If ammo made today is head and shoulders better than anything ever done, why doesn't the NRA outdoor prone records show that?
Any 22 rimfire BR folks shot good lots of pre-1980 ammo to compare?
Please provide a link to rimfire BR aggregate group records or diameter of their 100 point ring. The ARA Rules don't mention it but looks like about half an inch. And 25 shots touching or inside it would score 2500?
Stool shooters are not the only ones qualified to assess 22 rimfire accuracy. The NRA 50 yard target X ring diameter is .391 inch. Records with over 150 shots touching or inside that from prone still stand. That's with a 1/4 MOA hold area; not near zero benched.
Hi Bart,
I've been involved in discussions similar to this numerous times in the past when I used to hang out on Mike Ross's forum where 99% of the participants were conventional prone shooters.
The Stidworthy records always seemed to get mentioned in those discussions and Mike had a standing bet for a couple of years challenging the 3 or 4 of us on the forum who shot RFBR to match it.
It was always great fun because Mike wouldn't allow things to get out of hand and he required that everyone had to post using their real name.
A few numbers:
The ARA 100-ring is exactly 0.500" in diameter, but it's scored worst edge and not best edge. With a regulation scoring plug of 0.224", the CTC group ES for all shots fired can't exceed 0.276".
With the IR50 target (best edge scoring and a 0.250" 10-ring), it requires all shots fired can't exceed 0.474" for CTC measurements and an X requires a 0.256" CTC ES.
The maximum CTC group ES for all shots fired on the NRA A-23 target to obtain an X (best edge scoring) is 0.614".
To say the least there's a huge difference in precision when attempting to compare most BR vs NRA targets, and they don't really lend themselves to a direct comparison for scores, records, or ammo quality.
It's also important to remember that the Stidworthy records were somewhat a product of the number of active competitors in those days and those numbers have declined dramatically since then.
Less participants means the chances of matching or setting new records in prone becomes much harder regardless of ammo quality being better or worse over the years.
Maybe you or someone else knows, but I'm not even sure if they follow, or even allow, the same procedure used to set that record now days?
I've been testing RF ammo since about the late 70's, and except for an odd year every once in a while, I've seen ammo improve in general.
I've also had the opportunity to test limited quantities of the old "paper box", Russian Olymp-R, and old Ultra-Match. I wasn't all that impressed, but as I said, the testing was limited.
Landy