NEW From Zermatt Arms - RimX Actions

Redfisher60

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Oct 30, 2018
170
100
49
Northern Colorado
Ya, not the angle for bolt nose clearance. The radius around the rim of the chamber on the breech. If a person was to just run a reamer in, they'd have a sharp chamber edge. A Smith will radius that just slightly so a case or bullet isn't sliding over a sharp edge. The RimX requires a little more than normal based on the way the round enters the chamber and slides up the bolt face under the fixed extractor. The rear part of the bullet and case wall slides over the 6 o'clock chamber edge and forces the case head up the bolt face into a full horizontal attitude. Id recommend if someone is chambering a RimX for the first time they have an action present to test feeding. If you don't have enough chamfer it will feel like the round is binding as it enters the chamber. Because it is. Also, you have to be really diligent in setting your mag height correctly before you chamber a single round. Resist the urge to run a couple rounds right off the bat. Carefully watch the first couple rounds you chamber to ensure the rim is being captured under the extractor and not snapping over the rim. 3 out 4 guys I know locally and some of our shooting team guys have all buggered up their extractors and tensioners in the first 100rds. It doesn't take much to damage them. You tell them to ensure they have their mag height set properly and they're like, "...ya, ya,ya....right, right, right..." and then a week later they're asking you for a picture of your bolt face. It's a simple and easy fix to replace the extractor and tensioner and Zermatt is obviously easy to work with, but it's also completely avoidable.

Have fun with your new rifle! Show us some pics when you get it finished!
Love to have known this weeks ago, going to have to work backwards. Thanks for this.

Jeff
 

padom

SuperMod
Staff member
Mar 13, 2013
9,628
4,289
219
Southeastern, Pennsylvania
Finally got out to shoot this R50 Orkan sent me to test in the Benchmark with my chamber. I screwed the Benchmark back on and put 1 wet patch down the barrel and then dry patched it out.

I took it to the range and put 15rd of SK Match RM through it to re-zero @ 50yd since I had to swap barrels, remove scope and had it previously zero @ 25yd with the previous barrel.. Shot the 15rd to get it zero @ 50yd then I shot this 10x5. I shot them in the order marked 1-10 on the target....

You will see below on the 100yd target, I took a picture before shooting the 10x5 of R50 showing the zeroing bullet holes @ 100yd with CenterX as I didnt want to waste the R50 zeroing so I could get a full 10x5. I then covered the 2 that were in the 10x5 with the 2 red dots before shooting the 10x5 with the R50. @ 100yd.

In conclusion, the ammo shot really good. It was 93F out, 82% humidity and dead calm. It was HOT. Not the tightest RimX groups of the 5 barrels I shot, but not off by much either. It was the best 50yd 10x5, 6x5, and group size of everything I shot through the Benchmark RimX to date at just over 0.2" with an impressive 0.042" group and many in the .1's... At 100yd, it shot really well in the .6"s both 10x5 and 6x5 which is pretty darn consistent with smallest group measuring 0.321"... Not bad at all.


50yds

10x5: 0.264"
6x5: 0.216"
Best Group: 0.042"







100yds

10x5: 0.698"
6x5: 0.655"
Best Group: 0.321"





 
Last edited:

stevenc23

Full Member
Belligerents
Oct 21, 2013
1,014
252
189
Denver, CO
In conclusion, the ammo shot really good. It was 93F out, 82% humidity and dead calm. It was HOT. Not the tightest RimX groups of the 5 barrels I shot, but not off by much either. It was the best 50yd 10x5, 6x5, and group size of everything I shot through the Benchmark RimX to date at just over 0.2" with an impressive 0.042" group and many in the .1's... At 100yd, it shot really well in the .6"s both 10x5 and 6x5 which is pretty darn consistent with smallest group measuring 0.321"... Not bad at all.


50yds

10x5: 0.264"
6x5: 0.216"
Best Group: 0.042"




Hi Padom, Please don't take this question the wrong way, just trying to understand your measurements. Are the measurements center to center? Group #6 at 50 yards looks like center to center is about 2 bullet diameters but measured at 0.179" which is less than one bullet diameter.
 

padom

SuperMod
Staff member
Mar 13, 2013
9,628
4,289
219
Southeastern, Pennsylvania
Hi Padom, Please don't take this question the wrong way, just trying to understand your measurements. Are the measurements center to center? Group #6 at 50 yards looks like center to center is at least 2 bullet diameters but measured at 0.179" which is less than one bullet diameter.
All measurements are the same way OnTarget scores CTC (center to center) and how every 22LR ive posted is scored. Outside to outside minus .223.. Now, some will argue the bullet holes are smaller than .223, which is true. But thats how JBM Ballistics, my Kestrel, OnTarget software app, all measure and reference 22LR bullet diameter so I subtract .223. Ive been consistent in the way Ive measured every target. Hope that answers your question. We arent competing for Gold medals here or winning prizes so do what you want with the info.

The size of the actual 22LR bullet hole in paper varies, depending on the type of paper, used also. Example, I am measuring these bullet holes in this specific paper with a caliper at 0.117". Just for your reference
 
Last edited:

st1650

Private
Belligerents
Aug 13, 2009
200
71
34
34
Installed a replacement tensioner, spring and ejector - was having weak ejection issues 10% of the times.
New kit from ZA absolutely fixed the issue, even tried "oversized" CCI semi auto and slow loading/ejecting with the rifle laying 90 deg on its side to see if I could get it to fail and couldn't get it to fail. It launches the brass like an overgassed 14.5 AR
 
  • Like
Reactions: b6graham

elkbow

Private
Belligerents
Dec 11, 2011
48
21
12
59
Albuquerque, NM
My RimX with an 18" Proof. It is accurate, but not where I would like. I've read through most of the thread multiple times. So what would be my best option for a replacement barrel, maybe a Bartlein, what chamber, who can supply it? Really like the action once I got the mags adjusted. Also have a Vudoo. Thanks guys.

20200603_081313.jpg
 

Swaim13

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
May 12, 2018
127
36
34
Peoples Republic of Maryland
My RimX with an 18" Proof. It is accurate, but not where I would like. I've read through most of the thread multiple times. So what would be my best option for a replacement barrel, maybe a Bartlein, what chamber, who can supply it? Really like the action once I got the mags adjusted. Also have a Vudoo. Thanks guys.

View attachment 7387161
Which do you like more? The vudoo or the rimx?
 

Hunting2019

Private
Hessian
Minuteman
Oct 28, 2019
23
10
6
West Plains, Missouri
Had my son out shooting the RimX today with the Lilja barrel screwed on @ 50yd with SK Pistol Match Special. Really good results for that cheap ammo and a 10yr old shooting prone. Was pretty darn surprised with the ammo and him. He shoots better than most of you. :LOL::ROFLMAO::LOL:



My 10 y/o daughter shoots better off hand than I do. She shoots bullfrogs off hand at 30yds and shoots them in the head with peep sights, very seldom misses, LOL. Dresses and cleans her own and don't want any help! :LOL::ROFLMAO::LOL::ROFLMAO::LOL:
 
  • Like
Reactions: padom

padom

SuperMod
Staff member
Mar 13, 2013
9,628
4,289
219
Southeastern, Pennsylvania
Which do you like more? The vudoo or the rimx?
While you didn't ask me, I'll throw my $0.02 in. I also own both, have 5 barrels for the RimX and same exact 5 for the Vudoo.... they are both very accurate. I prefer the RimX because of how smooth the bolt cycles. The RimX bolt cycles so damn smooth and effortless compared to my Vudoo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raufoss and elkbow

elkbow

Private
Belligerents
Dec 11, 2011
48
21
12
59
Albuquerque, NM
While you didn't ask me, I'll throw my $0.02 in. I also own both, have 5 barrels for the RimX and same exact 5 for the Vudoo.... they are both very accurate. I prefer the RimX because of how smooth the bolt cycles. The RimX bolt cycles so damn smooth and effortless compared to my Vudoo.
I prefer the RimX because my Vudoo bolt isn't smooth, it drags. I've run it dry, slightly lubed per their instructions, etc. It seems to work best with a thin cost of grease rather than oil.

The RimX mags are so nice also.
 

Redfisher60

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Oct 30, 2018
170
100
49
Northern Colorado
While you didn't ask me, I'll throw my $0.02 in. I also own both, have 5 barrels for the RimX and same exact 5 for the Vudoo.... they are both very accurate. I prefer the RimX because of how smooth the bolt cycles. The RimX bolt cycles so damn smooth and effortless compared to my Vudoo.
I'm currently experiencing the opposite, my Vudoo runs like butter, My Rim-X is sticky.
 

padom

SuperMod
Staff member
Mar 13, 2013
9,628
4,289
219
Southeastern, Pennsylvania
You and me both brother. Shocking no one else sees it.
Please enlighten us on whats so shocking? Are you calling me a liar? Please, do tell all of us. Those groups measurements are lie? They arent outside to outside minus .223 like I said? Say what you have to say and back it up with some facts instead of making stupid ass comments like that. Those black circles measure .5" outside to outside for your reference. Here's a picture of a caliper on one of the groups lined up best I can without holding it and the camera, you can subtract .223 on your own so you can show everyone the liar I am. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: Some of you guys crack me up. Ill give back the prizes now. You got me. lmfao

Next time you call me a liar I wont play so nice.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawhit and plong

LRdasher

Private
Belligerents
Minuteman
Jul 11, 2017
110
34
34
Please enlighten us on whats so shocking? Are you calling me a liar? Please, do tell all of us. Those groups measurements are lie? They arent outside to outside minus .223 like I said? Say what you have to say and back it up with some facts instead of making stupid ass comments like that. Those black circles measure .5" outside to outside for your reference. Here's a picture of a caliper on one of the groups lined up best I can without holding it and the camera, you can subtract .223 on your own so you can show everyone the liar I am. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: Some of you guys crack me up. Ill give back the prizes now. You got me. lmfao

Next time you call me a liar I wont play so nice.

No, NOT calling you a liar. But I do say your calculated measurement is incorrect. You clearly stated that the holes in that paper are 0.117" Therefore you should be subtracting 0.117" from your measurements not .223 to give correct value. Is that not correct?
 

padom

SuperMod
Staff member
Mar 13, 2013
9,628
4,289
219
Southeastern, Pennsylvania
No, NOT calling you a liar. But I do say your calculated measurement is incorrect. You clearly stated that the holes in that paper are 0.117" Therefore you should be subtracting 0.117" from your measurements not .223 to give correct value. Is that not correct?
Incorrect by who? You? So when ontarget software scores targets and it subtracts .223 its also wrong?? It doesn't subtract .117... Like I also said in my previous post, do what you want with the info. We arent competing for prizes or world records here..... i don't know a single other person here subtracting .117 when they are scoring their 22lr targets. That's news to me...i also don't really care. I've scored every single RimX target ive posted the same way. Take the info and do what you want with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drglock

LRdasher

Private
Belligerents
Minuteman
Jul 11, 2017
110
34
34
Understand we are not competing for prizes. I do not question the targets and appreciate the info you have posted. But will have to agree to disagree about your calculations. Ontarget assumes .223 holes are .233 in diameter and that is why it subtracts .223" from edge to edge to get center to center distance. If holes are .117" for whatever reason, simple math states you must subtract .117" from edge to edge measurement to get center to center distance.
 

padom

SuperMod
Staff member
Mar 13, 2013
9,628
4,289
219
Southeastern, Pennsylvania
Understand we are not competing for prizes. I do not question the targets and appreciate the info you have posted. But will have to agree to disagree about your calculations. Ontarget assumes .223 holes are .233 in diameter and that is why it subtracts .223" from edge to edge to get center to center distance. If holes are .117" for whatever reason, simple math states you must subtract .117" from edge to edge measurement to get center to center distance.

So what your trying to tell me is a 22lr bullet diameter is fluid??? It changes from shot to shot, target to target, person to person?? I think not.. i can shoot my RimX through 4 different targets, cardboard, thick paper, computer paper and that hole is going to vary in size on each of those.... the bullet still is the same size shot in all those targets...

And OnTarget does not assume bullet hole size made in paper.. it subtracts bullet diameter....Jeff will tell you this if you reach out to him about how his software calculates... thats how everyone calculates groups by hand...they subtract bullet diameter. This isn't anything new. We can agree to disagree
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawhit

Swaim13

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
May 12, 2018
127
36
34
Peoples Republic of Maryland
Out of curiosity, why does the bullet hole change diameter vs bullet diameter? Is the soft lead bullet compressed going through the barrel and shrinking it? Is it the elasticity of the target being shot?
 

padom

SuperMod
Staff member
Mar 13, 2013
9,628
4,289
219
Southeastern, Pennsylvania
And here is the same group scored with OnTarget for reference. This is why I only measure 22LR targets by hand with calipers. Every other target I post on here is scored with OnTarget. But 22LR, its so hard to find the center of each group with OnTarget with 22LR varying holes. Virtually impossible to find the center and match up the outer ring to the outside edge at the same time.


 

padom

SuperMod
Staff member
Mar 13, 2013
9,628
4,289
219
Southeastern, Pennsylvania
Out of curiosity, why does the bullet hole change diameter vs bullet diameter? Is the soft lead bullet compressed going through the barrel and shrinking it? Is it the elasticity of the target being shot?
That I dont have an answer for you on. Im just stating the facts. I have 3 different target types here from heavy flooring paper, to printer paper to cardboard to thin butcher paper all shot with 22LR. the hole size varies on each
 

Swaim13

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
May 12, 2018
127
36
34
Peoples Republic of Maryland
That I dont have an answer for you on. Im just stating the facts. I have 3 different target types here from heavy flooring paper, to printer paper to cardboard to thin butcher paper all shot with 22LR. the hole size varies on each
I measure my targets the same way that you do. I am just curious as to why it happens
 
  • Like
Reactions: padom

padom

SuperMod
Staff member
Mar 13, 2013
9,628
4,289
219
Southeastern, Pennsylvania
Also, how could there be any standardization in measuring groups if each guy was subtracting a different size hole?? There couldnt....thats why everyone subtracts the bullet diameter. I can post 3 more pictures of 3 different hole sizes on the above target I keep posting. Holes ranging from .117, to .145 to .174.... How do you explain that? Idk but this is why I and everyone I know just subtracts bullet diameter
 

Jadams

Private
Minuteman
Apr 20, 2020
25
26
18
I just measured a two shots group where two bullets passed thru the same hole and the hole measures .174". Then I subtracted .223" for a group size of minus .049". Does that mean my center to center group size is minus .049 inches?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PossumK

Jadams

Private
Minuteman
Apr 20, 2020
25
26
18
Directly From On Targets Web-page

Measuring Group Size
There are several methods for measuring and calculating the size of a group of bullet holes in a target. These methods vary depending on the tools and equipment available but the goal is always the same; determine the center points of two or more holes in a target. Once you know the position of the holes center points, the group information can be calculated very easily.
Traditional Methods
The two most common methods of measuring bullet hole groups involve the use of calipers. Both methods are used to calculate the maximum spread, or max center-to-center distance, of the group. Let’s take a quick look at each.
In the first method a standard set of calipers is used to measure the extreme distance to the outside edges of the holes in the group. Then several holes are measured and an average size calculated. Finally the average hole size is subtracted from the overall measurement resulting in the group center-to-center distance.
The second method of measurement uses a set of calipers modified to hold a pair of clear circular templates along with an eyepiece for optical magnification. The operator looks through the eyepiece, aligns the two circles with the extreme holes of the group, and reads the center-to-center distance directly from the caliper.
With practice both methods can produce very accurate results and be done rather quickly. The first method is more commonly used because it can be done with a standard set of calipers. The second is used to certify groups because of its greater accuracy.

OnTarget Method
OnTarget uses the center of the bullet holes, regardless of caliber, to calculate the group information. The size of holes in a target will vary depending on several factors including, bullet construction, velocity, and target material. Basing calculations on the center of the hole eliminates error due these variances in hole size.
To measure a group, first an image of the target is imported or scanned. The bullet hole size is set, along with the target distance, the point of aim, and the reference distance if needed. The user zooms in on the bullet holes, selects the hole input tool and clicks in the Target View. A circle, drawn using the defined bullet hole size, is displayed and moves with the mouse. The user positions the circle over a bullet hole and clicks the left mouse button to anchor the shot. As each shot is entered the group information is calculated and displayed.
The circle shown on top of the target image helps to accurately position the center point of the hole. Zooming in on the group, and even individual holes, provides for very fine adjustment of the hole position. At maximum zoom levels you can easily distinguish individual holes in the tightest groups. Because all calculations are done using the center of the hole, accurate positioning becomes very important as group sizes shrink. Even if the bullet hole does not have a clean edge all the way around the circle can be positioned very accurately.
When measurements are complete, the target information can be saved to an OnTarget .tgx project file as a permanent record. Group information and point data can be printed out, or exported to an Excel compatible .csv file.
 

goosed

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
May 11, 2014
856
727
99
MN
I just measured a two shots group where two bullets passed thru the same hole and the hole measures .174". Then I subtracted .223" for a group size of minus .049". Does that mean my center to center group size is minus .049 inches?
Yep, 2 shots ain't a group though.

Measure those holes with 6 different non-professionally calibrated calipers and you'll likely get 4+ different numbers. So focusing solely on the numbers, despite precieved internet fame value, is an effort in futility anyways.
 

Freebore221

Private
Minuteman
Jul 22, 2018
22
8
6
I have always measured edge to edge from the black circle around the bullet hole, then subtracted one bullet diameter. Measuring the hole will always be smaller than the ring around it where the bullet "wiped" the target. I think this is what some are seeing.

Absolutely incredible results however you measure these groups!
Thank you Padom and Orkan for all that you do! The information is priceless!
 

padom

SuperMod
Staff member
Mar 13, 2013
9,628
4,289
219
Southeastern, Pennsylvania
I've been a professionally employed engineer for over 32 years and work with a staff of engineers that develop very sophisticated consumer products. In my experience even cheap calipers are very accurate +- .001".
Well your sample size of cheap calipers must be very small....I myself have had cheap calipers go to shit giving varying results measuring the same item multiple times and checking against a calibration block. This has been discussed on SH for many many years, and there is a thread on it right now with guys having inaccurate readings with cheap calipers. It happens, thats a fact.
 

padom

SuperMod
Staff member
Mar 13, 2013
9,628
4,289
219
Southeastern, Pennsylvania
I have always measured edge to edge from the black circle around the bullet hole, then subtracted one bullet diameter. Measuring the hole will always be smaller than the ring around it where the bullet "wiped" the target. I think this is what some are seeing.

Absolutely incredible results however you measure these groups!
Thank you Padom and Orkan for all that you do! The information is priceless!
Ive said it time and time again. The results are the results, guys asked the method for measuring and thats been posted. There is no hiding that. You get out of those results what you wish. It makes no difference to me. The method of subtracting bullet diameter has been used for a long time. If some of you dont agree, or dont think thats the right way to do it, so be it. Ignore the results then.
 

Jadams

Private
Minuteman
Apr 20, 2020
25
26
18
Most importantly you post clear images of the groups so individuals can judge and compare for themselves. Also what you are providing is more significant than a prize or gold medal. As an internet influencer, you are effecting the buying decisions of likely hundreds, maybe thousands of customers. You have "influenced" me to spend about 5K on a RimX with Bart barrel, B and A trigger, etc. I look forward to reading you reviews as they are very informative. When wanting to accurately compare groups I use the images you provide and digitally measure and compare the results. I have access to a video analysis lab with sophisticated digital imaging equipment and two digital imaging technicians at work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawhit and padom

Jefe's Dope

Red Forman
Belligerents
Dec 20, 2017
7,607
51,537
119
I'm currently experiencing the opposite, my Vudoo runs like butter, My Rim-X is sticky.
The five* or so rounds I ran through it last week seemed nice. Maybe I need to cycle your Vudoo and compare it to mine.

*He doesn't like people touching his stuff. I had to twist his arm to shoot it. Hence only five rounds. ;)
 

barronian

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Jan 18, 2019
276
168
49
So what your trying to tell me is a 22lr bullet diameter is fluid??? It changes from shot to shot, target to target, person to person?? I think not.. i can shoot my RimX through 4 different targets, cardboard, thick paper, computer paper and that hole is going to vary in size on each of those.... the bullet still is the same size shot in all those targets...

And OnTarget does not assume bullet hole size made in paper.. it subtracts bullet diameter....Jeff will tell you this if you reach out to him about how his software calculates... thats how everyone calculates groups by hand...they subtract bullet diameter. This isn't anything new. We can agree to disagree
Humm, OnTarget methodology is distinctly different ... first it uses the nominal bullet size for scaling the circle you place around your bullet hole then you center this circle on your bullet hole - you DON'T position the circles so that they just touch the outside of the bullet hole (as you would a pair of calipers...
Imagine a target paper that only records a 1/16" hole for each shot, and two bullet hole centers .224" apart. With OnTarget you would center your .224" circles on the two 1/16" holes and get e-e .448" and c-c .224". With calipers you would get e-e .2865" and c-c .0625"....

@padom much as i REALLY appreciate all the excellent information and sanity you consistently provide to all of us, and i accept and applaud your consistency and description of how you are measuring your targets ...... i think you are on very thin ice when you try and defend the accuracy of your measurements.
As you clearly describe, your measurements are internally consistent and can be compared with everything else you have shown - they just have to be re-calibrated before they can be compared with numbers from someone who believes they are measuring for accuracy.

I find the stuff you post interesting enough that i often take the time to take your pictures into OnTarget or Ballistics-X and remeasure them so that i get the sort of numbers that 'I' am familiar with - then i can meaningfully compare your results with mine.

You have vastly more experience than I have and, i suspect, don't really 'use' the numbers - i suspect you look at any group and instinctively know how it 'rates' ? i don't have that skill/experience yet so need the measurements to help me evaluate other peoples groups . Since I'm the one doing the 'work' that means that they are all going to be measured the way that *I* want them to be measured :D They may be all measured incorrectly - but at least they will be consistently incorrect.

Anyway my point in taking the time to write this is that I don't think the 'derision' is aimed at you specifically. There have been very many comments recently all over the hide and elsewhere about the general low level of accuracy & precision of group measurements, and lack of any common methodology - to the extent that it is often impossible to compare or take seriously some of the group sizes that people post. Of course, it depends on what people want to use the group sizes for, your results are admirably self consistent and can be compared against everything that you have shown - but, for example, they are unfair to compare against other results on @jbell 6x5..
 

Troy G

Private
Belligerents
May 22, 2004
52
13
12
46
Sask, Canada
My RimX with an 18" Proof. It is accurate, but not where I would like. I've read through most of the thread multiple times. So what would be my best option for a replacement barrel, maybe a Bartlein, what chamber, who can supply it? Really like the action once I got the mags adjusted. Also have a Vudoo. Thanks guys.

View attachment 7387161
What ammo have you tried? Multiple lot#s? Other things you have checked before changing the barrel?
 

padom

SuperMod
Staff member
Mar 13, 2013
9,628
4,289
219
Southeastern, Pennsylvania
@padom- but, for example, they are unfair to compare against other results on @jbell 6x5..
Well this I would have to disagree on. Your assuming everyone in the 6x5 measures the way you do and Im the outlier. As this very discussion we are having came up a month ago specifically in the 6x5 Rimfire challenge. That discussion is still in that thread. You had the majority of guys saying they subtract .223, you had some guys saying they subtract. .222, you had some guys saying that they subtract .220 and you had other guys saying they measure the hole and subtract that. You will see in that thread as well, I stated my exact measuring method, which is 100% transparent with how I have said Im measuring here in this thread. Those results were still add by jbell. So, by your statements, the entire 6x5 is out the window. Cause I agree with you, there is no standard way of measuring in the 6x5 it seems. I though the standard was always subtracting bullet diameter, and if everyone did that, the results would be comparable. I dont think I said or argued anywhere that is the way accuracy is measured. Its just a consistent way if so many people are measuring groups for the results to be comparable. Thats all Im doing and all Ive ever done with all these 22LR targets, is to be consistent from target to target. But it seems none of that is whats happening.....

Most importantly here, this isnt a competition, no prizes or awards are being given. Its a comparison. The targets are there, the methods are posted. The person reading them can take out of it what they wish. If we were in a competition, the MD would be using THEIR method to measure all the targets at that match and then that method would be consistent for all those targets for THAT match.....
 
Last edited:

padom

SuperMod
Staff member
Mar 13, 2013
9,628
4,289
219
Southeastern, Pennsylvania
i suspect, you don't really 'use' the numbers - i suspect you look at any group and instinctively know how it 'rates' ? i don't have that skill/experience yet so need the measurements to help me evaluate other peoples groups .
This is a great question you bring up about what I look at or get out of the groups and all the targets Ive posted that were shot through 5 barrels, all on a RimX, totaling over 5000rd to date.

The targets, groups, measuring were all done to evaluate the 5 different barrels I tested on the RimX. This was A) to test the performance and accuracy capabilities of the newly released RimX and B) to see how the different barrels compared and what barrel performed the best to better help all of you on deciding what to buy for your RimX. Its all data, period. It was all performed, recorded, measured the same way on every target shot, through every barrel shot. While you may disagree with the measurements posted, what you can get out of all that data is how 1 barrel compared to the next with said ammo, all else being equal. As everything was/is consistent from barrel to barrel. That was the SOLE purpose of all the info/data/time/money I invested and posted. Hopefully that clears up the intent of all these targets.

Cant wait for this next review Im about to start in a caliber not called 22LR where I can go back to using OnTarget for group measuring. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hunting2019

Krob95

TFG
Hessian
Belligerents
Minuteman
Sep 7, 2019
682
595
99
NoCo
The five* or so rounds I ran through it last week seemed nice. Maybe I need to cycle your Vudoo and compare it to mine.

*He doesn't like people touching his stuff. I had to twist his arm to shoot it. Hence only five rounds. ;)
I don’t want to run a rim x just in case I like it better than my vudoo unless someone sells their bartlein cf rim x BA. Then I might be able to 😂
 

goosed

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
May 11, 2014
856
727
99
MN
I've been a professionally employed engineer for over 32 years and work with a staff of engineers that develop very sophisticated consumer products. In my experience even cheap calipers are very accurate +- .001".
Calipers are accurate enough for what we shooters need, but as an engineer you very well know that if you need accuracy to .00x a caliper isn't even the right tool for the job. Even the ever popular $100 Mitutoyo calipers are at best .001 accurate. If you consider those cheap, I'll agree.

However just like a torque wrench, precision scale, scace or any other precision measuring device they still need to be calibrated every so often.

Otherwise if you're saying a $20 caliper is always accurate to .001... that's like saying a 700 will shoot with an AI. You might get lucky a few times, but to get $100 accuracy for $20 every time just is not going to happen.
 

Sixgunjeff

Private
Minuteman
Oct 31, 2019
32
7
12
The simplest, precise way to measure group size is to take the two holes farthest apart in a group and measure outside edge of one to inside edge of the other. This gives the center to center measurement regardless of caliber. No subtraction of bullet diameter needed.
 

elkbow

Private
Belligerents
Dec 11, 2011
48
21
12
59
Albuquerque, NM
What ammo have you tried? Multiple lot#s? Other things you have checked before changing the barrel?
Center X 3 different lots, SK Match and SK Long Range all the same lots of each because I have a bunch, Norma Match. I stick with the SK and Lapua pretty much because I have a bunch.

I've done theme usual making sure I'm squared in the chassis, verified torque specs,etc.
 
Last edited:

elkbow

Private
Belligerents
Dec 11, 2011
48
21
12
59
Albuquerque, NM
The simplest, precise way to measure group size is to take the two holes farthest apart in a group and measure outside edge of one to inside edge of the other. This gives the center to center measurement regardless of caliber. No subtraction of bullet diameter needed.
That's fine for larger groups where you can see the inside edge, but won't work for tight groups.