CCI Quiet-22 22LR chrono results

B

blsonne

BANNED
Regular
BANNED
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Location
Toronto
Hello,

I tend to gather numbers and figured I'd share back; this should help folks investigating ammunition reliability.

First, it was nice, sunny day out, about 25C, we were shooting in the shade mid afternoon. Sorry I don't have a Kestrel or I'd give the kind of data I'd really like to; maybe some day.

Range to the target 50yd, verified with a laser. Firearm is a Savage MKII BTVSS that I purchased new, I put less then 500 rds through before this test, glass is a Sightron S-something-or-other-sky that I forget, but it's quite nice (another good recommendation via CGN, thanks folks!). Ammo is CCI Quiet-22 with a nominal speed of 710FPS, 40gr lead round nose bullet.

First off, it sounds hilarious - quieter then some of my airguns, though the *whack* when it hits the board is louder. And you can totally see the thing arc in flight; I was surprised to see most of them arc UP before dipping back down, unless I was crazy. We shot prone off of a bipod on a large patch of sand.

662.4, 688.6, 695.2, 671.7, 626.3, 692.7, 697.5, 644.5, 698.5, 653.5, 648.1, 726.9, 697.8, 697.9, 694.5, 678.5, 677.6, 702.5, 689, 673.4, 680, 677.2, 691.4, 670, 690 were the numbers we got after we remembered to set up the Shooting Chrony and before dinner was ready.

This averages out to 681.03, which is ~29fps off of the nominal, not too bad IMO... but the variability is a real pain in the ass. When you got a string of shots that all sounded the same, your groups were really, satisfyingly tight, but otherwise it could be inches off and the difference in sound very noticeable.

I haven't plotted it to see if it tightens up over time, but I'm wondering what might explain the variability here. Is this a case of rifle and ammo not getting along, a rifle that maybe needs to be shot more to 'break it in' (or however you want to phrase it), ammo that no-one likes because of this same problem, etc?

Thoughts, opinions, suggestions.
 
Last edited:
They'll always be like that - break the rifle in all you want, but I've always has results like this with CCI quiets (sans chrony, which I don't have and have never really felt the need to buy). They were built for noise reduction, not target shooting.
 
I find the quiets very sensitive to powder residue from the last shot. Clean your barrel and throat squeaky clean between each shot as a test, try it again.
 
I really wanted the quiets to be accurate, but I'll have to switch. Using the quiets was all about keeping noise to a minimum and reducing bother to the neighbours.

This is a case where silly Canadian gun laws limit my options for accuracy and being a good neighbour, because we're not allowed suppressors, unlike other smarter and less paternalistic countries where such options exist and might even be required.
 
Last edited:
The quiets shoot accurately enough for my needs, and they cycle the 10/22 most of the time, but not always.

I like 'em! :)

Pretty sure that reliable cycling will come if I go to the bother of radiusing the bolt, maybe a couple turns clipped off the recoil spring.

Cheers
Trev
 
They surely don;t cycle in my henry ar-7. Action is still really tight, after 1000's of rounds. Not complaining though, it still functions like day 1 and all I've ever done is regular cleaning. Certainly only wants to eat standard or high velocity.
 
blsonne said:
Hello,

I tend to gather numbers and figured I'd share back; this should help folks investigating ammunition reliability.
Click to expand...
Thank you at least for myself, I enjoy such statistics and am embarrassed that I do not contribute more in that regard with the chrono I bought in July. A brief testing of SK Standard Plus out my CZ 452 proved to be very consistent around 1100fps if I remember correctly: So the answer I would submit to the questions in your last paragraph is the ammo is the cause for the inconsistency: I doubt most semi-autos wouldn't fudge the numbers that much either, but it would be reasonable to expect some difference compared to a bolt action. The rifle and the ammo not harmonizing would be evident mostly in accuracy, however variances in bullet velocity will also adversely affect the same. Never broke a rifle in my life, and the aforementioned 22LR with that SK ammo will make groups the size of the bullet hole if I can be as consistent. I posted some pics in a CZ rimfire thread several months ago.
First, it was nice, sunny day out, about 25C, we were shooting in the shade mid afternoon. Sorry I don't have a Kestrel or I'd give the kind of data I'd really like to; maybe some day.

Range to the target 50yd, verified with a laser. Firearm is a Savage MKII BTVSS that I purchased new, I put less then 500 rds through before this test, glass is a Sightron S-something-or-other-sky that I forget, but it's quite nice (another good recommendation via CGN, thanks folks!). Ammo is CCI Quiet-22 with a nominal speed of 710FPS, 40gr lead round nose bullet.

First off, it sounds hilarious - quieter then some of my airguns, though the *whack* when it hits the board is louder. And you can totally see the thing arc in flight; I was surprised to see most of them arc UP before dipping back down, unless I was crazy. We shot prone off of a bipod on a large patch of sand.
Click to expand...
When I first saw bullets in flight, I found it to be interesting and kind of funny: I've heard of this before, but only noticed it once when I took a young lad shooting and spotted through binoculars. These were standard velocity rounds mentioned above, to a target at 60m and they looked like a red hornet travelling in a perfect shallow arc. I don't know why such a small thing is that interesting.
662.4, 688.6, 695.2, 671.7, 626.3, 692.7, 697.5, 644.5, 698.5, 653.5, 648.1, 726.9, 697.8, 697.9, 694.5, 678.5, 677.6, 702.5, 689, 673.4, 680, 677.2, 691.4, 670, 690 were the numbers we got after we remembered to set up the Shooting Chrony and before dinner was ready.

This averages out to 681.03, which is ~29fps off of the nominal, not too bad IMO... but the variability is a real pain in the ass. When you got a string of shots that all sounded the same, your groups were really, satisfyingly tight, but otherwise it could be inches off and the difference in sound very noticeable.

I haven't plotted it to see if it tightens up over time, but I'm wondering what might explain the variability here. Is this a case of rifle and ammo not getting along, a rifle that maybe needs to be shot more to 'break it in' (or however you want to phrase it), ammo that no-one likes because of this same problem, etc?

Thoughts, opinions, suggestions.
Click to expand...
Spread between the extremes was 100.6fps...(~20%) that is disappointing, but again it's just the ammo. Within effeetive range(~50m you were shooting), were the groups tight enough for squirrel head shots? That would be reasonably acceptable, for I can only think this ammo is manufactured for such uses or small indoor target shooting.
 
trevj said:
The quiets shoot accurately enough for my needs, and they cycle the 10/22 most of the time, but not always.

I like 'em! :)
Pretty sure that reliable cycling will come if I go to the bother of radiusing the bolt, maybe a couple turns clipped off the recoil spring.
Cheers
Trev
Click to expand...

I have yet to get a CCI "710 fps" long to cycle in my 10/22 !
No matter, they work great out of my far more accurate Savage MKII BTVSS with the heavy barrel. They don't group as well as the standards, but at close range plinking, they do just fine.
 
I picked up a box to try out of my CZ 452 for plinking, and for the hell of it I filled the mag tube on a Norinco SA .22 copy, and found out this round cycle. Now the Norinco is a cheap copy of a browning, and most likely has a weak recoil spring, but it's kind of cool to have a quiet .22 semi for plinking.
 
They 'appear' to arc up as your muzzle is pointed well above the target, you are 'lobbing' the bullet to the target. If your line or sight and bore line were parallel you would only see the bullet drop. It would never rise above the bore.
 
TrailGunner said:
I picked up a box to try out of my CZ 452 for plinking, and for the hell of it I filled the mag tube on a Norinco SA .22 copy, and found out this round cycle. Now the Norinco is a cheap copy of a browning, and most likely has a weak recoil spring, but it's kind of cool to have a quiet .22 semi for plinking.
Click to expand...


The Remington 550 and 550-1 are notoriously good semi-automatic rifles for use with the quieter .22's....:wave:
 
No matter, they work great out of my far more accurate Savage MKII BTVSS with the heavy barrel

I love that thing. Best purchase I made yet, and sees way more love than the 700.

As for squirrel headshots, I would not feel confident at 50yds with this ammo, though I'd take the risk. At 25, for sure. So you could put food on the table with this stuff, no question.

I've never looked into this, but if a person could buy a bag of pre-primed 22 casings, and load their own after weighing powder and adjusting bullets to be all the same weight, that'd be cool. I was thinking of emptying out all the Quiet-22s and grouping them by weight just to improve consistency, but something sounded kind of sad and lonely about that.
 
Last edited:
New Camper said:
Thank you at least for myself, I enjoy such statistics and am embarrassed that I do not contribute more in that regard with the chrono I bought in July. A brief testing of SK Standard Plus out my CZ 452 proved to be very consistent around 1100fps if I remember correctly: So the answer I would submit to the questions in your last paragraph is the ammo is the cause for the inconsistency: I doubt most semi-autos wouldn't fudge the numbers that much either, but it would be reasonable to expect some difference compared to a bolt action. The rifle and the ammo not harmonizing would be evident mostly in accuracy, however variances in bullet velocity will also adversely affect the same. Never broke a rifle in my life, and the aforementioned 22LR with that SK ammo will make groups the size of the bullet hole if I can be as consistent. I posted some pics in a CZ rimfire thread several months ago.

When I first saw bullets in flight, I found it to be interesting and kind of funny: I've heard of this before, but only noticed it once when I took a young lad shooting and spotted through binoculars. These were standard velocity rounds mentioned above, to a target at 60m and they looked like a red hornet travelling in a perfect shallow arc. I don't know why such a small thing is that interesting.

Spread between the extremes was 100.6fps...(~20%) that is disappointing, but again it's just the ammo. Within effeetive range(~50m you were shooting), were the groups tight enough for squirrel head shots? That would be reasonably acceptable, for I can only think this ammo is manufactured for such uses or small indoor target shooting.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it's powder position in the case? If the case has a reduced change, then could leave gap between powder and primer.

An interesting test might be to tip the rifle up/down after it's chambered and then carefully bring it back to target. Trying a bunch this way and see results.
 
^^ Interesting, I will indeed try that.

I was also thinking that with low powder charges, things such as flake size, thickness, positioning... is all going to come into play a lot more and affect burn rate then a round jammed full of powder with everything touching.
 
SandRoad said:
I wonder if it's powder position in the case? If the case has a reduced change, then could leave gap between powder and primer.

An interesting test might be to tip the rifle up/down after it's chambered and then carefully bring it back to target. Trying a bunch this way and see results.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting idea.

I was more ambitious last Saturday so instead of just enjoying myself shooting a few rifles I took my CZ452 THV and shot over the chrono a few types of 22LR. Not that it is important, I was shooting at 100 yards and a couple types grouped around 1.5 - 2" on the light breezy day. The rifle is scoped with a very old Weaver K6 and my typical setup with bipod and rabbit ear bag.

The following from ten shot strings over my RCBS chrono: feet per second, HV- Highest Velocity, LV- Lowest Velocity, AV- Average Velocity, ES - Extreme Spread and SD -Standard Deviation.

SK Standard Plus(a load this rifle does very well with)
1056, 1028, 1030, 1004, 1037, 1034, 1035, 1032, 1030, 1025 - HV 1056, LV 1004, AV 1031, ES 52, SD 12

Remington Thunderbolt
1147, 1216, 1190, 1193, 1178, 1140, 1164, 1198, 1163 (missed one) - HV 1216, LV 1140, AV 1173, ES 76, SD 24

Remington Yellowjacket
1324, 1423, 1348, 1356, 1422, 1370, 1425, 1399, 1392, 1400 - HV 1425, LV 1324, AV 1386, ES 101, SD 33

Federal Auto Match (this was in another box so am not 100% certain it is Auto Match)
1231, 1223, 1217, 1214, 1196, 1234, 1226, 1179, 1215, 1225 - HV 1234, LV 1179, AV 1216, ES 55, SD 16

My rifle favours the SK above the rest, although the Thunderbolt and Federal are acceptably accurate at longer distances, the Yellowjackets (predictably) are terribly inaccurate: Of course these are the hypervelocity 22LR sort not known for accuracy but turning squirrels inside out, while the other three are standard velocity lead round nose. I wanted to try Federal bulk blue box but did not have enough with me that day.
 
CCI makes some great rimfire options, however the Quiet was never intended for target grade accuracy and it shows. I bought a case for my subversive anti-critter operations and it has been serving admirably. A couple cases of CCI SV serves my accuracy requirements quite well and my 144LS is on a restricted diet of that load.

It would be extremely cool if the Quiet would function one of the Ruger 7" Mk I's in the safe, though it would be louder than a rifle...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom