Project S-Match (from the mid 1800’s until now are we all just expecting way too much from our beloved 22 Long Rifle)

[wkdickinson]

Our club is as currently debating this subject as well. But we've chosen to break it up into "classes":

• "Benchrest" (like F-class, but from a bench) 100 yds, 40 shots total on 4 targets, 1" 10-ring, .5" X-ring, unlimited sighters:
  • Open - unlimited cost for rifle and scope
  • Intermediate - $1,500 or less for rifle & scope
  • Sportsman - $750 or less for rifle & scope (but shot on 4 "critter" targets at 100 yds.)
• NRA Smallbore F-Class - Open & FT/R

We started the "Sportsman" class mid-last year and have had a really great response. Some competitors have already moved up into Intermediate and Open. The NRA F-Class will be a new venture.

 

[MrG52D]

A few months ago Timo posted a thread on Rimfire Accuracy site entitled “22 LR is ammo from hell” . It certainly was a thought provoking title and thread to say the least as Timo is a very experienced shooter and a well respected technical guy. He also seems to have a good relationship with Lapua which manufactures some of the finest if not the finest 22 ammo on the planet at this time. To be honest since this post was made I just haven’t been able to stop thinking about it and I hope after reading this you won’t be able to let it go either!

Is as Timo said “22 LR is ammo from hell” or are we all just expecting way too much? That’s the question I’ve been pondering for the past few months. I decided to study the complete history of the 22 Long Rifle cartridge. It’s a long and fascinating one to say the least. One thing I know for sure it was never originally designed as a match cartridge! It simply evolved through the years as servicemen arrived home from the wars and started competing with their rifles. Schools and universities put together shooting teams and informal shoots were popping up all around the country. The ammo and rifle makers started refining their products to find the edge in accuracy. In front of me are two beautiful classic match rifles a 1952 Remington Model 37 Rangemaster ( what a great name!) and a 1962 Winchester Model 52D. Walnut and rust blued steel to compete at the highest levels. And there were others …the rimfire accuracy game was on! Fast forward to rimfire benchrest with precision actions and barrels using improved match ammo but still the original case of over a hundred years ago. It begs the question are we all expecting just too much from a cartridge that was never really designed as a match cartridge from the beginning?

View attachment 1390602






View attachment 1390603
View attachment 1390609
My background. I’m a relatively new rimfire benchrest shooter but have been involved with the small calibers most of my life. I know how it feels to have just one shot go unexpectedly out when you got a great target going in a match. I’ve now shot enough and have experienced those rare highs when they handed me a first place ribbon and high X count sticker to losing a shot or two for unexplained reasons. Trust me, I’ve competed in centerfire benchrest and ran out of excuses long ago. I accept my bad shots and am not ashamed to confess my poor shooting but I do struggle when I’ve done my part with the conditions and gun handling and yet a bullet sails way out, that my friend is tough to take. But I do…we all do.

Like I said I’m relatively new to the match rimfire but not to the wonderful small calibers. I’ve actually devoted most of my life to them. What started out as an unknown writer to buy barrels and bullets turned into a life long passion for the small calibers. So much so I even started my own magazine Small Caliber News so I could get our small caliber projects out on our terms. The freedom and speed of these forums to share our information are really unbelievable compared to the old days. It’s not an easy thing to start a magazine but my gamble paid off and helped us launch a lot of new small caliber products such as the twenty calibers and even the 17 HMR.

Through the magazine I met a lot of very interesting and knowledgeable people from around the world but none more interesting than my friend Frank Tirrell. From the very first call to our most recent Frank would say “listen to me son” which meant shut up I’ve got something technical to discuss with you! Frank doesn’t mix words and once he dedicates himself to a certain project he won’t quit until it’s solved. As an engineer, unlimited centerfire benchrest shooter and after working with Ed Shilen for years Frank is Mr. Precision. When he retired from Shilen Rifles he built his own test tunnel and range to just test rimfires to the highest standards. I still can’t figure out why he ever called me as my experience with a rimfire was testing a Kimber and telling a story about my squirrel rifles. We put a few high grade rimfires on the cover over the years but as you know a full blown match rimfire is a totally different game. One day Frank called me while I was deep into testing a new twenty caliber cartridge. He went on and on about some lead ring problem he was having in his unlimited rimfire test rifle. That’s right he built an unlimited test rifle just to figure all this rimfire madness out. I think during our conversation he could tell I was losing focus and for the first time said “ listen to me son” with a few choice words thrown in! This lead ring thing was now driving both of us nuts and I was running out of shooting time so to get him off the phone I said I’ll send you some of our super duper Woodchuck Den lube. He cussed a little more but eventually hung up. Then about a week later the phone rang and it was Frank and he said son you have done something that has never been done in over a hundred years…I said Frank what are you talking about…. he said I’ve been using your product you sent and there is absolutely no lead ring! He was bore scoping every single round! That was just my first match rimfire project with Frank. We had solved the lead ring issue but it didn’t take Frank too long to realize there was just so much we could do with the match ammo that was available. Frank soon figured out many of the issues with the match ammo and what it would take to solve them. There were some that I couldn’t publish like the “Match Rimfire Myth”. To prove all this was another big challenge and he called one afternoon again while I was again at the range testing and said “listen to me son” we have to make our own match ammo. I said how we going to do that…he said I’m not sure but I think I’ve got the correct case length figured out but need precision bullets. He went on “son your a precision bullet maker and I need your help”. I said Frank I make precision match centerfire bullets not lead bullets. He said I’ll send you a print you can order the dies and hung up. Frank had really helped me a lot I think at that time he had wrote nine articles on match rimfires for our Small Caliber News magazine and he was on our technical team. I owed him. The bullet print arrived and I reached out to one of our tool and die makers for help. He agreed to make the dies and I paid for them. Frank had shorter rimfire cases ordered from one of the leading match rimfire companies but unfortunately in the end they backed out. We were still able to move forward and see some outstanding improvements over the match ammo of the day which Frank told me recently was better than any match ammo made today! Over the years Frank figured this match rimfire madness out and knows the formula to true match rimfire ammo.

View attachment 1390617

View attachment 1390618

So how do we make Franks and every match rimfire shooters dream of true match ammo come true? Well I’ve been down this road many times before. When I started my own magazine to really help me launch the twenty calibers naysayers told me it would never fly, when I worked behind the scenes to help Hornady in successfully launch the 17 HMR which by the way broke every conceivable ammo and firearm production records when people including some I can’t mention even today said we were crazy. I could go on and on but I was able to bring people and companies together to successfully produce new small caliber products. Frank knows the path to rimfire precision and I know there are enough influential people out there who could make this happen. I can already hear the doubters but remember we can all use our existing shooting platforms just have new barrels or old ones set back. And before some chase me out of town let me say I’m not trying to replace our beloved old 22 rimfire just add a true match rimfire totally designed from the ground up. Project S-MATCH

Todd A.Kindler
Founder & Editor of Small Caliber News

Todd,
What a wonderful and interesting thread, although it looks as if it ran off the rails somewhere around post 14. But that happens.

It's interesting that you pictured the old 37 and 52, they ruled the roost back in the day. Actually I still use a Winchester 52D that dates to 1962 as well. Mine is well used and yet it still shoots above my expectations when it has GOOD ammo. Just this past weekend, I went to a IR50 match and actually won the match, using this rifle. Mine is not a reworked 52D, just a skim bedding job and a Harrels tuner. I usually shoot the rifle less the tuner, but wanted to try it. Did it help? I really don't know for sure, as it has shot scores equal to this past weekends results without it. Either way, ammo is the deciding factor on the scores, considering I don't goof it up somehow.

Currently I am using Eley 'Black Box" and I have also used Lapua Midas+, but it's hard to come by now. It would be great to have another player in the game. The ammo you have shown is rather different looking, but so was Eley's ESP when it came on the market. As Tony said, ammo has to meet a manufacturing limit of I think, one million rounds, before it is considered legal to use, in the sanctioned events of ARA or IR50.
In today's world, a million is a small run, if it works as intended. It would be great if was MADE IN the USA and had a price point of the other two major brands. You could send me some to test and evaluate

 

[wkdickinson]

I apologize if my posts have contributed to this thread being hijacked. I started reading the thread because I was fascinated with the discussion about the 22LR's history and it's basic shortcomings with regard to competition level performance. I hope we can resurrect the original intent of the thread, so we can all have a better understanding of what the future might hold for 22RF.

 

[PNW Skipper]

Todd,

Apologies also for leaving the original track. Now back to some questions about your original post that have been percolating in my mind for a bit.

I guess the first question is what is your objective in introducing Project S-Match here? I'm not trying to be snarky, I just want to understand whether you envision this as an opportunity to introduce a broader audience to insights from Frank Tirrell's work; or to elicit new ideas; or cross pollination? Do you see this as primarily a theoretical discussion about how ammo MIGHT be improved, or do you see this as a springboard to actually producing better ammo in commercial quantities?

When I look at the Tirrell rifle and the smooth sided bullets in the photos on your original post I am curious about if they are what you are referring to when you indicate that, "Over the years Frank figured this match rimfire madness out and knows the formula to true match rimfire ammo?" If so, do you see Frank's insights about improving the ammo as separable from the design features of that rifle? Or must Project S-Match necessarily involve both ammo AND rifle evolution? Was the custom ammo you speak of tested exclusively in that rifle, or was it also tested in conventional shoulder or free recoil fired match rifles? If tested in both, was the performance in the conventional rifles consistent with that of the illustrated rifle, and how much improvement was there over baseline testing of the conventional rifle with conventional ammo?

WRT ammo, when you speak of improved rimfire ammo, do you intend .22lr ammo as defined within the current ANSI/SAAMI standard and used in virtually all smallbore competitions? Or rather, are you thinking about either a new cartridge, or design changes to the .22lr that would require a revision of the ANSI/SAAMI Standard to accommodate it?

I have a lot more questions, but this is a good stopping point, and some of them are moot if this is really just an academic exercise.

Thanks!

Phil

 

[linekin]

Thanks for the thread Todd, its interesting to read about the experimentation of yourself & Frank. I think I remember Bill Brawand? also having made dies & rolling his own as well. I wonder how many others have been so hooked by the little cartridge to do so themselves.
You mentioned that some of the newer high end ammo looking hideous & wondered how it ever shoots as it does. I can't speak to that, but what I will say is some of it shoots darn close to perfect. Some perfect targets (250 25x) have been shot in IR50 several times over the years, & 250 23-24x's are pretty common. 2500's are commonplace in ARA br nowadays.
As I think you mentioned the consistency of it throughout the manufacturing of it is the problem. A hurdle that can't seem to be overcome.
Personally I would have no problem with the br sanctioning bodies allowing handloaded ammo from a competitors standpoint. I'd understand if the rule was made from a safety standpoint, whether range or our own safety at home. As I think we all know the issue it they can't ship loose priming compound. Evidently, we can buy our own components & mix our own, which I'm not sure's a great idea .
For me, I wouldn't be interested in reloading for it. Having started in rfbr & grew into centerfire br, I find reloading to be a burden as I am a procrastinator. That & the sheer number of rounds us rfbr would need to make doesn't appeal to me.
It would be nice if a company could bring Frank, yours, & all of our dreams came to fruition. Cost within reason of course.
Again, thanks for the post!
Keith

 

[WyleWD]

From High Noon's post #5........

"I’m my opinion one of the worst features you can actually see with your naked eye. The lead bullet. As a custom match centerfire bullet maker with over 25 years experience I can’t honestly see how we ever shoot half as good as we do with match rimfire ammo. I’ve recently looked at a top match ammo brand and the leading front band on those bullets were just hideous. Then you look at the pulled bullets with all the different grooves, which I feel are unnecessary and the very important base is just unbelievable. Look at the bullets Frank made from our custom dies above and compare those with the bullets we’re trying to compete with btw those are rejects! I can’t believe we can’t mass produce considerably better bullets. On the way to a small rimfire match today my good friend Fred and I were discussing this very topic and it is amazing to us how well we are able to shoot with this ammo but maybe that’s also why top perfect scores and small groups are so tough to come by.

You mention, "we can sell all we can make so why bother". We hear this too and it’s totally unacceptable in my world and it should be for everyone else's shelling out hard earned dollars for top ammo. As I mentioned before I made precision match grade bullets and I too could sell all I could make but I never compromised on quality. In fact my brand label was Gold on the label for a reason. They were made on the finest precision bullet making dies and jackets on the planet and I made them to the best of my ability never compromised one time. Think of what a precision shooter has invested in his precision rifle, fine optics, tuning and travel in hopes of winning and being let down by ammo or bullets. …ammo companies if you compromise on your top match ammo brands and don’t take pride to produce the very best you can do all of us a favor and simply get out of the match ammo business!"

As one of your old "Golds" customers I want to sincerely thank you for these two paragraphs! I sincerely hope that some of the manufacturers, or someone takes this to heart and puts some serious effort into making true Match ammo. There are a lot great components and technology available but the "we can sell all we can make so why bother" mentality seems to prevail. Thanks Todd for a great post and illuminating a pretty obvious shortcoming. WD

 

[VLNBYR]

More to the point....What did Frank Tirrell ever win? There are a lot of paths in the 22lr BR landscape and most of them lead straight to a rabbit hole. Stay on the ones that lead to winning matches.

 

[MrG52D]

Todd,
The bullets you picture are a lot different than the NORMAL,

no driving bands, no dimples, no flat nose....

One renowned gunsmith, recently posted pictures of a barrel issue, that was glazed (his term). This condition caused the dimples to wear off as it traveled up the barrel. He tells us these dimples are what carries the lube up the barrel, to give it consistency. Most shooters shoot several fouling rounds before going to a scoring bull, just to lay down the lube and make it consistent. Without any of these features, how would the bullet you have pictured do that?

 

[CharlieNC]

Thanks 1Merlin!

Tony,

First thanks for taking time to respond.

You may have said it best; “The basic design is very flawed from an accuracy standpoint.” That was my point above, it was never designed as a match or benchrest cartridge and it just simply evolved into a match cartridge over the many years. Now please let me compare that to centerfire benchrest that I’m much more familiar with. Case capacity: If you look at very early benchrest shooting using the larger cartridges it didn’t take Mike Walker long to introduce the 222 Remington that ruled the roost for many years. Then with the introduction of the sporter class requiring 6mm and above another major design improvement evolved by Dr. Palmisano and Ferris Pindell with the introduction of the 6 PPC. My point is match case capacity evolves for one reason or another for supreme accuracy. Unfortunately the 22 LR was born with just too much case capacity for match shooting according to Frank Tirrell and other knowledgeable rimfire experts. So as the precision rimfire match game continued to improve it was more and more obvious the 140 plus year old design was showing its age. Just think of all the things precision action makers and gunsmiths have done to compensate for the powder not filling the case correctly such as six o’clock firing pins. So as we make a list of improvements for our totally new rimfire design…. and hopefully others with much more experience can weigh in as we move along in this journey with the optimum case capacity.
View attachment 1390954

I’m my opinion one of the worst features you can actually see with your naked eye. The lead bullet. As a custom match centerfire bullet maker with over 25 years experience I can’t honestly see how we ever shoot half as good as we do with match rimfire ammo. I’ve recently looked at a top match ammo brand and the leading front band on those bullets were just hideous. Then you look at the pulled bullets with all the different grooves, which I feel are unnecessary and the very important base is just unbelievable. Look at the bullets Frank made from our custom dies above and compare those with the bullets we’re trying to compete with btw those are rejects! I can’t believe we can’t mass produce considerably better bullets. On the way to a small rimfire match today my good friend Fred and I were discussing this very topic and it is amazing to us how well we are able to shoot with this ammo but maybe that’s also why top perfect scores and small groups are so tough to come by.

You mention, "we can sell all we can make so why bother". We hear this too and it’s totally unacceptable in my world and it should be for everyone else's shelling out hard earned dollars for top ammo. As I mentioned before I made precision match grade bullets and I too could sell all I could make but I never compromised on quality. In fact my brand label was Gold on the label for a reason. They were made on the finest precision bullet making dies and jackets on the planet and I made them to the best of my ability never compromised one time. Think of what a precision shooter has invested in his precision rifle, fine optics, tuning and travel in hopes of winning and being let down by ammo or bullets. …ammo companies if you compromise on your top match ammo brands and don’t take pride to produce the very best you can do all of us a favor and simply get out of the match ammo business!

Before I wrap this up I really do appreciate the ammo companies and have been fortunate enough to work with a few over the years and fully understand all their struggles in today’s environment. However there is simply no room to compromise when it comes to accuracy. It may come down to smaller companies fully dedicated to producing only match ammo. I’ve seen this happen in the centerfire world with match jackets, bullets and brass and it’s been very positive.

Hope this provides a few answers and helps us on our journey to develop a brand new 22 rimfire match cartridge!

To optimize case utilization, why not simply use the LR charge in the L case, slightly reduced of course? Then chamber to match the L case?

 

[grauhanen]

It appears that Project S-Match seeks to overturn the world of .22LR match ammo.

I’m not trying to replace our beloved old 22 rimfire just add a true match rimfire totally designed from the ground up. Project S-MATCH

Frank Tirrell, inspriration or collaborator, appears to know .22LR match ammo

Frank soon figured out many of the issues with the match ammo and what it would take to solve them. ... Over the years Frank figured this match rimfire madness out and knows the formula to true match rimfire ammo.

Among the issues identified by Frank Tirrell and the OP as shortcomings with .22LR ammo are the following.

Unfortunately the 22 LR was born with just too much case capacity for match shooting according to Frank Tirrell and other knowledgeable rimfire experts.

I’m my opinion one of the worst features you can actually see with your naked eye. The lead bullet. As a custom match centerfire bullet maker with over 25 years experience I can’t honestly see how we ever shoot half as good as we do with match rimfire ammo. I’ve recently looked at a top match ammo brand and the leading front band on those bullets were just hideous. Then you look at the pulled bullets with all the different grooves, which I feel are unnecessary and the very important base is just unbelievable.

The match ammo makers have been issued a challenge. Shape up or ship out.

Think of what a precision shooter has invested in his precision rifle, fine optics, tuning and travel in hopes of winning and being let down by ammo or bullets. …ammo companies if you compromise on your top match ammo brands and don’t take pride to produce the very best you can do all of us a favor and simply get out of the match ammo business!

Although that's not likely to happen -- imagine the consternation, outrage, and disappointment across the smallbore shooting world -- perhaps Tirrell's concentricity measuring gauge will see renewed interest.

http://nielsonbrothersarms.com/Tirrell%20article.htm

Theories, Myths, and Fables of Accuracy tested for 22 Long Rifle Ammunition

 

[High Noon]

“ I am absolutely convinced that the single most detrimental item prohibiting the refinement and advancements of 22 rimfire accuracy is ammunition.” Frank B. Tirrell Jr.
Small Caliber News Summer 2001 Edition

This long and very technical article featuring Franks 105 pound unlimited rifle test platform is just packed full of hard sought out accuracy information. And published over two decades ago! Maybe one of his finest. Remember what he told me recently that he feels the match ammo was even better back then. So why shouldn’t we be on a quest to design a totally brand new match rimfire from the ground up that would be readily available to everyone? Thanks everyone and please feel free to gather around the ole wood stove ….

Todd

 

[Tim Slater]

To optimize case utilization, why not simply use the LR charge in the L case, slightly reduced of course? Then chamber to match the L case?

Do you mean the Short case? The Long and Long Rifle have the same case, the difference is in the bullets: 29gr vs 40gr.

 

[CharlieNC]

Do you mean the Short case? The Long and Long Rifle have the same case, the difference is in the bullets: 29gr vs 40gr.

Sorry, yes.

 

[Tim Slater]

Sorry, yes.

The idea had some legs once upon a time. The British gunsmith W W Greener contracted RWS to make his "Short Rifle": https://rifleman.org.uk/Greener_on_ammunition.html

 

[CharlieNC]

A few years ago I read reports by a guy reloading 17 hmr, and shooting great groups plus surprising hit rate at I think 1000yd. Seems like kits were available for reloading 17 and 22lr too, but I've seen very few reports by users. A bit effort but options!

 

[PNW Skipper]

http://nielsonbrothersarms.com/Tirrell%20article.htm

Theories, Myths, and Fables of Accuracy tested for 22 Long Rifle Ammunition

I ran across the Nielson concentricity data when I first saw that some of the gents I competed against were sorting ammo (by weight in their case) and started researching the practice. The Nielson testing is the only data I have seen supporting any method of sorting, and the conclusive data was obtained with an atypical 2" diameter barrel in a massive stand that was compromised initially by looseness in one of four mounting anchors. The magnitude of the benefit could obviously be meaningful in top level competition, IF it could be realized with equipment and shooting methods commonly used in such events. But the Nielsen account of the sensitivity of his testing at HS Precision to near absolute rigidity suggests otherwise to me.

That observation is the origin of my prior questions about the magnitude of improvement seen with the Tirrell bullet/rifle combination and whether they could be replicated by using the improved bullets in a match rifle shot from the shoulder or a rest using typical competition rifles.

If so, I would be interested. If not, any improvement demonstrated with the Tirrell bullet/rifle system seems more relevant to match ammo for use in disciplines shooting for group size, rather than score shooting disciplines.

 

[LR22]

As we know we can find killer lot to our rf,but we cant find lot what is killer 10/10 rf or 100/100 rf.

Sometimes there can find lot what is killer 5/10 rf or so.

So small changes in barrel measurements,chamber measurements,leade etc. makes this.

If someone is enough "grazy" to jump this "Ammo from hell" studies one way is study killer ammo lots and try to find out why "ammo engineer" has had his/her good day.

High quality gunsmiths has done good work and they have tried to find solutions / tricks how they can decrease or compensate issues what 22 LR ammo has.

My thought is that we can never make 22LR ammo what is killer in every RF,but we can make ammo what is killer in one or few RF from 10 or so.

When Lapua moved 22 LR ammo production from here (Finland) to Germany and quality goes down in the beginning we were disappointed and worried.

Now I am little more peaceful because Lapua Schönebeck is on the right track now.Mass production has their own limits and they can never produce million killer ammo/day.

Hard competiton between brands is normally good for quality.

I appreciate VERY HIGH Mr Frank Tirrel and if you have possibility to get documented his works it is awesome!!!!

BR, Timo

 

[VLNBYR]

I would argue that we don't need better ammo, the best lots are plenty good enough. What we DO NEED are more lots and an overall larger supply so that we can return to testing and then buying what works best.

 

[USMCDOC]

I would argue that we don't need better ammo, the best lots are plenty good enough. What we DO NEED are more lots and an overall larger supply so that we can return to testing and then buying what works best.

that too

 

[grauhanen]

The Nielson testing is the only data I have seen supporting any method of sorting, and the conclusive data was obtained with an atypical 2" diameter barrel in a massive stand that was compromised initially by looseness in one of four mounting anchors. The magnitude of the benefit could obviously be meaningful in top level competition, IF it could be realized with equipment and shooting methods commonly used in such events. But the Nielsen account of the sensitivity of his testing at HS Precision to near absolute rigidity suggests otherwise to me.

While I'm not familiar with the testing methods, it's no secret that few, if any, serious .22LR BR shooters use the concentricity gauge. It's another shortcut to improved performance that doesn't appear to work.

An experienced shooter familiar with the gauge said this about it: "In the end the people who purchased these devices would have been better off using the $450 to purchase more test lots of the brand / grade that met their price and accuracy requirements."
See post #34 here https://www.rimfirecentral.com/threads/weighing-some-22-rf.1248436/page-2#post-12727899

I would argue that we don't need better ammo, the best lots are plenty good enough. What we DO NEED are more lots and an overall larger supply so that we can return to testing and then buying what works best.

There's much to be said for this. When there's an abundance of different lots of match ammo, there will be more lots available that will shoot well. When relatively few lots are available for testing, disappointment is sure to follow.

The difficulty is that consistently uniform match ammo is never easy to produce in significant quantities. Match ammo production is ripe with peculiarities that make the goal of uniformity elusive except in small quantities at a time.