Buy me a rifle... updated with target

[LolaPP]

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.

I get why people don't like the mag release, in that it's low profile and doesn't suffer from an excess of grip, but I don't find it an issue at all. With my thumb beside the chamber I use my index finger on the release... even with cold & numb or gloved fingers I haven't had a problem dropping the mag with one hand. Certainly not enough of an issue that I'd trade off misfeeds and accidentally dropping mags to fix it. I suspect in the summer with sweatier fingers it may fall apart, but a little piece of deck tape should address that.

 

[grauhanen]

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?

It's not my intention to argue about S&B ammo, but there are some things to note. While it may be relatively inexpensive, S&B Standard isn't considered bulk ammo. It's sold boxes of 50. But that doesn't mean it's good quality ammo. It is inconsistently performing SV ammo that can just as easily give 2 MOA groups as others half the size. As noted, sorting makes no difference. It's not good ammo for target shooting. This explains its usually low price.

More important, however, is the standard of "good" performance. I think most shooters would agree that consistent .5" groups at 50 is a reasonable standard of good performance. There's a thread on this Rimfire forum dedicated to that standard. https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...s-at-50-yards-meters-all-day!-Really-Prove-it! It has about 150 successful entries. More significantly, it acknowledges a small group of shooters who have achieved what can truly be considered an "excellent" standard of performance by shooting five five-round-groups that are .5 MOA or better at 50 yards. To be sure, five group averages under .25" are more common, it's the level of consistency when all five groups are .5 MOA or better that's really excellent.

 

[LolaPP]

While it may be relatively inexpensive, S&B Standard isn't considered bulk ammo. It's sold boxes of 50.

Hmmm. Well, again, we'll have define what we mean by "bulk", I guess. When I buy it a case at a time for less than I can buy Federal Champion BYOB, I'm gonna call it bulk. It may LITERALLY be packaged in 50 round boxes, but it's bulk in quantity, quality and pricing. That line of thinking to refer to ammo as bulk is ridiculous - you can buy the exact same Federal Champion load in 50 round boxes, or in buckets of varying sizes up to 1375 rounds. Sooooooo.... the stuff in boxes isn't bulk but the stuff in buckets is? What about Mini Mags? They can come packaged in 50 rd boxes or in bulk packs, but none are what I would call "bulk quality ammo." If all of a sudden S&B packaged Standard in buckets tomorrow, would you consider it bulk? I'm sorry, but that's an asinine line of thinking. Many (most?) "bulk" offerings are the same loads off the same machines as loads in 50 or 100 round boxes. S&B is bulk quality. I would call Aguila in 50 round boxes "bulk quality" because it is, despite literally being in 50 round boxes. I'm sure you're not trying to be obtuse, but that's sure how it seems.

More important, however, is the standard of "good" performance. I think most shooters would agree that consistent .5" groups at 50 is a reasonable standard of good performance.

Yes, you already said that. I said I thought it was nonsense, and why, and what you've done is say the same thing again.

There's a thread on this Rimfire forum dedicated to that standard. https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...s-at-50-yards-meters-all-day!-Really-Prove-it

Yes, I took noticing for a few years in highschool, so I saw that.

It has about 150 successful entries.

It does. Out of several hundred thousand members here and several million gun owners across Canada. I agree that it's a very small and rarefied group.

More significantly, it acknowledges a small group of shooters who have achieved what can truly be considered an "excellent" standard of performance by shooting five five-round-groups that are .5 MOA or better at 50 yards.

Yeahhhhhhhhh.... so..... that sounds exactly like what I've been saying. I don't understand. One post - or sentence - you're saying "good" and the next you're saying "excellent."

Which is it? You said .5 is the standard to be "good" and now it's excellent and unusual. I agree with the latter. I don't understand why this is a hard conversation

To be sure, five group averages under .25" are more common

I'm gonna have to ask for reciepts here. Have you done an average of all the successful groups posted there?

it's the level of consistency when all five groups are .5 MOA or better that's really excellent.

Mmm hmm. I would absolutely agree. I would describe shooting consistent .5s as excellent. That's precisely what I've been saying. I'm not sure what the misunderstanding here is.

Reference my post 60, I'm very happy with cheap ammo that shoots an aggregate like that at 100 yards in #### conditions. I don't know what more you could want at that price range. It's just great for blasting off a brick at a time and being good enough on average not to be frustrating.

 

[SHELL SHUCKER]

 

[grauhanen]

Out of several hundred thousand members here and several million gun owners across Canada. I agree that it's a very small and rarefied group.

I believe a lot of shooters in Canada can meet the challenge. It's certainly not the typical .22LR shooter who has an average rifle and uses inexpensive ammo and is less than concerned about .22LR accuracy. Still, there are a lot of good shooters using good rifles and good ammo and understand .22LR accuracy who can meet it, but for their own reasons -- including modesty and indifference -- choose not to post.


Yeahhhhhhhhh.... so..... that sounds exactly like what I've been saying. I don't understand. One post - or sentence - you're saying "good" and the next you're saying "excellent."

Which is it? You said .5 is the standard to be "good" and now it's excellent and unusual. I agree with the latter. I don't understand why this is a hard conversation

I think I know why it's a hard conversation -- confusion. Please read on.

I'm gonna have to ask for reciepts here. Have you done an average of all the successful groups posted there?

There is a simple explanation. There are only three shooters who've shot five .5 MOA or better groups on the same targets. Many more shooters have shot targets that averaged .5 MOA and better without each group being .5 MOA or less. To give an example, four groups under .5 MOA and one over can still produce an average under .5 MOA.

Mmm hmm. I would absolutely agree. I would describe shooting consistent .5s as excellent. That's precisely what I've been saying. I'm not sure what the misunderstanding here is.

See below.

I think you've confused .5 MOA and .5" and that is the source of your misunderstanding. At 50 yards, .5 MOA is very close to .25". That's excellent shooting. At 50 yards 1 MOA is very close to .5". That's good shooting. I've been consistent with these differences, and I'm afraid you haven't.

 

[LolaPP]

I think you've confused .5 MOA and .5" and that is the source of your misunderstanding. At 50 yards, .5 MOA is very close to .25". That's excellent shooting. At 50 yards 1 MOA is very close to .5". That's good shooting. I've been consistent with these differences, and I'm afraid you haven't.

Holy moly buddy, no. I'm not confusing .5" and .5 MOA., and there's no misunderstanding on this end. Indeed, if you have a glance again at how those targets are measured, it should be abundantly apparent that's not the case. What I did do was skip reiterating the unit of measurement over and over, figuring that it would be abundantly clear from context which I meant. Clearly that was an error. If you need me to go back and add them in for you, I'm happy to do that.

Again, still... to say .5 INCH shooting is good is absurd. That's excellent in the overall world of rimfire accuracy. 1 INCH at 50 yards is the accepted standard for a good shooting .22. That makes a fair amount of sense, when you consider their intended use and range. If it takes consistently hitting .5 INCH groups at 50 to be "good," then most rifles are bad. That's absurd, obviously. I think you have taken a standard of accuracy that applies to a small subset of rifles and ammo and applied it to the world of .22s at large.

As I ask, what word would you use to describe the accuracy of an out of the box 10/22 carbine that shoots consistent 1" groups at 50 yards? It's a serious question. I think most shooters would call that "good," but I guess you have another word?

There is a simple explanation. There are only three shooters who've shot five .5 MOA or better groups on the same targets. Many more shooters have shot targets that averaged .5 MOA and better without each group being .5 MOA or less. To give an example, four groups under .5 MOA and one over can still produce an average under .5 MOA.

Yes, they covered averages in grade school, so I generally get how they work. As I ask, have you done the math and come to that conclusion, or is it your impression? You're claiming that MOST targets posted there average under .25 INCH, and I'm asking if that's based off number crunching, or just a general impression.

I'll note that unfortunately the whole thing has the fatal flaw of not standardizing on a bullet diameter deduction, or requiring the actual hole diameter on that individual target to be measured. Without that, it's impossible to compare groups accurately. If everyone just does edge to edge -.224, it'll be inaccurate but at least consistent. Simply deducting. 224 from an edge to edge measurement can be optimistic by 40 or 50 thou.

 

[grauhanen]

Holy moly buddy, no. I'm not confusing .5" and .5 MOA., and there's no misunderstanding on this end.

Yes, I'm afraid you are. See below in Red.



Yes, they covered averages in grade school, so I generally get how they work. As I ask, have you done the math and come to that conclusion, or is it your impression? You're claiming that MOST targets posted there average under .25 INCH, and I'm asking if that's based off number crunching, or just a general
impression.

You are misunderstanding things again. I made no such claim. See below in Blue.

I think you continue to misunderstand. In my post, from which you quoted, I said the following in connection to the 1/2" challenge thread: "it acknowledges a small group of shooters who have achieved what can truly be considered an "excellent" standard of performance by shooting five five-round-groups that are .5 MOA or better at 50 yards." To put it another way, that thread also recognizes the small group of shooters who have done much better than meeting the 1/2" challenge by shooting five 1/4" (.5 MOA) or better groups on the same target -- the 1/4" CLUB.

You replied with this:

Yeahhhhhhhhh.... so..... that sounds exactly like what I've been saying. I don't understand. One post - or sentence - you're saying "good" and the next you're saying "excellent."

Which is it? You said .5 is the standard to be "good" and now it's excellent and unusual. I agree with the latter. I don't understand why this is a hard conversation

If you take the time to read what I've written in my post, you'll see that I've been consistent. I said .5" is good shooting and .5 MOA is excellent. You appear to have equated .5" with .5 MOA and continue to do so. Otherwise you would see your misunderstanding.

Contrary to what you've imagined, I haven't claimed that most targets in that thread average under .25". That would be foolish and it would betray a complete and rather curious unfamiliarity with the 1/2" challenge.

There are three shooters who have shot a target that has five sub-.25" groups (about .5 MOA). There are other shooters who have shot targets with an overall average under .25" but have had one or more groups that were larger. If one or more groups are larger than .25" that target, while qualifying for a successful 1/2" challenge post, doesn't qualify for the truly excellent 1/4" challenge. There are more targets like that than there are in which all groups are .25" (.5 MOA) or better. No study of averages is needed.

To give an example, on August 3 last year, one shooter posted two targets shot with an Anschutz 1416 and CCI Sub Sonic ammo. One target's five groups averaged .208" and the other .203". These targets, while extraordinary, were not enough to qualify for the 1/4" Club but they did meet the 1/2" challenge.

 

[LolaPP]

Contrary to what you've imagined, I haven't claimed that most targets in that thread average under .25". That would be foolish and it would betray a complete and rather curious unfamiliarity with the 1/2" challenge.

To be sure, five group averages under .25" are more common

That's exactly what you claimed. If averages under .25 INCH are MORE COMMON than averages under .5 INCH, then that sure sounds like most to me. Otherwise I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Anyway, I remain interested to hear your thoughts on my questions regarding what "good" 10/22 accuracy is, or which packaging of Federal Champion qualifies as "bulk" ammo.

 

[grauhanen]

I'm beginning to wonder if the misunderstanding is rooted in wilful obtuseness rather than failure to comprehend.

Here's what you've quoted.

To be sure, five group averages under .25" are more common

Here's exactly what I said, shown in full so you may read it in context.

More important, however, is the standard of "good" performance. I think most shooters would agree that consistent .5" groups at 50 is a reasonable standard of good performance. There's a thread on this Rimfire forum dedicated to that standard. https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...s-at-50-yards-meters-all-day!-Really-Prove-it! It has about 150 successful entries. More significantly, it acknowledges a small group of shooters who have achieved what can truly be considered an "excellent" standard of performance by shooting five five-round-groups that are .5 MOA or better at 50 yards. To be sure, five group averages under .25" are more common, it's the level of consistency when all five groups are .5 MOA or better that's really excellent.

I've bolded the part that you've quoted.

That's exactly what you claimed. If averages under .25 INCH are MORE COMMON than averages under .5 INCH, then that sure sounds like most to me. Otherwise I'm not sure what you're getting at.

As more careful reading shows, that's not what I claimed. I said the excellent standard of performance is "shooting five five-round groups that are .5 MOA or better at 50 yards." I continued with the following: "To be sure, five group averages under .25" are more common [than what I previously referred to]... ."

To simplify: Five group averages under .25" are more common than five five-round-groups that are .5 MOA or better at 50 yards. While there are only three in the 1/4" Club, there are more examples with five group averages under .25" -- like the ones from August 3, 2020 referred to above -- than there are 1/4" Club entries.

I'm quite familiar with the disappointment that accompanies an otherwise good target when the five group average is well under .25" but not 1/4" Club worthy. Such targets are not necessarily infrequent. Other shooters can give testimony to the fact that it's more difficult to shoot five five-shot groups all under .25" (.5 MOA) on the same target than it is to shoot a target with a five group average under .25". You don't need special math skills to understand that something that is easier to do can be done more often than something that's more difficult.

As for your questions about 10/22 accuracy -- I don't know. I've never shot that model of rifle. Federal bulk ammo? I've never used it and am uninterested in it. I commented on the S&B Standard as I bought two bricks years ago. I saw first hand how it shot and put the remaining boxes away, never using them again because it's not good ammo.

 

[LolaPP]

We were hashtag blessed out here with some great weather today. Sunny, 8c and wind gusting to 7 but averaging 2 with periods of dead calm.

I didn't call any of these as pulled, they all seemed good to me, and I'd be surprised if there was much more than 10 or 20 thou of wind in any of the groups, except for some swirling over the trees it was all dead up range. The biggest difference was me as I warmed up then got worn out banging out groups for two hours. I'm calling it all good and that what you're seeing here is pretty much the best this rifle can do with these loads with me behind it. Be interesting to compare in six weeks and see if there's any improvement.

S&B comes hilariously close to meeting the 1/2" at 50 yards challenge. Three of a five group sequence are under, - that .50 is rounded up from .496. Holy moly, would it actually be possible to hit that challenge with S&B Standard? Statistically highly unlikely, but if you shoot enough, eventually you get the unlikely result...





Once again the S&B Standard surprises at 100 yards. Not much change from the previous much worse conditions, actually. 80% of rounds land within 3/4" of MPI. For the cheapest bulk ammo on the market, I'll take it. Certainly more than sufficient to be fun as 100 yd plinking ammo. Once the 150 yard firing point isn't a total planet Dagobah I'll try out at that range.

 

[LolaPP]

As for your questions about 10/22 accuracy -- I don't know. I've never shot that model of rifle.

Oh, ok,.I see. I completely get where you're coming from then. If you discount the vast majority of .22s sold, the ones that overwhelmingly make up what "most" shooters use, then yes, 1/2" at 50 yards is the maximum to be a "good" standard of accuracy. Much like 1 MOA is the general standard for "good" accuracy from even a budget modern bolt rifle and .5 MOA is "good" for a target or precision rifle. That doesn't mean "most" shooters think .5 MOA is the maximum to be considered "good" accuracy.

I mean, there's a pretty obvious reason why the challenge here is 1/2 at 50 yds. That's because it's exactly one half of the commonly accepted standard for a good .22. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be much of a challenge, would it? What's the point of having a challenge that merely requires "good" accuracy? It's no accident the centerfire hunting one is 1/2" at 100, because that's.... wait for it.... half the size of what's commonly considered "good" from a rifle.

I'll say I truly find it surprising you've literally never shot a 10/22 - for someone so apparently into .22s, that would put you in an incredibly small minority. It's remarkable.

I commented on the S&B Standard as I bought two bricks years ago. I saw first hand how it shot and put the remaining boxes away, never using them again because it's not good ammo.

Ok, so you don't have a ton of experience with it. Fine. I've shot two CASES of it this year. Like since January this year, not the past calendar year. I have another three on the shelf and one on the way. It's not the .22 ammo I shoot the most of.

Again - still - we have to stipulate what you mean by "good" here, but I think for the cheapest bulk ammo in Canada that goes bang every time and is accurate enough for some practical shooting is "good." Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but since it doesn't always shoot 1/2 inch at 50 yards, you don't think it's good. Ok, sure. I accept that. For you, it isn't good.

Federal bulk ammo? I've never used it and am uninterested in it.

Good to know. I didn't ask if you've used it, or whether you were interested in it. My question was what you consider "bulk" - if being sold in 50 round boxes precludes ammo from being "bulk", then what is Fed Champion which is packaged many different ways? It's a very simple question that doesn't require you to have ever seen the ammo, much less shot it or have an opinion on it.

 

[RabidM4U5]

I'll say I truly find it surprising you've literally never shot a 10/22 - for someone so apparently into .22s, that would put you in an incredibly small minority. It's remarkable.

I've never shot a 10/22. I did shoot a 77/22 when I was a junior member at my previous rifle club. I also have no interest in a 10/22. A Remington 597 was my first rifle. I did my research and I'll maintain that it is the superior rifle despite the lessor availability of aftermarket "upgrades". Hint: the 597 doesn't really need "upgrades". Factory 10/22's aren't known for their accuracy, though "hot-rod" platforms can be quite the good shooters. I had my 597 fitted with a Lilja barrel (interesting story of making lemonade out of lemons). How do you think it shoots?

 

[LolaPP]

I've never shot a 10/22. I did shoot a 77/22 when I was a junior member at my previous rifle club. I also have no interest in a 10/22. A Remington 597 was my first rifle. I did my research and I'll maintain that it is the superior rifle despite the lessor availability of aftermarket "upgrades". Hint: the 597 doesn't really need "upgrades". Factory 10/22's aren't known for their accuracy, though "hot-rod" platforms can be quite the good shooters. I had my 597 fitted with a Lilja barrel (interesting story of making lemonade out of lemons). How do you think it shoots?

Wow, I think that's exceptional. Very cool.

I guess I'd say too I'm surprised I've never owned a Rem 597. I should rectify that. I don't mean to sound like I have any particular expertise in the 10/22 - I don't, and I've only ever owned two or three and shot a few more. I just mean I find it genuinely surprising that shooters around for a while haven't shot one at least ONCE given their mass popularity. Huh.

I don't know that when we're talking sub $750 semi auto rimfires that "superior" is much of a distinction between all of the available offerings. The difference between say a 795 or a 64 or 10/22 or 597 strikes me as shaving the ice cube a bit. Yeah, there's minor advantages and disadvantages to each, but man, they're all inexpensive. 22 semi autos. What are we expecting?

 

[Southcountryguy]

Good to know. I didn't ask if you've used it, or whether you were interested in it. My question was what you consider "bulk" - if being sold in 50 round boxes precludes ammo from being "bulk", then what is Fed Champion which is packaged many different ways? It's a very simple question that doesn't require you to have ever seen the ammo, much less shot it or have an opinion on it.

“Bulk” ammunition is how it is sold, that is loose in the container. You can buy some in pails, some in boxes etc. You can also buy ammo that is boxed “in bulk”, that being a large amount, but it’s not considered “bulk”.

One can speculate that because the “bulk” ammunition carries the same name as the boxed that it is the same quality, whatever that may be. It may also be all or partially of rejects from quality control of said name, or not. I have a long time high school friend that works in a factory that makes rimfire ammunition in the USA. Since this post peeked my interest I posed the question to her and while she was unable to answer due to confidentiality issues she said I would probably be “better in the long run” with the boxed versions. Add some salt and take it for it’s worth.

I am envious you have been able to shoot more than 10,000 rounds of the ammunition talked about and you state you shoot another name brand more. Impressive amount of time behind the trigger.

Happy shooting

SCG

 

[LolaPP]

“Bulk” ammunition is how it is sold, that is loose in the container. You can buy some in pails, some in boxes etc. You can also buy ammo that is boxed “in bulk”, that being a large amount, but it’s not considered “bulk”.

That makes total sense. I get that. To be precise, what I was talking about originally was bulk quality vs literall bulk packaging. Just because some manufacturers throw their offerings into 50 round boxes doesn't make them better than bulk quality ammo.

One can speculate that because the “bulk” ammunition carries the same name as the boxed that it is the same quality, whatever that may be. It may also be all or partially of rejects from quality control of said name, or not. I have a long time high school friend that works in a factory that makes rimfire ammunition in the USA. Since this post peeked my interest I posed the question to her and while she was unable to answer due to confidentiality issues she said I would probably be “better in the long run” with the boxed versions. Add some salt and take it for it’s worth.

No, that's absolutely generally true. IE it's well known that SK Magazine is QC rejects of SK Standard. GENERALLY it's a safe (sure) bet that boxed ammo will have better QC than bulk packed ammo. That doesn't mean that ALL bulk packed ammo will be inferior to the same load off the same machines packed in boxes. The savings even in packaging materials and labor when dumping 500 rounds into a bulk pack allows for cost savings over 50 rd boxes ammo, plus the cost savings from buying in quantity. My point was that defining bulk quality based solely on the packaging isn't necessarily correct. EG I would also lump Aguila in there as "bulk quality", despite being literally packed in 50 round boxes. It's ammo made to bulk standards, priced like bulk, that performs like bulk.

I am envious you have been able to shoot more than 10,000 rounds of the ammunition talked about and you state you shoot another name brand more. Impressive amount of time behind the trigger.

Happy shooting

SCG

This isn't usual, ie every year. Each year I decide on a theme to pursue to focus my attention. Past years have included the year of the muzzleloader, the year of the shotgun (sporting), the year of the shotgun (combat), the year of the Fudd rifle, the year of the black powder cartridge rifle, the year of the cast bullet, the year of the milsurp, etc. I find I prefer focusing on one at a time more than shooting say six different disciplines and fifteen different firearms at once. A brick or so per range trip two to four times a week adds up quickly.

The other name brand is Aguila. Is there a no name brand of ammo? Let me at it lol.

 

[grauhanen]

Before going forward, please keep the following in mind. Consistent 1 MOA (1/2" five-shot groups at 50) is "good" for a .22 rimfire. Consistent .5 MOA standard (1/4" five-shot groups at 50) is an excellent standard. There are about 150 examples of a good standard on the 1/2" challenge thread and three examples of an excellent standard.

______________________________________________________

If you discount the vast majority of .22s sold, the ones that overwhelmingly make up what "most" shooters use, then yes, 1/2" at 50 yards is the maximum to be a "good" standard of accuracy. Much like 1 MOA is the general standard for "good" accuracy from even a budget modern bolt rifle and .5 MOA is "good" for a target or precision rifle. That doesn't mean "most" shooters think .5 MOA is the maximum to be considered "good" accuracy.

If I discount the vast majority of .22 rimfire rifles from an accuracy discussion, it's because they are not especially accurate and don't deserve inclusion in such a conversation.

You say that 1 MOA is the general standard for "good" accuracy from even a budget bolt action rifle. This is far too optimistic and is unfounded in experience. Inexpensive, budget .22 rimfire rifles simply aren't capable of a consistent 1 MOA (1/2" five shot groups) level of accuracy at 50 yards. Inexpensive .22 rimfire rifles will occasionally, even with inconsistent ammo, shoot a random small group or two, but they won't do it reliably. When budget rifles shoot reliably to a 2 MOA standard, which is 1" five-shot groups at 50 yards, the owner should be pleased. If a consistent 1 MOA standard was the regular standard for most budget .22 rifles, there'd be many more of them on the 1/2" challenge.

To illustrate, CZ rifles start at over $600 and don't fall into the "budget" rifle category. There are only a couple of 457 models, those with the "match" chamber and are well over $800, for which the manufacture promises 1 MOA results -- with the provision "depending on the ammunition used." No other CZ bolt action rimfire rifles have that promise from CZ. The acceptable accuracy for those CZ rifles appears to be 2 MOA (which is 1" groups at 50) -- as many CZ shooters on RFC report CZ USA telling them. Of course, some individual CZ rifles without the match chamber are very good shooters, which means they are above average CZ rifles. I can confirm the fact that they're not all the same through my own experience with at least eight CZ bolt action rifles.

I mean, there's a pretty obvious reason why the challenge here is 1/2 at 50 yds. That's because it's exactly one half of the commonly accepted standard for a good .22. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be much of a challenge, would it? What's the point of having a challenge that merely requires "good" accuracy? It's no accident the centerfire hunting one is 1/2" at 100, because that's.... wait for it.... half the size of what's commonly considered "good" from a rifle.

The average .22 rimfire bolt rifles are just that -- average. This means they generally shoot to 2 MOA at 50 yards, which is 1" at 50 (see the CZ comments above). These rifles usually aren't capable of 1 MOA accuracy (which is 1/2" at 50). As a result, the 1/2" challenge is a very fair way to identify what's good from what's average.

I'll say I truly find it surprising you've literally never shot a 10/22 - for someone so apparently into .22s, that would put you in an incredibly small minority. It's remarkable.

I understood the 10/22 is without a remarkable reputation for accuracy and as a result I never thought to try one. Your view must be that they are in fact great shooters and hence your surprise. Perhaps I've been wrong about them. I have had more than a few other makes of rifles, however, two of them American-made, one of which was capable of a good standard of shooting.

Ok, so you don't have a ton of experience with it. Fine. I've shot two CASES of it this year. Like since January this year, not the past calendar year. I have another three on the shelf and one on the way. It's not the .22 ammo I shoot the most of.

No, I don't have your experience with S&B Standard. I've never found that inexpensive and inconsistent ammo gets better if you shoot more of it.

I didn't ask if you've used it, or whether you were interested in it. My question was what you consider "bulk" - if being sold in 50 round boxes precludes ammo from being "bulk", then what is Fed Champion which is packaged many different ways? It's a very simple question that doesn't require you to have ever seen the ammo, much less shot it or have an opinion on it.

My mistake. I thought you were aware of what bulk ammo is. As a previous poster notes, it's sold in bulk packaging, in quanity, such as a bucket of bullets or a package of 325 or 500 rounds in a box. They are designed for economy, and as such don't have a reputation for consistency. And to be clear, when someone buys a case of match ammo, which is 5000 rounds, he's not buying bulk ammo. A case has ten bricks, each of which in turn have ten boxes of 50 rounds.

 

[LolaPP]

Before going forward, please keep the following in mind. Consistent 1 MOA (1/2" five-shot groups at 50) is "good" for a .22 rimfire. Consistent .5 MOA standard (1/4" five-shot groups at 50) is an excellent standard. There are about 150 examples of a good standard on the 1/2" challenge thread and three examples of an excellent standard.

Ok, well, that settles it then. We just fundamentally disagree on that. I can't say it any more times or in any more ways that I think calling consistent .5s at 50 the standard for "good" is goofy and absurd. The standard for good with a .22 is 1 inch at 50 yards. .5 inch is great, and. 25 inch is outstanding/exceptional/stellar. That should be abundantly clear from the fact that .5 at 50 is a challenge at all.

If I discount the vast majority of .22 rimfire rifles from an accuracy discussion, it's because they are not especially accurate and don't deserve inclusion in such a conversation.

Right, sure, just like if you discard your bad groups or "flyers", the averages look a lot better. If you discount the vast majority of .22s and focus only on the ones capable of great accuracy, then yes... but then you're not talking about .22 accuracy, you're talking about a small subset of .22 accuracy.

To illustrate, CZ rifles start at over $600 and don't fall into the "budget" rifle category. There are only a couple of 457 models, those with the "match" chamber and are well over $800

You need to shop around more. I see a whole bunch of CZ rimfires available new, in stock, across a half dozen dealers between $500 and $600, including a 457 for $509.99.

Inexpensive, budget .22 rimfire rifles simply aren't capable of a consistent 1 MOA (1/2" five shot groups) level of accuracy at 50 yards

I said budget rifles, not budget rimfire rifles. I'm referring to the standard for CF.

No, I don't have your experience with S&B Standard. I've never found that inexpensive and inconsistent ammo gets better if you shoot more of it.

I hope it won't melt your brain if I get it to meet the 1/2 at 50 challenge...

Anyway, good luck with all that and enjoy your shooting.

 

[Tred]

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

Distance? I have "Hunter 22" says 50yrds but is that all, is it listed on the target and I'm missing it? I ask out of curiosity and to compare my own .22LR.

 

[Longstud]

Ok, well, that settles it then. We just fundamentally disagree on that. I can't say it any more times or in any more ways that I think calling consistent .5s at 50 the standard for "good" is goofy and absurd. The standard for good with a .22 is 1 inch at 50 yards. .5 inch is great, and. 25 inch is outstanding/exceptional/stellar. That should be abundantly clear from the fact that .5 at 50 is a challenge at all.



Right, sure, just like if you discard your bad groups or "flyers", the averages look a lot better. If you discount the vast majority of .22s and focus only on the ones capable of great accuracy, then yes... but then you're not talking about .22 accuracy, you're talking about a small subset of .22 accuracy.



You need to shop around more. I see a whole bunch of CZ rimfires available new, in stock, across a half dozen dealers between $500 and $600, including a 457 for $509.99.



I said budget rifles, not budget rimfire rifles. I'm referring to the standard for CF.



I hope it won't melt your brain if I get it to meet the 1/2 at 50 challenge...

Anyway, good luck with all that and enjoy your shooting.

With whatever measuring device ur using to measure ur targets Im sure youll get there. Your also arguing with one of the most knowledgeable rimfire shooters youll probably never meet. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and Im good with that but He is correct and you are WRONG!!!

 

[Southcountryguy]

With whatever measuring device ur using to measure ur targets Im sure youll get there. Your also arguing with one of the most knowledgeable rimfire shooters youll probably never meet. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and Im good with that but He is correct and you are WRONG!!!

This ^^^