And I thought I was so anal in trying to maintain TIR <=.001 on my centerfire reloads.
- Thread starter Gleedus
- Start date
And I thought I was so anal in trying to maintain TIR <=.001 on my centerfire reloads.
Yea I know it sucks
, but I'm paid good money all day long to hold +.0005/-.0000 or +.0000/-.0005 tolarances 
so I just transition those skills to some of my other hobbies. Anal yea proably ,least ways a squirrel wont ever know!
, but I'm paid good money all day long to hold +.0005/-.0000 or +.0000/-.0005 tolarances so I just transition those skills to some of my other hobbies. Anal yea proably ,least ways a squirrel wont ever know!
While I don't have the long distance shooting experience as some of you, my thinking mostly aligns with what MarkCZ said. If you are looking for group size to find the best gun/ammo accuracy the ultimate distance "IMO" would be 100 yards INDOORS. I believe that's a long enough distance with no wind to separate different ammo brands that will shoot .375" groups at 50 yards into .750" and 1" groups at 100. I wouldn't argue against shooting 200 yards but it has to be indoors.
I have shot ammo through my chronograph many times "only at 55 yards". I have never seen where a low ES or SD correlated to better/worse accuracy. I believe there are many more elements that affect 22 rimfire accuracy than ES or SD. ES and SD may have an impact in a controlled test center like Lapua but we are not doing that.
In the end, bottom line, are you hitting your target or not?
I only see a reliable correlation for chronograph ES's and SD's as it relates to how consistent cartridges are loaded, not how consistent results are on paper. Cartridges that are not built well (e.g. high SD's and ES's on chronographs) will seldom, if ever, produce good results on paper, while well built cartridges will most likely produce good results on paper though many other factors can ruin what the well built cartridges can do.
The ES of a lot of ammo can vary from one rifle to the next. There are a number of reasons for this.
Different barrels may respond to similar ammo differently, even barrels on the same make and model. In general, as justin points out, the chamber and leade, the smoothness of bore, and the length of the barrel affect the behavior of ammo passing through. In addition, the concentricity or how perfectly round the bore is made can vary through the length of the barrel, making it more or less unique. There can be variations in tightness and looseness within bores. Tight or loose areas may be located differently. Some bores have more or less taper than others. These can combine to make a barrel/bore more or less unique. Even different rifling patterns can combine with other factors to add to the distinctiveness of a barrel/bore.
These characteristics in various combinations can make each barrel distinctive. Because they are distinctive, different ammos may respond differently from one barrel to the next. Many barrels seem to perform similarly because of the limitations imposed by the variety of shooters using them, the variety of ammos used in them, and the almost ever-present vagaries of shooting in less than perfect environments.
Good ammo may be good ammo in a number of rifles. But it's not guaranteed to shoot equally in all rifles. That's why lot testing with a particular rifle is important in identifying the ammo that shoots best in that firearm.
It's important to note that while ES and SD are good tools to use in evaluating ammo, they aren't alone or together a guarantee of identifying the best shooting ammo. That can only be done one way.
But a good lot of ammo will be good ES wise in all rifles? Just some rifles will have better ES across the board?
When I find a brick of well made cartridges, they shoot well in all of my rifles.
If I get a brick of poor quality cartridges, results are poor from all my rifles.
No rifle can fix cartridge defects.
I get a giggle from folks claiming all day long submoa with Mini-mags.
Ever take a close look at those CCI cartridges, or run 'em across a chrony?
I know, they just aren't the brand my rifle likes, right?
If I get a brick of poor quality cartridges, results are poor from all my rifles.
No rifle can fix cartridge defects.
I get a giggle from folks claiming all day long submoa with Mini-mags.
Ever take a close look at those CCI cartridges, or run 'em across a chrony?
I know, they just aren't the brand my rifle likes, right?
There is a lot of truth in this statement. You can run all the numbers any way you want to, in the end, the only way you will really know what any particular lot of ammunition will do in any particular rifle is to go and shoot it.
Maybe and probably.
The ammo is the ammo, the rifle is the rifle. They are 2 separate things with their own characteristics. In general, a good lot of ammo is good ammo and it will shoot better in most rifles than lesser ammo will but it will not make a poor or mediocre rifle a good rifle. The rifles that it is shot in also need to be mechanically correct and capable of shooting the ammo to its potential.
I see a lot of discussion of ES and SD and other things regarding ammo in these threads but I do not see any mention or discussion of the level of mechanical correctness of the rifles used.
In post 35 you asked so the ES may be partially rifle dependent? Yes it can be. Problems with the fire control and the striker system can cause ignition irregularities that will effect ES as will chamber and bore characteristics.
These are the kinds of things that the gunsmiths that specialize in benchrest rifles and the high end manufacturers like Bleiker and Grunig and Elmiger spend a great deal of time and effort on that make the rifles produced by them perform as they do.
Last edited:
I think that is because most rifles out perform 22lr ammo at long range.
A proper BR rifle will cut 50 yard groups in half but not at 200.
I'm not saying the rifle has nothing to do with it. My previous match rifle was a Ruger precision (some what)
Rimfire. At 50 yards my Rim X out shoots it on a bad day. On a good day the Rim X makes the Ruger look silly. But at 200 yards shooting the same ammo in both the accuracy is very comparable.Heres you a new piece of the puzzle I just got in from running some rounds.
At my 320yard target my group center was about 2" high . For all 3 10 shot groups the Sk plus runs about 20-21 fps faster then the center x. So heres what happened.
1st group cenx hi 1059 lo1043 av1024es35 sd 10
2nd group cenx hi1047 lo1021 avg 1037
Es 26 sd 9
3rd group sk plus hi1084 lo 1059 avg1069 es 25 sd 8
We look at this and think the SK kicked arse! Right! The center x put 14 out of 20 in a 6x6.5" group 4 dropped 8.5 " low and 2 floated right 10" low 1" left wind shift bit me. Running the Lapua software this is almost deadnuts for the es I have actually it's a large version of my 50 yard groups normally .375 to .390 wide by .590ish going to 5 oclock.
Now the SK with tighter es and sd ? I dropped 2.5 moa for the fps gain 5 of them landed in the same group 1 off the paper 8x11.5" by 2" at 1.30 1 8" low dead center 1 down in the lower right corner with the 4 cenx and 2 well they may have hit my neighbors cow in the ass. I never found them less they went through same holes but the es and sd at 330 yds didnt beat the wider margin center x but I didnt check the run out of any rounds fired like I normally do. Yes the lower es cost me 4 additional hits in a 6x6.5" square which would have been 18 out of 20 but what happened to the SK?
At my 320yard target my group center was about 2" high . For all 3 10 shot groups the Sk plus runs about 20-21 fps faster then the center x. So heres what happened.
1st group cenx hi 1059 lo1043 av1024es35 sd 10
2nd group cenx hi1047 lo1021 avg 1037
Es 26 sd 9
3rd group sk plus hi1084 lo 1059 avg1069 es 25 sd 8
We look at this and think the SK kicked arse! Right! The center x put 14 out of 20 in a 6x6.5" group 4 dropped 8.5 " low and 2 floated right 10" low 1" left wind shift bit me. Running the Lapua software this is almost deadnuts for the es I have actually it's a large version of my 50 yard groups normally .375 to .390 wide by .590ish going to 5 oclock.
Now the SK with tighter es and sd ? I dropped 2.5 moa for the fps gain 5 of them landed in the same group 1 off the paper 8x11.5" by 2" at 1.30 1 8" low dead center 1 down in the lower right corner with the 4 cenx and 2 well they may have hit my neighbors cow in the ass.
I never found them less they went through same holes but the es and sd at 330 yds didnt beat the wider margin center x but I didnt check the run out of any rounds fired like I normally do. Yes the lower es cost me 4 additional hits in a 6x6.5" square which would have been 18 out of 20 but what happened to the SK? At 50 yards which groups best?Heres you a new piece of the puzzle I just got in from running some rounds.
At my 320yard target my group center was about 2" high . For all 3 10 shot groups the Sk plus runs about 20-21 fps faster then the center x. So heres what happened.
1st group cenx hi 1059 lo1043 av1024es35 sd 10
2nd group cenx hi1047 lo1021 avg 1037
Es 26 sd 9
3rd group sk plus hi1084 lo 1059 avg1069 es 25 sd 8
We look at this and think the SK kicked arse! Right! The center x put 14 out of 20 in a 6x6.5" group 4 dropped 8.5 " low and 2 floated right 10" low 1" left wind shift bit me. Running the Lapua software this is almost deadnuts for the es I have actually it's a large version of my 50 yard groups normally .375 to .390 wide by .590ish going to 5 oclock.
Now the SK with tighter es and sd ? I dropped 2.5 moa for the fps gain 5 of them landed in the same group 1 off the paper 8x11.5" by 2" at 1.30 1 8" low dead center 1 down in the lower right corner with the 4 cenx and 2 well they may have hit my neighbors cow in the ass.
Comparing Center X and Eley Match to cheaper ammo even when the better ammo group size is bigger generally the more expensive ammo has less fliers.
But I have not had a rifle that shoots high end ammo best yet at long range. If I could build a rifle designed to shoot Eley Match i think you could have a winner at longer ranges.
But I have not had a rifle that shoots high end ammo best yet at long range. If I could build a rifle designed to shoot Eley Match i think you could have a winner at longer ranges.
Last edited:
Very close to the same the sk shoots .300 higher the center x prints a .380ish x .500ish to 5 0clock regular i have shot 20 rounds thru a ragged .5 or less hole. I truly believe shooting 1 round per .250 dot will tell you alot more as 1 person stated with any ammo I ran a path difference at 50yds with the low es and high es on lapua program its .180 difference lower take my .380 wide group avg. Add the .180 at 5 oclock my group is .380x.560 to 5 0clock - what it shoots at 320 yds .
I have a CZ 453 that I bought in 2006 with the old Wolf Match made in Germany it would shoot all day long groups from .450 to .375 that's pretty tight for factory with minor tuning that same gun the other day struggled to stay under .5 with anything.
I am going to suggest that this depends on what level of ammo we are shooting. In my experience you will not see a performance difference at longer range until you start to use ammo that is consistent/accurate enough out of your rifle. Again, this is from the perspective of a prone and 3-P shooter so 100 yards is our long range but it is common to see a rifle that will barely hold the 10 ring at 100 with something like Eley Target or SK Standard plus that shoots acceptably at 50 yards be able to hold the X ring with a compatible lot of higher grade ammo. When I started shooting Smallbore, 200 yard prone matches were common. The target (NRA A21) had the same 1 MOA X ring, 2 MOA ten ring as the 100 yard target and the scores commonly shot were generally the same at either distance.
Last edited:
200 yard matches with a 22lr? I'm a country boy who grew up shooting in the back 40 so I dont know whats all out there.
A 2 moa group at 200 I think is a reasonable expectation for good ammo in a decent rifle if they like each other. So in my mind it makes sense that the scores would be simular to 100 yds.
It was a regular event in the day. UK had a to 600 yd. match them Ole timers can shoot. I layed by a ole boy one day on the 600 yd line when I shot service high power he shot open bolt. Now this is with peep sights prone. He was beside himself , I asked him what was wrong he said he dropped 2 I thought he meant clean off the paper he had a 8x 200 I was proud of my 193 4x200 yard matches with a 22lr? I'm a country boy who grew up shooting in the back 40 so I dont know whats all out there.
Actually, in the prone game, 2MOA ammo is unacceptable. In order to be competitive, you need ammo that will shoot 10 shot groups under 1 MOA at 100. Most serious prone shooters wont use anything at 100 that will not produce results in the .7 inch range.
Here is a link to the results from a large prone match last year to give an idea of what folks are doing. These scores are all shot prone with a sling except for the F Class which is prone off a rest or bipod and bag, similar to what you are doing.
Here is a link to the results from a large prone match last year to give an idea of what folks are doing. These scores are all shot prone with a sling except for the F Class which is prone off a rest or bipod and bag, similar to what you are doing.
Last edited:
The following attachments are something you'll proably wanna see least ways I know where my 2 other SK'S went. The images are only 10x surface magnifications perpendicularity to rim face was measured as well as parallel of bullet to case. The 1st bullet is a Winchester 555 box bulk the rim was out .0015 drive bands were uneven creating poor seal or skipping down a surface.o each radial ring = .010
Attachments
I understand what you're getting at. Some rifles can shoot very well indeed at 50 yards, but when going out to 200 the distinctive accuracy it had at the shorter distance is hard to discern.I think that is because most rifles out perform 22lr ammo at long range.
A proper BR rifle will cut 50 yard groups in half but not at 200.
I'm not saying the rifle has nothing to do with it. My previous match rifle was a Ruger precision (some what)
It's important to keep in mind that no rimfire rifle will perform consistently well at 200 yards because of at least two factors beyond the control of the shooter, and one that's not.
1. Shooting at 200 invariably occurs outdoors, where the vagaries of air movement are all but unavoidable and often unpredicted. This causes inconsistency on the target.
2. All the smallest flaws, inevitable in .22LR ammo -- including inconsistent MV and all those other factors described by the Stowaway in the link above -- make themselves invariably and abundantly clear at long distances, where inconsistencies are also magnified.
3. With .22LR shot execution is important for many reasons, including the relatively long barrel time. Imperfections here are also magnified on target as distance increases.
In short, there's a lot militating against consistent results at 200 yards and it's much more difficult to get consistent results the further the target. Even if shooter imperfection is removed from the equation, there remains a lot of unpredictability. Was it the wind? Was it the ammo? It's difficult to account for the results on the target where every problem is magnified.
That explains, at least in part, why when one rifle that shoots groups twice as small at 50 than another may not do so at 200. There's too much at play that works against maintaining a consistent level of accuracy as distance increases. It also partly explains why your RimX accuracy at 200 often seems comparable to that of your Ruger.
Of course, even with the best ammo the Ruger is very unlikely indeed to ever shoot better than the RimX with its best ammo -- at least for predictable reasons. Why? If the RimX can shoot much better than the Ruger at 50, it can't predictably be bested at longer distances. If it shoots better at 50, it must shoot better at 100. If it shoots better at 100 it will, by all that's predictable, shoot better further out. The math demands it.
Math is predictable to any distance. But variations due to wind and ammo performance are not. They become increasingly unpredictable with distance -- yet they are unavoidable, they always go with .22LR shooting. There's just too much working against consistent accuracy as distance goes up.
But it's not really fair to say the rifle outperforms the ammo. One is nothing without the other. It may sound trite, but a .22LR can only shoot ammo that's made for it. As long as the ammo has limitations, a rifle inevitably, unavoidably has those same limitations. Just as a .308 Win., for example, can't be expected to perform as exceptionally at 1000 yards as it does at 300, a .22LR can't be expected to perform at 200 as it does at half or a quarter of that distance.
Yes the Rim X out shoots the Ruger at all distances just the further out the smaller the smaller the percentage is.
There are other reasons to use the Rim X over the Ruger. The Rim X is more consistent.
Slightly related unrelated topic. I have a "challenge" from another person regarding barrel length. I have a 26" for extra weight and rifle balance. The other person bets that it will shoot better shorter. Such as 22".... this is partly why I'm asking these questions. What is the best way to test this?
Our game is long range Is it possible that what is Ideal for 50 yards is not Ideal at 200? What is the best way to test this?
We have a 1100' building we are doing this spring maybe I could "rent" it when we are done for a couple of days....
unfortunately i wouldnt have the time to cut the barrel an retest in that building 3 times... could take a week holidays maybe if I just used one ammo but I'm interested in average results. Which brings another question is a test like this pointless because we are changing barrel harmonics as we shorten. In theory a stiffer barrel should be more precise. Looking at velocity consistency at different barrel lengths is maybe more beneficial?
Back to 50 vs 200
Barrel/ rifle accuracy testing at 50 may tell the whole rifle story and 200 yards is something like. 50 yard moa + velocity spread + ammo inconsistencies = 200 yard group. Disregarding weather conditions.
Then if there is a barrel length that shoots slightly bigger groups at 50 but has a significant improvement on ES it would shoot better at 200?
I only use a Piece of really soft deer leather on the radius portion of the nose to clean it while slowly turning. Then I ring the case behind bullet base and make 1 pull towards the nose. I dont normally relube, but I've spent countless hours with a small presto pot trying to create the witchs brew of lubes I will say the old Wolf lubes seem to be thinner in viscosity then the ones today and I preferred that. When I check run out I have precision roller bearing vee blocks with a tension drive roller I check at the extreme tip and case if its necked I check here also. Case to neck should be zero qualify your dies by checking a resized case before loading if you have neck run out after this, your having bullet installation errors.
Any time you touch a piece of metal ie.take .001 off the od. Shorten it .050 you have altered the structural characteristics of that barrel. Lets say you have a 26" barrel that was lapped by a man who knew his stuff and he left the muzzle .0002 tight to help your bullet stablelize right before exit and you take 1" off the end cause you wanted better balance but that area might be + .0002 bigger than the muzzle area. Your groups will suffer and you'll spend forever trying to figure out why.Yes the Rim X out shoots the Ruger at all distances just the further out the smaller the smaller the percentage is.
There are other reasons to use the Rim X over the Ruger. The Rim X is more consistent.
Slightly related unrelated topic. I have a "challenge" from another person regarding barrel length. I have a 26" for extra weight and rifle balance. The other person bets that it will shoot better shorter. Such as 22".... this is partly why I'm asking these questions. What is the best way to test this?
Our game is long range Is it possible that what is Ideal for 50 yards is not Ideal at 200? What is the best way to test this?
We have a 1100' building we are doing this spring maybe I could "rent" it when we are done for a couple of days....
Which brings another question is a test like this pointless because we are changing barrel harmonics as we shorten. In theory a stiffer barrel should be more precise. Looking at velocity consistency at different barrel lengths is maybe more beneficial?
Back to 50 vs 200
Barrel/ rifle accuracy testing at 50 may tell the whole rifle story and 200 yards is something like. 50 yard moa + velocity spread + ammo inconsistencies = 200 yard group. Disregarding weather conditions.
Then if there is a barrel length that shoots slightly bigger groups at 50 but has a significant improvement on ES it would shoot better at 200?
The barrel is not lapped for a tapper. It is "supposed" to be uniform diameter.
That begs the question is barrel length only related to velocity and at each length all else equal would be able to find a equally good shooting lot# or tune into the same accuracy.
What length if I may ask and why? 
The blank is 30" finish at 28" when I called him Brad, and told him what I was setting the gun up for he agreed . He did say the 1 " progression might be a bit much. He normally stayed between 1/4 to 3/8 " himself. I told him the rifle 22lr was being setup for 300 to 400 yd shooting. I told him to lap 3 to 5 less strokes from the muzzle end he ask if I shot BR I said no. I told him I was doing all work in house that I would slug the barrel and index it at 28" then fire 500 rounds of my mixed lot ammo through. At 300 yds through my chrono. Record everything then go in and cut 1" off and repeat it all. I was hoping the barrel would come in at around 24" and tighten the long yardage groups with a tighter continuous twist. He made mention that this was a common thing that a very few people requested . He wasnt shocked at all at my request and understood exactly what I was looking for he just thought 1" was a bit much but ,I'm chopping 1/5 maybe so that's a .8 gain. Depends upon where everything lands on that 300 yd paper.
Soooo.....
we are after the same thing..... I hope you went a little faster then 1-16 finish.Yes I'm starting this one at 11-10 for lead and the lil Noslers the gs went from 145 at 16 to 315 in the 11 to 10 which should take me to 450 with what im seeing at 320 nowSoooo.....
A shorter barrel can be just as accurate as a longer barrel. Of two barrels with the same diameter, the shorter one will be stiffer. But a stiffer barrel means it will be harder to tune if taking advantage of a rimfire barrel tuner.
Disregarding tuners to simplify things, the best accuracy at 50 yards will always be the better than all other results at 50 yards, even if the results are close. That's a best place to be on the journey down range, however far the target may be.
Look at it this way. If 50 yard results are looked at as simply ammo performance at a half-way point to 100 or a quarter to 200, the best accuracy at that point can be viewed as giving the ammo that produced it a predictable advantage, a "head start" as it were, over any other ammo on the same journey. In other words, at 50 it's already doing better than other ammo and the others are at a disadvantage by performing less well. The less well performing ammo doesn't get better by virtue of its compromised position at 50 as it continues down range.
There are rare and not usual occurences where a random number of rounds from a certain lot of ammo will produce better results MOA-wise at 100 than they do at 50. The thing is that when this occurs, it's happenstance, it's not predictable, it's not something that can be expected to occur on demand. It may be the result center-of-gravity issues with the rounds in question. But the important thing to remember is that, except for these unusual occurences, .22LR ammo results always get worse with distance. It's performance isn't linear, which is to say groups never just double as distance doubles, they more than double.
With regard to barrel length and ES, I'm not sure that there's a definitive answer to that question yet. I've done no testing but generally prefer a longer, heavier barrel if for no other reason than for the additional inertia it provides. Especially in long distance shooting, it would be an advantage if a shooter could have a barrel whose length minimizes ammo ES.
There are no doubt supporters of both longer and shorter barrels as well as those who think it doesn't matter.
Unfortunately, there seems to be little information available specifically about .22LR, barrel length and ES. One of the posters who frequents this forum, says that longer barrels reduce ES. See especially the second video here (3) Optimal 22LR Barrel Length | Sniper's Hide Forum . A contrary view is offered by Landy, who's done a lot of testing and may also be familiar to many readers. He argues that ES will increase with barrel length. See post #4 here Is there a relationship between barrel length and ES? - RimfireCentral.com Forums and RimfireCentral.com Forums - View Single Post - 50 at 200. Landy says he may revisit the question, and I hope he does.
There definitely is two schools of thought on barrel length. I really like the long barrel for the balance. That is important for positional.
So we could say that testing length vs accuracy in your opinion would be best at 50. I could skip 100 and go to 200 to add interesting data comparison? Velocity could be the main objective then use a tuner?
I have never had a tuner yet.
So we could say that testing length vs accuracy in your opinion would be best at 50. I could skip 100 and go to 200 to add interesting data comparison? Velocity could be the main objective then use a tuner?
I have never had a tuner yet.
I'm not sure length vs accuracy tests can be easily done as they are more complicated than simply comparing results between longer and shorter barreled rifles. To compare apples to apples as much as possible, it's vital to use ammo that's unquestionably good shooting for both and to test under conditions that are as close to ideal as possible. As much data as possible must be collected to make a sustainable determination.
More generally, when testing ammo I would wean out what was not a good candidate by shooting at 50 and then comparing the best of those at 100. Differences between ammos that are difficult to evaluate at 50 yards are magnified enough at 100 to make further decisions. Velocity itself is relatively unimportant, except as it's manifested in ES. Slower .22LR ammo always drifts less in the wind.
Regarding using a tuner for shooting at various distance, that may open the proverbial can of worms. There is a lively debate among users of tuners as to whether a tuner, when correctly set, allows a rifle to shoot in tune at any distance or at only a set distance (set by the tuner setting).
If you subscribe to the positive compensation theory of how barrel tuners work in conjunction with barrel harmonics (vibrations), then you'd have to adjust the tuner for different distances. See, for example, 22 Long Rifle Barrel Tuner Analysis -- FEA Dynamic Analysis of Esten's 22LR Rifle with/without a Tuner. (varmintal.com). Some shooters insist that a properly tuned rifle is tuned to shoot no mater the distance. For the nature of this discussion, a recent thread here is illustrative Tuned at 50yds. vs. Tuned at 100yds. - RimfireCentral.com Forums
I don't feel qualified to weigh in on whether a tuner is or isn't "set and forget, regardless of distance". I'm happy to leave it to more experiennced shooters.
The short vs. Long barrel question has been thoroughly explored in the 3-P world. The consensus was/is, with tested ammo, there was no accuracy advantage for either one. I am not a benchrest shooter but I believe the short barrels were also explored in the benchrest community with similar results. Both communities have pretty much standardized on barrels in the 24"-26" inch range now. One foot note to this is, the general consensus is that short barrels are somewhat more difficult to find ammo for.
Sight extension tubes and tuners are common equipment in the 3-P and prone world. In prone, where targets are shot at both 50 and 100 yards and both iron and telescopic sights are used, it is common practice to replace the front sight with a corresponding weight to maintain the "tune" when using the telescopic sight. If the rifle has a tuner installed, it is not common practice to change the "tune" between 50 and 100 yards.
Sight extension tubes and tuners are common equipment in the 3-P and prone world. In prone, where targets are shot at both 50 and 100 yards and both iron and telescopic sights are used, it is common practice to replace the front sight with a corresponding weight to maintain the "tune" when using the telescopic sight. If the rifle has a tuner installed, it is not common practice to change the "tune" between 50 and 100 yards.
I don't think anyone has claimed in this thread that a longer or shorter barrel is more or less accurate.
The question of whether a longer or shorter barrel had any impact on ammo ES was raised and there the data is limited.
The question of whether a rifle tuned with a barrel tuner for 50 yards will be equally tuned at 100 or more is not clearly resolved.
I am not implying that anyone in this thread said one length was more accurate than another. CRPS is talking about being challenged on the subject and testing by cutting a barrel shorter to test the question. I am simply pointing out some history on the subject that folks here may not be aware of.
Regarding the tuned for 50 and 100 yards, I am simply pointing out that in the American prone game, where targets are shot at 2 distances in the same match, the question is pretty clearly resolved with emperical evidence, not theory.
I strive to be clear about the background of what I post so folks can make their own choices about how the information does or does not apply to what they are doing.
I know a number of guys running tuners for prs. I know less who test at close and far. All that do test long range say tune at 50 or 100 its good at 2-300 as well. BUT they never tried tuning at 200 just had a improvement over pretuner. I've read both sides and even played a little just enough to know it can make a difference for the worse. . I'll leave that can of worms for another day lol.
There are people who have tested barrel length vs accuracy. As far as I know only at closer distances. One of whom I know and he is settled on 22" at optimal.
Another that I know of that is currently testing what I'm exploring myself. His focus has also been long range. He is at 20" still testing but at this point he says 22" was best but no conclusion on the 20" yet. Now his focus has been with Lapua SK ammo from what I've gathered and my experience shows both of them to slow down significantly with long barrels. I tend towards Eley.
The barrel length vs accuracy I expect is a flawed experiment due to harmonics etc. But one thing that came up in our discussions is that the best shooting lot# seems to not change with barrel length... yes Justin I can see your smug grin.
The Idea that Mike mentioned with fast twist needing longer barrels is also interesting but for another day...
I dont need to find the small little gains that make a BR rig win I'm looking for the "big" gains. So if going from 26" to 22" I get 10 fps smaller ES absolutely going to run 22" if 21 or 22 is better is the fine detail that I dont care about.
Long barrels being more forgiving of ammo is of value. Or being easier to tune if going that route is interesting but not the focus at this point.
After all the input on here it would seem most would favor 100 yards as a good test of accuracy.
My thoughts currently are. Test at 50 100 and 200 (for my humor) I'm thinking 10 shot groups at 50 and 100 but 20 shot at 200.
Should I do the velocities seperate for each group separate or put everything together? How many groups before kinda believable?
. I'll leave that can of worms for another day lol.There are people who have tested barrel length vs accuracy. As far as I know only at closer distances. One of whom I know and he is settled on 22" at optimal.
Another that I know of that is currently testing what I'm exploring myself. His focus has also been long range. He is at 20" still testing but at this point he says 22" was best but no conclusion on the 20" yet. Now his focus has been with Lapua SK ammo from what I've gathered and my experience shows both of them to slow down significantly with long barrels. I tend towards Eley.
The barrel length vs accuracy I expect is a flawed experiment due to harmonics etc. But one thing that came up in our discussions is that the best shooting lot# seems to not change with barrel length... yes Justin I can see your smug grin
.The Idea that Mike mentioned with fast twist needing longer barrels is also interesting but for another day...
I dont need to find the small little gains that make a BR rig win I'm looking for the "big" gains. So if going from 26" to 22" I get 10 fps smaller ES absolutely going to run 22" if 21 or 22 is better is the fine detail that I dont care about.
Long barrels being more forgiving of ammo is of value. Or being easier to tune if going that route is interesting but not the focus at this point.
After all the input on here it would seem most would favor 100 yards as a good test of accuracy.
My thoughts currently are. Test at 50 100 and 200 (for my humor
) I'm thinking 10 shot groups at 50 and 100 but 20 shot at 200. Should I do the velocities seperate for each group separate or put everything together? How many groups before kinda believable?
Yep C, I've sent enough rimfire across the chronograph and documented the results.
Didn't matter which rifle I used or the distance attempted,
If that brick did well in one rifle, it did well in all of them.
When that didn't hold true, the chronograph or conditions offered an explanation why.
One box shows an ES sub 30 fps, next box chronies in excess of 50 fps.
That's not a preference of the rifle, it's the limitations of the cartridges,
or differences in the atmospheric conditions during which it was used.
Didn't matter which rifle I used or the distance attempted,
If that brick did well in one rifle, it did well in all of them.
When that didn't hold true, the chronograph or conditions offered an explanation why.
One box shows an ES sub 30 fps, next box chronies in excess of 50 fps.
That's not a preference of the rifle, it's the limitations of the cartridges,
or differences in the atmospheric conditions during which it was used.
So your also implying that if I shot lot# 1 box 1 for barrel length 26" and lot# 1 box 2 for barrel length 24" my results are already flawed... how about 2 boxes each length and 5 different ammo options?
The thing I figured out early on in my climb up the rimfire learning curve,
You can't look at these cartridges as identical. They are visibly, audibly, measurably different, every one.
Would you expect identical results from y'er centerfire handloads based on that knowledge?
When every cartridge is not identical, they aren't going to produce similar results.
All I can do is base my observations/conclusions on my best averages, hence my need for 50 and 100 shot samples.
That's why my ballistic chronograph is out front every time I try out a box of cartridges.
Also why the conditions are noted on my target results.
Can't blame the rifle or ammo for me misstiming the squeeze.
You can't look at these cartridges as identical. They are visibly, audibly, measurably different, every one.
Would you expect identical results from y'er centerfire handloads based on that knowledge?
When every cartridge is not identical, they aren't going to produce similar results.
All I can do is base my observations/conclusions on my best averages, hence my need for 50 and 100 shot samples.
That's why my ballistic chronograph is out front every time I try out a box of cartridges.
Also why the conditions are noted on my target results.
Can't blame the rifle or ammo for me misstiming the squeeze.
My own experience has put me firmly in the large group size as well. I have done large batch tests of velocity and my results have shown fairly consistent results with somewhere between 50 and 100 rounds matching 500 round results. But I have never recorded individual box's to compare in the same lot.
You probably have, ya' just didn't think about it at the time.
Watch that chronograph, how often does "dup" display?
We can't even get the same mv's from the same box,
why would you expect the same mv's from a different box.
It's rimfire, every squeeze of the trigger is a surprise.
Watch that chronograph, how often does "dup" display?
We can't even get the same mv's from the same box,
why would you expect the same mv's from a different box.
It's rimfire, every squeeze of the trigger is a surprise.
Last edited:
Interesting topic as I was just practicing yesterday for an NRLX match with a 500 yard target. For my specific rifle and set-up I found some interesting things. Typically I only shoot out to 200 yards as that is the maximum my local NRL22 matches go. I usually zero at 50, check at 100, 150, then 200. Because it's outdoor and living on the front range there is ALWAYS some wind as low as 3 mph, but usually 5ish to 8 is normal. I check on paper at 50. But at 100 I rarely check paper but use the steel targets set up. So typically beyond the 50 yards I'm no longer looking for that super tight group.
What I found very interesting and again this if for my specific rifle is that CenterX, SK Standard, and SK Rifle Match which I use are all pretty much the same out to 200 yards. Beyond that the CenterX holds a tighter group. At 250 yards, the SK was about a 4 MOA spread and the CenterX was 2 MOA.
So I know I can use the less expensive SK for local matches and save the CenterX for the X matches
What I found very interesting and again this if for my specific rifle is that CenterX, SK Standard, and SK Rifle Match which I use are all pretty much the same out to 200 yards. Beyond that the CenterX holds a tighter group. At 250 yards, the SK was about a 4 MOA spread and the CenterX was 2 MOA.
So I know I can use the less expensive SK for local matches and save the CenterX for the X matches
