Long Range 22LR 300 yards +, transonic zone, ammo characteristics and quality

[RabidM4U5]

I don't know if the Earth is flat (obviously not, mountains... ), but is it a spinning globe whipping through space at dizzying speeds? It's quite interesting how an astronaut "floating" in a "space station" can drop a screw and it rapidly plummets to the floor

Anyway, most HV ammo is pretty low-grade quality, though it seems everyone has forgotten about RWS R-100? There's your "match-grade" HV ammo. BBM HV, made by RWS, I've found pretty respectable in it's performance considering it's price. I'd say it is fairly comparable to SK Standard+ in it's performance/consistency. Ammo quality is of vital importance for long-range shooting, there is no getting around that. Jaia's 50 at 200 thread on RFC is a useful reference to get an idea of how different ammos perform. It is readily apparent from his results that the better quality HV offerings can produce better results than low quality SV ammo, and low quality HV ammo is absolutely horrendous.

RWS R-100 https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11318615&postcount=341

Eley HVHP https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11258705&postcount=281

CCI Suppressor subsonic https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11539245&postcount=754

Remington 22 Viper https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11499907&postcount=673

BBM HV https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11249923&postcount=270

Jaia's best results were produced from what you would expect, a good lot of Lapua, Eley, or RWS top offerings in SV. What would a good lot of R-100 produce? The evidence indicates it would be difficult to tell much of a difference between HV and SV ammo if their production quality is equal. Maple's statement that the accuracy of HV ammo degrades by 100 yards and gets worse further out is simply not supported by real world results, ammo quality remains king.

 

[grauhanen]

Anyway, most HV ammo is pretty low-grade quality, though it seems everyone has forgotten about RWS R-100? There's your "match-grade" HV ammo.

Thank you for the reminder. RWS R 100 is an excellent faster ammo.

The manufacturer gives the nominal MV of RWS R 100 at 345 m/s. That's about 1132 fps. By comparison, the speed of sound is about 1125 fps (343 m/s) at sea level at about 20 Celsius. As temperatures fall, each 5 deg C will reduce the speed of sound by about 3 m/s.

Most .22LR high velocity ammos will have MVs that are somewhat higher.

 

[grauhanen]

Yes, I can absolutely watch 22LR bullets in flight. The 24X scope I mentioned has just a fine cross hair and its harder to see bullets fly when using a jazzed up PRS reticle... That's like looking through a picket fence, but its still possible.


BTW, I watch my 3000 FPS 223 and 308 bullets fly as well, just not at 100 yards because the rifle is still under recoil, but yes farther out certainly.

Earlier you referred to watching .22WMR bullets fly. Above you say you also "watch" .223 Remington bullets as they fly. So everything is clear, by "watching" you presumably mean observing -- not simply glimpsing them. Is that correct?

Many times shooters may catch sight of a bullet for the briefest of moments, and this is more likely for slower rather than faster bullets. Bullets with MVs no more than about 650 fps can be seen under the right lighting and background conditions. Faster bullets can be detected by the eye but only as a brief glimpse of it moving to the target.

The flight time for the .22LR SV bullet from muzzle to 100 yards is about 0.3 seconds. For the .22WMR the time taken to watch is 0.275 seconds. For the .223 Rem. it's much less than half that time at 0.1 seconds. None of these periods seem to provide much time for anything approaching purposeful observation. Instead it's likely that only a portion of the bullet's flight can be seen, regardless of which bullet is looked at. It's not uncommon to catch sight of a bullet, but it's not the same as actually watching it.

If anyone has more information on this, please post directions to it.

We can argue about why HV ammo is not accurate but there's no point. If you believe its not accurate because it happens to be badly made, which happens to support your interpretation, in the end, as I stated above, we are both in the same place... HV ammo is not accurate... We just don't agree to the cause. Either way, It's not my choice for illustrating the accuracy potential of a rifle.

There's no basis for argument. Allow facts to prevail.

You believe that poor .22LR HV ammo quality isn't the problem causing poor accuracy performance. By inference you believe it's the high velocity that's causing the problem ("flat earthers usually jump in ... and argue that its not the high velocity that's causing the problem"). While it may be popular among the less well informed, that's strictly an unfounded and unsupported opinion. Read the McCoy study.

High velocity .22LR ammo, with a very few possible exceptions, is generally of poor quality and that alone explains its poor accuracy performance. That's a basic fact. It's not a matter of opinion because you pretend it is or choose to ignore facts.

 

[Maple57]

Yap yap yap... Show me 100 yard and farther groups shot with such match grade high velocity ammo that actually leaves your barrel at supersonic speeds.

You understand that longer barrels produce lower velocities right... So with that in mind, and ammo maker might be wise to produce supersonic 22lr for use in long barreled rifles with the expectation that such ammo would not actually leave the long barrel at supersonic speeds.

Yes I tried RWS100 as well and lets just say it was equally disappointing in my testing. But then again, my barrel isn't very long.

 

[RabidM4U5]

Thank you for the reminder. RWS R 100 is an excellent faster ammo.

The manufacturer gives the nominal MV of RWS R 100 at 345 m/s. That's about 1132 fps. By comparison, the speed of sound is about 1125 fps (343 m/s) at sea level at about 20 Celsius. As temperatures fall, each 5 deg C will reduce the speed of sound by about 3 m/s.

Most .22LR high velocity ammos will have MVs that are somewhat higher.

Yeah that's interesting. So it pops supersonic, then spends most of it's flight in the "transonic" zone, only going subsonic for very long distance targets. One would think if certain logic were applied this would result in terrible downrange results... yet this seems to not be the case. Hmmmmm

 

[grauhanen]

Yeah that's interesting. So it pops supersonic, then spends most of it's flight in the "transonic" zone, only going subsonic for very long distance targets. One would think if certain logic were applied this would result in terrible downrange results... yet this seems to not be the case. Hmmmmm

The confusion with high velocity .22LR ammo and transonic turbulence seems to be often predicated on the commonly held but mistaken belief that the speed of sound -- around 1125 fps at sea level -- itself constitutes the threshold above which .22LR accuracy diminishes. It's not that simple.

The "transonic" zone is about 1340 - 890 fps. Accuracy robbing transonic turbulence occurs when some bullets enter that zone of speeds. As readers will understand, bullets from centerfire rounds that begin fast eventually slow down into the transonic zone. When they do they may experience transonic turbulence. Among .22LR ammo, only some hyper high velocity rounds may have MVs sufficiently above the transonic zone to present any potential problems when they slow down to velocities within the transonic zone. It's not an issue with all other .22LR ammo, including most HV ammo, because their MVs are never so high as to exceed the transonic zone speeds.

To illustrate with an example with RWS R 100, a round leaving the muzzle with the nominal manufacturer's MV of 345 m/s (1132 fps) will spend it's entire flight out to about 150 within the transonic zone. It never exceeds the transonic zone speeds. Standard velocity .22LR rounds will spend it's flight out to about 120 yards within the transonic zone before falling below about 900 fps. SV ammo also never exceeds the transonic zone speeds.

 

[grauhanen]

Yap yap yap... Show me 100 yard and farther groups shot with such match grade high velocity ammo that actually leaves your barrel at supersonic speeds.

You understand that longer barrels produce lower velocities right... So with that in mind, and ammo maker might be wise to produce supersonic 22lr for use in long barreled rifles with the expectation that such ammo would not actually leave the long barrel at supersonic speeds.

Yes I tried RWS100 as well and lets just say it was equally disappointing in my testing. But then again, my barrel isn't very long.

I understand this response was directed to Rabid, but since it's based on a failure to either read or understand the discussion up to this point, it attracts attention.

Regardless of barrel length, RWS R 100 won't produce MVs above the transonic zone speeds, that is above about 1340 fps. As a result, like standard velocity .22LR match ammo, it will remain within transonic zone speeds out beyond 100 yards. Like most other .22LR high velocity ammos, it never experiences accuracy robbing transonic turbulence.

RWS R 100 is a match ammo. Like all match ammos (and non-match as well) its performance will vary from lot to lot, perhaps also from rifle to rifle. Good lots of R 100, like good lots of other .22LR match ammo, will shoot very well. Some lots will perform poorly.

Earlier in your first post (#37) in this thread, you noted that ammo performance varies by lot. If your lot of RWS R100 was disappointing, it was because that particular lot didn't perform well. It's not because all R100 in general is disappointing as you suggest.

 

[lakers1138]

I thought I'd add some life experience regarding the stability of .22LR bullets as they decelerate from super-to-sub sonic speeds. BTW, I shoot ONLY SV ammo (<1100 fps MV) at 50 & 100 m.

In my military years, I flew T-38, CF-101, CF-5 and CF-18. When I sat on the wing of our formation leader and we plugged in the afterburners, it was quite noticeable aerodynamically when we went supersonic. The aircraft "bobbled". When we slowed down through the barrier to sub-sonic speeds, again the aircraft "bobbled". This also occurred in other fighter aircraft that I have flown in (F-106, F-15). Noting that such transonic forces can affect a multi-ton fighter aircraft, I have no trouble believing that a 40 grain bullet might also be affected.

Shoot SV for accuracy . . . shoot HV - if you wish - for other reasons.

 

[scourge18a]

Shoot SV for accuracy . . . shoot HV - if you wish - for other reasons.

Other reasons definitely includes gophers. Doesn't matter how far away, I'll take a Crack at em.

Thank you Lakers for your experience and service.

 

[Batboy]

Great stuff. FYI, for those with a solid (university level math, science or engineering) background in mathematics, and an interest in ballistics, I wholly recommend the authoritative book by Robert McCoy “Modern Exterior Ballistics”. It covers everything from vacuum trajectory models to six degree of freedom differential equations of motion of spin stabilized projectiles: basically the motion of projectiles is a known science and is set out in this book. It’s definitely not for everyone, but even if much of the math is out of reach there are still many insights to be had by studying it.

 

[emerson]

Great stuff. FYI, for those with a solid (university level math, science or engineering) background in mathematics, and an interest in ballistics, I wholly recommend the authoritative book by Robert McCoy “Modern Exterior Ballistics”. It covers everything from vacuum trajectory models to six degree of freedom differential equations of motion of spin stabilized projectiles: basically the motion of projectiles is a known science and is set out in this book. It’s definitely not for everyone, but even if much of the math is out of reach there are still many insights to be had by studying it.

I find Bryan Litz’s books break down the science pretty well too. I think the greatest annoyance about Rimfire ammo is it’s lack of consistency and predictability, vs centerfire amok.

 

[Buck1950]

Thanks for the book title Batboy. You're right, it looks a bit complex in detail but I'm sure there's a nugget or two for all.
BTW - I want to pass on this resource I found a couple years ago. It's a FREE PDF DOWNLOAD SITE which has thousands of titles, most of which are 'Pre-printing Rough Draft-copies' before final editing. They often have typos and are Not Final Versions. The McCoy book is there.
The site has a 'premium' membership avail, but Free downloads which are limited in quantity daily are available.
PDFDRIVE.COM is the site and there often are files in several languages, covering many topics - both fiction and Non-fiction.

 

[grauhanen]

Great stuff. FYI, for those with a solid (university level math, science or engineering) background in mathematics, and an interest in ballistics, I wholly recommend the authoritative book by Robert McCoy “Modern Exterior Ballistics”. It covers everything from vacuum trajectory models to six degree of freedom differential equations of motion of spin stabilized projectiles: basically the motion of projectiles is a known science and is set out in this book. It’s definitely not for everyone, but even if much of the math is out of reach there are still many insights to be had by studying it.

Indeed, that Robert McCoy is the same guy who wrote the 1990 report referred to earlier in this thread, "AERODYANMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CALIBER .22 LONG RIFLE MATCH AMMUNITION", available online as a pdf. Unfortunately, the book referred to above has little that's .22LR specific and it's not among the most affordable of books. No doubt many shooters would welcome an indepth and comprehensive reference work for .22LR ballistics and behaviour -- if such a book were possible -- that approaches those for centerfire ammunition and shooting.

 

[grauhanen]

Thanks for the book title Batboy. You're right, it looks a bit complex in detail but I'm sure there's a nugget or two for all.
BTW - I want to pass on this resource I found a couple years ago. It's a FREE PDF DOWNLOAD SITE which has thousands of titles, most of which are 'Pre-printing Rough Draft-copies' before final editing. They often have typos and are Not Final Versions. The McCoy book is there.
The site has a 'premium' membership avail, but Free downloads which are limited in quantity daily are available.
PDFDRIVE.COM is the site and there often are files in several languages, covering many topics - both fiction and Non-fiction.

Thanks for sharing that link, Buck1950.

 

[scourge18a]

No doubt many shooters would welcome an indepth and comprehensive reference work for .22LR ballistics and behaviour -- if such a book were possible -- that approaches those for centerfire ammunition and shooting.

Absolutely, there is definitely more literature for centerfire. I assume everyone knows about or has read some of what Litz has published. There used to be more articles posted on Bergers site too, but again it's centerfire oriented.

Thanks for the book title Batboy. You're right, it looks a bit complex in detail but I'm sure there's a nugget or two for all.
BTW - I want to pass on this resource I found a couple years ago. It's a FREE PDF DOWNLOAD SITE which has thousands of titles, most of which are 'Pre-printing Rough Draft-copies' before final editing. They often have typos and are Not Final Versions. The McCoy book is there.
The site has a 'premium' membership avail, but Free downloads which are limited in quantity daily are available.
PDFDRIVE.COM is the site and there often are files in several languages, covering many topics - both fiction and Non-fiction.

Thanks for the information, much appreciated.

 

[horseman2]

This is from a week ago. Conditions were around 2 degrees, a slight amount of wind, no rain nor snow, humidity was high.
Wind flags were out at 25, 75 and 150 but there was very little movement. With more time the wind would be scrutinized closer.
Starting with two 10-shot magazines loaded with Eley Match or Tenex Biathlon, the rounds found their way on to the backing.
The 14 shots in the scoring rings was 8"+/- and the 12 shots measured under 5". The 10 ring is about 3".
The rifle was a Cooper Montana Varminter, 8-32 x 56 Sightron scope, shot from a bench off a Harris bipod.
Once I saw the two high shots on the target, an additional adjustment was made for the final 12 shots.
Some difficulty is spotting from the rifle so a spotter would be an assist.



Yes . . . 300 yards.

 

[Maple57]

This is from a week ago. Conditions were around 2 degrees, a slight amount of wind, no rain nor snow, humidity was high.
Wind flags were out at 25, 75 and 150 but there was very little movement. With more time the wind would be scrutinized closer.
Starting with two 10-shot magazines loaded with Eley Match or Tenex Biathlon, the rounds found their way on to the backing.
The 14 shots in the scoring rings was 8"+/- and the 12 shots measured under 5". The 10 ring is about 3".
The rifle was a Cooper Montana Varminter, 8-32 x 56 Sightron scope, shot from a bench off a Harris bipod.
Once I saw the two high shots on the target, an additional adjustment was made for the final 12 shots.
Some difficulty is spotting from the rifle so a spotter would be an assist.

What distance????
300 yards?

 

[emerson]

This is from a week ago. Conditions were around 2 degrees, a slight amount of wind, no rain nor snow, humidity was high.
Wind flags were out at 25, 75 and 150 but there was very little movement. With more time the wind would be scrutinized closer.
Starting with two 10-shot magazines loaded with Eley Match or Tenex Biathlon, the rounds found their way on to the backing.
The 14 shots in the scoring rings was 8"+/- and the 12 shots measured under 5". The 10 ring is about 3".
The rifle was a Cooper Montana Varminter, 8-32 x 56 Sightron scope, shot from a bench off a Harris bipod.
Once I saw the two high shots on the target, an additional adjustment was made for the final 12 shots.
Some difficulty is spotting from the rifle so a spotter would be an assist.

Very nice. That has to be 300, because I can do better with a stock Tikka at 200 with CCISV. The vertical vs horizontal clearly illustrates the challenges around Rimfire ammunition. There are hints that a faster twist might help past 200, but not easy to prove considering the ammunition variables.

 

[grauhanen]

There are hints that a faster twist might help past 200, but not easy to prove considering the ammunition variables.

That's a very good and important point. But whether it's hints or hopeful (i.e. wishful) thinking is not clear. Perhaps more of the latter, considering the important point that it is indeed not easy to prove which, if either, standard or faster twist provides better performance.

While some posters on places such as SH have expressed opinion that faster twist helps once or only past 200, there's a very real difficulty of determining whether that's true or not.

Anecdotal reports -- the "I shot some groups at 300 with my faster twist barrel and they were better than those with my 16 twist" kind -- don't consitute reliable evidence.

Reliable evidence should be based on several important considerations.

One of them is that when shooting outdoors, conditions play a considerable role, especially with .22LR as distance increases. Unless wind is accounted for by effective and excellent reading of wind flags -- or the shooting is in the complete absence of wind (which is all the more difficult as distance increases) -- results at long range are likely to be less than reliable, reflecting as they would the whims of nature.

Between the effect of the movement of air masses between muzzle and target and the problem referred to by emerson of ammo variation (MV and otherwise), it's difficult to know how either has influenced results. It's no small wonder that ammo testing facilities never use anything other than a windless testing tunnel.

A second consideration is that sufficient information is gathered to make a reliable comparison. It's not enough to shoot a few groups from each barrel and draw a conclusion. Many groups are needed for a comparison to be statistically valid.

Even in the controlled windless conditions at 100 meters at a testing facility such as Lapua's in the U.S., it would be very difficult to determing whether a standard or faster twist barrel consistently produced better results.

Any comparison may always be one of apples to oranges because there may never be one rifle/barrel/ammo -- for either standard or faster twist -- that represents the apogee or highest standard of accuracy.

Perhaps at 100 meters in testing tunnels all that can be done to compare standard and faster twist performance is to compare aggregate results of many good rifles/barrels/twists with suitable ammo. Will one have better total average results than the other?

What's needed is reliable and data-supported information concerning which, if either, standard or faster twist barrel gives better performance. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to collect good data for .22LR performance on target as distance increases. Not including anecdotal reports or a few target groups, if anyone has dependable and reliable information please post it or provide directions to it. It would be very welcome.

 

[Biologist]

This is an article highlighting some of the inherent problems of the .22 rimfire cartridge and bullet design. There are other articles on the Intewebs which describe similar challenges and flaws.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/what-you-should-know-about-22-rimfire/

It is a product designed in the mid to late 1800's. There is a reason no modern bullet design emulates the .22 rimfire heeled bullet - it is an inferior ballistic design compared to more consistently accurate designs.

The powder often does not fully burn round to round. We see unburned or partially burned flakes or particles of powder when cleaning. Those who have tested muzzle velocities with chronographs see huge ES and SD, indicating a highly affected light 40gr bullet trajectory, especially since it is spinning relatively slowly.

We are well aware of the factory's manufacturing difficulty in ensuring the exact amount of primer and lack of perfect symmetry of primer compound in the rim. To this day its is a manufacturing challenge and essentially inconsistent, as evidenced by the tunnel testing facilities where even the best ammo ever made is still proven inconsistent lot to lot, and sometimes within a lot with the fliers.

By design, or accident, the .22LR cartridge and bullet seem to max out for consistent accuracy at about 50m/yards. Beyond that, there appear to be random effects on bullet flight that open up groups very wide. Add wind that is variable and groups are very big, which is just the reality of light slow projectiles being pushed around by swirling wind.

At 50m/yards, matches are won and lost on ammo inconsistency within the same lot. We have all experienced the rounds that drop like a stone down into the 8 or 7 ring when the recoil in the reticle recoil indicated it should have been a 10 ring hit. And we see the screamer round that shoots high into the upper 8 or 7 ring, again with the recoil of the reticle indicating that was impossible, but yet it happened. This round to round inconsistency and the geometry of angles just magnifies the spread with distance beyond 50m.

But I hypothesize that the target spread we see at longer ranges is more than just trajectory from angles from the muzzle. I hypothesize that the .22 LR bullet suffers from poor aerodynamics and therefore what we see at distance is a sort of knuckle ball effect at increasing distance - there are random erratic movements of the bullet in flight because of the crudeness of its design, with its huge cannelure rings and blunt stubby shape, soft nose sometimes with micro nicks and dents, gobs of lube, heeled end, and the concave rear end.

Hypothesis: Basically the .22LR bullet aerodynamically sucks beyond 50m, and the cartridge design by accident prevents factory manufacturing consistency for tight ES and SD.

But we love it anyway.