inclination to spend the time and effort pairing lot #'s to my rifles.
I do have the ability to call my shots and have seen flyers with CMP. ELEY from a case and half I purchased years ago, not the present CMP offering. So that ammo is consigned to practice and sighting in bolt rifles.
-Richard
You didn’t read his response well. He was talking about sorting ammo, mid-grade, versus the other option of just buying the best ammo available. Not everyone can afford to compete using $20/box ammo.
The operative word is “midgrade”. People are committed to polishing turds. The higher price of top tier ammo is buying a little more consistency.While I respect your opinion, I feel if anyone sees a difference in lot numbers and rifle compatibility, they may just shoot well enough to benefit from sorting mid-grade ammo. I shoot with people who don’t seem too concerned with dropping 10K on a rimfire, but rather than sorting rounds- either accept that they will have to shoot lesser ammo or spend 15-25 a box to get what their rifle prefers. Ammo availability has ebbed and flowed like the tides. When times are good, most accept the odd fliers, as they believe in “the good stuff”, blaming either themselves (bad wind call) or dope, etc. when a shot goes awry. Most just buy the best ammo and run it
If sorting is intended to cull the lousier rounds from those that might shoot well, is there much to be gained over buying ammo right off that shoots well? It's not as though sorting makes all rounds better.
Say some sorting method identifies 50 better rounds out of 100 mid-grade rounds. Those 50 rounds will actually cost the same as the original 100, with the other 50 being good as free foulers only. If fewer than half the rounds are somehow sorted to be "good" the price per round goes up, with the only benefit of more free foulers.
Say some sorting method identifies 50 better rounds out of 100 mid-grade rounds. Those 50 rounds will actually cost the same as the original 100, with the other 50 being good as free foulers only. If fewer than half the rounds are somehow sorted to be "good" the price per round goes up, with the only benefit of more free foulers.
It's not. Not the "lousier" rounds.
Sorting is intended to group consistent rounds.
The theory behind is is that sorting by rim thickness groups rounds by headspace. Consistent headspace has long been considered a key component of developing accurate lots when reloading.
Sorting by weight is an, perhaps not entirely reliable, attempt to sort the loads. Maybe a problem with this is weighing the whole cartridge doesn't produce separate weights for projectile, case and powder but maybe the assumption is the projectile and sorted cases vary the least in weight and it's an attempt to generate consistency in powder charges.
None of this can possibly catch primer variations.
Some say it's voodoo and some competitors swear by it.
I erred in saying cull with regard to lousy rounds. The purpose, nevertheless, remains to identify the good rounds from the lousier ones.
If sorting by rim thickness is supposed to select rounds with a certain range of rim thicknesses to match a particular headspace, those rounds that don't fall into that range are, by the logic of the sorting purpose, less accurate and less useful.
The unit cost of rounds worth shooting for accuracy goes up from the original cost which always includes the lousier rounds. Better ammo to begin with is often the better choice.
Of course, it should be pointed out that sorting by rim thickness to increase accuracy performance is not supported by any body of evidence accumulated from sufficient and reliable testing. That may help explain why no one shooting serious RFBR or ISSF does it.
It can also be noted that with .22LR there's no body of reliable evidence to support the idea that accurate lots are developed by reloading.
The bottom line is that sorting .22LR ammo is not an effective way to achieve improved accuracy performance. It's a trick and tricks don't pay off in rimfire.
It's my understanding they're all "good" rounds.
I believe the thinking is the ones with the same rim thickness and the same weight will group tighter together.
Or each sorted group might be equally as accurate but with a different POI, unless the rifle really, really, likes a particular headspace.
If someone sorted 1000 rounds into three groups each group might print sub 0.5MOA on target but there still might be 0.75MOA or more between the groups. All three sorted groups would be "good" but only if shot together.
But I don't sort so I don't really care.
Never said there was, only been talking about what some people believe.
Besides 22LR sorters there are some other groups of people who believe in bigfoots and another group that believes in anthropomorphic climate change and some others who believe the government is actually here to help.
Last edited:
G'day all,i sort all my ammo by base to ogive.I use mainly eley match and centrex.Centrex is more consistant in both rim thickness and ogive measurement. Eley on the other hand is consistant in rim thickness but ogive varies as much 10 thou. New 2024 batch goes from .760 to.751 ogive in a box of 50.Scott AU
All rounds are not always equally good, especially midgrade ammo varieties.
As noted by Calfee and others, so long as ignition is good and headspace is safe, headspace itself is not critical to accuracy performance. In other words, headspace doesn't matter enough that sorting ammo for it will make a difference.
What some may believe regardless of evidence isn't relevant. Reloaded .22LR ammo will not be comparable to .22LR match ammo. It's not even less costly.
I don't expect to have the interest to post further on this topic. Threads about rimfire ammo sorting seem as useful as the time spent doing it.
I never said they were, I just said I don't believe that's the reason for the sorting.
Interesting.
In case you missed it that's what this entire thread is about.
Nobody in this thread is talking about reloading .22LR with the exception of you.
armyvet,
I have started a separate thread, not really trolling, but trying to quantify the rather strong opinions on this matter.
Round count to determine the best lot# ?
Just what the title says… how many rounds do you send down range before giving up or selecting certain lots or ammo?
www.snipershide.com
In most cases (in your thread), people demand a higher round count to determine if sorting ammo works, than (in my thread) if a given lot number or type of ammo meets their accuracy standard.
Stop and think about this.
A day after the post, the lion’s share of folks can tell if ammo is good within a single box of 50, yet demand many times higher test numbers to validate whether sorting works. Not whether it’s economical, not whether it’s worth their time, but whether it works.
For some extremes, you haven’t established any meaningful results until all the ammo is gone
Guess you had best develop and test by your own methods, and then best keep those results to yourself because it will never satisfy or make believers out of some, and will just be questioned and lampooned by others.
But, but, but… what if you win?
Then it had to be luck
G'day all ,just to clarify,i have been sorting my ammo since 2014 when i became a benchrest shooter.(was a prone sling shooter till then ). At 81 years young if results were not on paper i would have stopped long ago. Shooting is about consistency in every thing you do on the day, mind you can't control the weather . I have found that the best ogive length in my rifle is .754. Scott.
Scott.
But, but…some guy earlier in the thread stated as fact that nobody in .22 benchrest is sorting ammo. How could this be?G'day all ,just to clarify,i have been sorting my ammo since 2014 when i became a benchrest shooter.(was a prone sling shooter till then ). At 81 years young if results were not on paper i would have stopped long ago. Shooting is about consistency in every thing you do on the day, mind you can't control the weather . I have found that the best ogive length in my rifle is .754.
Just kidding. I knew when he said it that he was all bluster with no facts. Good shooting.
All right, what exactly am I going to sort by?
Total cartridge weight?
Overall cartridge length?
Ogive length? From base or from breech contact?
Rim thickness? Where on rim? It varies.
Rim diameter? Widest or narrowest?
Cartridge diameter above rim? At crimp? At bullet drive band?
Case length? Base to crimp line or breech to crimp line?
How about appearance? Visible damage or assembly issues?
If I measure by cartridge weight, which component is responsible for the variations?
Brass? Bullet? Powder or primer?
Don't go thinking it's just one component.
I actually disassembled a box each of CCI SV, Tenex and CCI Maxi Mag 22wmr
measuring bullet, brass, powder and primer amounts.
Each one varies a decent percentage.
I have the spreadsheets posted here somewhere.
Strange but the numbers left me scratching my head.
Heaviest bullet had lightest powder charge.
Heaviest primer/powder charge had lightest bullet.
Compensating variations so total cartridge weight couldn't be trusted.
With all those measurements, which one will most affect results?
Or will the assembly line lottery make all my measurements useless?
Total cartridge weight?
Overall cartridge length?
Ogive length? From base or from breech contact?
Rim thickness? Where on rim? It varies.
Rim diameter? Widest or narrowest?
Cartridge diameter above rim? At crimp? At bullet drive band?
Case length? Base to crimp line or breech to crimp line?
How about appearance? Visible damage or assembly issues?
If I measure by cartridge weight, which component is responsible for the variations?
Brass? Bullet? Powder or primer?
Don't go thinking it's just one component.
I actually disassembled a box each of CCI SV, Tenex and CCI Maxi Mag 22wmr
measuring bullet, brass, powder and primer amounts.
Each one varies a decent percentage.
I have the spreadsheets posted here somewhere.
Strange but the numbers left me scratching my head.
Heaviest bullet had lightest powder charge.
Heaviest primer/powder charge had lightest bullet.
Compensating variations so total cartridge weight couldn't be trusted.
With all those measurements, which one will most affect results?
Or will the assembly line lottery make all my measurements useless?
Last edited:
Thanks for your feedback. I do believe it helps just want to see other ppls opinions.G'day all ,just to clarify,i have been sorting my ammo since 2014 when i became a benchrest shooter.(was a prone sling shooter till then ). At 81 years young if results were not on paper i would have stopped long ago. Shooting is about consistency in every thing you do on the day, mind you can't control the weather . I have found that the best ogive length in my rifle is .754.
Can you share your results with me, trying to learn more. I started with a basic approach just to weight everything. I do understand that the bullet have different components that will affect the weight and a change in in the bullet vs a change in the powder weighing the same will result in a huge difference that will lead nowhere. That's one of the reasons I want to know what everyone else does, just to have an idea if I can get good results or if am getting into a rabbit hole without any real success.All right, what exactly am I going to sort by?
Total cartridge weight?
Overall cartridge length?
Ogive length? From base or from breech contact?
Rim thickness? Where on rim? It varies.
Rim diameter? Widest or narrowest?
Cartridge diameter above rim? At crimp? At bullet drive band?
Case length? Base to crimp line or breech to crimp line?
How about appearance? Visible damage or assembly issues?
If I measure by cartridge weight, which component is responsible for the variations?
Brass? Bullet? Powder or primer?
Don't go thinking it's just one component.
I actually disassembled a box each of CCI SV, Tenex and CCI Maxi Mag 22wmr
measuring bullet, brass, powder and primer amounts.
Each one varies a decent percentage.
I have the spreadsheets posted here somewhere.
Strange but the numbers left me scratching my head.
Heaviest bullet had lightest powder charge.
Heaviest primer/powder charge had lightest bullet.
Compensating variations so total cartridge weight couldn't be trusted.
With all those measurements, which one will most affect results?
Or will the assembly line lottery make all my measurements useless?
CCI SV
Tenex
There are the numbers. Weights in grains.
Weights obtained with US Solids Analytical 0.1 milligram digital balance
Check the charge percentage variations and spreads
Tenex
There are the numbers. Weights in grains.
Weights obtained with US Solids Analytical 0.1 milligram digital balance
Check the charge percentage variations and spreads
Last edited:
The most effective method of sorting I've tried
is a visual inspection for cartridge issues.
When the cartridge shows asymmetry, dents, dings, chips,
uneven crimp lines, sloppy seating and poor assembly,
it's unlikely to produce consistent trajectories
or be capable of punching center consistently.
Visible cartridge problems indicates poor factory quality control.
Using that method of sorting has a side effect you might not like.
Y'er gonna end up eliminating anything not made by Eley, RWS or SK/Lapua.
is a visual inspection for cartridge issues.
When the cartridge shows asymmetry, dents, dings, chips,
uneven crimp lines, sloppy seating and poor assembly,
it's unlikely to produce consistent trajectories
or be capable of punching center consistently.
Visible cartridge problems indicates poor factory quality control.
Using that method of sorting has a side effect you might not like.
Y'er gonna end up eliminating anything not made by Eley, RWS or SK/Lapua.
I'm sure a lot of you have seen this series of posts from 2020 but in case not, check out these by @Stowaway. He jumped in the discussion at post #54 and goes on for many posts. Quite relevant to this thread, I feel.
http s://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/22-lr-bullet-sorting.4012117/page-3
http s://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/22-lr-bullet-sorting.4012117/page-3
