Is SK standard ammo Match ammo??
- Thread starter Mike112288
- Start date
Believe it’s YoDave
Is sorting by rim thickness worth it?
With regard to sorting ammo, other threads on CGN and elsewhere acknowledge that sorting by rim thickness is generally unnecessary when using higher end ammo. Put another way, serious, competitive shooters generally do not sort top level ammo like Lapua Midas +, Eley Tenex, or RWS 50. They practice a great deal, search out the best lots of ammo for their rifles, and BR shooters also use tuners to further improve consistency of results. While they search out every way to improve their accuracy, they don't sort by rim thickness.
The question of whether sorting non-top level .22LR ammo by rim thickness actually results in meaningful improvement in accuracy down range is disputed. Leaving it aside for the time being, however, is there a clear payoff to sort ammo by rim thickness? In other words, is there meaningful savings in money? Is it time well spent? When it comes to sorting ammo by rim thickness, what do sorters do with the ammo that doesn't fall into the "ideal" size range for a particular rifle? How much savings over the price of higher end ammo can be expected?
For the sake of argument, and since this thread is about SK Standard Plus, that particular ammo can serve as a useful example. At best it's entry level ammo, from which great and consistent accuracy should not be expected. It's not expensive, the price being about $7.50 for a box of 50. Center X, which is up the quality ladder, is about $14.00 per box and Midas + is $23ish (to continue to use SK/Lapua here).
What if half the ammo in a box of 50 is what is determined to be "best" for your rifle? That might be a high or low percentage, it's not clear. The 25 rounds that are not defined as "good" are now less useful to the shooter. To be sure, they may be used as foulers, plinking ammo, or reserved for use by friends who may not shoot well anyway. In any case, the shooter now has 25 rounds of "good" and 25 rounds of "not so good" ammo.
He's paid roughly $7.50 for the box of 50 SK Standard Plus and has 25 good rounds for that money as well as 25 rounds he'll use to foul his bore, plink with, or let his neighbour or wife shoot. To have a boxful of good ammo (50 rounds) he needs two boxes of SK Standard Plus or $15.00 worth of ammo.
While he is shooting his 50 "good" rounds of ammo measured for rim thickness, his ammo box has 50 not as good rounds. Maybe he shoots some of them for foulers. How many? Five? Ten? Twenty five? Save the rest just for plinking with the rifle from which you're trying to wring every last fraction of an inch in accuracy? In any case, he's paid for them and they are not good for serious target work.
But perhaps a higher percentage of the sorted SK Standard Plus falls into the "good" category. Maybe three out of four rounds are good to go according to rim thickness sorting. Out of two boxes of ammo ($15 worth) 75 rounds are worthy of serious shooting, the remaining 25 for fouling, plinking, etc. That works out to $11.25 for a box of 50 "good" rounds.
This leaves several questions for those considering sorting by rim thickness. What percentage of a box of ammo like SK Standard Plus can be expected to become "good" ammo once sorted for rim thickness? Is it typically more than 50% -- or is it less? What is the savings in money if ammo is selected by sorting for rim thickness rather than by buying better quality ammo in the first place? Is it worth the time spent? What is done with the ammo that doesn't fall into the "good" ammo group after sorting is completed? After all, shooters don't need nearly as much fouling ammo as "good" ammo.
With regard to sorting ammo, other threads on CGN and elsewhere acknowledge that sorting by rim thickness is generally unnecessary when using higher end ammo. Put another way, serious, competitive shooters generally do not sort top level ammo like Lapua Midas +, Eley Tenex, or RWS 50. They practice a great deal, search out the best lots of ammo for their rifles, and BR shooters also use tuners to further improve consistency of results. While they search out every way to improve their accuracy, they don't sort by rim thickness.
The question of whether sorting non-top level .22LR ammo by rim thickness actually results in meaningful improvement in accuracy down range is disputed. Leaving it aside for the time being, however, is there a clear payoff to sort ammo by rim thickness? In other words, is there meaningful savings in money? Is it time well spent? When it comes to sorting ammo by rim thickness, what do sorters do with the ammo that doesn't fall into the "ideal" size range for a particular rifle? How much savings over the price of higher end ammo can be expected?
For the sake of argument, and since this thread is about SK Standard Plus, that particular ammo can serve as a useful example. At best it's entry level ammo, from which great and consistent accuracy should not be expected. It's not expensive, the price being about $7.50 for a box of 50. Center X, which is up the quality ladder, is about $14.00 per box and Midas + is $23ish (to continue to use SK/Lapua here).
What if half the ammo in a box of 50 is what is determined to be "best" for your rifle? That might be a high or low percentage, it's not clear. The 25 rounds that are not defined as "good" are now less useful to the shooter. To be sure, they may be used as foulers, plinking ammo, or reserved for use by friends who may not shoot well anyway. In any case, the shooter now has 25 rounds of "good" and 25 rounds of "not so good" ammo.
He's paid roughly $7.50 for the box of 50 SK Standard Plus and has 25 good rounds for that money as well as 25 rounds he'll use to foul his bore, plink with, or let his neighbour or wife shoot. To have a boxful of good ammo (50 rounds) he needs two boxes of SK Standard Plus or $15.00 worth of ammo.
While he is shooting his 50 "good" rounds of ammo measured for rim thickness, his ammo box has 50 not as good rounds. Maybe he shoots some of them for foulers. How many? Five? Ten? Twenty five? Save the rest just for plinking with the rifle from which you're trying to wring every last fraction of an inch in accuracy? In any case, he's paid for them and they are not good for serious target work.
But perhaps a higher percentage of the sorted SK Standard Plus falls into the "good" category. Maybe three out of four rounds are good to go according to rim thickness sorting. Out of two boxes of ammo ($15 worth) 75 rounds are worthy of serious shooting, the remaining 25 for fouling, plinking, etc. That works out to $11.25 for a box of 50 "good" rounds.
This leaves several questions for those considering sorting by rim thickness. What percentage of a box of ammo like SK Standard Plus can be expected to become "good" ammo once sorted for rim thickness? Is it typically more than 50% -- or is it less? What is the savings in money if ammo is selected by sorting for rim thickness rather than by buying better quality ammo in the first place? Is it worth the time spent? What is done with the ammo that doesn't fall into the "good" ammo group after sorting is completed? After all, shooters don't need nearly as much fouling ammo as "good" ammo.
Rod B
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Too much effort for too little gain.
I have about three bricks of it that I'm slowly working my way through. IMO, it's OK until you find something around the same price range that shoots better.
A lot depends on the target you want to hit, of course. If you want to hit a dime consistently at 50m, Std Plus probably isn't the right ammo for the job. Move up to hitting a quarter consistently and you're in the right neighbourhood at least.
I like it for silhouette ammo. I can't shoot well enough offhand to justify better ammo than Std Plus for silhouettes. In other words, the difference between .75 MOA ammo and .5 MOA ammo is insignificant considering the other issues at hand.
Is it better than CCI SV, for example? I think the consistency MIGHT be better, but you need a rifle that shoots both equally well to see any difference on that front.
Like P14shooter said, at 20 yds on a tack sized target, most any SV ammo will get the job done, provided the rifle doesn't throw shotgun patterns with it.
I used it for fun shoots with generous sized targets with good success.
It is oily as hel* though, I second the "keep a rag handy" sentiment. Most any SK/Lapua ammo is like that, Eley is more waxy.
A lot depends on the target you want to hit, of course. If you want to hit a dime consistently at 50m, Std Plus probably isn't the right ammo for the job. Move up to hitting a quarter consistently and you're in the right neighbourhood at least.
I like it for silhouette ammo. I can't shoot well enough offhand to justify better ammo than Std Plus for silhouettes. In other words, the difference between .75 MOA ammo and .5 MOA ammo is insignificant considering the other issues at hand.
Is it better than CCI SV, for example? I think the consistency MIGHT be better, but you need a rifle that shoots both equally well to see any difference on that front.
Like P14shooter said, at 20 yds on a tack sized target, most any SV ammo will get the job done, provided the rifle doesn't throw shotgun patterns with it.
I used it for fun shoots with generous sized targets with good success.
It is oily as hel* though, I second the "keep a rag handy" sentiment. Most any SK/Lapua ammo is like that, Eley is more waxy.
If the rimfire firing pin is actually impacting the edge of the chamber then you are doing more than just damaging the firing pin. The firing pin can be swapped out.....unless it is a rarer rifle/pistol.
However be aware that peening of the chamber edge is not easily rectified and can impact accuracy, and in severe cases even chambering of rounds.
because the fireing pin strikes the rim of the cartridge when you dry fire it the pin strikes the edge of the chamber peening it, causing cases to stick in the chamber brownells sell a tool to fix this. The easiest fix is a plug or dummy round
It is well to keep things in perspective. Neither SK Standard Plus nor CCI SV should be considered .75 MOA ammo, and certainly not .5 MOA ammo. Very good ammo coupled with a very good rifle and a good shooter is needed to achieve consistent .5 MOA shooting. Can SK Standard Plus hold 1 MOA at 50 yards? Perhaps not as consistently as other ammo, but it certainly does well enough to meet the 1/2" Challenge on this forum on more than one occasion.
How does SK ammo compare to CCI SV? Shooters who have rifles with a match chamber often find CCI SV difficult to chamber, that it is a little harder to close the bolt. Shooters with sporters that have tight chambers have reported a similar experience. Apparently it's because CCI SV has a longer driving band; rim thickness may also be a factor. As a result CCI SV is used less often in these kinds of rifles and comparisons are less frequent. Shooters who use other rifles may well see little difference between SK Standard Plus and CCI SV, and certainly the American-made ammo is less expensive than the German.
I consider SK Standard to be the CCI SV of the SK line. Which is to say, remarkably consistent in a wide variety of 22s I've owned~past and present. Attractively priced for how well it shoots. I always have it on hand, and have even found the POI between CCI SV and SK Standard to be amazingly close at times. In my "best" rifle (Anschutz 64) it shoots both extremely well, but as I've said about the two in that gun..the SK Standard seems to have a consistency edge.
^this I'll have to check, but based on using allot of SK stuff...the goose grease isn't limited to the bullet itself. lol
^I'm with Hoyt on this, BIG time. lol However, I also obsess over the minutia of various aspects of the money-draining hobbies I have too...so I'd never criticize anyone who goes to those lengths. I also don't compete (nor is there a shred of desire at this point) so maybe I would if I had that fire in my belly.
^this I'll have to check, but based on using allot of SK stuff...the goose grease isn't limited to the bullet itself. lol
^I'm with Hoyt on this, BIG time. lol However, I also obsess over the minutia of various aspects of the money-draining hobbies I have too...so I'd never criticize anyone who goes to those lengths. I also don't compete (nor is there a shred of desire at this point) so maybe I would if I had that fire in my belly.
CZ_Silhouetter
Regular
- Location
- Saskatchewan
My Vudoo seems to really like SK Std Plus I've shot it to 357 yards on a 66% IPSC. Needless to say I called Insite to get a couple cases to feed the Vudoo.
Here are my most resent 50 yard 5 round groups with SK Std Plus:
Here are my most resent 50 yard 10 round groups with SK Std Plus:
My Vudoo seems to really like SK Std Plus I've shot it to 357 yards on a 66% IPSC. Needless to say I called Insite to get a couple cases to feed the Vudoo.
Here are my most resent 50 yard 5 round groups with SK Std Plus:
Here are my most resent 50 yard 10 round groups with SK Std Plus:
^I'd consider those groups a good endorsement of SK standard.
I’ve played around with enough SK + to know it is great for practicing but I won’t use it in a match. So is it match ammo? For some it definitely could be and others not so much. Questions like this are almost impossible to answer in any definitive way. Depends on the task at hand.
I realized after I'd posted that last night that I should have doubled the sizes to 1.5 and 1 MOA. I was thinking in terms of inches at 50 yds. So much for editing in the morning!
My experience with SK Std+ has been that in most rifles I've tried it in, I can usually count on 3/4" groups at 50 yds. Some are better, some are worse, but that's the average.
Most of my CZs have shot it fairly well, the Tikka doesn't like it.
Toolman clearly shoots very well with SK Standard Plus. His point that some might use it in a match while he himself would not leads to the question of what is meant by the term "match ammo".
Is it ammo that is used in a shooting match? Or is it something else? Maybe it's like asking what's a sports car.
In a general sense the term is often used to distinguish ammo from high velocity ammo and bulk ammo. It is further distinguished by some degree of reliability for accuracy. It is standard velocity and, unless it is Eley EPS or Tenex (or SK Flatnose) it usually has round nose lead bullets which have some kind of lubricant. But that also describes ammo like Sellier and Bellot standard velocity, which is not often used in shooting matches and is disqualified by its level of performance.
Is it accurate to say that match ammo can be called match ammo because it's "good enough" to be used in matches? By that standard is only the top tier ammo that is used in sanctioned shooting matches considered "match ammo"? That would seem too restrictive.
Perhaps it has something to do with match chambers, which are different in size from sporter chambers. While there are more than one variation of "match" chambers, the SAAMI specifications for "match" and "sporter" chambers show a distinct difference between the two.
Is match ammo in some way more responsive to a match chamber than ammo that isn't really match ammo? I don't know. But it would seem that a definition of the term "match ammo" remains ambiguous.
Perhaps what makes "match ammo" match ammo is how it is made. Ammo such as SK/Lapua, RWS, and Eley -- the big three match ammo makers -- is made to a higher standard than bulk and almost all high velocity ammo. I don't pretend to know what is involved in the manufacturing process, but it is hardly surprising that these manufacturers take more care in producing the brass, primer material, propellant, bullets, lubrication, and packaging than non-match ammo. For example, according to a report on Eley by #### Metcalf called "The Best of the Best Gets Better" in Shooting Times in 2011,
Eley engineers identified 50 primary variables--basics like bullet mass, case internal volume, and propellant charge mass.
Then they determined 200 secondary variables--things like the ambient humidity in the assembly facility, the metallurgy of the cases, human competence. Finally, they identified 700 tertiary variables--subtle things the TenEx project manager told me turned out to be the ultimate keys to getting things really up to "the TenEx level." For example: weather conditions in the country where the propellant powder is manufactured on the day that particular lot of powder was mixed. (Yes, Eley actually adjusts the TenEx loading profile for each powder lot based on this and other equally subtle considerations. The same is true of the other end of the process; manufacturing "lots" of TenEx consist of one day's run from a single loading machine because the weather is different each day.)
That is the level of attention Eley gives to its top tier ammo. Presumably lesser grades get lesser degrees of attention. And presumably SK/Lapua and RWS give similar care and attention. Eley Sport and SK Standard Plus may not get the top level of care and attention in the manufacturing process, but with the machines all set up and the level of competence there to see to it, it gets made to higher standards than other ammo not made by the major match ammo makers. Put another way, Remington and Winchester don't make match ammo because it's an expensive venture to be equipped to do so and they would be starting more than a few steps behind the big three.
Mike, buy some and shoot it, then you'll know how it works in your rifle.
I've got Standard Plus, Centre X, Midas, Xact, Polar Biathlon, Polar Sport and a pile of other ammo. Buy a selection, test it and find out what your rifle likes and buy a case or two of that lot.
**I had a look at the municipality map and saw lots of 'pink-crown land' near Winkler, you find a spot yet?
I've got Standard Plus, Centre X, Midas, Xact, Polar Biathlon, Polar Sport and a pile of other ammo. Buy a selection, test it and find out what your rifle likes and buy a case or two of that lot.
**I had a look at the municipality map and saw lots of 'pink-crown land' near Winkler, you find a spot yet?
Yep, in some rifles they're quite good. My CZ 452 likes Pistol Match, the Tikka doesn't much care for it.
Trying a wide variety of ammunition in several different rifles can be a real eye-opener.
I'm a firm believer in the theory (mine..lol) that if you have a good barrel, good ignition mechanics, and good consistency from round to round, you can usually find an ammunition that will shoot well in that particular rifle. A barrel tuner helps greatly in that search.
Many have reported good results using CCI SV in their OEM Tikka T1x's. One gent reported outstanding results using different ammo with a suppressor (US), another with a brake fitted. Those items, in addition to their primary purpose, change barrel harmonics, exactly the same thing a tuner does. The difference is, they're not adjustable.
I'm firmly in the camp that believes so-called "match" ammo is a marketing tool, plain and simple. If it's not marketed as home-defense, hunting-specific or plinking ammo, then it must be match ammo to a varying degree, right?
If your target for a given competition is a loonie sized bullseye at 50 yds, then any ammo that will reliably deliver 10 for 10 in that bullseye is match ammo.
Shrink that bullseye to a 1/4" ring and you need to step up the game to remain competitive.
Temperature tolerance comes into the picture if you shoot in cold weather, further adding to the muddle.
Eley has introduced a new tool (new to me anyway) on their website. You can enter a lot number from any of their ammunition, and the tool will give you the characteristics of that particular lot, including group sizes from their test rifles. There's also a statistical tool that indicates the percentage of shots from that lot that will fall within a given target size. It's value is questionable, however, at least to my way of thinking. Their results with their rifles in no way, shape, or form mirrors the results I may get with my rifle.
They list results from 4 different test rifles, maybe it's possible that if you send your rifle to be tested they assign a "rating" characteristic to it so that you can correlate their results with lot "x" to what you can expect to see with your rifle. In other words, if your rifle showed similar results to their test rifle #3 during testing, a new lot that shoots well in test rifle #3 should, by extension, shoot well for you.
I have a few boxes of friend-discounted Tenex to try in my rifles this spring. It'll either be consistently great, mediocre, or awful. What I WILL expect to see is the same result, over and over, because with that grade of ammo, it had dam* well better be consistent. I kind of hope it's awful.. I don't want to know that $30/box ammo shoots like a laser in my rifles.
While we're at it, let's explore "practice" ammo . Other than elite athletes that train for shooting disciplines with a physical component (eg biathlon), some would ask why would they practice with ammo that, other than going bang, doesn't deliver consistent results??
Repetitive aiming and shot execution constitutes physical training, though I'm not at that level. I'd rather not see the practice target at all, just use it as an aiming point. Does anyone know if elite athletes train that way?
I think it would play with your head, having to trust that your conditioning routine is successful on its own irregardless of practice scores, and that your scores will automatically improve with top-grade ammo.
