Buy me a rifle... updated with target

[sillymike]

If you're going to get both eventually then you shouldn't buy either. Jump straight to the 54-action instead. Buy once and be done for life.

+1
That's what I'm thinking. Why buy two OK rifle when you can have one great rifle. A 54 or Fortner action would be my choice.
- Had a 64 action Anschutz, it shot good... but the working the action reminded me a friend's Savage (which also shot good)
- Not sure about the new CZ, but a BRNO #5 is one rifle I whish I'd kept...

 

[LolaPP]

Had it out today... put a few hundred rounds of various ammo through it. Nothing fancy, mostly Dynapoints, Federal BYOB, 555s, Mini Mag RN and HP, plus a few others. Today was NOT the day for busting out the expensive stuff lol.

Was shooting off the hood of my jeep at 25 yards, unfortunately it was so windy today it was rocking it and you had to wait a while in between gusts lol. Not much to say, the rifle does exactly what it's supposed to. I like the mag release, didn't have any issues with it even with cold numb fingers. No issues at all with cycling, it ejected perfectly. It shot pretty much the same with anything you fed it. It's boringly consistent. Groups are pretty representative, can't remember which is which but one is Federal BYOB and the other is Dynapoint. It was quite consistent with the Dynapoint, sub .5. I'm quite happy with that. Looking forward to trying it out at 50 yards with match ammo.

 

[LolaPP]

- Had a 64 action Anschutz, it shot good... but the working the action reminded me a friend's Savage (which also shot good)

As it should - the Lakefield Mk II action is based on the 64 action.

 

[LolaPP]

Finally had a day where it was calm and warm enough to be breaking out the good stuff... Shot at 50 yards, off the hood of the Jeep with a bipod and rear bag. Groups start at the arrow and snake upwards. Starting with a clean dry bore, the SK takes half a box to settle in. After shooting the SK, had the same result switching to Federal GMT. Ammo performance was pretty much what you'd expect, better ammo shot measurably and clearly better.

 

[Lead hammer]

Some good groups in there.

 

[EHG]

Not bad for shooting off the hood of a Jeep.
That Annie is more than capable and a good reason why myself and many others buy them.

 

[LolaPP]

I'm impressed so far, that's for sure. Be another six weeks or so before the winds are really suitable for serious accuracy testing. The wind now is usually parallel ish to the range, so if you can deal with the vertical stringing, you can still get a pretty decent idea, plus get some wind call practice lol. Got about 4k rounds though it, with boringly consistent performance. It just shoots... not much else to say about it.

The real surprise has been S&B Standard, it performs far better than I'd imagine. I would have figured an average well over 1". Having 25% of the groups hover around MOA is pretty shocking to me with that quality of ammo.

Best so far has been Eley Sport. SK FN and Std + are about the same. Anything more expensive than that and I'm waiting for better conditions

 

[Hunter22]

Very decent groups at 50 yds

 

[LolaPP]

Very decent groups at 50 yds

I'll tell you, I can't make sense of it. The S&B is consistently inconsistent in terms of rim thickness & weight. Bullets are a pretty consistent .2235 to .224. I killed an evening sorting half a brick by rim, by weight, and by both, and there was absolutely no difference in performance. The groups were all statistically the same as unsorted. How an ammo that measurably inconsistent shoots like that and turns in small groups a lot of the time makes no sense. Interesting, anyway.

 

[grauhanen]

I'll tell you, I can't make sense of it. The S&B is consistently inconsistent in terms of rim thickness & weight. Bullets are a pretty consistent .2235 to .224. I killed an evening sorting half a brick by rim, by weight, and by both, and there was absolutely no difference in performance. The groups were all statistically the same as unsorted. How an ammo that measurably inconsistent shoots like that and turns in small groups a lot of the time makes no sense. Interesting, anyway.

Many .22LR ammos like S&B Standard will give occasional good groups. They are random acts of accuracy yielding a good group every now and then while producing others that are more than double in size. The bottom line is that S&B Standard is not good ammo. It doesn't matter if inconsistent shooting ammo is sorted, it still won't shoot consistently.

 

[LolaPP]

Many .22LR ammos like S&B Standard will give occasional good groups. They are random acts of accuracy yielding a good group every now and then while producing others that are more than double in size. The bottom line is that S&B Standard is not good ammo. It doesn't matter if inconsistent shooting ammo is sorted, it still won't shoot consistently.

Of course, absolutely. That's exactly what I'm saying. That's indeed the only reason I remark on it. If you shoot enough you'll eventually end up with some very tiny groups. With .22, that's very easy to do. I'm not talking about random acts of precision, and indeed, you can see in the target posted there are some groups MORE than double in size than the smallest. Indeed, there is a pretty wide spread in between the largest and smallest groups here.

What I'm saying is that I'm surprised by how well this objectively inconsistent ammo shoots. I'm happy to post reams of targets that are all basically the same. I've put three or four bricks worth through this rifle, with the same average results. That was my point. Sorted/unsorted at least by the means I chose, no difference. Some groups great, some groups terrible (meaning over 1" to me), but the average over several thousand rounds is about .8" at 50 yards and with the group distribution you see above. I chose that target out of many to be representative, not the best.

 

[LolaPP]

To note, the groups are measured properly, which is to say by zeroing out the calipers on the average size hole in that actual target, not measuring edge to edge and deducting .224" I've measured a 40 thou difference between holes cut in the same paper by the same lot of ammo depending on how humid the paper is. Even within the same day, there can be a big difference. The first target has the first measurements scratched out (for the worse) because I measured it with the same zero on the calipers as the previous targets shot that day. I'd left the stack of them on the ground with the stapler on top of them downrange. By the time I shot the last targets the holes were 20 thou smaller than than the first groups, my guess is because the paper dampened sitting on the ground as opposed to a climate controlled building.

All shot on different days within the past month, but more or less same conditions. Except maybe the first one... the wind got worse, hence the progression to "windy AF" to "?" to nothing because the target stand blew over and I gave up and went home.

Be interesting to see what happens when the wx is nice enough and conditions consistent enough to shoot some 20 round groups and see what's what.

 

[grauhanen]

That was my point. Sorted/unsorted at least by the means I chose, no difference.

I know that was your point. I was only confirming for the general reader what you observed, and noting, as you have again, that sorting ammo doesn't matter.

 

[EHG]

Many .22LR ammos like S&B Standard will give occasional good groups. They are random acts of accuracy yielding a good group every now and then while producing others that are more than double in size. The bottom line is that S&B Standard is not good ammo. It doesn't matter if inconsistent shooting ammo is sorted, it still won't shoot consistently.

I can't argue with that. Here's some groups of S&B Standard out of my Rem 40XB.

 

[LolaPP]

I can't argue with that. Here's some groups of S&B Standard out of my Rem 40XB.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect that performance there either. Those groups all look under an inch and well distributed, which I think is a great result from about the cheapest plinking ammo on the market. I haven't found anything else under the $60/brick range that's worth shooting out of the Annie at 50 yards, all of it had averages well over 1" and some up to 1.5". Anyway, neat result and good shooting.

 

[LolaPP]

I know that was your point. I was only confirming for the general reader what you observed, and noting, as you have again, that sorting ammo doesn't matter.

I see. I guess it depends on what we mean by occasional and random. A box worth of groups where 80% of them are under .7", or an average performance well under 1" over thousands of rounds seems more than occasional or random to me, it indeed seems very surprising. I would not have expected that.

 

[horseman2]

Had an Anschutz 1416D and the mag release is a pain.
Two Coopers and equally painful.
Converted previous CZ's mag releases and although short it is a world of difference.
Bought two extended mag releases from Nordic for the Coopers and while there is an occasional problem with how the mag sits and the round failing to ramp up to the chamber or sometimes ramping up too high.
While a little long and could cause the mag to accidentally eject it is a world of difference.

 

[grauhanen]

I see. I guess it depends on what we mean by occasional and random. A box worth of groups where 80% of them are under .7", or an average performance well under 1" over thousands of rounds seems more than occasional or random to me, it indeed seems very surprising. I would not have expected that.

I have to admit that I'm no longer sure what you're saying, but with your "it depends" qualification, you sound like you have reason to disagree with how I've characterized the S&B ammo.

Are you saying that an ammo for which 80% of five-shot groups are under .7" is surprisingly good?

Look at it from the perspective that most .22LR shooters would have where 1 MOA at 50 yards (.5") is the yardstick for good performance. On the first target in post #52 above, two groups are 1 MOA or better; on the second it's another two; on the third and final target shown, it's none. That's four good groups out of thirty. There were more groups over 2 MOA than there were under 1 MOA.

If I've misunderstood, allow me to apologize in advance.

 

[LolaPP]

I have to admit that I'm no longer sure what you're saying, but with your "it depends" qualification, you sound like you have reason to disagree with how I've characterized the S&B ammo.

Are you saying that an ammo for which 80% of five-shot groups are under .7" is surprisingly good?

Look at it from the perspective that most .22LR shooters would have where 1 MOA at 50 yards (.5") is the yardstick for good performance. On the first target in post #52 above, two groups are 1 MOA or better; on the second it's another two; on the third and final target shown, it's none. That's four good groups out of thirty. There were more groups over 2 MOA than there were under 1 MOA.

If I've misunderstood, allow me to apologize in advance.

What I'm saying is pretty simple - to me anyway - that plinker grade ammo shooting under 2 MOA at 50 is surprisingly good. Perhaps I suffer from low expectations, but no, I wouldn't expect it to shoot better than 2 MOA at 50. I would be very much less than happy were this Eley, Lapua, or RWS or even some SK loads, but it's not, it's 5 cent a round bulk ammo. I adjust my expectations accordingly. I think if you expect .5 to be "good" with bulk ammo, you're in for a lot of disappointment.

I definitely dispute the assertion that .5 is the yardstick for "good" performance - that's outstanding performance. I'm going to be honest and say that I think claiming that "most" .22LR shooters think .5 is good is absurd; they would think consistent .5s at 50 is excellent, if not remarkable. It's a level of performance most rifles and ammo simply aren't capable of and the vast majority of shooters will never achieve. If you define "good" performance as the top 10% I'm not sure that makes much sense. If anything less than .5 isn't "good," then what is it? Poor? Mediocre? Unacceptable? You're saying that you think a 10/22 Carbine shooting bulk ammo hitting 1" at 50 isn't "good"? What is it then?

 

[LolaPP]

Ripped off a box into one group at 100 yards today, crummy conditions (5 to 15 mph gusting, 2c), but it's illuminating anyway. Most rounds go into a box well well under 2 MOA. The flyers there aren't wind, that's the ammo. Certainly not ammo you'd want to use for competition, but for practical accuracy with $4/box plinker grade .22, I think that's darn good performance. It compares favorably with four different lots of SK FN Basic at that range. For ammo that's half the price, I'll take it. It's enough to let you fairly reliably smash a clay pigeon out to 200 yards. What's not to like about cheap ammo that can do that?

Like I say, maybe I suffer from low expectations, but I wouldn't expect that from low end ammo out of a low mid range rifle.