Right on. This is it. Often 60-70% of a 10-20 rnd group of crappy ammo like CCISV looks great. It’s more likely that 5 good ones coincidentally end up in the same group than 10 or 20.
Vudoo coming,others going.
- Thread starter Oldly
- Start date
Right on. This is it. Often 60-70% of a 10-20 rnd group of crappy ammo like CCISV looks great. It’s more likely that 5 good ones coincidentally end up in the same group than 10 or 20.
HV ammo won't produce great accuracy at 50 so it's hardly worth noting what it won't do at 100. Inconsistent, poor ammo quality, not transonic turbulence, is what causes the relatively poor performance of .22LR HV ammo. Except for a few hyper high velocity ammos, HV ammo never exceeds transonic zone MVs (about 890 - 1340 fps), remaining within it throughout it's flight out to past at least 150 yards.
Colin wrote that his Tikka was "ridiculously accurate" at 50 with CCI SV but that it was not so good at 100. That's what doesn't make sense.
Putting aside whether such accuracy is possible with that ammo, if a rifle can shoot very well at 50, there's no reason why it can't do so at 100. There's no such thing as a "50 yard only rifle".
For excellent accuracy, whether it's ridiculous or not, good ammo is required regardless whether the target is at 50 or 100.
Indeed, as noted above, if anyone shoots a single or only a few five-shot groups at 50, thosee results clearly doesn't prove a particularly accurate rifle.
I doubt that shooters could get 5x10 shot groups at a 100 that are under an inch and surely not consistently.ive never had the ammo to do it with 22lr.heck I can hear the velocity change leaving my barrel.all the imperfections on any single 22lr cartridge gets exposed after 60 yards or so by a fair bit.even a 5x5 at 50 is challenging,because even then an ugly duckling could be in the mix of you 25 cartridges.just the other day I had 2 squids in eley team,the sound was pffft.
Your mileage may vary, but my experience has been similar.
I think people get caught up in the myths of tumbling bullets and maybe use it as an excuse. I think people overstate the effects of the transonic zone and understate the environmental effects. The further you go, the better both you and your ammo have to be to stay consistent. Faster cartridges spend less time in the environment and are less affected by it. Of course BC, weight and consistent bullet shape is really important too. Sure the subsonic match ammo availability here is more consistently loaded, but from what I've seen, you grab what shoots well in your rifle and run with it. I have to assume that if HV ammo was loaded with the same care as Lapua center x or the like, you'd see better results and more people would use it at longer ranges. CCI standard is 90% as good as Lapua or SK, so again you're into diminishing returns just like the rifle conversion. For some people it's worth it, others not.
What might shoot amazing in your rifle one day, may shoot like crap the next as the weather, location, elevation changes. Same sort of things you'll see with someone's handloads that shoot 1/4 moa all day, at their range, in their preferred weather etc until you shoot elsewhere or on a colder day.
My 2c anyways
Last edited:
The video shown above makes the claim that ammo such as CCI Velocitor performs better at long distances than standard velocity .22LR ammo.
Why? According to Mark and Sam After Work, the video maker, it's "for the simple reason that it's going faster and less condition-based." The term condition-based refers to wind. In other words, the guy in the video believes Velocitor ammo by virtue of its much higher MV is less affected by wind than subsonic or SV ammo.
Readers should be aware that slower ammo like SV drifts less in the wind than HV ammo like Velocitor. At 200 yards, the lowly CCI SV round will drift about 1.75" for each 1 mph of crosswind; a Velocitor bullet drifts about 2.25" for each one mph of crosswind. There are other reasons why this ammo and other HV ammo is less suitable for target shooting at any distance.
Further, the video makers don't have a good understanding of transonic turbulence, but that's another matter.
When a video is absolutely wrong on such a basic aspect of .22LR ballistics, why should anyone pay attention to it?
Why? According to Mark and Sam After Work, the video maker, it's "for the simple reason that it's going faster and less condition-based." The term condition-based refers to wind. In other words, the guy in the video believes Velocitor ammo by virtue of its much higher MV is less affected by wind than subsonic or SV ammo.
Readers should be aware that slower ammo like SV drifts less in the wind than HV ammo like Velocitor. At 200 yards, the lowly CCI SV round will drift about 1.75" for each 1 mph of crosswind; a Velocitor bullet drifts about 2.25" for each one mph of crosswind. There are other reasons why this ammo and other HV ammo is less suitable for target shooting at any distance.
Further, the video makers don't have a good understanding of transonic turbulence, but that's another matter.
When a video is absolutely wrong on such a basic aspect of .22LR ballistics, why should anyone pay attention to it?
Last edited:
WELL SIR. That proves it right there. Just watched the video and realized how much money Ive wasted for all of these years. Shooting Eley,Lapua and RWS match ammo. All this time I couldah bin chootin Stangers for less money and gettin better groups. Glenn your no longer my hero!! I gottah tell our Olympic shooting team. After this mind blowing video debunking everything previously known about rimfire ballistics. Can you bow to the new king of rimfire ammo. Stangers and Velocitors and both made by the same company. Awesome is all I can say. HAHAHAHA
He never claimed that specific ammo was better than the ones you mention. They (Eley etc) are obviously more consistent and have different specifications/ purposes and QC.
The only point I was trying to make is that I believe people overstate the effects of the transonic zone.
Please continue to elaborate so we can all be better.
Besides consistency and quality, why is hv ammo less suitable?
Please tell us more about transonic turbulence.
I can start another thread so it can be discussed and everyone can learn.
Edit:
Haha, saw this in the comments
The only point I was trying to make is that I believe people overstate the effects of the transonic zone.
Please continue to elaborate so we can all be better.
Besides consistency and quality, why is hv ammo less suitable?
Please tell us more about transonic turbulence.
I can start another thread so it can be discussed and everyone can learn.
Edit:
Haha, saw this in the comments
Attachments
Last edited:
It's probably better to start another thread on the questions relating to the use of .22LR HV ammo vs other, better, options. Many readers and shooters may be interested.
But I'll say again that the maker of the video is not very familiar with the impact of the transonic zone and .22LR ammo, nor does he seem very familiar with .22LR ammo behaviour and characteristics.
Regarding the "This video is to show..." statement included in an image, note that it was posted somewhere "1 year ago" whereas the video in question was posted to You Tube on Sept. 21, 2021, less than four months ago.
I'll start another thread, I am sure there are plenty of others who would be interested in hearing everyone's thoughts on long distance 22lr. It seems like there are a few experts here that would love to share their ideas and experiences.
Again I am not saying nor implying that CCI > Lapua etc, no one is. Not saying the transonic zone doesn't affect the bullet, just less than most people think.
Regarding the date on the comments, my mistake, it was taken from the same video posted a year ago. I believe it was posted again 3 months ago (my link) due to more talk of tumbling bullets.
Again I am not saying nor implying that CCI > Lapua etc, no one is. Not saying the transonic zone doesn't affect the bullet, just less than most people think.
Regarding the date on the comments, my mistake, it was taken from the same video posted a year ago. I believe it was posted again 3 months ago (my link) due to more talk of tumbling bullets.
Maybe it'd better to just g-search and see the many-many posts on all sorts of forums (including this one) regarding trans-sonic effects. This issue has been beat to death and prob will continue. The simple solution is to just shoot what works.
Well went out yesterday to marry a scope to the vudoo so they will be a team moving forward.the cronus.it was -17c with no wind.the vudoo cycled effortlessly. But it might only see the range one or 2 more times this winter because loading 22 cartridges with cold hands is a pain,my 223 is alot more enjoyable to shoot in winter.also if the mag is loaded a little off on the vudoo they won't load,that is my biggest complaint. As for people saying the cronus is equal to the razor,to me it is not.
