Lets talk .22LR match ammo (50-100yd)

[TRSR8]

Indeed. This returns to the unanswered question referred to above.

Well back when you got decent test lots it helped narrow the field but balance that with the fact that any long term match shooter will verify stories about killer lots over the years that went overlooked, went untested, and hung around to the point that many simply assumed it was crap because it was still there.
Some of the best 2012 ELEY I ever shot I got from Gene Davis who had it on the shelf for something like 9 months.
Gotta cast a wide net……………if possible.

Shot this very target with that ammo a while back, outdoors. I think I got a decent lot.

 

[grauhanen]

Answer...It's rimfire, things vary.

Every one of these questions can be answered by looking at the holes in the paper shot by YOUR RIFLE. What happened at the ammo factory, what your friend did, what somebody on a forum did just doesn't matter.

Clearly what happens on target is always a unique product of the rifle, ammo, and shooter. Nevertheless, the other part of the question above remains.

Target results aside, and understanding that chronographs are unimportant with regard to results on target, what explains why an ammo packaged as X-Act (or Tenex) can perform poorly over the chronograph?

The chronograph is indifferent to who is shooting and what rifle is used. It gives only the MV facts of the ammo, nothing else.

Are you suggesting, then, that different good barrels can cause the same lot of ammo to have significantly different chronograph results?

 

[TRSR8]

You seem to feel all else must follow chronograph parameters first and foremost.
I would be willing to bet a bunch of guys do not even run tests with them, I really stopped fooling with mine a long time back when I became a lifetime member of the “ it either shoots or it doesn’t “ club. Maybe a couple groups to start but like others, all my testing these days is with targets only. Saves time and frankly you end up in the same place…….or not.

 

[dutch14]

I'm waiting on the NRA to do away with targets and just compete with chronograph results.

 

[VLNBYR]

There are lots of things you can do with a rifle to improve performance. Ammo has a mind of it's own.

 

[karrarararararar]

Stopped by Scheels and was disappointed that they pretty much no long had any match or target ammo. The only non-plinking ammo the had was Aguila Target. I bought some and tested it in my UMRR. Unfortunately it did not shoot well at all and I'm pretty disappointed with it.

 

[karrarararararar]

After sighting on the indoor range I shot a couple quick groups outside at 50 yards. It was a far from ideal conditions, but Tenex shot a ½ MOA 7 shot group.

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

You seem to feel all else must follow chronograph parameters first and foremost.
I would be willing to bet a bunch of guys do not even run tests with them, I really stopped fooling with mine a long time back when I became a lifetime member of the “ it either shoots or it doesn’t “ club. Maybe a couple groups to start but like others, all my testing these days is with targets only. Saves time and frankly you end up in the same place…….or not.

Why anyone shooting a precision RF rifle (read BR) would need to know the chronograph numbers of a lot is beyond me. you can't change the load to have better numbers. it is what it is.
as you said shoot it and it will or it won't have good results.

Lee

 

[grauhanen]

You seem to feel all else must follow chronograph parameters first and foremost.
I would be willing to bet a bunch of guys do not even run tests with them, I really stopped fooling with mine a long time back when I became a lifetime member of the “ it either shoots or it doesn’t “ club.

I think you misunderstand. I thought it ought to have been clear that I didn't think "all else must follow chronograph parameters first and foremost."

Target results aside, and understanding that chronographs are unimportant with regard to results on target, what explains why an ammo packaged as X-Act (or Tenex) can perform poorly over the chronograph?

To put what I said in another way, the chronograph doesn't tell anyone which ammo will shoot. They are unimportant in that regard. Good shooting ammo is identified only on the target.

They will show when an ammo has behavior that makes it an unlikely candidate for good performance.

Unless different barrels themselves can indeed cause significant differences in chronograph results, it's hard to understand how factory testing can result in lots that perform poorly over the chronograph being graded as top tier.

At this point it appears there's nothing else to add.

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

the chronograph doesn't tell anyone which ammo will shoot.

They will show when an ammo has behavior that makes it an unlikely candidate for good performance

Anyone else confused on these statements? Sounds a bit contradictive.

It won't show if it will shoot but it will show behavior that makes it unlikely it will.

lee

 

[Fuj]

I use my Lab Radar every time I set up. Sometimes I turn it on
and sometimes I don't. Anything new I have not put down range
gets checked. I've only checked rim fire once and that was to see
some numbers on why certain ammo would not cycle a bolt. I had
a brick of Remington Match that ran 1010 to 1095 fps. It must have
been their bankrupt edition !! So if I get a new lot of something,
the first test targets are velocity checked for ES/SD. It's what I do !!

 

[dgeesaman]

the chronograph doesn't tell anyone which ammo will shoot.

They will show when an ammo has behavior that makes it an unlikely candidate for good performance

Anyone else confused on these statements? Sounds a bit contradictive.

It won't show if it will shoot but it will show behavior that makes it unlikely it will.

lee

Not contradictive at all.

Being 400lb pretty much prevents a person from running a fast marathon. Being under 400lb will not make you a fast marathoner.
So if you're a coach and you need to pick a team with no prior knowledge (or political correctness), you would benefit marginally by being able to eliminate the 400lb guys.

Bad ES is the analog to being 400lb.

My opinion: for 50y accuracy the chronograph numbers mean little. My best lot had high ES the one time I bothered to measure it. But for long range / NRL there comes a point where ES has influence on vertical.

David

 

[JimSC]

I used to live and die by the chrono, these days I just let the target tell me what I need to know. If it has a bad ES/SD, erratic BTO measurements or other flaws they will show up on the target

 

[USMCDOC]

i have always just used the come ups on the rifle or scope at distance to tell me on the JBM the approx speed of the bullet..

 

[TRSR8]

I think you misunderstand. I thought it ought to have been clear that I didn't think "all else must follow chronograph parameters first and foremost."


To put what I said in another way, the chronograph doesn't tell anyone which ammo will shoot. They are unimportant in that regard. Good shooting ammo is identified only on the target.

They will show when an ammo has behavior that makes it an unlikely candidate for good performance.

Unless different barrels themselves can indeed cause significant differences in chronograph results, it's hard to understand how factory testing can result in lots that perform poorly over the chronograph being graded as top tier.

At this point it appears there's nothing else to add.

There, IMHO, is where you are wrong.
Back when I was doing a fair amount of Chrono backup,no doubt some of the best I shot was single digit ES, but also had lots of very decent, match winning ammo that you’d likely pass up based on it’s ES.
That served very well my joining the “ it either shoots, or it doesn’t “ club. As has been said, often this stuff has a mind of it’s own….based on, as much that we don’t fully comprehend, it will end up where it is pointed or it will not. We can( and do) talk it to death but ultimately that’s what it boils down to.
I am constantly surprised by what I get in weekly club matches where I shoot what I would label as my “ mid tier” stuff I likely would not shoot in sanctioned events, often given a fair chance, shooting way above it’s pay grade.

 

[slobhunter2]

I have always thought that the 22s are the cats of the firearm world.

 

[drover]

I have always thought that the 22s are the cats of the firearm world.

Greatest statement ever - I may have to add that one to my signature line

drover

 

[46490]

I have a Harrels on my Kidd, as you can see 50 yard groups varied from .2's to .7s but most were sub MOA. Biggest issue I see with the cheaper ammo is lack of consistency with weight and base to ogive measurement and you just can't fix that. You can sort the stuff but why not just spend a little more and use your time for shooting not picking through ammo

View attachment 1430619

I agree, just can't find any ammo out there (Midas plus} . I am thinking about Eley match. The SK rifle match may work but I have my doubts.

 

[grauhanen]

the chronograph doesn't tell anyone which ammo will shoot.

They will show when an ammo has behavior that makes it an unlikely candidate for good performance

Anyone else confused on these statements? Sounds a bit contradictive.

It won't show if it will shoot but it will show behavior that makes it unlikely it will.

lee

Lee, your confusion is itself confusing (and surprising).

A chronograph doesn't tell anyone which ammo will shoot -- as in shoot well. Ammo that doesn't shoot is ammo that doesn't perform well -- shoots poorly.)

If a chronograph indicates a wide ES and high SD for a particular ammo, it's likely it won't be a candidate for good performance.

If this still seems contradictory please offer an explanation for another way to see this.

 

[grauhanen]

There, IMHO, is where you are wrong.
Back when I was doing a fair amount of Chrono backup,no doubt some of the best I shot was single digit ES, but also had lots of very decent, match winning ammo that you’d likely pass up based on it’s ES.

I think you continue to misunderstand.

I said that a chronograph can't determine what shoots well. Only the results can tell you that.

You appear to agree, yet say I'm wrong. Can you elaborate?