Chipmunk 22 vs Marlin vs Slingshot vs Slap Shot vs RimX
- Thread starter grauhanen
- Start date
duncansuds
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Weyburn, SK
No. There will be arguments.... but no. The flight of the bullet is linear. Look to Brian Litz for a technical explanation. External conditions will change results, possibly making a legitimate test inconclusive. I would think the only way to reliably test that theory for proof would be to make an Eley-like facilty for the 50,100,200 yard ranges with a completely controlled atmosphere.
I am very open to being proved wrong... but I doubt that proof exists.
I am very open to being proved wrong... but I doubt that proof exists.
Last edited:
Short range benchrest competitions have proven that 200 yards groups are smaller than 100 yards groups!
Book have been written about this and the answer is simply that ultimate accuracy is a combination of a dozen factors or so which add up or even average out.
This means that for a given rifle, the optimal bullet/ammunition is variable at different ranges even under the same conditions.
When I first experienced this with a match 308 Win rifle, it simply blew my mind!
How can a far more accurate 100m load loose out at 200m to a say 8% less accurate 100m load?
It's because the mix/average/addition of factors optimal at 100m are not the same factors at 200m.
How do I test this?
I shoot my rifle at a great 50m indoor range (I would use at 300m if I had access to one) and then shoot at sunrise or sunset on outdoor range.
(There is almost no wind as sunrise and conditions are better at sunset).
Book have been written about this and the answer is simply that ultimate accuracy is a combination of a dozen factors or so which add up or even average out.
This means that for a given rifle, the optimal bullet/ammunition is variable at different ranges even under the same conditions.
When I first experienced this with a match 308 Win rifle, it simply blew my mind!
How can a far more accurate 100m load loose out at 200m to a say 8% less accurate 100m load?
It's because the mix/average/addition of factors optimal at 100m are not the same factors at 200m.
How do I test this?
I shoot my rifle at a great 50m indoor range (I would use at 300m if I had access to one) and then shoot at sunrise or sunset on outdoor range.
(There is almost no wind as sunrise and conditions are better at sunset).
Keep in mind that the discussion is about .22LR. It may only muddy the waters to discuss whether centerfire rifles do shoot better at longer distances than at shorter ones.
Interesting result at 50y, 75y and 100y:
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2012/04/22-lr-ammunition-accuracy-55-types-tested/
You can see right away significant differences at different ranges.
Short range precision ammunition tend to be optimized for stability first which is not the most important factor at longer range.
Take a step back and forget about the fact that this is a discussion about the mythical 22LR, and let's just talk ballistics. I'll circle back to the 22 magic at the end.
"Is it possible for one rifle that shot larger groups at 100 yards to shoot better at 200 yards (MOA-wise) than another rifle that shoots smaller groups at 100 yards?"
The answer is a resounding yes. Don't believe me? I challenge the best 22LR benchrest shooter using his record breaking rifle to compete against my run of the mill 6.5x47. We will set two target distances. The first will be at 25M, the second will be at 300M. Without a doubt, at 25M he's going to hands down win the smallest group competition. Equally true, without a doubt, I'm going to win the 300M smallest group.
Right?
Now, I know, that's comparing apples to oranges - but, it applies to this conversation all the same, because this is comparing apples to oranges as well. The argument that "The flight of the bullet is linear" is popular, but, the extreme example above goes to show that it's only part of the equation. If the flight of the bullet is linear, a 22LR that shoots 0.2 MOA groups at 25M should shoot the same 0.2MOA group at 300M, and easily out shoot the 0.5MOA gun at distance - but we all know that's not the case.
Again, forget we're comparing RF vs CF. Once that bullet is in flight, all we're comparing are the external ballistics of the round. And, we've already proven that the external ballistics of the small lead bullet are up to the task, as they beat the much larger centerfire round at 25M. The answer is obvious, but why then does the same 6.5 outperform the 22LR at 300M?
... because it has a higher BC bullet going at a much faster velocity that does a better job of minimizing the environmental effects on the trajectory.
Now, back to only the rimfire world.
The conversation isn't about getting your standard 50M benchrest gun that has been designed and perfected to shoot at 50M to shoot better (smaller MOA) groups at 300m.
The conversation is about optimizing a different gun that has been designed and perfected to shoot a different bullet, or to change the properties of the same bullet, to shoot smaller MOA groups at distance.
The changes we're seeing with fancy new copper bullets and/or faster twist barrels are simply an attempt to change the external ballistics of the round to be better suited to the new game of shooting further. It is in no way a replacement for the proven game of shooting short range targets. While things may not have been perfected yet, looking strictly at measures of higher BC and higher velocity, there's no argument. Faster twist barrels, shooting the typical match grade rimfire ammo at the same velocities, require less elevation adjustment at distance than rifles with slower twist rates. Accuracy/inconsistency in the cartridge design may not quite be there yet, but the math doesn't lie. Stuff like the new CE bullets shooting a combination of the higher velocity and higher BC bullets matched to an appropriate twist rate barrel are superior in pure ballistics, no different than a 6.5 is superior in pure ballistics to a 22LR, despite the 22LR being a better performer at close range. The only change is that the inherent benefit of the higher BC/faster velocity new round doesn't have the time to make such an impact at short range targets.
The only challenge here is making these new designs consistent enough that the gain in exterior ballistics worth giving up the very consistent and reliable typical match ammo.
"Is it possible for one rifle that shot larger groups at 100 yards to shoot better at 200 yards (MOA-wise) than another rifle that shoots smaller groups at 100 yards?"
The answer is a resounding yes. Don't believe me? I challenge the best 22LR benchrest shooter using his record breaking rifle to compete against my run of the mill 6.5x47. We will set two target distances. The first will be at 25M, the second will be at 300M. Without a doubt, at 25M he's going to hands down win the smallest group competition. Equally true, without a doubt, I'm going to win the 300M smallest group.
Right?
Now, I know, that's comparing apples to oranges - but, it applies to this conversation all the same, because this is comparing apples to oranges as well. The argument that "The flight of the bullet is linear" is popular, but, the extreme example above goes to show that it's only part of the equation. If the flight of the bullet is linear, a 22LR that shoots 0.2 MOA groups at 25M should shoot the same 0.2MOA group at 300M, and easily out shoot the 0.5MOA gun at distance - but we all know that's not the case.
Again, forget we're comparing RF vs CF. Once that bullet is in flight, all we're comparing are the external ballistics of the round. And, we've already proven that the external ballistics of the small lead bullet are up to the task, as they beat the much larger centerfire round at 25M. The answer is obvious, but why then does the same 6.5 outperform the 22LR at 300M?
... because it has a higher BC bullet going at a much faster velocity that does a better job of minimizing the environmental effects on the trajectory.
Now, back to only the rimfire world.
The conversation isn't about getting your standard 50M benchrest gun that has been designed and perfected to shoot at 50M to shoot better (smaller MOA) groups at 300m.
The conversation is about optimizing a different gun that has been designed and perfected to shoot a different bullet, or to change the properties of the same bullet, to shoot smaller MOA groups at distance.
The changes we're seeing with fancy new copper bullets and/or faster twist barrels are simply an attempt to change the external ballistics of the round to be better suited to the new game of shooting further. It is in no way a replacement for the proven game of shooting short range targets. While things may not have been perfected yet, looking strictly at measures of higher BC and higher velocity, there's no argument. Faster twist barrels, shooting the typical match grade rimfire ammo at the same velocities, require less elevation adjustment at distance than rifles with slower twist rates. Accuracy/inconsistency in the cartridge design may not quite be there yet, but the math doesn't lie. Stuff like the new CE bullets shooting a combination of the higher velocity and higher BC bullets matched to an appropriate twist rate barrel are superior in pure ballistics, no different than a 6.5 is superior in pure ballistics to a 22LR, despite the 22LR being a better performer at close range. The only change is that the inherent benefit of the higher BC/faster velocity new round doesn't have the time to make such an impact at short range targets.
The only challenge here is making these new designs consistent enough that the gain in exterior ballistics worth giving up the very consistent and reliable typical match ammo.
- Location
- Okanagan Valley B.C.
Xtremely interesting thread , could you help me understand the
scenario ?
When comparing the different rifles , ammunition and
environmental conditions at various distances would there be the same
triggerman , the same or eliminate that from the equation by using
a bench mounted gun vise ?
Also are these comparisons achieved at the same time , date
and range ?
scenario ?
When comparing the different rifles , ammunition and
environmental conditions at various distances would there be the same
triggerman , the same or eliminate that from the equation by using
a bench mounted gun vise ?
Also are these comparisons achieved at the same time , date
and range ?
I have no doubt that a top quality CF benchrest rifle in the hands of a top level shooter could produce as good of groups as the previously mentioned record setting rimfire rifle/shooter combo.
..but that's not what I said.
Are you suggesting that at 25m, practical style shooters using mediocre centerfire gear would produce smaller center to center groups than the best rimfire shooters in the world using the best rimfire rifles/ammo?
And as an extension, are you suggesting that it would be probable that the centerfire round at 300m is likely to produce larger center to center groups than the rimfire from those same two shooters?
Last edited:
I don’t have anything to bring to discussion but it was one of the best read I had here in a long time. Thank you very much !
I think I’ll spend some time shooting 100/200/300 meters in 2021 with my 22LR and see what happens.
I think I’ll spend some time shooting 100/200/300 meters in 2021 with my 22LR and see what happens.
Last edited:
No.
This implies bullets change direction once they leave the barrel, and effectively steer around the 100 yard marker, and then reconverge at 200. Those must be some pretty switchy, fast, strong winds.
You’re never going to shoot a group from the same position, through two pieces of paper, and have have a tighter group at 200 than you do at 100 from the same shots. Ever.
Yes. No one has ever had a smaller group at distance. If they did, Brian Litz wouldn’t still have his $25,000USD bounty up.
I have shot 22 at 100, but never at 200, so have no first hand information.
But I think there are 2 facts we can all agree on:
1. Velocity varies. Let's say the ammo has an ES of 25 fps.
2. The barrel vibrates when shot, and the muzzle can move up and down.
With match ammo the bullet would tend to be exiting at the same part of the muzzle motion. Lets say the muzzle is moving vertically as the bullet exits.
We agree that some rounds are faster than others. A fast round exits the muzzle while the muzzle is moving up. So it exits at a lower point than a slower round, which exits when the muzzle has moved up a bit more.
Now, lets go down to 200 yards.
We agree that a slower round will hit lower on the target than a faster round. This is why a group is vertical.
But, if the slower rounds are aimed a bit higher (because of muzzle flip) than the faster rounds, the slow rounds won't print as low as they other wise would have.
So, if I was going to shoot 200 yards, I would test various brands and lot numbers to find the ammo that grouped the flattest. I would do a similar test for 100 yards.
I would know that the best 100 yard ammo would not be the best 200 yard ammo.
If I was going to shoot 200 yard matches, I would first test the rifle with the longest barrel. It would have more whip than a shorter barrel. Then I would test with various ammo to look for the best compensation.
But I think there are 2 facts we can all agree on:
1. Velocity varies. Let's say the ammo has an ES of 25 fps.
2. The barrel vibrates when shot, and the muzzle can move up and down.
With match ammo the bullet would tend to be exiting at the same part of the muzzle motion. Lets say the muzzle is moving vertically as the bullet exits.
We agree that some rounds are faster than others. A fast round exits the muzzle while the muzzle is moving up. So it exits at a lower point than a slower round, which exits when the muzzle has moved up a bit more.
Now, lets go down to 200 yards.
We agree that a slower round will hit lower on the target than a faster round. This is why a group is vertical.
But, if the slower rounds are aimed a bit higher (because of muzzle flip) than the faster rounds, the slow rounds won't print as low as they other wise would have.
So, if I was going to shoot 200 yards, I would test various brands and lot numbers to find the ammo that grouped the flattest. I would do a similar test for 100 yards.
I would know that the best 100 yard ammo would not be the best 200 yard ammo.
If I was going to shoot 200 yard matches, I would first test the rifle with the longest barrel. It would have more whip than a shorter barrel. Then I would test with various ammo to look for the best compensation.
Last edited:
I agree with that. I think, think, the premise originally put forth is that a better MOA could be observed at a further distance than the MOA on target at a nearer distance. 1 MOA at 200 yards is a greater CTC spread than it would be at 100 yards. Theoretically, one could observe a 1.5 MOA group at 100 yards, and then a sub 1.5 MOA group at 200 yards. I think this premise more so applies to centerfire rifles that may require some distance for the bullet to stabalize, I have only read some articles to the effect but have not tested it for myself. I have a hard time visualizing how the same could occur with .22 LR. It could be possible, I wouldn't discount it. However, I strongly feel that ammunition quality is still a greater limiting factor that will obfuscate any meaningful observation to that effect. Whoever develops the means to load .22 LR at home with full control over the process, including stamping out and forming the brass, will be the one to make the next major breakthrough in rimfire accuracy.
I agree, I needlessly added details which seem to have confused my point.
Let me be more clear.
Rifle A is a 22LR rifle that shoots 0.1MOA groups at 50m every single time using the best benchrest ammos available.
Rifle B is a centerfire rifle that shoots 1.0 MOA groups at 50m every single time using the highest BC heaviest for caliber bullets available.
To make it more clear - let's spread our distances apart even more and ask a simple question.
Given the two rifles, which rifle would be predicted to produce the smaller group at 600m?
If you can with a straight face suggest the 22lr has a chance, this isn't a conversation being had in good faith and not worth continuing.
If you agree with the obvious, the answer to your question Is it possible for one rifle that shot larger groups at 100 yards to shoot better at 200 yards (MOA-wise) than another rifle that shoots smaller groups at 100 yards? is very clearly YES .
To answer the second part if your question - what would explain such a situation? is clear to anyone who shoots at any sort of distance. Balistically (is that even a word?), the centerfire bullet is superior to the smaller rimfire one. It has a higher BC bullet that is traveling faster, thus it does a far better job at minimizing the effects of the environment over longer distances. The fact that is is 0.9 MOA less accurate at close range is overshadowed by the fact that it is multitudes better at reducing the effects on it while in flight over long range.
Everything else you have said is just an attempt to muddy the waters to argue against pure fact. The extreme comparisons are needed to show a basic truth. If you can agree to the obvious conclusions of the extreme comparisons, it would be rational to make the leap that it is still fact in less extreme comparisons, though much harder to see the differences.
The only thing in question right now is at what point are we at. Are we at a point where the increases in BC in a newer and less consistent design is worth giving up the tried and true consistency of the best match grade ammunition? Possibly not yet.
Would long range guys give up a little bit of consistent accuracy for massive reductions in environmental effects on trajectory? Probably.
You end by mentioning lot testing the same old ammos for maximum benefit at long range. Again - this isn't about finding the best of the current offerings and making it do something it wasn't designed to do. This is about designing something new with properties that are beneficial to shooting longer, even if that means giving up some advantages for closer range.
