Rimfire myth busting and cold hard data

[Near miss]

Hello,

Our shooting club has founded a unit that will produce data on how rimfire and shooter behaves.
Our side goal is to be able to provide commercial benched lot testing for all shooters with minimal costs.

We will attempt to lot test low, mid and high grade 22LR ammo (and plans to do CF too) and over time, build a chart of ammo testings we have done to see data like:
-Highest price/accuracy ratio
---Best ammo to keep within bullseye at 50m for the money
We will record info on gun, barrel length, muzzle velocity, group size (electric target), ammo info from brand to lot number and price.

We will try to test things like how much cleaning affects shooting accuracy with Anschutz by recording benched results with the barrel uncleaned and cleaned per Lilja's instructions.

We will test how barrel extenders / silencers and other weights will change groups.

We will test weight and rim measured ammo. A topic which I have found to have info with big variety of conclusions and I have never run into test results with good background data.

Aim is to transfer money into data with good ratio. Data that is written and research-grade.

Do you have any ideas what to test? Or any publications that we could find interesting and maybe even repeat and confirm?

 

[simpletoms]

Hello,

Our shooting club has founded a unit that will produce data on how rimfire and shooter behaves.
Our side goal is to be able to provide commercial benched lot testing for all shooters with minimal costs.

We will attempt to lot test low, mid and high grade 22LR ammo (and plans to do CF too) and over time, build a chart of ammo testings we have done to see data like:
-Highest price/accuracy ratio
---Best ammo to keep within bullseye at 50m for the money
We will record info on gun, barrel length, muzzle velocity, group size (electric target), ammo info from brand to lot number and price.

We will try to test things like how much cleaning affects shooting accuracy with Anschutz by recording benched results with the barrel uncleaned and cleaned per Lilja's instructions.

We will test how barrel extenders / silencers and other weights will change groups.

We will test weight and rim measured ammo. A topic which I have found to have info with big variety of conclusions and I have never run into test results with good background data.

Aim is to transfer money into data with good ratio. Data that is written and research-grade.

Do you have any ideas what to test? Or any publications that we could find interesting and maybe even repeat and confirm?

Provided you test in relatively calm conditions, I'd focus some testing on cold weather behavior. I shoot year round, but there's a sweet spot for 22 shooting. Once it gets below 40, consistency becomes entertaining. I think (and have read) that it has a lot to do with primer sensitivity to the cold. It's also why many (high end) manufacturers produce biathlon ammo.



While the video is educational, I think more could be gained from learning about cold bore fliers in cold weather, round count to warm up and point of aim shift in different temperatures and conditions. I'm sure more will chime in...

 

[justin amateur]

Testing is easy.
Method and procedure are tedious.
Small samples will produce incorrect conclusions.
Minimum of 50 shots, preferred 100.
5 shots is not an ammo test. It's a random act of accuracy.
Use a single point of aim, base measurements on the aimpoint, not individual group size.
Build aggregate group size from all groups produced from that box of cartridges.
Use a ballistic chronograph and record every shot.
Use a fixture to hold the rifle.
Minimize human error in the results.
Record all atmospheric conditions at time of test.
Test indoors if possible, or build a wind protected testing lane.
Record close up images of cartridge appearance.
High resolution images of cartridge defects ranging from
dents, dings, scrapes, damaged drive bands, uneven bullet seating.
That will explain spread not caused by mv differences.

 

[Near miss]

Testing is easy.
Method and procedure are tedious.
Small samples will produce incorrect conclusions.
Minimum of 50 shots, preferred 100.
5 shots is not an ammo test. It's a random act of accuracy.
Use a single point of aim, base measurements on the aimpoint, not individual group size.
Build aggregate group size from all groups produced from that box of cartridges.
Use a ballistic chronograph and record every shot.
Use a fixture to hold the rifle.
Minimize human error in the results.
Record all atmospheric conditions at time of test.
Test indoors if possible, or build a wind protected testing lane.
Record close up images of cartridge appearance.
High resolution images of cartridge defects ranging from
dents, dings, scrapes, damaged drive bands, uneven bullet seating.
That will explain spread not caused by mv differences.

Yes. That is our focus. I have ran into too many tests that have had not enough big runs to consider it not a strike of luck / abnormality.
We have all that which you mentioned, so looks like we are set!

Since we have the eletronic target the groups will be all documented and aggregated groupings are easily managed.

With e-targets it does not matter how many shot groups we do, it all is calculated from the aggregated group. I guess we will still use paper in the back to always check that its grouping matches with the eletronic groups.

 

[Near miss]

Provided you test in relatively calm conditions, I'd focus some testing on cold weather behavior. I shoot year round, but there's a sweet spot for 22 shooting. Once it gets below 40, consistency becomes entertaining. I think (and have read) that it has a lot to do with primer sensitivity to the cold. It's also why many (high end) manufacturers produce biathlon ammo.



While the video is educational, I think more could be gained from learning about cold bore fliers in cold weather, round count to warm up and point of aim shift in different temperatures and conditions. I'm sure more will chime in...

I will gladly do a test about this.
Producing hard data on cold bore shots at the outdoor range is hard since you only have 1 shot. You really cannot warm up for it, at least not with the same rifle.
And wind is always a factor. You can never be sure about wind effecting the shot.

In fact, I have been testing cold temperature and accuracy by shooting cold ammo and cold gun that I have taken from my car to the inside range. But I have to be quite fast with the set up.

Primer material could explain it but muzzle velocities do not lie either. Lead also toughens up when cooled by some amount?

I will try to locate a reason to it.
Too bad the latest lot of Lapua Biathlon I bought had terrible ES.

 

[SanginSpecial]

I'm looking forward to your findings.

Over the years, shooting several rifles barreled with Lilja and Benchmark barrels, depending on ammo brand, specifically bullet lube type, I can guess what you'll find in regards to clean vs dirty bore and chamber.

Here's something for you to experiment with... Use a bore scope and keep an eye on the chamber as you shoot. While shooting a single brand and variety of ammo, note how many rounds are fired before you start seeing cold bore fliers. I'll bet dollars to donuts that you'll get cold bore fliers with fewer rounds fired when shooting RWS ammo than if you shoot Lapua ammo. My definition of "cold bore" is letting the barrel sit for around 5 to 10 minutes between strings of fire. Don't get me wrong, I love R50 ammo. It has been some of the most consistent ammo I've used. But shooting NRL22 type of matches where you can't shoot sighters prior to each stage and there is time for a barrel to cool between stages, cold bore fliers caused by a carbon buildup doesn't help your score.

Before everyone gets upset at me for bringing up such a sensitive subject, I'll just say that this is what I've personally noticed in "my" rifles with match quality barrels, both Lilja and Benchmark. Based on my experience and observations, I clean my barrel, with emphasis on the chamber, after every trip to the range.
A borescope is essential in verification that my chamber is clean. Everyone else's mileage may vary.

For anyone that wants to concern themselves with cleaning the carbon ring from their chamber, here's a tip for you... Don't waste your time with a bronze brush and general gun cleaning solvent. You'll just wear out your brush and arm that way. I recommend a carbon cleaner such as Bore Tech C4 Carbon Remover. I literally let a patch wetted with it sit in the chamber for 10 minutes or so, and then run a dry patch through before checking with a bore scope. Sometimes a second soaking is needed, but since using Bore Tech C4, I never need to brush my chamber.
The Carbon is litterally melted away!

 

[MarkCZ]

watch this one.

 

[JG26_Irish]

Read the "Rifleman's Guide to Rimfire Ammunition" by Steven Boelter. It covers many of the subjects that you plan to test. It might give you a good place to pick up where the author left off. Plus it is starting to get old and there are some new ammo products on the market now which are worth testing.

 

[JG26_Irish]

Read the "Rifleman's Guide to Rimfire Ammunition" by Steven Boelter. It covers many of the subjects that you plan to test. It might give you a good place to pick up where the author left off. Plus it is starting to get old and there are some new ammo products on the market now which are worth testing.

 

[Jefe's Dope]

Compare same ammo from a rifle/action in a vice vs. from a shooter or better yet, many shooters.

If possible do it indoors to eliminate as many variable as possible.

 

[Near miss]

I'm looking forward to your findings.

Over the years, shooting several rifles barreled with Lilja and Benchmark barrels, depending on ammo brand, specifically bullet lube type, I can guess what you'll find in regards to clean vs dirty bore and chamber.

Here's something for you to experiment with... Use a bore scope and keep an eye on the chamber as you shoot. While shooting a single brand and variety of ammo, note how many rounds are fired before you start seeing cold bore fliers. I'll bet dollars to donuts that you'll get cold bore fliers with fewer rounds fired when shooting RWS ammo than if you shoot Lapua ammo. My definition of "cold bore" is letting the barrel sit for around 5 to 10 minutes between strings of fire. Don't get me wrong, I love R50 ammo. It has been some of the most consistent ammo I've used. But shooting NRL22 type of matches where you can't shoot sighters prior to each stage and there is time for a barrel to cool between stages, cold bore fliers caused by a carbon buildup doesn't help your score.

Before everyone gets upset at me for bringing up such a sensitive subject, I'll just say that this is what I've personally noticed in "my" rifles with match quality barrels, both Lilja and Benchmark. Based on my experience and observations, I clean my barrel, with emphasis on the chamber, after every trip to the range.
A borescope is essential in verification that my chamber is clean. Everyone else's mileage may vary.

For anyone that wants to concern themselves with cleaning the carbon ring from their chamber, here's a tip for you... Don't waste your time with a bronze brush and general gun cleaning solvent. You'll just wear out your brush and arm that way. I recommend a carbon cleaner such as Bore Tech C4 Carbon Remover. I literally let a patch wetted with it sit in the chamber for 10 minutes or so, and then run a dry patch through before checking with a bore scope. Sometimes a second soaking is needed, but since using Bore Tech C4, I never need to brush my chamber.
The Carbon is litterally melted away!

Thanks for your tip on C4. It has much value and I have passed it on.
We will be taking pictures of the chamber along the way.
I am actually investigating the effect of carbon ring as a side project. Lost some of my media with the switch of my work phone but this has been a only a side project and totally not properly documented.
But I have not noticed that the ring has grown much at all during the last 300-400 rounds.
I have now overall fired several hundred rounds with it without any cleaning. I am thinking of cleaning it (only the ring) in the middle of series next time at the range to see for real if there is any change.

So far since I started recording CBS, I have gotten above average muzzle velocity every time.
Average rise seems to be around 4%
On Friday I got 8% but that was cheap ammo (Geco Rifle) that has big ES anyways.

I am at the moment waiting for my gunsmith to get the Lilja barrel for me and I am not very oriented in gaining data for long period since the barrel will be changed anyways. But it will still take maybe even few months.

Maybe I should test with the current barrell how much wet cartridges effect MV and POI.
(Water does not give up space once in the chamber so it will increase pressure slightly)

 

[Near miss]

Compare same ammo from a rifle/action in a vice vs. from a shooter or better yet, many shooters.

If possible do it indoors to eliminate as many variable as possible.

We have some very good shooters and they might make magnificent groups but the bench makes usually the best averages.
What I find satisfying is seeing the bench make fliers too. Reminds me that nothing can control 22LR once it is out of the factory.

Nontheless, a good suggestion!
Shooting against a bench should get any competitioner on their toes to deliver the best.

 

[motorcycleboy]

I was amazed this summer how much difference temperatures and humidity matter when they are both high. I shot the 2 hottest days this summer and they were consecutive. The first was 96* and a 78* dew point. The next day seemed so close to the same 93* and 70* dew point. A half a mil difference at 300 yards. I would like to know at what temps and humidity things start to change more dramatically on both ends of the spectrum. But ballistic apps take care of all that now.

 

[steve123]

When I had my Anschutz tested at the Lapua test facility I watched and was amazed what a big difference in accuracy the various lot numbers of 4 different ammo types produced.

For instance Lapua CenterX was one of the worst in my rifle and that ammo is probably one of the most used in NRL22 matches.

I guess for me personally any type of 22 ammo testing has little relevance to me since every lot# varies and one rifle might shoot better with one lot# and not another. Besides that, all I care about is what level of ammo quality I can afford and how well it shoots in my rifle/rifles.

 

[Lesloan]

Thanks for your tip on C4. It has much value and I have passed it on.
We will be taking pictures of the chamber along the way.
I am actually investigating the effect of carbon ring as a side project. Lost some of my media with the switch of my work phone but this has been a only a side project and totally not properly documented.
But I have not noticed that the ring has grown much at all during the last 300-400 rounds.
I have now overall fired several hundred rounds with it without any cleaning. I am thinking of cleaning it (only the ring) in the middle of series next time at the range to see for real if there is any change.

So far since I started recording CBS, I have gotten above average muzzle velocity every time.
Average rise seems to be around 4%
On Friday I got 8% but that was cheap ammo (Geco Rifle) that has big ES anyways.

I am at the moment waiting for my gunsmith to get the Lilja barrel for me and I am not very oriented in gaining data for long period since the barrel will be changed anyways. But it will still take maybe even few months.

Maybe I should test with the current barrell how much wet cartridges effect MV and POI.
(Water does not give up space once in the chamber so it will increase pressure slightly)

I would love to see before and after pics of results with the 2 barrels. I'm vacillating on the purchase of a Lilja drop-in barrel for my CZ 455 Tacticool.

 

[68hoyt]

Somebody had posted somewhere , forums , faceplace , and for the life of me I can’t find it , they had sorted ammo by rim thickness and measured their headspace then had the groups , it was interesting what they came up with , IIRC the loose and tight grouped worse and the ones that fit / matched shot the best , it was noticeable in the groups

 

[Near miss]

I would love to see before and after pics of results with the 2 barrels. I'm vacillating on the purchase of a Lilja drop-in barrel for my CZ 455 Tacticool.

This is one that has puzzled me for a long time.
In here having Lilja will cost me around $1000 so the improvement in groups is definitely expected!

I have shot some ammo along the years with the Quad barrel and left some of that ammo aside just to make comparisons. But I feel it is not a fair comparison to shoot same lots with it.

I will just have to shoot different lots of ammo with it and see if the average shifts.
When the lot is the measured value, it means I will have to shoot like 300-900 rounds (50-100 per lot) to get a small sample size.

Personally, I think that if I manage to break 0.7 or 0.8 MOA at 110yds it is probably better.
I am hoping to be able to do 0.6 MOA results with it on still days with premium ammo.
However I will not be shooting much of premium ammo, I am buying the Lilja to be able to reach 1moa at 110yds with cheaper, mid grade ammo.

I think I could arrange a test where I just shoot random lots of whay me and other members have and see if I can gather some base data.

 

[RTH1800]

I don’t get too caught up into 50 or 100 shot groups. Some do. I like accurate rifles. I also realize that given enough tries some rimfire bullet will drop out of the group. One of the things gained by folks who shoot paper is confidence. Shooting 100 shot groups negates that edge.
I also am not a fan of shooting from mechanical rest as it is not representative of what result I can achieve. Some folks can outshoot a mechanical rest.
YMMV

 

[Near miss]

I don’t get too caught up into 50 or 100 shot groups. Some do. I like accurate rifles. I also realize that given enough tries some rimfire bullet will drop out of the group. One of the things gained by folks who shoot paper is confidence. Shooting 100 shot groups negates that edge.
I also am not a fan of shooting from mechanical rest as it is not representative of what result I can achieve. Some folks can outshoot a mechanical rest.
YMMV

I think I will have to benchmark our bench to determine that. Maybe even see if there is room for improvement in the free recoil system and attaching system torque.

I am not talking about actual 100 shot groups, but with electronic systems I have options on how I lay out the data, like aggregating all shots into a single group.

You cannot argue that shooting more of the ammo will tell less about its performance. But with paper it is easier to make groups of 5 to see the impacts.

Nowdays with electric scoring (meaning also shot marking apps) we can simply see data like mean radius which can be also used to estimate how close the next shot is going to land.
Basically, if a shot does not land near that value but like 1.5x or 2x farther, you might have a flier. So instead of eyeing them out I could try solving this with a mathematic solution, which will judge all of the groups with same rules. Worth trying.

For training purposes, if ammo has sometimes fliers but otherwise keeps a good pace (sub moa at 110), it is very good and what I am looking for. I do not mind few fliers if I get the wanted performance with half the cost!
But for competition you have to count all of the hits, fliers also, because that is in your score and shooting an 8 is not good at all for your score and will have an impact on your ranking.

 

[justin amateur]

Why use a fixture to hold the rifle?

It's a test of ammunition quality.
No excuses for strays or outliers.
No one can say "I pulled that shot".
All shots count and are used to determine if the ammunition is worth the price paid.
If a brand produced 6 strays and 2 fail to fires, it affects the value.
The larger sample size prevents random acts of accuracy
and ensures a better assessment of the ammunition.
If ye'r gonna do it, do it right.

 

[krw]

22 Rimfire is a bitch. I shot IR 50/50 for years. I shot lots of Lapua Midas L. It was amazing the accuracy difference from lot# to lot#. We would buy 5-8 different lot#’s, shoot them to find out which our rifles liked the best, then try to buy enough to last a season. I enjoyed it but 22 ammunition can be a bitch

 

[RTH1800]

We each have different goals.
My goal is to determine the hit probability of my system. Rifle, ammo, scope and myself from X position. Then I can make informed decisions along the lines of “Am I justified in taking a shot at that crow at 180 meters from a sitting position”.

I realize most have different goals.

 

[justin amateur]

A crow at 180 meters, offhand?

Daaayyyyuuuummmm!

Offhand I'm barely capable of a crow sized target at 35 yards.

It's not the rifle or ammo causing the problem, all on me.

 

[RTH1800]

“From a sitting position”
Offhand no way for me.

 

[Near miss]

Why use a fixture to hold the rifle?

It's a test of ammunition quality.
No excuses for strays or outliers.
No one can say "I pulled that shot".
All shots count and are used to determine if the ammunition is worth the price paid.
If a brand produced 6 strays and 2 fail to fires, it affects the value.
The larger sample size prevents random acts of accuracy
and ensures a better assessment of the ammunition.
If ye'r gonna do it, do it right.

Yep, one can maybe outshoot a benched rifle but hardly anyone can shoot at the same pace and as long with steady results.

@rth1800 I see ammo testing and hit probability as different aspects. Only the shooter himself can test hit probability.

But believe me, that rest makes the job easier and more robust data.

Here is a picture of our testing (for fun)
10 rounds, no wax shots in between.
It took maybe few minutes.
First and upmost group is Lapua Biathlon
Second is Geco
Third is Topshot

I would come to the same conclusion without the bench but it would have taken much longer and it would have been questionable, maybe I just got trigger happy?

In my Quad, the Topshot shoots much better. But it has similar traits of fliers.

Testing cannot be that fast with human holding.
At least a human requires aiming and breathing times, the rest does not. Just feed and pull.

 

[rick137]

I'm looking forward to your findings.

Over the years, shooting several rifles barreled with Lilja and Benchmark barrels, depending on ammo brand, specifically bullet lube type, I can guess what you'll find in regards to clean vs dirty bore and chamber.

Here's something for you to experiment with... Use a bore scope and keep an eye on the chamber as you shoot. While shooting a single brand and variety of ammo, note how many rounds are fired before you start seeing cold bore fliers. I'll bet dollars to donuts that you'll get cold bore fliers with fewer rounds fired when shooting RWS ammo than if you shoot Lapua ammo. My definition of "cold bore" is letting the barrel sit for around 5 to 10 minutes between strings of fire. Don't get me wrong, I love R50 ammo. It has been some of the most consistent ammo I've used. But shooting NRL22 type of matches where you can't shoot sighters prior to each stage and there is time for a barrel to cool between stages, cold bore fliers caused by a carbon buildup doesn't help your score.

Before everyone gets upset at me for bringing up such a sensitive subject, I'll just say that this is what I've personally noticed in "my" rifles with match quality barrels, both Lilja and Benchmark. Based on my experience and observations, I clean my barrel, with emphasis on the chamber, after every trip to the range.
A borescope is essential in verification that my chamber is clean. Everyone else's mileage may vary.

For anyone that wants to concern themselves with cleaning the carbon ring from their chamber, here's a tip for you... Don't waste your time with a bronze brush and general gun cleaning solvent. You'll just wear out your brush and arm that way. I recommend a carbon cleaner such as Bore Tech C4 Carbon Remover. I literally let a patch wetted with it sit in the chamber for 10 minutes or so, and then run a dry patch through before checking with a bore scope. Sometimes a second soaking is needed, but since using Bore Tech C4, I never need to brush my chamber.
The Carbon is litterally melted away!

I presume you prefer Bore Tech C4 Carbon Remover to Bore Tech Rimfire Blend, which is my current snake oil of choice.

 

[rick137]

We each have different goals.
My goal is to determine the hit probability of my system. Rifle, ammo, scope and myself from X position. Then I can make informed decisions along the lines of “Am I justified in taking a shot at that crow at 180 meters from a sitting position”.

I realize most have different goals.

I think you are right-on. Determine if the weapon system which includes the shooter meets your accuracy goal. And why my game is shooting standing offhand. No doubt my marksmanship is the largest source of dispersion by far.

Further comment: Are you familiar with the WEZ (Weapons Employment Zone) concept? If not, it is described in Bryan Litz's book "Accuracy and Precision for Long Range Shooting." For precision there are three confidence levels, High, Medium and Low, and four categories, Wind Estimation, Range Estimation, Rifle Precision, and Velocity Consistency. With a confidence level for each category you can calculate hit probability as a function of distance. Because the book was for centerfire rifles the Rifle Precision was for 100 yd MOA precision with no wind or other environmental effects. I presume the 100 yd distance was chosen because the dispersion due to differences in muzzle velocity is neglidgeable at 100 yd with centerfire ammunition.

Of course you can take the empirical approach and determine your hit probability by more or less extensive testing.

 

[SanginSpecial]

For

I presume you prefer Bore Tech C4 Carbon Remover to Bore Tech Rimfire Blend, which is my current snake oil of choice.

For cleaning a carbon ring, hands down C4 over rimfire blend.

I was turned on to Bore Tech Rimfire Blend by Don Smith. It was alright, but I was having to scrub my chamber with a bronze brush to get the toughest parts of a ring cleaned. I stumbled across C4 at a lgs and have not looked back. I like using C4 because I can melt the carbon ring and just push a few clean patches through to dry it. Follow that with an oil patch and a couple of dry ones and I'm done. No scrubbing! And because I'm not scrubbing or pushing patches of solvent down my barrel, it leaves it more or less fouled and ready to go.

When I want to deep clean my bore, that's when I break out the rimfire blend and a brush.

 

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

some website had tested all kinds of 22 ammo and come away with accuracy and velocity numbers. I thought it was 6mmBR.com but I’m not seeing it there. They had an article about tactical 22 shooting matches also. On the site I was thinking of.

has there already been a lot of work done here measuring, maybe not to the steps but at least a starting point?

 

[Near miss]

some website had tested all kinds of 22 ammo and come away with accuracy and velocity numbers. I thought it was 6mmBR.com but I’m not seeing it there. They had an article about tactical 22 shooting matches also. On the site I was thinking of.

has there already been a lot of work done here measuring, maybe not to the steps but at least a starting point?

I have browsed through many but always enjoy to find more. I believe the results, but we want to replicate them and see for ourselves. There is also some difference between sorting high and low end ammo.

Low end = you will get better results with higher chance, but you still end up with non-stellar results. You cannot make match ammo from bulk.

High end = less difference between sorted and not sorted, but the possible accuracy gain can win first place or make that max score.

If we think of Frank's World Record qualifications philosophy, you gotta hit the target with the first rounds of the day. For that kind of race, sorting is pretty much a no-brainer.

I have found this:

https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...m-thickness-part-1-50-yards.38034/#post-38034

Edit:
Also, here is the 6mmbr testing:
@FromMyColdDeadHand
I have copied them to my excel file also, I used the data to make predictions of how much groups open up when distance grows from 50 to 100. (2.7x to 3.0x)

 

[Near miss]

I have now sorted 400 SK Biathlons into weight classes of the smallest degree I can get (0.7gr) I started to sort them by rim but facing challenges.
I measure rim by putting them inside 223 casing and then measuring the end that does not fit in but could not find a casing that had an even enough bottom.
I will try to sand one even.

I also have a tool to measure the rim but it gives analog results and is prone to give erranous readings if too much force is applied. I do not like analog as it is not an absolute value and it is hard to categorize small variations. For my personal use it is fine. I learned to use it quite well and figured I can do one test run of one weight class to test tomorrow since I have still few of them left.

When weighing the rounds I tested the calibration every 20ish rounds or when I restarted the scale.
All in all I did maybe only 3-5 recalibrations, it did quite well. I was not very interested in recording the weight class overall variance but the overall weight varied from 3.315g (51.12gr) to 3.375g (52.04gr).
I can still make full variance study but the outliers are so scarce that there are not enough rounds of the same weight to make anything useful of them. But maybe a statistic calculation on an excel would be neat as it could be used to determine the average quality of lots when compared to future lots to be tested.

 

[justin amateur]

Sorting rimfire to improve accuracy?
Tried it. A brick of SK Rifle Match, A brick of 17hmr Hornady VMax and a brick of CCI SV.
Rim thickness, weight, length from chamber side of rim to nose.
Didn't help, results inconclusive. Why? Didn't take into account visible and non-visible cartridge defects.
Things like variations in brass diameter/volume, bullet seating, dents/dings/irregular drive bands
and problems with things you can't see unless you disassemble the cartridge.
The bullet heel, differences in primer and powder chemistry/amount/location.
Excess jump to the lands, tilted bullets not aligned with the bore
variations in bullet weight and asymmetric bullets will not produce consistent trajectories.
Sorting will keep you busy, but it's basically producing a placebo effect.
Makes you think y'er accomplishing something useful.

If you want to improve y'er results with rimfire, buy better ammo.
Lot test before purchasing...only truly effective method.

 

[1badDart]

Hello,

Our shooting club has founded a unit that will produce data on how rimfire and shooter behaves.
Our side goal is to be able to provide commercial benched lot testing for all shooters with minimal costs.

We will attempt to lot test low, mid and high grade 22LR ammo (and plans to do CF too) and over time, build a chart of ammo testings we have done to see data like:
-Highest price/accuracy ratio
---Best ammo to keep within bullseye at 50m for the money
We will record info on gun, barrel length, muzzle velocity, group size (electric target), ammo info from brand to lot number and price.

We will try to test things like how much cleaning affects shooting accuracy with Anschutz by recording benched results with the barrel uncleaned and cleaned per Lilja's instructions.

We will test how barrel extenders / silencers and other weights will change groups.

We will test weight and rim measured ammo. A topic which I have found to have info with big variety of conclusions and I have never run into test results with good background data.

Aim is to transfer money into data with good ratio. Data that is written and research-grade.

Do you have any ideas what to test? Or any publications that we could find interesting and maybe even repeat and confirm?

This will be an interesting test but I don't think the results will necessarily carry over to others rifles. I only have a small collection of rifles and even among the same models and brands (3 Win. 52's) there are differences in ammo preferences.

I can see you finding ammo uniformity and consistency but accuracy seems to be more rifle dependent. IMHO the tests will show what is more accurate in the rifles tested.

I look forward to reading your results.

 

[RTH1800]

If you sort ammo to tiny variables you end up with ammo lots on one.

 

[justin amateur]

Sort all you want, satisfy y'er desire to improve y'er results.
But apply a bit of Eyeball Mark I and inspect those cartridges to cull out those with visible defects.
Just doing that will improve y'er results and it will eliminate one of those tiny variables.

On the downside, you might end up culling the entire brick from some brands.

 

[rick137]

Sorting rimfire to improve accuracy?
Tried it. A brick of SK Rifle Match, A brick of 17hmr Hornady VMax and a brick of CCI SV.
Rim thickness, weight, length from chamber side of rim to nose.
Didn't help, results inconclusive. Why? Didn't take into account visible and non-visible cartridge defects.
Things like variations in brass diameter/volume, bullet seating, dents/dings/irregular drive bands
and problems with things you can't see unless you disassemble the cartridge.
The bullet heel, differences in primer and powder chemistry/amount/location.
Excess jump to the lands, tilted bullets not aligned with the bore
variations in bullet weight and asymmetric bullets will not produce consistent trajectories.
Sorting will keep you busy, but it's basically producing a placebo effect.
Makes you think y'er accomplishing something useful.

If you want to improve y'er results with rimfire, buy better ammo.
Lot test before purchasing...only truly effective method.

justin:

Sometimes I read this stuff and want to put my rifles in a safe then throw away the key. Not entirely kidding.

More seriously, Vaughn in "RAF" said his conclusions were never based on less than a 8 x 5 target but no more than a 10 x 5 target was necessary. No justification on basis of sampling theory. What is your testing procedure for lots? Do you know how many rounds are typically in a lot? Say 100000 rounds and you buy a case of 5000 rounds. If a case contains rounds manufactured consecutively, then a case from first 5000 rounds could differ from case with last 5000 rounds in the lot. So intralot variation.

Rick

 

[silentheart]

Just my suggestion on price and performance score.
Price of 5 rounds (or 10 rounds depend on how many round you use for grouping)*moa at same testing distance. Smaller is better. Or inverse it for larger the better.

 

[justin amateur]

Rick, I hunt with rimfire.
The rest of what I do is explore the limits of the cartridges.
I push it well beyond it's intended usage.
When I order a new case of 22lr, I take 3 or 4 boxes from the order
and use this target to determine the limitations of the batch.

Google Drive: Sign-in

Access Google Drive with a Google account (for personal use) or Google Workspace account (for business use).

drive.google.com

I set up on the bench and at 25 yards, see what happens for 30 shots.
All 1's and 2's means it's good enough for small game out to that distance.
If it produces 3's it's crap ammo useful only for my single six with iron sights.
I'll repeat at 5 yard increments until 3's start showing up.
That informs me of the limits at which I can trust the ammo to hit where I'm aiming.
If I get a batch that hits inside the 2 ring at 50 yards for 30 shots,
it gets saved for use during friendly competition at the local range.
Doesn't happen often.


Rick, not only does cartridge quality vary lot to lot, but case to case,
brick to brick, box to box, it'll vary cartridge to cartridge,
depending on the quality control/tolerances maintained on the assembly line .

 

[Near miss]

This will be an interesting test but I don't think the results will necessarily carry over to others rifles. I only have a small collection of rifles and even among the same models and brands (3 Win. 52's) there are differences in ammo preferences.

I can see you finding ammo uniformity and consistency but accuracy seems to be more rifle dependent. IMHO the tests will show what is more accurate in the rifles tested.

I look forward to reading your results.

Gathering the data I want will take very long. And as manufacturers renew machines and techniques, even outdated.
I am just wishing it will ease prioritizing ammo seeking.
If there are any trends for example towards Lapua or Eley for some makers barrels (same model etc), it will help cutting time and cost testing them.
If past results show some Anschutz models enjoy Lapua more likely, we buy more lots to test of Lapua and less Eley. And vice versa.

In the mid grade you have a lot more options even just from SK besides the trusted SK Rifle Match and SK Standard Plus, like Flatnose and Long Range.

I certainly do not have my hopes up but it's done with the philosophy of if we are going to send some lead to test ammo, why not learn more about it by documenting it properly.

 

[Near miss]

Sorting rimfire to improve accuracy?
Tried it. A brick of SK Rifle Match, A brick of 17hmr Hornady VMax and a brick of CCI SV.
Rim thickness, weight, length from chamber side of rim to nose.
Didn't help, results inconclusive. Why? Didn't take into account visible and non-visible cartridge defects.
Things like variations in brass diameter/volume, bullet seating, dents/dings/irregular drive bands
and problems with things you can't see unless you disassemble the cartridge.
The bullet heel, differences in primer and powder chemistry/amount/location.
Excess jump to the lands, tilted bullets not aligned with the bore
variations in bullet weight and asymmetric bullets will not produce consistent trajectories.
Sorting will keep you busy, but it's basically producing a placebo effect.
Makes you think y'er accomplishing something useful.

If you want to improve y'er results with rimfire, buy better ammo.
Lot test before purchasing...only truly effective method.

Rim and weight sorting seems to be a very splitting topic. I really do not know how people end up with such different results.
My hypothesis is that it really does up the mental game. Is it a bad reason after all?

But by just sorting anything, you are reducing overall entropy (of ammo properties) so it cannot go to waste as long they are of the same lot...except..

But truly, I bought one lot of Geco and some boxes make much better groups than others.
Like, even 0.2 to 0.3 at 50 without 1 in 5 flier that made it 0.5ish
Whereas the weaker box was all fliers and would rarely land on top of each other.

Justin, show me how you determine bad rounds. Give me pictures of the bad rounds you pick from CCI SV, SK SP and such.

I do not have bad eyesight but I really have hard time spotting them, the wax makes them look all shiny and awesome.

 

[justin amateur]

pictures of bad rounds

Funny, I was going to do that for my 50 at 200 project.
I've received some comments that didn't understand what I was pointing out.
Give me a couple days on that NM. My Nikon is charging so I can get some hi-res images.
Give you an idea of what drive band irregularities look like, assorted dents, dings, poor seating.
Ought to kill a evening digging through the rimfire stash.

Here's a closeup of CCI Clean 40 grain 22lr.
Pretty decent example of low quality cartridges.
5 cartridges, no two are the same shape.
You can't expect similar trajectories from projectiles that are dissimilar.

 

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I have browsed through many but always enjoy to find more. I believe the results, but we want to replicate them and see for ourselves. There is also some difference between sorting high and low end ammo.

Low end = you will get better results with higher chance, but you still end up with non-stellar results. You cannot make match ammo from bulk.

High end = less difference between sorted and not sorted, but the possible accuracy gain can win first place or make that max score.

If we think of Frank's World Record qualifications philosophy, you gotta hit the target with the first rounds of the day. For that kind of race, sorting is pretty much a no-brainer.

I have found this:

https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...m-thickness-part-1-50-yards.38034/#post-38034

Edit:
Also, here is the 6mmbr testing:
@FromMyColdDeadHand
I have copied them to my excel file also, I used the data to make predictions of how much groups open up when distance grows from 50 to 100. (2.7x to 3.0x)

Good luck! Science is most efficient when it is built on the work of others. Having said that, most real experiments are hard to replicate. Just wanted to save you some trouble, if possible.

 

[justin amateur]

Grabbed a dozen rounds of CCI SV from a new brick.
Rolled them to their worst sides and snapped this image.

Use y'er zoom command to inspect these cartridges.
How many problems do you see fresh from the factory?

 

[Near miss]

Grabbed a dozen rounds of CCI SV from a new brick.
Rolled them to their worst sides and snapped this image.

Use y'er zoom command to inspect these cartridges.
How many problems do you see fresh from the factory?

The picture is a little foggy, like the focus was set but a touch too close.
I can spot 5, 8 and 10.
I can see there is a smudge on 1,3,6 and 12.
And nothing plainly wrong with the rest 2,4,7,9 and 11.

 

[justin amateur]

the focus was set but a touch too close

Guilty as charged NM. I was shooting offhand and I have no skill offhand as previously stated.


Numbering left to right, 1 to 6 the back row, 7 to 12 the front row.
What I see is rough finished bullet noses. Dings on 6, 8 and 10.
Chip taken out of 5 along with some lead spatter on the drive bands.
Speaking of drive bands, compare the bands on all the cartridges.
Some are clean and distinct with evenly formed lubrication grooves.
Others the grooves have been squeezed together and almost obliterated.
Check the transition from ogive to drive bands. Some are sharp and clean,
others are distorted, slanted or rounded off like the shoulder on 12.
Then there is a truly nasty defect...can you see it?
Look at the crimp line on the CCI Clean in the previous post.
Sharp, defined edge on the Clean, leaving an even skirt around the bullet heel.
Look at what CCI did to the SV...compressed and swaged the lead down over the crimp
creating an uneven skirt around the perimeter of the bullet heels.
What do you think that uneven skirt will do when the bullet exits the muzzle?

I can show you, something like this...

This was shot from the same case of CCI SV.
Same problems as those shown in the pic.
Dents, dings, distorted drive bands, poorly seated/crimped.

 

[rick137]

the focus was set but a touch too close

Guilty as charged NM. I was shooting offhand and I have no skill offhand as previously stated.


Numbering left to right, 1 to 6 the back row, 7 to 12 the front row.
What I see is rough finished bullet noses. Dings on 6, 8 and 10.
Chip taken out of 5 along with some lead spatter on the drive bands.
Speaking of drive bands, compare the bands on all the cartridges.
Some are clean and distinct with evenly formed lubrication grooves.
Others the grooves have been squeezed together and almost obliterated.
Check the transition from ogive to drive bands. Some are sharp and clean,
others are distorted, slanted or rounded off like the shoulder on 12.
Then there is a truly nasty defect...can you see it?
Look at the crimp line on the CCI Clean in the previous post.
Sharp, defined edge on the Clean, leaving an even skirt around the bullet heel.
Look at what CCI did to the SV...compressed and swaged the lead down over the crimp
creating an uneven skirt around the perimeter of the bullet heels.
What do you think that uneven skirt will do when the bullet exits the muzzle?

I can show you, something like this...

This was shot from the same case of CCI SV.
Same problems as those shown in the pic.
Dents, dings, distorted drive bands, poorly seated/crimped.

Justin:

Do you ever chamber a round then eject it carefully and inspect? Not that ammo that was bad going in is going to be better coming. However how much deformation occurs inserting a round or just how big a deal is controlled round feed?

Many thanks for your comments.

Rick

 

[justin amateur]

Rick, I manually feed one cartridge at a time.
No use of the magazine with the 455 Lilja. Single shot adapter only.
It prevents the edge of the chamber from shaving off portions of the drive bands.
As shown, any type of asymmetry will affect results.

 

[Near miss]

Do you ever chamber a round then eject it carefully and inspect? However how much deformation occurs inserting a round or just how big a deal is controlled round feed?

Rick

I do sometimes and there is a slight scratch along the side but it will engrave anyways. But IMO if you have nicks in the nose of the bullet from feeding, I consider it a problem.

From what I read from boxoftruth, a damaged tail also makes the bullet more prone to not land where intended. But we cannot see the deformations there.
The test is done with supersonic bullets, but my understanding is that boattailed bullets do not so well in subsonic flight (which might relate to its center of gravity as well) suggests that tail formation is even more important in subsonic flight.

@justin amateur what is your rejection rate with SK products? What about Lapua?
Do you test how tight the bullet is crimped or any other qualities?
@rth1800 Do you have any habits of sorting?

I could not perform rim/weigh sorted test yet, I need more time to test reliable ways of rim-sorting.
A tool to test rim to ogive could be the best, but lets get this test out of the way first.

 

[RTH1800]

Do you test how tight the bullet is crimped or any other qualities?
@rth1800 Do you have any habits of sorting?

I have tried weight, visual inspection and rim thickness sorting. It was tedious and my results indicated in cheaper ammo, I ended up with one round lots that always shot one hole groups.?
Eley Match and Eley Tenex I could not tell a difference.

 

[justin amateur]

NM, I test by shooting across a chronograph.
The results on target and chronograph numbers indicate ammo quality.
Visual inspection shows just how well the cartridges are handled at the factory
and the care used during assembly of the components.

Cost per round is usually a decent indicator of quality.

Rejection rate? I don't have one.
I use it all. If it isn't accurate enough for the rifle
my single six will burn it up while I prove I hove no skill with pistols.

 

[Near miss]

NM, I test by shooting across a chronograph.
The results on target and chronograph numbers indicate ammo quality.
Visual inspection shows just how well the cartridges are handled at the factory
and the care used during assembly of the components.

Cost per round is usually a decent indicator of quality.

Rejection rate? I don't have one.
I use it all. If it isn't accurate enough for the rifle
my single six will burn it up while I prove I hove no skill with pistols.

I worded it badly.. What about the rate of rounds which are relocated into your single six?

Chronograph.. I hate it. No matter what ammo I shoot the ES is too big.
SK Biathlon seems pretty good with 11fps SD and 50fps ES with almost 50 samples. But in close ranges velocity does not correlate with group size.

I have not chronoed Tenex much at all yet but it is not suited for training at $25 a box so it has mainly been benchmark ammo.
I have to test it too, though.