As I’m mostly a 50 yd shooter ( targets anyway) I’ve been testing ammo. I now have some I’m happy with, two different Lapua loads. Not sure what to expect at 100 but that’s the next step. Thanks for those hear that have added positive ideas and info.
2025 100 yard .22LR discussion thread
- Thread starter grauhanen
- Start date
A very well respected master class shooter and shooting sports rep. once told me that the result is not the goal, but the journey getting there.
Cat
No doubt a reference to a well-known English philosopher.
Shooters should try to enjoy whatever discipline they try. If it's not enjoyable, it becomes more like work.
However well you shoot, with whatever rifle and ammo, isn't the issue. All rifles and ammos will have their limitations.
Lol, my wife asked me the other day why I no longer get involved in any kind of club competitions anymore. Many years ago I was into Bullseye, Cowboy Action, Silhouette and many other types of competitive shooting. There were few things that made me smile more than knocking bowling pins off tables.
But I haven't belonged to a gun club for almost 20 years, and I think I'll get her to read this thread to explain why.
But I haven't belonged to a gun club for almost 20 years, and I think I'll get her to read this thread to explain why.
Years ago when I had a membership at an indoor range with a 45 yard rifle range. I used to shoot my BRNO .22 there a lot, trying out various match ammo. What puzzled me was that the best ammo certain days would all hit in a single ragged bug hole. Then other days same ammo, distance etc. it would not. It’s an indoor range so wind is not an issue. Same ammo, same solid bench rest but seemed like how ever the planets were lined up that particular day determined how well the accuracy was. About the only logical thing I could think of that could affect this would be changes in humidity, the place was heated so temperature was fairly consistent.
I think an often overlooked factor is that when your cross hairs are centered on the bullseye what your looking at may not be where yer lookin' ... so to speak. That is one of the more problematic potential manifestations of mirage.
Last week I'm shooting at 50 yards, ok temps, wind undetectable on the six flags I have out. I'm using my NF Comp cranked to 55X.
I am repeatedly presented by a slightly sharper 'centered' image and an ever so slightly softer image shifted right by almost an 1/8th of an inch.
To achieve the scores I need in the time I have(20mins for 40 shots) I had to hold an 1/8 inch for that mirage shift. I love this chit.
jjohnwm,
I'm a shooter since 1979....PPC , IPSC , CAS and recently, 22lr.
I was also a member of a sailing club for 15 years.
Everywhere, there are people that spoil the sport.
I just ignore them....old fart wisdom.
Grauhanen did initiate a challenge that should and will be fun.
That's all.
I'm a shooter since 1979....PPC , IPSC , CAS and recently, 22lr.
I was also a member of a sailing club for 15 years.
Everywhere, there are people that spoil the sport.
I just ignore them....old fart wisdom.
Grauhanen did initiate a challenge that should and will be fun.
That's all.
- Location
- Nova Scotia
It's doable to use the challenge target for Irons. -8 and 22 kph wind, and 40kph gusts made shooting fun. Naturally ammo didn't perform the same as it did this summer. But with the wind alone, I wasn't expecting great results. But got a base number to improve.
I just taped the challenge target to the backing. Used a pin and poked a hole in the center.of one bull. Then poked a hole in the center of the 8 inch bull target and lined up. Allowing me to pin the edges of the target. Just did that with the other 2 targets.
Last edited:
Rifle was showing some promise today.
Managed to get my best group yet minus 1 flyer.
Maybe practise is paying off. That and today’s conditions.
I haven’t cleaned the rifle since starting to attempt this.
So today after the range I cleaned it. See how it shoots next time.
Minus the flyer I managed under 1” finally.
Hoping to improve that and go 3/3
Managed to get my best group yet minus 1 flyer.
Maybe practise is paying off. That and today’s conditions.
I haven’t cleaned the rifle since starting to attempt this.
So today after the range I cleaned it. See how it shoots next time.
Minus the flyer I managed under 1” finally.
Hoping to improve that and go 3/3
Sometimes we don't do anything wrong. Nice shooting. Lots of stuff out of our control that results in bullet exits that differ. For that matter, even the BC of each bullet is different, sometimes by quite a bit. 22 LR is a tough game.
Nice shooting. Lots of stuff out of our control that results in bullet exits that differ. For that matter, even the BC of each bullet is different, sometimes by quite a bit. 22 LR is a tough game.MV variation aside, with the same brand/variety of .22LR ammo what else might accounts for different BC values?
The greater the distance the greater the potential impact of BC variation. At 50 yards it seems to have little if any influence on target. How important is it at a distance of 100 yards?
Well, they're soft lead bullets, after all. None of them survive all the various manufacturing processes without getting a little out of shape. So there's some variance in their shape right out of the box once they're in our hands. Even with Eley's optical comparisons they do in their QA. Here's some example data from the last time I was lot testing some Tenex:
1022-03228
14.75 C
29.9575 inHg
73% humidity
G1
BC standard deviation: 0.00978749261291005
Average BC = 0.13261906075984856
RA4
BC standard deviation: 0.006669047916226526
Average BC = 0.10113845004830294
1022-02294
17.5 C
29.9495 inHg
64% humidity
G1
BC standard deviation: 0.008471375836183561
Average BC = 0.13557324861225312
RA4
BC standard deviation: 0.006045275811618475
Average BC = 0.10385223388671859
1022-02296
21 C
29.9455 inHg
64% humidity
G1
BC standard deviation: 0.011361120100101697
Average BC = 0.12847710609436017
RA4
BC standard deviation: 0.007790074177904101
Average BC = 0.09906054496765121
1022-04336
23.5 C
29.938 inHg
60% humidity
G1
BC standard deviation: 0.012719435340377458
Average BC = 0.1283333104970502
RA4
BC standard deviation: 0.008988165160787376
Average BC = 0.09846845530500299
1022-06176
24.5 C
29.945 inHg
57% humidity
G1
BC standard deviation: 0.011358902750155568
Average BC = 0.12229304677432327
RA4
BC standard deviation: 0.007440265706002491
Average BC = 0.09444457693198277
There are some noticeable differences among all five lot numbers there. There's a good range of difference in their averages, as well as in their standard deviation values. It's a contributor into what we finally see on target. It's not the only thing that matters, and it certainly isn't the only thing that we see variance in, either. Those are calculated from LabRadar data using Labrabaco for both G1, which we really shouldn't be using with 22 LR but still done for curiosity's sake, as well as the RA4 model that we should use for 22 LR. That was taking care to get very good environmental data. There is no doubt that there's a difference between the different lot numbers, as well as a good deal of variance within each lot.
There's another method of getting G1 values that ignores environmental data and it seems to return numbers that really are quite far off from reality, but still aren't bad just for the sake of itself. I only mention it because it makes it easy to generate a lot of data like in this graph for a lot of different data gathered over time. Really, I only look at these ones to see the general shape of the body of data, as the numbers themselves aren't really useful for anything beyond that unless you really don't care about environmental effects, which you should.
As you can see, there's quite a spread in those 100 shots. Each shot has a bunch of data points going from left to right. Each shot's trace of points is somewhere in the vertical spread of the total graph. The data's kind of noisy, but you can still get the general idea of what's going on with all of the shots. Some are obviously better/worse than others, even if you discount some of it just because of how noisy it is. I also looked at some other ammo now and then over time and have a small comparison of those.
The rejected column is the percentage of shots that fell out of Labrabaco's acceptance range. I forget the number it uses off the top of my head at the moment, but that's just when it falls too far away from the average. (I looked it up now. It is anything beyond +/- 2x SD.) I think all the data there is all at least 100 shots, too. One thing this should tell you if you're at all familiar with some of this ammo is that BC alone doesn't tell you much about how it is likely to shoot. The S&B stuff at the bottom has the second best BC SD there, but it's garbage, hehe. Interesting to see how different it was out of my CZ 453 Varmint compared to the Win52 bench gun. I'm not quite sure what to chalk that up to. Those CZ hammer forged barrels are known to be rather tight, so maybe it was just making them more alike as a result of squishing them a bit more. I don't really know. It also has more rejected, so go figure.
So, the BC can differ quite a lot from shot to shot. And that's going to matter more out at 100 yards than it would at 50 yards. I don't think that would be something that would cause something like the flier you saw there all by itself, but it probably plays some part. That, and all the rest of the ammo variance we have to live with in 22 LR.
1022-03228
14.75 C
29.9575 inHg
73% humidity
G1
BC standard deviation: 0.00978749261291005
Average BC = 0.13261906075984856
RA4
BC standard deviation: 0.006669047916226526
Average BC = 0.10113845004830294
1022-02294
17.5 C
29.9495 inHg
64% humidity
G1
BC standard deviation: 0.008471375836183561
Average BC = 0.13557324861225312
RA4
BC standard deviation: 0.006045275811618475
Average BC = 0.10385223388671859
1022-02296
21 C
29.9455 inHg
64% humidity
G1
BC standard deviation: 0.011361120100101697
Average BC = 0.12847710609436017
RA4
BC standard deviation: 0.007790074177904101
Average BC = 0.09906054496765121
1022-04336
23.5 C
29.938 inHg
60% humidity
G1
BC standard deviation: 0.012719435340377458
Average BC = 0.1283333104970502
RA4
BC standard deviation: 0.008988165160787376
Average BC = 0.09846845530500299
1022-06176
24.5 C
29.945 inHg
57% humidity
G1
BC standard deviation: 0.011358902750155568
Average BC = 0.12229304677432327
RA4
BC standard deviation: 0.007440265706002491
Average BC = 0.09444457693198277
There are some noticeable differences among all five lot numbers there. There's a good range of difference in their averages, as well as in their standard deviation values. It's a contributor into what we finally see on target. It's not the only thing that matters, and it certainly isn't the only thing that we see variance in, either. Those are calculated from LabRadar data using Labrabaco for both G1, which we really shouldn't be using with 22 LR but still done for curiosity's sake, as well as the RA4 model that we should use for 22 LR. That was taking care to get very good environmental data. There is no doubt that there's a difference between the different lot numbers, as well as a good deal of variance within each lot.
There's another method of getting G1 values that ignores environmental data and it seems to return numbers that really are quite far off from reality, but still aren't bad just for the sake of itself. I only mention it because it makes it easy to generate a lot of data like in this graph for a lot of different data gathered over time. Really, I only look at these ones to see the general shape of the body of data, as the numbers themselves aren't really useful for anything beyond that unless you really don't care about environmental effects, which you should.
As you can see, there's quite a spread in those 100 shots. Each shot has a bunch of data points going from left to right. Each shot's trace of points is somewhere in the vertical spread of the total graph. The data's kind of noisy, but you can still get the general idea of what's going on with all of the shots. Some are obviously better/worse than others, even if you discount some of it just because of how noisy it is. I also looked at some other ammo now and then over time and have a small comparison of those.
The rejected column is the percentage of shots that fell out of Labrabaco's acceptance range. I forget the number it uses off the top of my head at the moment, but that's just when it falls too far away from the average. (I looked it up now. It is anything beyond +/- 2x SD.) I think all the data there is all at least 100 shots, too. One thing this should tell you if you're at all familiar with some of this ammo is that BC alone doesn't tell you much about how it is likely to shoot. The S&B stuff at the bottom has the second best BC SD there, but it's garbage, hehe. Interesting to see how different it was out of my CZ 453 Varmint compared to the Win52 bench gun. I'm not quite sure what to chalk that up to. Those CZ hammer forged barrels are known to be rather tight, so maybe it was just making them more alike as a result of squishing them a bit more. I don't really know. It also has more rejected, so go figure.
So, the BC can differ quite a lot from shot to shot. And that's going to matter more out at 100 yards than it would at 50 yards. I don't think that would be something that would cause something like the flier you saw there all by itself, but it probably plays some part. That, and all the rest of the ammo variance we have to live with in 22 LR.
Last edited:
If I understand what is written, .22LR BC variation occurs because the soft lead bullets do not remain in a pristine condition.
If the interested shooter typically calculates BC by determining a bullet's velocity at two known points (for example, near the muzzle and near 100 yards), this is presumably done with a chronograph capable of producing readings at the two distances or two different chronographs, one placed near each point.
What accuracy level must the chronograph(s) have when calculating the BC of a sample of rounds in order to produce accurate results. For example, what level of accuracy does a chronograph that calculates velocity at two points need to have to produce BC figures that are themselves accurate? In other words, are the velocity figures at two distances sufficiently accurate for reliable BC calculations?
_____________________________________
For the general reader, once out to 200 yards and more, BC differences are indeed become more obvious candidates for skewing results. Additionally it's important to note that BC variation will be apparent in vertical dispersion and, in windless conditions such as in a testing tunnel, will not explain the horizontal dispersion that regularly occurs.
Wind aside, for the most predictable trajectories (when MV and POI are closer to matching) it's necessary to have bullet stability. Even in a complete absence of wind or air movement, regardless of BC variation, bullet stability will depend on other factors that are beyond the control of the shooter.
That is to say, they may become slightly misshapen -- more imperfectly shaped -- due to the various stages of bullet handling, either in getting to the loading machines, while in the loading machines, in the packaging process and so on.
If the interested shooter typically calculates BC by determining a bullet's velocity at two known points (for example, near the muzzle and near 100 yards), this is presumably done with a chronograph capable of producing readings at the two distances or two different chronographs, one placed near each point.
What accuracy level must the chronograph(s) have when calculating the BC of a sample of rounds in order to produce accurate results. For example, what level of accuracy does a chronograph that calculates velocity at two points need to have to produce BC figures that are themselves accurate? In other words, are the velocity figures at two distances sufficiently accurate for reliable BC calculations?
With .22LR the further the distance, the more it will matter.
_____________________________________
For the general reader, once out to 200 yards and more, BC differences are indeed become more obvious candidates for skewing results. Additionally it's important to note that BC variation will be apparent in vertical dispersion and, in windless conditions such as in a testing tunnel, will not explain the horizontal dispersion that regularly occurs.
Wind aside, for the most predictable trajectories (when MV and POI are closer to matching) it's necessary to have bullet stability. Even in a complete absence of wind or air movement, regardless of BC variation, bullet stability will depend on other factors that are beyond the control of the shooter.
As I said, I'm using a LabRadar. The LabRadar produces distance/velocity data every 1 ms in rifle mode and every 2 ms in pistol mode, the latter being what you need to use for slower projectiles such as target 22 LR. And it produces track files such as this for every shot.
As you can see, it is not simply using two measurements. It is using multiple measurements, and the Labrabaco software uses all of the measurements to find BC values that fit the data. The scatter plot I showed above is generated from track files such as this, and contains all 100 shots from that particular test. Indeed, this spreadsheet screenshot is shot #1 from that scatter plot. As the bullet gets further away from the radio the signal to noise ratio gets worse, and there is a threshold below which it no longer trusts the data. The higher you raise that threshold the smaller your dataset gets, but it is also more trustworthy, so you make a trade-off in choosing where to put that threshold.
A signal to noise ratio threshold of 15 dB gives pretty good results and you don't see too many samples that look strange, if any. Lowering that to 12 dB gives a bit more usable data, but also shows a small amount of erratic samples that don't really make sense. Some of the samples that exist with the 12 dB cut-off but don't exist with the 15 dB cut-off start showing numbers that don't quite fit in with the rest of that bullet's flight. And that's because the lower the signal to noise ratio gets the more difficult it is to measure what's going on. The measurements start to include more error, in other words. The more you lower that threshold the longer you'll see the bullet, but this also means you are including more noise in the data. Some experimentation was needed to find a reasonably useful threshold. This is why you use more than one radio in the really accurate (read: really expensive) testing setups that use much larger antennae.
You still get pretty good data from a single, small radio like the LabRadar, but the downside is you only see the bullet for so many metres. However, there are enough datapoints while you still can see the bullet to give you reasonable results. While I've yet to try it, it should be possible to place another LabRadar unit downrange, say at the 40 m mark, if one wanted to gather useful data out to around 80 m. Since the readings begin becoming less useful somewhere around the 40-45 m mark, having another set at 40 m would allow you to extend that measuring range. Although, I'm not sure what benefit there would be since this metric is only of so much use to us. I suppose you could use such data to build a custom drag model that would be more accurate than one you'd get from just the first 40-45 m. But since the bullets seem to vary a fair bit from lot number to lot number this probably wouldn't be all that helpful since you'd have to redo it for every lot number.
As you can see, it is not simply using two measurements. It is using multiple measurements, and the Labrabaco software uses all of the measurements to find BC values that fit the data. The scatter plot I showed above is generated from track files such as this, and contains all 100 shots from that particular test. Indeed, this spreadsheet screenshot is shot #1 from that scatter plot. As the bullet gets further away from the radio the signal to noise ratio gets worse, and there is a threshold below which it no longer trusts the data. The higher you raise that threshold the smaller your dataset gets, but it is also more trustworthy, so you make a trade-off in choosing where to put that threshold.
A signal to noise ratio threshold of 15 dB gives pretty good results and you don't see too many samples that look strange, if any. Lowering that to 12 dB gives a bit more usable data, but also shows a small amount of erratic samples that don't really make sense. Some of the samples that exist with the 12 dB cut-off but don't exist with the 15 dB cut-off start showing numbers that don't quite fit in with the rest of that bullet's flight. And that's because the lower the signal to noise ratio gets the more difficult it is to measure what's going on. The measurements start to include more error, in other words. The more you lower that threshold the longer you'll see the bullet, but this also means you are including more noise in the data. Some experimentation was needed to find a reasonably useful threshold. This is why you use more than one radio in the really accurate (read: really expensive) testing setups that use much larger antennae.
You still get pretty good data from a single, small radio like the LabRadar, but the downside is you only see the bullet for so many metres. However, there are enough datapoints while you still can see the bullet to give you reasonable results. While I've yet to try it, it should be possible to place another LabRadar unit downrange, say at the 40 m mark, if one wanted to gather useful data out to around 80 m. Since the readings begin becoming less useful somewhere around the 40-45 m mark, having another set at 40 m would allow you to extend that measuring range. Although, I'm not sure what benefit there would be since this metric is only of so much use to us. I suppose you could use such data to build a custom drag model that would be more accurate than one you'd get from just the first 40-45 m. But since the bullets seem to vary a fair bit from lot number to lot number this probably wouldn't be all that helpful since you'd have to redo it for every lot number.
RE 'other factors' maybe consider "the Stowaway" s Posts #54 - and forward from here - https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/22-lr-bullet-sorting.4012117/page-3
Another 'bullet sorting' outlook.
PS - You have to 'Log In' on A-Shooter to see the 'Rotation' of his pics, that are described in his posts. Really show how cartridges can affect accuracy.
EDIT - Sorry, I had to change the link to ""Page 3".
Another 'bullet sorting' outlook.
PS - You have to 'Log In' on A-Shooter to see the 'Rotation' of his pics, that are described in his posts. Really show how cartridges can affect accuracy.
EDIT - Sorry, I had to change the link to ""Page 3".
Last edited:
