Which .22LR shoots better? How can you know?

G

grauhanen

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
GunNutz
Rating - 100%
178   0   0
Location
Northeastern Ontario
To start let me say that I don't know if there's an answer to this hypothetical question.

In this imaginary situation, there are more than one .22LR rifles, all of them known good shooters such as Vudoo, RimX, Anschutz etc. Is it possible to figure out if one of them shoots better than the others?

Is there a reliable way to answer the question?

_________________________

One theoretical solution, not possible in Canada, would be to compare them with a variety of ammos in an ammo testing facility. There is no wind in the tunnels to affect comparisons. The fixture or vise used on the rifle or barreled action would seem to eliminate shooter influence from the results. Different lots can be tested in each rifle. With enough testing one rifle may stand out above than the others.

An alternative would be to shoot them all at 50 yards or 100 or more and use the results to get an answer. When the rifles are all "good shooters," does this give a clear answer? Are conditions the same when different rifles are tested? Is the ammo equally consistent for all testing?
 
I think the only way of knowing is a indoor ammo testing facility gun jig. Same lot brand, same ranges and then all lined up in a row being tested.

If not It's like butt dyno for cars. You feel or think there is an improvement, when there might not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JJO
I wonder if it really makes a difference on the action at all? Is it more in the tolerances of a specific barrel and ammo selection? Not that the action doesn't matter, but I wonder if the specific brand of high end action is just splitting hairs as far as accuracy is concerned?
 
I would say you would need to have the rifles in hand with the same model of scope on each and several thousands of the same lot number of known quality ammo and start shooting, eventually narrowing it down with that particular ammo. Now do that all over with a different ammo, repeat as necessary.
 
Is it possible to figure out if one of them shoots better than the others?
in a particular shooters hands with a particular set-up under particular conditions, I'd say yes
but if everything is generalized, then no, too many variables
 
Well what if theyre all shot out of a machine rest removing human error in an indoor climate controlled tunnel like Lapua and Eley have. Then the harmonics might be changed when held by a human and with the poor performance of almost all rimfire ammo the everyday person gets access too, Im saying YES and NOOOOH! X2 with Boxhitch. Have a new Vudoo en route so Ill be having some experimenting coming forth in the next little bit and hopefully some of the ammo I have will be a good lot for the new pipe.
 
guntech said:
I would say you would need to have the rifles in hand with the same model of scope on each and several thousands of the same lot number of known quality ammo and start shooting, eventually narrowing it down with that particular ammo. Now do that all over with a different ammo, repeat as necessary.
Click to expand...

The need for as much data as possible is understandable. Why would the same model of scope be necessary for each rifle tested?
 
One would want to 'eliminate' as many variables as possible - so the same model scope (ignoring 'mass-production' variances inherent); same ammo; same weather (or lack thereof); - and even then you are not able to make a 'General statement about a 'Brand of gun', just that particular rifle. There are many instances of a 'low-cost' rifle out-shooting an 'High-priced model. I have a rifle that shoots better than another that cost 5X $$ - but that also depends on the weather, ammo, scope . . . and my coffee level.
 
A chunk of it will be ergonomics. The gun that just fits when you shoulder it (or try whichever shooting positions are relevant in the discipline you're contesting) is going to shoot better than something that theoretically would be better based on results clamped in a vise or in someone else's hands.
 
If we are looking at inherent accuracy, we know its the match between ammo brand lot that matters most


I think the more interesting and useful question is wjat manufacturers are the most consistent in their quality control so that if bob says his anchutz xyz shoots ammo 123 very well, then my anchutz of the same male model will also shoot that same ammo well.

Once you find the match, you are gold.

Variations in lot, barrel harmonics, chamber cut etc can mean one is a.tac driver with lot ex and the next rifle off the line with the same lot is average.

But maybe thats just magical thinking
 
To be fair, when it comes to putting results on target, does the rifle itself care about ergonomics or what scope is on it?

A rifle's accuracy performance potential would seem to depend on the barreled action first and foremost. The other stuff -- stock or chassis, front rest or bipod, choice of scope -- is chosen by the shooter. He can change them if they are not satisfactory. He can't really change the barreled action. In fact, at the ammo testing facilities, the barreled action only is usually tested, with or without a scope. (Let's not introduce tuners here so as to keep things simple.)

In any case, the comparison is of rifles that people are regularly shooting -- Vudoo, RimX, Anschutz etc. Those who are serious and experienced are shooting them well.

With scopes that are appropriate, is there any evidence that shooters get better results with certain scopes but not with others? Is there any evidence that, when fit is appropriate, some shooters may thrive with a Vudoo, for example, but can't shoot a RimX (or vice versa)?

To make things more straightforward, let's make the comparison between two or more rifles of the same model each with an appropriate scope. No ergonomic differences, no scope advantages/disadvantages.

Is it possible to figure out which one shoots better?
 
As for scope. Thinner crosshair will be better for target than a thick one. If we are dealing with the same target.

Glenn I think the only way to accurately tell which is better is mounting them into a lead sled or a device to take most of human interaction out of it.
 
guntech said:
So the only difference being tested is the rifle...
Click to expand...

Are there reasons why a good .22LR rifle with a good and appropriate scope will give different results with another good and appropriate scope.

In other words, with a benchrest rifle will swapping good and appropriate benchrest scopes such as a Weaver T36 with a B&L 36X or a Leupold 36X or a Sightron 36X cause the rifle to perform differently? The same goes for a rimfire PRS rifle with good rimfire PRS-suitable scopes.

It seems unlikely. Scopes can be very much alike.

The goal here is to see if a shooter can figure out which of his rifles shoots better than the others. Let's keep things as reasonably simple and equal as possible -- good rifles, good scopes, good rests/bipods, good ammo.

How can a shooter find out which of his rifles -- whether they are the same model or different makes -- shoots better?
 
A more significant variable than scopes is the ammo. Even match ammo has enough variation that no two boxes are the same, even within the same lot.

The result of this is that, as guntech suggested in post #4, it's necessary to shoot a lot of ammo, thousands of rounds. Only after shooting a lot of rounds is it possible to accumulate statistically sufficient data to be able to reach any meaningful conclusions about which rifle shoots better.

In the past, more often than I care to remember, I assessed the performance of a rifle with insufficient information. I recall thinking that "I'm shooting Midas + and this rifle doesn't shoot". That was a mistake.

Unfortunately, too often the top tier ammos we seem to get is not very consistent. The result is that any reliable rifle assessments must be based on a considerable amount of testing.

The ammo itself should not be considered as a consistent and reliable yardstick with which a rifle's performance can be measured. Not even if it's a top tier variety like Midas +, X-Act, or Tenex.
 
there it is....statistical significance, for more proof
like unicorn farts, it only shows what happened, not what will happen

suitable level of proof is subjective
 
grauhanen said:
Are there reasons why a good .22LR rifle with a good and appropriate scope will give different results with another good and appropriate scope.

In other words, with a benchrest rifle will swapping good and appropriate benchrest scopes such as a Weaver T36 with a B&L 36X or a Leupold 36X or a Sightron 36X cause the rifle to perform differently? The same goes for a rimfire PRS rifle with good rimfire PRS-suitable scopes.

It seems unlikely. Scopes can be very much alike.

The goal here is to see if a shooter can figure out which of his rifles shoots better than the others. Let's keep things as reasonably simple and equal as possible -- good rifles, good scopes, good rests/bipods, good ammo.

How can a shooter find out which of his rifles -- whether they are the same model or different makes -- shoots better?
Click to expand...

Shoot ten ten round groups with each gun and call it a day.
 
I think it is possible. Indoors testing facility is needed. Tunnel ( eliminating any wind ) and mechanical rest. Of course all the variables will have to be controlled ( ammo, lots etc ) but even then some variables like the fact that some barrels and chambers may get dirty easier than others implicating controlling even cleaning. SO as i say, theoretically, it is possible but does have to be conducted as seriously as a scientific lab experiment controlling all the variables ( as far as the ammo, more than using same lot but also controlling that each bullet is exactly the same size, structure and perfectly similar to the others ). So theoretically possible but not really feasible. Actually a lab physician may think of variables implied that we, guys dont even think about.
Gilbert
 
Last edited:
Subjective evidence is useful if you want to convince yourself. If it can't be verified it has limited usefulness.

There's a point about shooting enough so as to accumulate statistically significant data. With enough information, the outlier data is recognizable. Outliers skew small samples so as to make them relatively meritless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom