2025 100 yard .22LR discussion thread
- Thread starter grauhanen
- Start date
Wow. Did not expect my comment to spark all this.
Anyways, to add info regarding the variables surrounding my statement:
1. This was the same lot shot both days out of the same rifle
2. The rifle was cleaned between sessions (chamber scrubbed only to remove carbon ring, followed by 2-3 dry patches)
3. The target posted was shot at 100y on Feb 8. Ambient temp around 3C
4. Game day was shot at 109y (100m) on Feb 16 at a different location altogether. I did not record the ambient temperature, but it was similar or slightly colder to the week before. Wind was not a factor for this relay.
5. The same rifle was used for a 200m relay on Feb 16 (with Eley Tenex) and performed well (this relay is shot off a bipod). This setup has been far more consistent for me at 200m vs 100m.
This potentially causes more questions than answers.
I know personally I have some game day jitters. Even though it's just a friendly competition, for me there is a mental battle to be faced every time. I have shot several perfect relay scores when practicing alone, but never on game day. Some days you are completely dialed in, some days you aren't. I have also only been at this for 18-24 months. Many other shooters at our matches have been at it for decades.
At this point I do not have the equipment to monitor all the climactic/environmental variables I may face. A kestrel would provide this information, but I don't have much of a use case for it considering the cost. I can think of maybe one other bench shooter at our monthly matches would uses their kestrel regularly, but they shoot more PRS than anything. The regular winners of the 100m club matches are not using kestrels to my knowledge...
Another thing I've considered is my cleaning process. Perhaps I'm over cleaning? Am I not cleaning enough? Maybe removing the carbon ring every 200 rounds isn't necessary? Maybe I need to clean the bore itself more? I have yet to adjust any of this, as I've followed this cleaning process for a while now so I'm not changing too many things at a time.
Anyways, to add info regarding the variables surrounding my statement:
1. This was the same lot shot both days out of the same rifle
2. The rifle was cleaned between sessions (chamber scrubbed only to remove carbon ring, followed by 2-3 dry patches)
3. The target posted was shot at 100y on Feb 8. Ambient temp around 3C
4. Game day was shot at 109y (100m) on Feb 16 at a different location altogether. I did not record the ambient temperature, but it was similar or slightly colder to the week before. Wind was not a factor for this relay.
5. The same rifle was used for a 200m relay on Feb 16 (with Eley Tenex) and performed well (this relay is shot off a bipod). This setup has been far more consistent for me at 200m vs 100m.
This potentially causes more questions than answers.
I know personally I have some game day jitters. Even though it's just a friendly competition, for me there is a mental battle to be faced every time. I have shot several perfect relay scores when practicing alone, but never on game day. Some days you are completely dialed in, some days you aren't. I have also only been at this for 18-24 months. Many other shooters at our matches have been at it for decades.
At this point I do not have the equipment to monitor all the climactic/environmental variables I may face. A kestrel would provide this information, but I don't have much of a use case for it considering the cost. I can think of maybe one other bench shooter at our monthly matches would uses their kestrel regularly, but they shoot more PRS than anything. The regular winners of the 100m club matches are not using kestrels to my knowledge...
Another thing I've considered is my cleaning process. Perhaps I'm over cleaning? Am I not cleaning enough? Maybe removing the carbon ring every 200 rounds isn't necessary? Maybe I need to clean the bore itself more? I have yet to adjust any of this, as I've followed this cleaning process for a while now so I'm not changing too many things at a time.
3 degrees celsius is the problem
rimfire ammunition is very unstable at the temperature for consistent results , hence the use of polar biathlon ammo and such
I would not draw any conclusions from shooting at that temperature other than bundle up
rimfire ammunition is very unstable at the temperature for consistent results , hence the use of polar biathlon ammo and such
I would not draw any conclusions from shooting at that temperature other than bundle up
If you're shooting one day at 100 yards and it is 18 C out and you're getting pretty decent results, but then go back the next morning and it is only 2 C out when you start, and you see results that look rather poor compared to when you left the range the previous day, what changed? We just stated that the temperature changed. So what does temperature affect?
Why would some ammo seem to perform about as well regardless of temperature swings while other ammo seems to get better or fall apart in certain temperature ranges? Why would one ammo do well at 100 yards one day and not so good the next? We've discussed these things before. Some ammo is more temperature sensitive than others. Some lube, like CCI Standard Velocity, seems to work fine in the summertime but in the winter it seems like it is too hard and begins behaving more erratically as the temperatures drop. Some powder has its burn rate change more dramatically with temperature changes than others. Primer compound can also have its burn rate affected by the thermometer. All of these things affect velocity and consistency. And velocity and consistency affect the performance on target.
It should not be a mystery as to why performance on target changes when there is a noticeable change in muzzle velocity from one day to the next. Getting good performance on target is reliant on having muzzle exit timing that agrees with what that muzzle is doing at the time. When you change the muzzle exit timing there is a not insignificant chance that you're going to affect performance on target in a not insignificant way. The barrel is not unlike a tuning fork. They're both cantilevered beams. One just happens to be hollow and we happen to push bullets down that hole. Where it is in its vibration cycles when the bullets exit is of extreme importance. Bullets that are averaging 1075 fps one day and 1070 fps the next aren't necessarily going to give you the same performance on target. Any changes in velocity are going to result in changes in muzzle exit timing, and that is going to affect their launch angles, and thus their performance on target.
I recall trying to have a discussion with you previously regarding muzzle exit timing and how two rounds with the same muzzle velocity can have different impact elevations. I tried pointing out how variance in the different round components can result in different acceleration curves even when they ultimately both leave at 1075 fps. If the barrel were perfectly stiff and didn't deflect in any way at all then, yes, both 1075 fps rounds would indeed hit the same spot on target, not counting for the wind. Say we're shooting indoors for sake of the example, so we don't need to account for the wind. In that case, with the mythical perfectly stiff barrel, it wouldn't matter what the muzzle exit timing was because the barrel isn't moving in any way. So it also wouldn't matter if round 1 accelerates slightly differently than round 2 does. All that matters in that case with that unmovable barrel is muzzle velocity.
But none of us have 10-metre-diameter barrels that do not flex during firing. We've all got typical barrels which do flex during firing. And thus we do have to take that flex into account. They're vibrating in a certain pattern, and where in that pattern the bullet exits affects the launch angle. So now it does matter how both those rounds got to 1075 fps. In that previous conversation I tried several times to get you to understand that slight differences in the various components can result in acceleration curves that do not match. Not all 1075 fps rounds accelerate with the same acceleration curve. It was your contention that since they're both 1075 fps they must have had the same acceleration curve, for if they had different acceleration curves they would have different muzzle velocities. No matter how many times I tried to point out that not all powder burns the same, not all rounds have the same amount of lube, not all primer compounds ignite exactly the same, not all bullet crimps are the same tightness, all things that change how long it takes all of the powder to ultimately burn and how quickly that burning is happening from start to finish, you didn't seem to grasp that it would be possible to have differing acceleration curves if the ultimate velocity were the same. But it is indeed possible for two 1075 fps rounds to have differing acceleration curves. And it is those differing acceleration curves that make it possible for both rounds to have differing muzzle exit timing despite having the same muzzle velocity. And when they have different muzzle exit timing that means their launch angles are probably going to be different as a result. And that affects the performance on target.
Say we have two rounds that are perfectly the same in every single regard. The cases and the bullets are impossibly perfect, even down to containing precisely the same number of atoms. The lube mix is just as impossibly perfect, as is the primer compound and the powder. They both are exactly the same. If you shoot them both they will both have exactly the same acceleration curves and will leave with exactly the same muzzle velocities with exactly the same launch angles. They'll go through the same hole on the target without even making that hole the tiniest bit larger. You wouldn't be able to tell that two bullets had gone through it no matter how much you magnified it.
Now, start over with the same two impossibly alike, only this time the bullet crimp on one wasn't quite the same. It is slightly looser in that crimp, but otherwise just as identical as the first example. What happens this time? Well, with the bullet crimp being slightly looser that means it is going to leak a little bit more between the case and the bullet. That means it is going to start off burning the powder at a slightly slower rate until the brass finally expands enough to get a good seal against the barrel. Powder burn rate depends on pressure. So, with less pressure, it is going to burn more slowly at first. Once the seal with the barrel is achieved the pressure can begin rising like it normally would and the powder burn rate increases again. But during that brief period of time when there was a small amount of leakage there was a decrease in powder burn rate and it thus took a longer amount of time for the bullet to begin accelerating, and the acceleration curve was different. This will result in not only having different muzzle exit timing, but it is also going to have a different velocity. The different muzzle exit timing and the different velocity is going to mean it will hit a different spot on the target.
Now look at a third pair of bullets. Both impossibly alike again, one with a slightly worse crimp again, only this time the one with the slightly worse crimp somehow got slightly more powder. Otherwise, they're impossibly alike again. What happens this time? The one with the slightly looser crimp has slightly more leakage again, and gets off to a worse start again, but once the case seals to the barrel things can begin burning in a better fashion again. And this time we have slightly more powder than the other round. So the acceleration curve differs, but this time we have slightly more powder to gain back the velocity we lost in the last example. So this time both rounds end up with the same 1075 fps muzzle velocities. Only the loose crimp round accelerated in a different fashion. It took longer to exit as a result. So this time the velocities are the same, but the launch angles are slightly different because of the differing acceleration curves. So, again, they hit different spots on target.
I feel this last point is something not many people think about. And I think it is a large factor in people thinking that rimfire is inconsistent. When you have rounds that have the same muzzle velocity hitting different spots on target it does indeed seem like rimfire is inconsistent. And it is inconsistent. But it isn't a mystery why. Many people claim it is just dumb luck and we can't explain what is going on, and that if two rounds have the same velocity they should be hitting the same spot on target. We just need to accept that we're going to have a certain amount of fliers with rimfire and get over it and just accept it. While I agree it is just dumb luck and we will have a certain number of fliers and we have to just accept it, I don't agree that it isn't explainable. I feel what I've just said explains it rather well. Shooting guns is just a physics problem. And physics explains it rather well, from start to finish. If our calculations don't match reality it is simply because we haven't included all the proper factors yet. It's not an unsolvable problem. We just need to look more closely at it if our expectations don't match what actually happens. There's no magic factor that gives the activity a certain amount of unknowability. When expectation and reality don't match, we've overlooked something. But it is a known problem, with known factors, all of which can be calculated. That doesn't mean we can easily do something about every factor. We may not even be able to do anything about some of them. But they're not mysterious and unknown. At least, they shouldn't be. But some people are indeed overlooking one factor or another, and mistakenly attributing it to unknowable magic. There are reasons for the results we see. We may not always know those reasons, but this should be down to not being sure of the value of some factors. Throwing our hands up in the air and saying "It can't be known." isn't how we should be. We can indeed learn what the pieces are that we're currently missing. It is all knowable. We just can't do something about all of it. Some of it is out of our control.
Why would some ammo seem to perform about as well regardless of temperature swings while other ammo seems to get better or fall apart in certain temperature ranges? Why would one ammo do well at 100 yards one day and not so good the next? We've discussed these things before. Some ammo is more temperature sensitive than others. Some lube, like CCI Standard Velocity, seems to work fine in the summertime but in the winter it seems like it is too hard and begins behaving more erratically as the temperatures drop. Some powder has its burn rate change more dramatically with temperature changes than others. Primer compound can also have its burn rate affected by the thermometer. All of these things affect velocity and consistency. And velocity and consistency affect the performance on target.
It should not be a mystery as to why performance on target changes when there is a noticeable change in muzzle velocity from one day to the next. Getting good performance on target is reliant on having muzzle exit timing that agrees with what that muzzle is doing at the time. When you change the muzzle exit timing there is a not insignificant chance that you're going to affect performance on target in a not insignificant way. The barrel is not unlike a tuning fork. They're both cantilevered beams. One just happens to be hollow and we happen to push bullets down that hole. Where it is in its vibration cycles when the bullets exit is of extreme importance. Bullets that are averaging 1075 fps one day and 1070 fps the next aren't necessarily going to give you the same performance on target. Any changes in velocity are going to result in changes in muzzle exit timing, and that is going to affect their launch angles, and thus their performance on target.
I recall trying to have a discussion with you previously regarding muzzle exit timing and how two rounds with the same muzzle velocity can have different impact elevations. I tried pointing out how variance in the different round components can result in different acceleration curves even when they ultimately both leave at 1075 fps. If the barrel were perfectly stiff and didn't deflect in any way at all then, yes, both 1075 fps rounds would indeed hit the same spot on target, not counting for the wind. Say we're shooting indoors for sake of the example, so we don't need to account for the wind. In that case, with the mythical perfectly stiff barrel, it wouldn't matter what the muzzle exit timing was because the barrel isn't moving in any way. So it also wouldn't matter if round 1 accelerates slightly differently than round 2 does. All that matters in that case with that unmovable barrel is muzzle velocity.
But none of us have 10-metre-diameter barrels that do not flex during firing. We've all got typical barrels which do flex during firing. And thus we do have to take that flex into account. They're vibrating in a certain pattern, and where in that pattern the bullet exits affects the launch angle. So now it does matter how both those rounds got to 1075 fps. In that previous conversation I tried several times to get you to understand that slight differences in the various components can result in acceleration curves that do not match. Not all 1075 fps rounds accelerate with the same acceleration curve. It was your contention that since they're both 1075 fps they must have had the same acceleration curve, for if they had different acceleration curves they would have different muzzle velocities. No matter how many times I tried to point out that not all powder burns the same, not all rounds have the same amount of lube, not all primer compounds ignite exactly the same, not all bullet crimps are the same tightness, all things that change how long it takes all of the powder to ultimately burn and how quickly that burning is happening from start to finish, you didn't seem to grasp that it would be possible to have differing acceleration curves if the ultimate velocity were the same. But it is indeed possible for two 1075 fps rounds to have differing acceleration curves. And it is those differing acceleration curves that make it possible for both rounds to have differing muzzle exit timing despite having the same muzzle velocity. And when they have different muzzle exit timing that means their launch angles are probably going to be different as a result. And that affects the performance on target.
Say we have two rounds that are perfectly the same in every single regard. The cases and the bullets are impossibly perfect, even down to containing precisely the same number of atoms. The lube mix is just as impossibly perfect, as is the primer compound and the powder. They both are exactly the same. If you shoot them both they will both have exactly the same acceleration curves and will leave with exactly the same muzzle velocities with exactly the same launch angles. They'll go through the same hole on the target without even making that hole the tiniest bit larger. You wouldn't be able to tell that two bullets had gone through it no matter how much you magnified it.
Now, start over with the same two impossibly alike, only this time the bullet crimp on one wasn't quite the same. It is slightly looser in that crimp, but otherwise just as identical as the first example. What happens this time? Well, with the bullet crimp being slightly looser that means it is going to leak a little bit more between the case and the bullet. That means it is going to start off burning the powder at a slightly slower rate until the brass finally expands enough to get a good seal against the barrel. Powder burn rate depends on pressure. So, with less pressure, it is going to burn more slowly at first. Once the seal with the barrel is achieved the pressure can begin rising like it normally would and the powder burn rate increases again. But during that brief period of time when there was a small amount of leakage there was a decrease in powder burn rate and it thus took a longer amount of time for the bullet to begin accelerating, and the acceleration curve was different. This will result in not only having different muzzle exit timing, but it is also going to have a different velocity. The different muzzle exit timing and the different velocity is going to mean it will hit a different spot on the target.
Now look at a third pair of bullets. Both impossibly alike again, one with a slightly worse crimp again, only this time the one with the slightly worse crimp somehow got slightly more powder. Otherwise, they're impossibly alike again. What happens this time? The one with the slightly looser crimp has slightly more leakage again, and gets off to a worse start again, but once the case seals to the barrel things can begin burning in a better fashion again. And this time we have slightly more powder than the other round. So the acceleration curve differs, but this time we have slightly more powder to gain back the velocity we lost in the last example. So this time both rounds end up with the same 1075 fps muzzle velocities. Only the loose crimp round accelerated in a different fashion. It took longer to exit as a result. So this time the velocities are the same, but the launch angles are slightly different because of the differing acceleration curves. So, again, they hit different spots on target.
I feel this last point is something not many people think about. And I think it is a large factor in people thinking that rimfire is inconsistent. When you have rounds that have the same muzzle velocity hitting different spots on target it does indeed seem like rimfire is inconsistent. And it is inconsistent. But it isn't a mystery why. Many people claim it is just dumb luck and we can't explain what is going on, and that if two rounds have the same velocity they should be hitting the same spot on target. We just need to accept that we're going to have a certain amount of fliers with rimfire and get over it and just accept it. While I agree it is just dumb luck and we will have a certain number of fliers and we have to just accept it, I don't agree that it isn't explainable. I feel what I've just said explains it rather well. Shooting guns is just a physics problem. And physics explains it rather well, from start to finish. If our calculations don't match reality it is simply because we haven't included all the proper factors yet. It's not an unsolvable problem. We just need to look more closely at it if our expectations don't match what actually happens. There's no magic factor that gives the activity a certain amount of unknowability. When expectation and reality don't match, we've overlooked something. But it is a known problem, with known factors, all of which can be calculated. That doesn't mean we can easily do something about every factor. We may not even be able to do anything about some of them. But they're not mysterious and unknown. At least, they shouldn't be. But some people are indeed overlooking one factor or another, and mistakenly attributing it to unknowable magic. There are reasons for the results we see. We may not always know those reasons, but this should be down to not being sure of the value of some factors. Throwing our hands up in the air and saying "It can't be known." isn't how we should be. We can indeed learn what the pieces are that we're currently missing. It is all knowable. We just can't do something about all of it. Some of it is out of our control.
Last edited:
- Location
- New Brunswick
Shorty: You have my thanks. I have been involved in the shooting sport my entire adult life. I have bee active at some point in time in nearly all of the disciplines. Although I would like to think I have been a pretty attentive student in "gunology" there is still and infinite amount that can be learned. Your post took a number of things that I had an intuitive knowledge of and put them into a far more concise perspective.
You have my thanks and I know that of others as well. It is refreshing to see the knowledge base this forum has that unfortunately remains mute far too often. Your contributions are appreciated. I sincerely hope your around more often.
Regards,
dgb
You have my thanks and I know that of others as well. It is refreshing to see the knowledge base this forum has that unfortunately remains mute far too often. Your contributions are appreciated. I sincerely hope your around more often.
Regards,
dgb
You have some good questions here and I will happily share my experience. I have been at this hard for a little longer than you and I hope some of this is useful.
First recommendation ... With Winning in Mind by Lanny Basham ... my shooting bible. I didn't just read it, I read it and reread it AND built a program based on his ideas. Getting to where I am an absolutely solid behind the rifle, both mentally and physically, has been an amazing trip.
Regards gear that might help I'd consider OnTarget TDS and a hundred dollar Teslong borescope ... both items that were recommended to me when I started out. I'm not here to slam the three 10 shot groups that make up this challenge but the three extreme spreads are quite deficient in terms of being a sound basis for decisions to be made in order to improve. It is folly to form conclusions about what is happening on the basis of such statistically insignificant data. If I shoot 30 rounds I want 30 measurements and a composite group. I have learned a lot about wind and my technique from my 40 shot groups. The borescope leads to your next question cleaning.
I have confidence in my cleaning regimen as it supports my discipline ... yours may be different depending on a number of factors. That said I think I can safely say you absolutely want to avoid the formation of a carbon ring. I can't tell you the number of times things have seemed a bit off to me and I came home to see a bit of a ring building. Earlier, when I had less insight into this things could go real haywire before I clued in.
I hope this helps. We have a couple things cooking in this thread right now but I wanted to address your concerns directly. I commend Shorty for the time he has put into his posts. I know most people type faster than me but that guy definitely thinks faster than me too.
EDIT It may be worth saying more about keeping your specific discipline in mind. Shorty has already shared an aspect of his strategy in Silhouette. I shoot 50 yards prone with bipod and rear bag. Benchrest and PRS are different again. How many sighters, foulers, total number of rounds between opportunities to clean are all different. Are we just scoring hits, counting score and how important is a high X count are all considerations.
Last edited:
I am looking forward to a good shooting year. Both Cataracts have been fixed, and while I was recuperating, I did a bunch of upgrades to my rifle. So, this will be my starting point: https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/threads/100-yard-22lr-challenge.2297200/post-20350190. (I may also continuing to shoot some groups left handed, now that I know I can. LOL).
While it is inspirational to see how really dedicated shooters are doing, as Glen said, it is a competition against myself and inspires me to do better.
While it is inspirational to see how really dedicated shooters are doing, as Glen said, it is a competition against myself and inspires me to do better.
A reminder for shooters posting entries on the 100 Yard .22LR Challenge to read the requirements outlined in the instructions. (See post #1 in the Challenge thread https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/threads/100-yard-22lr-challenge.2297200/ )
All entries or results that meet the requirements are listed according to year and post number. Only qualifying entries are posted in the Challenge thread. Comments should be done by PM or put in the discussion thread.
Keep in mind that qualifying targets must must be printed on 65 lb cardstock. Photocopy paper must not be used. (Some entries did not qualify for this reason.)
All group sizes must be included in the text of the post as well as on the target picture itself with the average size. In addition, Include a picture of the largest group with a caliper showing its size as well as a picture of the rifle. All ten shots must be within the largest target circle.
The qualifying requirements have been continued since 2021, when the Challenge was first created by horseman2.
All entries or results that meet the requirements are listed according to year and post number. Only qualifying entries are posted in the Challenge thread. Comments should be done by PM or put in the discussion thread.
Keep in mind that qualifying targets must must be printed on 65 lb cardstock. Photocopy paper must not be used. (Some entries did not qualify for this reason.)
All group sizes must be included in the text of the post as well as on the target picture itself with the average size. In addition, Include a picture of the largest group with a caliper showing its size as well as a picture of the rifle. All ten shots must be within the largest target circle.
The qualifying requirements have been continued since 2021, when the Challenge was first created by horseman2.
- Location
- Nova Scotia
Post the targets even if it's not on card stock. Not like the posts can be deleted and you only get your name and a number on a main post, doesnt disprove anything because someone says it doesnt meet the requirements. It's challenge yourself.
It doesnt effect from trying and showing improvements. Go out, try and have fun.
It doesnt effect from trying and showing improvements. Go out, try and have fun.
Card stock gives positive results and produces clean holes.
Standard paper gives substandard results.
If you are satisfied with the results of card stack versus 20 lb. paper that is okay for you.
Some of the efforts measuring groups shot on 20 lb, paper are challenging and that is why card stock is highly recommended and required.
Standard paper gives substandard results.
If you are satisfied with the results of card stack versus 20 lb. paper that is okay for you.
Some of the efforts measuring groups shot on 20 lb, paper are challenging and that is why card stock is highly recommended and required.
Your location is identified as Halifax, N.S. Google says there is a Staples at 2003 Gottingen Street and another at 215 Chain Lake Drive.
Eye roll, keep sucking the fun out of your challange.
I found the paper thing quite frustrating at first; I had them printed at Staples, and they were not cheap. I bought some 65 lb card stock, and surprisingly, it works in my printer.
Warm dry day, 20 weight paper is fine IMO, humid, misty or drizzly day, not so much.
Now that I know it works in my printer, I have been printing almost all of my targets on it.
CB backing doesn't give 'clean holes' but is good for 'practice' - Staples has free shipping over $35, just buy 2-pkgs of https://www.staples.ca/products/303...-cover-paper-85-w-x-11-h-astro-white-150-pack
65 lb. cardstock isn't bad, I suppose. 
