Another helpful post! Why so much anger in our community? Glad someone is trying to answer some questions for us. Thanks
Bergara B14R vs RimX, Vudoo, Anschutz, CZ and Tactical Solutions
- Thread starter Maple57
- Start date
Another helpful post! Why so much anger in our community? Glad someone is trying to answer some questions for us. Thanks
While the question answered remains unclear, there are some useful observations made in some of the posts above.
As the OP notes this thread and the videos are "a late response to some prior discussion on CGN."
I had a memory of such a discussion. Perhaps there were more than one. Below is the OP's post from last October 2021. See post #20 (and #16, 18-19) https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...on-Rimfire?p=18373492&viewfull=1#post18373492
I watched the videos for the Bergara B14R comparison with the RimX, the first Vudoo, and the Anschutz 1907 in the 3P stock. In the Anschutz video the host says the Bergara rifle "kicked both their butts" -- referring to the RimX and Vudoo. Above he says the Bergara "won over and over and over."
Keep in mind that while the Bergara shot the same ammo, RWS Pistol Match. The RimX, Vudoo, and Anschutz all shot SK Long Range Match. Viewers aren't told whether this was a random lot of SK LRM ammo or not.
Below is the target shown in the Anschutz video. It has the prior results from when the Bergara shot against the RimX and the Vudoo. At the bench the Bergara rifle was to the right of the RimX, Vudoo, and Anschutz rifles. Note that for some reason, when shot at the same time as the Anschutz, the Bergara switched to the target hitherto used by the RimX and Vudoo. As a result the left target has two Bergara groups and one Anschutz, the right target one each by RimX and Vudoo and one by Bergara.
A couple of questions.
1. In the absence of any measurements in the videos, are each of the Bergara groups clearly better than those of the other rifles?
2. Was the ammo used by the RimX, Vudoo, and Anschutz rifles randomly selected?
As the OP notes this thread and the videos are "a late response to some prior discussion on CGN."
I had a memory of such a discussion. Perhaps there were more than one. Below is the OP's post from last October 2021. See post #20 (and #16, 18-19) https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...on-Rimfire?p=18373492&viewfull=1#post18373492
I watched the videos for the Bergara B14R comparison with the RimX, the first Vudoo, and the Anschutz 1907 in the 3P stock. In the Anschutz video the host says the Bergara rifle "kicked both their butts" -- referring to the RimX and Vudoo. Above he says the Bergara "won over and over and over."
Keep in mind that while the Bergara shot the same ammo, RWS Pistol Match. The RimX, Vudoo, and Anschutz all shot SK Long Range Match. Viewers aren't told whether this was a random lot of SK LRM ammo or not.
Below is the target shown in the Anschutz video. It has the prior results from when the Bergara shot against the RimX and the Vudoo. At the bench the Bergara rifle was to the right of the RimX, Vudoo, and Anschutz rifles. Note that for some reason, when shot at the same time as the Anschutz, the Bergara switched to the target hitherto used by the RimX and Vudoo. As a result the left target has two Bergara groups and one Anschutz, the right target one each by RimX and Vudoo and one by Bergara.
A couple of questions.
1. In the absence of any measurements in the videos, are each of the Bergara groups clearly better than those of the other rifles?
2. Was the ammo used by the RimX, Vudoo, and Anschutz rifles randomly selected?
Hardhammer
CGN Regular
What i don’t get is the fact that the bergara seem to shoot an ammo that she like, while the others shoot the same one, maybe not the best for they're rifle, i could do the same shooting center x with my cz and having voodoo and others shooting cci standard and saying i kick they're butt.
Hence my 1st comment in this thread back on page one. There is just a bunch of guys shooting different rifles, trying to prove the B14. No real comparison at all happened here.
You want to compare rifles; great. Shoot the same ammo in all them, then change ammo and shoot again, then change ammo and shoot again. Take min 5 different types of ammo and then compare all the groups together and you will only get a rifle and ammo combination that it likes. Thats it. Again not proving one is better than the other.
If you are looking to choose a rifle, and wondering which one over the other choices, well that is a subjective user choice. Fit, finish, reliability, $$, small little nuances that one has and the other doesn't, out of the box, put all the pieces together yourself, change things yourself after the fact. They are all valid and looked at by each individual as they look for what they want.
Even at competitions it is not always the same shooter, rifle that wins. Now there are things that put the top shooters in the top tier, but that is another topic all together.
horseman2, the video was designed to rule out wind changes between groups being fired. Since all shots being compared were aimed at center, and fired at the same time, all shots were affected by wind the same way for both rifles.
That was the most fair way we could think of.
Both shooters were just using the ammo we had. That's all it was. If we both had SK Long Range Match, we both probably would have used that.
Sure you can go off lot testing and compare best performing ammo in all rifles. Go ahead, buy all the rifles like we did, buy all those lots of ammo, test it all, and make a video of it. I'd sure like to see it.
When we decided to make the video, we did not know which rifle would win. We were not trying to make anything win or loose, these are all our personal rifles. We just wanted it to be fair, so we shot at the same time with what we would normally use.
What we concluded is with any decent 22 the ammo selection and barrel cleaning probably have more to do with accuracy than the rifle. Spending $2500 on a rifle does not mean it will be more accurate than an $800 rifle.
Is a Vudoo a nicer rifle than a CZ457? Sure it is, but not necessarily more accurate.
Last edited:
Well the op questioned with a 40 moa rail and a Diamondback scope ,would he be able to zero at 100 yards. ATR responded no. So Im assuming you have a secret theyre not aware of. 65 moa of total travel equals 32.5 up and 32.5 down. Still on the page? Well pop a 40 moa rail on and Im hoping you can do the math. Its not gonna work. But I suppose if you have a majical set of Burris XTR rings it will solve everything!! Competent shooters use Charlie for long range, I know. Any competent shooter is aware of such things. Clean up
I’m guessing my name fired you up, but I don’t know yours. Stephen, Kevin, oh no, Chris I think it is. My name is Emerson. Introduce yourself by your screen name when we meet. I bet I don’t present as the guy you expect��. Anyway, if he has the rail already, just shoot the damned rifle. Rails don’t allow the incremental adjustment that the XTR rings do. I just kept trying until I got the insert combo right with a canted rail that allowed me to zero at 50, although a 100 zero isn’t the end of the world. Paying enough for a real zero stop that doesn’t take away 1/2 the scope travel is sometimes more that a guy can afford.
PS: If we have a chance, I’m guessing sharing a couple of beers would probably be more relaxing, but travel is awful expensive these days.
Last edited:
I think that your content was informative and well intentioned. Sad to see so many people unable to see that you were just offering some comparative viewpoints on different.22 quality shooters. Thanks for the videos, ignore those who can’t/won’t post their own content, it’s always easier to tear something down than build something.
You're on the right track, but to really compare rifles, there's one way to have a resonable comparison.
Find the best ammo for each rifle. Then compare under conditions where there are as few disrupting influences as possible. An absence of wind is perhaps the most important.
Only by comparing the best ammo in each rifle can a question about which shoots better begin to be resolved. To do otherwise, would be a comparison of apples and oranges.
Furthermore, what's problematic with Maple's experiment and conclusion is that the comparisons in the videos are of a single ten-shot group shot by each rifle. One ten-shot group is only a single snapshot representation of how that rifle and ammo perform at that particular time. If a shooter shot five ten-shot groups with any rifle, few if any of those groups would be the same size.
Any comparison to support the claims made by Maple clearly require many more groups to compare. Equally important, it's necessary to use the best performing ammo in each rifle in order to have a better chance of comparing apples to apples.
Your statement is exactly the point of the video. In most cases the groups were so close, that the rifle being used was almost negligible. Paying more for a rifle bought no latitude to this point.
If the difference could only be found under ideal clinical conditions then the difference is essentially moot in practical terms.
There are certainly a number of factors that must align in order for the experiment to be statistically accurate.
Both rifles shooting the same ammo would be my first choice, then comparing both rifles shooting ammunition of known accuracy for that rifle.
Years ago there was a saying . . . I can't give you the formula for success but I can give you the formula for failure . . . try to please everyone.
And the argument will continue.
When Freedom arms was not allowed in silhouette matches because they cost $900.
Compared against legal revolvers, the freedom shot 39/40 and that equated to $22.50 per missed shot.
A level playing field with as many factors as possible being equal would have ended the discussion on the first page with all compliments. You reap what you soe!
Both rifles shooting the same ammo would be my first choice, then comparing both rifles shooting ammunition of known accuracy for that rifle.
Years ago there was a saying . . . I can't give you the formula for success but I can give you the formula for failure . . . try to please everyone.
And the argument will continue.
When Freedom arms was not allowed in silhouette matches because they cost $900.
Compared against legal revolvers, the freedom shot 39/40 and that equated to $22.50 per missed shot.
A level playing field with as many factors as possible being equal would have ended the discussion on the first page with all compliments. You reap what you soe!
What I wrote doesn't support what you've just said or what's claimed in the video.
The video and your other descriptions insist that the Bergara outperforms the the RimX, Vudoo, and Anschutz rifles.
My point is that using random ammo in the RimX, Vudoo, and Anschutz -- as well as comparing single ten-shot groups -- doesn't allow that claim to stand. In other words, there is neither reliable or sufficient information to support what you've said.
If anyone wishes to compare how different rifles perform, they must use the ammo that they shoot best. Otherwise it's not a comparisonl of best performance. They must also compare more data than single ten-shot groups because a single group means nothing conclusive.
On the other hand, perhaps the point was to show that the Bergara, with a lot of ammo it shoots well, can produce single ten-shot groups that may be better than single ten-shot groups shot with random ammo by other rifles.
Yeah the beers would be great and maybe some nice old whiskey or scotch. Awesome. My financial means dont allow me to purchase the really good scopes. Im limited to draw the line on optics at $5000. I really do like my budget minded Kahles but hoping to get better one day. Oh well gottah make do . third world scopes in a first world country. Cheers Chris. PS I never expect anything cuz that would presume things youve no way of knowing!! Your correct about just shooting the gun cuz like fingerprints none are the same.
This is a sound explanation and is correct. Random ammo and random shooters shooting a single ten shot group is not how I test a rifle worth many $K. It’s not how any serious competitor tests any rifle.
You are just being you and I don't want to get into the weeds with you.
As I stated earlier... If the difference can only be found under ideal clinical conditions, then the difference is moot in practical terms.
If you would like to buy the rifles, scopes and ammo in lots to test it all, then make a video that meets your standards of perfection, by all means go ahead and PLEASE send us all a link.
Keep in mind that people watching these videos have a short attention span and often a limited knowledge. They don't want to watch a 3 hour video that clarifies every miniscule point.
So viewer are too dumb to want sound conclusions, eh? Got it.
It was speed watched by me.
It did not take long to realize the targets and conclusions were all that was important.
Watching two guys shooting did not suggest anything untoward or nefarious was going on.
Valid comment emerson!
It did not take long to realize the targets and conclusions were all that was important.
Watching two guys shooting did not suggest anything untoward or nefarious was going on.
Valid comment emerson!
