Which .22LR shoots better? How can you know?
- Thread starter grauhanen
- Start date
My tragic plight? That's a bit grand. It's only an inconvenience to remind you that you're in the sad situation of having to post under a new identity. You were often a thorn in the side. The name may have changed, but nothing else has.
It's a shame because with your knowledge and experience you might add something helpful to readers in threads like this.
(For anyone wondering, Leuchtkafer is former CGN poster RabidM4U5, who was banned just over a year ago.)
If "shoots better" means accuracy with a rifle you actually hold in your own hands and shoot with your own eyes (that's my definition), then the practical answer for money that's reasonably affordable is a nice used Anschutz Match 54 or 64 (with an edge to the 54) match rifle with the original micrometer sights. They're normally in excellent condition because they've been babied. A wooden stocked example from the 1970s should cost around $1500. Of course the open sighted field models are also terrific.
Every competitive discipline exists as an excuse to go out and buy another firearm, and then different kinds of hunting add to that. Some favour slow deliberate extremely accurate fire, others make time an issue or even push rate-of-fire at "good enough" accuracy. Features like scopes, irons, or other sights, bipods, heavy weight, light weight, slings, bolt vs semi, etc may be banned in one situation but very much wanted in another. So the only answer to "what's the best rifle" is "what do you want it for?" and most of us aren't trying to make a single gun do everything.
That said, if you boil it down to just who makes a piece of pipe that sends .22LR downrange as accurately as humanly possible, there are a few highly respected makers like Anschutz that get mentioned.
That said, if you boil it down to just who makes a piece of pipe that sends .22LR downrange as accurately as humanly possible, there are a few highly respected makers like Anschutz that get mentioned.
There is some very good information here, even with the bickering. As stated ammo is the difference! With 4 guns and 4 different ammo my trip to the range was informative. Best gun shot all well but still flyers we common with some. All guns had 5 shot groups in the 1/2” range. Just not 5 in a row. It was a fun day with some lessons. I found what gun likes what ammo and I am also a limiting factor. As I only shoot for my own enjoyment and don’t compete this was great. So thanks for all the revelant info and those that keep it civil.
- Location
- Nova Scotia
The fliers can also just not reading the wind right. Today shooting with a 10-15 kph wind. I seen some shifts. Hence why I said. Only way to find out what is better is in a indoor ammo testing facility.
I just shot a 0.694" group at 100.
I just shot a 0.694" group at 100.
I'd like to ask readers a question, but first a little preamble for context.
In this thread it's suggested that many of the lots of match ammo that we get are not consistent. Some boxes may be better than others, some rounds within boxes may be better than others.
To illustrate below are some results from yesterday showing ten groups at 100 with the same lot of Midas.
If left-to-right dispersion can be disregarded for the moment (there was very little to no wind), it seems obvious that there was considerable vertical spread in many groups.
Ammo velocity differences don't seem to explain the vertical spread. In the targets shown below the ten shot ES for each group ranged from a low of 14.7 fps to a high of 29.8 fps. For each ten shot group, the ES is shown in red. (FWIW, ballistics calculators show that a MV spread of 30 fps will result in about 0.750" of vertical at 100 yards.)
Something other than MV spread explains the vertical dispersion, something that makes some of the rounds more consistent than others.
Whatever that something is, it would be good to have more of it.
Now to the question. To help keep it simple, disregard the role of the shooter.
Imagine there's a lot of match ammo in which all rounds are very nearly equally consistent. This lot has a very small ES and SD and bullets are near perfect in balance/center of gravity. With a good rifle/barrel, a lot like this should give ten groups like the best ones shown above. Shooters would agree that this would be good, consistent ammo.
With lot consistency in mind, here's the question. It leads to other questions.
Do good rifles/barrels shoot the same lot(s) of good consistent ammo well?
In this thread it's suggested that many of the lots of match ammo that we get are not consistent. Some boxes may be better than others, some rounds within boxes may be better than others.
To illustrate below are some results from yesterday showing ten groups at 100 with the same lot of Midas.
If left-to-right dispersion can be disregarded for the moment (there was very little to no wind), it seems obvious that there was considerable vertical spread in many groups.
Ammo velocity differences don't seem to explain the vertical spread. In the targets shown below the ten shot ES for each group ranged from a low of 14.7 fps to a high of 29.8 fps. For each ten shot group, the ES is shown in red. (FWIW, ballistics calculators show that a MV spread of 30 fps will result in about 0.750" of vertical at 100 yards.)
Something other than MV spread explains the vertical dispersion, something that makes some of the rounds more consistent than others.
Whatever that something is, it would be good to have more of it.
Now to the question. To help keep it simple, disregard the role of the shooter.
Imagine there's a lot of match ammo in which all rounds are very nearly equally consistent. This lot has a very small ES and SD and bullets are near perfect in balance/center of gravity. With a good rifle/barrel, a lot like this should give ten groups like the best ones shown above. Shooters would agree that this would be good, consistent ammo.
With lot consistency in mind, here's the question. It leads to other questions.
Do good rifles/barrels shoot the same lot(s) of good consistent ammo well?
To the original question and the 11 pages that ensued ...
What the heck is all this hypothetical, theoretical, imaginary stuff ... I don't get why you'd want or need tunnels or fixtures holding barreled actions. I don't shoot in a tunnel and I have a rifle with a scope that I aim with, not a barrelled action pointed at a fixed position in a vice. There was a lot about ammo and I don't think it was ever said that the two rifles might favor different ammo. Excuse me if I missed that somewhere. I have no idea why the metric used here is groups, ie. pick two out of then ten and measure. Throw away the info from the other eight. Lots in here about flyers as if we all agree what makes a flyer. My definition of a flyer is not one round that spoils my group.
When I scan my targets and create a 40 shot composite group with ATC(average to center) and SD,SDx and SDy of distance from center I have something which I feel is a valid basis for comparison and analysis. I buy by the case and I have a fair idea of what a performance to expect and get almost literally no surprises, rifle or ammo. Most surprises are readily explained when looked at within the frame of a fair statistically valid expectations. By that I mean unexpected results are often due to something like a carbon ring, environmental extremes or me finding some new way to screw up.
To answer the most recent question ... yes, depending on what is meant by consistent and well ... but not always.
What the heck is all this hypothetical, theoretical, imaginary stuff ... I don't get why you'd want or need tunnels or fixtures holding barreled actions. I don't shoot in a tunnel and I have a rifle with a scope that I aim with, not a barrelled action pointed at a fixed position in a vice. There was a lot about ammo and I don't think it was ever said that the two rifles might favor different ammo. Excuse me if I missed that somewhere. I have no idea why the metric used here is groups, ie. pick two out of then ten and measure. Throw away the info from the other eight. Lots in here about flyers as if we all agree what makes a flyer. My definition of a flyer is not one round that spoils my group.
When I scan my targets and create a 40 shot composite group with ATC(average to center) and SD,SDx and SDy of distance from center I have something which I feel is a valid basis for comparison and analysis. I buy by the case and I have a fair idea of what a performance to expect and get almost literally no surprises, rifle or ammo. Most surprises are readily explained when looked at within the frame of a fair statistically valid expectations. By that I mean unexpected results are often due to something like a carbon ring, environmental extremes or me finding some new way to screw up.
To answer the most recent question ... yes, depending on what is meant by consistent and well ... but not always.
From the previous pages prior to the recent question above, it's not clear what hypothetical or imaginary stuff you see. As far as is generally known, no one in Canada shoots in a tunnel. Nor is anyone posting here using fixtures to hold barreled actions at the ranges where they shoot. No one posting in this thread is claiming otherwise.
You say you have no idea why people posting here are referring to shooting groups and that shooting them is nothing more than picking two bullet holes out of the ten and throwing the other eight away. In other words, group shooting is utterly useless. Perhaps it is. But it might also suggest that anyone who makes overlays of many one shot groups to generate a group of many shots may be equally wasting his time and effort. But that's not important.
There's a practical reason why people are referring to shooting groups, regardless of their limitations.
It may be because almost everyone can relate to shooting groups. They are a quick and easy way to begin to assess ammo or rifle. Some serious and dedicated BR shooters admit to using them from time to time. As Mike Ezell, BR shooter, gun builder, and tuner maker put it, "If a gun won't shoot groups, the gun won't score either." He went on to remind people that "There's an old saying that all score shooters shoot group but only a few group shooters shoot score." These observations caused no disagreement when he made them and shouldn't cause them here.
To be sure, as you allude group measurements forego an average-to-center measurement that has a great deal of utility. But most readers don't use the software or ballistics apps that can generate the kind of information that you favour. The thing is that with groups shooters can take a measurement and recognize if the results are satisfying. Most shooters don't have dreams of shooting BR competition. They will make use of readily available targets and never shoot an ARA-type of target.
What everyone should keep in mind, however, is that shooting a few groups doesn't give a reliable record of the performance of a rifle or an ammo. That's a key point. That's why several posts in previous pages specifically noted that a lot of shooting is needed to support conclusions about which one of several similarly good rifles may be better than the other.
In the end, if goals can't be met by engaging with the shooters who post here, that's a choice that should be respected.
You mention a theoretical solution in the original post and there are many references to theoretical, hypothetical and , I believe imaginary solutions to determining the answer to your posited question. I know darn well there is know widely known and utilized tunnel in Canada ... which is why I thought it irrelevent to invoke its imaginary use. That too, in your initial post.
You said shooting groups was useless, not me. I shoot them myself and they have their place. Further some guys, as you say, choose to pursue group shooting exclusively. I said nothing to disparage that practice. Regardless of that they are a sub standard means of making the sort of determination that this thread pursues.
I totally respect the shooters who post here and took on the responsibility to present an alternate view.
You said shooting groups was useless, not me. I shoot them myself and they have their place. Further some guys, as you say, choose to pursue group shooting exclusively. I said nothing to disparage that practice. Regardless of that they are a sub standard means of making the sort of determination that this thread pursues.
I totally respect the shooters who post here and took on the responsibility to present an alternate view.
When I'm shooting targets like that it's only one round per bull, then count the innermost scoring ring touched.
Multiple rounds per bull would be a different discipline. And I understand some disciplines will ignore the bull itself and score by group size. And whether or not you only have to own 8 of 10 makes a difference too.
Then over in rimfire PRS it's either an "Impact!" call on the gong or not.
And some of our fellow .22 fans are looking for minute-of-groundhog and having a use for hollowpoint.
Which ammo prints the best target has to be scored according to the rules of the particular game you're playing.
Multiple rounds per bull would be a different discipline. And I understand some disciplines will ignore the bull itself and score by group size. And whether or not you only have to own 8 of 10 makes a difference too.
Then over in rimfire PRS it's either an "Impact!" call on the gong or not.
And some of our fellow .22 fans are looking for minute-of-groundhog and having a use for hollowpoint.
Which ammo prints the best target has to be scored according to the rules of the particular game you're playing.
It appears this thread has all but run it's course. With that in mind the misunderstandings in Williwaw's post should be cleared up.
The original question was whether it was possible to figure out which rifle among sever similarly good shooting rifles was better. "Is there a reliable way to answer the question?"
The shooting tunnel was a theoretical solution. Why theoretical? There's no tunnel facility available to shooters in Canada. I know of no such tunnel, but I could be mistaken.
If Williwaw does in fact know "darn well" that there is one, he should be so kind as to share its location with readers. Where is it, Williwaw? (The Eley facility in Okotoks still listed on the internet doesn't seem to exist any longer, and hasn't for several years.)
______________________
Regarding denying that shooting groups was useless, in post #108 Williwaw said "I have no idea why the metric used here is groups, ie. pick two out of then ten and measure. Throw away the info from the other eight."
In other words, only two shots count. The other eight of the ten (80%) are thrown away. If that's not saying shooting groups is useless, it is very nearly so. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
______________________
Williwaw says, shooting groups is a "sub standard means of making the sort of determination that this thread pursues". Perhaps he's wrong or not quite correct.
Shooting groups, like shooting cards for score, is not very useful when there isn't enough data produced. One target showing five five shot groups is no more useful than a single ARA card showing 25 individual bulls scored for points. Many rounds must be shot by both methods to arrive at a reliable answer to the question this thread pursues.
- Location
- Nova Scotia
Comes down to different guns for different purposes and I truly don't think there is an simple answer to the question, if there is. We all don't shoot bench rest. We all don't have bench rest equipment. Some shoot 3x the distance than some.
Shoot what you want, be proud of what you think is good and don't let others say you suck. I listened to this elite basically say if you want to shoot you need to spend 5k and my suggestion to start with a Anschutz 64 was stupid. Which is why I truly dislike alot of people.
In the end this raises the question of the perspective from which different posters come. This has been noted by other posters above.
If Williwaw and other ARA-type shooters wished to evaluate how well different rifles shot, they would presumably -- naturally -- use the methods they are familiar with.
Most .22LR shooters don't shoot ARA-type targets for score. They use simple practical methods, which even veteran BR shooters occasionally use, like shooting groups. Some shoot groups at 50 yards, some further out. It's clear that the further out the targets, the less and less useful is shooting single shots at bulls for score -- unless, of course, the bulls are very generous in dimensions. It may not be unreasonable to suggest that an ARA-type target increased in size by a factor of 3 wouldn't make shooting for score at 100 yards as "doable" as it is at 50.
In fact, rimfire PRS-style shooters don't shoot groups so much as shoot to strike a steel plate. A hit is a hit regardless whether it's in the middle of the plate or close to the edge.
If anyone is evaluating a rifle, perhaps trying to determine if it shoots better than others, he should use the methods with which he is familiar. These methods should be suitable for the purpose at hand. A rimfire PRS shooter is unlikely to be found shooting for score at 50 yards, just as a 50 yard benchrest shooter isn't going to be shooting steel plates at 200 or 300 yards.
From my own perspective, my goal is to evaluate not only the rifle but also the ammo. Shooting groups at 100 yards offers some advantages over shooting at 50. For example, comparing MV and POI seems more practical at 100 than it is at 50. At 50 its more difficult to distinguish differences. A disadvantage of shooting at 100 rather than 50 is that wind is more difficult to take into account. If serious BR shooters at 50 yards regularly rely on at least three wind flags and the skillful reading of them to shoot reliably, then at twice the distance it becomes an almost impossible task. In short, the further the target the more difficult it is to account for wind or air movement.
Shooters should use evaluation methods that meet the needs of their purpose. The key thing in any evaluation is to accumulate enough data. One card or one five group target or one stage doesn't allow for reliable conclusions. As noted elsewhere in this thread, with enough shooting the answers become clearer.
If Williwaw and other ARA-type shooters wished to evaluate how well different rifles shot, they would presumably -- naturally -- use the methods they are familiar with.
Most .22LR shooters don't shoot ARA-type targets for score. They use simple practical methods, which even veteran BR shooters occasionally use, like shooting groups. Some shoot groups at 50 yards, some further out. It's clear that the further out the targets, the less and less useful is shooting single shots at bulls for score -- unless, of course, the bulls are very generous in dimensions. It may not be unreasonable to suggest that an ARA-type target increased in size by a factor of 3 wouldn't make shooting for score at 100 yards as "doable" as it is at 50.
In fact, rimfire PRS-style shooters don't shoot groups so much as shoot to strike a steel plate. A hit is a hit regardless whether it's in the middle of the plate or close to the edge.
If anyone is evaluating a rifle, perhaps trying to determine if it shoots better than others, he should use the methods with which he is familiar. These methods should be suitable for the purpose at hand. A rimfire PRS shooter is unlikely to be found shooting for score at 50 yards, just as a 50 yard benchrest shooter isn't going to be shooting steel plates at 200 or 300 yards.
From my own perspective, my goal is to evaluate not only the rifle but also the ammo. Shooting groups at 100 yards offers some advantages over shooting at 50. For example, comparing MV and POI seems more practical at 100 than it is at 50. At 50 its more difficult to distinguish differences. A disadvantage of shooting at 100 rather than 50 is that wind is more difficult to take into account. If serious BR shooters at 50 yards regularly rely on at least three wind flags and the skillful reading of them to shoot reliably, then at twice the distance it becomes an almost impossible task. In short, the further the target the more difficult it is to account for wind or air movement.
Shooters should use evaluation methods that meet the needs of their purpose. The key thing in any evaluation is to accumulate enough data. One card or one five group target or one stage doesn't allow for reliable conclusions. As noted elsewhere in this thread, with enough shooting the answers become clearer.
- Location
- Nova Scotia
PRS might shoot at steel, you still need good ammo as you're shooting further than 100. Not just on a bench with mechanical rests. Your shot is more likely to be caught by the wind and you also don't got time to sit there and wait for the conditions to be perfect. So I wouldn't really #### on it.
I really wish we had it in our area, as yes groups can be boring. Why I shoot alot of time with spinners off hand.
I really wish we had it in our area, as yes groups can be boring. Why I shoot alot of time with spinners off hand.
####? This is another digression. No one has "#### on it." Please read carefully and don't infer anything that's not there.
If possible, let's go back to the question above
And the answer is "sometimes, depends". As we have seen, there is no easy real answers for this. You have to eliminate variables as much as possible for comparison testing, as well as produce enough data for significant measurement, and for most people, that just isn't doable. Best most of us can manage is, with my equipment, and this ammo, at my skill level, on this range, on this day, in this weather, here are my results. - dan
