Expectations versus reality...is it me?

S

ShawnRich

Member
Super GunNutz
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Location
Ontario
Hi all

After more shooting at the range today, I am wondering if my expectations for my setup are incorrect or if I am just a bad shot...


Several, about 5 years ago, I bought a Ruger American 22LR through the EE to get into shooting. I like the gun. I put a Barska 3-9 scope on it. Pretty inexpensive set up, especially when I start reading adds on EE. I use a bipod on it ie no sand bags yet . 3 shot groups are often 2 close together and 1 a little off, by itself.(flier?) but all 3 shot groups are similar. Am I doing something to cause 1 out of 3 fliers? This trend is fairly consistent over a few years of shooting and saving targets.

I went out to watch a benchrest club competition today. Obviously, a totally different league than what I am shooting. I wanted another reference and the knowledge there is great, so I will learn but hoping that I can get some input here on my setup.

When I see postings of groupings, all are pretty tight. What is reasonable for a Ruger American 22 lr at 50 yards?
My sandbags just arrived today so will be trying them probably tomorrow. Should I see a huge improvement over the front bipod and essentially no back rest? Sometimes, I put a weighted bag at the back but it did not seem to matter much versus holding firmly into my shoulder.
I have noted that my dominat eye is my left but I shoot right handed so am using my non-dominant right eye. Is this a problem?
Or should the groups tighten up with just more shooting? What is reasonable for this setup?

As for Ammo, I did some charts today, using various ammos, 5 shots per target (1.75" circles) at 50 yards, to see if my gun prefers some particular ammo. Granted, except for a couple boxes of Eley stuff, just general purpose aka cheap stuff. And still no where near the Lapua stuff I saw being used today at the shoot.

Remington Yellow jackets 1.5"
Eley sport 1.5"
Eley club 1.5" although 3 were touching each other
Federal Game Shok 2 "
CCI Mini Mag 3"
CCI Mini Mag 2"
CCI Stinger not even on the target sheet (went high or wide of the right side target)
CCI Quiet same not even on the target, probably fell on the ground half way there....;)

Today was intended to learn about different ammos with my gun and try to concentrate on comfortable shooting and position (bench rest style but just a setup as described above. )

Any input for me about expectations at this point in the learning curve? Should the American do better than that meaning ,it is me or the ammo or the setup ie bipod? or all combined? Can't blame wind, there was none

I would like to learn about longer stuff eventually, but figure I should get a little ( ok, a lot!) better with the rimfire first.

Thanks all
 
ShawnRich said:
Hi all

After more shooting at the range today, I am wondering if my expectations for my setup are incorrect or if I am just a bad shot...


Several, about 5 years ago, I bought a Ruger American 22LR through the EE to get into shooting. I like the gun. I put a Barska 3-9 scope on it. Pretty inexpensive set up, especially when I start reading adds on EE. I use a bipod on it ie no sand bags yet . 3 shot groups are often 2 close together and 1 a little off, by itself.(flier?) but all 3 shot groups are similar. Am I doing something to cause 1 out of 3 fliers? This trend is fairly consistent over a few years of shooting and saving targets.

I went out to watch a benchrest club competition today. Obviously, a totally different league than what I am shooting. I wanted another reference and the knowledge there is great, so I will learn but hoping that I can get some input here on my setup.

When I see postings of groupings, all are pretty tight. What is reasonable for a Ruger American 22 lr at 50 yards?
My sandbags just arrived today so will be trying them probably tomorrow. Should I see a huge improvement over the front bipod and essentially no back rest? Sometimes, I put a weighted bag at the back but it did not seem to matter much versus holding firmly into my shoulder.
I have noted that my dominat eye is my left but I shoot right handed so am using my non-dominant right eye. Is this a problem?
Or should the groups tighten up with just more shooting? What is reasonable for this setup?

As for Ammo, I did some charts today, using various ammos, 5 shots per target (1.75" circles) at 50 yards, to see if my gun prefers some particular ammo. Granted, except for a couple boxes of Eley stuff, just general purpose aka cheap stuff. And still no where near the Lapua stuff I saw being used today at the shoot.

Remington Yellow jackets 1.5"
Eley sport 1.5"
Eley club 1.5" although 3 were touching each other
Federal Game Shok 2 "
CCI Mini Mag 3"
CCI Mini Mag 2"
CCI Stinger not even on the target sheet (went high or wide of the right side target)
CCI Quiet same not even on the target, probably fell on the ground half way there....;)

Today was intended to learn about different ammos with my gun and try to concentrate on comfortable shooting and position (bench rest style but just a setup as described above. )

Any input for me about expectations at this point in the learning curve? Should the American do better than that meaning ,it is me or the ammo or the setup ie bipod? or all combined? Can't blame wind, there was none

I would like to learn about longer stuff eventually, but figure I should get a little ( ok, a lot!) better with the rimfire first.

Thanks all
Click to expand...

Been getting into .22 scoped shooting myself, one of the things that I'm seeing posted online is that outside temperature is a big factor when it comes to .22. People suggest trying biathlon ammo when shooting in cold weather. Seeing how you are in NW Ontario, that might have been one of factors. Since winter is almost here I want to pick up a box of that expensive ammo and compare it to "regular" brands.
 
Thanks VuDuu66. That is a good point but unfortunately, my groups seem to be similar regardless of temp. Here, the club has a heated building that we shoot from so yes, the barrel tip is at or outside the window but the rest is fairly warm though.

Having said that, I had not thought of Biathlon ammo. I will get some too.

Thanks
 
Oh, another thing I though off when thinking about first .22 I started with. It came with an aftermarket 5 round magazine and every 4th shot was consistently 1” off point of aim. Hitting top left and it was only on the 4th. This was driving crazy �� It turned out to be mag issue. When round was chambered something put small, barely noticeable line in the bullet. Always in the same area. When I was loading one at the time. problem went away. Maybe try loading 1 at the time by hand and see if anything changes.
 
Several things to consider in your post. You say you have been to bench rest competitions, so perhaps looking at what they use, versus what you have?

I have never owned a Ruger American .22 rifle, nor a Barska scope. You do not mention what system that you have used to attach that scope to that rifle. Did you see anything similar, at that competition?

It seems that you have established that you + that rifle + that scope, with various ammo on a bipod, can produce 1.5" to 3" groups at 50 yards. So three or four initial "areas of opportunity", perhaps. The hardest for some to accept is that they, themselves, might benefit from coaching and training - how to aim at a target, how to break a trigger, how to set up for shooting a group. Is not an "innate" skill for most - seldom anyone "born knowing" this stuff.

To put in context, might want to read up on Olympic or World level small bore 50 Meter "free rifle" bullseye target competitions. 10 rounds prone, then 10 sitting, then 10 kneeling, then 10 off hand. No scopes. No rests. Competition results a bit confusing to me, because as if the course of fire was altered every year or two, but you can see results from 1960's competitions at 50 meters - top 5 or 6 shooters tied at 400 / 400. I have 50 Meter small bore targets here - that 10 ring is about .40" diameter. A "Joe Average" like me would not do that. Yes, they had exceptional, finely tuned gear - 1" diameter barrels, 28" long, on Schultz and Larsen or Anschutz single shot actions. 15 pound rifles. No doubt, whatever was the "best" ammo that 1960's was capable of. Set triggers, with final pull weight measured in ounces, not pounds. But, I suspect that the gear was only a part of it - those shooters would have been extraordinary - and that would be as a result of training, coaching and LOTS of trigger time.

Then your gear. I am a bit curious about that Barska scope - ads that I have seen suggest they are inexpensive - not sure they have parallax adjustment? Inexpensive + variable power, in my mind, tends to include coloured reticles, etc. rather than really high end erector assemblies - the stuff that counts for performance, but likely does not do much for marketing. Maybe that reticle jiggles to a slightly different position with each round fired? The suggestion to attempt to try using other scopes, is a good suggestion.

I suspect that is a Ruger hammer forged barrel? Time is passing, but was a time when Ruger barrel quality was really hit and miss - maybe that was sorted out when yours was made? But pictures that I see on line - that is not a target weight barrel - a sporter version of some sort - so likely meant to be "good enough".

Same with the synthetic stock - can read much about people's attempts to made them "stiffer" - is likely a result of an attempt by maker to reduce cost, and then marketing will turn that around into a "sales" point - to convince the user it is actually an improvement. It seems that the stock, and the "bedding" have never been adjusted on your rifle - you do not mention any trigger work either, so is all opportunities, at some point.

But I would think the biggest opportunity is the shooter?

So, my take, is that your rifle and scope are both of a level made to be "good enough" that someone will buy it. I would doubt that "serious" target shooters would be using that stuff. So, likely not reasonable to expect to get "world class" results, without user training, with that level of gear?

To be clear - serious rimfire target shooters will cut your group sizes in half or perhaps a quarter, at 50 yards/meters, without using a scope. Has been demonstrated in competition results for 50 years or more - is not a "new" standard to meet, although many consumers lead to believe differently.
 
Last edited:
Quick and easy
Have you looked at the crown of your rifle some people may clean from the muzzle end back - even when you clean from the breech end you should pass it through remove the end and carefully slide the cleaning rod back reattach the end and repeat, so many times people do not do this and the crown gets damaged

You do not know if the previous owner used a coat hanger to clean it
 
Great information all!! Thank you. That gives me a lot to work on.

I will try the single shot thing to eliminate the magazine.
I looked at the crown under a magnifier and cannot see anything obvious (not sure if I would "see" what might influence the trajectory) but will clean it better and take a photo and post it here.
I will pull the scope off and use the sights, looking to see if the groups can be tightened up any

Since there was no dramatic difference between ammo, I will just use an Eley product I think, as, iiuc, it is one of the better ones, or Lapua if available here. ie I won't use my bulk boxes....lol

Potashminer...Thank you for the detailed reply! Lots for me to consider. The benchrest guys are using benchrest guns and scope packages that are in the thousands of dollars range. I think the only thing I had in common was that a bullet of some sort goes in one end of my rifle and a projectile comes out the other...a different league. Even rests were very elaborate. No bags there! As for coaching, the guys were very helpful yesterday and I suspect, will be even more so as I get more into this. I think generally, members of a gun range like to talk guns and as with many sports, are usually very willing to help newbies, I think. I wanted to at least sort out my shotgun style groupings a bit before asking them to help me fine tune. I toyed with bedding the barrel (not that I have ever done it but have looked at a few articles/videos), or stock replacement, trigger mods, etc but I know that the gun I have is entry level so wondering if it is worth it or just look for a better package to start tuning. I agree 100% that me, the shooter needs work but hoping to not beat myself up personally too much before I find out that that package would normally shoot those groupings. If I can narrow down the equipment to what it can do, then at least I would hope to see if my experience helps a bit. Not looking to be a sniper, just hoping to get more satisfaction out of shooting. And learning about the equipment is interesting too.

If a few came back with Ruger American experience and said that it should/could do much better than that, then that would be good to know. If, however, several responded with "that is normal for that level/model/setup of that rifle", then that would be good to know too.

So, Thanks all! I will report back when I get a chance to experiment.

Cheers,
Shawn
 
IvoB said:
Quick and easy
Have you looked at the crown of your rifle some people may clean from the muzzle end back - even when you clean from the breech end you should pass it through remove the end and carefully slide the cleaning rod back reattach the end and repeat, so many times people do not do this and the crown gets damaged

You do not know if the previous owner used a coat hanger to clean it
Click to expand...

lol...don't know if he used a coat hanger. But perhaps I am doing it wrong. I thought that it was recommended to clean from the muzzle end, that is, pass the rod carefully into the muzzle, attach a brush if using one or patch holder, then pull it out the muzzle, remove it and repeat. Are you suggesting to pull back towards the breach? I may have to do more reading here too then. :redface:
 
"bedding the barrel" - for sure that is an unusual approach - normally, today, the action is "bedded" within the stock, and the barrel is "free floated" - not touching the stock at any point. But, there is and has been variations on that. Because I wanted to try it, I did epoxy bedding with full contact from the rear tang to the front of forearm on a Remington 788 in 243 that I was attempting to modify for my wife's first deer hunt. That thing turned out to be "scary" accurate - like 3 shot and 5 shot groups at 100 yards under 1" diameter - with a 3 power scope. I still do not know if results were because of that bedding job, or in spite of it. There is also a technique to create a "bedding point" - some "up" pressure on the barrel at the very far end of the forearm. I suspect is about cost - is likely harder and more expensive to make a "full contact" barrel installation, than it is to free float the barrel - again - marketers likely at work to convince most of us that the least expensive production method is actually "better".

Also, incredibly different want you want the rifle for. When I was a boy, a .22 that could dependably do 3" groups at 50 yards, was an absolute, for sure, head shot on rabbits as far as I was able to see them, to shoot at. Gophers in a pasture would have been in "dire straits". Likely disappointing for a bench rest target competition, though. So, what you intend the piece for. As you mentioned, the people you saw competing likely spent more on a rest, then you have on your outfit. So, not denying that $$ spent on gear has a result - but I think best, first dollars should be on coaching.
 
Last edited:
"pull the scope off and use the sights" - a couple of us do exactly that when trying to track down a malfunction - especially 25 to 40 yards, is surprisingly not much difference in group size - certainly identifies the scope or parallax as problematic, when iron sight groups are significantly smaller!!!

Not to mislead you - those target sights, like on the rifles I have here, are almost all aperture rear sights and either an aperture or a post front sight - for target shooting - they are not the barrel mounting hunting sights that are seen on a lot of rifles. Not to say that real good results are not possible with conventional irons, but just do not see competitors using anything other than aperture sights.
 
Potashminer said:
"bedding the barrel" - for sure that is an unusual approach - normally, today, the action is "bedded" within the stock, and the barrel is "free floated" - not touching the stock at any point. But, there is and has been variations on that. Because I wanted to try it, I did epoxy bedding with full contact from the rear tang to the front of forearm on a Remington 788 in 243 that I was attempting to modify for my wife's first deer hunt. That thing turned out to be "scary" accurate - like 3 shot and 5 shot groups at 100 yards under 1" diameter - with a 3 power scope. I still do not know if results were because of that bedding job, or in spite of it. There is also a technique to create a "bedding point" - some "up" pressure on the barrel at the very far end of the forearm. I suspect is about cost - is likely harder and more expensive to make a "full contact" barrel installation, than it is to free float the barrel - again - marketers likely at work to convince most of us that the least expensive production method is actually "better".

Also, incredibly different want you want the rifle for. When I was a boy, a .22 that could dependably do 3" groups at 50 yards, was an absolute, for sure, head shot on rabbits as far as I was able to see them, to shoot at. Gophers in a pasture would have been in "dire straits". Likely disappointing for a bench rest target competition, though. So, what you intend the piece for. As you mentioned, the people you saw competing likely spent more on a rest, then you have on your outfit. So, not denying that $$ spent on gear has a result - but I think best, first dollars should be on coaching.
Click to expand...

lol....I thought I might have had the terminology incorrect. I really should take more time to compose a post sometimes....

I have been a little confused but have not delved into it enough to get it straight. One makes a solid connection and the other isolates so more than once I realized that I must not get it. You summed it up quickly. Thanks. I would not do anything until I had a better understanding. And again, realizing my level of gun, is it worth it?

All if the information here is a form of coaching. I think understanding the equipment and its effects will go a long ways towards improving. Putting it into use and seeing what the changes do will be great. So all good. Thanks! Cheers,
 
ShawnRich said:
lol...don't know if he used a coat hanger. But perhaps I am doing it wrong. I thought that it was recommended to clean from the muzzle end, that is, pass the rod carefully into the muzzle, attach a brush if using one or patch holder, then pull it out the muzzle, remove it and repeat. Are you suggesting to pull back towards the breach? I may have to do more reading here too then. :redface:
Click to expand...
I was told to always clean the same way bullet travels in the bore... So yea, pull from the muzzle or push from the breach. Than again, soviet milsurp rifles have special attachment that goes on top of the muzzle and used a guide for cleaning rod.
 
Already covered but I would start with parallax error in the scope and try different ammunition until a winner is found.

You can see the parallax error if you keep the rifle stationary and move your eye around behind the optic. It is surprising how much the reticle moves relative to the target
 
Hey guys

I had some time to do some more experimenting. I also got a selection of better ammo. Attached are some photos of targets. In a nutshell, if I understand the results correctly, my gun likes SK stuff the best so far. I still need work...;)

The targets are marked for dates and data but in November, I was on a bipod. Yesterday, I was on a front rest with a rear bag support aid. Still using the scope at this point.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/194538139@N07/51724392538/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/194538139@N07/51724797459/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/194538139@N07/51723336202/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/194538139@N07/51724797519/in/dateposted-public/
 
Last edited:
I posted photos of the targets for reference but they are not visible now...I will try again. That post of mine probably did not make much sense then. Sorry guys.

I found the thread in FAQ regarding photos but skipping to the last few pages,(there are 55 of them) it seems that a lot of members have trouble posting photos. For those that have it figured out, what is the trick? What is the best site to use?

I tried using Google photos but it is not set up to publicly share photos, probably a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Wildey said:
You should try and get yourself behind something like an Anschutz or even a Vudoo if you have an opportunity. If you know the rifle is an absolute laser, you can eliminate the rifle as any source of the problem.
Click to expand...

Yes, that would be nice. I had a Bergara in my hand yesterday at the gun shop....That would be one heck of a leap!:)

This one
 
Last edited:
I opened a Flickr account. I tried to "Insert image" but that did not work as well as pasting the link. I will play around a bit more with posting photos but at least they are up for this thread.

Cheers,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom