Xact Versus Midas?

[PWNolan]

I know of at least 3 of the top ARA shooters who've had killer lots of X-Act and they did very well with it. I bought a brick of X-Act maybe 14 years ago and it did shoot very well. Unfortunately, it was out of my price range back then and it's even more so now. If money were no object I'd be testing it for sure

 

[davidjoe]

I’m hoping that I have a gun that, combined with me, can shoot the difference.

The two most stable rigs I’m running of their types are a T-TR type Phoenix bipod gun in an actual TR stock with a B&A comp trigger and an Open style front and rear rest gun.

All my single shot guns are 40-X’s including these.

I shoot Eley ammo as well as Lapua. Another curiosity I have is the flat nose Eley product topping their line, while they do use a bullet profile for the lower level bullets that is basically indistinguishable from the parabolic profile of Center X through XAct (All Lapua).

The curiosity comes from Eley’s flat nose bullets out shooting its target, club and all. However, there is no question that Lapua Midas really takes a back seat to no ammo, with the round nose.

XAct is closing in on $1 a round taxed and delivered. It’s not there yet, but soon it will be. Match questions I have are do you guys try to get 2 targets out of a box (5 sighters and 20 record) and if you do not, is the “next” box from the same brick “safe” in your experience to roll into or not.

While I’m at it, do you move to the next target horizontally or vertically? I’d love to say I’ll just go sort this out to contentment with a day at the range. What is maddening is the occasional distant flyer that binding I think it is, causes, and I wondering if a one transition approach is mechanically more sound.

The fact is the XAct I just bought is the only Lapua .22 ammo I saw in stock online today, and I’m not looking to run experiments with mingling it, but also don’t want to relegate a bunch from each box to sighters.

 

[TRSR8]

I’m hoping that I have a gun that, combined with me, can shoot the difference.

The two most stable rigs I’m running of their types are a T-TR type Phoenix bipod gun in an actual TR stock with a B&A comp trigger and an Open style front and rear rest gun.

All my single shot guns are 40-X’s including these.

I shoot Eley ammo as well as Lapua. Another curiosity I have is the flat nose Eley product topping their line, while they do use a bullet profile for the lower level bullets that is basically indistinguishable from the parabolic profile of Center X through XAct (All Lapua).

The curiosity comes from Eley’s flat nose bullets out shooting its target, club and all. However, there is no question that Lapua Midas really takes a back seat to no ammo, with the round nose.

XAct is closing in on $1 a round taxed and delivered. It’s not there yet, but soon it will be. Match questions I have are do you guys try to get 2 targets out of a box (5 sighters and 20 record) and if you do not, is the “next” box from the same brick “safe” in your experience to roll into or not.

While I’m at it, do you move to the next target horizontally or vertically? I’d love to say I’ll just go sort this out to contentment with a day at the range. What is maddening is the occasional distant flyer that binding I think it is, causes, and I wondering if a one transition approach is mechanically more sound.

The fact is the XAct I just bought is the only Lapua .22 ammo I saw in stock online today, and I’m not looking to run experiments with mingling it, but also don’t want to relegate a bunch from each box to sighters.

Well, first off any difference between XAct and Midas is hard to ID, this with completely custom RFBR builds. Myself, I’d not spend utilizing what appears to be factory 40X metal, generally, they simply will not run with full customs these days. That said, lot selection always will drive the equation.
For any sanctioned match…25 targets + sighters so most of a box per target, often a full box.
Myself, with a joystick, shoot horizontal, dropping top to bottom with sighters on both sides

 

[7315br]

I’m hoping that I have a gun that, combined with me, can shoot the difference.

The two most stable rigs I’m running of their types are a T-TR type Phoenix bipod gun in an actual TR stock with a B&A comp trigger and an Open style front and rear rest gun.

All my single shot guns are 40-X’s including these.

I shoot Eley ammo as well as Lapua. Another curiosity I have is the flat nose Eley product topping their line, while they do use a bullet profile for the lower level bullets that is basically indistinguishable from the parabolic profile of Center X through XAct (All Lapua).

The curiosity comes from Eley’s flat nose bullets out shooting its target, club and all. However, there is no question that Lapua Midas really takes a back seat to no ammo, with the round nose.

XAct is closing in on $1 a round taxed and delivered. It’s not there yet, but soon it will be. Match questions I have are do you guys try to get 2 targets out of a box (5 sighters and 20 record) and if you do not, is the “next” box from the same brick “safe” in your experience to roll into or not.

While I’m at it, do you move to the next target horizontally or vertically? I’d love to say I’ll just go sort this out to contentment with a day at the range. What is maddening is the occasional distant flyer that binding I think it is, causes, and I wondering if a one transition approach is mechanically more sound.

The fact is the XAct I just bought is the only Lapua .22 ammo I saw in stock online today, and I’m not looking to run experiments with mingling it, but also don’t want to relegate a bunch from each box to sighters.

The last X-Act I bought (a case) was about $ .73/rd. A case was over $3600 (OUCH!). Today I talked to EuroOptics. They had (3) different lots (in cases) in stock. They were $3175…about $500 a case cheaper than what I just paid a week ago. I didn’t buy any because I was looking for more with the same lot number I already have…but it was the best price I’ve seen…fwiw.

 

[dusterdave173]

Yesterday at an ARA match I listened as some of the traveling shooters that go to many of the bigger matches --they were saying that the Exact that was out there at the moment was not doing very well for a lot of shooters--they said a lot of it was available and very few had much luck with it

 

[HalfCZ]

Sometimes I think it might be faster to be reloading than chasing websites for inventory and pricing. Of course no one reloads .22 so my thought is irrelevant.

 

[HalfCZ]

What I would think is that a matched lot of Midas+ would shoot as well as a unmatched X-Act box.

 

[davidjoe]

I’m trusting that there is something to XAct shooting smaller in its over the counter form. For me, it’s a stone unturned. I will find out soon enough. I know that if it doesn’t, there is a built in reason, I didn’t send off my gun for testing.

I’m not entirely accepting of that premise, as I haven’t sent any of them off for testing other ammunition, and feel they all do shoot higher end ammunition expectedly better, even if they don’t all shoot to exactly the same level between themselves. I’m hopeful that XAct would follow that trend line.

It seems though that it may not, as Midas has a very loyal following, in which event I for one wouldn’t be very disappointed, as it’s an unanswered question I’m willing to spend a little on, and I won’t have bought a case, possibly to find that out.

 

[BowChamp]

I have Lapua Xact, Midas+ and CenterX.

Lapua Pistol King shoots circles around all of it........this has been my experience to date.

 

[dgeesaman]

What I would think is that a matched lot of Midas+ would shoot as well as an unmatched X-Act box.

I’ve not found that to be true in my guns.

A great matched lot of CenterX will outshoot a random lot of Midas+ or X-Act. My matched lot of Midas+ outshot a few random lots of X-act. Hence the value of lot testing vs just buying really expensive ammo.

Maybe there are some guns that ‘agree’ with the factory rating method and consistently shoot X-act the best but if that’s a thing it’s not common.

 

[PWNolan]

I have Lapua Xact, Midas+ and CenterX.

Lapua Pistol King shoots circles around all of it........this has been my experience to date.

Jerry that's great when it happens but that's not always the norm. I've had a couple different lot #'s of Pistol King and it shot about as well as a mediocre lot of Center-X and not nearly as well as a couple really good lots of CX and M+ that I have. To sum it up, I wouldn't shoot the PK I've had in a match

Like most ammo discussions like this it's a YMMV thing

 

[Ranger188]

22lr ammo is some of the fussiest stuff out there.
My buddy has the exact same barrel and came at the same time from Lilja
and they both like a different lot of Lapua Center X or Midas + ammo.
TEST and VERIFY.

 

[davidjoe]

I could see a “plateau”, where ammo consistency is maxed out and there is no meaningful improvement to be gained, without testing batches in guns.

However, and this is the caveat that doesn’t sit comfortably with the subjective gun testing regimen, - if that plateau has been reached by Lapua in those three interchangeable production outputs, CX - M+ and XA, then they should cost the same, and we either send in our guns or we don’t.

What I see as a logical fracture in reasoning is that they aren’t of equal quality, hence the twofold premium of XAct but on the other hand - very, very smart guys saying that any one of the three can be the best in “your” gun, but only Lapua can decide.

If any one of three “can” be the best in any given good gun, then Lapua’s segregation of the three hasn’t truly added any value to the ammo, only its test center does.

And if that is true, then guys buying XAct or Midas are simply subsidizing the test center’s burning up a lot of ammo for free. Maybe the test center shouldn’t be free. The test center finds your best ammo, and you pay 50% more than taking your chances for covering labor and burned up ammo.

Is anyone willing to to pay Lapua for the round count in the tunnel? Seriously, would you, or is it just a fantastic idea as long as it’s free.

But I don’t actually believe that any of us honestly wouldn’t pick these boxes up off a prize table in the order of their esteem. We might have had a CX outing that was impressive, but go ahead and put your name to saying you’ll pick up CX over XA sitting on a prize table.

 

[VLNBYR]

Maxed out plateaus most often occur in the rifle and the shooters testing procedures. If you are buying blind do you trust trained engineers using valid statistics or do you go with Bubba and his CZ down at the local gun club.

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

I could see a “plateau”, where ammo consistency is maxed out and there is no meaningful improvement to be gained, without testing batches in guns.

However, and this is the caveat that doesn’t sit comfortably with the subjective gun testing regimen, - if that plateau has been reached by Lapua in those three interchangeable production outputs, CX - M+ and XA, then they should cost the same, and we either send in our guns or we don’t.

What I see as a logical fracture in reasoning is that they aren’t of equal quality, hence the twofold premium of XAct but on the other hand - very, very smart guys saying that any one of the three can be the best in “your” gun, but only Lapua can decide.

If any one of three “can” be the best in any given good gun, then Lapua’s segregation of the three hasn’t truly added any value to the ammo, only its test center does.

And if that is true, then guys buying XAct or Midas are simply subsidizing the test center’s burning up a lot of ammo for free. Maybe the test center shouldn’t be free. The test center finds your best ammo, and you pay 50% more than taking your chances for covering labor and burned up ammo.

Is anyone willing to to pay Lapua for the round count in the tunnel? Seriously, would you, or is it just a fantastic idea as long as it’s free.

But I don’t actually believe that any of us honestly wouldn’t pick these boxes up off a prize table in the order of their esteem. We might have had a CX outing that was impressive, but go ahead and put your name to saying you’ll pick up CX over XA sitting on a prize table.

I have and would pick CX over X-act or Midas+ hell I have some PK that shoots great. in our 1st Sunday of the month RFBR match I agg. 7100 for 3 cards on the ARA UL even won an ARA tournament in AZ shooting the same PK.
It all comes down to how it shoots regardless of what is printed on the box. Test, Test, Test!!! only way to find out!

Lee

 

[CharlieNC]

For me the results for mid grade Match and CenterX have been better than their higher graded brethren, which echos the experience of others. Either the grading methodology used by the manufacturers is inefficient, or the rifle "liking" it is a major factor; or probably a combination thereof.

It would go a long way for the manufacturers to publicly state:

- how do you define a lot in terms of raw material selection, machine setup, monitoring, control, etc
- define the grading protocol in terms of testing, segregation procedures, etc and the rationale behind it
- experience regarding the "rifle likes" a lot
This doesn't require providing detailed specs or proprietary information, but primarily the rationale to help resolve the endless uninformed bickering on this topic.

While the more expensive ammo is likely better, the lines are highly blurred.

 

[davidjoe]

Exactly. I tend to trust the guys using the product and as much I admire Lapua, it’s already what we might call an iffy proposition to grade ammo that is theoretically identical, to the tune of up to 75 cents a round. I don’t expect it to be like adding another liter of displacement to a race motor, but it isn’t fair at all to the buyer for it to be worse, right?

To my thinking, a production run cannot simply be divided into thirds, or whatever. There could be bad runs. We don’t want to pay $.75 for the top third of a bad run. It has to be both the best of the run, and as good as Lapua expects XAct to be, or better. I’m not saying that they don’t already try to do this, but shooters’ mileage suggests it’s not always working out, and more discouragingly, ammo cheaper than even CX can sometimes beat it all.

I don’t know anyone with guns that like higher SD’s and more irregular bullets. I imagine the amount, quality and uniformity of placement of the primer matters. There could be guns that excel at a certain specific velocity, but that velocity is not more expensive or cheaper to achieve. I do believe in testing, but I’m wondering if our testing is more-so because we can’t necessarily put any stock in labels and price we paid, and need to catch mistakes before the big matches, or to determine optimal gun/ammo compatibility.

Lapua and Eley possibly could catch some dollars from guys wanting to money flex on the line, but they shouldn’t let themselves go down that road. For every one of those guys, three more sacrificed to buy it. If it is not honest to goodness better in their behind the scenes making of the sausage, shrink these price spreads to something way more modest. And our end of this is that we can’t just suppose that in some gun somewhere, the order and price spread is justifiable. Guns shoot better ammo, better.

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

Exactly. I tend to trust the guys using the product and as much I admire Lapua, it’s already what we might call an iffy proposition to grade ammo that is theoretically identical, to the tune of up to 75 cents a round. I don’t expect it to be like adding another liter of displacement to a race motor, but it isn’t fair at all to the buyer for it to be worse, right?

To my thinking, a production run cannot simply be divided into thirds, or whatever. There could be bad runs. We don’t want to pay $.75 for the top third of a bad run. It has to be both the best of the run, and as good as Lapua expects XAct to be, or better. I’m not saying that they don’t already try to do this, but shooters’ mileage suggests it’s not always working out, and more discouragingly, ammo cheaper than even CX can sometimes beat it all.

I don’t know anyone with guns that like higher SD’s and more irregular bullets. I imagine the amount, quality and uniformity of placement of the primer matters. There could be guns that excel at a certain specific velocity, but that velocity is not more expensive or cheaper to achieve. I do believe in testing, but I’m wondering if our testing is more-so because we can’t necessarily put any stock in labels and price we paid, and need to catch mistakes before the big matches, or to determine optimal gun/ammo compatibility.

Lapua and Eley possibly could catch some dollars from guys wanting to money flex on the line, but they shouldn’t let themselves go down that road. For every one of those guys, three more sacrificed to buy it. If it is not honest to goodness better in their behind the scenes making of the sausage, shrink these price spreads to something way more modest. And our end of this is that we can’t just suppose that in some gun somewhere, the order and price spread is justifiable. Guns shoot better ammo, better.

Just because the highest level of what Lapua offers doesn’t shoot for someone doesn’t mean it’s on Lapua for not offering lots that shoot in every one’s rifle
So many things need to align to get the best out of what is offered
I know a few who chose X-Act over Midas+
But their rifles and skill set demand that level of performance

Lee

 

[TRSR8]

David,
You seem to be kind of tough on Lapua.
At the end of the day, there are production variances and their segregation into 3 classes also involves testing protocols in their barrels and the separations between classes is not exactly extreme,
The entire process seems to continue to improve,witness scores vs a few years back.
At the end of the day it still boils down to evaluation in their equipment vs your equipment escalating a mid level higher , often, for your setup.
Remember, all of this, in the US is impacted to some degree by supply/demand and the lack of ideal comprehensive evaluation process.
Consider the performance of the majority of seasoned match shooters given how many deal with diminished test opportunities , need to buy blind, and evaluations with equipment or procedures rendering results harder to evaluate.
Their process may not be ideal but IMHO, pretty damn good.
Lastly, remember, the best true evaluations come from sponsored shooters, having the best selection opportunities almost always ending up with XAct.
Strikes me as proof of concept although somewhat academic for us poor souls at retail level.

 

[davidjoe]

I follow, my concern about XAct is that guys seemingly don’t pick that grade for the win, and don’t say they are getting beaten by it. Maybe at the biggest matches, it does win. If it was merely that on threads, there wasn’t much or any positive mention, I wouldn’t read much into it, but I’ve seen quite a few guys over the months and years go out of their way to say it actually shot less well than its inferiors, by the assortment process. If you buy it, you probably do have a very competent gun, (and only it is available to buy now) so that does get one’s attention. I do love Lapua though, I put their name on my license plate.