Interest in 100 yard .22LR challenge - 2023 Discussion thread
- Thread starter grauhanen
- Start date
- Location
- Nova Scotia
Very impressive shooting Jahnj0584, good job. Quite the improvement.
I've been working on the 1/2" challenge before I move to 100yards. But my shooting season is paused for months. Loss of a dog, loss of an uncle, plus I go in for back to back surgeries. With the first starting Sunday.
I've been working on the 1/2" challenge before I move to 100yards. But my shooting season is paused for months. Loss of a dog, loss of an uncle, plus I go in for back to back surgeries. With the first starting Sunday.
Thanks! It was nice to finally get out again. It's seemingly harder every year to make it out every 6 weeks. You just reminded me, that I accidently did complete that one today!
- Location
- Nova Scotia
I def need to try SK STD + seems like it does well, and less fliers than Eley Sport.
- Location
- Nova Scotia
Thanks. Oh I'll make the board, clearly my gun can shoot 1/2" I just gotta follow the technicalities next time.
Once the shooter has a rifle that can shoot well, wind conditions aside, ammo always remains the big question mark. Some shooters may think that if only they could afford to shoot ammo like Lapua Midas +. It's not inexpensive, at about $25 per box when bought in quanity, so it's understandable that not many will be shooting it, at least not often.
But is having a top tier ammo like Midas the straightforward answer for getting the best results? It may not be so simple.
Below are targets shot with the same rifle using different lots of Midas +. Note how consistent (or inconsistent) the ten-shot groups are.
First, Midas + lot ending with the numbers 691. Dates are on each target, with two boxes of ammo used over three different target pages.
Group sizes ranged from very good (in the .6 to .7 range) to disappointingly large (near and over 1.5"). One target sheet of three groups is what might be considered consistent and good, with all three ten-shot groups well under one inch.
Results from other Midas lots posted below.
But is having a top tier ammo like Midas the straightforward answer for getting the best results? It may not be so simple.
Below are targets shot with the same rifle using different lots of Midas +. Note how consistent (or inconsistent) the ten-shot groups are.
First, Midas + lot ending with the numbers 691. Dates are on each target, with two boxes of ammo used over three different target pages.
Group sizes ranged from very good (in the .6 to .7 range) to disappointingly large (near and over 1.5"). One target sheet of three groups is what might be considered consistent and good, with all three ten-shot groups well under one inch.
Results from other Midas lots posted below.
Midas + lot ending 811.
Again, like lot 691, this lot has a few good groups (in the .6 range) but also some lousy for Midas ones (near and over 1.5").
Only one target with three groups had all under an inch.
Again, like lot 691, this lot has a few good groups (in the .6 range) but also some lousy for Midas ones (near and over 1.5").
Only one target with three groups had all under an inch.
One more lot of Midas that was tested with the same rifle, lot number ending 882.
Although it's too small a sample size, this lot may be the best of the four lots tested so far with this rifle. It certainly is promising. The similarly small test size results with another rifle are encouraging but not conclusive.
Although it's too small a sample size, this lot may be the best of the four lots tested so far with this rifle. It certainly is promising. The similarly small test size results with another rifle are encouraging but not conclusive.
What do the results shown above suggest? Three out of four lots of Midas + tested in the same rifle are, it seems reasonable to say, inconsistent. They can produce a few good targets of three or four ten-shot groups, but these targets can't be counted on. It's necessary to shoot quite a few targets to get one good one.
For this season in addition to five lots of Midas (with one remaining to test), I bought three different lots of Center X also made in 2022. One is especially poorly shooting, and the other two are just disappointing. By comparison, two years ago I had a lot of Center X that was quite consistent, giving a sub-1" average with two rifles over more than 80 ten-shot groups. I think I still have a brick of that ammo. Last year I had six different lots of CX, five of which were quite acceptable and only the sixth was distinctly worse than the others.
Shooters shouldn't assume that because they get a certain grade of ammo -- be it Lapua Center X or Midas +, for example -- they will get desirable results. Performance with top tier ammo is lot dependent. That is to say, some lots will shoot well, some not so much. Be prepared for some disappointment when buying blind, without lot testing. It's understandable that it may not be possible to lot test before buying and that many will have to buy without testing smaller quantities. It's a gamble, and it has no guarantee of a pay off.
For this season in addition to five lots of Midas (with one remaining to test), I bought three different lots of Center X also made in 2022. One is especially poorly shooting, and the other two are just disappointing. By comparison, two years ago I had a lot of Center X that was quite consistent, giving a sub-1" average with two rifles over more than 80 ten-shot groups. I think I still have a brick of that ammo. Last year I had six different lots of CX, five of which were quite acceptable and only the sixth was distinctly worse than the others.
Shooters shouldn't assume that because they get a certain grade of ammo -- be it Lapua Center X or Midas +, for example -- they will get desirable results. Performance with top tier ammo is lot dependent. That is to say, some lots will shoot well, some not so much. Be prepared for some disappointment when buying blind, without lot testing. It's understandable that it may not be possible to lot test before buying and that many will have to buy without testing smaller quantities. It's a gamble, and it has no guarantee of a pay off.
As always its the lottery of the lot numbers. Most are losers but if you dont buy to try youll never find the "ONE". Do you ever try any of the Eley or just stick to the Lapua because of your chambers in your specific rifles. I finally was able to get my mitts on some Eley Semi Auto Benchrest Precision. Im going to do some testing as soon as possible. Its not cheap but none of the quality ammo is cheap. You wanna play yah pretty much gottah pay. Thanks for showing your results with the Midas plus. Some very respectable groups.
Thanks Grauhanen for putting in that effort and expense to study various lots and groups of what is supposed to be the higher-end grade (next to the top) of target ammo.
It provides good perspective for the newbies coming into the sport on how to set expectations for what they want to spend on ammo, and what the rough frequency of bad rounds per box they are likely going to see.
It provides good perspective for the newbies coming into the sport on how to set expectations for what they want to spend on ammo, and what the rough frequency of bad rounds per box they are likely going to see.
Thanks. And thanks to Biologist.
I usually shoot Lapua for the practical reason that it is often more readily available than Eley. To elaborate, when I first began shooting, initially with much more enthusiasm than skill or knowledge, I was able to get a few bricks of Eley Team, Eley's grade of ammo that's similar to Lapua's Center X, both the bottom rung of a three rung ladder. (For Lapua it's X-Act, Midas, and CX; for Eley it's Tenex, Match, and Team).
The Team I obtained was already older stock or from among the last of that grade available from Eley for a period of time. In short, for reasons that aren't clear, Eley didn't produce Team for a number of years, making it available again only within the last couple of years. As a result, I bought Center X during that hiatus in Eley Team availablility. I bought blind and was disappointed as often as not.
To make a long story short, I shoot Lapua because it's been as or more available than Eley. RWS, incidentally, seems less available than Lapua or Eley in North America in general.
Regarding a chamber-ammo match up, that is often too overstated and mistakenly promoted on many forum threads. Unless a chamber is specifically made for one particular make of ammo, there's nothing intrinsic about an otherwise good chamber -- such as those usually on rifles such as my Anschutz rifles -- that make them favour a particular ammo brand. Anschutz and other match rifle makers design their chambers to CIP specs (if they are based in CIP reg following nations), and so that they will shoot all makes of match ammo well. The rifle makers don't know what makes of ammo shooters will use.
Even when chambers are designed with one make of ammo in mind -- be it Lapua or Eley, for example -- that doesn't keep such chambers from also shooting other makes of ammo well. The expectation (or hope) is that, with the very best lots of whatever make of ammo the chamber is designed, a very good shooter may expect some improvement in his BR score. It's not expected that it will make a significant or dramatic difference in the results.
In short, no shooter should ever expect that a "Lapua" chamber, for example, will shoot all lots of Lapua well. It can't. An ammo-specific chamber can't fix inconsistent ammo. It doesn't mean that lot testing isn't necessary. An inconsistent lot will not shoot well because it's not consistent.
Leuchtkafer
Member
Not sure what they're selling for these days, what with inflation and all
but they are an affordable rifle and sometimes a person acquires one that shoots quite well. There are a handful of Savages on the 1/2" challenge list, though if they were typically good shooters I suspect we'd see a few more populating that list. They're not as easy to re-barrel as other rifles, though there's no reason why a Savage wouldn't be a 1/2" challenge rifle with a good custom barrel on it. So it goes with factory rifles, the barrel is luck of the draw, and the bellcurve is more favourable for brands such as Anschütz over Savage, Ruger, CZ and the like.
Are you talking about my post tonight in the challenge thread? It was on sale at cabelas this spring for 3 and change. I did pull off the plastic stock and stick it in a TR from one of my .17hmr rifles that I never shoot.
Been pretty happy with it so far but haven't found an ammo that really stands out. It seems to like the standard + but it shoots everything I've tried reasonably well.
I tried running every shot through my chronograph to get some data but no matter what I try I get so many variations in velocity (poi shift) that I kinda gave up on that and decided to accept the flyers when they happen.
10 shot groups aren't an easy thing with rimfire, I don't care what anyone says.
Maybe I could pare it down by weighing each cartridge before shooting, then sort them and chrony them. Would at least eliminate one variable, but there are others to consider too.
Way too much work for me, but I have thought about trying it when I have too much time on my hands.
Been pretty happy with it so far but haven't found an ammo that really stands out. It seems to like the standard + but it shoots everything I've tried reasonably well.
I tried running every shot through my chronograph to get some data but no matter what I try I get so many variations in velocity (poi shift) that I kinda gave up on that and decided to accept the flyers when they happen.
10 shot groups aren't an easy thing with rimfire, I don't care what anyone says.
Maybe I could pare it down by weighing each cartridge before shooting, then sort them and chrony them. Would at least eliminate one variable, but there are others to consider too.
Way too much work for me, but I have thought about trying it when I have too much time on my hands.
Leuchtkafer
Member
I don't think anyone has definitively found a *non-destructive* method of measuring/sorting rimfire ammo for improved performance. Feel free to try it yourself if you're bored, just temper expectations.
Leuchtkafer
Member
Point being, yes it's a lot of work and to date, nobody has come up with anything that clearly demonstrates a worthwhile investment versus just testing for a good lot of ammo. The things that would indicate a poor round would require destruction of the round to measure (powder charge, primer charge, heel concentricity, etc)
