NRL22 Ammo: Super vs Sub

[Chrazy-Chris]

Hey guys, shot my first NRL 22 match last weekend and I'm hooked. I did a bunch of ammo testing today where I shot five, 5-shot groups @100yrds of each ammo I tried with and without my silencerco sparrow out of my Savage FV-SR. My top two combos were:

1. SK Match Rifle w/out can: 1.06" avg (smallest .71", biggest 1.34")
2. CCI Velocitor w/ can: 1.30" avg (smallest .49", biggest 1.96")

The matches go out to 250yds. I'm having a hard time making up my mind because I don't have a good feel for whether the extra speed will give me an edge when making those long shots in the wind. I'm also aware that there are some unpredictable physics that come with a supersonic bullet going subsonic at range- is this more or less of an issue with rimfire? My ballistics calculator says the velocitor will go subsonic at 90yds so that's a lot of flight time to be going wonky. I used the velocitors last time and scored an 8/10 on the 230yd TYL stage. I didn't have a choice last time because my previous scope didn't have enough adjustment for the subsonics. I've since upgraded scopes and added a 25MOA rail so that opens things up to decisions now.

Thought I'd also contribute some of the take-aways from my ammo testing:
- Gemtech subsonics aren't marketed as a match ammo but were actually pretty impressive. Five shot group avg without can was 1.37" but that was across 13 groups instead of five because I was having so much fun. These are 42gr bullets versus the standard 40gr. Best group was .62", worst was 1.9" but keep in mind I didn't throw out any fliers. And I shot 13 groups. It didn't like shooting through the can at all though.
- CCI Velocitor was the only ammo that shot better with the can. It was also the only jacketed ammo... coincidence?

Rifle was a Savage FV-SR in a Boyd's Tacticool. Shot off a concrete bench using bipod & gamechanger. Minimal wind.

 

[bmicek]

You will find most people run subsonic match ammo and a good reason for that is because of the transonic issue, and also because Match grade ammo is subsonic. You can find good shooting supersonic ammo but nothing I would hardly consider “Match Grade”. Also, keep an eye on your SD’s. They may not have much of a difference at 0-100 yards but once you get out a few hundred yards, they play a big role. That may be where you see the benefit of subsonic match ammo with your consistency at those distances.

 

[Basher]

^^^What he said.^^^

The transition from above to below sonic can cause havoc with any projectile, but little .22s with low BCs are especially prone to problems. This is why so many match loads start below the threshold to begin with. Generally speaking, match ammo is used for paper punching (I know plenty of guys use it for hunting as well, but that's not it's design intent), so energy on target is irrelevant. Also, it's mostly used in bolt actions or single shots, so the added energy you'd need to reliably cycle a blowback action type isn't necessary.

I'd suggest finding a subsonic load that is both acceptable from a financial standpoint for you, as well as acceptably accurate in your rifle and run with it. The HV stuff isn't usually part of the selection pool for your uses. That SK Match looks like a good fit.

 

[BlastersAreCool]

Does anybody have any links/ sources to the transonic transition wreaking havoc specifically on a 22lr projectile?

 

[Travelor]

The speed of sound changes as the temperature changes. http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/nrl22-ammo-super-vs-sub.6925592/

When a bullet approaches the speed of sound it is called the trans sonic velocity, lets say 1.2 mach is the speed at which the projectile becomes unstable.

Let's take a 22 RF round with a muzzle velocity of 1280 fps at a temperature of 60 degrees. (speed of sound here is 1118 fps) At that speed the projectile is supersonic and will remain so until approximately 70 yards a which distance is (trans sonic it is at the 1.2 mach speed which is at the muzzle in this scenario ). At this distance and beyond the projectile will become less stable and thus accuracy will become compromised. We sometimes see this when pulling targets in the pits when a new shooter's ammunition is not fast enough to remain supersonic at 1000 yards - the bullets hit the target side on.

Answering BlastersAreCool, here is a link to the effect of trans sonic affect on bullets. know this is reporting on centerfire but also applies to 22RF bullets. https://www.accurateshooter.com/ballistics/transonic-effects-on-bullet-stability-bc/

 

[JG26_Irish]

When I was gearing up to shoot PRS rimfire matches, I set up a Savage MkII HB with laminated stock as the base rifle because it was reliable, had a decent trigger and had 10rd mags available. I put a 25 MOA rail on top and a 6-25x FFP optic. I did consider running hi-vel ammo but in testing the CCI's did the best with the mini-mags and the Velocitors being the best of them. None of the hi-vel ammo was match grade and was always grouping wider than even moderately high quality std-vel ammo. I settled on Wolf Match Target because it shat well in my rifle, I had two bricks of it available at the time and it was grouping MOA or less at 50y and 100y. Out past 100y, I found that the ammo starts to become less of the dominant variable and just one of many to contend with. The wind was the biggest for me. The recticle in my scope was another since the FFP scopes magnify the recticle at high power settings which limits how precisely I could aim. Still it was a compromise that allowed me to obtain consistent hold overs for different ranges and power settings. I had enough adjustment to get to a point blank aim point out to 250y and beyond that out to 300, I added some hold over. I found that the need to quickly acquire each tgt on a given stage caused me to not use max magnification much and usually I had my scope dialed down to 8-12x instead of all the way up to 25x. The rifle shoots a little better with Lapua CX or Midas+ but both of those shoot to a slightly lower point of impact for each distance. Since I had spent weeks generating actual ballistics data for the Wolf MX, I stuck with it for now. The added vertical dispersion of the high velocity ammo is the main reason I could not use it. I tried it on the 250+ distances but the extra vertical variance in the ammo made it miss more than it hit even though I could dial in a zero on the scope, it did not matter. On the other hand, the Wolf MX was able to hit 5" or 6" steel plates fairly consistently at 250y distance. The wind can and did push my shots as much as 12" right or more, in stages with strong cross winds. Fortunately it was dry enough that I could practice the "Dust n Adjust" method to get on tgt in those cases. Once you get good dope on a match grade ammo source that shoots well in your rifle, you will not want to use the hi-vel ammo. As for the trans-sonic wobble that comes from the bullet dropping out of supersonic flight? It is just another variable that you can eliminate with subsonic ammo. Even at 50y the supersonic ammo does not shoot well enough to compete with match grade stuff. I stopped using it for squirrel hunting even since it is hard to hit a 2" squirrel in the head with stuff such as CCI Stingers or Mini-Mags at 50y. On the other hand Lapua CX ammo will give you the option of choosing which eye to aim at and hit (yes a little hype). It prints 1/2" to 1/4' from bench in most of my rifles at 50y. Not that well in the field but close depending on what I have to rest from when taking a shot. In fact, a rifle/ammo/optic combo that prints 1/4" from a bench on max power setting of 12x or 24x opens up to closer to 1/2" when the scope is dialed down to 3x or 4x where it will likely be for hunting. 1/2" is still good enough to hit a squirrel in the head at 50y but add in a moving tgt, wind, shooting from improvised rests, and that 1/2" accuracy quickly opens up to more like a 50:50 chance of hitting it at all unless you are patient and rig up a solid rest. In recent years, I have taken to hunting with an adjustable shooting stick. It is not rock steady but is more steady than my off-hand shot. It has let me make shots that I would have otherwise missed.

 

[justin amateur]

I'm no longer a believer regarding the supersonic transition and the 22lr.
Why? Read the link provided carefully. It applies only to the SMK bthp, not a stubby round nosed projectile.
It applies only to a long, slender, tail heavy bullet where the center of pressure shifts to the nose and causes it to pitch or yaw.
Studies done with the 22lr show only increased wind drift, not any effects caused by the transition.
Check for yourself, I've spent 2 months searching for proof that the transition causes problems with the 22lr.
Guess what? All the referenced reports link back to the same study which only applies to the SMK bthp.
No studies show anything regarding the transition and the 22lr. Do some digging, you'll find the same things I did.
I've been shooting 200 yards across a chronograph for a while now. 50 shots at a time recording results and mv's.
Results on target show no tumbling, no yaw, no trajectory dispersions that can not be explained by mv spread,
wind, human error or cartridge defects. Running the results through a ballistics calculator confirms a lack of transition caused spread.
Do some digging on your own before repeating what has been become an internet excuse for poor results with 22lr at long range.

See if you can find a single study linking the 22lr to accuracy problems linked to the transition.
If you can please post the link. I would seriously enjoy being able to read it.


I see cartridge limitations and wind effects and human error.
No tumbling, no yaw, no wild flyers.

 

[Islander]

You will find most people run subsonic match ammo and a good reason for that is because of the transonic issue, and also because Match grade ammo is subsonic. You can find good shooting supersonic ammo but nothing I would hardly consider “Match Grade”. Also, keep an eye on your SD’s. They may not have much of a difference at 0-100 yards but once you get out a few hundred yards, they play a big role. That may be where you see the benefit of subsonic match ammo with your consistency at those distances.

I have found this to be the case also. Fairly new to precision rifle shooting but spent over 30 years as a pistol silhouette shooter. The standard rimfire targets go out to 100m and for big bore pistols it was 200m. For shits and grins we use to shoot the rimfire targets at the BB distances from time to time. Many folks thought the super sonic would help but soon learned that the accuracy just wasn't there. Until some manufacture starts producing truly "match grade" ammo in higher velocities, quality standard velocity ammo usually wins out. That being said, it doesn't hurt to keep testing. There are cases of cheaper or faster ammo shooting well in some individual guns. I had a particular 22 pistol that loved WOLF match Target. It shot better groups than most of the higher priced Eley and Lapua match ammo I tried. You luck out sometimes!

 

[lash]

I'm no longer a believer regarding the supersonic transition and the 22lr.
Why? Read the link provided carefully. It applies only to the SMK bthp, not a stubby round nosed projectile.
It applies only to a long, slender, tail heavy bullet where the center of pressure shifts to the nose and causes it to pitch or yaw.
Studies done with the 22lr show only increased wind drift, not any effects caused by the transition.
Check for yourself, I've spent 2 months searching for proof that the transition causes problems with the 22lr.
Guess what? All the referenced reports link back to the same study which only applies to the SMK bthp.
No studies show anything regarding the transition and the 22lr. Do some digging, you'll find the same things I did.
I've been shooting 200 yards across a chronograph for a while now. 50 shots at a time recording results and mv's.
Results on target show no tumbling, no yaw, no trajectory dispersions that can not be explained by mv spread,
wind, human error or cartridge defects. Running the results through a ballistics calculator confirms a lack of transition caused spread.
Do some digging on your own before repeating what has been become an internet excuse for poor results with 22lr at long range.

See if you can find a single study linking the 22lr to accuracy problems linked to the transition.
If you can please post the link. I would seriously enjoy being able to read it.


I see cartridge limitations and wind effects and human error.
No tumbling, no yaw, no wild flyers.

This is interesting, especially since I have also repeated the ‘only use standard velocity ammo’ saw. And yes, it was due to an article I read that linked that very hpbt article. I am nothing if not willing to learn more all of the time and when I think about the old black powder matches out to 1000 yards, where they used old cast conical bullets with a very similar shape as the standard .22 round-nosed bullet.

Further, at last year’s November .22 long range match, we had one shooter using HV rounds and he did fine out to the roughly 320 yard furthest distance that we shot. He had heard us all parrot the conventional ‘wisdom’ that he only use SV ammo, but said that he had good luck with the HV in his rifle and was using them anyway. Yes, this is only anecdotal, but his impacts were as consistent as anyone else’s and his holds were much less at those longer distances.

I’m most interested in seeing someone do at least a semi-scientific study and put together even an informal write up summarizing results. I think that you may be onto something, in that the real issue may only be in finding ‘match’ quality (meaning consistent) high velocity .22 long rifle ammo to use.

With the advent of more and more long range .22 matches and the demands of same, maybe ammo manufacturers will listen and start offering some HV Match grade options. I know that I’d like to be able to dial less than the current 17.3 mils I need to make impacts at 320 yards now.

 

[justin amateur]

Look at these results with subsonic match 22lr, high end ammo.
Compare to the biathlon ammo I posted, that transitions at about 35 to 40 yards from the muzzle.
That left 160 to 165 yards for the supposed errors to amplify. I don't see it, do you?

These were all shot off a bench with CZ 455 Varmint, Lilja barrel, set trigger
Mueller 8-32x44 target reticle, Sinclair bipod and rear bag
while watching wind flags/vegetation on berms to time shots.

 

[lash]

I have to agree with what I’m seeing. Have you tried other HV types besides the Biathlon Match? Is that the most consistent of the HV options tested ?

 

[justin amateur]

If you use match quality ammo, only the biathlon labeled meets the requirements.
The rest is bulk hv which shows mv spread and visible cartridge defects.
Here's a laugh for you...

Freakin' thunderbolts shot better than many of the "Match" labeled boxes.
The WNC indicates "would not chamber" stovepipe cartridge.


It's not difficult to prove this for yourself.
Find a 200 yard range, use a chronograph, run some boxes of ammo downrange.
Track results, chrony numbers and inspect your cartridges for visible defects.
Irregular brass/case mouths, canted bullets, smeared cannelures, variations in seating depth.
the same problems that annoy us when reloading, cause problems with rimfire cartridges.

 

[straightshooter1]

It there's not much transonic issue, then how about deflection???

See this: http://www.ballisticsapp.com/22-ballistics.htm

 

[justin amateur]

I can compensate for gravity and wait for lulls to avoid wind.
I can deal with steady winds from the information recorded in my scope log.
Note the wind data recorded on the targets posted above and the results.
What I can't compensate for is MV spread, cartridge defects and my own human caused errors.

It's those swinging tailwinds that purely kick my ass.

 

[lash]

It there's not much transonic issue, then how about deflection???

See this: http://www.ballisticsapp.com/22-ballistics.htm

The flaw in that article is that they are comparing two 40g bullets as used in the standard and subsonic rounds to a 32g bullet in the hypervelocity round. It’s not a true apples to apples comparison. Of course the lighter projectile will deflect more, as the BC is lower.

So in essence their whole argument boils down to, the HV rounds aren’t as accurate. If you use the same projectile in all of the tested rounds, Justin amateur has already shown that he’s found a HV round that shoots as accurately at distance as any of the SV loads he tried out to distance. So that can be overcome too, if you can find a HV round that does well in your rifle.

As to the fact that the HV load in the article dropped velocity much faster, there are two answers. First is the aforementioned disparity in projectiles used. Second is, who cares? If accuracy and consistency can be found in a HV loading for your rifle, the rest is just acedemic.

BTW, this is not an attack on you personally. I’m just answering your question with my opinion, based upon the information presented in the linked article.

 

[justin amateur]

You jogged my memory with that last post.
I did shoot a hi-v and sub with the same weights from the same manufacturer.
Eley makes a couple of 42 grainers.

1128 fps is mach here in NE Florida at 18 feet above sea level

Tailwind was causing turbulence off the roofline and sidewall.
Not even wind flags saved me.

 

[straightshooter1]

The flaw in that article is that they are comparing two 40g bullets as used in the standard and subsonic rounds to a 32g bullet in the hypervelocity round. It’s not a true apples to apples comparison. Of course the lighter projectile will deflect more, as the BC is lower.

Good point. Somehow I didn't see that. It would have been nice if they had used a 40g hypervelocity round.

So in essence their whole argument boils down to, the HV rounds aren’t as accurate. If you use the same projectile in all of the tested rounds, Justin amateur has already shown that he’s found a HV round that shoots as accurately at distance as any of the SV loads he tried out to distance. So that can be overcome too, if you can find a HV round that does well in your rifle.

As to the fact that the HV load in the article dropped velocity much faster, there are two answers. First is the aforementioned disparity in projectiles used. Second is, who cares? If accuracy and consistency can be found in a HV loading for your rifle, the rest is just acedemic.

I'll be keeping an eye out for something more extensive than anecdotal evidence.

Though, as you say . . . who care if one can find a load that works well in one's rifle?

BTW, this is not an attack on you personally. I’m just answering your question with my opinion, based upon the information presented in the linked article.

Not a problem as I didn't take it that way . . . AND, I'm more thick skinned than that (or is it, thick headed??? ).

 

[ingraham]

The advantages standard veloicity ammo has over HV is that right at the trans-sonic point wobble is introduced. And, just above the speed of sound there is more air resistance than there is higher above speed of sound or below speed of sound.

So, for longer range shooting the SV/subsonic stuff will NOT transition the sound barrier and wobble, and it has better airflow/air resistance for more of its flight

Either will knock a silly-wet over - just gotta hit 'em.

 

[BlastersAreCool]

If you use match quality ammo, only the biathlon labeled meets the requirements.
The rest is bulk hv which shows mv spread and visible cartridge defects.
Here's a laugh for you...

Freakin' thunderbolts shot better than many of the "Match" labeled boxes.
The WNC indicates "would not chamber" stovepipe cartridge.


It's not difficult to prove this for yourself.
Find a 200 yard range, use a chronograph, run some boxes of ammo downrange.
Track results, chrony numbers and inspect your cartridges for visible defects.
Irregular brass/case mouths, canted bullets, smeared cannelures, variations in seating depth.
the same problems that annoy us when reloading, cause problems with rimfire cartridges.

Remarkable. This right here is what Ide like to try next. Prove it to yourself. Capture those ES and SDs and physically group em! Outstanding Justin Amateur, love the irony of your name...I see what you did there??

 

[lash]

The advantages standard veloicity ammo has over HV is that right at the trans-sonic point wobble is introduced. And, just above the speed of sound there is more air resistance than there is higher above speed of sound or below speed of sound.

So, for longer range shooting the SV/subsonic stuff will NOT transition the sound barrier and wobble, and it has better airflow/air resistance for more of its flight

Either will knock a silly-wet over - just gotta hit 'em.

i think that we can all agree that this is what we all have heard and some of the facts are there. However, our understanding of the wobble introduced during transition is almost without exception based upon center fire projectiles with a completely different bullet profile.

Go back through this thread and look at the groups posted by @justin amateur of fifty rounds each of various high and standard velocity offerings. It’s hard to deny the actual results posted.

I think that perhaps it’s time to revisit some of our old understandings of this and be willing to realize that not all projectile shapes react the same during transition and even if the supersonic bullets do slow down considerably during transition, they are still getting to target faster, with less elevation lost and apparently accurately to boot.

 

[justin amateur]

Ya' know what someone should do?
Start a thread where 200 yard 50 shot results could be posted.
Include pics of the rifle, setup, range, ammo used, chrony numbers
and target results with a ruler in the pic for dimensions.
Alphabetize it so as to facilitate ease of finding a specific brand of rimfire.
A reference of ammunition quality and what to expect.
Give it a catchy title... something along the lines of "50 at 200", eh?

https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1129343



There's a reason for my forum handle Blasters, truth in advertising.
I am in no way at the level of those with serious skills and training.
Don't want anyone mistaking me for someone that has that degree of dedication.

 

[Islander]

Man, what a great resource! I only looked through a small sample of that data but it’s very apparent that some of the faster velocity ammo does just as well as the slower stuff. I think it’s still boils down to finding the ammo your rifle likes best, whether it’s fast, slow, cheap or high priced.

 

[justin amateur]

I have a problem. Really, I do.
My rifles keep changing their minds as to what they like.
Don't laugh... it's true.
First they liked Wolf ME, until I purchased another brick, then they didn't.
Then they liked some CCI SV, until that brick was used up.
After some testing I discovered what they really liked was CenterX.
Then the fickle beasts decided that it was not what they wanted.
What the heck was going on?
I found the brand they liked just like it says on the internet.
What went wrong? Could it be that brand has nothing to do with it?
Maybe it's not the brand... maybe it was the quality of that particular batch.
Naw, the internet claims it's the brand you have to find to make y'er rifle happy, right?

You know what has really got me peeved?
My 17 hmr is playing the same game.
Even though I explained to it that even though the label reads Hornady
it's still a CCI product, as is Federal and Remington 17hmr.
All made on the same machines using the same components.
Only differences are labels, headstamps and tip color.
Bloody irritating rimfires.

At least my 17wsm understands.
It knows no matter what the label reads, it's all made by Winchester.
They all shot the same, decent...so far.

 

[Islander]

Some ammo, especially lower to midrange priced stuff will vary greatly between lot numbers. All the hard core 22 bench rest shooters I know test ammo that they can get a large quantity of the same lot number once they find the type their rifle likes. Then they buy a case or two of that particular lot number. Big bucks up front but you’ll always have ammo your gun likes.

 

[justin amateur]

Want to know something really annoying?
I've tested even the high end ammo.
Quality can reek even with the supposed best offered by the company.
I've had Midas+ that spit hot strays.
RWS R50 that was useful only as fodder for my single six.
Eley Black box that slung fliers every group.
All confirmed by the chrony.
It's rimfire, ammo quality varies over time, due to the method of manufacture.
In my case I blame the retailers.
They use my shipping address to get rid of old unwanted stock.

 

[MDrimfirerookie]

Ya' know what someone should do?
Start a thread where 200 yard 50 shot results could be posted.
Include pics of the rifle, setup, range, ammo used, chrony numbers
and target results with a ruler in the pic for dimensions.
Alphabetize it so as to facilitate ease of finding a specific brand of rimfire.
A reference of ammunition quality and what to expect.
Give it a catchy title... something along the lines of "50 at 200", eh?

https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1129343



There's a reason for my forum handle Blasters, truth in advertising.
I am in no way at the level of those with serious skills and training.
Don't want anyone mistaking me for someone that has that level of dedication.

i will gladly contribute to a thread like that once i have some data to share and time to start collecting it. hopefully soon

 

[straightshooter1]

Want to know something really annoying?
I've tested even the high end ammo.
Quality can reek even with the supposed best offered by the company.
I've had Midas+ that spit hot strays.
RWS R50 that was useful only as fodder for my single six.
Eley Black box that slung strays every group.
All confirmed by the chrony.
It's rimfire, ammo quality varies over time, due to the method of manufacture.
In my case I blame the retailers.
They use my shipping address to get rid of old unwanted stock.

Yes, they all can vary by quite a bit. So . . . by the same token, I've not only tested and have data on high end ammo, but also low end and HV's and found some that have provided great ES's and SD's.

For example:
Federal Auto Match Bulk
Winchester Bulk White Box
Winchester Subsonic
Armscor Precision
CCI Mini-Mag

BUT. . . in terms of being most consistently good, the high end ones win out.

 

[billmeek]

My rifles keep changing their minds as to what they like.

My rifles are changing what they like within the same brick. It's pretty simple. Some brands don't handle the cool weather we've been having lately. Swapped ammo type (i.e. Wolf Match Extra to CCI SV/Lapua Center-X/SK Rifle Match) and things got better, but not to the level expected. Weather turned warmer again and the Wolf started shooting the same as before.

I ordered a few boxes of Lapua Polar Biathlon to try when the weather turns cooler again.

 

[justin amateur]

I've been thinking about the transition from supersonic to subsonic,
and how you'd prove or disprove the effects on the 22lr.
Technology has changed since the original studies.
We now have high speed digital cameras.
How hard would it be to position a couple of them to track a few hundred rounds as they transitioned?
You could then analyze the results frame by frame and not only track the trajectories
but using the zoom capability verify the rotation and symmetry of each projectile.
With the proper software you'd be able to measure the pitch and yaw of each bullet, before, during and after.

 

[Basher]

This is all very interesting, and exhaustive testing data would be interesting to see.

But if you listen to Episode 136 of the Everyday Sniper podcast, Bryan Litz and Emil Praslick, guys in the business with near limitless resources, talk about this. They specifically state that HV ammo should be avoided for ELR shooting. I'd wager they probably know a thing or two. Maybe they have info they could share if we got them in here?

 

[justin amateur]

The question as to why Litz and Praslick say to avoid hi-v rimfire
might have to do with the poor quality of the cartridges produced.
Almost none of the hi-v rimfire tested shows a small ES.
That includes 22lr, 22wmr, 17hmr, 17hm2 and 17wsm.
I'm thinking it does not have to do with the transition,
but rather with the cartridge defects from the lack of qc in the manufacturing process.
Long range rimfire requires tight mv's and properly assembled cartridges, same as centerfire.
When you can visually inspect a rimfire cartridge and find irregular brass,
variations in cartridge length, asymmetric bullets, visible bullet canting,
you can't expect consistent trajectories.
It's ammo quality that's the problem, not the transition.
When I can produce similar results at 200 yards with sub-sonic and supersonic 22lr,
then there's something wrong with the assumptions we are basing our conclusions on.

 

[Basher]

Actually, they specifically say to avoid them due to the transition, so... Interesting, indeed.

 

[justin amateur]

We need more data!
More folks shooting and recording 50 to 100 shots at 200 yards.
Track results and chrony numbers with similar types of subsonic and hi-v 22lr.
I've got Lapua Biathlon Xtreme and X-Act on order.
Planning on seeing what they do for 100 shots each.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

All shooting is anecdotal.

The anecdotes get strung together into something resembling common wisdom, but on any given course, on any given day, each string's performance will be unique.

Trust the common wisdom, and on the given day, pay attention to that particular day's anecdote.

When we get lemons, we make lemonade; but the ammo is not the sole crucial factor; another is our ability to spot trending deviations and compensate.

Winners can do this. Experience allows intuition to ripen, and that's when the hunch becomes a valuable tool.

FWIW, I don't fully subscribe to the Supersonic is Bad mantra; it's just another data point on the graphic for me.

Greg

 

[steve123]

The question as to why Litz and Praslick say to avoid hi-v rimfire
might have to do with the poor quality of the cartridges produced.
Almost none of the hi-v rimfire tested shows a small ES.
That includes 22lr, 22wmr, 17hmr, 17hm2 and 17wsm.
I'm thinking it does not have to do with the transition,
but rather with the cartridge defects from the lack of qc in the manufacturing process.
Long range rimfire requires tight mv's and properly assembled cartridges, same as centerfire.
When you can visually inspect a rimfire cartridge and find irregular brass,
variations in cartridge length, asymmetric bullets, visible bullet canting,
you can't expect consistent trajectories.
It's ammo quality that's the problem, not the transition.
When I can produce similar results at 200 yards with sub-sonic and supersonic 22lr,
then there's something wrong with the assumptions we are basing our conclusions on.

By the time we'd see even higher quality ammo, without the faults you describe, it'd be $40 a box of 50, lol.

This stuff/ analysis paralysis, gets to the point of being silly with a 22 rimfire.

I kinda gave up thinking about it because there's no way I'm paying for the $20+ a box stuff because as mentioned it might or might not be slightly more accurate at long range for a 22rf. I paid $12.60/50 for my tested LPB, and that was too much, IMO.

Sure, I've shot my $3000 match 22rf at 675Y with that ammo, and the vertical is huge, still big at 500Y, and so on. Maybe it's time we shot at larger steel rather than chasing the if's of more and more expensive 22 ammo, right ?!

OT but in a way this one reason I bought my 20-221 fireball custom and use BR prepped brass with light reloads weighed to the granule. At least I can control my ammo quality. A interesting thing happens though, it can be boring to shoot it's so accurate. My ladder test at 260Y was 1.5" for 14 rounds and in the low node which I chose, was .3" for three consecutive rounds, two of those touching.

I've got like 1500 lbs of lead sitting in the garage that was given to me. I'd need to buy a compressor, some casting molds for making slugs, and a powerful PCP air rifle, but the ammo would be free and the air almost free. Future project....

 

[justin amateur]

analysis paralysis

I like that one....good thing I don't suffer from the syndrome.
Analysis is for when the results don't fit what is expected.
Start looking for reasons to explain why it did or didn't happen.
Rimfire at 200 is how I start the morning, before I set up my 223 F-Class.
Work out the yips and remember how to relax behind the trigger.
Don't want to waste my handloads when I can warm up with rimfire.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

My Wife and I ran our Conservation Club's Youth Marksmanship program for several years. In those years, nine NRA Distinguished Junior Rimfire Experts came out of that program, one of them both left and right handed.

Their preferred firearm was my second hand Savage MKII with a 6X Simmons on it, which I continue to treasure to this day.

We shot CCI Blazer exclusively at 50ft, indoors.

I see so much emphasis on sophistication the days, and I truly miss those years when you could run what ya brung and be competitive, and the skills were the most significant currency on the line.

Just get out and shoot; the results will improve. Period.

Greg

 

[Hellbender]

I did a lot of testing several years ago with my Annie comparing HV and LV ammo out to 400 yards, the LV match stuff won out (barely) to about 175-225 yards, but the HV stuff was way ahead past 275. I found some HV ammo that would consistently shoot under 1/2" at 50 yards (I still have 6-8000 rounds left of that lot). I no longer have that gun, but I'm hoping the Vudoo I have coming will shoot it as well as my Annie did.

I posted a lot of this on the old, old, Snipers Hide back in about 2009 (before all the long range .22 stuff was cool, like now...LOL).

I might resurrect some of those old posts, I think they are still in the archives.

In my testing the transonic transition made no difference whatsoever ( I also realize it was a very limited test only comparing two samples of ammo).

 

[justin amateur]

What kind of results would constitute proof that the transition has minimal effect on the 22lr?
How would you set up a study with the necessary controls to minimize other variables from skewing the results.
Could you build a compressed air rifle capable of launching a 40 grain 22lr at different mv's?
One capable of 1250 fps using only compressed air?
That would eliminate primer/powder/brass/seating problems.
It would allow inspection and measurement of individual bullets
to be able to verify the testing of projectiles with matching properties.
Where would you be able to test at 200 plus yards indoors?

 

[steve123]

analysis paralysis

I like that one....good thing I don't suffer from the syndrome.
Analysis is for when the results don't fit what is expected.
Start looking for reasons to explain why it did or didn't happen.
Rimfire at 200 is how I start the morning, before I set up my 223 F-Class.
Work out the yips and remember how to relax behind the trigger.
Don't want to waste my handloads when I can warm up with rimfire.

I'm not in any way putting down your research BTW, it is very informative, so thanks. Great idea using the testing as a warmup.

What I'm saying is, and basically what you are pointing to also, is with mass produced match grade 22 ammo there's only so much vertical at long range for a 22, that we can hope for, which is kinda horrible anyway. Sonic or subsonic, what difference does it make, cept maybe .1-.2 mil at 200Y better windage at 5 mph.

 

[steve123]

What kind of results would constitute proof that the transition has minimal effect on the 22lr?
How would you set up a study with the necessary controls to minimize other variables from skewing the results.
Could you build a compressed air rifle capable of launching a 40 grain 22lr at different mv's?
One capable of 1250 fps using only compressed air?
That would eliminate primer/powder/brass/seating problems.
It would allow inspection and measurement of individual bullets
to be able to verify the testing of projectiles with matching properties.
Where would you be able to test at 200 plus yards indoors?

""What kind of results would constitute proof that the transition has minimal effect on the 22lr?
How would you set up a study with the necessary controls to minimize other variables from skewing the results."" Not being the scientific type, my answer is, who knows??? I'll let you smart guys figure it out.

""Could you build a compressed air rifle capable of launching a 40 grain 22lr at different mv's?"" Yes, well not me per say, cast bullet PCP's are becoming more common in the PCP world, and so are custom barrels with the correct twist, etc, to make such a experiment possible. My friends Daystate Redwolf has an electronic fire control system that is very adjustable in it's power levels.

""One capable of 1250 fps using only compressed air?"" Maybe, I'm not sure, if one was to, it'd eat up a ton of air.

As to the last question, I'm somewhat confident there are facilities to rent that one could use to test at 200Y.
It'd cost more money but one could swage lead bullets, which would be much more consistent than casting.

I'd be content staying subsonic and shooting heavier cast bullets with a higher BC, like 24 or 25 cal, vs even larger calibers with higher BC's, so as not to use the lead up too fast.

An FYI, It's possible to get the ES down to less than 5 fps on occasion with a PCP air rifle using weighed and sorted match grade pellets. My Steyr LG100 used to do this with a tuned regulator. With cast bullets I'm not sure???