Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
Everything you could ever want to know and learn about LR and ELR shooting.... you can do at 57yds.
Who woulda thunk????
Jerry
Ammo Testing Temps
- Thread starter Dahsira
- Start date
Everything you could ever want to know and learn about LR and ELR shooting.... you can do at 57yds.
Who woulda thunk????
Jerry
Jerry, your interest in deflecting from your recommendation that .22LR ammo testing for long distance is best done at 300 yards is understandable. I'd prefer not to cling to the untenable either.
In the meantime, if anyone agrees with your contention regarding ammo testing perhaps they will post in this thread. You could use some support precisely because of the amount of .22LR experience you appear to have. If there's a sensible and sound rationale supporting your views I'm willing to hear it.
Seems pretty sensible to me. You are a benchrest shooter that when it counts you are shooting at 57 yards. You wouldn't do any large amount of testing at 25 yards.
The same holds true with what what I understand Jerry is saying, there is no point in saying ammo A is better than ammo B because ammo A shoots 1" groups at 100 yards and ammo B shoots 1.5" groups at that range. Ammo A may fall apart and turn into 8" groups at 200 yards and 16" groups at 300 yards whereas ammo B may only expand to 4" at 200 yards and only 8" at 300 yards.
The only thing we know with certainty is that if the groups are 3" at 100 yards, it cannot possibly group 8" at 300 yards. So if your goal is to shoot 8" groups at 300 yards, you only need to test enough at 100 yards to eliminate ammo that cannot get groups smaller than 3" at 100 because the real test is what it can do at 300 where it counts
The same holds true with what what I understand Jerry is saying, there is no point in saying ammo A is better than ammo B because ammo A shoots 1" groups at 100 yards and ammo B shoots 1.5" groups at that range. Ammo A may fall apart and turn into 8" groups at 200 yards and 16" groups at 300 yards whereas ammo B may only expand to 4" at 200 yards and only 8" at 300 yards.
The only thing we know with certainty is that if the groups are 3" at 100 yards, it cannot possibly group 8" at 300 yards. So if your goal is to shoot 8" groups at 300 yards, you only need to test enough at 100 yards to eliminate ammo that cannot get groups smaller than 3" at 100 because the real test is what it can do at 300 where it counts
You're saying that a projectile like a 40 grain .22LR bullet that performs better than another out to 100 yards can "fall apart" at some point beyond that mark and as a result produce less accuracy than the hitherto inferior bullet by the time it gets to 300 yards. In other words, the better bullet at 100 yards can lose what made it more accurate out to 100, while the inferior bullet can maintain it's trajectory unaffected by the same forces that cause the better bullet to become the worse one by 300 yards.
I'm prepared to learn. Can you offer me and other readers compelling reasons why an ammo that outperforms another at 100 yards would not continue to outperform it at 150 yards, 200 yards, 250 yards and 300 yards? Having made it to 100 yards more successfully than the other, what happens to that better performing ammo that would supposedly cause it to "fall apart" as you say as it continues it's flight down range. Is there something that acts like an auto-destruct on the 40 grain round nose lead bullet, something that makes it give up once it's passed the 100 or 200 yard mark? What forces act to change the path of the lead bullet that alters its superior performance beyond 100 yards?
Are there forces at work here that remain to be identified or explained?
While you and readers mull that over, I will suggest that the fault does not lay in the ammo "falling apart" once it gets half-way or a third-of-the-way to its destination. The bullet doesn't "know" what its destination is anyway. It doesn't go like a trooper to 100 yards and then slack off, get drunk, or just give up after it passes that mark. It continues on its way, oblivious of its ultimate destination. Its path is determined by the shooter's execution of the shot, the rifle bore that guided it immediately after ignition, and the quality and consistency of the ammo. If it's good ammo it will fly truer than ammo that is less good. It doesn't cease to be good ammo and become a relative ammo ne'er-do-well simply because it passes 100 yards.
Similarly there's no reason to support the idea that a poorer shooting ammo can maintain its level of accuracy better than a better shooting one without some force acting on one and not the other.
It's important to recall that the difficulties of shooting accurately out to 300 yards can make assessing ammo performance at that range very challenging. No doubt many shooters who have shot at 100 yards with one ammo have been disappointed with its performance at twice or three times the range. The frustration at not understanding why may be understandable. It's not an easy thing to do with .22LR ammo. There are so many things to go wrong as range increases. Perhaps when ammo that shows a good potential at 100 yards "falls apart" at 300 yards its not the fault of the ammo. It's because it's difficult to shoot well with .22LR at 300 yards. It's important to keep in mind that with .22LR shooting results as range increases is rarely if ever purely geometrical. Group size does more than simply double as distance doubles. It is that way because every imperfection in shooting gets magnified as distance increases.
To sum up, I suggest that when good ammo supposedly goes bad when it's on a long voyage, it's not the ammo so much as it is everything else, the greater and greater difficulty of shooting well as distance increases. More consistent ammo stays more consistent without an outside force acting on it. Less consistent ammo remains less consistent whatever the range.
Could it not just be the bullet design. Every manufacturer has their own design that will change the drag, the air flow around the bullet and how it reacts down range. I am no physics guru but I do know what I have seen. My Bergara testing showed this. That is why I used 20 round groups at 100. While the eley tenex shot fantastic at 50 yards it did not do as well as the mid range ammo at 100. The sk rifle match was good at 50 bit beat the tenex at 100 yards.
Just for fun I will do this same test at 300 this weekend with both. Would love to do this test including the sk long range if it shows up today, can par sucks.
I did 20 round groups only to rule me out as best I could, one or two fliers and I would take the blame, 10 fliers not likely but possible. 20 rounds into an inch has to show something is right. Yes this was only 100 yards but to me if it is coming apart at 100 why would I shoot it at 200 and 300.
The eley design has a very flat nose as I am sure you are aware while the lapua and sk design is round nose. Which is better for what you are shooting, you decide.
If I was looking for itty bitty 50 yard groups the tenex would get the nodd for sure, I am not, so I will test differently.
And yes if I am testing my centre fire rifle I shoot as far as possible for load development and only shoot 100 yards initially to find the nodes, adjust the load after shooting 500, if I had access to 1000 I would test there but I don’t so I use what I can.
Just for fun I will do this same test at 300 this weekend with both. Would love to do this test including the sk long range if it shows up today, can par sucks.
I did 20 round groups only to rule me out as best I could, one or two fliers and I would take the blame, 10 fliers not likely but possible. 20 rounds into an inch has to show something is right. Yes this was only 100 yards but to me if it is coming apart at 100 why would I shoot it at 200 and 300.
The eley design has a very flat nose as I am sure you are aware while the lapua and sk design is round nose. Which is better for what you are shooting, you decide.
If I was looking for itty bitty 50 yard groups the tenex would get the nodd for sure, I am not, so I will test differently.
And yes if I am testing my centre fire rifle I shoot as far as possible for load development and only shoot 100 yards initially to find the nodes, adjust the load after shooting 500, if I had access to 1000 I would test there but I don’t so I use what I can.
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
There have been 3 CRPS matches in BC.... this covers my R&D so far and look forward to this spring.
I find my results very compelling. I see no point in debating this any longer.... I do what I do and I have laid out some ideas that can help shooters shortern their journey. My thoughts are based on my real world experience and testing and competing... whether that is relevant or not, I will leave to those with more effective keyboards.
If I can help with parts and products that have helped me to the podium, pm or email and I am happy to discuss.
Regardless of the path chosen, I hope to see you at some of the matches...
Jerry
Attachments
With regard to long distance accuracy, you're suggesting either one or the other or both of the following:
1) that different ammo manufacturer's bullet design accounts for why some brands of ammo are better than others; and/or
2) that the different varieties of bullets made by a particular ammo maker explain why some varieties are better than others.
To consider these propositions with regard to rifle ammo, it can be noted that some Eley ammos -- notably Tenex, Match, Team -- have the "flat nose" design, while Club and Sport have the more traditional round nose design. Lapua ammo has no such apparent differences; in fact unless you know what box they came from it's not possible to distinguish between Center X, Midas +, Polar Biathlon (and probably X-Act, although I've never seen any). Except for the relatively new SK Flatnose, SK ammo appears identical too. (RWS ammo is less often seen in Canada and I haven't used it often so I'll avoid discussing them here.)
That's not to say there may not be differences about which casual comparison doesn't reveal, and certainly quality control factors come into play when the bullets are made and assigned to different grades of ammo. It seems unlikely that there are deliberate minute differences between grades of Eley bullets, impossible to discern with the naked eye, that make one better than the other only when it comes to long range shooting. The same would be true for Lapua or even SK ammos, which, despite their identical appearance with Lapua, are made on different machines in different buildings.
As a result, with regard to the second proposition, it seems unlikely that some special design characteristic of the bullets of a certain variety of ammo made by any one manufacturer will account for better performance at long range. Except for quality control differences, the rifle ammo made by Eley referred above is made on the same machines. The same is true for Lapua as well as SK.
As for the first proposition, there would have to be clear and overwhelming evidence in shooting scores that one make of ammo was distinctly better than others when it comes to long range shooting. It wouldn't remain a secret among only a select few if Eley flat nose ammo was superior to any round nose ammo, or that Eley Tenex always shoots better than Eley Match or that Lapua Midas + was always better for long distance shooting. This is even more true if it was because of the bullet design.
The differences you've described between different grades of ammo have less to do with the distances at which they finally strike the target, be it paper or steel, and more to do with lot variation. You've described different ammos in monolithic terms, with the idea that all Tenex is the same or that all SK Rifle Match will have similar results. The performance of ammo -- even expensive ammo -- will in fact vary by lot. Not all lots will shoot identically and not all lots will shoot the same with different rifles. It's possible to have a good shooting lot of SK RM outperform a certain lot of Tenex in a particular rifle. That is not the result of the distance at which it's used. Its a function of lot variability and how well it matches with a particular rifle.
Lot variation matters more than an imperceptible difference, if any, between the bullets of different makes of ammo and different grades of ammo by a particular ammo maker. If Tenex or Midas + is more accurate more often at longer distances, it's because they are made to more exacting standards, not because of a special bullet design unique to them.
If bullet design made an ammo better at long range shooting, it would ipso facto be better for shorter range shooting. It wouldn't be a secret. Everyone seriously interested in .22LR shooting, be it at long range or not, would know or quickly learn of it. Bullets for .22LR are not like people because once reaching 100 yards in good form they don't say that's good enough and then call it a day. If a bullet is very good to 100 yards, it will be good past that mark too.
On the design point, no not necessarily just a lot to lot issue. If the design of the bullet does not like going below a certain speed or spin rate it begin to yaw. Not a whole lot of research has been done on rimfire beyond day 100 yards that I know of. Maybe we have not seen certain elements as of yet. Compare this to centre fire for a minute. Flat base bullets perform very well up to say 300 yards, but I have yet to see a flat base long range suitable projectile at a match. The boat rail performs better at long range (well documented).
You yourself have stated that we are a small market and rimfire manufacturers don’t really see It as being worth it to improve. (Not word for word quote). Then why is it hard to believe there is something else going on as a bullet makes its way down range. I have always had the most success going with lapua or sk at range, their bullets have a definite design difference than eley for example. This leads me to believe their design (which has a higher B.C.) is better suited for my needs. If you are just shooting 57 yards these differences don’t show up yet as the bullet has not slowed down, changed drag model or whatever has changed.
If I have my speed and bc correct and I can make impact on targets all the way from 50 yards to 250 yards then all of a sudden becomes incredibly inconsistent with one bullet and have great success with another can you explain. If I can do with one and not the other it is not me, done on the same day it won’t be temperature or conditions.
Maybe we just don’t know something as of yet with the little projectile wandering down range at a slow speed and low spin rate.
Maybe just maybe Jerry or the people who make some damn fine centre fire bullets will figure something out that the rimfire companies haven’t bothered to look for as (we are a small market and it isn’t worth changing their molds or whatever you mentioned). The 22 elr is new and we are just starting to see companies cater to it. I have seen a few videos that are very compelling on the sk long range round that back this up. Maybe we will see some neat stuff coming down the pipe, maybe not. I have seen some rounds degrade as they travel, try it you might see the same,
So I have shown you that my Bergara shot eley tenex to .1 at 50 1.25 at 100. Sk rifle match could only muster .25 at 50 but held a sub 1 inch group at 100, so not ipso facto the bullet that performed better at 50 did not perform better at 100, wether it is design or speed, spin, I don’t know. Can you explain. Please don’t say shooter, that’s why I did 20 round groups. Same day same environment, same technique.
Please explain for me so I know as well
I need to know that my ammo will cycle flawlessly under pressure and that it will reliably produce a group of a certain size at a certain distance. If I know that my ammo will solidly hit 16" at 300 yards and i see the round slash 3" below a 12" gong during competition I'm gonna hold my next shot and hope for the best. If I know that my ammo prints 10" at 300 yards and it splashes 3" below that 12" gong I need to hold the top edge of the plate for my next shot.
What is really important here is the knowledge of what round will do, not necessarily making sure the group is the smallest possible. Don't get me wrong. Smaller groups will still result in better scores.... But solid knowledge about real world results will earn you far more hits.
My original question was at what temperature can I start gaining that solid knowledge in preparation for summer matches for CRPS, and the answer sadly is most likely the week or two before.
I have no doubt that if I was shooting bullseyes for score at 200 yards then your comments and experience would prove to be more valuable.
What is really important here is the knowledge of what round will do, not necessarily making sure the group is the smallest possible. Don't get me wrong. Smaller groups will still result in better scores.... But solid knowledge about real world results will earn you far more hits.
My original question was at what temperature can I start gaining that solid knowledge in preparation for summer matches for CRPS, and the answer sadly is most likely the week or two before.
I have no doubt that if I was shooting bullseyes for score at 200 yards then your comments and experience would prove to be more valuable.
No problem at all. It's a interesting conversation that is endlessly debated because it's so intangible. It just appeared like people were starting to get offended trying to defend their positions and it really doesn't matter.
The derail helped me tweak my ammo testing plans to produce usable results. Sitting at the keyboard over the winter has a nasty habit of having me focusing on various minutia rather than the reality ORPS and CRPS. Namely, if t doesn't cycle flawlessly it doesn't matter. This can be figured out using various type of ammo while practicing timed positional shooting off various barricades. Once I have a selection of ammo that will flawless function with my rifle... Then I can do some testing and figure out what the real world results at long distance are with said ammo.
When I'm paying attention to group sizes I should record the results along with the weather on that day and see if I see those groups open up in different conditions.
As close to the match as possible, I'll get my final dope dialed in for me final ammo choice. Done deal. Less measuring less time spent on a bench and more time working on reducing my cone of wobble in various positions
The derail helped me tweak my ammo testing plans to produce usable results. Sitting at the keyboard over the winter has a nasty habit of having me focusing on various minutia rather than the reality ORPS and CRPS. Namely, if t doesn't cycle flawlessly it doesn't matter. This can be figured out using various type of ammo while practicing timed positional shooting off various barricades. Once I have a selection of ammo that will flawless function with my rifle... Then I can do some testing and figure out what the real world results at long distance are with said ammo.
When I'm paying attention to group sizes I should record the results along with the weather on that day and see if I see those groups open up in different conditions.
As close to the match as possible, I'll get my final dope dialed in for me final ammo choice. Done deal. Less measuring less time spent on a bench and more time working on reducing my cone of wobble in various positions
I am intentionally staying production class. I have a Savage B22 FV-SR with a Vortex Diamondback Tactical 4-16x44mm FFP MRAD. And Burris Signature Zee rings
I have a custom diy kydex cheek riser and a Morgan's recoil pad.
I got a dip 20 moa rail that has the ejection port notched out to eliminate the odd casing that would bounce around and not clear the chamber.
This weekend I'm gonna go out and tweak the setup with the rings to make sure I can dial out to 300 meters with standard velocity ammo.
I have a custom diy kydex cheek riser and a Morgan's recoil pad.
I got a dip 20 moa rail that has the ejection port notched out to eliminate the odd casing that would bounce around and not clear the chamber.
This weekend I'm gonna go out and tweak the setup with the rings to make sure I can dial out to 300 meters with standard velocity ammo.
You're arguing that poorly understood, ill- defined force(s) act on some bullets but not on others. And as long as it's a mystery, we just have to accept that somehow those selective forces exist. They simply do not affect some ammo but negatively impact other ammos even when they have performed very well out to 100 yards.
That's an interesting point of view. As long as it doesn't require any proof, you can believe it.
It seems a little desperate to cling to the hope that someone or some business more attuned to centerfire bullets and centerfire shooting will come to the rescue of .22LR shooting and "will figure something out that the rimfire companies haven’t bothered to look for." The manufacturers of .22LR match ammo make ammo as good as can be made with current technology. The .22LR has limits as to what it can do. That's a fact of life, despite enthusiasms expressed in this thread and elsewhere in this forum about "solutions" to long distance shooting.
If anyone wants to get better ammo, it's available. It's been available for decades. It's arguably technologically more advanced now, that is taking advantage of the most recent scientific developments, than ever before. The catch is that it requires buying ammo that typically costs much more than what probably most long range shooters are willing to pay. But it's not just money. Shooters looking for the most accurate ammo for their .22LR will have to lot test to find which lots shoot best in their rifles. And perhaps it is all for naught if shooters' rifles are often not up to the job of making the most out of the best ammo.
To address one of the specific points you've made. You said "I have shown you that my Bergara shot eley tenex to .1 at 50 1.25 at 100. Sk rifle match could only muster .25 at 50 but held a sub 1 inch group at 100, so not ipso facto the bullet that performed better at 50 did not perform better at 100, wether it is design or speed, spin, I don’t know. Can you explain."
I'll offer an explanation, but please don't be offended by it. That's not my purpose. My guess is that you didn't shoot Tenex consistently at .1" at 50 yards. That is, if you shot more than one most of your ten-shot-groups didn't measure .1" although perhaps one or two did. If you shot a whole lot of them, I suspect it would be more well known considering the level of achievement represents. This is how you described it on your Bergara thread: "Well I am amazed, 1 inch 20 shot group with sk rifle match at 100, in the .1 area with tenex at 50 10 shot group and only about a brick through the gun".
Shooting one very good group itself is only enough to say it could be the result of a random chance of accuracy. Furthermore, shooting .25" with SK RM is very good indeed -- again if it's done consistently. The corollary to this is that it's not reasonable to expect one or only two very good groups to translate into similarly good groups at twice the distance.
With regard to the SK RM, any time you shoot a 20 shot group with a .22LR at 100 yards and it's under 1" the target should be preserved like a treasured document. It represents very, very good results, no matter what the ammo, what the rifle. Consistently sub-MOA five shot groups at 100 are good enough that 20 shot groups that are one inch should be considered extraordinary. I would submit that your search for long range .22LR ammo has been very successful indeed.
To be fair and consistent with regard to my remarks about the Tenex ammo you shot, however, I have to ask was this 20 shot one inch group repeated? Results that are not repeatable are not representative of consistent shooting or consistent results. A more fair and reliable method of comparing ammo is by shooting five 5 or 10-shot groups at both 50 yards and 100 yards, under the same conditions, and then compare the results. This will give a more complete and dependable set of results on which to draw conclusions. It's a mistake to judge any shooting or ammo on the basis of too little information.
I hope I have made some sense. If my assumptions are in error, I'll apologize in advance and welcome correction.
What's even more important is the understanding that accuracy is accuracy no matter what the distance, no matter what the goal is, whether it's small groups at 50 or 100 yards or striking a 12" or 16" steel plate out at 250 or 300 yards. There's no special knowledge that's valid only beyond 100 yards.
At the same time, it's hard to escape the sense that you are conceding or somehow accepting in some degree to the idea that pinpoint accuracy is less important in your "real world" of long distance shooting. If you were shooting bullseyes for score (that is for accuracy), then you would find my comments more valuable.
It's an odd admission to say the least.
I take no offence, hope I have not offended you. My point was basically that some designs will perform better at different distances. If there was a design that was perfect from 25 to 300 yards would all ammo not have the same design, probably. Why would it be hard to imagine that one round nose with a different profile performs different than another. Kind of hard to back up aerodynamics without Doppler radar or lab testing that hasn’t been shown to the public. Please read the flat base vs boat tail analogy. I can’t really explain what I don’t know.
What I do know is what I have seen and done. In my previous rifle, a cz mtr the ammo it preferred at 50 to 200 was eley club. At my first match it did very well right out to 250, beyond that the best I could do was a 4 ft splash radius at the base of target. Shot one at the base to find impact, correct only to have a splash 4 feet left, repeat 10 times.
Yes my sample size was poor. I will re shoot this weekend more for me than this. I want to take a run at rabid45’s 1/4 inch challenge.
There are several videos that are supporting the sk long range ammo claims, not sure I believe them, again I will test myself. I like Jerry am not satisfied with the if it shoots at 50 it is great claim, will do my best to prove to you this weekend. If I fail at least I had a great time with some friends on a beautiful weekend.
There is no special knowledge, I just think there is something to be said that we are missing something around 250. Yes I cannot explain (no physics degree) or lab to back it up. I would be curious to see the speed and distance that this seems to happen, and which bulets are susceptible. As I mentioned earlier we had a lengthy debate about this in the spring so I am not making this up right now, I have witnessed it for a while.
Yes I want every round I fire to go through the same hole, wouldn’t life be easy in competition, but that is not the world we live in. I am an accuracy junky, I buy rifles fiddle with them, and squeeze everything I can out of them then get bored and start again.
Bear with me and I will try my best to try to show this over the next month or two. Maybe a couple of other members could fire some rounds and see what happens at 200, 250 then 300. I think you will be suprised what you see with different brands and probably see why guys are running with sk, lapua. I think they have a design that works better at range.
Bear with me and I will try to show this.
What I do know is what I have seen and done. In my previous rifle, a cz mtr the ammo it preferred at 50 to 200 was eley club. At my first match it did very well right out to 250, beyond that the best I could do was a 4 ft splash radius at the base of target. Shot one at the base to find impact, correct only to have a splash 4 feet left, repeat 10 times.
Yes my sample size was poor. I will re shoot this weekend more for me than this. I want to take a run at rabid45’s 1/4 inch challenge.
There are several videos that are supporting the sk long range ammo claims, not sure I believe them, again I will test myself. I like Jerry am not satisfied with the if it shoots at 50 it is great claim, will do my best to prove to you this weekend. If I fail at least I had a great time with some friends on a beautiful weekend.
There is no special knowledge, I just think there is something to be said that we are missing something around 250. Yes I cannot explain (no physics degree) or lab to back it up. I would be curious to see the speed and distance that this seems to happen, and which bulets are susceptible. As I mentioned earlier we had a lengthy debate about this in the spring so I am not making this up right now, I have witnessed it for a while.
Yes I want every round I fire to go through the same hole, wouldn’t life be easy in competition, but that is not the world we live in. I am an accuracy junky, I buy rifles fiddle with them, and squeeze everything I can out of them then get bored and start again.
Bear with me and I will try my best to try to show this over the next month or two. Maybe a couple of other members could fire some rounds and see what happens at 200, 250 then 300. I think you will be suprised what you see with different brands and probably see why guys are running with sk, lapua. I think they have a design that works better at range.
Bear with me and I will try to show this.
Okay wow. I was literally trying to be nice and end the conversation.
Clear language. I don't care about your points. I value the real world experience of Jerry over your wall of text. Tried to be nice and allow you to feel like you contributed to the conversation. You didn't want to take that so there's that and here we are.
Have a great day.
Clear language. I don't care about your points. I value the real world experience of Jerry over your wall of text. Tried to be nice and allow you to feel like you contributed to the conversation. You didn't want to take that so there's that and here we are.
Have a great day.
I see value in all the points made but just for fun I decided to shoot for an hour after work today. This adds zero to the OP's question but let's post some groups for fun. 50 yards SK rifle match. Best I could manage today but fun all the same.
ATTACH]353195[/ATTACH]
Interesting. Seeing this, it is no wonder your 200 yard results were what they were. *cough* maybe 50 yard results can be predictive of long range results *cough*. What I want you to notice is that a number of groups have significant vertical stringing, but minimal horizontal. Let's take Row 2, Column 1 as an example. The spread here is 0.656 CTC. For this to be due to MV variation of the ammo, the ES would have to be 85 fps for these 5 shots, 1000 min to 1085 max. There is NO WAY SK RM delivered that poor of a performance (Thunderturds or WildCrap, I might believe). What this illustrates, above and beyond the quality of the ammo, is that this lot does not suit your barrel. If I ran that same ammo through my tuned rifle, majority of the groups would be in the 0.2's and 0.3's. I'd bet money on that.
Not to be nit-picky, but I can only support you where you are being factual. Polar Biathlon IS distinctly different in it's bullet shape than Midas +, Center-X, or X-Act. The "three" are the same ammo, just graded/branded depending on the lot's ES/SD values and accuracy out of the factory test barrels. Just like Eley "Match" is just a run of Tenex that didn't meet the specifications, and "Team" didn't even meet "Match" specifications.
Notice the thinner bullet nose of the Biathlon that chamfers into the driving band, versus the abrupt driving band of the Center-X.
Otherwise, I'm not getting into this thread much. Jerry can hang medals off his rifles and grauhanen can type essays, I don't care. You PRS guys are never going to get the best out of your rigs until you start using tuners. You could have several suitable lots of ammo for use in competition, but they will be eliminated in your testing due to harmonic incompatibility to your naked barrels (as evidenced in factionrr's target above). You could make use of a wider selection of ammo through judicious use of a tuner, properly sized/fitted to your barrel. Aside from that, I don't have enough experience with testing ammo at various distances (particularly long range, in excess of 200 yards), to declare Jerry full of tish or nay-say grauhanen's assertion that ammo just doesn't "fall apart" after a certain distance. I don't know. I can test up to 200 yards, and I do see a correlation between short range performance up to this distance. Perhaps I require another 50 yards for my ammo to finally hit it's "disturbance" point and start to fly random.
Respectfully disagree. They make ammo to a quality level and price point that is Profitable. They can do better, but it would be either too expensive for us, or unprofitable to sell at current prices. I've worked in numerous manufacturing environments, and sad to say, quality is forgone over quantity and profitability in the vast majority of cases. If a manufacturer can get away with a defect, you bet your buns they will. They rely on customer ignorance to not know the difference and complain about it. See CZ's chamber and crown work for example... How many buyers have borescopes to inspect and say "Hey! Wait a minute! This machining is CRAP!" Very few. If Joe Schmoe can hit a pop can at 15 yards with Golden Bullets, he isn't going to complain that it can't hold 1" at 50 yards either... So the manufacturers get away with this shady business because not enough customers hold them accountable.
Last edited:
