You suggest trying for ammo with an ES less than 15 fps. Do you have suggestions about ammos for that?
.22 lr ELR ammo... this is going to be interesting.
- Thread starter The ROC
- Start date
You suggest trying for ammo with an ES less than 15 fps. Do you have suggestions about ammos for that?
I'll give you 24 hrs to rescind your comments and apologize before I annihilate what little credibility you have left on these forums.
As an aside, care to fly me down to witness you shoot a 50 round group at 300 yards that betters my 200 yard results? 100 G's on the line for that, big shot. I'm good for the money, can you put it where your mouth is?
If we are to examine these targets objectively, we can see that you are not exactly just lobbing them in there. Your accuracy in these pics are nothing to write home about (I've done better at 300 yards.) but they do illustrate a point.
I've said it before and I will say it again... Holding 1 MOA laterally out to 300+ yards is not unreasonable with a 22LR.
Holding 1 MOA vertically is more of a challenge if not impossible due to velocity fluctuation, but you can factor in the vertical effect of speed variation at long range and realistically predict what is hitable at long range.
I've done the math and hitting a pop can at 300 yards is not unreasonable in mild conditions.
All you need to do to shoot accurately at long range is find ammo that shoots accurately at close range that has a low velocity variation... less than 15 FPS extreme spread is a nice place to start.
Keep in mind that outside temperature will influence your results throughout the year, so it's unlikely you will find something that is less than 20 FPS 365 days per year. It's easier in the warm summer days than this time of year.
Readers may be interested in some further questions and details about the advice offered above.
You don't seem to think that the targets shown reflect good accuracy and further that you've shot better at 300 yards. How much better are the groups you've shot at 300 yards than those shown above? Is your shooting done with your stock CZ 452 Varmint, the same rifle about which you have previously posted about long distance .22LR shooting?
You say the math supports the contention that hitting a pop can at 300 yards is not unreasonable, as is holding MOA horizontally at the same distance. It's true because math doesn't lie.
To elaborate, geometry alone demands that to hold MOA horizontally at 300 yards (that is, groups that are 3" wide or less), at 100 yards groups must be 1" wide, and at 50 they must be 0.5". In practice that means that at 100 yards groups would have to be considerably less than 1" wide and at 50 considerably less than 0.5". How much less? I don't know. But it is clear that if a rifle and shooter can't shoot consistently small, sub-MOA groups at 50 yards, long distance MOA shooting will be elusive.
You say that the bugaboo of vertical dispersion in long distance .22LR shooting can be dealt with by using ammo with an ES less than 15 fps. This is true, but it's easier said than done. Top tier ammo often has an ES that is double the minimum suggested of 15 fps. A shooter would have to lot test to find such ammunition, yet it's entirely possible that the testing could ultimately be in vain. That kind of ammo is not easy to find, especially in Canada where there isn't a wide range of .22LR ammo available from which to choose. No one can shoot what they can't get.
Perhaps it's possible to shoot as well as the math suggests. Ballistics calculators are ubiquitous and they show exactly what is theoretically achievable. What's necessary to prove the math?
It would be necessary to shoot under perfect conditions with absolutely no wind movement and in temperatures where ammo performance can't be questioned because of the temperature being either too cold or too hot. Furthermore it would be necessary to have ammo with as low an ES as can reasonably be expected, even if an ES of 15 fps is not. On top of that, it would be necessary to use ammo that was very consistent in terms of factors including priming, amount of propellant, bullet diameter, bullet weight, rim-to-ogive measurement, and bullet concentricity. No less important, it would be necessary to use a rifle of impeccable quality. Anything less would throw the math completely off.
But that's not all that is needed. The longer the distance shot, the more necessary it is that every shot is executed as near perfectly as possible. Every imperfection in shot execution is magnified as distance increases. Anything less would challenge the math.
All this seems a little easier said than done. The trouble is math don't shoot. Of course, no one will suggest that any conditions, ammo, rifle, or shooter is perfect. That's a tall order, particularly when it comes to shooting at 200 yards and more. Sometimes some of these factors come together in a confluence of circumstances that produces occasional excellent and examples of long range .22LR shooting with MOA and, more rarely, sub-MOA results. The key is to be able to shoot well more often than not, and as distance increases it is more and more difficult. If it were easy, there'd be a lot more targets regularly shot that are better than those ten-shot groups at 200 yards shown above. The targets above show what a good shooter with a good rifle and good ammo can achieve.
Would be interesting to watch you shoot 300 yd. what ammo are you using that give less than 15 FPS spread? What range is that target at 300. Where do you shoot f class at. I love watching guys shoot so I can learn.
Eley Tenex was the lowest I tested at around 8 FPS ES
Best value ammo was RWS Pistol Match at around 13 FPS ES.
On Saturday in below freezing temps I was getting a solid 20 FPS ES with Eley Force in the CZ and 22 FPS ES in the Vudoo
SK Biathlon had an ES of 18 FPS in the CZ but not so good in the Vudoo… more like 41 FPS ES
Center X was at 32 FPS ES.
As I stated earlier... results are subject to change with the weather.
If we do some 300 yard ballistic math, a velocity spread of 40 FPS equates to a vertical difference of 2 MOA. Therefore a velocity spread of 20 FPS is 1 MOA.
Add that to a 1 MOA Group at 300 yards, you get 3 inches wide and 6 inches vertically (for 20 ES) up to 9 inches vertically (for 40 ES)
At 200 yards a velocity spread of 40 FPS is only 1.2 MOA.... 0.6 MOA for 20 FPS ES... so you can do the rest of the math.
Yes this is for calm ideal conditions.
Yes the math does work, despite fears that your horoscope, religion or physical fitness may have some additional effect.
Last edited:
Yes, the math works but it's unlikely everything else comes together as easily as implied.
The figures cited for ES can't be viewed as broadly valid. For readers who may not know, and for those with limited testing experience, the ES of any ammo can be quite different from one lot to another. Furthermore, they are not necessarily the same from one rifle to another.
As a result any ES figures referred to above are not transferable to other shooters with other lots or with other rifles. This is not made up. Consider the following examples of Tenex ammo taken from an RFC thread that has spent a great deal of time comparing the results of different ammo shot at 200 yards. The shooter shot 50 chronographed rounds at 200 yards.
The targets shown below are each shot with Eley Tenex, rated on the box with an average MV of 1058 fps (Eley prints its test average on each box). The first three (1 - 3) were shot with a CZ 455 with a Lilja barrel, the last with a Marlin 60.
1. This target below had a high of 1107 fps and a low of 1062, producing an ES of 35 fps. The ammo is rated 1058 fps on the box. The actual average was 1082 fps.
2. The target below, also with 1058 rated Tenex and the same rifle, has a high of 1117 fps and a low of 1082, with an ES of 35 fps. The actual average was 1102 fps.
3. And also shot with the same rifle and Tenex rated at 1058 fps is the target below. It had a high of 1111 fps and a low of 1081. The ES was 00 fps, the actual average MV was 1093 fps.
This last target was also shot with Tenex rated at 1058 fps, but with a Marlin 60. The high MV was 1049 fps, the low was 1003. The ES was 37 fps and the actual average was 1030 fps.
What this shows is that the same ammo doesn't shoot with the same results, and it certainly doesn't shoot similarly with different rifles. All the ammo had 1058 fps printed on the box. It's possible all this "1058" ammo was from the same lot. At the same time, it's possible they were from different lot.
Therefore to list the ES of ammo from one test with one rifle is not very meaningful. Maple's Tenex ES of 8 fps is unusually good. Upon observing that extraordinarily low ES, he would have been wise to buy more of it. Experienced .22LR shooters certainly would have. The same goes for his RWS Pistol Match with an ES of 13 fps. Of course it's possible that he had no idea just how difficult it is to find ammo with consistent muzzle velocity.
It's rather glib and cavalier to insinuate that the math proves everything or anything. As noted previously, math don't shoot. Shooters are left to the vagaries of imperfect ammo -- certainly only very rarely as nearly perfect as to have an ES of 8 fps. While some are better than others, shooters are also left to shoot with rifles that are also imperfect. And in an affront to both perfection and math, shooters don't always make each shot with flawless execution.
Hey Champ, you might be wantin' to go back to skewl and review yer mathematics. At 200 yards, 40 fps velocity variation results in 2.6 MOA vertical spread, or 5.44" for ammo ranging from 1077-1117 fps.
At 300 yards, for ammo ranging from 1040-1080, that 40 fps ES = 3.4 MOA, or 10.68". A velocity spread of 1040-1060, or 20 fps, is equal to 2.1 MOA, or 6.6".
The odds of you going out right now, in one attempt, and shooting a better 10-shot target at 300 yards to my previously presented 200 yard targets are about as slim as your pecker.
Your ES values might make sense for 5-round groups, ain't no way the whole box reads that low.
For readers to understand why I feel Champ's comments are so inflammatory, saying that my 200 yard targets are "nothing to write home about, I've done better at 300 yards", let us examine. My targets were shot for entry into RFC's 100/200 yards monthly challenge. In March 2018, my target earned me 1st place (you'll also note I held 1st place at 100 yards, too). https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1085090&highlight=200+yard+challenge
In February, my 200 yard target earned me 3rd place, behind two shooters with .17 HMRs. It can be noted my score was considerably higher than the next competitor to enter with a .22 LR. Again, I placed 1st at 100 yards. https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1069266&highlight=200+yard+challenge
The RFC competition was open to members around the world, with a whole month to go out and shoot as many attempts as they cared to, choosing the best days to shoot on for wind conditions, and only entering their best results obtained (I.E cherry picked). Arguably, placing 1st there is, in fact, something to write home about. Fellow competitors there said things like "Awesome shooting!" in reference to my targets, where Champ here seems to think my results are ho-hum.
Champ's mouth here just wrote a check that his adze can't cash. Once again buddy, easy 100G's for ya if you think you're right. Let me witness 50 rounds at 300 that beat my worst 50 at 200. You get one attempt, pick your best ammo. Show Me What You Got.
I think I know what Champ was shooting...
Perhaps you have missed something. If you're referring to Rabid's two 200 yard targets, they obviously aren't 5-shot-groups. They are ten-shot-groups.
Something else was missed too. The number of shooters involved in the competition Rabid referred did not include "an entire country". That would be preposterous. The statement also implies that all those shooters sort their ammo and use wind flags "all over the place". Surely you know better. You may be a shooter who sorts his ammo and has plenty of wind flags on the range, but the majority of shooters don't. Of course the intention was more likely to cast aspersions by hyperbole, by exaggerating the high level of American competition in this case, in which case it's clearly a miss.
No I did read it wrong, I noticed aggregate after, I was honestly surprised. Not taking a shot at him. I don’t use wind flags or bother. The wind flag comment was more of a comment that most of these guys competing would be using flags to aid. Again not a shot and yes I was mistaken. The entire country comment was meant more as typically some of the best shooters are on rimfire central and would be the ones competing.
Readers will appreciate the clarification. Although there are some serious rimfire guys on RFC, the best shooters are posting on benchrest forums. Perhaps the surprise is understandable. A lot of shooters (not saying you) may believe that shooting results are typically more straightforward to achieve than they often are, or that if the math supports something in theory it's therefore possible in reality.
Yes, my surprise was that yes he is a great shooter, clearly a great gun (we all remember the cz is better than anshutz thread that he took flack over) that thing is incredible. I misread that it was aggregate on the rfc thread (my bad I did delete once I double checked as I honestly did not believe). Anyone that can do 5 .25 inch groups in a row is definitely a shooter, with a darn nice gun. I was a little suprised the way he presented it but hey we have come to expect it. Great shooting once my head caught up with coffee I caught my mistake
Hey Champ, you might be wantin' to go back to skewl and review yer mathematics. At 200 yards, 40 fps velocity variation results in 2.6 MOA vertical spread, or 5.44" for ammo ranging from 1077-1117 fps.
At 300 yards, for ammo ranging from 1040-1080, that 40 fps ES = 3.4 MOA, or 10.68". A velocity spread of 1040-1060, or 20 fps, is equal to 2.1 MOA, or 6.6".
The odds of you going out right now, in one attempt, and shooting a better 10-shot target at 300 yards to my previously presented 200 yard targets are about as slim as your pecker.
Your ES values might make sense for 5-round groups, ain't no way the whole box reads that low.
For readers to understand why I feel Champ's comments are so inflammatory, saying that my 200 yard targets are "nothing to write home about, I've done better at 300 yards", let us examine. My targets were shot for entry into RFC's 100/200 yards monthly challenge. In March 2018, my target earned me 1st place (you'll also note I held 1st place at 100 yards, too). https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1085090&highlight=200+yard+challenge
In February, my 200 yard target earned me 3rd place, behind two shooters with .17 HMRs. It can be noted my score was considerably higher than the next competitor to enter with a .22 LR. Again, I placed 1st at 100 yards. https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1069266&highlight=200+yard+challenge
The RFC competition was open to members around the world, with a whole month to go out and shoot as many attempts as they cared to, choosing the best days to shoot on for wind conditions, and only entering their best results obtained (I.E cherry picked). Arguably, placing 1st there is, in fact, something to write home about. Fellow competitors there said things like "Awesome shooting!" in reference to my targets, where Champ here seems to think my results are ho-hum.
Champ's mouth here just wrote a check that his adze can't cash. Once again buddy, easy 100G's for ya if you think you're right. Let me witness 50 rounds at 300 that beat my worst 50 at 200. You get one attempt, pick your best ammo. Show Me What You Got.
I think I know what Champ was shooting...
I used to shoot with a guy who was a legend. He won the Provincials, the Nationals and Bisley.
The thing is, he never beat me when we shot together locally, and it always bothered him that I never went to big matches.
He knew he wasn't the best shooter at any of these big matches. He was just the best shooter who showed up.
I'm not saying this to brag... I'm saying it so you hopefully learn the difference.
Last edited:
So back to the original issue, long range ammo. How big of a bullet is required in a 22 for a 6 twist? You could source the barrel but would you even be able to push it enough to make it worth while, and who would really have an action. Would have to be single shot and would you need an extremely large ejection port, not to eject as the brass would be normal but to get it into the loading port?
This ammo seems to have a lot going against it
This ammo seems to have a lot going against it
To paraphrase, you're saying that you shot with a legendary shooter who won big matches at the national level and at Bisley, the prestigious NRA shooting facility in the UK. You say that you always beat him, and as a result he felt it was a shame you didn't shoot competitively at "big" matches.
Although you haven't said it explicitly because it would be, as you say, bragging, inductive reasoning suggests that if it's all true you must be a heck of a good shooter.
In any event, what is meant by the curious statement about the important matches your legendary shooting acquaintance won:
"He knew he wasn't the best shooter at any of these big matches. He was just the best shooter who showed up."
Was he or was he not the best shooter at the matches he won?
The statement was not about my qualifications.
The point is that our boy RabidM4U5 seems to have put himself on some sort of pedestal because he did well in a particular match.
That does not provide evidence to suggest that nobody out there can shoot better than he who did not participate in the match he referenced.
I was hoping readers could have made the connection without further explanation.
I am simply the fortunate beneficiary of a 20 year long shooting education that was provided most weekends by a small group of shooters who’s names you will find on trophies at the national matches at Camp Perry and as stated, in other places as well. So I apologize if my expectations are not consistent with certain CGN members.
The point is that our boy RabidM4U5 seems to have put himself on some sort of pedestal because he did well in a particular match.
That does not provide evidence to suggest that nobody out there can shoot better than he who did not participate in the match he referenced.
I was hoping readers could have made the connection without further explanation.
I am simply the fortunate beneficiary of a 20 year long shooting education that was provided most weekends by a small group of shooters who’s names you will find on trophies at the national matches at Camp Perry and as stated, in other places as well. So I apologize if my expectations are not consistent with certain CGN members.
Last edited:
Sorry, I've had to step away from this for a few days. Blatant absurdity can drive me nutz.
Indeed, you don't find the likes of Mike "Big Dog" Sherrill posting on RFC or wasting his time in our little "fun" matches. That said, there are still plenty of folks that are far more experienced shooters than I, with some seriously good guns, and access to ammo I could only hope to randomly buy. Not all of them entered targets in the RFC match. I found the level of competition I faced to be challenging (for my skill level), and to be honest, pretty fairly matched. I never made any waves in the Factory Division, on account of not having had the good fortune to obtain a factory CZ that could actually hit the broad side of a barn. On the note of "shooters may believe that shooting results are typically more straightforward to achieve than they often are", I'll be the first to say that the 200 yard targets I've presented were the best that I was able to do out of multiple attempts. If you were to hand me two boxes of ammo (100 rounds) and a stack of targets, I wouldn't bet money on myself to repeat the performance. I know what went on behind the scenes in shooting those targets, so I'd say "well, I'll give it a try and see what happens". Those results weren't easy to come by. There is a massive shift in what I expect to be able to do at 100 yards, and what starts to happen at 200 yards. Precision in .22LR degrades exponentially with distance, how anyone could claim superior results at 300 yards... well... that just borders on lunacy.
As I originally presented it, the targets were an example of "accuracy" at long range (200 yards), but with a note about how the "precision" was now gone at this distance. Nothing more, nothing less, with no inference towards my shooting prowess, or lack thereof. I had no idea a hornet's nest would be stirred up as a result...
Firstly, allow me to apologize for not posting world record targets to assuage your expectations. I was hoping you'd make the connection that the results shown, although by no means record setting, are still very, very good for .22LR. The comparison to the targets being part of an online match entry was supposed to facilitate recognition that a wide field of shooters, with firearms ranging from bone stock mid-grade factory rifles to full on customs, could hardly do better. That is, nobody is surpassing those kind of results with any regularity. That's not to say a "better" target can never be shot, that would be asinine. Hopefully, one would recognize that a "better" target would largely be born of good fortune, or what we colloquially refer to as "a random act of accuracy". I've shot better 50 yard groups than some 25Y, some 100Y better than 50Y, some 200Y... well, no I've never shot a 200 yard group better than 100Y. I would not expect to, as such is not the nature of the cartridge, and if it did occur, I have the wherewithal to acknowledge it as happenstance.
Are you having some difficulty differentiating what is realistically achievable with regularity and what is occasionally achievable only under the most ideal circumstances? Do you fully and truly comprehend what it takes to be able to go out and have a high degree of confidence in being able to put on a better performance than what I've shown? I'm not talking about hoping for a lucky, better result. I'm talking "I know my rifle, I know my ammo, the wind is good, yeah, I can take that target down". I know what I'd have to invest in to better myself... and frankly, it's getting a little rich for my blood.
Indeed, you don't find the likes of Mike "Big Dog" Sherrill posting on RFC or wasting his time in our little "fun" matches. That said, there are still plenty of folks that are far more experienced shooters than I, with some seriously good guns, and access to ammo I could only hope to randomly buy. Not all of them entered targets in the RFC match. I found the level of competition I faced to be challenging (for my skill level), and to be honest, pretty fairly matched. I never made any waves in the Factory Division, on account of not having had the good fortune to obtain a factory CZ that could actually hit the broad side of a barn. On the note of "shooters may believe that shooting results are typically more straightforward to achieve than they often are", I'll be the first to say that the 200 yard targets I've presented were the best that I was able to do out of multiple attempts. If you were to hand me two boxes of ammo (100 rounds) and a stack of targets, I wouldn't bet money on myself to repeat the performance. I know what went on behind the scenes in shooting those targets, so I'd say "well, I'll give it a try and see what happens". Those results weren't easy to come by. There is a massive shift in what I expect to be able to do at 100 yards, and what starts to happen at 200 yards. Precision in .22LR degrades exponentially with distance, how anyone could claim superior results at 300 yards... well... that just borders on lunacy.
As I originally presented it, the targets were an example of "accuracy" at long range (200 yards), but with a note about how the "precision" was now gone at this distance. Nothing more, nothing less, with no inference towards my shooting prowess, or lack thereof. I had no idea a hornet's nest would be stirred up as a result...
Firstly, allow me to apologize for not posting world record targets to assuage your expectations. I was hoping you'd make the connection that the results shown, although by no means record setting, are still very, very good for .22LR. The comparison to the targets being part of an online match entry was supposed to facilitate recognition that a wide field of shooters, with firearms ranging from bone stock mid-grade factory rifles to full on customs, could hardly do better. That is, nobody is surpassing those kind of results with any regularity. That's not to say a "better" target can never be shot, that would be asinine. Hopefully, one would recognize that a "better" target would largely be born of good fortune, or what we colloquially refer to as "a random act of accuracy". I've shot better 50 yard groups than some 25Y, some 100Y better than 50Y, some 200Y... well, no I've never shot a 200 yard group better than 100Y. I would not expect to, as such is not the nature of the cartridge, and if it did occur, I have the wherewithal to acknowledge it as happenstance.
Are you having some difficulty differentiating what is realistically achievable with regularity and what is occasionally achievable only under the most ideal circumstances? Do you fully and truly comprehend what it takes to be able to go out and have a high degree of confidence in being able to put on a better performance than what I've shown? I'm not talking about hoping for a lucky, better result. I'm talking "I know my rifle, I know my ammo, the wind is good, yeah, I can take that target down". I know what I'd have to invest in to better myself... and frankly, it's getting a little rich for my blood.
Actually... No
You posted what I called mediocre groups and you stated that we are just lobbing them in there at such distances, or beyond. If I understand you now, you are retracting and are now calling them typical groups. In other words you agree with me, that they are just mediocre.... Nothing special.
In the context of what might be typically expected by a decent shooter on any given decent day, your groups shown are perfect.
Let's not elevate such an achievement to represent the limits of what can be achieved on a typical day by a more developed shooter. For some of us, 22LR only starts to get interesting at 200 yards.... AKA your max limit.
