Ammo testing

[Mulligan]

Do you clamp the rimfire action in the barrel block ? and have you had good results in finding ammo that works the same in the stock ?

I suspect, I misread something.
I am not a rimfire shooter.
My apologies.

I use my rail to test loads for F-Class and LR BR. I have sleeves to accommodate the different barrel diameters for this testing.
CW

 

[TXJM]

Has anyone used a rail gun system to test ammo for their rifle?

JR

When I was testing ammo for my daughters 3p rifles, I did use what you might consider a quasi rail gun. Basically bolted a rod in place of the buttplate and bolted a wide spreader onto the rail under the forend that had vgrooves on each end. All ran on uhmw guides. I do believe I got more consistent results than either of the ammo test centers. The training center has a test station that runs on linear bearing and recoils into a foam block. AMU has something similar to this but I have never watched anyone use it. Newt at Akron used to build a tiny version of a rail gun that bolts to the rail of a 3p rifle and clamps into something heavy. The idea of the rail gun is good but I believe you have to have the action in the stock you are going to shoot it in to be meaningful.
chip

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

You cant expect your great ammo in your rail gun set up to be the same or even good in a complete rifle assembled as your going to use it . All kinds of tuners work but theres no formula to get one that’s shooting in a jig to a stock . In other words you cant add x number to the tensioner or tuner that was working in the rest to be transfered directly to a stocked rifle .

This why you look for consistency on how the test lots shoot. also if you know your rifle will shoot X-size 10-shot groups at home from the bench. and say, you see lots that get only 1-3mm difference in size when testing you can pretty much know that when the rifle is back together it will do better.
if the barrel is capable to produce consistency and you see lots that shoot consistent then it is just a matter of choosing which one is the most consistent.

for example- the smallest 10-shot group from my pre-test was 10.21mm this was the rifle as tuned, at the center they clamped the barrel so effectively the rifle was de-tuned, the best test lot shot a 12.14mm@50m and 18.58mm @100m so I knew that was lot shot great.
when I shot the rifle as it should be at home off the same bench, I got a 10-shot 8.63mm group

So it depends on how good a barrel you have and also if you know what the rifle is capable of doing.
this is why I say if you are not 100% confident on the tuner setting, test without it and get the most consistent lot., then retune the rifle. it is a catch 22 situation you need consistent ammo to tune with and if you try and find test lots with a tuner setting that was set using a questionable lot of ammo you are going to have problems.

Lee

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

Yes, I use my rail all the time to test my loads.
Did you have specific questions?
CW

Are you talking CF or RF as you said test your loads which makes me think CF

Lee

 

[Mulligan]

Are you talking CF or RF as you said test your loads which makes me think CF

Lee

yep, center fire.
My bad
CW

 

[justinp61]

Well, maybe so, but the good folks at Remington already thought about those possibilities many years ago with several of their .22 target rifles:

They called these "adjustable dampening pads", and they work very well to do what they were designed for. In fact they work so well, that I've installed some, mostly in the sporter type skinny barrels that I, and my customer, collaborated on.
So, is it a waste of ammunition? Nah, I just love experimenting with my all-time favorite caliber for the last 50+ years.
Some even think it's a waste to to epoxy bed the action on a .22 rifle, but once it's done properly, the smiles prove otherwise.

Winchester put those in their 52D's too. What I've found is that my rifles are more consistent without using them. After testing I found the setting would change, I would find a setting that would shoot great, then the next time out it wouldn't. I always backed the tension screws out ten clicks after shooting, then ran then back in the ten clicks before a shooting session and the POI would be different along with group size. This ran true on four D's and one 40XB.

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

Glad you like them , in the last 50 yrs Remington seemed to drop them . In fact most benchrest guys I know did better not having them touch because the wood stock they’re in expands and contracts with humidity. Now if theyre in a glass stock it may wotk .
I bought a pallet of those stocks , still have a dozen or two , and yes , you can get your group smaller and moved in the direction you want with those but the next day , you usually need to start over . Wood , looks good but you dont see it much on the benchrest winners list of components.

Well, those Remington target models were NOT exactly "benchrest rifles" now, were they? Mostly just .22 target rifles popular during the day, back when people could afford a nice target rifle for less than 4-grand.

My method of testing .22 rimfire ammunition is to try doing it with as little human involvement as I can get. Once it gets stuck into a stock, ANY stock, it's up to whoever is involved with stocking that barreled action and then shooting it, to do as good, or better. That's my plan and I'm exuberantly happy with it.

Walnut, and most wood stocks are not as stable as the laminated stocks some shooters went to, and then, obviously BR shooters discovered that plastic and epoxy didn't know how to warp, so guess what?

 

[Ggmac]

Well, those Remington target models were NOT exactly "benchrest rifles" now, were they? Mostly just .22 target rifles popular during the day, back when people could afford a nice target rifle for less than 4-grand.

My method of testing .22 rimfire ammunition is to try doing it with as little human involvement as I can get. Once it gets stuck into a stock, ANY stock, it's up to whoever is involved with stocking that barreled action and then shooting it, to do as good, or better. That's my plan and I'm exuberantly happy with it.

Walnut, and most wood stocks are not as stable as the laminated stocks some shooters went to, and then, obviously BR shooters discovered that plastic and epoxy didn't know how to warp, so guess what?

Well I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree! I understand your points but in shooting at 100 yds , just laying your finger on the barrel will change the bullets poi .

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

I look at it more like it all depends on the goal. I was into .22 bench rest shooting back when the rage was laminated wood stocks. I soon found that my involvement with .22 rimfire BR shooting was like a guppy swimming is a lake full of piranha. A complete money game up against lawyers, doctors and those folks who had the means to buy their way to a win.
So, I now concentrate more to the "unwashed masses" of .22 rimfire shooters, like myself, who may have spent $600 or $700 for a CZ 457 MTR, a Savage Mark II, a CZ 455/457LUX or maybe even a Ruger 77/22 to see how we can wring the best out of those rifles.
I'm surrounded by 385 acres of timber that is infested with "tree rats", that fit real well in a cast iron skillet with gravy and dumplings. During the early season in September, those little peekers may only offer a small part of their anatomy for a viable shot with a .22 at 50 to 75 yards or so, amongst leaves and branches.
Then there are those customers who tell me they have a .22 "tack-driver", so I'll invite them over to shoot on my range out back of my shop for them to show me:

This target is set up at 35 meters and it's lots of fun to shoot at from the bench. I print these out on target "tag" paper like the NRA targets are.

 

[Straightshooter1]

I look at it more like it all depends on the goal. I was into .22 bench rest shooting back when the rage was laminated wood stocks. I soon found that my involvement with .22 rimfire BR shooting was like a guppy swimming is a lake full of piranha. A complete money game up against lawyers, doctors and those folks who had the means to buy their way to a win.
So, I now concentrate more to the "unwashed masses" of .22 rimfire shooters, like myself, who may have spent $600 or $700 for a CZ 457 MTR, a Savage Mark II, a CZ 455/457LUX or maybe even a Ruger 77/22 to see how we can wring the best out of those rifles.
I'm surrounded by 385 acres of timber that is infested with "tree rats", that fit real well in a cast iron skillet with gravy and dumplings. During the early season in September, those little peekers may only offer a small part of their anatomy for a viable shot with a .22 at 50 to 75 yards or so, amongst leaves and branches.
Then there are those customers who tell me they have a .22 "tack-driver", so I'll invite them over to shoot on my range out back of my shop for them to show me:

This target is set up at 35 meters and it's lots of fun to shoot at from the bench. I print these out on target "tag" paper like the NRA targets are.

Like you, I've tried to make the best of my limited resources and over time have added sum upgrades . . . like for my Ruger Precision Rimfire, I installed a Shaw match barrel and recently fitted a tuner onto it to see what kind of improvement that might make. Last month after doing a little centerfire load tweaking, the day was very nice and calm; perfect for getting a tuner dialed in. Once I got it dialed in, this is what I was able to do trying to get head shots at 50 yds with a Weaver T-36 using Eley Club and shooting from a bench (the big hole being 20 shots I took in getting the scope and tuner dialed in):

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

That's the sort of adventure I like going on!