I'll preface this by saying I have next to no knowledge of reloading 22LR, and zero experience. I'm looking at this purely as theory and practicality with little to no concern over cost or time.
An important key to very good long distance .22LR ammo is consistent muzzle velocity. That is accomplished by more than simply measuring the correct amount of propellant into each case before putting a bullet in it. Other factors such as consistent primer application, consistent bullet size and weight, bullet depth consistency, bullet crimping, and case composition and size consistency each have a role to play. Developing the consistent manufacturing processes to make competitive match quality ammo requires ongoing research and development and a considerable capital investment.
Primers: I agree. At this time, from the limited amount of info out there on how to prime 22LR, nothing I've seen out there would give me any confidence to be able to prime a case and have it ignite consistently. I'm having a hard time imagining a future where we're able to hand apply a compound to the inside of a case in a consistent enough way to reload high quality ammo at home. But - let's start with the assumption that I don't have to. Again, with cost not being an issue, is there a practical reason why I can't buy Tenex or Midas+, pull and toss the bullet, and dump the powder so I have a very consistent pre-primed case to start my load from? The other factors - bullet size/weight, bullet depth, bullet crimping, powder charge - those are all things typical of centerfire reloading that should be fairly comparable in rimfire reloading. And, if enough demand for rimfire components popped up, it wouldn't be a stretch for manufacturer's like Lapua or Eley to start selling pre-primed new cases in the future. They're already making it, if they could make similar profit margins for less work, could it not be viable for them to start selling primed cases in addition to their loaded ammunition?
The second reason for skepticism is based on the premise that a new bullet design itself will solve many of the shortcomings of existing ammo. Has that what's been missing by the ammo makers -- a different bullet design, one that only occurred to a bullet manufacturing enterprise that began in 2009? Is it possible that this didn't occur to any of Eley, RWS, or Lapua, that their R&D people never thought to try different bullet designs to improve .22LR ammo for long distance shooting? They've been making .22LR ammo for decades, while Cutting Edge has been making centerfire bullets for a decade. The answers are unclear at best, but there is clearly room for doubt.
In this case, I'd suggest that until recently, there was not enough market interest in pushing 22LR to distances considered ELR. I don't think it was a matter of the top manufacturer's not thinking about it, but rather that the gains in a substantial change to their ammo wouldn't be obvious or worthwhile to their customer base. If you have ammo that can shoot tiny groups at the distance's your customers compete at, why change? Especially when the rifles those customer's are shooting in those disciplines have been built from the ground up to shoot that specific match grade ammo at 25 or 50 meters into the same hole.
At this time though, we're pushing way beyond the design intent of that ammo. Stuff like SK Long Range Rifle Match is just fancy wording on the same product that's been around for years. You're still pushing a relatively low BC bullet at low speeds. I know we're all driving for the tightest possible groups no matter the distance, but the benefits of a high BC bullet halving your wind deflection or reducing your elevation adjustments by 20% when shooting way out there will without a doubt be more beneficial to someone shooting 500 yards than another shooting 50 yards that has access to 100+ years of research into ammo designed to shoot at 50 yards.
Would it be a stretch to pull apart the best ammo out there for the best primed case I can get, charge it with a load that would normally be reserved for a HV 22LR, then seat a 50 or 53gr bullet with a BC double that of the best conventional 22LR match ammo currently available, and fire it at the typical 1070ish velocities? Certainly these new full sized actions with chambers set in MTU contoured barrels would handle the pressure.
If that's doable - I'm seeing 20.4 MOA less elevation required at 500 yards, and less than 50% wind deflection.
With the assumption that at closer ranges, the reloaded ammo wouldn't be as accurate as the original top of the line cartridge, would it be worth giving up 1/4 or 1/2 MOA accuracy at 50 yards, but reduced your wind deflection by 50%?
If you're shooting a discipline where tiny targets within 100 yards are important, probably not.
If you're shooting off awkward positions out to 500 yards with 2-3 MOA targets or more, it's up for debate. Personally, I'd consider that a worthwhile trade-off, especially in 10-30km switchy winds during a certain finale last year.
Would I re-barrel one of these expensive custom actions to try it out? 6 months ago, probably not. Since the release of all these fancy new actions selling the idea of shouldered pre-fits that I could stick a fast twist barrel on, maybe. I don't think I'd spend the money on a dedicated rifle that only shot custom reloaded ammo, because I still like the idea being able to buy a box of "relatively" cheap ammo and go shoot all day without hours spent reloading... but if I could every once in a while swap out my barrel and start pushing how far and how tight i could shoot that 22LR, I think I'd be game to give it a shot.
Neat to think about anyway - maybe one day I could find the time to try it out.
