Ammo Testing Temps

[factionrr]

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.

Yeah I didn't think this was a good brick
It 100% was SK Rifle. I've shot many bricks of this stuff with far better results then today's. Even my qualifying targets for the 5 shot 5 group 1/2" were always shot with rifle match but these results surprised me, usually always better.

 

[Mystic Precision]

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]

What was the ambient temp?

What was the temp at the bench if shooting under cover?

That is the point of the OP's question. Same lot of ammo, hopefully same wind condition, different temp.... what is the affect?

Jerry

 

[grauhanen]

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.

The manufacturers of .22LR match ammo make ammo as good as can be made with current technology.

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. ... So the manufacturers get away with this shady business because not enough customers hold them accountable.

I will make some observations. I'll try to make them in the same order as Rabid's remarks above. In case this is too long, I'll point out here it's not meant to be argumentative with anyone.

Rabid suggests that the 50 yard target posted above showed that the SK RM did not suit the barrel of the rifle that shot them. Perhaps it didn't. We need to know more because factionrr hasn't indicated whether the ammo here was from the same lot of ammo that produced an eight ten-shot-group average of 3.55" on the 200 yard challenge thread (post #95), which is not bad at all under the circumstances. Had he been less scrupulous about his overall results, he might have easily impressed readers by showing only the smallest group, which was 2.465". Or he could have shown only the five best, which would have given him a 3.13" average at 200 yards, which in February conditions is very good indeed.

Nevertheless, comparing both the 50 and 200 yard results, if the SK RM was from the same lot, I wouldn't have anticipated an eight 10-shot group average at 200 yards as small as 3.55". Nevertheless, while it's possible that this ammo doesn't suit the rifle, if it's from the same lot those 50 yard results might also suggest different conditions such as wind were at play or something else entirely different. In the end, it's not known if the SK RM ammo was from the same lot.

Rabid is absolutely right to note that it's important to be factual. Unfortunately its all too easy for careless errors to be made. Obviously I was too quick in saying that Lapua Polar Biathlon ammo has the same bullets as other Lapua .22LR rifle ammo. Clearly, it is different and I was wrong. Sometimes it's too easy to make an error.

At the same time my error didn't impact the general point I was making, which was that if a certain bullet design itself made it distinctly better than other bullet designs it would be established an well-known. If such a bullet design existed it would be the obvious choice not only for long distance .22LR shooting but also for 100 yards and less. In fact if any different bullet design alone made for better ammo, it would cause all ammo makers to use it on all their varieties of .22LR ammo. The .22LR bullet's design is a very small part of the overall cost of ammo.

Regarding the length of my responses, I confess to being too wordy. In today's age of instant gratification, reading long "essays" may seem daunting or tiresome, hardly the short, snappy explanations to which many of today's google search users have grown accustomed. I'm from a background where thoroughness was more important than brevity. At the same time, I should try to be more succinct. Readers apparently expect that.

Rabid is correct that .22LR shooters won't get the most out of their rifles unless they use tuners. Of course PRS matches involve shooting at different distances. If tuners don't require adjustment at different distances, then there's every reason to use one. I don't know enough about them to address that question. Perhaps if distances are known in advance, shooters using tuners can test to determine settings before a competition.

What I would suggest is that shooters do lot testing more regularly and more rigorously to find the ammo their rifles will shoot best -- even without a tuner. Too often there are posts saying a rifle didn't like this or that variety of ammo. It's not so much the variety of ammo that's important to accuracy, it's the lot. In other words two different lots of any kind of ammo can shoot very differently.

With regard to the question of whether my view that good ammo remains good ammo from 100 to 300 yards, if anyone is aware of any reasons or evidence that explains why good ammo would "fall apart" or give up beyond 100 yards while another does not, please let readers know. If there is a force that acts on some bullets after they're on their way but ignores others, it should be identified. What is known is that there is no ammo that improves as distance increases. In other words, no ammo shoots better MOA-wise at longer range than it does at shorter ones.

Finally, I said "The manufacturers of .22LR match ammo make ammo as good as can be made with current technology." Rabid disagreed, explaining that ammo makers make ammo to a certain quality level and price point that is profitable. He is correct, of course. If it were unprofitable to produce better ammo, we wouldn't see it.

 

[factionrr]

I'll just make this short also. The temperature was 8 degrees and i just checked the ammo box and it does have a different number so this must be brick I bought at a local Canadian tire back in December. The numbers on the box where different then the ammo shot at 200. The ammo at 200 was from Jerry and all the SK RM match I've gotten from him has always been the same number and produced better results. I have more ammo coming today from him so I'll check to see if it's the same number I've always been getting.

And yeah I dont cherry pick my groups, just post them as they happened.

 

[horseman2]

Temperature is relevant but high's and low's make lies out of every test.
Some great groups/scores when the temp was 36 C. plus and the lube was dripping off the CenterX.
When they cooled some had blobs on the tip and others had flattened against the inside of the box.
When it is colder out I have an electric hand warmer that I can put in the bottom of a Survivor Dry Box.
With the charger connected it is still supplying warmth after two hours and the bullets are probably body warm.
Some days it appears to help and the two rifles reacted differently.
Another shooter uses one of the throwaway hand warmers and they work for about 4 hours.
Short of shooting on all days from a cooler every day is different and there is no conclusive evidence there is much difference after sighting in.

 

[grauhanen]

I'll just make this short also. The temperature was 8 degrees and i just checked the ammo box and it does have a different number so this must be brick I bought at a local Canadian tire back in December. The numbers on the box where different then the ammo shot at 200. The ammo at 200 was from Jerry and all the SK RM match I've gotten from him has always been the same number and produced better results. I have more ammo coming today from him so I'll check to see if it's the same number I've always been getting.

And yeah I dont cherry pick my groups, just post them as they happened.

The lot information is good to know and different lots of the same ammo do much to explain the difference in results. In case there's any confusion, you were indeed judicious in posting all your results. Too often we see only the best results. Your eight targets gave a more complete picture than only a select few, and posting them was commendable.

 

[factionrr]

The lot information is good to know and different lots of the same ammo do much to explain the difference in results. In case there's any confusion, you were indeed judicious in posting all your results. Too often we see only the best results. Your eight targets gave a more complete picture than only a select few, and posting them was commendable.

Thanks. I know I posted my groups in a thread it didnt really belong I was just reading all of your guys posts and figured having them dissected a bit may help me learn what's happening at the target. I built this rifle mid Novenber 2019 and this is my first venture into rimfire, so a newb for sure. Picking up lots of good info in all these posts for sure. I actually shoot quite often with "horseman2" who posted above and he has been a great deal of help also.

 

[RabidM4U5]

Yeah I didn't think this was a good brick
It 100% was SK Rifle. I've shot many bricks of this stuff with far better results then today's. Even my qualifying targets for the 5 shot 5 group 1/2" were always shot with rifle match but these results surprised me, usually always better.

Yes, I understand you shot the target with SK Rifle Match. What I'm saying here is that your results don't necessarily mean that the lot you've received is "bad", only that it does not suit your barrel. I've posted the following example before, but it should clarify my point.



Pretty crappy 50 yard groups, right? So what is going on? That's SK Rifle Match, too. Is it a bad lot? Is my rifle defective? What am I missing in the accuracy equation?







Now, the same rifle, same SK Rifle Match, but with a Harrell's tuner fitted to the rifle. I will let the picture do the talking.



Jerry can play with "barrel specs" to his heart's content, a tuner is something that has an immediate and dramatic effect. Yes, my friends, do not underestimate the effect a naked, whippy barrel has on your target results. You all would have eliminated this SK RM from your testing based on the first 50 yard groups, right? But lo and behold, the ammo was just fine for use... It simply didn't suit the naked barrel, but we can make it work, with a tuner. When you go naked, , not only do you have to find a good lot of ammo, you have to find one that suits your barrel. The odds are stacked against you, and you'll be passing over plenty of suitable lots.

Nevertheless, comparing both the 50 and 200 yard results, if the SK RM was from the same lot, I wouldn't have anticipated an eight 10-shot group average at 200 yards as small as 3.55". Nevertheless, while it's possible that this ammo doesn't suit the rifle, if it's from the same lot those 50 yard results might also suggest different conditions such as wind were at play or something else entirely different. In the end, it's not known if the SK RM ammo was from the same lot.

His 50 yard 19 group average was 0.440", following the rule of 1/2 thirds, a 200 yard average of 4" is predicted. Not too far off from his actual 200 yard results with the other lot.

Rabid is absolutely right to note that it's important to be factual. Unfortunately its all too easy for careless errors to be made. Obviously I was too quick in saying that Lapua Polar Biathlon ammo has the same bullets as other Lapua .22LR rifle ammo. Clearly, it is different and I was wrong. Sometimes it's too easy to make an error.

No big deal, we all make mistakes from time to time. I'm not immune to it, either.

At the same time my error didn't impact the general point I was making, which was that if a certain bullet design itself made it distinctly better than other bullet designs it would be established an well-known. If such a bullet design existed it would be the obvious choice not only for long distance .22LR shooting but also for 100 yards and less. In fact if any different bullet design alone made for better ammo, it would cause all ammo makers to use it on all their varieties of .22LR ammo. The .22LR bullet's design is a very small part of the overall cost of ammo.

I agree, your point remained valid. I do think that to date, the ammo manufacturers have not given much consideration to .22LR being used beyond 100 yards, and are perhaps lacking R & D regarding bullet design for longer ranges. A bullet mold is indeed a small investment towards the production of millions of rounds of ammunition. We can only wait and see if manufacturers take notice of the ELR market, and come up with "a better bullet". The flat-nosed bullet makes for nice, clean holes in paper, and it flies true to 50 yards. I would welcome anyone that could provide some ballistic research on how this bullet flies over extended range.

The following is from Lapua's website regarding their Biathlon ammo:

"The bullet’s special shape ensures reliable and easy functioning and together with the new powder it provides unbeatable accuracy and consistent velocities. During product development, the Lapua Biathlon Xtreme cartridge endured extensive laboratory testing and calculations as well as demanding field testing for function and accuracy by two of the world’s top biathlon teams."

It appears to me that the main advantage of the bullet design is that it feeds more reliably from a magazine into the chamber. I do know that flat-nosed bullets can get jammed when fed from a magazine, not something you'd want to deal with in the middle of a Biathlon match... Then, Lapua's extensive testing was to ensure that accuracy didn't suffer, due to the design meant to provide reliable feeding. I've shot a fair bit of Biathlon ammo, and I'm not seeing it perform any better than traditionally shaped bullets.

 

[factionrr]

Thanks "RabidM4U5" the pictures explained your point, and yes I did misunderstand your original comments.

 

[grauhanen]

His 50 yard 19 group average was 0.440", following the rule of 1/2 thirds, a 200 yard average of 4" is predicted. Not too far off from his actual 200 yard results with the other lot.

The observation above about the 1/2 thirds rule prediction would be reasonable if the comparison was of apples to apples. At 50 yards factionrr shot five-shot groups but at 200 he shot ten-shot groups. Ten-shot groups are statistically always larger than five-shot groups. How much larger? According to a statistical analysis of group sizes, on average a ten-shot group will be about 30% larger than one made up of five shots.

(Readers should note that this is on average and should not be taken to mean that the 30% figure is a formula always and exactly gives the size of a group of ten shots based on the size of any group of five shots. What it means is that if a very large number of five shot groups are compared to a very large number of ten shot groups, the ten shot groups will be 30% larger on average. For more details on group size analysis, see h t t p://the-long-family.com/group_size_analysis.htm)

In other words, had factionrr shot five shot groups at 200 yards instead of ten, they would be on average about 30% smaller than recorded, or about 3.5" instead of 4.55". The lot of SK Rifle Match that produced the 200 yard groups would appear to perform better with his rifle than the lot that produced the 50 yard results.

 

[rlaunay]

Jerry can play with "barrel specs" to his heart's content, a tuner is something that has an immediate and dramatic effect. Yes, my friends, do not underestimate the effect a naked, whippy barrel has on your target results. You all would have eliminated this SK RM from your testing based on the first 50 yard groups, right? But lo and behold, the ammo was just fine for use... It simply didn't suit the naked barrel, but we can make it work, with a tuner. When you go naked, , not only do you have to find a good lot of ammo, you have to find one that suits your barrel. The odds are stacked against you, and you'll be passing over plenty of suitable lots.

Jerry's "barrel specs" and your tuner are addressing two separate issues and shouldn't be confused.

To make a comparison to the center fire world that people may be more familiar with:

A tuner is the rimfire equivalent of playing with seating depths and charge weights to find the most accurate node for your rifle/barrel. Center fire, we tune the ammo to our rifles. Since we're not (yet) loading custom RF ammo for our rifles, the tuner is instead tuning the barrel to fit the factory ammo you're feeding through it.

Not to speak for Jerry, and I don't know what is specified differently than a typical RF barrel that he's been working on, but different barrel specs would be handy in stabilizing the bullet more effectively, and getting the most out of published ballistic coefficient's for the bullet's we're already using. His barrel specs for RF would be the centerfire equivalent of shooting the recommended barrel twist for a given bullet weight/profile.

While a tuner does a great job of fine tuning ammo to the right 'node' and will improve accuracy at 50y, it's not going to do anything to improve the BC and ultimately the efficiency that it cuts through the air and bucks wind. There's testing currently being done that is suggesting that changes to typical barrel specs are providing substantial down range benefits without a downside at 50y.

Will these specs make a bit of different to 50m benchrest guys? Very unlikely - that game is well researched and has ammo mass produced that is capable of out shooting the shooter in most cases.

Will it help a PRS/ELR shooter? Absolutely. If we're able to take advantage of published BCs in the .172 range (Lapua), instead of the .120 - .130 we're actually seeing in the field, it will be significant. The ballistic calculators show it to be in the neighborhood of 20-30% less wind drift and and 10% less elevation required (using the same match grade ammo we're using now). Those are pretty big numbers.

Now, (and sorry), to derail the thread a bit further because this stuff is neat to explore.

If I was a betting man, I'd wager on two things:

1) No changes are going to be made to the RF world if you're shooting RF BR 50m-100m.

2) Long range rimfire is going to look a lot different within 2 years at "higher" levels of competition (ELR/National Level Matches). The first step, you're going to see slightly longer barrels with much faster twist rates. That alone is going to be significant even with the factory ammo we're shooting. The second step we're going to see is a heavier bullet pushed to standard velocity speeds - if I had to guess, I'd think it'd be about a 48-50gr lead bullet - think Lapua CX, elongated by about .140" split evenly between the bearing surface and start of the ogive. Slight bearing surface increase should add some stability/consistency while in the bore, and a slightly more tapered round nose should increase the published BC ever so slightly.

Despite the claims and concerns, I think reloading 22LR is on it's way. I've been contemplating this quite heavily since the Cutting Edge/Shot Show announcement. While I've come to agreement that a solid copper/light weight bullet @ high velocity is unlikely, heavier bullets with an even slight improvement to BC are the next logical step.

How I'd do it?

Take apart high quality factory ammo (Eley or Lapua, whichever has the harder brass but consistent primers)
Trim brass back .140" (match elongated length of new bullet)
Re-use powder pulled from factory ammo.
Have custom swage die made up for new bullet and form the same way the airgun guys are making their slugs (awesome video from the other thread, thanks!)
Crimp them with a custom crimper (similar to the "plier" type crimpers in the 22lrreloader.com kit, but sized for the shortened brass and made to better standards).
Figure out lube

I'd charge the loads to shoot somewhere between 1040-1080 through a 22" 1:8 or 1:9 barrel.

I'd anticipate a 50gr bullet at 1040fps in a 1:9 barrel to be pushing a G1 BC of around .200. It's absolutely a guesstimate, but with Lapua publishing 0.172 G1 BC for a 40gr shorter Center X round, I'm thinking it would be close. I have little doubt that maintaining a 30-40 ES out of rebuilt factory ammo is possible if a case with quality primer is used.

I'd guess that by ShotShow 2022, Lapua is offering a factory round similar to what I've described above. Vudoo has already been openly discussing the faster twist/longer barrels and their work with both Cutting Edge and Lapua.

And after all that?

Throw a tuner on the end of your barrel to make it even better.

This is going to be a great couple years ahead.

 

[grauhanen]

Jerry's "barrel specs" and your tuner are addressing two separate issues and shouldn't be confused.

To make a comparison to the center fire world that people may be more familiar with:

A tuner is the rimfire equivalent of playing with seating depths and charge weights to find the most accurate node for your rifle/barrel. Center fire, we tune the ammo to our rifles. Since we're not (yet) loading custom RF ammo for our rifles, the tuner is instead tuning the barrel to fit the factory ammo you're feeding through it.

Not to speak for Jerry, and I don't know what is specified differently than a typical RF barrel that he's been working on, but different barrel specs would be handy in stabilizing the bullet more effectively, and getting the most out of published ballistic coefficient's for the bullet's we're already using. His barrel specs for RF would be the centerfire equivalent of shooting the recommended barrel twist for a given bullet weight/profile.

While a tuner does a great job of fine tuning ammo to the right 'node' and will improve accuracy at 50y, it's not going to do anything to improve the BC and ultimately the efficiency that it cuts through the air and bucks wind. There's testing currently being done that is suggesting that changes to typical barrel specs are providing substantial down range benefits without a downside at 50y.

Will these specs make a bit of different to 50m benchrest guys? Very unlikely - that game is well researched and has ammo mass produced that is capable of out shooting the shooter in most cases. In most cases, the serious BR shooters with serious rifles are limited more by the ammo than by their rifle or ability. The search for the best ammo is costly and time consuming, and in Canada it's made more difficult than in larger markets because of the relatively limited amount of different lots of ammo available.

Will it help a PRS/ELR shooter? Absolutely. If we're able to take advantage of published BCs in the .172 range (Lapua), instead of the .120 - .130 we're actually seeing in the field, it will be significant. The ballistic calculators show it to be in the neighborhood of 20-30% less wind drift and and 10% less elevation required (using the same match grade ammo we're using now). Those are pretty big numbers.

Now, (and sorry), to derail the thread a bit further because this stuff is neat to explore.

If I was a betting man, I'd wager on two things:

1) No changes are going to be made to the RF world if you're shooting RF BR 50m-100m.

2) Long range rimfire is going to look a lot different within 2 years at "higher" levels of competition (ELR/National Level Matches). The first step, you're going to see slightly longer barrels with much faster twist rates. That alone is going to be significant even with the factory ammo we're shooting. The second step we're going to see is a heavier bullet pushed to standard velocity speeds - if I had to guess, I'd think it'd be about a 48-50gr lead bullet - think Lapua CX, elongated by about .140" split evenly between the bearing surface and start of the ogive. Slight bearing surface increase should add some stability/consistency while in the bore, and a slightly more tapered round nose should increase the published BC ever so slightly.

Despite the claims and concerns, I think reloading 22LR is on it's way. I've been contemplating this quite heavily since the Cutting Edge/Shot Show announcement. While I've come to agreement that a solid copper/light weight bullet @ high velocity is unlikely, heavier bullets with an even slight improvement to BC are the next logical step. Why do you believe that reloading .22LR is on its way? Is there some new developments to which you can refer? I understand the attraction of wishful thinking but some firm evidence should be offered to support the contention that soon ELR .22LR shooters will be reloading their own ammo.

How I'd do it?

Take apart high quality factory ammo (Eley or Lapua, whichever has the harder brass but consistent primers)
Trim brass back .140" (match elongated length of new bullet)
Re-use powder pulled from factory ammo.
Have custom swage die made up for new bullet and form the same way the airgun guys are making their slugs (awesome video from the other thread, thanks!)
Crimp them with a custom crimper (similar to the "plier" type crimpers in the 22lrreloader.com kit, but sized for the shortened brass and made to better standards).
Figure out lube

Is this method one that would take the place of home .22LR reloading? Or is it an intermediate step to be taken while waiting for reloading to be developed?

I'd charge the loads to shoot somewhere between 1040-1080 through a 22" 1:8 or 1:9 barrel.

I'd anticipate a 50gr bullet at 1040fps in a 1:9 barrel to be pushing a G1 BC of around .200. It's absolutely a guesstimate, but with Lapua publishing 0.172 G1 BC for a 40gr shorter Center X round, I'm thinking it would be close. I have little doubt that maintaining a 30-40 ES out of rebuilt factory ammo is possible if a case with quality primer is used.

Is it reasonable to expect a .22 casing to support an MV as high as 1040 fps with a 50 grain bullet? Can you provide any further information about this information from Lapua?

I'd guess that by ShotShow 2022, Lapua is offering a factory round similar to what I've described above. Vudoo has already been openly discussing the faster twist/longer barrels and their work with both Cutting Edge and Lapua.

And after all that?

Throw a tuner on the end of your barrel to make it even better.

This is going to be a great couple years ahead.

You raise some interesting points. I've inserted a few questions in the text in blue. They are not meant to knock anything you're saying. Further information about such things is always desirable.

Regarding the new bullet your anticipating and describing, is it similar to the bullet in the existing Aguila 60 grain .22LR ammo?

For anyone unfamiliar with this Aguila, see the image below. It reportedly has a BC of 0.90.

 

[Got Juice?]

You raise some interesting points. I've inserted a few questions in the text in blue. They are not meant to knock anything you're saying. Further information about such things is always desirable.

Regarding the new bullet your anticipating and describing, is it similar to the bullet in the existing Aguila 60 grain .22LR ammo?

For anyone unfamiliar with this Aguila, see the image below. It reportedly has a BC of 0.90.

Good luck with those.. try it, but in 19 fireatms, not one of mine can group it at 100

 

[grauhanen]

Good luck with those.. try it, but in 19 fireatms, not one of mine can group it at 100

You're right. This ammo is generally not considered good ammo. The ammo was referred to because it may be similar to the future ammo visualized by rlauney above.

 

[Shooter1971]

Great thread lol. Lots of conjecture. I test at short ranges rather then fight the effects of all the variables that come into play at longer distances. It seems to make sense. The idea that the bullet will "fall apart" at some distance that causes it's path to alter is not new to this thread and I have searched unsuccessfully for an explanation of this theorey in the past.


After shooting some big prs center-fire matches I came to the conclusion that my time is far better spent practicing positional shooting. The arms and gear race is fun however any of the top shooters I've met and had the fun of competing against would hand me my Azz with a quality factory gun and factory ammo they were given the morning of the competition lol. They also travel light.

When the level of competition changes the better shooter will remain on the podium regardless of ammo testing methods.