.22 lr ELR ammo... this is going to be interesting.

It is interesting to see the nose shape on those bullets. I'm surprised that they look a lot like modern centrefire bullets which are not likely the best shape for minimal wind drift.

In the black powder shooting world we have similar velocities ( start at ~1350 fps, mostly subsonic before 300 yards, and ~850 fps at 1000 yards ). Our bullet nose designs have been around for a long time and seem to be the quite optimal for reducing wind drift the transonic velocity ranges. Nome of the modern style noses work as well once you get transonic.

This is an example of the bullet type we use:

Money.jpg



Chris.
 
Last edited:
rlaunay said:
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?
Click to expand...

The observation about ammo like SK Long Range is correct. There's nothing really different about it except for its higher MV. There's no reason to expect it to perform noticeably better or worse at 100 yards and beyond than any other SK ammos.

The answer to the last question from above is yes. Yes, it would be quite a stretch, so much so that it is not reasonable. The idea may be driven by more by enthusiasm and optimism than practical logic.

Readers may want elaboration. As a theoretical exercise, it might be possible to produce the "magic ammo" that performs much better at long ranges. This would assume an at-home manufacturing (reloading) process using top quality primed .22LR casings and the magic bullets, not to mention the match quality propellant. It also requires everything in between including consistent case crimping, bullet seating depth, bullet runout that matches the quality level achieved by Eley, RWS, or Lapua with their top tier ammo. Without that kind of quality in ammo production, ES would be inconsistent and accuracy elusive. But even if it were possible to reload .22LR ammo that way at home, it would be without any regard whatsoever to cost or feasiblity. None.

At the same time, if a would-be .22LR enthusiast wished to reload his own ammo at home, there is no equipment for it. Perhaps that would be developed in time, but there's none currently available. Moreover, there is no way to get the "best primed case" sans the bullet and everything else that goes in a box of top match ammo. There's no incentive for any of the match ammo makers to supply casings for do-it-yourself .22LR ammo producers. To buy factory made match ammo just for the primed casings is impractical and prohibitively expensive.

It's hard to imagine that ammo makers with a long history did not think of trying a different bullet. Of course the absence of something doesn't prove that it was considered. But .22LR match ammo makers certainly have had no disincentive to pursue stretching the limits of .22 rimfire accuracy.

If it were so simple as designing a bullet that does better at longer ranges than the current lead round nose or flat nose Eley and swapping SV propellant for HV propellant, that would have been done long ago, regardless of current long distance shooting enthusiasm. Imagine the boon to the ammo maker who developed the magic bullet which, with the change of SV powder for HV powder, suddenly changed the very nature of rimfire shooting. That it hasn't happened seems either by design or all the major rimfire ammo manufacturers have been asleep at the wheel.

Here are some questions that must be considered. Is there good reason to believe that .22LR ammo can be made to perform significantly better at very long ranges than it currently is able to do? Is it possible to have a bullet for .22LR with a significantly higher BC that will function in existing firearms? Is there evidence that conical .22LR bullets have advantages that are worthwhile over the traditional shaped bullets? At a sub-sonic muzzle velocities round nose bullets perform better than pointy ones, certainly no worse.

It's prudent to remain skeptical. An easy solution to a long existing (and in this case a long distance) problem for .22LR ammo is seldom if ever found.
 
grauhanen, I think you are mis-reading the market this kind of ammo appeals to. These are people that shoot $10k centerfire precision rifles, topped with $3k+ scopes, that reload borderline wildcat calibers, that run multiple $700 chargemaster powder dispensers or $1000+ lab scales with electric motors and smart controllers. They are accustomed to spending big money on equipment and big time on reloading. So to say no one would buy the primed cases and the dies, and then reload their own 22lr ammo, is I think inaccurate.

You might be on to something with your hesitation in declaring these fancy ELR centerfire-like bullets advantageous in subsonic loads. Admittedly I haven't heard any data or even anecdotes on that.
 
adamg said:
grauhanen, I think you are mis-reading the market this kind of ammo appeals to. These are people that shoot $10k centerfire precision rifles, topped with $3k+ scopes, that reload borderline wildcat calibers, that run multiple $700 chargemaster powder dispensers or $1000+ lab scales with electric motors and smart controllers. They are accustomed to spending big money on equipment and big time on reloading. So to say no one would buy the primed cases and the dies, and then reload their own 22lr ammo, is I think inaccurate.

You might be on to something with your hesitation in declaring these fancy ELR centerfire-like bullets advantageous in subsonic loads. Admittedly I haven't heard any data or even anecdotes on that.
Click to expand...

One of us must be wrong.

Here's why I think Cutting Edge is saying they are going to produce ammo for .22LR. From the Cutting Edge Facebook pages, they make this declaration: "What does Cutting Edge have new for 2020?!

Well, the secret is out. We are still working out all of the details and releases but we are working on 22 LR ammo for the .22 ELR world. Tons of 22 ELR matches are popping up all over the place. So, why not take the technology that is the reigning #kingof2miles winner and apply it to a 22?! What's one more bullet when you have over 400?!"


They post the image shown below. It is of ammunition supposedly for .22Lr. They also say in response to a question that they intend to make ammo to work in a 1:16 twist barrel, which is the industry standard. Cutting Edge also says that the bullets will be "monolithic just like our other bullets. No jackets."

What is perhaps most revealing on the Cutting Edge FB pages is that they have this to say: "Cutting Edge Bullets We do not have final pricing, weights or a solid release date quite yet. We will make a big release announcement once everything is finalized. We do not have an ammo manufacturer on board yet so come to booth 411 [at Shot Show] this week if you want to chat further about that!" (All information and quotes from h t t p s://www.facebook.com/CuttingEdgeBullets/photos/a.10152609656767815/10157135288792815/?type=3&theater)

In short, they want readers to know they are "working on 22 LR ammo for the .22 ELR world." The FB information asserts that Cutting Edge is looking to be in the ammo business. They are looking for an ammo making partner. That sure sounds like the whole point is to make ELR ammo that can be used even in everyday .22LR barrels, the 1:16 twist tubes.

Here's the picture of the ammo (perhaps it's a Cutting Edge mock up).



I'm thinking the purpose of Cutting Edge's statements on their FB page is to make people more aware of their plans. Whether they work well or not or whether they ever come to fruition is, of course, another story. But it sure sounds like they are looking to make the better mousetrap of long range .22LR ammunition.

The argument that this Cutting Edge bullet is meant to appeal to a very small niche of shooters who have very deep pockets and will be happy to buy .22LR match ammo just for the casings is credulous. The reasons why this sounds unbelievable have been outlined above. To reiterate, it is far from being so simple as to just switching propellant and bullet. No one is going to start reloading .22LR ammo because of a new bullet, even if they have $10 000 CF rifles with $3000 scopes and expensive dispensers and scales. It is just not worth all the effort with its commensurate chances of failure. Even if there are a few people -- some might call them adventurous or determined or risk takers, others would call them fools -- its doubtful that there enough such people to provide a viable market for such bullets. Few people would buy them. But they sure cause some excitement.

If the Cutting Edge bullet actually works as many shooters seem to hope, it's a bullet that somehow eluded Eley, RWS, and Eley all the many decades of their work in .22 rimfire ammo research and development. Such a bullet would also have escaped the attention of the multitude of other .22LR ammo makers, any one of which would have profited immensely by the development of a new bullet design for an ammunition variety that's been around for a century and more. Imagine the face-palming and hand-wringing in the headquarters of the big three ammo makers if they had to say "Why didn't we think of a new bullet design? It would have been so simple, so easy."

On the other hand, if the bullet is indeed the "magic bullet" with all the advantages Cutting Edge and its proponents would have shooters believe, then Cutting Edge will need the partnership of an ammunition maker to realize the dream of finally having .22LR ammo that makes all other .22LR ammo obsolete for long range shooting. A market supported only by spendthrift shooters is too small to be profitable. It would have to be ammo that the growing numbers of ELR shooters could afford to buy.
 
So let’s say the ammo reaches 223 pricing at 50-75 cents a round, would you buy it as your match ammo, I am pretty sure most crps guys would. $100 for a match wouldn’t be that bad, call it another 50 rounds to zero before the match and chrony. Would be a small niche market but probably profitable with the way America is exploding with the elr rimfire world
 
scuba52 said:
So let’s say the ammo reaches 223 pricing at 50-75 cents a round, would you buy it as your match ammo, I am pretty sure most crps guys would. $100 for a match wouldn’t be that bad, call it another 50 rounds to zero before the match and chrony. Would be a small niche market but probably profitable with the way America is exploding with the elr rimfire world
Click to expand...

Considering that guys are already dropping 40-50 cents on rimfire match ammo... 100-190 a brick is pretty common already. Heck, the “cheap stuff” is running close to $50 a brick!
 
I find the expensive stuff is more bench rest, most crps guys are sticking with sk or moderate because there is no real long range benefit. If you can save me 2 turns of a dial on the clock I would use it
 
scuba52 said:
I find the expensive stuff is more bench rest, most crps guys are sticking with sk or moderate because there is no real long range benefit. If you can save me 2 turns of a dial on the clock I would use it
Click to expand...

There is probably a lot of truth in that observation. One of the reasons a lot of shooters avoid benchrest is because to be competitive it is very expensive. The ammo is expensive and requires testing to find the best lots. Regular practice/testing is a necessity. And all that requires no modest investment in the rifle, scope, and front rest.

While there may well be less expensive and less exclusive sporter classes in benchrest, clearly the quality and expense of a rifle is a key element in the record of success. In short, it's not inexpensive to shoot competitive .22LR benchrest. At the same time it may not be as popular as other disciplines. There are probably many more F-Class shooters in Canada than .22LR benchrest.

One of the attractions of PRS-style shooting for many competitors, initially at least, is the relatively low cost of entry into the Production Class. No doubt there's also the added appeal of shooting from positions other than the bench and at distances that are not necessarily fixed. Bench shooting doesn't appeal to everyone because of its less dynamic nature and the more specialized rifles that are needed for success. Everyone with a decent rifle and scope can compete and ammunition need not be the most expensive, as the many posters who report on these pages about the rifles and ammo they use.
 
Perhaps I'm looking at this too simply.

IMO, all the myth and vodou regarding 22LR in finding the "perfect bullet" is more a result of being forced to run factory ammo that until now has worked great for the distances it's been shot at.

At the end of the day, there's no reason why it has to be any more difficult to produce hand loaded rimfire, and be able to customize those loads to shoot great out of your particular rifle.

The only real stumbling block is the priming. If that can be solved by dismantling loaded ammo (which would require a 22lr shell holder which are available now, and a collet bullet puller - something that would pull a 223 CF should work) or by a manufacturer offering pre-primed cases.

Once that is hurdle is overcome, what is the actual difference between loading match rimfire vs match centerfire?

Match grade, high BC bullets exist in 22 caliber already. Finding the best one to be shot at a certain velocity and twist rate really isnt any different than what we already do for different cartridges shooting the same caliber bullet.

Powder would forever be argued which is best, but at the very least as a start, the powder removed from the high quality ammo you take apart for the primed brass could be saved and reused at different charges.

Seating could be quickly solved by custom die makers who already have viable businesses making dies to customer specs. The act of seating the bullet in a press would be no different than seating a bullet in a straight walled centerfire case.

Variations in runout, charge weights, seating depth, bullet weights, etc are examples of things hand loaders are generally better at controlling than factories, and there would be no reason for it to be any different for rimfire. Quality control over small custom batches is easier to maintain for a hand loader than it is for a factory producing a million round run.

And in reality, the extra monetary cost to this is minimal compared to its centerfire counterpart.

Single use brass and powder supply: 50c/round. Worst case scenario... if it was found that brass and priming consistency was as good in eley club as it was in tenex, this cost plummets.

Bullets, 25-50 cents per?

Wouldn't need sizing dies, just a seating die.. what's a custom one cost nowadays, $300 worst case?

Perhaps I'm missing something else. Clearly the time cost would be much higher than buying factory ammunition, but the same argument is true for centerfire, and that's not stopping anyone.

This would never replace factory ammunition, or even factory match ammo. Just like CF reloading hasn't stopped manufacturers from selling high price match ammo.

Like I said before, it's an interesting possibility, and so far it appears that one company who are known for supplying this niche category are taking it seriously - so there must be some merit behind it.

Time will tell..
 
CCI SV ammo... pull bullet.... push case into a modified K&M expander mandrel to remove the crimp and prepare the neck diameter.

Modify a seater from any small diameter 22cal cartridge...... or make a new seating sleeve for the Forster BR seater... modify die body as needed.

Taper crimp as the last step..... go bang... in a 224 bore barrel. Standard 22LR sporting chamber may already be big enough for this larger set up.... or just run a throater in as needed. I don't even think a reamer is actually needed for this case?????

To start run 40gr varmint bullets but likely 50gr will also work... single feed.

I monkey brained this years ago but when I got to this stage, I just built a fast twist 223Rem and drove bullets to 1mile... Just seemed a better use of my resources.

BUT it is possible if someone wants to say they put X bullet at Y distance using a rimfire case. Kind of like LR handgun shooting....

My 22LR ELR project is to figure out how to use existing match ammo and get accuracy at 500m... that will be challenge enough.

Jerry
 
I’m willing to bet they will talk one of the manufacturers into running small batches, 1 000 000 rounds could be made pretty quick and once the curiosity wears off they would have some stock. Probably only have to do 3 runs a year
 
rlaunay said:
Match grade, high BC bullets exist in 22 caliber already. Finding the best one to be shot at a certain velocity and twist rate really isnt any different than what we already do for different cartridges shooting the same caliber bullet.
Click to expand...

Apparently the idea is that it is possible to use existing .22 bullets, like the kind that would be used in .22 centerfire ammo? That isn't possible or nearly as easy as implied.

The bullets used in .22LR ammo are "heeled" bullets. That is the part that sits "inside" the casing has a smaller diameter than the exposed part of the bullet. The casing and the bullet's widest diameter are the same. From what I understand centerfire .22 bullets are not made in such a way that they have the proper "heeled" dimensions required for .22LR ammo.

As noted in a website relating to reloading .22LR ammo for survivalists -- folks looking for a bang more than any repeatable accuracy -- the CF bullets used for reloading are not suitable:

The .22 caliber bullets available to handloaders are unsuitable for .22 LR because the latter utilizes a heel base bullet; that is, the rear portion of the bullet is lesser in diameter than the forward, exposed portion of the bullet so that the heel fits inside the case. The exposed portion of the bullet is the same diameter is the .22 LR case and bore, .222,” whereas .22 caliber bullets for centerfire cartridges like the .223 Rem are .224” in diameter. Using such bullets in the .22 LR would cause the case to bulge so that it could not chamber, or if it did, the bullet would be .002” oversize for the bore.

For more details, see h t t p s://www.ssusa.org/articles/2015/8/18/reloading-22-long-rifle-a-new-option-for-competitors/

To put it another way:

The .22 LR is both ubiquitous and unusual in that it is both a rimfire cartridge and it uses a "heeled" bullet. While most modern cartridges use a bore-diameter bullet that fits inside the case with the case being larger than bore size, heeled bullet cartridges use a two-diameter bullet with the shank smaller than bore diameter and fitting inside a case which matches bore size.

See h t t p s://www.leverguns.com/480/480_achilles.htm

The long and the short of it is that bullets suitable for centerfire reloading are not suitable as a .22LR bullet.

Mystic Precision said:
CCI SV ammo... pull bullet.... push case into a modified K&M expander mandrel to remove the crimp and prepare the neck diameter.

Modify a seater from any small diameter 22cal cartridge...... or make a new seating sleeve for the Forster BR seater... modify die body as needed.

Taper crimp as the last step..... go bang... in a 224 bore barrel. Standard 22LR sporting chamber may already be big enough for this larger set up.... or just run a throater in as needed. I don't even think a reamer is actually needed for this case?????

To start run 40gr varmint bullets but likely 50gr will also work... single feed.

I monkey brained this years ago but when I got to this stage, I just built a fast twist 223Rem and drove bullets to 1mile... Just seemed a better use of my resources.

BUT it is possible if someone wants to say they put X bullet at Y distance using a rimfire case. Kind of like LR handgun shooting....

My 22LR ELR project is to figure out how to use existing match ammo and get accuracy at 500m... that will be challenge enough.

Jerry
Click to expand...

If Jerry's explanation takes the "heeled" bullet into account (I'm not familiar with the reloading terminology used above), changing an existing .22 CF bullet to fit a .22LR casing seems like a lot of work in addition to finding the means to get significantly heavier ammo to even SV velocities. If the explanation doesn't take that into account, then enough has been said.
 
Hrn now makes a 0.2215" bullet... and there are barrels to support this bullet. That should ease concerns about bulged cases. It would be very heavy for a 22LR but 60gr ammo has been made before. And this would be a single feed situation anyways. VERY long throats.

Of course, I don't have any fired 22LR cases handy to measure the fired diameters but suspect a 222" bullet should fit in.

Beyond an exercise in measuring parts, I really don't see the need to invest in this project. There are much better ways to get bullets way out there.

And the common match stuff does really well.

YMMV.

Jerry
 
rlaunay said:
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.



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?



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.
Click to expand...

Very thorough analysis and I couldn't agree more with what you see as being possible options for true ELR .22lr ammo.

Yes....that first day was quite the experience!
 
For those wondering what sizes are involved with .22LR ammo, the diagrams below offer dimensions.

This is from Wikepedia and differs slightly from the SAAMI dimensions, which should be considered reliable. I include the image below because it is straightforward and may provide an easier frame of reference for readers. h t t p s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dimension_of_a_%22.22_Long_Rifle%22_ammunition_round.png



SAAMI specs




Anyone who thinks that reloading .22LR primed cases with centerfire bullet designs or even with new "heeled" bullets would do well to read the following article "What You Should Know About .22 Rimfire" in American Rifleman h t t p s://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/8/16/what-you-should-know-about-22-rimfire/

Particularly relevant parts of this short article are reproduced below. They should cause those who think reloading .22LR with CF bullets can be a successful do-it-yourself operation to reconsider that premise. It's not as simple as replacing one bullet with another.

To facilitate ignition, .22 rimfire bullets must be heavily crimped into the case mouth to increase shot-start forces. Of necessity, this deforms the bullet. However, even on a good day, only about half of the propellant in a .22 rimfire cartridge burns completely.

Rimfire .22 ammunition makers fight a constant battle with bullet lubrication. It is ironic that such a cheap cartridge requires highly specialized, micro-crystalline, synthetic-base waxes for lubrication and costly systems for application. Often, what works today does not work tomorrow due to minor variations in temperature, humidity, bullet hardness, propellant variations, etc.

Bullet hardness (antimony content) can be a particularly difficult problem as small variations can result in lead buildup of rifle bores and inaccuracy. Rough handling of .22 rimfire bullets on the factory floor can easily have an adverse effect on accuracy.

Crimping the .22 LR bullet into the case mouth properly remains a constant problem. Too heavy a crimp may push MAPs over the limit, adversely affect accuracy and cause leading. Too light a crimp may result in erratic breech pressures, high variations in muzzle velocity, excess unburned propellant and malfunctions in semi-automatic firearms. As if this were not enough, the driving knives on the crimping operation mangle the bullet.

The weak case head is the Achilles heel of the .22 rimfire cartridge. For this reason, Maximum Average Pressures (MAP) of .22 rimfire ammunition must be kept below 24,000 psi. Rimfire cases must have enough spring-back to assure consistent extraction in blowback-operated semi-automatic guns, yet remain soft enough to prevent splitting. This is a narrow margin that also eliminates steel as a .22 rimfire cartridge case material. Design parameters require all rimfire cartridge cases to be rimmed. Necked rimfire cases require several additional production steps which adds considerably to their cost. Rimfire cartridge cases cannot be reloaded.

All .22 rimfire bullets tread a fine line between function and accuracy. The bearing surface of .22 rimfire bullets is the same diameter as the outside surface of the cartridge case. This makes lubrication of such bullets difficult as the case-diameter bullets must be lubricated on the outside where it may be wiped off or contaminated. Lubricants for lead, center-fire bullets are unsuitable for rimfire ammunition, and, unfortunately, copper-plating serves no ballistic purpose, does not eliminate the need for lubrication, adds cost and damages the bullets.

Case-diameter bullets also limit bullet shape, weight, balance and bearing surface. Another significant problem is that .22 rimfire bullets have an undersized, cupped base that the propellant gases must expand reliably and evenly into the rifling grooves for proper sealing and stabilization.

Rimfire .22 ammunition makers fight a constant battle with bullet lubrication. It is ironic that such a cheap cartridge requires highly specialized, micro-crystalline, synthetic-base waxes for lubrication and costly systems for application. Often, what works today does not work tomorrow due to minor variations in temperature, humidity, bullet hardness, propellant variations, etc.

Bullet hardness (antimony content) can be a particularly difficult problem as small variations can result in lead buildup of rifle bores and inaccuracy. Rough handling of .22 rimfire bullets on the factory floor can easily have an adverse effect on accuracy.

Crimping the .22 LR bullet into the case mouth properly remains a constant problem. Too heavy a crimp may push MAPs over the limit, adversely affect accuracy and cause leading. Too light a crimp may result in erratic breech pressures, high variations in muzzle velocity, excess unburned propellant and malfunctions in semi-automatic firearms. As if this were not enough, the driving knives on the crimping operation mangle the bullet.
 
As a test, it would be interesting for someone to measure the trajectory of a CF .224 ~50grain "high" BC bullet, custom-reloaded in say .223 Rem, with a very weak powder charge such that muzzle velocity is around 1050fps. This would show that such a bullet at that speed really is markedly better at drop and drift, or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom