CZ 457 LPR Match Chamber.

N

NB Rifles

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Location
, NB.
Anyone using the Norma TAC 22 in these match chamber rifles, if so any loading issues? Have you found any ammo that doesn't work well in the rifles, if so what brand or brands? Thanks.
 
I have the MDT version of that rifle (same match chamber). My particular gun doesn't like Tac 22, for 100yds anyway. Having said that 2 other people I know have the same rifle and they get 1" groups at 100 regularly with it. Of course theirs also like CCI SV and mine doesn't. I get good results from Eley Sport and several of the SK ammos. Of course the higher price stuff, CenterX, Tenex, ect. work well also. TC
 
NB Rifles said:
Anyone using the Norma TAC 22 in these match chamber rifles, if so any loading issues? Have you found any ammo that doesn't work well in the rifles, if so what brand or brands? Thanks.
Click to expand...
I shoot cz457 MTR. Same chamber, as far as I know.
I shoot TAC22 for practice and at leisure. Zero feeding or extraction issues. The only ammo of all I've tested over the last two years, was Eley Benchrest Outlaw. I had some issues with cci sv getting stuck in the steel mag and did not feed well
 
Thanks for the reply Guys. I've been a avid centerfire rifle and handgun shooter for several decades, now in my old age and the PMR issues and leaning more towards benchrest .22 rimfires shooting. Have a Savage Mark II and a Browning Bolt Rifle I've been shooting but looking a two higher end .22 rifles, the CZ457 LRP (why am asking about ammo issues with it if any) and the Bergara 14R Three friends shot the Bergara so am in the loop how they shoot and what ammo works best for them.
 
CZ really has their act together producing outstanding barrels. I have ‘several’ and have never been disappointed. Both MTRs do well with Norma and pretty well with any other ammo from mid level to top quality. To me ‘well’ means 1/2” groups at 50 yards 90% of the time. One rifle had an extra IBI barrel that I tested extensively. It was accurate BUT the chamber was tight and short and with some match ammo you needed some downward muscle on the bolt to chamber the round. You were engraving the round into the rifling. Wasn’t worth the effort, I ran with the factory barrel. I added a couple of cases of Norma ammo to my stash just in case. Price was right if I recall, similar to CCI standard velocity. Go for it and play….
 
NB Rifles said:
Anyone using the Norma TAC 22 in these match chamber rifles, if so any loading issues? Have you found any ammo that doesn't work well in the rifles, if so what brand or brands? Thanks.
Click to expand...
So since CZ barrels all comply with the mandatory CIP standards, all their chambers are "match grade" as defined by the voluntary US SAMMI "match" standards. When I put a brand new take off 457 Varmint barrel on my 455 action in an oryx I had trouble closing the bolt on TAC22 and CCI STD. I ended up shimming the barrel out 0.0015 (now it closes just slightly harder with ammo that if dry cycling), that is about perfect.

It shoots both well, but Tac-22 markedly better. Hates Eley sport, match and contact. I have some SK Match to try but have not gotten to the range with it. Others like it, so I have great expectations.
 
Barrels don't have a preference for a particular brand or variety of ammo. When it comes to accuracy performance barrels prefer ammo that is of a good, consistent quality with consistent MVs.

I can't speak to TAC22, but with regard to CCI SV ammo and hard chambering (difficulty closing the bolt) the problem is related to the CCI bullet's design and shape. In 2010 on RFC a shooter posted the following reply from CCI about why CCI SV may be hard to chamber in rifles with CIP chambers.

From: Olin, Brett
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:43 AM
To: cciexpert
Subject: RE: CCI Ammo - Ask the Expert Form

Greg,

The problem is not diameter, it is the length of the driving band on our
bullet.

We make our 22 LRSV ammunition to fit in SAAMI match chambers. The
Anschutz 1712 has a match chamber that is tighter than SAAMI and because
of this the bolt is just short of the closing cam when try to close on
our ammo.

Unfortunately the other ammo you mention will have the same issue.

Our sister company Federal Premium Ammunition makes target grade ammo,
part # UM22 and 922A that may be easier to chamber in your rifle.

Hope this helps,

Brett Olin
CCI/Speer/ATK

(It's worth noting that the Anschutz 1712 referred to in the explanation above has a CIP chamber.)

See post #4 here https://www.rimfirecentral.com/thre...5358&nested_view=1&sortby=oldest#post-2865358
 
Doesn't look good to contradict yourself by saying rifle barrels don't have a preference, and then directly follow with an example from an ammo manufacturer of why rifle barrels can have a preference. ;) All I can say is all my rifles perform differently from the next with regard to the ammo they're fed. If one performs more consistently with ammo ABC than it does with ammo XYZ that sure seems like a preference to me. I've got rifles that shoot acceptably with most ammo, but decidedly better with some particular ammo. I've got one rifle that will throw tons of random shots something like six inches low at 50 yards when fed anything made by Lapua, yet it groups decently with anything non-Lapua. So much so that it's hard to even get a single 10-shot group that doesn't have one or two of those insane head-scratching low shots in it when using Lapua stuff. Seems to be a mismatch between Lapua rounds and that particular chamber, to my mind. It doesn't misbehave like that with anything made by anyone else. That sure seems like a preference to me. There's more to precision shooting than just consistent MV. We've gone over several of the other reasons several times.
 
_Shorty said:
Doesn't look good to contradict yourself by saying rifle barrels don't have a preference, and then directly follow with an example from an ammo manufacturer of why rifle barrels can have a preference. ;)
Click to expand...
Doesn't look good when basic comprehension seems to fail a critic. ;)

Rifles don't have a preference for a particular brand or variety of ammo. They will shoot good, consistent ammo well, regardless of make, provided they are suitable for use in the particular rifle. Not all .22LR ammo is equally suitable.

CCI SV is intended for use in SAAMI chambers, not CIP or match chambers. CCI SV can be hard to chamber in CIP or similar chambers because of it's bullet design. For this reason it's disqualified from being a good ammo for use in rifles with CZ "match" chambers.

It follows that CCI SV bullet design (made to fit SAAMI chambers) aside, if the CCI SV on hand was good and consistent, it would shoot well. Of course, CCI SV is not a match or even entry level target or match ammo. It's standard velocity ammo but nothing special. Like many .22LR ammos performance will vary so any preference will be for consecutive good, consistent rounds.
 
And the Lapua/SK ammo (among most European brands) are made to CIP standards, so it stands to reason that in SAAMI chambers it will be relatively 'loose' and could perform poorly. My CZ rifles do well with CCI-SV (I don't use most SAAMI ammo in those rifles) altho they do chamber hard, due to engraving. I have a few bricks of diff lots the CCI-SV that do OK but not as well as the SK-RM I have a couple bricks/lots of. I haven't checked headspace on those rifles Nor measured any rims - got better things to do.
 
grauhanen said:
Doesn't look good when basic comprehension seems to fail a critic. ;)

Rifles don't have a preference for a particular brand or variety of ammo. They will shoot good, consistent ammo well, regardless of make, provided they are suitable for use in the particular rifle. Not all .22LR ammo is equally suitable.

CCI SV is intended for use in SAAMI chambers, not CIP or match chambers. CCI SV can be hard to chamber in CIP or similar chambers because of it's bullet design. For this reason it's disqualified from being a good ammo for use in rifles with CZ "match" chambers.

It follows that CCI SV bullet design (made to fit SAAMI chambers) aside, if the CCI SV on hand was good and consistent, it would shoot well. Of course, CCI SV is not a match or even entry level target or match ammo. It's standard velocity ammo but nothing special. Like many .22LR ammos performance will vary so any preference will be for consecutive good, consistent rounds.
Click to expand...
I'm not the one with the comprehension problem. Take five lots of Eley Tenex and shoot 100 rounds of each through a given rifle with a match chamber. They're not all going to shoot as well as the next, despite your foolhardy assertions. You contradict yourself, and you contradict what pretty much every competitive shooter has seen with their own rifles over the years. Every gun has its own preferred appetite. This is common knowledge. Being confident in yourself doesn't make you correct. There's more than enough evidence in the wild to show your current supposition is baseless.
 
At first guess I’m trying Finnish ammo in a Finnish rifle, German ammo in a German rifle, American ammo in an American rifle, and it’s surprising how often the choice doesn’t change after trying the other combinations.
 
_Shorty said:
I'm not the one with the comprehension problem. Take five lots of Eley Tenex and shoot 100 rounds of each through a given rifle with a match chamber. They're not all going to shoot as well as the next, despite your foolhardy assertions. You contradict yourself, and you contradict what pretty much every competitive shooter has seen with their own rifles over the years. Every gun has its own preferred appetite. This is common knowledge. Being confident in yourself doesn't make you correct. There's more than enough evidence in the wild to show your current supposition is baseless.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, you remain uncomprehending. You apparently don't understand the reason that those five lots of Tenex you use as an example may not shoot equally well in a given rifle.

Not all lots of the same make are equally consistent. To put it another way, even though they are all Tenex the five different lots may be different from one another. The name on the ammo box, whether it's Tenex or Midas + or X-Act, is never a guarantee that it is as consistent as every other lot of the same ammo. In short, some lots are better than others.

Consistency includes not only MV variation but also casings, priming, bullet shape and weight and diameter as well as bullet seating and casing to bullet crimping among others. Put simply not all lots are equal and that's why they don't perform equally.

Edit: Shorty if you wish to discuss this further, create another thread. There's no need to further divert from this one.
 
Last edited:
old303 said:
At first guess I’m trying Finnish ammo in a Finnish rifle, German ammo in a German rifle, American ammo in an American rifle, and it’s surprising how often the choice doesn’t change after trying the other combinations.
Click to expand...
There's no .22LR ammo made in Finland. Lapua is made in Germany and has been for decades. SK is made at the same place as Lapua .22LR ammo. RWS .22LR ammo is also made in Germany. Eley is produced in the U.K. No .22LR match ammo is made in the US.
 
grauhanen said:
There's no .22LR ammo made in Finland. Lapua is made in Germany and has been for decades. SK is made at the same place as Lapua .22LR ammo. RWS .22LR ammo is also made in Germany. Eley is produced in the U.K. No .22LR match ammo is made in the US.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I had thought that Lapua/SK was further north but it makes sense that 22LR production might eventually be consolidated. Either way, I’m using those happily in Tikka & Sako rifles, RWS in my Anschutz, and keep some bulk CCI with my 10/22 plinking mags.
 
grauhanen said:
Unfortunately, you remain uncomprehending. You apparently don't understand the reason that those five lots of Tenex you use as an example may not shoot equally well in a given rifle.

Not all lots of the same make are equally consistent. To put it another way, even though they are all Tenex the five different lots may be different from one another. The name on the ammo box, whether it's Tenex or Midas + or X-Act, is never a guarantee that it is as consistent as every other lot of the same ammo. In short, some lots are better than others.

Consistency includes not only MV variation but also casings, priming, bullet shape and weight and diameter as well as bullet seating and casing to bullet crimping among others. Put simply not all lots are equal and that's why they don't perform equally.

Edit: Shorty if you wish to discuss this further, create another thread. There's no need to further divert from this one.
Click to expand...
I'm not the one that doesn't understand things. That would be you. As usual. I understand better than you how these things work, as evidenced by how many times I've tried to teach you various things due to how you misunderstood them. In this instance, it is rather strange and humourous how you fail to connect the dots between single-ammo manufacturing tolerances playing out how they do, and multiple-manufacturer differences not also playing out in the same manner, but to an even larger degree due to just how much those same factors will differ when going from single-model tolerances to multiple-manufacturer tolerances/differences. As happens way too often, you think you're right, even when you yourself are pointing things out that contradict other portions of your supposition/argument.

All the things that can differ with a single model of ammo that are due to variance in manufacturing tolerance will also differ when comparing manufacturer to manufacturer. And that's on top of some of those things just flat out differing in design. Lot-to-lot differences wouldn't matter anywhere near as much as manufacturer-to-manufacturer differences if any of those things mattered at all. Your focus solely on MV is completely misguided. MV is not the only thing that determines where shots land. This is one of those things I've already tried to teach you on more than one occasion, but you still fail to grasp it. You have an idea in your head, and it doesn't matter how many different ways of explaining things are attempted, you think your idea is the one right idea, and either choose to disregard any new information, or simply fail to understand any new information. When you choose to disregard the new information this is typically accompanied by your continued voicing of the idea you hold without actually attempting to produce any data to support it. Or when you seem to likely have actually grasped something new for a change, you simply avoid acknowledging it and just go silent for 3-4 weeks of self-imposed vacation before finally coming back and picking up where you left off as though nothing happened. Which will it be this time? Or will we finally turn over a new leaf and attempt to learn something?

Nobody should really have to point out to you how you just finished saying something like "...bullet shape and weight and diameter as well as bullet seating and casing to bullet crimping..." concerning lot-to-lot variances and how that those things are all incredibly different when you start talking about Lapua bullets compared to Eley bullets. Lapua X-ACT bullets and Eley Tenex bullets are incredibly different. If you think lot-to-lot differences in Lapua X-ACT bullets by themselves can account for differences on paper, what on earth makes you think that differences between Lapua X-ACT bullets and Eley Tenex bullets might not also be responsible for differences seen on paper? Lot-to-lot differences are WAY smaller than manufacturer-to-manufacturer differences. You can't possibly say with a straight face that lot-to-lot differences matter but not the other. It makes literally no sense to do so. Lot-to-lot differences exist. Lot-to-lot differences mattter. Lot-to-lot differences make a difference on paper. Nobody in their right mind should be failing to see how that would extend to differences between bullets from different manufacturers. It's the same idea, only much larger in magnitude. It boggles the mind that you can't see the contradictions in your statements on this matter. Obviously if minute differences in the bullet matter then extremely large differences in the bullet will also matter, and likely matter a lot more.
 
Last edited:
if every rifle shot good consistent ammo well then why do handloaders tune their loads to individual rifles? We would only need one set of parameters for each caliber. No two rifles are exactly the same, no chambers are cut the same, no barrels, no actions and no assembled rifle is exactly the same as the next. Those variances in my opinion are what equate the the slight variances in different ammo manufacturers process and lots equaling better or poorer results in different rifles. So lets hypothetically say "A" bullet manufacturer is typically .015" longer than "b" manufacturer and A shoots well in my rifle than I would say that is a preference for that brand.
 
NZClaybuster said:
just tried it last week. was happy with the result... for the price.
SK Match is still better.
Tenex still the best.
Click to expand...
more testing
Shoot orderCenter to centre ManufactureBrand Muzzle velBullet weight
10.647Winchester555128036
20.693Federal American Eagle126038
30.83EleyBiathalon106040
40.525EleySport100040
50.597Federal Lightning124040
60.921CCIBlazer124540
71.14RemingtonGame loads128036
80.414WinchesterWildcat125540
90.869AguilaSubsonic102438
100.93CCIStandard Velocity107040
110.704SKHigh Veloicy126340
120.582WinchesterPower Point132042
130.481NormaTac108340
140.48Federal Automatch120040
150.787WinchesterXpert HV128036
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom