An Example of Significance of Match Ammo Lot Number

G

grauhanen

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
GunNutz
Rating - 100%
178   0   0
Location
Northeastern Ontario
To achieve the best accuracy, shooters are often reminded to "find the ammo your rifle likes". What does that mean? Is a shooter to buy different kinds of ammo, and by shooting and comparing targets, determine the variety of ammo their rifle "likes"? Perhaps the smallest groups are with a certain variety of SK/Lapua, or RWS, or Eley ammo. For the sake of argument, let's say the best results after comparing a half-dozen or so ammos the best results were produced by Lapua Center X.

Is that it? Does that mean that if the shooter buys Lapua Center X he's good to go and can rest assured that he will have good-shooting ammo whenever he buys more Center X?

The best answer is a qualified maybe. The thing is that not all ammo of a particular variety is equal. Consider the example below.

This morning it was very calm so I decided to go to the range. It was only 2 degrees when I left but by the time I would finish it warmed up to near 7 Celsius.

I kept my ammo in the inside pockets of my jacket. I only took out five rounds at a time and kept the rest of any box I was using in an outer pocket while I was shooting.

My rifle was an Anschutz 1411 with a BR 50 stock. This rifle has given me the best results I've had this shooting season with the same make of ammo I would shoot today. Nevertheless, the results today are necessarily the best results achievable. Warmer, more comfortable temperatures in which to shoot has previously produced different results, indeed much better ones (at least on targets for which I have kept more complete records). In any case, even though the results are not particularly good, certainly not outstanding, all my shooting toda was done under virtually identical conditions, cool and quite calm, with the result that the comparisons between ammo should be more or less valid.

I shot two different lots of Center X and the results were striking. One lot of Center X, which while not producing especially good results, was considerably better than the other. I put the same effort into trying to obtain the best results for each round I fired, despite the unspectacular nature of the targets, which are shown warts and all.

The "better" lot:




The not-so-good lot:




The above results show clearly that not all lots of Center X (or other ammo) is necessarily the same. To be fair, most lots are average and will produce results that are average for that particular ammo. I have concluded that the more poorly shooting Center X shown above is a less-than-average shooting lot of Center X, probably considerably less-than-average lot. The better lot is somewhat closer to average, despite the uneven results.

The point I wanted to illustrate above is that different lots of ammo can shoot very differently. Most lots of a variety of ammo will be average, but some may be better and some may be worse. It's not so much about finding the ammo your rifle likes as finding the lot(s) your rifle likes.

It must be kept in mind, however, that different individual rifles -- even of the same make and model -- may shoot the same lot of ammo differently, that is they may get different results with the same ammo. In turn, ammo that is not especially good in one rifle may shoot better (or worse) in another.

As unsatisfactorily the worst Center X lot shown above shot, it was not the worst I've had the bad luck to have. I bought some Center X in August that shot even more poorly, and in milder temperatures to boot. The dealer sold it with the promise that he'd take it back if it wasn't good, and he did. The ammo that replaced it was better but not particularly good.

All told, I have had good luck and bad luck with Lapua ammo and everything in between. It's not the make or variety of ammo with which you will achieve your best results. I've had good results with Midas + ammo and bad results. I think I've shot all the "good" lots of Midas + I had at the beginning of the season. What I have left is decidedly unsatisfactory, as the results I obtained today with a box of what I have left shows below.



That's especially disappointing for ammo that costs $20 per box. On the bright side, this lot of SK Rifle Match is not too bad, if you can accept that it can't be expected to be as good or consistent as "good" Center X or Midas + ammo.



In the end, the quest for accuracy is about finding the lot(s) your rifle likes.
 
Any one following Cabela's ammo sale and the Federal Match 922A product number 14569.
They refuse to check lot numbers. At the local store I only once obtained a brick of the same lot number.
I have received orders with two and three different lot numbers. The only way to get one lot is to order a case.
All of this ammo is per box.
At the local store I am treated like a two headed snake for suggesting there is a difference in lot numbers.

Earlier this year I tested Remington Eley Match. Three different lots were 1062 velocity plus one other.
The best lot produced 4 10-shot groups under one inch and one at 1.1" and I now have about 4000 rounds.
At a recent 100 yard shoot the rifle produced a 600 - 42X on a target with a 1" 10-ring and a 1/2" X-rings. The six groups averaged. .77".

The rifle is a Remington 40XBR with a Lilja barrel smithed by guntech.

Testing ammo is not a matter of life or death . . . it is much more important than that!
 
Your Center X results echo my own findings over the past couple of years, Glenn. I'm finding a substantial variation in lot number quality.
It doesn't seem to matter whether I run it through a standard production barrel or a match chambered after market one either.
I have one lot number here which I am currently using as foulers after barrel cleaning - At A$22.00 a packet, I'm not impressed!
 
Tested a Remington Model 37 at the Lapua test centre in Arizona. Out of 12 different lots of Center-X only 2 were producing one hole groups. The lot numbers were traced to a warehouse in another state. We were able to have a case shipped to our residence in Arizona. Cost was $50 per rifle tested. You can also mail your rifles there for testing. Sure saves a lot of time, and money. Staff were very helpful.
 
grauhanen said:
As you may be aware, a tuner doesn't turn poorly shooting ammo into ammo that shoots well. I have tried tuners in recent months but a dearth of good ammo has limited my success.
Click to expand...

I thought the point of the tuner was to change the barrel to better suit the ammo you had on hand.. or the changes ambient conditions might have. I agree that crap is crap and a tuner is not going to make surplus ammo into match ammo.

However, if quality match ammo was out of tune for that barrel, a tuner would change the harmonics to better suit the ammo.

In centerfire, tuners are used to bring a barrel to the load... I haven't tried them in rimfire but there are no shortage of users so would assume it would also be helpful

Jerry
 
Unfortunately, ammo that shoots poorly from a particular rifle can't be transformed into something that it isn't, regardless of what variety it is. A lousy lot remains a lousy lot. BR shooters who use tuners on their .22LR rigs start with very good shooting ammo and use a tuner to wring the utmost accuracy from it and their barrels. If a certain lot of ammo doesn't do well in a particular barrel, they look for one that does. In other words, the tuner can be thought of as improving already good shooting ammo. Similarly, a tuner doesn't transform a poor barrel into a good one.

Rifles without tuners have been made to shoot accurately for a long time. In the competitive BR shooting, however, every bit of accuracy can be significant in determining winning scores. As a result tuners are essential in competitive shooting and have been increasingly so since their use became widespread in the early 1990s. Prior to that great accuracy was achievable, but not to the degree it is with a tuner properly adjusted on a good barrel with a good lot of ammo. In any event, with or without a tuner, all .22LR shooters looking to maximize their accuracy must look for the lots of ammo that shoot best in their rifles.
 
grauhanen said:
Unfortunately, ammo that shoots poorly from a particular rifle can't be transformed into something that it isn't, regardless of what variety it is. A lousy lot remains a lousy lot. BR shooters who use tuners on their .22LR rigs start with very good shooting ammo and use a tuner to wring the utmost accuracy from it and their barrels. If a certain lot of ammo doesn't do well in a particular barrel, they look for one that does. In other words, the tuner can be thought of as improving already good shooting ammo. Similarly, a tuner doesn't transform a poor barrel into a good one.

Rifles without tuners have been made to shoot accurately for a long time. In the competitive BR shooting, however, every bit of accuracy can be significant in determining winning scores. As a result tuners are essential in competitive shooting and have been increasingly so since their use became widespread in the early 1990s. Prior to that great accuracy was achievable, but not to the degree it is with a tuner properly adjusted on a good barrel with a good lot of ammo. In any event, with or without a tuner, all .22LR shooters looking to maximize their accuracy must look for the lots of ammo that shoot best in their rifles.
Click to expand...

I endorse this completely. Mediocre match ammo is mediocre ammo, regardless. Dave.
 
Eagleye said:
I endorse this completely. Mediocre match ammo is mediocre ammo, regardless. Dave.
Click to expand...

My findings also... I messed around extensively with tuners when I was shooting bench, and concluded that the end result was not worth the effort to get there.
 
Gillis2 said:
Always educating to read your posts Glenn.
Thanks for sharing with us.
Gilbert
Click to expand...

Pfft. I'd say more, but I risk untoward temper tantrums being had just for pointing out things that have been missed or the flawed logic in premature conclusions drawn from limited testing.
 
Is that Pfft cat searching for the "F" word?

The theory I was edumacated on was find the ammo best suited to your gun and then go to the tuner.
This theory came from a man who found the best ammo them put the tuner on set at zero and did nothing further . . . worked for him.
Quite often ammo performing at 50 will not duplicate the same at 100 and sometimes a different tuner setting might be required when the distance changes.
Next challenge will be to try it at 200 using the 100 yard/metre setting and shooting groups to a long strip of brown paper. Just for chits and giggles.
As long as my disability keeps coming in that equates to a brick per month . . .
 
This morning it looked very much like it did two days ago, very calm and cool. The calm sold me so I had to go to the range. If I had been planning to add to this thread I would have made a point to try ti find more of the same lots I used a couple of days ago. In any case, I did have some of that ammo, but today I had a different rifle, an Anschutz 1913 BR. As a result I will add some of today's results for perspective.

The targets are not particularly noteworthy. They show some groups that are good and some that are not so good, but that's only reasonable. I think too often on forums we see mostly the good targets, the ones that shooters want to post for all to see. We are familiar with the ones that show one or a couple of exceptional groups that ultimately tell us too little about the shooter/rifle/ammo and little more than what often is a run of good fortune. These targets, as those in the first post, show the warts. They are not an unusual occurrence for me. I'd wager probably most shooters, with a few exceptions, would have less than ideal results more often than they would care to admit.

As for the ammo used today, I used the same Center X that gave the better results the other day as well as some of the Midas + and SK Rifle Match. The 1913 shot these ammos a little better than the 1411 did. Why? The conditions were as similar both days as imaginable, only the rifles were different.

Here's the Center X. It shot much better than it did with the 1411 the other day.




The same Midas + was also a little better, but not enough to draw any conclusions.



The SK Rifle Match, which produced the best results two days ago, was quite respectable for SK ammo again today, with the results being a little better than previously. Only nine groups were recorded as I used five rounds of this ammo as foulers.



What does the above show? Because of the relatively small sample size, it can't prove anything conclusively. But it does show evidence to suggest that different rifles may produce different results with the same ammo. This is important for shooters to note. Some of them may assume that a certain ammo that shot well in someone else's rifle should shoot well in theirs. That ammo might shoot well, but there's no guarantee that it will.

Does this mean that the rifle I used today, the 1913, is a better shooter than the rifle I used two days ago, the 1411? I don't think so. The 1411 has produced some very good results this past summer with the same variety of ammo -- and that was when it had its original prone style stock rather than the BR stock it has today, a stock which with its three inch wide BR forend and reduced cast helps make it more stable and easier to handle on the bench. In fact the 1411 has produced my season's best targets, although the comparison with my other Anschutz rifles is quite close.

In the end, what this confirms is that it's not so much the brand or particular variety of ammo that's important for accuracy, it's the particular lot of ammo that is most important for each rifle. It's possible that a good shooting lot in one particular rifle may shoot well in most rifles, but I can't confirm that based on the information at hand. But it seems clear that there are some lots of not inexpensive match ammo that do not shoot well in some rifles, perhaps in many rifles. How can shooters looking to buy ammo know what they are getting? If you don't first test the ammo by buying smaller quantities and shooting to see for yourself before investing in a larger quantity, you run the risk of getting ammo that isn't especially good with your rifle.

As suggested elsewhere, the worse time to buy ammo is very probably when the dealer doesn't have much of a particular variety in stock. That small supply of ammo is what is left over after the dealer has sold much of his stock, a good deal of it to competitive shooters who insist on getting "good stuff" and who rely on dealers being able to supply them with it. It's not the dealer's fault. It's simply the way things work.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom