100M/YD 22LR 10 rnd groups
- Thread starter emerson
- Start date
Ditto: Really great 100 shooting R and G!
I have a theory on training grade ammo consistency, like in the $8-$10 per box SK ammo that I use. There is a bad round frequency about 1 or 2 rounds per box of 50, causing bizarre fliers. Because of this almost certain frequency of bad rounds, I wonder why competition rules do not allow extra rounds per target, where a percentage of fliers can be ignored for the final score? (In Rimfire we have no control over the ammo consistency).
e.g. in a typical 25 round match, the shooter can shoot 27 rounds, and cancel out the 2 worst rounds for score.
e.g. in a group competition, shooters can shoot 6-round groups and measure 5 round group size, or 11 rounds for a 10-round groups size, eliminating the outer-most hole.
Background to above rationale:
Typical scenario: I will be shooting a club score target (single shots per 25 bulls) in perfect zero wind morning conditions (like I was this morning at my 50m range), and on track for a perfect 25 rd 250 score. Its only going to be a matter of how many X rings I hit...and then the heart-breaker 9 or 8 ring flier happens almost every fricken time to ruin the perfect score. And the flier is always bizarre, way way way outside the variation of all the other rounds. This commonly happens with my fellow shooters too.
This is bench rest shooting, single shot, slow pace, no wind and with flags out to make sure shots are taken with no visible breeze, and using a superb target rifle and 45x scope. These bizarre flier's POI do not line up with the reticle after recoil. The POI appears unexplainable and in no relation to the rifle's recoil path.
Anyways, I wonder if for training grade ammo, in group shooting we should allow for elimination of the outer hole, for 6-round groups or 11 round groups?
If we look at Grauhanen's post #138, top right target, that one high flier looks completely out of character with the rest of the group. G shows that he and his rifle at 100 can shoot consistent tight sub 1 inch groups on the other targets. That top right flier is windage-wise close to the center of the group. I bet that cartridge had a little extra primer or powder, or something wrong with the bullet that made it climb like that. If that flier could be nixed, that top right group would be sub 1 inch and very similar to the others. I bet that was a faulty round, not the shooter's fault.
I see the same from my cheap-ish ammo too. CRPS steel targets tend to be taller than they are wide. I’m guessing your thoughts are the rationale behind that.
Without the flier referred to above, that top right group measures .687". Had that errant shot stayed within the boundaries of the the nine other shots, the overall three group average would have been .725" -- which seems good for ten-shot groups at 100.
But I think that flier is ammo-related and not caused by wind. Why? It's been observed with this same ammo in a previous target shown in this thread in post #122. I'll reproduce the target below with the pertinent information added.
The morning of August 4, when the target below was shot, was as calm as can be. That was one of the main reasons I decided to shoot then at 100. The group at the bottom right was marred by what I will call a "potential flier". Despite the flier, the group was a respectable .728". While the overall 10-shot group size is still quite reasonable at .728", when the potential flier is disregarded the nine shots below it produced a .403" group.
The outlier (potential flier) is ammo-related. This is Center X, a "match" ammo. Similar results occur with the best shooting lots of Midas + I have. Unfortunately, they appear in the ammo with a frequency that will deny the best results that a rifle can produce. It's one of the key reasons why, despite there being good rifles in the hands of good shooters, we don't see more entries in the "1/4" Club" of the 50 yard challenge thread. Success in the 1/4" Club demands a minimum of 25 consecutive very, very consistent rounds, and that doesn't occur often enough with the ammo available.
The nine rounds that produced the .403" group were very consistent indeed. But the outlier was simply less consistent. The 50 rounds in a typical box of the best lots of Center X and Midas + that I've had can produce some excellent results at 50 and, as I see now, at 100. But I think it's rare that all 50 rounds will be as consistent as the best among them.
I have an idea about much of the match ammo that's available in Canada, but this doesn't seem the place for it.
A couple of small ten-shot groups at 100. One was .426" and the other .523". I was a bit surprised.
It's too bad they both didn't occur on the same target. These results, and the rest, even the bottom right bull on the first target, are not surprising based on this lot of Midas + performance at half the distance. M+ tends to get more groups in the .1's and .2's at that distance than most Center X, and so should deliver some good results at 100, but it always seems to throw what appear to be errant shots. They show up more obviously at 100.
Compared to the other groups, the outlier in the bottom right bull of the first target doesn't necessarily seem so out-of-place. If thirty rounds were shot at one bull at 100 yards the group would be much less impressive because it would contain each POI that occurs. This is probably not an unusual result with many of the lots of top tier match ammo available to most shooters.
It may be that there are three kinds of .22LR match ammo. First is the ammo that serious competitors often call killer ammo. It shoots with great consistency from one target to the next. It will shoot well in many barrels. This is the ammo that wins BR competitions.
Second is the opposite of the first. It's the kind no one likes because it simply doesn't shoot well. It's ammo that for one reason or other is almost always inconsistent. It probably doesn't shoot well in most barrels.
The third is the kind that we use most often. It can produce some very good results. But it doesn't always do that for us. Sometimes, when everything under the sun lines up in a certain way, for one reason or another it just works as we like and gives us good targets. Other times, however, it is inconsistent. Sometimes only a few rounds are inconsistent, enough to ruin a target. Sometimes a half-box or whole box of this kind of ammo just won't shoot.
I suspect that in the small Canadian market, few if any killer lots make it to our shores and fewer still to average consumers. The superlative lots are simply rarely available to us. The lots that shoot poorly may be a little more numerous, but it's unlikely that there are many of them. They do occur. I had a case of a lot of CX that was a surprisingly poor performer in four different Anschutz rifles. The dealer didn't hesitate to take it back and send me a different lot when it became available. Most of the lots of top match ammo will produce very good results, but they will have too many "errant" shots to be predictably consistent.
It's too bad they both didn't occur on the same target. These results, and the rest, even the bottom right bull on the first target, are not surprising based on this lot of Midas + performance at half the distance. M+ tends to get more groups in the .1's and .2's at that distance than most Center X, and so should deliver some good results at 100, but it always seems to throw what appear to be errant shots. They show up more obviously at 100.
Compared to the other groups, the outlier in the bottom right bull of the first target doesn't necessarily seem so out-of-place. If thirty rounds were shot at one bull at 100 yards the group would be much less impressive because it would contain each POI that occurs. This is probably not an unusual result with many of the lots of top tier match ammo available to most shooters.
It may be that there are three kinds of .22LR match ammo. First is the ammo that serious competitors often call killer ammo. It shoots with great consistency from one target to the next. It will shoot well in many barrels. This is the ammo that wins BR competitions.
Second is the opposite of the first. It's the kind no one likes because it simply doesn't shoot well. It's ammo that for one reason or other is almost always inconsistent. It probably doesn't shoot well in most barrels.
The third is the kind that we use most often. It can produce some very good results. But it doesn't always do that for us. Sometimes, when everything under the sun lines up in a certain way, for one reason or another it just works as we like and gives us good targets. Other times, however, it is inconsistent. Sometimes only a few rounds are inconsistent, enough to ruin a target. Sometimes a half-box or whole box of this kind of ammo just won't shoot.
I suspect that in the small Canadian market, few if any killer lots make it to our shores and fewer still to average consumers. The superlative lots are simply rarely available to us. The lots that shoot poorly may be a little more numerous, but it's unlikely that there are many of them. They do occur. I had a case of a lot of CX that was a surprisingly poor performer in four different Anschutz rifles. The dealer didn't hesitate to take it back and send me a different lot when it became available. Most of the lots of top match ammo will produce very good results, but they will have too many "errant" shots to be predictably consistent.
Last edited:
A couple excellent groups there, a real thrill to do that at 100 yards with a .22, eh? I agree with your observations about ammo consistency, it is our achilles heel. One has to wonder, what would it take on the manufacturing side of things to improve the consistency? It seems they just strive to make it good enough to cut the 10 ring on olympic targets. If some lots turn out better it's a happy accident, if some lots don't make the grade... simply repackage as a lower cost brand. The Benchrest market even seems to be ignored by the ammo makers, they are forced to constantly test lots to find something suitable rather than having a product made to the standards they demand readily available.
How do we make it possible to handload .22LR ourselves?
How do we make it possible to handload .22LR ourselves?
love the 40x nice shooting
I am more and more liking the idea that for rimfire matches, and with new optical scanning technology that can measure groups, that we should use a statistical method for group scoring of inner density, and not total group. The computer software can easily calculate percentiles which would net out the outermost flier(s), and measure diameter density of the dominant proportion of the group. That proportion can be defined by the match, and the software could easily be programed to output those numbers.
For example, group size could be measured to the 90th percentile. That is not necessarily netting out 1 flier. Instead that is measuring 90% of the group diameter. The downside of this method is that the really crazy flier stretches out the diameter and penalizes the rest of the inner tight group. But the match designer could choose 80% or whatever they want to make it fair for the quality of ammo used by some participants.
Maybe a better diameter proportion for groups is 75th or 80th percentile for 10-shot groups. I recall a post that posted an ammo testing table showing a 65% inner group diameter proportion.
I have shot many thousands of rounds at 50m, in very low to no wind, using a Sightron 45x45 scope where the slightest movement of the reticle (rifle) can be seen, and recoil path in the reticle can be seen, using good benchrest front rest and rear bag. Bad shots by the shooter can be seen (e.g. bad trigger pull), but it soon becomes quite apparent that errant fliers have no resemblance to recoil path - in other words those crazy fliers can be seen to be the ammo, not the shooter. It is a real shame when good groups or good score is ruined by a bad round or two.
The proportion or percentile electronic method of measuring might be able to statistically nullify the effect of most or all of the bad ammo fliers, and reflect the true skill of the shooter and true precision of the rifle, assuming half decent ammo to begin with.
I do not use the new digital group measuring tools like Ballistic X app for mobile phones. Does it have an option for percentile scores with user-defined percentiles?
Skwerl: I hear you for the 5-shot group. 6 for 5 might be too much, I think you are right. I think the 90th or 80th percentile method for 5-round groups would be fair because it does not net out rounds - rather it nets down the total diameter based on the density of 90% or 80% of the diameter those rounds produced.
For example, group size could be measured to the 90th percentile. That is not necessarily netting out 1 flier. Instead that is measuring 90% of the group diameter. The downside of this method is that the really crazy flier stretches out the diameter and penalizes the rest of the inner tight group. But the match designer could choose 80% or whatever they want to make it fair for the quality of ammo used by some participants.
Maybe a better diameter proportion for groups is 75th or 80th percentile for 10-shot groups. I recall a post that posted an ammo testing table showing a 65% inner group diameter proportion.
I have shot many thousands of rounds at 50m, in very low to no wind, using a Sightron 45x45 scope where the slightest movement of the reticle (rifle) can be seen, and recoil path in the reticle can be seen, using good benchrest front rest and rear bag. Bad shots by the shooter can be seen (e.g. bad trigger pull), but it soon becomes quite apparent that errant fliers have no resemblance to recoil path - in other words those crazy fliers can be seen to be the ammo, not the shooter. It is a real shame when good groups or good score is ruined by a bad round or two.
The proportion or percentile electronic method of measuring might be able to statistically nullify the effect of most or all of the bad ammo fliers, and reflect the true skill of the shooter and true precision of the rifle, assuming half decent ammo to begin with.
I do not use the new digital group measuring tools like Ballistic X app for mobile phones. Does it have an option for percentile scores with user-defined percentiles?
Skwerl: I hear you for the 5-shot group. 6 for 5 might be too much, I think you are right. I think the 90th or 80th percentile method for 5-round groups would be fair because it does not net out rounds - rather it nets down the total diameter based on the density of 90% or 80% of the diameter those rounds produced.
Like a co-worker was telling of his five marriages . . . well actually four because he married the same woman twice . . . actually they weren't married the first time as they were both divorced so the priest only blessed them . . . since then he got married again!
Now the question arrises . . . why not give everyone a 20% reduction?
The old bumper sticker "Gas Grass and ass . . . Nobody rides for free".
Now the question arrises . . . why not give everyone a 20% reduction?
The old bumper sticker "Gas Grass and ass . . . Nobody rides for free".
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
Tried group shooting with 22LR years back and the inconsistency took the fun away... and I didn't have the budget back then to try and chase it. My solution then as it is now, change the goals and target to suit the system you are using.
today, rimfire PRS works just fine with the ammo and its quirks.... or score shooting which is a hoot on a windy day
I am sure you are aware of the definition of insanity... and it gets real expensive chasing ghosts.
Clanging steel or driving them to the center seems like a far less stressful journey..
YMMV
Jerry
Yes I am with you on that. Clanging steel in rimfire PRS looks like alot of fun. No PRS ranges within many hundreds of kms. My local range does not have any PRS set up, and its current rules do not allow it. Its an old fashioned range with benches and firing lines for benchrest, and that's the way it is. Maybe one day, we are talking about it, folks are seeing cool videos of other ranges in my province running successful rimfire PRS events. But some folks in our club don't know what PRS is and it takes a long time to change tradition. (lots of questions about what the Ontario CFO will allow or quash regarding barriers/bunkers around steel targets - currently our range rules will not allow what we are seeing on YouTube PRS events for how steel targets are used outside of bunkers....something we hope to change).
Biologist and sqwerl, for those with who are comfortable with technology and software, there may be a relatively simple solution to the problem that you want to solve. It's measuring average to center or group mean radius.
ATC (Average to Center) measurement allows a shooter to distinguish between two groups that may have the same Center to Center measurement but are otherwise qualitatively different. In brief, it measures the average distance of the shots in the group from the group's center.
As an example, two CTC groups are 1". One has it's shots distributed throughout the 1" diameter limits of the group's size, the other has all shots in a 1" diameter group, but 9 are in a consistent .75" group with one shot outside that group enough to make the entire group 1" in CTC size. Both groups are X" CTC, but both are qualitatively different.
Looking at the target below, the top right and bottom right groups are almost identical in size (respectively, .963" and .944" CTC). But each is qualitatively different than the other.
How to measure ATC? One solution is to use a readily available target evaluation program such as the OnTarget software. It's not be for smartphones and will require a Windows operating system. OnTarget, which has been around for nearly ten years, allows shooters to use a photo or a scan of a target with the program. The size of the target and distance shot are among the information that needs to be inputted. The user plots each shot individually on the program, and the program calculates not only CTC but also ATC.
Below is an image taken from one of the OnTarget threads on RFC. It compares CTC and ATC with a summary of the salient differences and advantages of ATC measurements over CTC. See h t t p s://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=512993
There are two versions of OnTarget available for download. One is the basic version which calculates group center, maximum group spread (CTC), group mean radius, group width and height, and group offset from point of aim. The other is more sophisticated.
For a general introduction to using the OnTarget software, see h t t p s://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=513106
ATC (Average to Center) measurement allows a shooter to distinguish between two groups that may have the same Center to Center measurement but are otherwise qualitatively different. In brief, it measures the average distance of the shots in the group from the group's center.
As an example, two CTC groups are 1". One has it's shots distributed throughout the 1" diameter limits of the group's size, the other has all shots in a 1" diameter group, but 9 are in a consistent .75" group with one shot outside that group enough to make the entire group 1" in CTC size. Both groups are X" CTC, but both are qualitatively different.
Looking at the target below, the top right and bottom right groups are almost identical in size (respectively, .963" and .944" CTC). But each is qualitatively different than the other.
How to measure ATC? One solution is to use a readily available target evaluation program such as the OnTarget software. It's not be for smartphones and will require a Windows operating system. OnTarget, which has been around for nearly ten years, allows shooters to use a photo or a scan of a target with the program. The size of the target and distance shot are among the information that needs to be inputted. The user plots each shot individually on the program, and the program calculates not only CTC but also ATC.
Below is an image taken from one of the OnTarget threads on RFC. It compares CTC and ATC with a summary of the salient differences and advantages of ATC measurements over CTC. See h t t p s://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=512993
There are two versions of OnTarget available for download. One is the basic version which calculates group center, maximum group spread (CTC), group mean radius, group width and height, and group offset from point of aim. The other is more sophisticated.
For a general introduction to using the OnTarget software, see h t t p s://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=513106
Thanks, Myke. I was surprised and thrilled.
As many readers know, the manufacture of quantities of the best shooting .22LR match ammo is a complex process. I don't know if the manufacturers purposefully produce less than perfect ammo. As speculation, it's possible that what comes as close to perfection in .22LR match ammo requires a long production run of many lots of, say Eley Tenex and Eley Match or Lapua X-Act and Midas +, to produce one or only a few lots of what is truly "killer" ammo, ammo that's as consistent as has been ever produced and shoots well in many barrels. It's very difficult to produce large quantities of .22LR match ammo that is near perfect.
As for handloading .22LR at home in general, I remain sceptical that it is going to be practical. There are too many difficulties to overcome with reloading this ammo. While some manufacturers such as Cutting Edge are providing home .22LR reloaders kits that include dies, pre-primed casings, and monolithic bullets, these don't appear likely to challenge current .22LR match ammo in two important ways, price and accuracy. Currently available only south of the border, CE provides reloaders with 200 pre-primed casings and bullets for $70 (not including the necessary dies, taxes, or shipping). That works out to $17.50 for a box of 50 rounds that are using CCI-produced pre-primed casings, which are not usually considered of a quality comparable to that used by the match ammo makers in their .22LR match ammo. Whether home reloaders of putative match quality .22LR ammo can produce quantities that have match ammo consistency of primer crimp, bullet seating depth and concentricity seems questionable.
As inconsistent as much of .22LR match ammo is, it is doubtful that home reloading is the solution to replace it now or in the near future.
Last edited:
Biologist and sqwerl, for those with who are comfortable with technology and software, there may be a relatively simple solution to the problem that you want to solve. It's measuring average to center or group mean radius.
ATC (Average to Center) measurement allows a shooter to distinguish between two groups that may have the same Center to Center measurement but are otherwise qualitatively different. In brief, it measures the average distance of the shots in the group from the group's center.
As an example, two CTC groups are 1". One has it's shots distributed throughout the 1" diameter limits of the group's size, the other has all shots in a 1" diameter group, but 9 are in a consistent .75" group with one shot outside that group enough to make the entire group 1" in CTC size. Both groups are X" CTC, but both are qualitatively different.
Looking at the target below, the top right and bottom right groups are almost identical in size (respectively, .963" and .944" CTC). But each is qualitatively different than the other.
How to measure ATC? One solution is to use a readily available target evaluation program such as the OnTarget software. It's not be for smartphones and will require a Windows operating system. OnTarget, which has been around for nearly ten years, allows shooters to use a photo or a scan of a target with the program. The size of the target and distance shot are among the information that needs to be inputted. The user plots each shot individually on the program, and the program calculates not only CTC but also ATC.
Below is an image taken from one of the OnTarget threads on RFC. It compares CTC and ATC with a summary of the salient differences and advantages of ATC measurements over CTC. See h t t p s://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=512993
There are two versions of OnTarget available for download. One is the basic version which calculates group center, maximum group spread (CTC), group mean radius, group width and height, and group offset from point of aim. The other is more sophisticated.
For a general introduction to using the OnTarget software, see h t t p s://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=513106
Thanks Grauhanen! That OnTarget looks really cool, and similar to what I was imagining for the computer program. I guess I am about 10 years behind the times! I will look into that OnTarget software.
- Location
- Nova Scotia
Well I tried to get out today with just my Cooey. +30 and humid. Tightest group was only 3.1"
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
Give score shooting a try... same target, just try and put them all in the 10 ring. And because you are dealing with scoring rings, an errant shot may still hit the ring or fall into a ring with a good score while being physically 'far' from the core group.
Off my printer, the 10 ring is around 1" which is the accuracy goal that I would like to extract from my rifle/ammo combo. The reality is the aggregate pattern is bigger.. when you include ALL shots. By shooting score, those outliers are captured by the 9 ring or maybe a squeaker 10. The job is to figure out the conditions to center the group core so the highest number of shots hit that 10 ring.
Same process as LR F class.... and you can do this at your range now.... even when the wind blows.
Jerry
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
the target sizes vary ALOT from match to match, stage to stage. Best thing is try and find courses of fire from previous matches in your area as they will indicate target size vs distance.
In general, the targets are physically big vs the distance... ie at 100yds, you might face 2" to 4" targets... at 300yds, likely a full size IPSC target.... and everything in between.
If you are competing in NRL style matches which typically go out to 100yds, you can face some real small targets at close ranges... but that is within the performance of most combos that would be considered competitive.
For LR PRS like CRPS or BCPRL, you can reach to 425m so it takes a different level of tech to help that little slug reach out that far. Consistency with a stable cone of accuracy at distance is far more important then itty bitty at 50m and then 'where did it go' at 300.
The hard part in PRS is figuring out how to get stable enough off the props to deliver those shots while on the clock.... if the event had no wind, and all shots done from prone, the current tech would allow a shooter to hit pretty close to 100% of the targets at all distances.
Why I feel this game has exploded in NA... it is fun, it is achievable, and the limiting factor is not the tech that is available today.
Jerry
