Cheap Ammo w/ Great Accuracy?
- Thread starter peterbing
- Start date
That's a good answer. It has very important and relevant observations, most notably that the data is valid for that rifle, with those lots of ammo, under the same conditions in which the test was conducted. They are not valid for other rifles with other lots of ammo under other conditions.
It's worth noting the test rifle, a Bleiker, has a tuner but there's no way of knowing if the tuner was used consistently or effectively.
In other words, it's a one time only set of data.
While the answer provided above is good, it may be too concise or succinct to persuade some readers. There's room to illustrate further why the information is of limited use to other shooters.
The data shown in the link is reproduced here for ease of reference. Below is the rifle that produced it.
Many of the ammos tested with the Bleiker are no longer available. That data as a result becomes largely irrelevant for most shooters. Below is the data from above for ten of the most commonly used and available ammos.
The tester who produced the data in question, tested other rifles and published that information. It is that information that clearly demonstrates why the data collected by the Bleiker is largely irrelevant.
A Walther KK 200 was also used to test various ammos. Here's the rifle followed by the test results for the same ten commonly used and available ammos. It is unknown if the tester made any attempt to use the same lots of ammo.
A Sako PO4 was used test various ammos. Here's the rifle followed by the test results for the same varieties of ammos as above.
So what does all the above show? It shows many things, some expected, some surprises, some curiosities or oddities. By comparing the results of testing the ammos with three different rifles, it shows that the results for one do not necessarily hold for another. It is not possible to point to the data shown in the link referred to in post #38 and claim that brand "x" of ammo will perform a certain way because that data is not widely applicable.
The various ammos performed differently in the three different rifles. It is worth remembering that these rifles have what are usually considered good quality barrels. Some ammos did well in all three rifles, although some might quibble about how good "well" is. For example RWS R50, Lapua Midas +, Lapua Center X, Eley Tenex, and Eley Match. Some were oddly inconsistent in that they shot better at longer distances than at shorter ones. Why does that happen? Testing error of some kind seems the best answer because ammo does not recover or gain accuracy further down range. CCI SV did well in two rifles, while it appears to have fallen apart at 100 yards in the third.
With different lots of the same ammos, the tester would get different results. If the tester used yet another make of rifle with a quality barrel, the results would be different still for the same ten ammos. If the tester used a different rifle of the same make and model the results would be different.
I've shot nearly every variety of the highest end match ammo, and several lots of each. I've never come across a lot/variety yet that has never produced a group or a few in excess of 1/2" at 50 yards, over the course of shooting the brick or two that I bought of that ammo. I can confidently state that good lots of SK ammo, for a mid-level price, will produce the majority of their groups sub 1/2", and my best luck has been with Biathlon Sport for the last two lots of it I've received. If 20 groups in a row sub 1/2" (none of them in the 0.4's) aren't considered "consistent", then I have lost my patience for dealing with pedants. Ehh... not trolling for an argument here, and no, not every single group of SK Biathlon I've ever shot has been sub 1/2", those couple outliers don't disqualify it from being considered "consistent", though.
Also with another rifle, pencil barreled Walther KKJ-T, 10 in a row sub 1/2"
5X5 1/2" at 50 yards is easy. So easy to shoot, it is boring. The challenge is not in the execution of the shooting performance, but in getting the rifle/ammo up to the task. A key component of rimfire accuracy is appropriate use of a tuner. I shake my head every time I attempt to shoot a naked barrel rifle for accuracy anymore these days. To further complicate matters, I have little faith in the quality of factory made barrels (as even a couple Anschütz made barrels I've had were not satisfactory). I see far too many people falsely place blame upon themselves, while lacking the technical know-how to determine it is actually the rifle (barrel) at fault. Or, they are simply not versed in testing a wide variety of ammo and utilizing tricks such as shimming/pressure bedding the barrel to get it to perform well without a tuner.
Here is 40 in a row sub 1/2", with 3 varieties of ammo, and two lots of one variety.
Here's another 20 in a row
19 in a row (different rifle)
1/2" ain't no thang.
Best cheap ammo I've found is BBM High Velocity, made by RWS (and presumably just rebranded RWS Semi-Auto).
There's 38/40 groups sub 1/2" at 50 yards for $4.99/box/50. I challenge everyone to produce a better performance-cost ratio. Of course, YMMV with this ammo. I have a high quality Lilja barrel and use a tuner, you might have a good barrel but if it ain't tuned, who knows if it'll shoot this ammo naked.
At the risk of sounding pedantic in the light of pretension and self-praise (not trolling for an argument here, either), it's worth noting that the good shooting results above -- both the notable and apparently everyday and pedestrian -- were achieved with custom barrels, except for the Walther. Custom barrels are relied on for better results than factory barrels and the results above demonstrate this very well.
Tuners can help bring improved results with a rifle. As Rabid writes, "A key component of rimfire accuracy is appropriate use of a tuner." He goes on to say "I shake my head every time I attempt to shoot a naked barrel rifle for accuracy anymore these days. To further complicate matters, I have little faith in the quality of factory made barrels (as even a couple Anschütz made barrels I've had were not satisfactory)." I would add and point out to readers that while a tuner can bring improvements in shooting results, it's possible to achieve good and consistent accuracy with good rifles that don't use tuners.
Tuners are a relatively recent innovation and development in the pursuit of rimfire accuracy. They have only been around for about 30 years, and for at least a third of that time they were the purview of a relatively small group of the most serious of shooters interested in experimenting with muzzle devices (MD's) to gain more accuracy. Rifles could be and were accurate before the introduction of tuners. When MD's became more widely used, they made already accurate rifles even more accurate. The key is having a good quality rifle with a good barrel and using good ammo that shoots well in that rifle. It's not necessary to have a tuner to achieve good results, but for someone wishing to compete and get the best possible results, a tuner is necessary to be competitive and a tuner will make a good rifle's results better.
The key is a quality barrel and good ammo. A tuner will not make a modest rifle/barrel shoot like a top quality rifle/barrel even when the best ammo is used. To illustrate, a typical CZ barrel with a will not be competitive with the best factory barrels. And a tuner will not make poorly shooting or inconsistent ammo into something that it can never be, and that is good ammo. In other words, a tuner is not a "magic" solution to turn an average rifle into a really good one or average ammo into really good ammo. There's no free ride to the best accuracy.
Would a tuner make a stock CZ 455 shoot better? Unlikely. It would be beneficial to first ensure that it is bedded properly, has a good trigger, and reliable scope and mounts before considering a tuner. For more on this, see h t t p s ://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=829186. According to respected CZ smith, djdilliodon,
No doubt about it tuners will work. Is it worth using on every gun? No it's not. On rigs that are accurate it is worth trying to get that last bit you can for that little bit of an edge. With factory barrels imo, it's a waste of money and time for the most part. Some factory barrels are of match quality (hey even a broken clock is right twice a day) but majority of them are not. Tuners also work best with longer barrels. In .900"-.920" OD I have found that 24" length is about perfect. Thinner barrels you can go shorter and achieve the same results but of course some rifles that won't happen. All rifles are individualistic even when built the exact same way.
And before readers take it as a given that BBM ammo can be relied upon to shoot well, I bought a case of it and tried it in eight different rifles last spring and summer. In none of the rifles I tested it with, including no less than six that shoot very well, did the BBM ammo perform well. Half-inch or smaller groups at just over 50 meters were few and far between. My case of ammo may well have been a poorly shooting lot and I was quite disappointed in it. In any event, don't assume that all BBM can shoot well.
Very comprehensive, Glenn. I recall seeing somewhere that the testers stated they made no adjustments to the tuner, but I cannot seem to find it again. What I did find is the following quote:
"The rifle did not have this tuner on it originally.
A little while ao, a friend was playing around with it, trying to see how it might improve his groups.
Frankly, I would have preferred using teh rifle without it.
But, I am afraid I only noticed this fact after shooting quite a few groups.
We are debating doing the test again, without this tuner."
One can infer that, given they only came to realize that the tuner was on the rifle after shooting many groups, no adjustments were made to it for those groups, and no adjustments were made after the realization so as to maintain consistency within the rifle setup parameters.
To support the statements you have bolded above, this quote is from the person who did the Bleiker test on the accurate reloading forum:
"We are trying to see how the different ammo we have will shoot in different rifles that we have, nothing more.
It is far from being a bench rest test of either rifles or ammo."
Some people mistakenly believe this to be an ammo test, it is not. The testers state this themselves. One cannot look at the results and draw any conclusions about the performance of "X" brand of ammo. As you have stated, all it illustrates is how performance varies from one rifle to the next with different ammo.
Re: the BBM, you likely purchased from Target Shooting Products. Peter had to buy RWS's entire inventory to get that price point. I bought three cases of it. I doubt that the ammo can be blamed in your case, my feeling is that you could try some of my stock of BBM, and still be disappointed with it in your rifles. This brings me back to my comment about "shaking my head whenever I attempt to shoot a naked barrel for accuracy". What you observed was less a reflection of the ammo quality, and more of the difficulty in finding ammo that really suits your rifles, sans tuner. Here is an example of BBM shot through a more common rifle, my 455 full-stock with factory barrel. It gave me a consistent accuracy level of 0.4's-0.6's. I'll take it for a rifle that required a lot of work to get shooting better than 1".
Here is the BBM through my 455 Canadian with Lilja barrel, no tuner. We know that the ammo is better than this, we know that this rifle is on the 1/2" challenge list with Lapua Polar Biathlon, we know I shake my head when I attempt to shoot for accuracy without a tuner. This is why.
Somewhere I have a target of BBM shot with my Weatherby XXII. It was nothing inspiring, but satisfactory for silhouette. Again, no tuner, so due to the simple fact the ammo does not suit the rifle, results reflect neither the quality of the ammo or the rifle and the hunt for "that ammo" continues.
I appreciate the remarks, Rabid.
One of the noteworthy things I've learned with regard to tuners (and Rabid knows this too, but for other readers less familiar with them), is something that's often repeated by sages on various forums and given as advice to shooters learning about the use of tuners, like myself. It bears repetition here. That important point is that a tuner won't make really good ammo out of poor ammo. It can improve the results of poor ammo but it's no substitute for better ammo.
Few of us posting here on these pages, including me, can afford to shoot the best ammo exclusively as it's simply too expensive. If a tuner can make ammo like SK Standard Plus shoot MOA more consistently and reliably at 50 yards or meters -- that is, say, about 9 out of 10 five-shot-groups all the time -- it can help make satisfaction with that level of shooting more easy to reach. My own use of a tuner will be to help wring out the most accuracy I can from the best ammo I can afford to shoot on occasion.
One of the noteworthy things I've learned with regard to tuners (and Rabid knows this too, but for other readers less familiar with them), is something that's often repeated by sages on various forums and given as advice to shooters learning about the use of tuners, like myself. It bears repetition here. That important point is that a tuner won't make really good ammo out of poor ammo. It can improve the results of poor ammo but it's no substitute for better ammo.
Few of us posting here on these pages, including me, can afford to shoot the best ammo exclusively as it's simply too expensive. If a tuner can make ammo like SK Standard Plus shoot MOA more consistently and reliably at 50 yards or meters -- that is, say, about 9 out of 10 five-shot-groups all the time -- it can help make satisfaction with that level of shooting more easy to reach. My own use of a tuner will be to help wring out the most accuracy I can from the best ammo I can afford to shoot on occasion.
Ive just looked up Lapua Center-X - its $139.99 for 500 rounds! Thats pretty well quadruple what I'm paying for el cheapo Federal or whatever and I've made hits to 430+
I understand that its well made consistent match grade ammo for target shooting but doesn't it kinda defeat the purpose of 22LR (cheap shooting) when you consider the limitations of the cartridge?
I understand that its well made consistent match grade ammo for target shooting but doesn't it kinda defeat the purpose of 22LR (cheap shooting) when you consider the limitations of the cartridge?
Yup, I just bought a brick from Bullseye in London when I was there. Only place in my SWO weekly travels that I have seen it in stock in the last 2 years, anywhere close to me always says 'it's on back order' but now I know they are liars and I'll keep going into see Ken at Bullseye!
Last edited:
Accuracy IMHO (take note) is subjective - there are 4 factors to consider when accuracy is discussed. They are the rifle, the optics, the guy behind the rifle, and the ammo. Dont expect the same from a CZ455 than from a $3000 Anschutz. Don't expect the same from a $100 scope compared to a $1000 scope. To hit small, you need to see small. A 9x scope wont produce the same results as an 18x, and a good adjustable objective is needed if you want to shoot good groups at both 50 yards and 100 yards with the same rifle. An experienced shot will shoot smaller groups than a novice. Once these 3 factors have been optimized, ammo can be evaluated. If your rifle is a hunting rifle, you should be happy with a three quarter inch group at 50 yards if you ask me. You get what you put into it.
Sit down before learning the price of the most costly Lapua ammo -- X-Act. The least expensive brick (500 rounds) in Canada is over $250, with the latest arrival of new lots of X-Act even more. More moderately priced top level Lapua is Midas + at about $200 per brick.
An important point to keep in mind is that the high price of ammo like X-Act or Midas + isn't a guarantee that it will perform well in your particular rifle, whatever it might be. Shooters who use the priciest ammos are wise to lot test small quantities before buying a significant amount because some lots will shoot better or worse than others. With expensive ammo, to justify the cost you have to really want the best ammo for your rifle and be prepared to test different lots before committing to it. And as Johann22 observes, if you, your rifle/scope are not up to making the most out of the top tier ammo, then you're not optimizing your time, effort, and money.
Makes sense. Like any caliber not all guns what ammo works in one may be horrible in another. I have heard of people measuring 22LR and batching it into various lengths, then testing it to see what shoots best (like playing with seating depth when reloading).
Whatever wins gets kept for competition and the rest gets used for practice.
To be honest though at $200 - $250 per brick with no guarantee it will work in my rifle I'd prefer just to look at 223 or other similar more capable rounds I can reload these to work best with my rifle and make high quality repeatable ammo for less cash than off the shelf - win win.
This thread has been interesting. As a budding rim fire prs shooter I noticed that even CCI SV generally had little problems making 2 MOA@100 Yds and close to 1 MOA@50yds. I will be shooting in the production class so the barrel and maybe optics will be the issues after my own skill. Unless my rifle really dislikes CCI SV, it looks like the cheapest way to have some fun and learn a bit. In the wide open classes in any sport pure $$$ are required for even a very skilled participant to be competitive at the podium. Most of us don’t have the $$$ to play that way.
