22 Bullet Comparison

[22lr]

Perhaps you missed my huge picture on the 2nd page of this thread?

shorty, I didn't miss those pictures of yours but honestly, I cannot make sense of what is on bottom picture. Group is big, no doubt, but not that big. You sure group was measured right? Plus, your groups are taken at 50 yards, not 20yards like Epoxy's.

 

[Epoxy7]

Ever consider the 48-grain Lapua Scoremax, for the longer-range occasions?

Generally just screwing around hitting gongs at 200 yards. Thanks to the reticles on the scopes It's pretty easy . If I were shooting for groups or doing some serious shooting at these ranges then yup I'd look for a specific bullet. For just screwing around I went with cheap but effective

 

[_Shorty]

group 1 Max: 0.264"
group 2 Max: 0.261"
group 3 Max: 4.351"

Sorry, but a 4.351" group at 50 yards is absolutely HUMONGOUS and horrible. There are no technical issues with my rifle, and it is shooting groups over 4" at 50 yards. But that's just with that one brand/model/lot of ammo. It shoots most other stuff around 1/2" at that range, and seems to do best with the Eley Target Rifle and Club Xtra, shooting around 1/4" at that range. My point is that getting bad groups doesn't necessarily mean there is anything wrong with the rifle, as you state. It's entirely possible that the ammo in question just doesn't fit the chamber in that rifle very well, and that could be the cause of any horrible performance. Seeing bad results on paper doesn't necessarily mean something needs to be fixed. It's entirely possible that you just need to find different ammo, ammo that it likes. The point of showing those three pictures is that the two rifles are capable of similar performance, but that they may not get similar performance from the same ammo. The Lapua clearly shoots bad in the CZ, but it shoots just fine in the Anschutz. And the CZ shoots the Eley just fine, too, so it's just a bad mismatch of ammo and chamber in the case of the Lapua. There's nothing wrong with the rifle, it works just fine. You just have to feed it what it likes.

edit - And as for measuring groups, it's child's play with that On Target software. There is no measurement error.

shorty, I didn't miss those pictures of yours but honestly, I cannot make sense of what is on bottom picture. Group is big, no doubt, but not that big. You sure group was measured right? Plus, your groups are taken at 50 yards, not 20yards like Epoxy's.

 

[22lr]

Shorty, we need more pictures because you are trying to prove the point with picture that doesn't show 4.5" group. On that picture red lines connect to some point way down low that has no bullet hole in it. The rest of holes make horrible group but probably within 1.5" somewhere. I mean, all we know is what you show us, and picture doesn't prove your point.

I still cannot believe it is possible for excellent rifle to shoot 4.5" groups at 50 yards with target quality ammo. Providing shooter did his part of course.

 

[Fassteel]

Expensive ammo not always the best

Not true. I almost did a fire sale on my Kimber SVT because I also believed Lapua shot well in everything. When it didn't shoot Lapua worth a damn I was ready to get rid of this rifle. Turns out it loved Federal Gold medal ammo and has mediocre groups with fliers when shooting Lapua or Eley.

It really depends on the individual barrel. Some love Lapua, Eley etc. Others not so much. Some sort of .22 Voodoo trying to find the perfect ammo.

I was really looking forward to getting some Lapua to try in my Browning 52 repro rifle as I had heard so much about the accuracy that it can deliver. Bought 2 kinds ,some Super Club and Master M. What a disappointment this turned out to be, like a $100.00 a brick and all of my cheaper ammo out shot it in this rifle. I have a new CZ in a Varmint, perhaps it will like the Lapua.

I shot a lot of 22 in the past 5 years or so and I found that for the less expensive ammo the American Eagle in 38 gr delivered acceptable accuracy in most of my rimfires, Win Power points work well in all my CZ's but its getting to be over $30.00 per brick.
Then I discovered the Rem 22 Game loads, the very best in my rimfires for grouping at the range at 25 meters for an all around ammo. FS

 

[_Shorty]

There's no hole because that bullet went off the paper by the width of the fingernail on my left hand. The hole is in the cardboard, which I left at the range, obviously. The black lines I drew on the paper show where the holes are for that 5-shot group. The line for the low shot ends where the paper ends, and I had to extend the bottom of the image in order to mark the hole in OnTarget. If you want to call me a liar, good for you, I don't care. That's how it shot. I can shoot both my CZ and my Anschutz pretty decently, and I can get similar results from either one with several different kinds of ammo. But in the case of the CZ and Lapua Super Club, it will not shoot worth a damn. It doesn't fit that CZ's chamber well at all. The ammo is fine, because the Anschutz shoots it fine. You don't want to believe it, I could not possibly care less. What do I possibly have to gain by lying to you about the results? Get real.

Shorty, we need more pictures because you are trying to prove the point with picture that doesn't show 4.5" group. On that picture red lines connect to some point way down low that has no bullet hole in it. The rest of holes make horrible group but probably within 1.5" somewhere. I mean, all we know is what you show us, and picture doesn't prove your point.

I still cannot believe it is possible for excellent rifle to shoot 4.5" groups at 50 yards with target quality ammo. Providing shooter did his part of course.

 

[cyclone]

If you want to call me a liar, good for you, I don't care. That's how it shot..........What do I possibly have to gain by lying to you about the results? Get real.

I don't think anyone was calling you a liar ; I think some just wanted to see pics of the entire target(s), as oppose to "zoomed-in" photography.

But what do I know?

 

[_Shorty]

The pics show one group each because I didn't much see the point of posting humongous pictures that are insanely wide for how wide the forum web page is. I absolutely hate it when someone posts a picture that is very wide and forces everyone to scroll the entire web page to read every single line of every single post on that page, so I did not want to do the same. And I fail to see what seeing the entire target is going to change. Two targets had nice groups, one target had a scattering of holes that would embarrass a shotgun. *shrug* I really do not care one little bit if you believe it or not. I'm telling you how the various scenarios showed on the paper, and if you don't believe it, good for you. I'm not about to go out to the range with a video camera and record everything from start to finish with the targets never leaving the video frame so you know I'm not fudging results, with me measuring out the target stand for you so you know I'm not shooting closer or further away, showing you how I clean between ammos so it doesn't taint the other ammo's results, and on and on, just so you will believe it, heh. The results shown in the pictures already there on page 2 show the whole story, and you're entirely free to call BS as loudly as you like. I really don't care, and I really don't care if you want to remain ignorant on the subject of chambers and how they affect performance. They are one of the biggest, if not the biggest, factors in determining accuracy of any given rifle. Without a good chamber, a gun won't shoot worth a damn. And without ammo that fits the chamber well, it's just as bad as having a bad chamber. Have a good one.

 

[22lr]

shorty c'mon no need to get cocky. Least of all I am ignorant, I am just curious and 4.5" groups at 50 yards from reputable rifle and ammo is something I have never seen before. I was questioning your groups because there was something outside the picture - how was I supposed to know there is a hole somewhere "beyond the environment".

Again, looking at your picture. There is a group, and there is probably another hole way off somewhere (flyer). We all get flyers sometimes which are not representation of a group or accuracy of a rifle. They are only viable points when its repeatable from one group to another. Lapua with its thick waxe coat requires a little bit of shooting before it starts grouping. Especially after cleaning or after shooting another brands of ammo.

Now, walking away from Lapua saying its not good is ignorance on your part. Thinking that there is such a huge misfit of a chamber and bullet is also too presumptive. How do you know? Have you had chamber measured? Compared it to another chambers? measured bullets? Think about it

 

[_Shorty]

This wasn't clear enough for you?

One shot's off the bottom of the paper by a finger width, heh.

edit - And if it was a flyer then the ammo would have consistency problems, as that's what a flyer is. And if that were the case, it wouldn't shoot just fine and dandy in the Anschutz, which it does. And I never once said the Lapua wasn't good, so I don't know where you're pulling that from. To repeat for who-knows-how-many-times-now, the Lapua shoots great in the Anschutz. It just doesn't fit the CZ's chamber very well, or it would shoot better. It drops shots low like that with that ammo very, very often. Fire off a couple boxes of 50, 20 5-shot groups, and there will likely be quite a few dropping way lower than anyone would expect. If there were something wrong with the CZ that was causing it to shoot so poorly with the Lapua then it wouldn't shoot well with any ammo. It shoots great with lots of other ammo, and most especially Eley Target Rifle and Club Xtra. It's got pillars and has been bedded with Devcon, and really is very reliable with most ammo. It's just that Lapua that makes it look like you're shooting it while you're riding a horse. I know how to test ammo and about the need to clean between types so one's lube doesn't affect the next, and that it takes a certain amount of rounds down the tube to ensure the lube is doing its job as well as it can, and that you shouldn't examine the results before doing so, so presuming I fired off one group from a clean barrel that hadn't been fouled in yet is incorrect.

If you really have your panties in such a bunch about this, and I'm so untrustworthy that you need to see a whole target to believe me, I could go shoot an entire box or two of 5-shot groups for you with both rifles and both ammo if you want. But then, seeing as how I'm untrustworthy, why would you believe what you saw on those targets? Feel free to pop over to Vancouver Island sometime and I'll let you do the tests with the rifles and ammo in question yourself. The range is literally 4 minutes from my front door, so any time you want to come prove me wrong, it'll be a simple matter to go hit the range. Clearly I can't shoot and can't be trusted to report truthful results, so I'll await your acceptance of the invitation to come prove what a liar and crackpot I really am.

 

[Epoxy7]

I was really looking forward to getting some Lapua to try in my Browning 52 repro rifle as I had heard so much about the accuracy that it can deliver. Bought 2 kinds ,some Super Club and Master M. What a disappointment this turned out to be, like a $100.00 a brick and all of my cheaper ammo out shot it in this rifle. I have a new CZ in a Varmint, perhaps it will like the Lapua.

I shot a lot of 22 in the past 5 years or so and I found that for the less expensive ammo the American Eagle in 38 gr delivered acceptable accuracy in most of my rimfires, Win Power points work well in all my CZ's but its getting to be over $30.00 per brick.
Then I discovered the Rem 22 Game loads, the very best in my rimfires for grouping at the range at 25 meters for an all around ammo. FS

Faststeel:
My Ruger 10/22 loves Lapua.

This rifles loves it: Walther KKM

This rifle hates it: Kimber SVT

You just don't know. You have to give it a try. For the right rifle it's very good stuff.

 

[cyclone]

Originally Posted by Fassteel.....Bought 2 kinds ,some Super Club and Master M. What a disappointment this turned out to be, like a $100.00 a brick and all of my cheaper ammo out shot it in this rifle. I have a new CZ in a Varmint, perhaps it will like the Lapua.

My best advice is buy new ammo in 50-shot increments (or 100-shot increments if you're sampling CCI, et al.), if you are testing for accuracy in a given rifle. IMHO, this is the way most .22 ammo tests are conducted.

Maybe you won't agree with my opinion but...here it goes.....I think that testing .22 ammo indoors, at 20 yards is almost a waste of time. It might tell you which ammo is really terrible but if you want to do serious testing, it HAS to be done at 50 meters/yards. I know that we live in Canada and that testing outdoors is sometimes possible only 5-6 months a year but think about it: testing .22 ammo at 20 yards is about the same as developing a load for a 6PPC at...40 yards.......Paul

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I have the following questions: (1) what if you are only using iron-sights? (2) What if you do 25-yard shooting on a regular basis? (3) Dunno, I just like questions in "strings of three"...

 

[250-25X]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I have the following questions: (1) what if you are only using iron-sights?

As far as I'm concerned, I use almost exclusively iron sights, I'm a prone shooter. When I'm looking for THE magical lot, that doesn't prevent me to do the testing fom a rest, with a 36X scope or with my machine rest: I want to know what is the best ammo for my rifle by removing human factors as much as possible:

(2) What if you do 25-yard shooting on a regular basis?

Again, that's what I'm doing all winter long, I shoot indoors at 20 yards on a reduced ISSF 50 meters target. The ammunition I use during wintertime has been tested at 50 meters during the summer. My point was that an ammunition really has to be terrible not to group correctly at 20 or 25 yards. At 50 meters, it is so much easier to choose the right ammo/lot for your rifle.

(3) Dunno, I just like questions in "strings of three"...

I agree 100% with you on that one

Paul

 

[Epoxy7]

That was another point that I forgot to mention. The reduced targets. Take a look at the targets I'm using. They're for smallbore at 60 feet. The centre 10 dot is only very slightly larger than the diameter of a .22 bullet hole. If you can hit the 10 fairly frequently then the ammo is good for that rifle. Of course there will be some more fine tuning.

I was shooting the Walther KKM indoors at 20 yards yesterday. After sight in and messing around for groups I decided to do my favourite shooting. 1 shot at each bull. 10 targets in total. With Lapua Super club. 7 bullseyes. 3 on the 9 ring (2 were half on the 9 and half on the 8. Tie goes to the shooter ). May give Lapua Midas M and Elley target a try as well.

Anyways my point is that it may be easier to see the grouping at 50 but with reduced targets at 20 you can accomplish the same task. Your acceptable level of error is far less and the targets will clearly show any error.

In my case it's tough to find a day out here without wind during the summer and right now it's -10 outside. This will affect the accuracy. Plus when it drops to -30 or below (-50 on occasion) you don't want to be outside.

If you look back further in the posts you can see the targets I'm using. They show a much smaller degree of error. As a side note I haven't noticed any difference at 25 yards compared to 20 yards. Accuracy seems to be almost identical.

By the way 250-25x. Nice Laser gun!!!

 

[cyclone]

I've got to get out and do a test of the CCI CB's versus the Remington offering.

 

[22lr]

To add to 20m vs 50m range for ammo testing - I think even if target is reduced proportionally holes remain of the same size (0.22" ). That makes scoring a little questionable. It is like choosing bigger caliber handgun for cenerfire - 45 caliber holes routinely score better than 32, just because holes would reach farther ring. So, I think it really matters if ammo tested at 20 or 50. In theory of course.

Another thing is ammo that is just barely supersonic - that will be going through transonic speeds before it reaches 50 yards and will not group while grouping perfectly well at 20 yards. My 2 cents

 

[Epoxy7]

To add to 20m vs 50m range for ammo testing - I think even if target is reduced proportionally holes remain of the same size (0.22" ). That makes scoring a little questionable. It is like choosing bigger caliber handgun for cenerfire - 45 caliber holes routinely score better than 32, just because holes would reach farther ring. So, I think it really matters if ammo tested at 20 or 50. In theory of course.

Another thing is ammo that is just barely supersonic - that will be going through transonic speeds before it reaches 50 yards and will not group while grouping perfectly well at 20 yards. My 2 cents

Again look at the targets I'm using. A perfect 10 is just barely larger than a .22 round hole. You can easily see where you were off. The amount of error is far less with these targets. They are I believe Cadet or military small bore targets for 60 feet which is exactly 20 yards. Sure I'm cheating using a scope and rest but then again I'm messing around with accuracy.

I do agree that with a regular target you won't get the same feedback. Which is why I'm not using a regular target.

"The proof is in the pudding". Look at my SVT ammo test at 20 yards. The ammo that put a one hole group and shot the best out of everything I have turns out to be the same ammo that Kimber used for their 50 yard test target which grouped sub .4" at 50 yards. This seemed to validate that my methods were working.

Also keep in mind that this target is only an ammo test. The rifle wasn't sighted in for any of these rounds. It was sighted in for Lapua only. Once the rifle is sighted in going for the bullseye with 1 shot gives you fantastic feedback with regards to your shooting (you can call the ones you screwed up and the ones that were the perfect shot) plus it shows you the accuracy of your rimfire. If you can consistently hit the 10 right smack in the middle then you have a winner rifle/ammo combo. Yes it will shoot well at 25 yards and even 50 yards. 100 yards and I'd look at a different ammo choice for the reasons already posted.

Take a close look at these targets. Check out the bulls eye the fact that they are for small bore at 60 feet. These were competition/training targets. I highly recommend using them if shooting indoors at 20 yards. They work very well.

 

[22lr]

I know those targets, I use them all winter as well. I think they are more or less standard from club to club.

 

[Jefferson]

testing at 20 yards

on 6br.com a gentleman discussed that very thing and that is how he does it,

PROBLEM IS MOST OF YOU CANNOT HOLD THE GUN STEADY ENOUGH OR HAVE THE PROPER REST EQUIPMENT TO DO SO,

not being critical here just this is best left for EXPERTS

(boy that ought to get me in hot water,)

I shoot mainly centerfire BR (world team and hold records for canada and some in the usa)

If an indoor range with the use of windflags is available in the winter (to see when their fans are on) will work,

PROBLEM IS WHEN TESTING AT 20 OR 25 THE GROUP SIZES VARY SO LITTLE IT IS TOUGH TO TELL IF it is the ammo and not the gun or gun handling,

capital letters for emphasis, not yelling in internet language,

flame on

Jefferson

 

[_Shorty]

Exactly. The difference is groups between .25" and .5" at 50 yards shrink to between .125" and .25" at 25 yards. In which case do you think will be easier to see and measure differences? It's easy to shoot "one-holers" with all kinds of ammo at 25 yards. But move out to 50 yards and not all those "one-holers" will remain as tightly grouped. It should be fairly easy to differentiate .3" groups and .4" groups at 50 yards. But at 25 yards you'll have a harder time with .15" and .2" groups, and telling what was due to ammo and what was due to you. 50 yards magnifies differences. Magnifying differences makes it easier to determine the degree of difference. Not to mention, good groups at short distances don't always relate to good groups of relative size at longer distances. Ask any silhouette shooter, who tests all his ammo at 40m, 60m, 77m, and 100m, and not just one distance. Ammo that looks similar, if not the same, at 40m and 60m can reveal big differences once you get out to 77m and 100m.