Is sorting ammo economically sound idea?

Do you want less fliers or not? A 9 vs 7 or 6?

Unfortunately everything is $$$ you gotta pay to play. Or just accept acceptable accuracy and dont expect cci sv to shoot like match ammo.
 
GPSMapNut said:
Based on limited numbers, it looks to me that the lower grades are not discounted enough to justifying paying , still premium price, for these. Sure, you want top grade, pay for it. My real question is; does it make sense to pay extra for brand name rejects or is it better to spend some ,really not that much, time to find the best from lower brands?
Click to expand...
There are no "rejects". All .22LR match ammo is graded because it can't be equally similar. Although how the grading is accomplished is not revealed to consumers, it's not a simply a question of failing to have a certain level of shooting performance.

That's because not all top tier (e.g. Tenex for Eley) ammo always outperforms all other tiers (e.g. Eley Match or Team). Sometimes there are lots (all ammo is graded in batches called "lots") of Match or even Team that shoot better than Tenex.

In short, the name on the box is never a guarantee of how it shoots.

This is true for Lapua match ammo. Not all the top X-Act lots are better than all Midas lots or Center X lots. Not all lots of Midas are better than all lots of CX.

Sometimes some lots of the "best" or top tier ammos shoot poorly and some lots of lesser grades shoot better.
 
I’m thinking it’s a complete waste of time.
But you have lots to waste so go ahead.

Consider this:
Let’s say you buy 1 box of 50 of 4 different brands. Let’s say brand z is the most consistent.
Now you need more of z so back to the store you go. What’s the odds that you can get more of z in the same lot number?

Lets say you did the exercise again a time later and found brand x better? Now what?

All of this is just one component of the game.
How do you know your rifle might shoot x better anyway regardless of consistency of ammo?.

This rabbit hole is getting deeper and deeper
 
I thought it was common knowledge that Eley uses four test barrels to grade their ammo. They shoot a sample of each lot number through all four test barrels and average the results. Any lot number that gives results that are above the grading line for Tenex goes in Tenex boxes. A lot number that's above the grading line for Match goes in those boxes. If it doesn't meet either of those grades then it goes in Team boxes. I don't know if they also have a line where they just won't sell it at all if it falls below that. My gut says probably not. If that's the case then Team could vary quite a bit. Although, I had an early lot number of Team that shot better than any ammo I've ever shot. Was sad when I ran out of that, hehe. And the round nose bullet batches go through the same thing, going into the boxes for whichever lines they stay above.

Bigbubba, I don't think any serious target shooter that wants to buy in quantity is buying from stores. When the ammo isn't scarce, for the really expensive lines like Tenex and Match you can usually get lot testing sample boxes from North Sylva for lot numbers where they have a case or more that you could buy. And typically they'll still have it if you test quickly and get back to them as soon as you can. If supplies get pretty slim they'll sometimes stop doing that until they get more in stock, which I imagine is probably once a year. And in that case you just have to buy and cross your fingers. Many years ago they'd do this for any ammo they sold, but they stopped doing it for the cheaper stuff quite a while back. Now they only do it for the stuff that costs an arm and a leg. Getting other suppliers to do the same has always seemed like pulling teeth, in my experience. Most everyone just wants you to buy and get out of their hair. That's one of the reasons I buy from North Sylva whenever I can, even in cases where I wouldn't be doing lot testing. They're targetshootingproducts dot com.
 
Long story short is you’ll end up with 5 or 8 or 13 piles of ammo with all different amounts in each pile. You’ll go out and shoot them and one pile will put them in the same hole but there’s only four of them! Or there’s 17 and the four go in the same hole and the fifth finds a nice new piece of real estate on the target. The amount of piles will be determined with how small of variance you allow and how many different tests you perform. Have fun and nock urself out. You want consistency then switch to a quality PCP airgun. Slugs and pellets are cheap in comparison to rimfire ammo!! Velocity is very consistent and SDs are very very low.
 
*lawrence said:
Sorry, who is doing the sorting?? I've read the entire thread and am still not sure....
Click to expand...
This is the Internet, not the first Death Star trench: its hard to stay on target topic. OP is asking if buying cheaper ammo and sorting it for some measurements that represent better accuracy is worth it cost wise, assuming the resulting 'best' cheap ammo left after culling out the 'not best' doesn't end up more expensive. OP also commented on a manufacturer's possible sorting practices as well, and that became the majority of the return comments instead of answering the question.

---
(I use 'acceptable accuracy' because what accuracy is acceptable varies per person per situation, and in that case also includes a cost factor which will also vary per person per situation)

In the end I guess it comes down to the rate of culling, and if the measurements taken actually provides the accuracy from the expensive target ammo. I often find a lot of ammo will provide a 80% 'acceptable' accuracy like so:
Longstud said:
four go in the same hole and the fifth finds a nice new piece of real estate on the target
Click to expand...

If paying, for example, $10 a box of .22LR ammo to (consistently be able to measure the ammo and) cull out that fifth 'unacceptable accuracy' round every time would be cheaper than paying $14 or more a box for acceptable accuracy every time. However, time to do it, variance in lots of ammo, and such....

Just my opinion, but if sitting and culling ammo to 'kinda' get rid of that fifth 'unacceptable' round for $10 a box over just paying $14 or $15 a box for acceptable accuracy every time, I'll choose the $14-15 box every time: if getting that accuracy matters that much, the extra money per box/brick/case doesn't matter, the accuracy does.

That of course changes in a shortage situation and 100% 'acceptable' accuracy ammo is not available at all; or if the price difference is $10 a box vs $50 a box.
 
Last edited:

Is sorting ammo economically sound idea?​

It is about as sound as measuring grains of rice.
But, if it floats ones boat, have at 'er.
I would suggest that companies such as Elley who make ammo for serious rim-fire competitions have a vested interest
to provide quality ammo to serious shooters and not some weekend plinker.
There are plenty of choices available to satisfy the weekend shooter with good quality ammo for plinking or hunting.
Tight Groups,
Rob
 
The consensus is indeed that Eley uses four barrels when conducting shooting testing. But that is only part of the picture.

Such shooting testing results were available to the public. For those unfamiliar, for a brief period Eley provided through its Lot Analyser the shooting testing results for the lots available during that time (perhaps earlier lots too). These results ostensibly showed for each lot the results of five ten-shot groups with four different barrels. (For an example, see the image below.)

After a short time the Lot Analyser was discontinued. It was supposed to help illustrate lot-to-lot performance but seemed to foster confusion about interpreting the results and what they actually meant. Eley has very recently introduced another system to replace the discontinued Lot Analyser.

The issue with grading, however, is that Eley, like other .22LR match ammo makers, doesn't reveal the procedure by which the output of a production run is graded. It's not clear, nor is it confirmed by the manufacturer, that grading by shooting alone is all that's involved.

There are sound reasons why it's likely that other factors have a role in determining the grading, reasons that should be the subject of another thread. Suffice it to say, these reasons can help explain why some lots of top tier match ammo are outperformed by some lots of lower tier ammos.

The bottom line is that there is no available verified information from the manufacturers about what is involved in grading .22LR match ammo. We know more about how the output of a loading machine is subdivided into lots than we do about what goes on in deciding what packaging is used for each lot.

It make little sense that, day after day, year after year, the only way to grade ammo is to wait for a production run of many tens of thousands of rounds is complete and then shooting samples to see how they perform and what has been made.

Eley Lot Analyser example below. See also https://eley.co.uk/find-the-perfect-batch-with-eleys-lot-analyser/

 
Even as good as some batches shoot, you are still at the mercy of the actual consistency of the lot you acquired, can buy a good number of lots to get to a "good one", and still get flyers out of .22 ammo, as they just can't seem to get the consistency on it nailed down. Hazards of mass production, I see more stuff around regarding the bullet designs being at fault now too. I'm happy with minute of gopher inside of 100 yds and favorable odds at 150 on them. I can't be bothered with the lot testing and the rim gauging and bolt shimming, etc, I'd rather just shoot. Even at that, .22 ammo certainly adds up in a hurry on a weekend just using the cheaper stuff, alone the 25.00+ stuff. I'd rather just burn powder than the wasted time, effort and powder.
 
I would hazard a guess that there is less chance of an ammo or firearm related issue in shooting a poor scoring event over shooter error.
You know, drinking a couple of coffees from 10bucks having more effect on the score over the ammo being inconsistent over a course of fire.

I get folks like to gather stats and everything , not to mention publish their findings, but stacked up against multi million dollar companies whose own stats will prove otherwise...well, I just have to side with those companies if I play their game and use their product.
The ammo and the equipment are the two known constant denominator.

Tight Groups,
Rob
 

Is sorting ammo economically sound idea?​


Depends what your goal is. If you want to pass some time producing boxes of 'sorted' ammo then I don't see the downside. If there is any real economic imperative one might be better off with a newspaper route or collecting empties out of the ditch.

But if your goal is to become a better shooter or even just to enjoy shooting at your current skill level I don't see where it adds anything. The OP only mentions shooting groups which is the shooting metric most confounded by variable ammo. One wonky round blows a stellar group compared to the same rounds effect on score. For me groups are a tool to employ in the pursuit of accuracy, not an end unto themselves.

Having annoyed all of the dedicated group shooters I'll stop there ... just presenting an alternate point of view for the OP's consideration.
 
Aniest said:
This is the Internet, not the first Death Star trench: its hard to stay on target topic. OP is asking if buying cheaper ammo and sorting it for some measurements that represent better accuracy is worth it cost wise, assuming the resulting 'best' cheap ammo left after culling out the 'not best' doesn't end up more expensive. OP also commented on a manufacturer's possible sorting practices as well, and that became the majority of the return comments instead of answering the question.

---
(I use 'acceptable accuracy' because what accuracy is acceptable varies per person per situation, and in that case also includes a cost factor which will also vary per person per situation)

In the end I guess it comes down to the rate of culling, and if the measurements taken actually provides the accuracy from the expensive target ammo. I often find a lot of ammo will provide a 80% 'acceptable' accuracy like so:


If paying, for example, $10 a box of .22LR ammo to (consistently be able to measure the ammo and) cull out that fifth 'unacceptable accuracy' round every time would be cheaper than paying $14 or more a box for acceptable accuracy every time. However, time to do it, variance in lots of ammo, and such....

Just my opinion, but if sitting and culling ammo to 'kinda' get rid of that fifth 'unacceptable' round for $10 a box over just paying $14 or $15 a box for acceptable accuracy every time, I'll choose the $14-15 box every time: if getting that accuracy matters that much, the extra money per box/brick/case doesn't matter, the accuracy does.

That of course changes in a shortage situation and 100% 'acceptable' accuracy ammo is not available at all; or if the price difference is $10 a box vs $50 a box.
Click to expand...
100 percent acceptable accuracy ammo is never available no matter what is spent. The average shooter will never have access to the truly exceptional lots of rimfire ammo. Its sold,the entire lots, to Olympic and ISSF shooting teams in the world. We just get the remaining garbage and are fooled into over paying for poor quality ammo. On the rare occasion ,one finds a standout for their particular firearm. That occasion is VERY RARE unlike the articles posted on the EE haha.
 
I forgot that one of Eley's ammunition brochures listed the Max RSD for a lot of their rounds. The copy I downloaded quite a while back is dated 2020. Here's what it says:

Tenex 3.75 mm
Tenex Pistol 4.05 mm
Tenex Biathlon 4.50 mm
Match 4.74 mm
Match Pistol 4.90 mm
Semi-Auto Benchrest Precision 4.90 mm
Team 5.50 mm
Club 5.50 mm
Biathlon Club 5.50 mm
Sport 7.00 mm
Target 7.00 mm
Bullseye Pistol X 7.00 mm
Contact 7.00 mm
Force 7.00 mm
Semi-Auto Benchrest Outlaw 7.00 mm

Using MR ≈ 0.8862269 * RSD if you're more used to seeing mean radius, as I am:

Tenex 3.75 -> 3.32 mm
Tenex Pistol 4.05 -> 3.59 mm
Tenex Biathlon 4.50 -> 3.99 mm
Match 4.74 -> 4.20 mm
Match Pistol 4.90 -> 4.34 mm
Semi-Auto Benchrest Precision 4.90 -> 4.34 mm
Team 5.50 -> 4.87 mm
Club 5.50 -> 4.87 mm
Biathlon Club 5.50 -> 4.87 mm
Sport 7.00 -> 6.20 mm
Target 7.00 -> 6.20 mm
Bullseye Pistol X 7.00 -> 6.20 mm
Contact 7.00 -> 6.20 mm
Force 7.00 -> 6.20 mm
Semi-Auto Benchrest Outlaw 7.00 -> 6.20 mm

And those MR values converted to inches:

Tenex: 0.131 in
Tenex Pistol: 0.141 in
Tenex Biathlon: 0.157 in
Match: 0.165 in
Match Pistol: 0.171 in
Semi-Auto Benchrest Precision: 0.171 in
Team: 0.192 in
Club: 0.192 in
Biathlon Club: 0.192 in
Sport: 0.244 in
Target: 0.244 in
Bullseye Pistol X: 0.244 in
Contact: 0.244 in
Force: 0.244 in
Semi-Auto Benchrest Outlaw: 0.244 in

And if we go to https://eley.co.uk/brochure/ now to get the latest one it seems they lowered the bar for Tenex Pistol to 4.40 mm now, or 3.90 mm MR, or 0.154". Looks like all the others are still the same. They've also got Ultra listed, which was introduced sometime after that older brochure. It has a Max RSD of 4.00 mm, or 3.54 mm MR, or 0.140".

It also confirms the test method. Looks like they shoot one box each in those four guns.

"ELEY tests 200 rounds from every batch across four different firearm brands to calculate RSD, ensuring proven accuracy you can trust."
 
Eley's brochures do not confirm that the grading method is by test-shooting results only.

In recent years the majority of RFBR shooters no longer use Eley because Tenex and Match often doesn't shoot to the RSD cited. In other words, too often Eley doesn't shoot well enough despite what the brochures may claim.

Eley's manufacturing and consistency problems are not a secret. It helps explain why in both the USA and Canada Eley match ammo often remains available while Lapua is out of stock. The demand for Eley is no longer strong. There was a time when Eley was the most often used make of ammo. It no longer is.

To illustrate with examples, in 2011 the vast majority of RFBR shooters (about 90%) were using Eley. By 2023 most shooters were using Lapua.

Anyone who wants to know more about what ammo most RFBR shooters are using can refer to the equipment lists published by ARA.
 
No one should believe that 50 rounds through each of four barrels (total of 200 rounds) gives clear confirmation and verification of performance levels.

Consider that of Eley match ammo such as Tenex and Match are usually made in quantities of four to six cases or 20 thousand to 30 thousand rounds per lot.

Testing only 200 rounds doesn't give a high level of confidence that the results are truly representative of the entire population. Put another way, factory testing is not a guarantee that the ammo is graded appropriately.
 
For further thought, it's not a surprise that Lapua also conducts shooting testing of its ammo (SK ammo, too).

Kevin Thomas of Nammo says "that every run of ammo, either Lapua or S-K, is accuracy tested in a series of five 10-shot groups, as well as a 50-shot composite. The SD and ES are measured and are required to fall within a strict set of parameters, but ultimately, it's accuracy that makes the final determination." See post #89 here https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/new-center-x-accuracy.7080270/page-2#post-10029446

There's no reason to doubt that Eley and Lapua conduct testing by shooting. But it's not the final or only arbiter of grading.

Even in top tier varieties, however, there can be significant box-to-box variations in shooting performance as well as ES and SD. While shooting results depend on shooter and conditions, the chronograph doesn't. Chrony results of large sample sizes of match ammo lots confirm that ES/SD numbers per box typically have a range of values. Sometimes box-to-box ES can vary by over 20 fps. SD values in some lots can vary box-to-box from 5 to 9. This includes Midas and X-Act.

The fact remains that top tier ammo lots with poor ES and SD figures get to shooters. The chrony numbers are supposed to fall within a strict set of parameters. But too often they don't. The fact is that "lower" tier match ammo can outperform top tier match ammo across many barrels. Neither should happen if testing alone was the sole method of grading the ammo.

How grading gets done is the subject of another thread. Here it's enough to say that grading by shooting only is not the best explanation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom