Sorting Exercise

[Deputy Dan]

Waiting for my new gun to show up so decided to sort some rounds to see what all the fuss is about. I feel more confused now than ever.

First - I watched a YouTube video of a guy sorting RWS Special Match and he broke down down a handful of boxes into about four or five groups with each group separated by only a couple of thousandths (grams). So for example his first group of sorted rounds was between 3.423 and 3.424. While he had a few outliers, it seemed most of the few boxes he checked were within about one hundredth - say 3.423 to 3.433. So I started out with about five sorting trays with the same thought as to range in weight - with some SK Standard Plus.

Big surprise very early on - I'd need a dozen or more trays to break down my lot into such small increments. My 280 rounds left in this brick ranged from 3.320 all the way up to 3.379. I ran out of sorting trays in increments of 5 thousandths!

I ran some of this particular brick at an extreme silhouettes match back in November and chalked up the (many!) fliers - particularly at 200+ yards - to either the gun (10/22) or my inability to read the wind; now I'm not so sure is wasn't the bullets! Come to think about it, I did better at 200 yards the month before with CCI SVs.

So question for any of you that have sorted in the past - is my weight distribution as expected for SK Standard+? Should I expect a narrower range for higher quality (higher cost!) ammo or was that guy on Youtube blowing smoke? I've got to buy other brands to test to see just what the new gun prefers so I'll likely carry on with the experiment - unless it's simply an exercise in futility.

In the meantime, I'll use the 25% (1) of the batch that are the very high and low outliers for barrel break-in and sighting in the scope when the gun gets here. I'll then use some of the rest to do some testing to see if the weight variance even within groups has any impact at all on POI. I'll be doing my testing indoors at 50 so that MIGHT rule out some of the distance/wind issues I had at the November match.

Needless to say I'm not going to spend the time right now sorting the newest brick of SK Standard Plus that is on the shelf here - different lot in any case so pretty sure I can't combine weight groups across lots.

I'll post an update - though the gun won't likely get here until early next week so until then I continue to run down all sorts of other "accuracy" rabbit holes . . .

 

[Nik H]

Following

 

[justin amateur]

Things to think about....what variable are you measuring?

How does that variable relate to any other component in a cartridge?

Do you think each bullet weighs exactly 40.000 grains? They don't.

Do you think primer amounts are exactly the same? They aren't.

Do you think the powder amounts are the same? Doesn't happen.

Do you think the brass are identical in weight and dimensions? Nope.

Do bullet seating depths and angles end up the same? No.

Are the crimp tensions and depths the same? No again.

So, exactly, how does measuring a single variable, relate to any of the others?

Recommendation... disassemble a single box of cartridges.
Use this routine...

Weigh the total cartridge...write it down.
Pull the bullet...weigh the bullet...write it down
Weigh the still powder filled brass...write it down
Empty the powder onto the scale...weigh it...write it down
Weigh the primer filled brass...write it down
Burn out the primer then brush the interior of the brass clean...weigh the empty brass...write it down

Repeat 49 more times

When done, compare bullet weights, powder weights, primer weights and brass weights,
then explain to me exactly how weighing the entire cartridge
related to the individual component weights.

Yes, I did just exactly what I just recommended.

Educational, but tedious.

 

[straightshooter1]

Waiting for my new gun to show up so decided to sort some rounds to see what all the fuss is about. I feel more confused now than ever.

First - I watched a YouTube video of a guy sorting RWS Special Match and he broke down down a handful of boxes into about four or five groups with each group separated by only a couple of thousandths (grains). So for example his first group of sorted rounds was between 3.423 and 3.424. While he had a few outliers, it seemed most of the few boxes he checked were within about one hundredth - say 3.423 to 3.433. So I started out with about five sorting trays with the same thought as to range in weight - with some SK Standard Plus.

Big surprise very early on - I'd need a dozen or more trays to break down my lot into such small increments. My 280 rounds left in this brick ranged from 3.320 all the way up to 3.379. I ran out of sorting trays in increments of 5 thousandths!

I ran some of this particular brick at an extreme silhouettes match back in November and chalked up the (many!) fliers - particularly at 200+ yards - to either the gun (10/22) or my inability to read the wind; now I'm not so sure is wasn't the bullets! Come to think about it, I did better at 200 yards the month before with CCI SVs.

So question for any of you that have sorted in the past - is my weight distribution as expected for SK Standard+? Should I expect a narrower range for higher quality (higher cost!) ammo or was that guy on Youtube blowing smoke? I've got to buy other brands to test to see just what the new gun prefers so I'll likely carry on with the experiment - unless it's simply an exercise in futility.

In the meantime, I'll use the 25% (1) of the batch that are the very high and low outliers for barrel break-in and sighting in the scope when the gun gets here. I'll then use some of the rest to do some testing to see if the weight variance even within groups has any impact at all on POI. I'll be doing my testing indoors at 50 so that MIGHT rule out some of the distance/wind issues I had at the November match.

Needless to say I'm not going to spend the time right now sorting the newest brick of SK Standard Plus that is on the shelf here - different lot in any case so pretty sure I can't combine weight groups across lots.

I'll post an update - though the gun won't likely get here until early next week so until then I continue to run down all sorts of other "accuracy" rabbit holes . . .

Your sorting time would be better served by inspecting the nicks and dings on the bullets and sorting into groups of those that look good, bad and really bad (something like that, anyway). If you want to test it, get 20 or so that show little or no deformities against 20 or so of those with a lot deformations (of the same lot, of course). I'd bet you see a bigger variance between those groups than any two groups that are sorted as you have.

 

[littlesister]

Things to think about....what variable are you measuring?

How does that variable relate to any other component in a cartridge?

Do you think each bullet weighs exactly 40.000 grains? They don't.

Do you think primer amounts are exactly the same? They aren't.

Do you think the powder amounts are the same? Doesn't happen.

Do you think the brass are identical in weight and dimensions? Nope.

Do bullet seating depths and angles end up the same? No.

Are the crimp tensions and depths the same? No again.

So, exactly how does measuring a single variable, relate to any of the others?

This reply sums up sorting! An absolute waste of time. The only way to get any amount of consistency with remfire ammo is to pay for it.

 

[AZ Dan]

You are not the first person to get wrapped up in the ammo sorting lies that people keep trying to perpetuate.

If simply sorting your ammo by total cartridge weight worked to increase accuracy by any measurable and repeatable metric, EVERYONE would buy inexpensive rimfire ammo and then spend hours sorting it. But, it doesn't work that way...far too many variables you cannot control or accurately measure with repeatability. Instead, we all just buy high end ammo in the first place.

Sorting simply does not work in the rimfire world. If you are hand loading centerfire, you have a chance at making a difference because you actually can control the individual components; weight of each bullet, casing, powder charge, neck tension, etc are within your control...this is not the case with rimfire.

 

[22lfb]

Also - with these fine measurements - are you weighing them with or without the lubricant?

 

[justin amateur]

I tried to weigh lubricant amounts
Weight of total cartridge,
wiped off lube with alcohol prep pad,
weight after lubricant removed.
No measurable difference with either CCI SV or Eley Tenex.

 

[22lfb]

Hmm. Ok... It "looks" like it's an substantial amount at least...

[edit] sample of one SK Std+; out of box 3.335 gramms, wiped off with alcohol 3.321 gramms

 

[grauhanen]

Ammo should be "sorted" by lot performance. Nothing else matters.

Note: The lesser varieties of so-called "match ammos" -- for example, the SK and Eley Club and Sport varieties -- may have considerable variation within each lot.

 

[justin amateur]

What G said! ^^^

I had to purchase a better digital scale in order to be able to measure to 0.01 grain repeatable accuracy.
My first attempt with a cheapo had the same object weighing plus or minus 0.3 grains each time measured.
Just wasn't capable of the accuracy needed to correctly measure the variations in weight.
That's part of the problem when folks attempt weight sorting. Can't trust the digital scale.
The lab scale I purchased had an enclosure I had to learn to work inside of.
Different routine than the 25 dollar drug store scales.

 

[accurate obsession]

Sorting is an exercise in futility, lot overall performance is all that matters.

 

[Manning5R]

I tried sorting by weight once. The best group and chrono data was from a group consisting of 6 of the lightest outliers mixed with 6 of the heaviest outliers.

 

[Deputy Dan]

Thanks for all the input. I find it interesting that most of the youtubers swear by sorting and most of the Hide says don't bother. It might simply be a function of the quality of the ammo. So far I haven't had a gun that warranted really top quality ammo. And I wouldn't have gone down this rabbit hole if not for a fair number of fliers with this particular lot the first time I used in at 200+ yards in a match.

Yes - I understand there are a lot of variables, not least of which is the idiot behind the trigger.

Still playing with the math -- new gun arrives early next week and ultimately I think it's going to want to be fed the better ammo. In any case, I can do some practical testing with this current lot.

I pulled apart two rounds - my high and low weight outliers. The only real difference between the two is the weight of the lead - 2.561 g/39.522 grains on the low end, and 2.608 g/40.248 on the high end. That's about a plus or minus 1% range. Doesn't seem like much but it counts!

The two cases with primer were within 0.005 grams of each other and powder charge was identical. Combined weights of bullet, case, and powder came within 0.001 of the starting totals so if I lost a bit of powder or scratched off some lead along the way it certainly wasn't much. Wiping the lube off the rounds didn't change the weight out to the three decimal points on my scale in a before/after weighing.

Yes - I realize a sample size of two does not comprise a statistically valid sample. Unless all y'all want to chip in some ammo for testing these may be the only two rounds I pry apart for now. All things considered I'd rather shoot them - much more rewarding. But PM me if you want to contribute

In my examples, the bullet is about 77% of the total weight in each instance, the primed case another 21%; the powder is just under 2 percentage points of the overall weight.

At 77% of the total, very slight changes in the bullet can obviously make huge differences in the overall weight. In my sample of two, the range in bullet weight between the advertised 40 grains is minus .478 and plus .248 or a total difference of less than a grain. It doesn't take much!

If I assume the goal of the manufacturer was a 40 grain bullet, and allow the a quarter of a percentage point error over and half a percentage point low in my limited sample - that range accounts for about 80% of the rounds I measured by weight.

I don't know if the rimfire manufacturers aim for six sigma or not, but an error of plus or minus less than half a percentage point on the weight of the bullet might not cause them concern on run-rate ammo.

I suspect the higher the quality the lower their tolerance for error. As soon as I am no longer poor I'll be able to get some and test that assumption.

Justin - you mentioned you pulled a full box apart - did you find big differences in case or powder weights? Any chance you can share your results? I'm all for learning from the experience of others!

Based on my limited sample, my hypothesis is that most of the difference between overall weights is due to bullet weight. As soon as I get the gun and have it cleaned and sorted out I'll test my measured sample to see if bullets of roughly the same weight hit consistently around the same POI.

 

[justin amateur]

Can do D.

During a recent discussion about vertical spread,
the question arose of how much variation there can be in component weights.
I've seen what mv spread can do to my results at 200 yards, caused by cartridge differences,
but never took the time to determine what the individual parts of a cartridge weighed.
That has been rectified.

Took a couple months to accomplish the project,
but the results have been put into a spreadsheet format.
Weighed each cartridge, then as I disassembled it, weighed it after each change.
Pulled the bullets, dumped the powder, burned out the primer, cleaned the brass.
Final information derived is cartridge, bullet, powder, primer and brass weights.
Then after building the spreadsheet, sorted by total cartridge weight.
CCI SV, Tenex and CCI Maxi Mag 40 grain 22wmr...

CCI SV

Tenex

CCI MaxiMag 22wmr

Interesting that the 40 grain MaxiMag is only 38.5 grains.
So, if you are weight sorting cartridges to improve results,
what exactly are you determining the weight of? Is it the powder? Primer? Bullet?
Nope, each component varies, and so checking total cartridge weight isn't that big a help.

 

[AZ Dan]

I'd be curious to know exactly what digital scale you are using and what it's margin of error is.

FYI, people on YouTube want you to watch their videos and the YT algorithm only shows you videos it thinks you will like...you will only see videos that further reinforce your beliefs....a positive feedback loop of sameness.

 

[Deputy Dan]

Justin --

THANKS - enough data to keep me busy all weekend!!

 

[Deputy Dan]

AZ Dan --

HomeGeek TL-series - not terribly expensive; it came with a 50g test/calibration weight. Claims reliability to 0.001 in grams, 0.01 grains. Been consistent for me - including consistent weights after recalibration and 24 hours later.

I realize youtube can be a confirmation bubble, but until you watch a couple of different videos I wouldn't think their algorithm can determine what bias to use. I tried to look for pros and cons but most of what I found ultimately seemed pro, which may still mean confirmation bias . . . Imperfect world we live in.

Guys that sort swear by it, even with high quality ammo. Others seem to swear at it. Very little middle ground. - LOL, like a lot of other things on the Hide!

 

[justin amateur]

AZ...link to model

U.S. Solid 3000g x 0.01 g Lab Scale, 0.01 g Digital Analytical Balance

Unit: g/ct/oz/lb; LCD Display; Min Capacity: 0.1 g; Repeatability Error:±0.02 g; Non-linear Error: ±0.02 g;

ussolid.com

 

[acudaowner]

seperating jelly beans into different cups while your neighbors kids eat them is more fun . at least the kids seem happy till you run out . and your left with about the same thing a bunch of cups and a mess you have to clean up while the good stuff is already gone .

 

[usafa77]

So far I haven't had a gun that warranted really top quality ammo.

The good ammo that my match guns don't like goes to the cheap guns. Stock Rugers, lots of different pistols. They all benefit greatly from good ammo.

 

[Deputy Dan]

Update -

Bergara B14R arrived this week and today was my first outing with it.

This exercise has been with SK Standard +. It seems a lot of precision rimfire shooters like it and I might have achieved completely different results with a lesser grade of ammo. My limited bench testing has been at 50 yards and extended distances might also yield different results.

Justin’s data, comparing CCISV to Tenex was eye-opening to say the least: lots of wide variation in terms of case, bullet, and even powder with the CCI, not nearly so much with the Tenex. Had I seen that first I might have saved myself some time. On the other hand, I like to learn by doing, so there’s that.

I initially sorted the middle 85% or so of my sample into 7 groups: 3.330-34 grams, 3.335-39, 3.340-44, etc. I expected to see some differences in hit (higher/lower) given the same point of aim (POA).

First, I grabbed 9 rounds from the outliers of my sorting exercise to warm up the barrel and sight it. The bag had the 15% highs and lows (mostly lows), and now that I’m done I wish I had separated the highs and lows because all nine shots were remarkably close. This turned out to be a precursor to what was to come.

I confess I struggled a bit getting comfortable behind this new gun - I haven’t yet worked out the right mix of bipod and rear bag and I felt I was having to “push” the gun a lot. I ran 5 shot groups with my 7 test ”lots” and considering this was my first time with this gun I’m somewhat pleased to say that at 50 yards there seemed to be no particular vertical dispersion from one group to the next.

The weight spread in my 7 test lots - 3.330 to 3.364 - is higher than the spread in Justin’s data for Tenex, and about ⅔ the spread in his CCISV data. That spread is about half a grain, or about 1% of the overall mean cartridge weight. It would appear that alone isn’t enough to cause outliers at 50 yards. As suspected all along - the problem is still most probably the idiot behind the trigger.

I’m likely going back to the range tomorrow or shortly thereafter - I need the trigger time with a match just a week away - and will see how these 7 lots - or what’s left of them - group at 100 yards, though I’m now expecting they’ll be rather consistent! My sorting days are most likely over.

 

[AZ Dan]

Update -

Bergara B14R arrived this week and today was my first outing with it.

This exercise has been with SK Standard +. It seems a lot of precision rimfire shooters like it and I might have achieved completely different results with a lesser grade of ammo. My limited bench testing has been at 50 yards and extended distances might also yield different results.

Justin’s data, comparing CCISV to Tenex was eye-opening to say the least: lots of wide variation in terms of case, bullet, and even powder with the CCI, not nearly so much with the Tenex. Had I seen that first I might have saved myself some time. On the other hand, I like to learn by doing, so there’s that.

I initially sorted the middle 85% or so of my sample into 7 groups: 3.330-34 grams, 3.335-39, 3.340-44, etc. I expected to see some differences in hit (higher/lower) given the same point of aim (POA).

First, I grabbed 9 rounds from the outliers of my sorting exercise to warm up the barrel and sight it. The bag had the 15% highs and lows (mostly lows), and now that I’m done I wish I had separated the highs and lows because all nine shots were remarkably close. This turned out to be a precursor to what was to come.

I confess I struggled a bit getting comfortable behind this new gun - I haven’t yet worked out the right mix of bipod and rear bag and I felt I was having to “push” the gun a lot. I ran 5 shot groups with my 7 test ”lots” and considering this was my first time with this gun I’m somewhat pleased to say that at 50 yards there seemed to be no particular vertical dispersion from one group to the next.

The weight spread in my 7 test lots - 3.330 to 3.364 - is higher than the spread in Justin’s data for Tenex, and about ⅔ the spread in his CCISV data. That spread is about half a grain, or about 1% of the overall mean cartridge weight. It would appear that alone isn’t enough to cause outliers at 50 yards. As suspected all along - the problem is still most probably the idiot behind the trigger.

I’m likely going back to the range tomorrow or shortly thereafter - I need the trigger time with a match just a week away - and will see how these 7 lots - or what’s left of them - group at 100 yards, though I’m now expecting they’ll be rather consistent! My sorting days are most likely over.

Neat. Post up pics of your targets, sorted and unsorted.

 

[Deputy Dan]

I did cursory bore sighting at home at about 25-30 yards so the Sight-In target is my first 9 rounds ever with this new-from-the-factory gun. Circles on the targets are 1". I probably could have dialed the scope down another .1 mil or so but figured for my testing purposes it's good. Accordingly almost all the groups on the "Lot Test" target are high.

Sight in was 3-shot groups, test groups were 5-shot groups.

Best group was the sight in final group at under .415" with purely random rounds from my highs and lows! "Lots" 2 and 4 were otherwise my best groups, but I'll chalk up pretty much all the group variances to my not being comfortable yet behind this gun. (You measure from outside to outside of the farthest holes - right, not center to center?)

I mentioned I struggled a bit - the target holder is at head height and with standard paper-size targets I'm shooting "uphill" from the bench so getting the bipod and bag working together was a bit of a hassle. Taking a different bag, and will likely hang the targets lower on the next outing! Might get different results shooting flatter - which is more like the Extreme Silhouette matches I'm shooting.

Just posted a pic of the gun on the Rimfire Rifles Photo Thread.

 

[iceng]

Im going to echo what everyone is saying. Ive sorted 500rnd bricks and compared one brick against another, then tried brands against brands and bricks, in multiple different ways.

All i did was make the gun shop happy buying so much damn ammo.

You NEED to have a rifle capable of showing differences, and you NEED to be a good enough shooter to take advantage of it, and you NEED to be able to correctly translate or interpret the data.

Having an indoor shooting range helps.

The single biggest difference i found was an after market barrel and a match chamber, spec'd for your ammo.

All the rest (as @mcameron said) is witchcraft.

 

[MDof2]

Hoooooly shiiiit you have a lot of time on your hands.

Here's how I sort ammo. :
SK Yellow goes in box 2
Norma Tac goes in box 4
CCI SV goes in box 6
and finally, all my Wolf Match was sorted into box 8.

With all due respect..... go shoot your gun.

Spoiler:

Spoiler

My son who likes to talk shit to his old man once in a while was also sorting ammo in boxes 1, 3, 5, and 7 respectively.

 

[iceng]

Haha nice work. He put up a solid fight, but the old man still issued a citation for being cocky.

 

[TwistedOneinSeven]

I'm assuming somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere people are seriously snowed in.........

 

[45cal4life]

I have learned that whatever thought I've had about rimfire ammo, justin amateur has been there and done that and is always willing to post his findings

 

[nikonNUT]

My sorting process for my Vudoo will go like this...
1) Weigh and measure rifle.
2) Print UPS lable with said dimensions... Maybe. Might deliever it
3) Send to Lapua testing center.
4) Let Lapua figure it out.
5) Buy case of said figuring.
6) Realize I can't shoot worth a damn (I already know this) and I should have spent the gas money on lesser ammo working on fundamentals!

 

[Deputy Dan]

"Realize I can't shoot worth a damn (I already know this) and I should have spent the gas money on lesser ammo working on fundamentals!"

Where can I buy a case of these 'fundamentals' of which you speak? Can't find them on Ammo Seek . . .

 

[DownhillFromHere]

Cosmic rays.

I say cosmic rays influence .22 ammo accuracy.

OP, I don't know how far down the rimfire rabbit hole you've fallen, but come on in. Silliness aside, it's just really hard to find consistency in .22 ammo. Yeah, the more expensive labels are overall more consistent. But lot-to-lot performance varies in the same labels across individual rifles....

Justin has done more to empirically demonstrate that finding some magic way of improving consistency is a fool's errand than anyone else I've seen. As NikonNut says above, the easy button - and probably most cost-effective in the long run - is to send your rifle to the Lapua test center in AZ. Test cost is dead cheap compared to what you get out of it; Lapua makes its $$ by selling case-lot minimum of the best-performing lot. Otherwise, especially in today's market, if you find a lot that works well in your rifle you're hard=pressed to find any more of that lot.

I bought two cases of Center-X through the test center. This lot performed almost as well as the best lot of the 40%-more-expensive Midas+. I didn't even have them test X-Act because I wasn't willing to pay $20+ per box of it. A buddy of mine sent his Vudoo - identical to mine in all respects except color of the chassis - for testing; his rifle set a single-group record - 10 shots of Midas+ into something like half an inch at 100 meters. But that tiny group wasn't consistently repeatable.

So the photo illustrates the issue. With my rifle and tested Center-X on a dead-calm late afternoon (no mirage), sub-MOA 5-shot groups @100 are common. But there are still fliers. The photos below shows what that looks like. First is an excellent 5-shot 100-yard group (red dot is 1/2 inch. Second is six rounds in a more typical 100-yard group, then one drops half a mil low for no good reason.

Cosmic rays.

 

[Deputy Dan]

Hey - cosmic rays are a real thing! There was an NPR podcast a few years ago (before 2020!) about how they were affecting - wait for it - voting machines. The answer - better shielding.

Note you can effectively line most ball-style caps with tin foil and hardly anyone will be able to tell . . .

In any case, I don't think I've fallen far enough in the rabbit hole I can't dig myself out. But just in case, I know one pill makes you larger and one makes you small, but how do you tell which is which? Wait - I'll bet the answer is, once again, "fundamentals"!

 

[justin amateur]

I had to look up the definition of "empirically".

Just to make sure it meant what I thought it meant.

 

[Aussiedan]

Considering all the inconsistencies in rimfire ammo as per Justin amateurs research, and the lack of decent match ammo, I can't be bothered with all the details.

I shoot what I can, when I can.
Fuck the details

 

[bwall57]

Waiting for my new gun to show up so decided to sort some rounds to see what all the fuss is about. I feel more confused now than ever.

First - I watched a YouTube video of a guy sorting RWS Special Match and he broke down down a handful of boxes into about four or five groups with each group separated by only a couple of thousandths (grams). So for example his first group of sorted rounds was between 3.423 and 3.424. While he had a few outliers, it seemed most of the few boxes he checked were within about one hundredth - say 3.423 to 3.433. So I started out with about five sorting trays with the same thought as to range in weight - with some SK Standard Plus.

Big surprise very early on - I'd need a dozen or more trays to break down my lot into such small increments. My 280 rounds left in this brick ranged from 3.320 all the way up to 3.379. I ran out of sorting trays in increments of 5 thousandths!

I ran some of this particular brick at an extreme silhouettes match back in November and chalked up the (many!) fliers - particularly at 200+ yards - to either the gun (10/22) or my inability to read the wind; now I'm not so sure is wasn't the bullets! Come to think about it, I did better at 200 yards the month before with CCI SVs.

So question for any of you that have sorted in the past - is my weight distribution as expected for SK Standard+? Should I expect a narrower range for higher quality (higher cost!) ammo or was that guy on Youtube blowing smoke? I've got to buy other brands to test to see just what the new gun prefers so I'll likely carry on with the experiment - unless it's simply an exercise in futility.

In the meantime, I'll use the 25% (1) of the batch that are the very high and low outliers for barrel break-in and sighting in the scope when the gun gets here. I'll then use some of the rest to do some testing to see if the weight variance even within groups has any impact at all on POI. I'll be doing my testing indoors at 50 so that MIGHT rule out some of the distance/wind issues I had at the November match.

Needless to say I'm not going to spend the time right now sorting the newest brick of SK Standard Plus that is on the shelf here - different lot in any case so pretty sure I can't combine weight groups across lots.

I'll post an update - though the gun won't likely get here until early next week so until then I continue to run down all sorts of other "accuracy" rabbit holes . . .

Great job, really good information. Sorting works if you start with good ammo. Here is a wonderful article that can help eliminate the confusion by showing group sizes shot in a controlled environment test range for more than 57 ammo brands at 50, 75 & 100 yds. The links https://www.accurateshooter.com/guns-of-week/22lr-rimfire-ammo-comparison-test/ . The sub links in the article actually show the target card with the FPS / SD numbers that are the most important numbers to achieve consistent accuracy performance. The list shows that top brands and high priced ammo do not necessarily mean that it's accurate.. The article made me realize that most of the YT ammo testing is pure entertainment BS. If the FPS, SD & ES are not shown the results are useless. But it's fun to watch the experts that have little or no marksmanship skills.I keep the list on my phone to make sure to stay away from the favor of the month hyped up ammo reviews and just buy the good stuff when its on sale.
Good luck on finding the rabbit. Have fun

 

[MDof2]

All this sorting and data collection and aggregation reminds me of the Houston Warehouse

https://2poqx8tjzgi65olp24je4x4n-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/secrets-of-the-houston-warehouse-by-dave-scott-precision-shooting-magazine-special-edition-1-1993.pdf