I am trying out a savage Mark ii in 22 or I thought I should perhaps own a 22 or with a scope mounted to it. This is a BRJ model. So a Boyd's laminate stock with a blued fluted heavy barrel. On my way home soon to mount the scope. Hopefully it will group one of the kinds of ammo fairly well. Would a inch at fifty be too much to expect with hunting ammo?
Quote from: farmboy;145600I am trying out a savage Mark ii in 22 or I thought I should perhaps own a 22 or with a scope mounted to it. This is a BRJ model. So a Boyd's laminate stock with a blued fluted heavy barrel. On my way home soon to mount the scope. Hopefully it will group one of the kinds of ammo fairly well. Would a inch at fifty be too much to expect with hunting ammo?
Define "hunting ammo". I thought all ammo is hunting ammo.
High or hyper velocity hollow point non sub sonic target week loads.
farmboy, I never had much luck with accuracy using the hyper velocity 22 RF ammo of any make. A couple friends years ago bought new high end 22 rifles & bricks of hyper velocity ammo of different brands & couldn't get any of it to shoot like high velocity or standard velocity ammo. I wound up with several bricks of the stuff. They gave up on the accuracy part & gave all of it to me. I find it shoots "reasonably" well in some bolt type rifles but the Ruger 10/22 doesn't like it at all. .....Paul H
(http://i1376.photobucket.com/albums/ah31/catfarm1/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_20160724_144631905_zpspxhxmolu.jpg)
Winchester 555s
Nice! And good picture too. What was the range?
Paul
Twenty five yards. The flyer is not real good. I will try a few other brands and loads
Was it the first shot?
Paul
Third. Perhaps I pulled it but I don't think so. Cleaned the barrel shot one fouling shot then the group so that is bullets two to six down a new barrel .
Well, from a small amount of personal experience, and having read a lot other people's comments, it appears that the headspace (thickness of the rim) is critical in .22 RF ammo. Secundo, the quality control on "regular" .22 RF ammo is sufficiently lax (so the price is lower), that a 'bad' one gets in more frequently than in "match" ammo. Makes sense to me. There are headspace gauges 'out there'. Most of the ones I've seen are called "rim gauges". They are WAY too spendy for my tastes and uses of RFs. Maybe that was it.
I've always had pretty good luck with 555 ammo. But my standards aren't as high for .22 RF ammo as they are with other folks I know.
Paul
PS - Here's one http://www.midwayusa.com/product/382448/hornady-rim-thickness-gage-17-22-caliber that's not TOO bad. Although I don't personally do business with MidwayUSA any more.
Paul
Quote from: Paul Hoskins;145606farmboy, I never had much luck with accuracy using the hyper velocity 22 RF ammo of any make. A couple friends years ago bought new high end 22 rifles & bricks of hyper velocity ammo of different brands & couldn't get any of it to shoot like high velocity or standard velocity ammo. I wound up with several bricks of the stuff. They gave up on the accuracy part & gave all of it to me. I find it shoots "reasonably" well in some bolt type rifles but the Ruger 10/22 doesn't like it at all. .....Paul H
Ditto. I like the standard velocity round nose .22's in everything I own. The hyper stuff is hype.
I have only had yellow jackets group in one gun or should I day pattern in one gun. That was in a Marlin model 39a.
There is nothing wrong with the groups you are getting.
The only hyper velocity ammunition that has shot really well for me is CCI Stinger and then it only shot well in my Lithgow 101, under 1". I've used Winchester Power Points in both the 42gn and 40gn loads, again they shoot very well.
I'm currently using CCI Mini Mags 36gn HP. Mostly because they were available at the time. I'll probably give them a go in the field but nothing has come close to the performance of the Pwoer Points on animals.
.22's are for Squirrels, Rabbits, Badgers etc. You don't need hyper ammo. Besides what is another 200'/sec if you can't hit anything?
Remington yellow jackets five shot speeds. Low 1316,high1390,average1352, deveavtion73.48.
CCI stingers five shot speeds.low1545,high1658,average1614,deveation112.8
CCI mini mag low1303,high1337,average1325,deveation34.29
Winchester 555. Low1216, high1260,average 1244,deveation44.2
The large spreads don't look to good for the hyper velocity loads!
Interesting program that is calculating your "deviation". The numbers I see are just the max spread with two-place decimal.
I've had CF ammo that had fairly large Standard Deviations of say, greater than 30 f/s that shot well, say MoA, and ones with relatively low SDs that shot worse than MoA. How did those four kinds of ammo shoot?
Paul
I will reread the instructions and what the abbreviations mean I very well could have called it the wrong thing! I think that I am right but thinking that and being wrong has happened more than once in the past! Lol. I think the abbreviation was SD which I took to mean standard deviation.
You certainly can tell there is lots more snap in the stingers. I shot a group of 37 grain Winchester shells they were making really high speed over one hundred fps above advertised. I will re shoot them the stats ended up mixed into the load before and I had to go to town so when I get back I will try and group of loads then shoot them at paper to see where we are at.
There are SEVERAL Chronograph manufacturers that calculate the standard deviation wrong. There is truly NO EXCUSE for that. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. The equation is non-trivial, but once written into firmware it's "done". In this day and age, there simply is NO EXCUSE for erroneous mathematical calculations by machines. Did I mention NONE?
That said... about 99 and 44/100s (the purity of Dove soap), of the shooters "out there" couldn't care less about the standard deviation of the MV figures they get out of their chronos. I would venture to say that most of them simply take one reading, or take the highest reading, or take the average reading of 5 shots, and call it "good". The SD is of no value to them. They're fooling themselves about their rifle/ammo's performance, but who's gonna 'prove' it. For that matter, who cares enough to try to prove it. Most of those few that do actually look at the SD figure, don't have a clue whether the calculator on their chrony is calculating the value correctly or not. Most of them assume JUST LIKE THEY DO ABOUT BULLET DESIGN, that "somebody" MUST HAVE checked and did the "research". That is a very, VERY shaky assumption about ANYTHING associated with firearms and especially ballistics.
And THAT SAID... The SD doesn't matter too much to group size in my opinion. As a general rule, the smaller the SD the smaller the groups, but sometimes as I said in the previous post, that isn't true. I use standard deviation to get some idea about the consistency of my handloads. If there is a large SD in MV, then there might be something I should look at in the reloading process like case capacity, case length, neck ID and OD, etc. I don't let large SDs bother me if the ammo is shooting small (enough for me) groups.
Paul