Ammo Crapshoot

[mccannicalbob]

I know a few people on this forum have said this before, but I saw firsthand what a crapshoot rimfire ammo can be.

I scored a brick of Center X this week and was excited to go see how awesome it would be in my Vudoo. I’ve shot Center X in it before with amazing results. Well, this lot kind of sucks. Averaged .625” for 16 five shot groups. Bad enough that I was questioning my gun and myself. So I shot four more 5-shot groups from my Supergrade. Same results, .75” groups at 50yd.

So I then started thinking it’s me that sucks. Switched ammo in the Kidd to Eley Team and shot several groups in the .3’s and .4’s, basically enlarged holes. Same when I ran some Pistol King and SK Std+ in the Vudoo—.2’s and .3’s.

Then I tried something with unexpected results. The Std+ that shoots one-holers in the Vudoo barely stayed inside an inch in the Supergrade. I thought that was weird. Either ammo is good or it isn’t, right? But good in the Vudoo isn’t necessarily good in the Kidd. Then I turn around and shoot a couple half inch groups from the Kidd using Mini Mags! JFC.

I guess that’s what makes these guns so fun. Or frustrating…

 

[jcmullis2]

Every barrel has what it likes. The tough thing/fun is figuring out which one.

 

[justin amateur]

Find the brand y'er rifle likes, right?
I read it all the time in forum posts.
What a steaming pile of equine fecal material.
There is no brand involved, only cartridge quality.
No rifle can make crap ammo produce predictable trajectories.
Can't fix mv spread, can't fix sloppy seating, can't fix poor crimps,
most certainly can't repair bullets damaged on the factory assembly line.

There is no find the brand y'er rifle likes.
There is only find well made cartridges with tight mv's.
If they aren't made correctly, external ballistics shoves them off line.

Yes, I have tried all the brands, I wouldn't comment otherwise.

 

[straightshooter1]

There is only find well made cartridges with tight mv's.
If they aren't made correctly, external ballistics shoves them off line.

That pretty much says it all . . . even with regards to center fire ammo.

 

[acudaowner]

ammo might be hard to get but just picked up 8 more jugs of imr 4350 and 4 more boxes of primers yea me .

 

[mccannicalbob]

Find the brand y'er rifle likes, right?
I read it all the time in forum posts.
What a steaming pile of equine fecal material.
There is no brand involved, only cartridge quality.
No rifle can make crap ammo produce predictable trajectories.
Can't fix mv spread, can't fix sloppy seating, can't fix poor crimps,
most certainly can't repair bullets damaged on the factory assembly line.

There is no find the brand y'er rifle likes.
There is only find well made cartridges with tight mv's.
If they aren't made correctly, external ballistics shoves them off line.

Yes, I have tried all the brands, I wouldn't comment otherwise.

I’m pretty on board with what you’re saying, but why would ammo from the same box shoot great in one proven gun and poorly in another proven gun? Is that a function of chamber dimensions? I can see bad ammo being bad regardless of what you shoot it out of, but the reverse doesn’t appear to hold true e.g. great groups from Vudoo and crap groups from Kidd. That goes they other way too. I have ammo that is awesome in my Kidd and below par from my Vudoo. Weird.

 

[justin amateur]

It took awhile for me to figure it out.

1) Get used to inspecting each cartridge prior to chambering.
Look for defects. Any kind of dent or ding indicates problems at the factory.
If the nose is beat up, so is the heel. If the heel is damaged, you get strays.
Any asymmetry causes wobbles, pitch, yaw....not good for accuracy

2) Feeding from a magazine into the chamber can damage the drive bands.
Top round drags the rim across the bottom round leaving a groove.
Damage the drive bands you get strays. If the mag is slightly off line with the chamber
the drive bands will be shaved by the edge of the breech, causing strays.

3) Get used to shooting across a ballistic chronograph and listening to the muzzle pop.
You can correlate mv differences to the sounds caused by weak or hot rounds.
Even in the frequency of the vibrations transmitted from the stock to your cheek bone.
You can hear the mv differences and see where they impact high or low.

4) Don't think rimfire cartridges are all identical. Not from the same lot number,
not from the same brick, not even the same box. It's mass produced rimfire.
Components and assembly tolerances vary moment by moment on the production line.
You can't shoot the same cartridge twice. That's why results vary.

 

[ma smith]

I wouldn't mind finding the two bad bullets in a box of 50 that are going to be 40 or 50 fps off etc.

 

[justin amateur]

Haven't figured that one out ma.
If you do, let me know.

It's rimfire. We pays our money, we takes our chances.

 

[jcmullis2]

I’d be surprised if there’s 10 out of 50 bullets measure and weigh the same.

 

[littlepod]

Yes, damaged bands, and inconsistent charge can definitely cause variations, but there is notion of harmonics and what your specific barrel/action likes and doesn't like if there's anything we can compare to say how centerfire rounds shoot. That's why people hand load and have to tweak bullet seating and charge weight. So I assume some sort of harmonics would apply to rimfire too and why certain rifles hate certain ammo.

 

[justin amateur]

Y'er right LP.
Certain rifles do have a harmonic that best fits a certain mv.
But that mv is a very narrow window. Anything outside that window
and mv spread still shows up as vertical on target. That's why barrel tuners
are only effective on an mv spread below about 40 fps. Show an ES of 50 fps
Y'er not gonna be happy with the results. Still need tight mv's, might have to
tweak the rifle to best fit that mv average, but nothing fixes large mv spread.

 

[Defender32]

I went with a tuner and 5/8-24 thread on the new build to have more meat at the threads to help mitigate metal issues with a threaded barrel on rimfire that some of the big guys in the game talk about. The ATS Tuner I added made it awesome and worth it to tune the lot of ammo I had on hand. My ES is running 25-30 on the Standard & Rifle match lots I have.

 

[545riflefan]

We took 3 Tikka T1x into the Lapua rimfire test facility on the same day and tested them 1 after the other. Conditions in the tunnel stayed the same during testing all 3

all 3 are set up identical

all 3 were tested with the same lots of Lapua

All 3 came away with a different lot of ammo that worked best

None favored the Xact best

Rifle 1 came away with a lot of CenterX as best

Rifle 2 came away as Midas best

Rifle 3 came away with another lot of Midas best.

it was quite an eye opener to have seen this in person.

I’ve learned that testing is crucial to finding best for our rifles as they all performed differently from each other

 

[justin amateur]

Hey 545....did they provide you with copies of the results?
If so did it include the muzzle velocities?
I'd be interested in seeing if that was the factor that varied for each rifle.
Exit timing fitting barrel harmonics from the lots tested.

 

[brianf]

just buy center x and shoot lol...more often then not its one of the better shooting product lines

the real crazy BR guys only buy ammo from one machine at the plant and only when that one operator is running that machine

 

[mccannicalbob]

We took 3 Tikka T1x into the Lapua rimfire test facility on the same day and tested them 1 after the other. Conditions in the tunnel stayed the same during testing all 3

all 3 are set up identical

all 3 were tested with the same lots of Lapua

All 3 came away with a different lot of ammo that worked best

None favored the Xact best

Rifle 1 came away with a lot of CenterX as best

Rifle 2 came away as Midas best

Rifle 3 came away with another lot of Midas best.

it was quite an eye opener to have seen this in person.

I’ve learned that testing is crucial to finding best for our rifles as they all performed differently from each other

Interesting observation. Bad ammo will be bad, even in a good rifle. But good ammo may or may not be good in every good rifle. Which sucks, but keeps things interesting.

 

[545riflefan]

Hey 545....did they provide you with copies of the results?
If so did it include the muzzle velocities?
I'd be interested in seeing if that was the factor that varied for each rifle.
Exit timing fitting barrel harmonics from the lots tested.

They did not provide that detailed info but I do still have the group pics from testing. I have seen those reports with the extra info but I think those are given to the folks who mail their rifles in. Since all 3 of us were there with our rifles Luke just rolled on thru the lots seeing what worked the best in each rifle. Best I can do is show the lot # we used prior and then ended up with. The velocities of the lots are different between our 2 rifles. Rifle 3 info will have to wait till I get a response on the lot specifics of that Midas.

My wife and I had been sharing a lot of Lapua Centerx that we bought off the shelf prior to testing. Lot # 23555. This lot has been pretty good for use.

Her rifle shot it a little bit better than mine did.

in the lot testing her rifle worked best with Midas lot # 25555 but the Centerx above was close in performance.

my rifle tested best with Centerx lot 28556 and showed that the Centerx we had been shooting was worse for sure in my rifle than in hers.

 

[RTH1800]

Justin posted exactly what I see. A HUGE rimfire fallacy is the rifle that shoots bug holes with low priced poor ammo. Rifles don’t fix ammo. Junk is junk. Good rifles do shoot better (and worse) with various high quality ammo.

I seldom see anything posted but it seems to me that my rifles prefer ammo at a certain velocity more than faster or slower.

 

[Just Chuck]

Based on your last statement;

@rth1800…then wouldn’t that seem to indicate a tuning opportunity? I don’t know much about tuners - thinking about going down that rabbit hole.

I’m shooting B14R and pretty happy ,but always looking for the ultimate bullet combo.

 

[justin amateur]

Hey 545, I'm back....

So I checked and the first 2 digits of the SK/Lapua lot number,
are the average muzzle velocity of that batch.
That pic you posted, shows 23, 25 and 28, put a 3 in front
it gives you the rated mv...323, 325 and 328 meters per second.
Might be that variable that makes the difference to the barrel harmonics.

Has no effect on my rifles though....epoxy bedded barrel block rigs.
Minimal effect from barrel vibrations. Free floated is not for everyone.

 

[justin amateur]

I’d be surprised if there’s 10 out of 50 bullets measure and weigh the same.

JC, I decided to turn my OCD loose on a box of CCI SV.
I didn't just weigh each cartridge, I disassembled each one
and weighed each individual component. Found some interesting data.

First, most digital scales are not accurate. They produce false measurements
or worse, display the same measurement produced by a previous object.
Those cheap digital scales are not what you need to obtain accurate weight.
A lab quality scale is needed. Otherwise the data is skewed from the very first measurement.

Second, technique is important when weighing. There's a learning curve with a lab quality scale.
Any air movement, countertop vibration, out of level setup will produce incorrect measurements.
The digital scale I ordered is accurate to 1/100th of a grain. Has leveling screws
and an enclosure to minimize air movement around the plate. Can't just set an object
and read immediately. Has to stabilize before the display reads the actual numbers.
Takes some time. Working through the enclosure is tedious and annoying.

Third, recording the data in a usable format is a pain.
Spreadsheets are not my friend. Data entry is a nitpicky process.

Tearing apart 50 cartridges and documenting the measurements took 2 weeks.
Work at it until irritated, then put away for another day. Not fun.

Results were surprising. I have a new smiley to use so I can laugh at anyone
claiming weight sorting or rim thickness measurements provide useful information.

Lubricant amount on the CCI SV was not measurable.
Weighed the cartridge before, wiped lube off after melting with blow drier,
weighed cartridge again, no measurable difference.
Bullet weights are not 40.00 grains. I measured from 39.73 to 40.28 grains.
Brass varies in weight. 9.41 grains to 9.58 grains.
Primer ranges from less than 1/4, to almost a third of the total combustible charge.
Lead styphnate amounts from 0.17 grains to 0.46 grains.
Powder measured from 0.93 grains to 1.18 grains.

There was no relationship between any of the weights.
Simply components randomly assembled on the production line.
Weight sorting or measuring rim thickness is a form of mental masturbation.
Makes you feel like y'er accomplishing something useful.
But in reality, there are too many variables involved.
Including bullet damage incurred during tumbling when bullet coating
and transporting metal components from station to station during assembly.

 

[straightshooter1]

JC, I decided to turn my OCD loose on a box of CCI SV.
I didn't just weigh each cartridge, I disassembled each one
and weighed each individual component. Found some interesting data.

First, most digital scales are not accurate. They produce false measurements
or worse, display the same measurement produced by a previous object.
Those cheap digital scales are not what you need to obtain accurate weight.
A lab quality scale is needed. Otherwise the data is skewed from the very first measurement.

Second, technique is important when weighing. There's a learning curve with a lab quality scale.
Any air movement, countertop vibration, out of level setup will produce incorrect measurements.
The digital scale I ordered is accurate to 1/100th of a grain. Has leveling screws
and an enclosure to minimize air movement around the plate. Can't just set an object
and read immediately. Has to stabilize before the display reads the actual numbers.
Takes some time. Working through the enclosure is tedious and annoying.

Third, recording the data in a usable format is a pain.
Spreadsheets are not my friend. Data entry is a nitpicky process.

Tearing apart 50 cartridges and documenting the measurements took 2 weeks.
Work at it until irritated, then put away for another day. Not fun.

Results were surprising. I have a new smiley to use so I can laugh at anyone
claiming weight sorting or rim thickness measurements provide useful information.

Lubricant amount on the CCI SV was not measurable.
Weighed the cartridge before, wiped lube off after melting with blow drier,
weighed cartridge again, no measurable difference.
Bullet weights are not 40.00 grains. I measured from 39.73 to 40.28 grains.
Brass varies in weight. 9.41 grains to 9.58 grains.
Primer ranges from less than 1/4, to almost a third of the total combustible charge.
Lead styphnate amounts from 0.17 grains to 0.46 grains.
Powder measured from 0.93 grains to 1.18 grains.

There was no relationship between any of the weights.
Simply components randomly assembled on the production line.
Weight sorting or measuring rim thickness is a form of mental masturbation.
Makes you feel like y'er accomplishing something useful.
But in reality, there are too many variables involved.
Including bullet damage incurred during tumbling when bullet coating
and transporting metal components from station to station during assembly.

. . . glad to see someone's OCD can be as bad as mine.

There's just too many variables one can not control for rimfire ammo. The best we can do is select ammo produced under the strictest of quality controls . . . and then, hope for the best.

 

[justin amateur]

Straight...the amount of primer was a serious surprise.
Up to a third of the the combustibles. So the 0.29 grains difference in primer weight
explains the mv spread produced by manually filled primer rimfire cartridges.
Lead styphnate is a high explosive, smokeless powder is a low explosive.
Having that much difference in the priming compound changes chamber pressure substantially.
Add in the minor variations in powder amounts and the 0.5 grains spread in bullet weights,
it should be no surprise there's that much mv spread with CCI 22lr.
With all those weight changes I recorded with each of the components,
it's not possible to determine which component, or combination of components,
is responsible for the difference when you are weighing the entire cartridge.

 

[Booner1334]

JC, I decided to turn my OCD loose on a box of CCI SV.
I didn't just weigh each cartridge, I disassembled each one
and weighed each individual component. Found some interesting data.

First, most digital scales are not accurate. They produce false measurements
or worse, display the same measurement produced by a previous object.
Those cheap digital scales are not what you need to obtain accurate weight.
A lab quality scale is needed. Otherwise the data is skewed from the very first measurement.

Second, technique is important when weighing. There's a learning curve with a lab quality scale.
Any air movement, countertop vibration, out of level setup will produce incorrect measurements.
The digital scale I ordered is accurate to 1/100th of a grain. Has leveling screws
and an enclosure to minimize air movement around the plate. Can't just set an object
and read immediately. Has to stabilize before the display reads the actual numbers.
Takes some time. Working through the enclosure is tedious and annoying.

Third, recording the data in a usable format is a pain.
Spreadsheets are not my friend. Data entry is a nitpicky process.

Tearing apart 50 cartridges and documenting the measurements took 2 weeks.
Work at it until irritated, then put away for another day. Not fun.

Results were surprising. I have a new smiley to use so I can laugh at anyone
claiming weight sorting or rim thickness measurements provide useful information.

Lubricant amount on the CCI SV was not measurable.
Weighed the cartridge before, wiped lube off after melting with blow drier,
weighed cartridge again, no measurable difference.
Bullet weights are not 40.00 grains. I measured from 39.73 to 40.28 grains.
Brass varies in weight. 9.41 grains to 9.58 grains.
Primer ranges from less than 1/4, to almost a third of the total combustible charge.
Lead styphnate amounts from 0.17 grains to 0.46 grains.
Powder measured from 0.93 grains to 1.18 grains.

There was no relationship between any of the weights.
Simply components randomly assembled on the production line.
Weight sorting or measuring rim thickness is a form of mental masturbation.
Makes you feel like y'er accomplishing something useful.
But in reality, there are too many variables involved.
Including bullet damage incurred during tumbling when bullet coating
and transporting metal components from station to station during assembly.

Justin Amateur,
I've done essentially the same testing as you have, with the exception that I did not break the ammo down to measure the components.
I've weighed 500 rounds of Eley Tenex and sorted them by weight and rim thickness. I'm shooting in ARA factory bench rest with a CZ 457 MTR. My hopes in doing all of this was to cull out those rounds that cause a flyer. I only shot these rounds in "no wind'' conditions, as verified by my wind flags, off of a Bald Eagle front rest and rear bag, with a single shot sled and loading the round directly into the chamber; all of this to make as sure as I could possible be that my shooting was as consistent shot-to-shot as I could possible be. My results: flyers happen no matter what efforts I take to find them and cull them out.

Ammo that I found to be at either end of that bell shaped curve, the outliers, the one's that were way off in terms of weight and rim thickness can shoot every bit as accurate as the ammo that was right in the middle of the curve. Flyers can and would occur with the ammo that was most consistent in terms of overall weight and rim thickness.

So my take away from all the things I've tried: I can do all the testing, measuring, etc. of the rounds I have to shoot, but other than giving me a misguided feeling that I'm shooting the best of the best of the ammo I have on hand, I'm still going to get a flyer, at best, in about every 15-20 rounds in every 25 rounds I shoot at an ARA target. My efforts are better spent in learning how to read the wind better to improve my score.

I think what I'm going to do over the winter is send my rifle off to a test center and buy a couple of cases of the ammo they found to be the best out of my rifle. I'm currently buying a brick or two at a time of what I can find online, and I've been pretty lucky with how well that ammo shoots. But I think that buying a case or two of what been found that shoots best our of my rifle will actually be cheaper in the long run.

The one bright spot of all of this is that I now have a scale that's much more accurate than my RCBS Chargemaster, (0.01 gr with the new scale vs 0.1gr on the Chargemaster), and my groups from my 6.5 Creedmoor have shrunk.

 

[justin amateur]

I hear ya' Booner.
I justified the purchase of the lab scale for the tear down using that same logic.
Tenth of a grain accuracy maybe, unreliable, cheap digital scale needed replacing.
The new one will come in handy for my F-Class 223 hand loads.

 

[straightshooter1]

Straight...the amount of primer was a serious surprise.
Up to a third of the the combustibles. So the 0.29 grains difference in primer weight
explains the mv spread produced by manually filled primer rimfire cartridges.
Lead styphnate is a high explosive, smokeless powder is a low explosive.
Having that much difference in the priming compound changes chamber pressure substantially.
Add in the minor variations in powder amounts and the 0.5 grains spread in bullet weights,
it should be no surprise there's that much mv spread with CCI 22lr.
With all those weight changes I recorded with each of the components,
it's not possible to determine which component, or combination of components,
is responsible for the difference when you are weighing the entire cartridge.

The difference in primer weight you found actually surprised me too. I had kinda already figured there was significant variance after watching a video of how CCI 22lr's are primed at the factory. But the ratio of combustible charge you've shown is startling.

 

[Booner1334]

I hear ya' Booner.
I justified the purchase of the lab scale for the tear down using that same logic.
Tenth of a grain accuracy maybe, unreliable, cheap digital scale needed replacing.
The new one will come in handy for my F-Class 223 hand loads.

This is my first year in shooting both ARA bench rest .22, and F class with my 6.5 CM. I thought I'd shoot the CM until I figured out what cartage I wanted to go with, and then do I go a Factory rifle or get one made?
With the bench rest .22 I can shoot two matches a month and they are both 100 miles from me. I'll have to do a lot more miles for the f class and not near as many matches. So at this time, shooting the .22 is more fun and easier to do.

 

[BillOH]

Justin, are you going to weigh some premium ammo to compare????

 

[justin amateur]

Ya' just had to go there....didn't ya' Bill.

After the irritation I went through to complete this one box of CCI SV,
I'm not even going to give it another try. Tedious like you would not believe.
But, necessary in order to determine just how much variation there can be in a cartridge.
It's all about quality control and uniformity of the components.
Cheap ammo just isn't manufactured to the exacting tolerances needed for predictable trajectories.
It's CCI SV, bulk 22lr in 50 cartridge boxes.

There's an easier way to check cartridge quality....send 50 at 100 or 200 yards, across a chronograph.
Way less tedious, much more entertaining, results and chrony numbers tell ya' if'n it was good, or bad.

 

[mrt949]

I See you really enjoy shooting . Keep up the good work . I enjoy your posts

 

[justin amateur]

Finally finished data entry and adding the calc functions to the spread sheet.
Good thing too, my calculations longhand were off a few times.
I've forgotten how to add and subtract. Must be that new math.

Here's the final numbers from all my tedium with the CCI SV.

All values are measured in grains

Cartridge is the initial weight.
Pull is the cartridge after the bullet is removed.
Dump is after the powder is emptied.
Clean is the case weight after the primer was burnt and scrubbed out.

Sometimes the bullet's heavy the powder's light.
Sometimes the primers heavy but the powder's light.
Sometimes it's the brass and the bullet, others it's the primer and powder.

Weight sorting...not worth the effort.
Sorting by rim thickness won't fix any of the component variations.

 

[Manning5R]

Ha, ~35% variation in powder, ~100% variation in primer. If I did the math in my head correct.......

 

[acudaowner]

while not all guns shoot the same ammo as well as others guess I have been lucky mine likes center x as well as sk red which both handed me single digit numbers as shot shooting extreamly well group size wise as did wolf while aquilla that I picked up shoots like hell it was hard to pass up price wise . But it will shoot any ammo I feed it like it or not as a beggar , I can hardly be extreamly picky in these lean times . If the prices wern't crazy high and availability was not an issure Id love to get a couple grand more of the center x but only if I knew my father would not stop shooting the cheap aquilla just to shoot up all my expensive ammo again he's like a little kid waisting the good stuff that someone else had to pay for . good luck getting something you enjoy shooting at a price you don't mind paying may things get better soon .

 

[ma smith]

Would be interesting to write ES and SD per column on those variables !

 

[justin amateur]

I can do averages...been a while since I've programmed a spreadsheet

AVERAGES (grains):

CARTRIDGE....PULL......DUMP......CLEAN.....BULLET....POWDER.. PRIMER....BRASS
50.903...........10.8556....9.837.....9.5038.......40.0 48.....1.0186........0.3332......9.5038

Ma, the sheet is Open Office Calc...I can send you a copy.

 

[obx22]

I can do averages...been a while since I've programmed a spreadsheet

AVERAGES (grains):

CARTRIDGE....PULL......DUMP......CLEAN.....BULLET....POWDER.. PRIMER....BRASS
50.903...........10.8556....9.837.....9.5038.......40.0 48.....1.0186........0.3332......9.5038

Ma, the sheet is Open Office Calc...I can send you a copy.

Interesting thread.
I wonder if you have blind tested your sorted, loaded, rounds?
I’ve done your disassembly test with Nammo made Wolf Match Target, Match Extra, and Match Gold. The one step I omitted was primer weight as the thought of burn out-clean-reweigh hadn’t occurred to me. I found the dominant factor was slug weight, powder and brass weights didn’t exhibit as much variance in my tests, and the spread of weights was far narrower.
Back to the blind testing:
I sorted by weight till I had about 250 rounds identical out of a spread of more than 15ish (memory, sorry, records were lost in Hurricane Irene) boxes of different weights. I loaded 1-50 rnd box where each cartridge was the same weight. I then loaded another identical box where every cartridge in the rows of 5 was a different weight.
Labeling a box A and I tested 25 rounds from each at the range, then had a friend of known ability do the same with my equipment while hiding the difference.
I repeated this same experiment with rim sorting, but had a different fellow test the second half of the boxes.
My results were roughly a 30% improvement in each, or roughly a 60% improvement in combination sorted ammo in my guns, at 50 yards, with what most consider junk ammo but I considered mid-grade.
At the time of my testing, ogive to rim base sorting wasn’t a “thing”, and while it makes sense to me, I haven’t had the opportunity to test it myself.
The concentricity gauge for rimfire didn’t appeal to me as the probe rode the soft lubed bullet, I never purchased one.
Bottom line, when I cared enough to travel to compete (11.5hrs), I took every measure to get as much in my favor as possible.
I’d be most interested in your results in the above tests, if you’re ever tempted to give it a go.

 

[justin amateur]

Obx, I won't offer an opinion on anything rimfire without trying it first.
Saves me from appearing like an ignorant old coot.
I've attempted sorting by rim thickness, by cartridge length, by weight multiple times.
CCI SV, SK Rifle Match, CCI 17 hmr....a full brick each time.
Results showed sorting wasn't worth the effort.
Returns were so small, it calculated out that time and expense made it more cost effective
to purchase expensive competition quality cartridges in the first place.
The basic fact is, you are attempting to control results by attributing cause to a single variable,
in a multi variable equation. That just doesn't work.
By disassembling the cartridges the variations in components illustrates why.
Sort by weight....you have no clue which component or combination is causing mv spread.
Sort by length...you may have a better fit to the lands, but it won't fix the other problems.
Sort by rim thickness... it's possible to obtain a more uniform pin impact, but won't fix all the other annoyances.

I did find one method of sorting that actually does improve results for precision paper punching.
Visual inspection of each cartridge for assembly line/production caused damage.
If the cartridges show dents, dings, asymmetry, irregular seating depth, canted bullets,
bullet material compressed down over the crimp line, damaged or uneven drive bands,
scratches or chips anywhere on the cartridges, it shows poor quality and there will be strays.
My problem is, when I culled by visible defect, entire brands were eliminated from purchase.
I have to exclude any rimfire labeled Battle Born, Cascade, CCI, Federal, GemTech,
Remington, Winchester, Aguila, Armscor or Sellier&Bellot.
That left me with the only options being Eley, SK/Lapua, RWS and Fiocchi Italia made rimfire ammo.
They do make the effort to minimize visible damage to the cartridge components, and batch test
in order to grade their products before labeling and shipping.
They do the checking/sorting for us...makes them worth lot testing before purchase.

 

[obx22]

Obx, I won't offer an opinion on anything rimfire without trying it first.
Saves me from appearing like an ignorant old coot.
I've attempted sorting by rim thickness, by cartridge length, by weight multiple times.
CCI SV, SK Rifle Match, CCI 17 hmr....a full brick each time.
Results showed sorting wasn't worth the effort.
Returns were so small, it calculated out that time and expense made it more cost effective
to purchase more expensive competition quality cartridges in the first place.
The basic fact is, you are attempting to control results by attributing cause to a single variable,
in a multi variable equation. That just doesn't work.
By disassembling the cartridges the variations in components illustrates why.
Sort by weight....you have no clue which component or combination is causing mv spread.
Sort by length...you may have a better fit to the lands, but it won't fix the other problems.
Sort by rim thickness... it's possible to obtain a more uniform pin impact, but won't fix all the other annoyances.

I did find one method of sorting that actually does improve results for precision paper punching.
Visual inspection of each cartridge for assembly line/production caused damage.
If the cartridges show dents, dings, asymmetry, irregular seating depth, canted bullets,
bullet material compressed down over the crimp line, damaged or uneven drive bands,
scratches or chips anywhere on the cartridges, it shows poor quality and there will be strays.
My problem is, when I culled by visible defect, entire brands were eliminated from purchase.
I have to exclude any rimfire produced by CCI, Remington, Winchester, Aguila, Armscor, Seller&Bellot.
That left me with the only options being Eley, SK/Lapua, RWS and Fiocchi Italia made rimfire ammo.
They do make the effort to minimize visible damage to the cartridge components, and batch test
in order to grade their products before labeling and shipping.

J A, my tests were over 15 years ago, and of ammo that shot well in my humble collection of arms.
My rationale for my results was simply this: if you can make something worse, you can make something better. I’m not adding time or value to it, the learning is my payback, thus it was worth it to me. (This coming from a nitwit who was once the big fish in a small pond shooting bulk pak Winchester )
I won’t be pretentious or throw down a glove, but will ask you to waste an hour or two of your time and at least give ‘er a try, and please report back.

 

[justin amateur]

I found an easier way to improve results with cheap ammo Obx.
I get really close to what I'm trying to hit, so that the problems caused by cartridge defects
never get a chance to be affected by external ballistics. When punching paper for precision
it only takes 1 stray to lose a match. A 30% decrease in the amount of crappiness in a brick,
after hours of sorting, still leaves way too many crappy cartridges in there to ruin my results.

Sorting rimfire is kinda like trying to pick up a turd, from the clean end.

 

[mrt949]

Sort of trying to pick fly shit out of pepper

 

[justin amateur]

Arguing ammo quality over lunch with the other old coots,
comparing variations in component weights, I was "volunteered" to run another box of 22lr.
Seeing as I have the scale, the tools, previous experience and the spreadsheet,
I was handed a box of Tenex and told to get it done. Friends, they'll throw you under the bus,
then ask for a vehicle safety inspection while it passes over you....

 

[mrt949]

I know the feeling I Was A Quality Inspector For Years .
No One Liked the RESULTS Of Your WORK
Good Luck BEST Wishes MRT949

 

[justin amateur]

It's gonna be a long week.... I'm good for 5 to 10 cartridges per evening.
Disassemble and weigh the components, data entry to the spreadsheet.
Just have to fit it in with all the other normal things that have to be done.
On the bright side, I didn't have to pay for the Tenex.

 

[fullsemiauto556]

I did find one method of sorting that actually does improve results for precision paper punching.
Visual inspection of each cartridge for assembly line/production caused damage.
If the cartridges show dents, dings, asymmetry, irregular seating depth, canted bullets,
bullet material compressed down over the crimp line, damaged or uneven drive bands,
scratches or chips anywhere on the cartridges, it shows poor quality and there will be strays.
My problem is, when I culled by visible defect, entire brands were eliminated from purchase.
I have to exclude any rimfire labeled Battle Born, Cascade, CCI, Federal, GemTech,
Remington, Winchester, Aguila, Armscor or Sellier&Bellot.

With something like CCI SV, have you ever tried sorting out 50 rounds of defect free ammo and comparing their group size to 50 rounds of unsorted ammo (or even 50 rounds of defects)?

I have a ton of CCI SV and Aguila SV. And a single shot adapter for my CZ 457. If you haven't compared those results, I just might try. I realize the MV variances would still cause some issues though, but I could chrono them to keep track of any rounds that show a significant elevation changed due to MV.

I've tried the rim thickness and weight sorting in the past, it was a huge waste of time for me as well.


My data on CCI SV and Aguila SV group sizes at 50 yards with my 457, for what it's worth.

CCI SV​	AGUILA SV​
0.307​	0.314​
0.318​	0.485​
0.368​	0.507​
0.381​	0.514​
0.44​	0.527​
0.482​	0.558​
0.504​	0.569​
0.511​	0.602​
0.516​	0.603​
0.523​	0.607​
0.529​	0.618​
0.547​	0.619​
0.548​	0.623​
0.551​	0.624​
0.556​	0.628​
0.574​	0.628​
0.575​	0.669​
0.586​	0.673​
0.589​	0.681​
0.617​	0.685​
0.622​	0.696​
0.641​	0.727​
0.647​	0.751​
0.649​	0.758​
0.66​	0.764​
0.67​	0.765​
0.687​	0.774​
0.709​	0.774​
0.71​	0.789​
0.718​	0.792​
0.728​	0.796​
0.759​	0.803​
0.762​	0.805​
0.764​	0.806​
0.777​	0.874​
0.783​	0.882​
0.785​	0.892​
0.851​	0.893​
0.869​	0.898​
0.869​	0.901​
0.876​	0.976​
0.887​	1.032​
0.888​	1.053​
0.921​	1.162​
1.005​	1.265​
1.007​	​
1.034​	AVG .741​
1.053​	SD .180​
1.097​	​
1.267​	​
1.416​	​
1.612​	​
​	​
AVG .726​	​
SD .257​	​

 

[justin amateur]

FSA556, yes, I have sorted CCI SV by culling visible defects.
When I was done, there were no cartridges left in the box.
Every single one of the CCI SV had visible damage.
If you watch the factory tour video, you can watch why they're beat to snot.
Those bullets are dumped, tumbled, dropped, shaken and slid all along the production line.

Watch for y'erself and think about how all those impacts affect quality...

Would you treat y'er centerfire handloads that way? I baby mine.

 

[fullsemiauto556]

FSA556, yes, I have sorted CCI SV by culling visible defects.
When I was done, there were no cartridges left in the box.
Every single one of the CCI SV had visible damage.
If you watch the factory tour video, you can watch why they're beat to snot.
Those bullets are dumped, tumbled, dropped, shaken and slid all along the production line.

Watch for y'erself and think about how those all those impacts affect quality...

Would you treat y'er centerfire handloads that way? I baby mine.

Thanks for saving me the hassle of testing that theory. I appreciate all the time and effort you've put into your research.

 

[RTH1800]

Following

 

[justin amateur]

I've made it through 10 of the Tenex....much more consistent numbers, less deviation.
Still a tedious and annoying job. Bullets are right at 40 grains, powder running about 1.08 grains,
primer is 0.6 to 0.9 grains and brass is showing up at 9.25 to 9.35 grains.

Audible pop when burning out the primer.
Much more energetic than the CCI primer.

 

[RTH1800]

Justin,
You only need to test 3. After all we only shoot 3 shot groups so it should be a good number.