These 2 specialty ammos are generally used for backyard pest removal among other applications where "stealth" is required - low noise / less detection. Recently having a population of 5 grey foxes move under the neighbor's shed (and the subsequent losing the fear of people, aggresive stances taken against myself and my wife) had me at the store looking for a "solution". For the record, if it wasn't for the offensive / defensive actions the foxes were taking, I wouldn't have been looking for a "solution". So having both of the subject ammos readily available at the store, I purchased both and figured to do a little test while in hand. Yes, there is also Aguila SSS ammo out there that fits into the same classification / use as the subject ammos, unfortunately not availble at the store I was at.
Both ammos came in a 100 round container, price on both was $9.99, or $.01 a round. I started analyzing the ammos the usual way, weighing and rim sorting, then chronographing. I only took the first 50 rounds of the box to do the weight and rim thickness sorting, as that should be enough to give an example of the rest.
Chronographing was done 10 feet from the muzzle, average on 5 rounds shot. The rifle used was a Savage MKII BV 20" heavy barrel. Some of the group testing was a MKII F, 17" sporter barrel. The magazines were loaded 1 round each of the different weight lots / rim thickness of each ammo to ensure an objective "mix" of what can be encountered, or if taking the rounds straight out to the box. Temp was 78 deg F, sunny, cross wind of 3 to 7 mph 3:00. 10 round groups were measured outside to outside spread.
<span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Remington CBee 22 ammo</span></span></span>
First, a breakdown of the <span style="font-weight: bold">Remington CBee 22 ammo</span>. I never was a fan of Remington ammo of any caliber, so I must admit I was biased from the start. The advertised data on the back of the package read that it had a 33gr truncated cone bullet and velocity was 740 fps at muzzle, 687 at 50yards with a 25 yard zero, a 2.7" drop at 50 yards.
I found this to be somewhat true. I chronied an average of 736 fps 10 feet away from the muzzle. With a 25 yard zero and not making any adjustments, a 2.5" drop. A deviation between the lowest and highest FPS reading was only 36 FPS. The rapport of the ammo was substaintially lower than that of High velocity, and also noticably lower than standard / match / subsonic velocitied ammos.
The bullet itself looked quite wicked - a true truncated coned head with a large cavity hollowpoint. In addition, there were slots cut into the tip at 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock, no doubt to assist with fragmentation / expansion. The lead bullet was copper washed, a few lookes as if there was some sort of scaling around the driving band. A hint of lubrication was present, however very minimal.
The ammo weight lot seperation produced 8 weight lots, and ranged from 44.4 (1 round) to 46.0 grains (3 rounds), favoring 45.1 grains with 12 rounds out of 50.
Rim Thickness produced 6 lots and ranged between .0365 and .040, favoring .0380.
(.0365 - 3, .037 - 8, .0375 - 9, .0380 - 16, .0385 - 13, .040 - 1)
I found the group size to be actually impressive, albeit only 25 yards through a MKII F and especially a super low velocity in a cross wind. Horizontally, only .75" and vertically .25". With the heavy barrelled MKII, a horizontal and vertical spread of just under .75". So I picked it up a notch and went to 50 yards. Not expecting much, i was actually really surpised. A 1.25" group with the 17" MKII F, and a -1.5" group with the MKII BV heavy barrel. Drop from both the 17" sporter and 20" heavy barrel was 2.5" from the 25 yard zero. Illustrations at the end of post. Through 70+ rounds being shot through 2 different rifles, there were 4 failures to fire. 5 out of the 70+ rounds had an "off sound" which were obviously of lower velocity and charge, but printed on paper somewhat closely to the parent group. Even the "bad rounds" grouped well enough.
<span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">CCI CB Longs</span></span></span>
Now on to the <span style="font-weight: bold">CCI CB Longs</span>. From what I understand, the CB Longs were made to accomodate rifles that were chambered for Long Rifle only, and use of CB Shorts would cause warranty issues, carbon ring buildup, etc. On the package, an advertised 29 grain Round Nose bullet and a 710 FPS. although the Round Nose bullet (stubby looking) was true, actual readings were 593 FPS with a lowest to highest deviation of 96 FPS. The bullet also had a slight hint of lubrication, however as with the Rem. CBee's, very minimal. As you will see in the illustrations at the bottom of the post, I could not really give a good read on a 25 yard to 50 yard drop as only 6 of the 10 rounds actually printed on paper - 2 hits were severly low, and 2 rounds were even lower, by at least 10"! All i could say on drop is 8" ish.
The ammo weight lot seperation ranged with only 5 lots from 40.3 (1 round) to 41.0 grains (3 rounds), favoring 40.7 grains with 23 rounds, and 40.3 grains with 22 rounds, out of 50.
Rim Thickness produced 6 lots and ranged between .0380 and .0415, favoring .0390.
(.038 - 1, .0385 - 2, .039 - 23, .0395 - 22, .040 - 1, .0415 - 1)
So from a measurements stand point, the CCI CB Longs seemed to be more consistant than the Rem CBees, but on paper, the results were majorly different, -5.5" vertical spread, .75" horizontal with the MKII F sporter barrel, the group shot with the heavy barrel were, to say the least, to big to be considered a group, even at 25 yards. Several of the rounds had a distinct under charging sound, I went as far as to check the barrel to see if the bullet had cleared. At 50 yards, hits printed on paper so dispersed, I didn't pursue further testing. Of the 40 rounds of CB Longs shot, there were no failures to fire, and 12 rounds had a very low rapport that either couldn't be consisered precise enough to be used as an urban environment for pest control, and a few splashed in the dirt, no where near the target at both 25 and 50 yards.
<span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">COMPARISONS</span></span></span>
<span style="font-weight: bold">OVERVIEW</span> - To be fair, after 70+ rounds of the Rem CBee 22s, 7 had a similiar "off sound" but were nowhere near the extreme off sound of the CCI CB Longs. At least the Rem CBees printed near the parent group enough to give confidence that hitting the mark (center mass or head shot on pests) can be more constantly achieved in an urban setting, where safety of a stray bullet should be the first concern. Both ammos left a sooty residue. Both ammos considerably low noise. Both manufacturers have "Do not use in semi autos" - it will not cylcle the bolt / slide. The truncated cone shape of the CBEE 22 reminded me of .45ACP self defence ammo with stop right there characteristics and cut well defined holes in paper, and the CB Longs had more of a pass through Round Nose find your quarry somewhere else kind of feel, and produced a more jagged less defined hole in paper.
<span style="font-weight: bold">COST</span> - Both ammos were the same price.
<span style="font-weight: bold">SOUND</span> - The Rem CBee 22s were noticably louder than the CCI CB Longs, but more accurate than the CCI CB Longs, at least through both a sporter and heavy barreled Savage MKII. Perhaps the bad groups of the CCI CB Longs can be contributed to the shorter and lighter bullet not being favored by the MKII for stabilization, but the numerous off sounding rounds led me to believe that the same would hold true in any rifle. Handguns (with shorter barrels) may be the exception to this and produce different results, but these ammo were run through rifles and not handguns. Hands down, the CCI CB Longs was the quieter of the ammo, but seems that more shots may be needed to actually hit what you aiming at, so the louder Remingtons may be of more value for when a safe one shot hit is preferred.
<span style="font-weight: bold">BULLET DESIGN</span> - Remington CBee 22 had the more specific design for fragmentation / expansion when a hit is achieved and a heavier weight for energy, rather than the lighter Round Nose of the CCI CB Longs. Again when used for pest control in an urban environment, the Remingtons has a more "stop right there" design and fragmentation if there is a miss.
<span style="font-weight: bold">ACCURACCY</span> - The Remingtons semed that they may be of some use past 50 yards judging from how well they grouped at 50 yards. As the round count remaining in my inventory started to dwindle, I wanted to make sure I had enough available to take care of my original situation. At least through a MKII sporter and heavy barrel there is no doubt that the Reminton CBee22 ammo was far superior, and actually not a bad choice to use for every day target shooting at $.01 a shot.
UPDATED SINCE FIRST TRIAL - I've shot the Rem. CBee22 at 100 yards, no picture posted as at that distance (at least through a MKII) the groups were very large and hits were scattered, not very effective for what the ammo was designed for and 100 yards good performance is asking alot from this ammo in the first place. I just wan't to satisfy my "what if" at 100 yards. Still, for a low noise "backyard pest removing" ammo, 50 yards is still quite a good distance and to have the kind of results the Rem CBee22 produced was still quite amazing to me. Not bad for a primer only .22lr.
<span style="font-weight: bold">25 YARDS, MKII F 17" SPORTER BARREL</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold">50 YARDS, MKII F 17" SPORTER BARREL</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold">25 YARDS, MKII BV 20" HEAVY BARREL </span>
<span style="font-weight: bold">50 YARDS, MKII BV 20" HEAVY BARREL </span>
<span style="font-weight: bold">25 TO 50 YARD DROP WITH MKII HEAVY BARREL </span> (same results with the sporter barrel)
How did the "solution" to my situation turn out? Let's just say that if there were any henhouses in the area, the hens could sleep peaceably from now on. And it only took $.50, thanks to the Remington CBee 22....definately stop right there outcomes with no attention brought to what was going on.
correction, 10 cents a round.
retraction - not that affordable as a plinker, much better target ammo available for that price.
Both ammos came in a 100 round container, price on both was $9.99, or $.01 a round. I started analyzing the ammos the usual way, weighing and rim sorting, then chronographing. I only took the first 50 rounds of the box to do the weight and rim thickness sorting, as that should be enough to give an example of the rest.
Chronographing was done 10 feet from the muzzle, average on 5 rounds shot. The rifle used was a Savage MKII BV 20" heavy barrel. Some of the group testing was a MKII F, 17" sporter barrel. The magazines were loaded 1 round each of the different weight lots / rim thickness of each ammo to ensure an objective "mix" of what can be encountered, or if taking the rounds straight out to the box. Temp was 78 deg F, sunny, cross wind of 3 to 7 mph 3:00. 10 round groups were measured outside to outside spread.
<span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Remington CBee 22 ammo</span></span></span>
First, a breakdown of the <span style="font-weight: bold">Remington CBee 22 ammo</span>. I never was a fan of Remington ammo of any caliber, so I must admit I was biased from the start. The advertised data on the back of the package read that it had a 33gr truncated cone bullet and velocity was 740 fps at muzzle, 687 at 50yards with a 25 yard zero, a 2.7" drop at 50 yards.
I found this to be somewhat true. I chronied an average of 736 fps 10 feet away from the muzzle. With a 25 yard zero and not making any adjustments, a 2.5" drop. A deviation between the lowest and highest FPS reading was only 36 FPS. The rapport of the ammo was substaintially lower than that of High velocity, and also noticably lower than standard / match / subsonic velocitied ammos.
The bullet itself looked quite wicked - a true truncated coned head with a large cavity hollowpoint. In addition, there were slots cut into the tip at 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock, no doubt to assist with fragmentation / expansion. The lead bullet was copper washed, a few lookes as if there was some sort of scaling around the driving band. A hint of lubrication was present, however very minimal.
The ammo weight lot seperation produced 8 weight lots, and ranged from 44.4 (1 round) to 46.0 grains (3 rounds), favoring 45.1 grains with 12 rounds out of 50.
Rim Thickness produced 6 lots and ranged between .0365 and .040, favoring .0380.
(.0365 - 3, .037 - 8, .0375 - 9, .0380 - 16, .0385 - 13, .040 - 1)
I found the group size to be actually impressive, albeit only 25 yards through a MKII F and especially a super low velocity in a cross wind. Horizontally, only .75" and vertically .25". With the heavy barrelled MKII, a horizontal and vertical spread of just under .75". So I picked it up a notch and went to 50 yards. Not expecting much, i was actually really surpised. A 1.25" group with the 17" MKII F, and a -1.5" group with the MKII BV heavy barrel. Drop from both the 17" sporter and 20" heavy barrel was 2.5" from the 25 yard zero. Illustrations at the end of post. Through 70+ rounds being shot through 2 different rifles, there were 4 failures to fire. 5 out of the 70+ rounds had an "off sound" which were obviously of lower velocity and charge, but printed on paper somewhat closely to the parent group. Even the "bad rounds" grouped well enough.
<span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">CCI CB Longs</span></span></span>
Now on to the <span style="font-weight: bold">CCI CB Longs</span>. From what I understand, the CB Longs were made to accomodate rifles that were chambered for Long Rifle only, and use of CB Shorts would cause warranty issues, carbon ring buildup, etc. On the package, an advertised 29 grain Round Nose bullet and a 710 FPS. although the Round Nose bullet (stubby looking) was true, actual readings were 593 FPS with a lowest to highest deviation of 96 FPS. The bullet also had a slight hint of lubrication, however as with the Rem. CBee's, very minimal. As you will see in the illustrations at the bottom of the post, I could not really give a good read on a 25 yard to 50 yard drop as only 6 of the 10 rounds actually printed on paper - 2 hits were severly low, and 2 rounds were even lower, by at least 10"! All i could say on drop is 8" ish.
The ammo weight lot seperation ranged with only 5 lots from 40.3 (1 round) to 41.0 grains (3 rounds), favoring 40.7 grains with 23 rounds, and 40.3 grains with 22 rounds, out of 50.
Rim Thickness produced 6 lots and ranged between .0380 and .0415, favoring .0390.
(.038 - 1, .0385 - 2, .039 - 23, .0395 - 22, .040 - 1, .0415 - 1)
So from a measurements stand point, the CCI CB Longs seemed to be more consistant than the Rem CBees, but on paper, the results were majorly different, -5.5" vertical spread, .75" horizontal with the MKII F sporter barrel, the group shot with the heavy barrel were, to say the least, to big to be considered a group, even at 25 yards. Several of the rounds had a distinct under charging sound, I went as far as to check the barrel to see if the bullet had cleared. At 50 yards, hits printed on paper so dispersed, I didn't pursue further testing. Of the 40 rounds of CB Longs shot, there were no failures to fire, and 12 rounds had a very low rapport that either couldn't be consisered precise enough to be used as an urban environment for pest control, and a few splashed in the dirt, no where near the target at both 25 and 50 yards.
<span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">COMPARISONS</span></span></span>
<span style="font-weight: bold">OVERVIEW</span> - To be fair, after 70+ rounds of the Rem CBee 22s, 7 had a similiar "off sound" but were nowhere near the extreme off sound of the CCI CB Longs. At least the Rem CBees printed near the parent group enough to give confidence that hitting the mark (center mass or head shot on pests) can be more constantly achieved in an urban setting, where safety of a stray bullet should be the first concern. Both ammos left a sooty residue. Both ammos considerably low noise. Both manufacturers have "Do not use in semi autos" - it will not cylcle the bolt / slide. The truncated cone shape of the CBEE 22 reminded me of .45ACP self defence ammo with stop right there characteristics and cut well defined holes in paper, and the CB Longs had more of a pass through Round Nose find your quarry somewhere else kind of feel, and produced a more jagged less defined hole in paper.
<span style="font-weight: bold">COST</span> - Both ammos were the same price.
<span style="font-weight: bold">SOUND</span> - The Rem CBee 22s were noticably louder than the CCI CB Longs, but more accurate than the CCI CB Longs, at least through both a sporter and heavy barreled Savage MKII. Perhaps the bad groups of the CCI CB Longs can be contributed to the shorter and lighter bullet not being favored by the MKII for stabilization, but the numerous off sounding rounds led me to believe that the same would hold true in any rifle. Handguns (with shorter barrels) may be the exception to this and produce different results, but these ammo were run through rifles and not handguns. Hands down, the CCI CB Longs was the quieter of the ammo, but seems that more shots may be needed to actually hit what you aiming at, so the louder Remingtons may be of more value for when a safe one shot hit is preferred.
<span style="font-weight: bold">BULLET DESIGN</span> - Remington CBee 22 had the more specific design for fragmentation / expansion when a hit is achieved and a heavier weight for energy, rather than the lighter Round Nose of the CCI CB Longs. Again when used for pest control in an urban environment, the Remingtons has a more "stop right there" design and fragmentation if there is a miss.
<span style="font-weight: bold">ACCURACCY</span> - The Remingtons semed that they may be of some use past 50 yards judging from how well they grouped at 50 yards. As the round count remaining in my inventory started to dwindle, I wanted to make sure I had enough available to take care of my original situation. At least through a MKII sporter and heavy barrel there is no doubt that the Reminton CBee22 ammo was far superior, and actually not a bad choice to use for every day target shooting at $.01 a shot.
UPDATED SINCE FIRST TRIAL - I've shot the Rem. CBee22 at 100 yards, no picture posted as at that distance (at least through a MKII) the groups were very large and hits were scattered, not very effective for what the ammo was designed for and 100 yards good performance is asking alot from this ammo in the first place. I just wan't to satisfy my "what if" at 100 yards. Still, for a low noise "backyard pest removing" ammo, 50 yards is still quite a good distance and to have the kind of results the Rem CBee22 produced was still quite amazing to me. Not bad for a primer only .22lr.
<span style="font-weight: bold">25 YARDS, MKII F 17" SPORTER BARREL</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold">50 YARDS, MKII F 17" SPORTER BARREL</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold">25 YARDS, MKII BV 20" HEAVY BARREL </span>
<span style="font-weight: bold">50 YARDS, MKII BV 20" HEAVY BARREL </span>
<span style="font-weight: bold">25 TO 50 YARD DROP WITH MKII HEAVY BARREL </span> (same results with the sporter barrel)
How did the "solution" to my situation turn out? Let's just say that if there were any henhouses in the area, the hens could sleep peaceably from now on. And it only took $.50, thanks to the Remington CBee 22....definately stop right there outcomes with no attention brought to what was going on.
correction, 10 cents a round.
retraction - not that affordable as a plinker, much better target ammo available for that price.
