From 50 to 100 and beyond - Why is some .22LR match ammo better or worse?

[grauhanen]

Many .22LR match ammo shooters understand that .22LR performance gets worse with distance. In other words, it's non-linear. (Linear means 1 MOA at 50 and 1 MOA at 100 and 1 MOA at 200 yards/meters) Why do some lots of ammo perform better than others as distance increases?

This question may have implications for all who shoot beyond 50 yards/meters.

At the Lapua testing facilities, Lapua .22LR match ammo is tested. With rifles or barreled actions in a fixture or vise, ten-shot group results are recorded for the same ten rounds at both 50 and 100 meters. As a result, it's possible to know how the same ammo performs at both distances.

A review was done of over 100 such results between 50 and 100. It found that on average group size increased by a factor of about 2.8 between 50 and 100. The bottom line, obviously, is that some lots of Lapua ammo did better, some worse, even in the same rifles.

What explains why some lots are better or worse than others between 50 and 100 meters? In other words, why do some lots "open up" more than others between 50 and 100.

Is it explained simply by variation in extreme spread (ES) between lots? Is there also something else involved?

 

[old303]

Twice as far means twice as likely to ricochet off what's left of a mosquito or raindrop or such and be just slightly off where it would have gone in clean air.

 

[.22LRGUY]

As much as I love 22LR, threads like this really shine a light on how few aspects of accuracy/performance I really consider when I think about the caliber. Not a criticism, actually the opposite. Always good to consider new angles.

While I recently bought/set-up a 22 rifle for something entirely different in 2022...most of my 22LR time is spent @ 50 yards, off a rest, gun/ammo/scope combo that all gets along nicely. Load testing where I want it, paper-punching, etc. The extreme opposite of that is my pursuit of gophers out west, where we may shoot 5-6X+ that distance using the cheapest HV ammo that shoots decently from my preferred gopher slayer. In western wind, luck becomes a far bigger factor. The day I made my longest hits/did my personal best, I was joking that for every 10 round mag, there MIGHT be one hit. That particular day, aiming at the same point on the distant hill...POI varied by almost 2 feet at times. Mostly wind drift of course. You'd adjust to compensate, touch the shot off...and on that shot, there wouldn't be as much wind between myself and the target=shot landed too far to the left.

So while I don't actually have much interest in the groups my 22LR rifle(s) shoot past 50, I've sent thousands of rounds down range at distances far greater...without the obsession I have @ 50. I give this allot of thought, and wonder if it's tied to my belief that 22LR is mostly a 50-75 yard affair, and anything beyond that (my own experiences included) is pushing the caliber beyond it's practical range. Gophers are small and die easily (no offense to the non-hunters) which is why I have no issues engaging any I can actually see through a 12X scope, regardless of the distance. As low as the hit ratio is, it's fun to see that improve as the day/week progresses. To put some days like that in perspective, I budget a brick a day out there, but have run through that qty so many times that I bring 2 every morning. lol

ALL of that to say, I want to believe that target shooting beyond 75-100 yards with a 22LR would maybe illustrate the shortcomings (accuracy, ammo consistency, MY consistency lol) it personally feels like a square peg/round hole proposition. The 2 centerfire rifles I use for varmint hunting in Ontario will shoot under 1" @ 100 yards all day long, and far better when I do my part. Leaves me feeling like the 100yard + IS the domain of centerfires, and 22LR becomes a question of varying degrees of poor accuracy when you stretch it out.

I will add, this is in NO way diminishing the pursuit of trying to achieve great results at long range with a 22LR, more that I'm kind of interested in what draws rimfire guys into it. Maybe I need to try for/achieve some better longer-range 22 results?

Sorry grauhanen-more of a soul-searching post for me.

 

[marshall]

When i was doing some long range gopher snipping with a Sako P94, Fed. 525 bulk pack seem as good as hi end stuff, for me, and the gophers don't care. shots 30 yrds to 200+
I found with my target pistols , a hair better with eley pistol match, but not much from standard ammo, or Fed gold match, which I shot lots of as it use to be about 4.00/ box.
What I really use to find interesting was shooting at that range with my model 4 in model 19 smith with 38 sp.

 

[cartwheel]

The MV ES is one aspect which likely dominates. The rest of the issue could be chamber fit, bullet to lands fit, bullet dimensions etc. Additionally even for the .22LR there are barrel harmonics to work through which is why tuners are uses where allowed. So a lot could open up more even though it has similar ES because it is a little hotter or colder and the rifle is a little more out of tune. Bullet symmetry is also less controlled for .22lr- so I'm sure that doesn't help.

.22LR accuracy is a rabbit hole.

 

[grauhanen]

Soul-searching is all right, .22LRGUY. When .22LR behaviour is not easily explained, there's often little left.

Perhaps the question can be put another way.

In a testing facility such as Lapua's in the US, using the same rifle and different lots of the same ammo why would some lots of one variety of ammo -- be it Center X or Midas + or X-Act -- perform differently than another -- despite having very similar ES and SD?

In other words, why do some lots of the same variety of ammo perform better (or worse) at 100 than others?

 

[horseman2]

Most of my experiences are with Eley ammunition.
There is some reason Eley rates their top match brands . . . TENEX, MATCH and TEAM.
They test with four rifles and all four have to agree before a lot is marketed as TENEX.
That is no guarantee your rifle will like it.
When searching for a lot my Remington liked, my testing was based on five 10-shot groups at 100 yards.
While the day was calm, wind flags were used.
My tests were only for accuracy and the Chrony was not used but one day I will check the rifles against the published velocities of 1062.
Over time that lot was available to the tune of 10,000 rounds.

Both of my Coopers were tested with Lapua. One test conducted by Cooper showed Midas and the other just Lapua.
Neither performed using CenterX.

Even 10/22's require testing to prove likes.

Another test involved a CZ with CCI MiniMags in RN and HP.
The RN produced 2" groups at 100 yards. The HP went to 6" groups and were 6 inches to the left.

It is a bit of luck and luck of the draw.

 

[iron cat]

I have an older Walther that shoots Action almost as well as Tennex, and for the money it is not woorth it for me to shoot the more expensive ammo in that rifle.
One lot of older Tennex is far worse in fact..
My Strela likes RWS, as does the Remington 37, but the Remington cannot shoot Eley Club worth beans, but the Strela does.
Cat

 

[Grantmac]

Inconsistency of ammunition is the reason I exclusively shoot rimfire games that are based mostly on the ability of the shooter to create a good position with less emphasis on the mechanical accuracy of the weapon.
Of course that doesn't stop silhouette shooters from buying Center-X or $4000 rifles, I'm just certain that at my level neither matters.

 

[Mystic Precision]

For those interested in learning more, look to the depth of research in the centerfire and handloading world. Rimfire is no different... you just can't change some variables as easily.

Enjoy the reading and learning.

Jerry

 

[.22LRGUY]

Soul-searching is all right, .22LRGUY. When .22LR behaviour is not easily explained, there's often little left.

Perhaps the question can be put another way.

In a testing facility such as Lapua's in the US, using the same rifle and different lots of the same ammo why would some lots of one variety of ammo -- be it Center X or Midas + or X-Act -- perform differently than another -- despite having very similar ES and SD?

In other words, why do some lots of the same variety of ammo perform better (or worse) at 100 than others?

I'm sure there are actual answers to the question, but I've always believed it had to do with inconsistencies in manufacturing, specifically powder charge. I've watched the CCI video showing allot of their manufacturing process, and I was most intrigued by the application of the primer. Almost looked like a screen printing operation. I wondered how they (or any other rimfire ammo manufacturer) keeps the amount of primer consistent from one tray to the next, if it's all applied that way?

I reload centerfire, and have read some reports of guys going to great lengths to source a specific primer for their handloads. Digging a little deeper into those conversations, it would seem that the rate of ignition (amount of ignition?) is believed to play a huge role in consistency/accuracy. Since there are enough variables to contend with in reloading, I simply buy the best primers available locally and never deviate. (CCI BR4s mostly) Meaning, even when reloading CF, I don't give any thought/time to the idea that a different primer may yield different results. I'm pleased with the results I get with my handloads.

Assuming 22LR variables are as numerous, everything matters. Case length/neck/diameter consistency, amount/type of primer, consistency/uniformity of the bullet, seating depth, powder charge, primer=all would matter. Naturally, and change to the powder would be the biggest variable, be it charge or type. If the powder source changes, one could expect performance at different temperatures to also be impacted.

Just thinkin' out loud...

 

[Buck1950]

I've seen that vid and also wondered about QC for that step of the process. Do they (all mfrs) do it that way ? for millions of rounds a week or whatever ? That could explain the inconsistency, even down to lots ?
Do the "Better" mfrs do this, like for Match ammo ? I've only shot a bit of that so don't have a clear reference of the consistency but infer it's better. And seeing "Stowaway" s vids of diff bullets' comparative 'runout' in this "Sorting" thread gives another viewpoint regarding consistency.( https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/22-lr-bullet-sorting.4012117/ ) When the bullets themselves look like they're 'hand-made' is astounds that they are accurate at all. And then think of the ''rarely seen" bases . . . JMO

 

[grauhanen]

Most of my experiences are with Eley ammunition.
There is some reason Eley rates their top match brands . . . TENEX, MATCH and TEAM.
They test with four rifles and all four have to agree before a lot is marketed as TENEX.
That is no guarantee your rifle will like it.

As answers for the question at hand may be still forthcoming, it may be diverting to consider what may or may not be involved in grading the different varieties of match ammo.

It's not clear that ammo performance in the test rifles is the sole or even major criteria by which Eley decides what to call Tenex.

Too often there are lots (batches) of top tier ammo that doesn't behave similarly across the test barrels.

Consider the following 50 shot overlays of five random lots of Eley Tenex. These images show an overlay of five ten shot groups per barrel produced by Eley when the Lot Analyser was available. It would appear that not all lots shot well in each of the four barrels. The last two are much more consistent than the first and second. Except for one errant round, the third would be very consistent, too.

[URL=https://app.photobucket.com/u/grauhanen/a/589803d9-f1c9-49e7-80a3-095060d84cbe/p/364ba218-c501-4373-8b5d-6720ea674dcd]

[/URL]



I suspect that something similar occurs with Lapua and RWS ammos.

It's worth remembering that top tier ammos will not necessarily have the smallest ES and most consistent MVs, two factors that are usually assumed to be key to performance. For example, in the Lapua top ammos (X-Act, Midas+, Center X) some lots of CX give lower ES and SD than some lots of M+ and X-Act.

If this is true of all three major match ammo makers, there must be something other than performance in test rifles that explains how some lots become the top variety and others don't.

 

[grauhanen]

I'm sure there are actual answers to the question, but I've always believed it had to do with inconsistencies in manufacturing, specifically powder charge. I've watched the CCI video showing allot of their manufacturing process, and I was most intrigued by the application of the primer. Almost looked like a screen printing operation. I wondered how they (or any other rimfire ammo manufacturer) keeps the amount of primer consistent from one tray to the next, if it's all applied that way?

I think there are answers to the question, and they are related to what is hinted at with the reference to "inconsistencies".

When two lots of the same match ammo share similar ES and SD but don't perform similarly, especially as distance increases, it's not so much inconsisteent powder charges. (Of course, when these are not consistent all bets should be off.) When similar ammos perform differently an inconsistency is involved, but it's not one that the ammo makers can fully control.

Regarding the video about CCI ammo manufacturing, it's worth keeping in mind that the manufacturing techniques seen may not be directly related to the manufacture of match ammo. Although there are similarities, making match ammo is not identical as it's a demanding process that conforms to much closer tolerances than it is for inexpensive ammo like CCI SV.

 

[.22LRGUY]

I think there are answers to the question, and they are related to what is hinted at with the reference to "inconsistencies".

When two lots of the same match ammo share similar ES and SD but don't perform similarly, especially as distance increases, it's not so much inconsisteent powder charges. (Of course, when these are not consistent all bets should be off.) When similar ammos perform differently an inconsistency is involved, but it's not one that the ammo makers can fully control.

Regarding the video about CCI ammo manufacturing, it's worth keeping in mind that the manufacturing techniques seen may not be directly related to the manufacture of match ammo. Although there are similarities, making match ammo is not identical as it's a demanding process that conforms to much closer tolerances than it is for inexpensive ammo like CCI SV.

^agreed, I would never have assumed otherwise. However, I've also read that CCI produces 4,000,000 rounds a day (or claims to)...and if that's true, using a squeegee to spread primer seems very inefficient. Sort of makes me wonder if they have several stations doing the same thing on bulk/lesser SKUs...or....if that process WAS showing the GREEN TAG/primo stuff CCI makes? I suppose there could be other possibilities.

Back to the reloading thing, I've loaded easy calibers like .223, and slightly more fussy ones like 204 Ruger. (+ .243, + 17 Hornet, etc.) I'm on my second manual power measure, using a Lyman now with a trickler and a sensitive digital scale. You sure don't have to do this long before you realize how little a powder charge variation changes POI. In fact, most people are quite surprised at how little powder is even involved in the first place. I'd be curious to see how powder is measured for commercial reloading, be it rimfire OR centerfire.

Based on the box of factory ammo I just bought at Cabela's this week-they must be counting each grain by hand. lol

 

[CZ Shooter]

I think one of the issues is the standard deviation, as the 22lr trajectory seems to be more sensitive to even the slightest change in fps.

Another might be the fact, that in order to turn profit on 22LR, it has to be quantity over quality..otherwise it would be 3x more expensive.

 

[grauhanen]

I've seen that vid and also wondered about QC for that step of the process. Do they (all mfrs) do it that way ? for millions of rounds a week or whatever ? That could explain the inconsistency, even down to lots ?
Do the "Better" mfrs do this, like for Match ammo ? I've only shot a bit of that so don't have a clear reference of the consistency but infer it's better. And seeing "Stowaway" s vids of diff bullets' comparative 'runout' in this "Sorting" thread gives another viewpoint regarding consistency.( https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/22-lr-bullet-sorting.4012117/ ) When the bullets themselves look like they're 'hand-made' is astounds that they are accurate at all. And then think of the ''rarely seen" bases . . . JMO

Thanks for the reminder about that thread. The posts by "the Stowaway" are particularly instructive. For a summary of highlights, see https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/2103054-Some-Excellent-Information-on-Ammo

The problems with .22LR ammo identified in the Stowaway posts can be directly related to how ammo performs. Of course no variety is always completely without such problems, but they occur more frequently in lesser grades of so-called match ammos than in upper-tier varieties.

Even when the issues identified by the Stowaway are made negligible by match ammo makers, the problem remains of why good grades of .22LR match ammo, with similar ES and SD, can often perform very differently. Why do some lots spread out more or less than others with distance?

This leads to the question Stowaway asked in his final post of the thread referred to by Buck1950:

"Where do the right and left flyers come from?"

How did he answer his own question?

Maybe because of the asymmetry imbalance of the bullet?

Maybe all of the flyers come from the bullet‘s imbalance?

"Bullet imbalance" is very important. The problem is it's not visible and impossible to measure. Bullets can be imbalanced even when they are concentrically seated and there's no in-bore bullet cant involved.

What does bullet imbalance -- if that's an appropriate term -- mean?

It's well worth the time to read the explanation given by HuskerP7M8, a respected .22LR ballistician, in his posts on the last page of the Stowaway thread, almost exactly one year ago in an elaboration to the Stowaway's question.

This would seem to require further discussion as it goes far in helping to understand why some ammo is better or worse than another as distance increases.