Interest in 100 yard .22LR challenge - 2023 Discussion thread

[horseman2]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Rim thickness measurements with match grade ammunition resulted in creating two lots that would best be described as high and low readings.
No appreciable differences were detected from the two lots nor out of the box.

Measuring rim thickness after firing from my Remington did not disclose any changes. The measurements before and after were the same.
The test was based on Eley Match shot from an Eley Match Chamber.

Weighing the rounds has four main variables . . . case, powder, lubricant and the bullet.

When there appeared to be excessive amounts of lubricant on some match ammo, it was wiped off. That was not the answer.

Pulling bullets to check for consistency is not the answer either.

Altitude density was the solution in an article but that is too complicated. Not many would go to a match with four lots of ammo and changing with the readings as the match progressed. NOT I!!!

Match ammo is part of the solution but testing must also be added to the equation.
That testing is not based on one five shot group. My standard is five 10-shot groups within a range of velocities that have proven consistent in the past.
During one test of five different lots, one lot was scrubbed after three groups and another after four. One lot had one group over an inch at 100 yards and over time two cases of that lot were acquired.
This can be cost prohibitive to many so luck of the draw might be the answer to many.

At a shoot in the past, the leader on the first day fell off the board on day two. His response was SSDD . . . Same shooter different day.

 

[OkayShooter]

Like I said, way too much work for me. Probably just going to keep doing what I'm doing, and see if I can improve my shooting to post up a good target.

Or just stick to 3 shot groups and stay off the internet!

Like Mel said, SSDD. Some days you do well, someday you don't. Sometimes you just find a great lot of ammo or that unicorn built rifle.

 

[deadman]

Agreed.

 

[grauhanen]

Ammo is rarely as good as many shooters may believe. The SSDD (same shooter, different day) theory is either a real thing or an excuse.

When using proven consisent ammo (not simply a top tier variety) and when wind or other significant environmental change isn't a factor, can anyone think of any reason that could cause significantly different results from one day to the next?

 

[Jahnj0584]

Ammo is rarely as good as many shooters may believe. The SSDD (same shooter, different day) theory is either a real thing or an excuse.

When using proven consisent ammo (not simply a top tier variety) and when wind or other significant environmental change isn't a factor, can anyone think of any reason that could cause significantly different results from one day to the next?

nerves, different setup, coffee, different light in the eyebox, flies, outside noise, etc etc.

 

[OkayShooter]

Ammo is rarely as good as many shooters may believe. The SSDD (same shooter, different day) theory is either a real thing or an excuse.

When using proven consisent ammo (not simply a top tier variety) and when wind or other significant environmental change isn't a factor, can anyone think of any reason that could cause significantly different results from one day to the next?

There are plenty. I'll just focus on the mental health aspect. We are our own worst enemies. Over thinking. your emotions, being told bad news, fatigued.

I've shot multi day matches. It can be tiring, and bad on your mental health. I remember one day of a match, I was heading back to the tent and this guy was going on about my spotting ability. It was my first ever match, I was 16. There was an argument and effected my shooting the next day. So yes SSDD can be a thing.

Temperature can play a huge factor. Can be cool in the am, then heat up to being unbearable in the afternoon.

 

[grauhanen]

nerves, different setup, coffee, different light in the eyebox, flies, outside noise, etc etc.

Same shooter? Under those influences the shooter is not the "same" as he was when he shot better.

There are plenty. I'll just focus on the mental health aspect. We are our own worst enemies. Over thinking. your emotions, being told bad news, fatigued.

Temperature can play a huge factor. Can be cool in the am, then heat up to being unbearable in the afternoon.

See above. As for temperature, that's covered under "when significant environmental change isn't a factor".

C'mon guys. Think about it before jumping the gun.

 

[OkayShooter]

Same shooter? Under those influences the shooter is not the "same" as he was when he shot better.



See above. As for temperature, that's covered under "when significant environmental change isn't a factor".

C'mon guys. Think about it before jumping the gun.

Sorry for thinking outside the box. You may think you are the same, when you are not. Since there are alot of things, you subconsciously don't know you are doing.

 

[grauhanen]

Sorry for thinking outside the box. You may think you are the same, when you are not. Since there are alot of things, you subconsciously don't know you are doing.

No need to apologize. But you've missed the point. Is SSDD (same shooter, different day) a real explanation or an excuse?

The mental factors to which you referred are indeed real -- and important. They can cause difficulties with shooting performance just as physical issues can disrupt results. For example, having a bad toothache while shooting may contribute to poor results, and so too may a broken trigger finger in a splint or a ruptured eardrum.

The point is that, with all things the same the first and next day, including the shooter's "head," it's necessary to identify what could explain unexpectedly poor results on a different day. It's hard to believe that that for some arbitrary reason the same shooter with the same good ammo, same good rifle, same good conditions, same good state of mind etc. could obtain different results simply because the day on the calendar changed. There must be a reason.

Shooters shouldn't accept that arbitrary results with .22LR are to be seen as normal. SSDD (same shooter, different day) problems are not real. While results might appear arbitrary and shooters may not understand why they happen, they are not. They are in the end determined by physics, not because it's a different day.

 

[horseman2]

There are excuses and there are lies . . . sometimes they are the same thing!
My wife died in June. I have no dough she realized her mortality after a two year battle with cancer.
Her instructions were simple if not a little humorous . . . Go shooting, go golfing, keep your family and friends close and don't hook up with some woman who will end up with our children's inheritance! I can follow that.
Since then I shot my best BR50 score ever, and at our major event placed third is Hunting rifle. Unlimited was a different story as I failed to bring my rest and had to borrow one.
No responses are required and everything after this may well be a lie . . .

 

[OkayShooter]

No need to apologize. But you've missed the point. Is SSDD (same shooter, different day) a real explanation or an excuse?

The mental factors to which you referred are indeed real -- and important. They can cause difficulties with shooting performance just as physical issues can disrupt results. For example, having a bad toothache while shooting may contribute to poor results, and so too may a broken trigger finger in a splint or a ruptured eardrum.

The point is that, with all things the same the first and next day, including the shooter's "head," it's necessary to identify what could explain unexpectedly poor results on a different day. It's hard to believe that that for some arbitrary reason the same shooter with the same good ammo, same good rifle, same good conditions, same good state of mind etc. could obtain different results simply because the day on the calendar changed. There must be a reason.

Shooters shouldn't accept that arbitrary results with .22LR are to be seen as normal. SSDD (same shooter, different day) problems are not real. While results might appear arbitrary and shooters may not understand why they happen, they are not. They are in the end determined by physics, not because it's a different day.

Like I said subconsciously something is different, unaware by the person. But its near impossible to replicate everything 100% on a different day. But when I say same #### different day. I see it as more loosely than 100% its groundhog day.

The day I attempted my 1/2" submission shortly before my mom calls saying my uncle is dying. I had my cancer treatment coming up and my dog was dying. I decided to shoot another group. Sure physically I made it, but out of a techically I did not. Yes it did not effect me. But then again I'm no stranger to mental health.

Sorry about your wife Mel.

 

[grauhanen]

Like I said subconsciously something is different, unaware by the person. But its near impossible to replicate everything 100% on a different day. But when I say same #### different day. I see it as more loosely than 100% its groundhog day.

There's little to gain in batting this back and forth. Indeed, no one would argue that there aren't reasons why a shooter may obtain different results on a different day, including something subconscious. Of course, that would be different from the first day. Only differences between one day and the next can explain different results.

When all is the same, however, the results can't be dissimilar for inexplicable and arbitrary reasons, which is what SSDD implies.

 

[Grantmac]

SSDD would make sense if this was positional shooting. BR is 95% equipment so don't buy it.
The BR guys will disagree, but they also won't shoot positional.

 

[grauhanen]

SSDD would make sense if this was positional shooting. BR is 95% equipment so don't buy it.
The BR guys will disagree, but they also won't shoot positional.

The whatever disciplines guys will and won't shoot argument is at risk of being circular when positional shooters don't shoot BR.

In any case, BR is 95% equipment only for those who think they can buy their way to success and those shooters are doomed to disappointment.

Why? Most BR rigs used by serious competitors are fairly equal in terms of performance. The biggest difference between the shooters is not in how much they spend but rather in ability to most successfully and consistently read conditions. Without that skill at hand, the amount of money spent on the rifle won't matter a whit. This applies most assuredly in all outdoor shooting. According to the shooters, it's also a factor in many indoor venues, which are not shot in tunnels.

Additionally, ammo costs are the same for all serious shooters, but their ammo selection skills are not always equal.

 

[grauhanen]

I did some shooting at 100 yards this morning. I had my chronograph with me and I shot some ammo that showed some good potential.

Sometimes chronograph data can predict how a particular lot of match ammo may shoot. For example, when a group has a low extreme spread (ES) the small velocity differences between the rounds shouldn't produce excessive vertical dispersion. In other words, the closer the MV of each round in a group is to the others, the less vertical spread there should be in the group.

Compare the examples shown below. They were produced by a lot of RWS Special Match that gave very encouraging numbers over the chrony. I shot two boxes, one of which had an ES of 33 fps (SD of 7) while the ES of the other was 22 fps with an SD of 6. While the majority of the ten-shot groups had an ES in the teens, one had an ES over 20 fps and one only 8 fps.




Did the individual rounds go where their MV predicted?

Compare the tracking of the MV with the POI for individual rounds. Note that it wasn't possible to track accurately all rounds.





While POI and MV were often generally related, it wasn't consistently connected or matching. Some rounds didn't go where their MV would predict. Faster rounds sometimes had a lower POI than slower ones. Sometimes, rounds would strike the target at an unexpected and unpredictable POI. See for example the bottom right bull on target no. 1. The low shot was not an unusually slow round.

It can be frustrating when results that are otherwise satisfying get disrupted by rounds that don't go where they should. But them's the breaks. Unfortunately there's nothing that can be done to prevent this, but on the bright side at least shooters may understand why it happens.

 

[grauhanen]

The ten ten-shot groups with RWS Special Match shown above averaged 1.039" (center-to-center). The best single target was the first with a decent, but not especially good, overall average of .911". Nevertheless, the relatively tight ES of all the groups suggest that with enough shooting it has the potential to produce some targets with a very good overall average.

The same morning I shot those RWS SM targets I also shot some Lapua Center X targets. The two boxes of the same lot of CX had chronograph numbers that were not as encouraging as those of the RWS SM ammo. The first box had an ES of 44 and an SD of 10 fps. The second had a better ES of 32 with an SD of 7 fps.

The results are shown below.



The chrony numbers suggest that the results on target wouldn't be as good as with the RWS ammo. Indeed, with a ten-group average of 1.124" the overall results are a little less satisfactory. On the other hand, however, it can be noted that there were four groups under 1" to the RWS's three. But three CX groups were larger than the largest RWS group.

In any case, there's not enough data to draw meaningful comparisons. Suffice it to say the CX didn't perform as well over the chronograph as the RWS.

How did individual rounds of the Lapua ammo perform in relation to their muzzle velocity? Did they go where their MV would predict?

Note that as with the RWS SM targets, it's not always possible to accurately track individual shot POI to match with MV.




As with the RWS SM results shown above, POI and MV were often related. But the relationship is not always consistent. In other words, sometimes POI and MV aren't always matching. Some rounds have a POI that is not directly related to their muzzle velocity. There's no way to predict when this might happen.

Furthermore, group sizes are not directly related to the MV spread of the rounds themselves.

On target 4, the group with an ES of 14 fps had about the same size as those that had spreads that were twice as much. On target 5, the smallest group of .670" had the largest ES (31 fps) of the three while the other two groups were more than twice its size.

________________________________

What does all this imply? First and most important, there's not enough data from two boxes of each ammo to draw any significant conclusions. While it seems almost gratuitous to obsereve that some rounds don't go where their MV predicts, it nevertheless may be worth keeping this mismatch in mind when considering ammo performance, especially as distances increase. Sometimes the mismatch can be quite profound, with consequences that are as unpredictable as they are unfortunate. On the bright side, at shorter distances the MV/POI mismatch is less impactful for non-serious shooting.

 

[grauhanen]

I shot a ten-shot group at 100 this morning, which is one of the smallest I've ever had.



It was .475" center-to-center. I haven't seen many ten-shot groups under .5" at 100 yards.



Unfortunately, the other bulls on the target weren't as encouraging.

With another lot, another target was satisfying. One shot in the bottom right bull, the first in this group, went high. It had the fastest MV by a negligible 3 fps.
Overall, the target had a three group average of .731".

 

[sk8snwmx]

Maybe soon we will have a company that can make rimfire ammo accurate for a decent price... but I doubt it.

 

[Longstud]

That’s some very impressive shooting. Well done Glenn. Are these results from a gun you had restocked and bedded recently or one from your stable?

 

[horseman2]

This group[ was measured at 0.468 and 0.475 on two different occasions.
Using BallisticX, and assuming the grids were 1", it measured 0.513". The grid lines are close to 0.965 and BALLISTICX then gives a reading confirming the 0.468".

The rifle was a Anschutz 1712 before a Sightron SII was installed and IIRC the scope was a Bushnell 6-24. This rifle generally outperforms the 1710. Ammo was Remington Eley Match with a published velocity of 1067.