That's good and dandy. But what does all this mean in terms of the size of the target? For example, is the target square or circular? Is it 12" or 24" or 36" wide? Something else?
.22 lr ELR ammo... this is going to be interesting.
- Thread starter The ROC
- Start date
That's good and dandy. But what does all this mean in terms of the size of the target? For example, is the target square or circular? Is it 12" or 24" or 36" wide? Something else?
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bx8ctjrg9NX/?igshid=1tb5b0gpy2rka
300 yards with a gun I picked up the day before and a used scope. Tikka t1x with cci sv on the same size target. Yes it is more than 2 out of 10, I had never shot that gun that far and had to guess on bullet speed so I missed a few. I shoot with wankell quite frequently. Sorry to derail I hate the pointless snide comments just because someone doesn’t know the game
300 yards with a gun I picked up the day before and a used scope. Tikka t1x with cci sv on the same size target. Yes it is more than 2 out of 10, I had never shot that gun that far and had to guess on bullet speed so I missed a few. I shoot with wankell quite frequently. Sorry to derail I hate the pointless snide comments just because someone doesn’t know the game
The point is that there is always a certain amount of error in judgement, no mater who you are.
If one bullet has less wind drift than another then the negative effect of the error is also proportionally reduced.
In the example we are discussing here the difference is significant.
Assuming the data presented is realistic and speeds are similar.
I apologize. I did not see that.
With a target that size and that frequently scored upon with CCI ammo -- an inexpensive ammo not especially known for its small ES -- is there a real need for significantly better ammo, or at least better than the best .22LR match ammo currently available?
As noted earlier, the least expensive currently available Cutting Edge .224 caliber bullets cost $36 for 50 or $0.72 each (in USD). Solid copper bullets are not inexpensive. Even if the proposed .22LR bullets shown in the OP were only half that price, at $0.36 each for the bullets alone, that would make for expensive ammo (at least $18 per box for only the bullets), adding on top of that the cost of the casing, primer, propellant, and assembly.
Should such bullets be made with CCI quality prepared casing, primer, and propellant it would still be about as expensive as the best quality .22LR match ammo -- without having the quality of good match ammo. If it were possible to make it with Tenex or Midas + quality prepared casing, primer, and propellant the cost would be much more than Tenex or Midas + as it is today.
While it's understandable that shooters wish to have the best ammo available for whatever discipline they shoot, it seems the enthusiasm of shooters for such ammo outweighs the feasibility of producing it and, if it can be made, the willingness to pay for it. If typical ELR or PRS shooters wanted the best ammo available today, they would all be shooting the best ammos made by Eley, Lapua, and RWS.
No doubt there are a few who do use ammo like Tenex, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the vast majority don't because of its high cost. If they don't spend top dollar for the best available now, why would they spend more for something that can't be significantly better. The limitations of the .22LR casing and chamber preclude the possibility of a .22LR round that has the characteristics of a centerfire round while still being .22LR. A new designation would be needed for such a new round. A more expensive "magic" bullet/ammo like that envisaged by Cutting Edge and the uncritical enthusiasts supporting the idea is not likely to fly. If shooters need better ammo than they are currently using, they can buy it now.
It may be an amusing pastime to imagine an affordable and significantly better .22LR round. But that's where it remains. There is no magic cure for the shortcomings of .22LR ammo at long ranges.
notsorichguy
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- The city that rhymes with fun
The ammunition being discussed would only be used in “games” where the points really matter.... it isn’t going to be used on groundhogs or gophers (well, not all the time anyway)... so bear that in mind.
Cheers
Agreed, most people would not buy 36$ ammo for this as you use 2 boxes for the day and your practice ammo would be a waste of time except for some trigger time. Would have to re zero with the expensive stuff before hand and re check at distance. I know I wouldn’t buy tenex at all. Wife would kill me with the amount I shoot rimfire
I agree. My point is that a bullet that stays supersonic for its entire flight is a different design than a bullet that is transonic for its flight. Those bullets I posted in post #21 have a G1 BC of about 0.5.
Chris.
Indeed. Few would use top end .22LR match ammo for groundhogs or gophers either. To elaborate on the point I was making, bear in mind the following very positive descriptions of CCI SV in long range shooting. It sounds like great ammo for that purpose.
All this sounds like very good results are obtainable with CCI SV. It's successful out to 350 yards, a range at which a shooter can score 8 shots out of 10 in 20 kph (12 mph) winds.
More significantly, CCI SV can do this well even though it's not as consistent as SK ammo, the best variety of which, SK Rifle Match, is hardly top tier match ammo. Eley is mentioned but not which of the many varieties available, from inexpensive Sport and Club and top level Tenex.
Once out to 400 yards, however, a wall of sorts can be experienced, yet it's possible to have a good run at 400 yards with this ammo (perhaps it's not all done with CCI ammo, but readers aren't told anything to the contrary).
What does all this mean? In short, it means that CCI SV ammo can do well. Furthermore, it suggests that if ammo as everyday as CCI SV can do well, why would there be a clamouring for a better ammo that costs as much as, and probably more than, current varieties of top level .22LR match ammo? It just doesn't make sense.
Earlier in this thread, some posters enthused about the possibilities of a new "magic" bullet for .22LR ammo -- the Cutting Edge bullet -- and perhaps that's to be expected. Some, including those who ought to know better, even thought that current .22 centerfire bullets could be used in place of .22LR rimfire bullets. But things are never as straightforward as they might appear.
More relevant and significant are the limitations the .22LR casing and rifle chamber impose on redesigning the ammo. A solid copper bullet like that proposed by Cutting Edge is expensive and is not likely to be made into match quality .22LR ammo. In any event, the ballistic characteristics of pointy bullet sub-supersonic ammo are questionable, while it's not possible to keep it supersonic out to 300 yards or more. Even without those shortcomings, it would be more expensive than Tenex or Midas +. In the end, if CCI SV can do well, and SK ammo even better, why would notable numbers of shooters currently eschewing the most expensive match ammos opt for even more expensive ammo with Cutting Edge-like "magic" bullets?
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
For those new to rimfire LR shooting or do not compete out to 300+yds, CCI SV is NOT competitive... the SK line is much better but also has to be sorted.... at which point, most will run a Lapua or upper grade Eley.
I run Lapua CenterX and it has done very well for this game. It seems to be the most common type used across North America... at least what is chatted about.
The difference in group size at 200 to 300yds between Lapua CenterX and lesser grades is massive. I hope to really test the new'ish SK Long range at distance and see how it compares. Some very favorable reports and it is alot less money.
There are solutions to get to 425yds accurately and I am working on new ideas to reach out to 500m accurately.
For a target size reference, the ELR game is a 12"X12" target.... CRPS and BCPRL rimfire will use much larger targets per distance BUT you are also shooting from 'compromised' positions.
For practise, most will use a less expensive type. I have run alot of CCI SV in practise. this spring it will actually be the Fed Black Friday bulk stuff... good enough to know if a position is on or not.
Cost of the new gen ammo isn't a big negative as you shoot limited amounts... it is whether it works or not.. that is the question and it is going to take ALOT of shooting to prove the point.
I sense that innovations in rimfire ammo is just beginning... I look forward to seeing the 'better mousetraps' being explored.
For now, any new bullet/ammo has a steep hill to climb to beat what is currently available. Hitting a 12" square target at 400yds is no longer a mystery... now the game is further
Jerry
I run Lapua CenterX and it has done very well for this game. It seems to be the most common type used across North America... at least what is chatted about.
The difference in group size at 200 to 300yds between Lapua CenterX and lesser grades is massive. I hope to really test the new'ish SK Long range at distance and see how it compares. Some very favorable reports and it is alot less money.
There are solutions to get to 425yds accurately and I am working on new ideas to reach out to 500m accurately.
For a target size reference, the ELR game is a 12"X12" target.... CRPS and BCPRL rimfire will use much larger targets per distance BUT you are also shooting from 'compromised' positions.
For practise, most will use a less expensive type. I have run alot of CCI SV in practise. this spring it will actually be the Fed Black Friday bulk stuff... good enough to know if a position is on or not.
Cost of the new gen ammo isn't a big negative as you shoot limited amounts... it is whether it works or not.. that is the question and it is going to take ALOT of shooting to prove the point.
I sense that innovations in rimfire ammo is just beginning... I look forward to seeing the 'better mousetraps' being explored.
For now, any new bullet/ammo has a steep hill to climb to beat what is currently available. Hitting a 12" square target at 400yds is no longer a mystery... now the game is further
Jerry
I can imagine how dissatisfied Lapua,Eley and RWS are going to be with themselves for not thinking of this new wonder round. Conceived and brought together by someone who’s never produced rimfire ammo. I’m all for innovation and outside the box thinking but the 22 rimfire has reached a plateau. Even with SDs of zero and perfect guns to launch them, it’s still a 22 rimfire. I personally won’t be holding my breath waiting for the new wonder round. Just my opinion
It is absolutely correct that CCI SV is NOT competitive out to 300 yards. In fact, as many shooters know, but for newer shooters in general, it's NOT competitive at 50 yards either. It's an inexpensive standard velocity round. It's good casual target shooting, but no one should ever think it is "good ammo" for trying to achieve even close to the best results with any .22LR rifle worth testing. In addition to it's inexpensive price tag, it's attraction is in its ready availability, even at retailers who often don't carry any SK, Eley, or RWS. While it can give encouraging results from time to time, it's no substitute for better ammo when consistency and accuracy counts.
Jerry, can you outline some of the solutions for .22LR accuracy at 425 yards and give readers a hint of what you're working on for accuracy to 500 yards?
yep wont respond to all the posts here. started shooting cci sv through the tikka because it is cheap and actually shot very well. yes there are fliers as expected with cheap ammo. but when you sit it next to eley club and it performs nearly as well at 50 and 100 we started trying it at further distances. i think the more expensive ammo ( one of my favourites is sk rifle match) shoots much more consistently and repeatable over the cci sv. but in terms of going out and sending a brick down range for fun, id rather feed 40$ vs 90$ bricks any day. me and scuba have also hit a pepsi challenge target at 200 10/10 times consistently with it. it works, is it the best? no but it works damn well and for someone not wanting to spend 100$ every trip to the range or if someone is looking to start with a base ammo that works well then it is a good compromise.
I think most of the “ruffled feathers” all stem from the term “Accuracy”. It’s a word used in different context by different groups of shootin fraternities. To BR shooters it’s repeating the process of bullets going into the same hole or a perfect score of all Xs. To others it’s an afternoon of shooting hundreds of rounds and hitting a Pepsi can or scaled ipsc targets at whatever yardage is available. Success in one,is thousandths of an inch, where others is 8 out of ten at 300 with four dollar ammo. Don’t be so quick on the trigger. We are all shooters who love a sport with guns. Gongs don’t have scoring rings so an impact on the edge is the same as dead Nutz Center. But a few thou in the wrong direction puts one out of the medals in many other disciplines. Recap is we know cheap ammo can’t compete with good quality. You get what you pay for like most things in life. Occasionally they made produce a lot of cheap stuff that’s better quality but there are always inconsistent results in cheap ammo. Yep you’ll get bug hole groups once in ten where the right lot of quality ammo will increase the bug hole groups dramatically. Burn powder,be happy and try to get along! Oh and I shot a 1/4” group at 100 yds with CCI Stingers. Haha now that’s funny
And incorrectly so. 22LR "is what it is". As distance increases, precision is first to degrade, followed by accuracy. At 200 yards, I would still consider it accurate, but by no means precise.
I have not had the opportunity to shoot beyond 200 yards. At 200 yards, observe just how much drop this cartridge has. I forget the exact measurement, but here's the visual. Aimpoint is the circle stickers at the top of the "aiming sticks", with a 100 yard "zero". 50 round groups. Accurate, but not precise. You can consistently hit an appropriately sized target at this distance.
Beyond 200 yards, you're really just lobbing a .22 out there and hoping for the best. If that's your thing, just put a target that compensates for the limitations of the cartridge out there and fire away. You can reliably hit any target if it is either A) Close enough, or B) Big enough
. Grauhanen is exactly right on a number of points. All the effort put into attempting to "improve" .22LR by a fractional amount for what will likely be extreme expense is just... silly. We already have cartridges that offer excellent accuracy and precision at extreme long range. Just use those instead.
Now, I have more pressing matters to attend to...
While shooters of different disciplines need not argue, the observation about the term "accuracy" is relevant because it does seem to cause uncertainty. Is it the best term for what occurs with .22LR at 300 or 400 or more yards?
When its gets to be more than 200 yards with a .22LR the terms accuracy and precision seems somewhat like a misuse and misappropriation of terminology more aptly applied to shooting up to 100 yards. In this regard, perhaps the Outlaw Precision Rimfire Series with its maximum range of 100 yards has a little more valid rationale for its name than the Canadian Precision Rimfire Series with its much longer range shooting out to 300 yards.
Don't mistake this as an agitation for changing the names of any discipline of shooting. It's only noted for the sake of accuracy not argument.
Beyond 200 yards, you're really just lobbing a .22 out there and hoping for the best. If that's your thing, just put a target that compensates for the limitations of the cartridge out there and fire away. You can reliably hit any target if it is either A) Close enough, or B) Big enough
Now, I have more pressing matters to attend to...
This is the point that is well worth keeping in mind. With a large enough target, 500 yards with .22LR is not impossible.
On the question of "pressing matters" I was thinking you were a now a home vintner with grapes.
On the question of "pressing matters" I was thinking you were a now a home vintner with grapes.
Oh that makes me chuckle, thanks for that
If I were to invest in a mash filter à la Labatts, I could certainly involve some pressing in my zythological pursuits. If I had a million dollars 
Beyond 200 yards, you're really just lobbing a .22 out there and hoping for the best.
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.
The distribution pattern is actually quite predicable.
The rifle and ammo has a certain accuracy level which is largely circular...
But there is a velocity variation at extended distances which explains the vertical elongation of what would otherwise be a fairly circular pattern.
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.
You can debate the semantics of accuracy or precision. I don't really care... its just mathematically quantifing what you can actually hit. This is not unique to a 22LR either... the same calculation can be applied to center fire as well.
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.
Then there's always sorting ammo to try and cull out those outliers.
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.
The distribution pattern is actually quite predicable.
The rifle and ammo has a certain accuracy level which is largely circular...
But there is a velocity variation at extended distances which explains the vertical elongation of what would otherwise be a fairly circular pattern.
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.
You can debate the semantics of accuracy or precision. I don't really care... its just mathematically quantifing what you can actually hit. This is not unique to a 22LR either... the same calculation can be applied to center fire as well.
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.
Then there's always sorting ammo to try and cull out those outliers.
Last edited:
