.22 RF Muzzle Velocity Data

[gitano]

I have put a new thread in the "References" sub-site: http://thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19012

It contains just the data. I created it so that folks that just wanted the MV data for a bunch of ammo in a bunch of rifles could find it without having to wade through all the ancillary information here. I will continue to post the data both here and there, and continue with the discussions here.

Paul

I am planning to do some rimfire "work" here as soon as the amount of daylight gets back to something 'useful'. My plan is to take 16 of the 18 .22 rifles I own and fire at least 5 rounds from each of them using 9 of the 12 types of .22 RF ammo I have in hand. (Minimum of 720 rounds.) For those types of ammo that I have a lot of, I may shoot more than 5 rounds. In preparing for that effort, I found some old data I had for 6 rifles with four types of ammo. I have more "old" data, but I haven't found all of that yet. Until I get that 'work' done, here's a graph of the old data I found.

Paul

[gitano]

The rifles I will be using are:

• Polish Trainer #1
• Polish Trainer #2

• Romanian Trainer #1
• Romanian Trainer #2

• SMLE Trainer #1
• SMLE Trainer #2

• Ruger 10/22 with Volquartsen 1:9 twist barrel

• Ruger 10/22 with standard 1:16 twist barrel



• BSA Model 12 Tilting Block

• Enfield Trainer (tilting block like Martini)

• Anschutz Model 54 Match

• Savage Model 1903

• Stevens Model 416 USGI Match

• "Teutonic" Single Shot Breechloader

• Krico

• Insert for Mauser K-98

[/list]
Some reference pictures. Some are of my rifles, some are from online images. All of the ammo pictures are off the internet.

The ammo I will be using:

• Aguila Sniper Sub Sonic

• Aguila Colibri

• Aguila Interceptor

• CCI "Standard Velocity"

• CCI "Mini-Mag 22 LR-HP"

• CCI "CB Short"

• Remington "Golden Bullet"

• Winchester "22 Long Rifle"

• Federal "Maximum Velocity HP #712" (Picture coming soon.)

Paul

[farmboy]

Should be fun to read.

[gitano]

I don't know if I will be able to get it all done in one day. In fact, I'm not sure I want to try to get it done in one day. Right now, not only are the days short, but it's kinda cold too. It would be a long, cold day to get all 720 rounds chrono'd and recorded.

Paul

[gitano]

Since this thread only had four posts in it, I'll post the range reports here to consolidate all of the data in one place.

Talk about 'making a rod for one's own back', OY!

I had great plans for shooting several rifles today because I was shooting in my backyard. You know what they say about 'best laid plans'. I'll spare you the gory details, but in the end, I only shot the Krico, and while I did shoot 8 kinds of ammo, I was only able to get MVs on 6 of them. Two of them; CCI CB Short, and Aguila Colibri, didn't register on the MagnetoSpeed (MS). (Some hassles with the MS are part of the plans that went awry as well as a magazine malfunction that is actually pretty significant. As a result, I had to load each bullet one at a time.) At any rate, here is the first installment on this endeavor which I hope gets easier.

The Krico didn't have a 'scope mounted on it, and the only "good" 'scope I have not mounted is has a 50mm objective and the rings I have that fit the Krico's dove-tailed receiver aren't high enough for the 50mm objective. So, I had to mount a Bushnell 3x9x40. It was fine for this exercise. I decided not to go out to the 37-yd max I can get in my yard, and just set the target at 25 yd; one of the standard ranges for .22 RF.

I used the Remington "Golden Bullet" to get the 'scope sighted in. Sighting in and then shooting 5 shots for MV and group. Therefore I have 9 MVs for that ammo, but the last 6 shots for group. I have set up an Excel spreadsheet to present the data in concise and organized form. Here's a screen-shot of the part of the Krico spreadsheet for the Remington "Golden Bullet" ammo.


If the above image is too large to fit your screen, hold the "Ctrl" (control) key down WHILE you tap the "-" (minus) key. This will shrink the image on your screen. If the picture is too small, hold the Ctrl key down and tap the "+" key. That will enlarge the image on  your screen. When you finish looking at this thread, you can go back to whatever level of "magnification" you like by using the appropriate keys to reduce or enlarge the image on your screen.

It's difficult to see the two lower shots that are "in the black", but you can see where they are in the graphic representation of the group. The spreadsheet is essentially a template, so I will explain a couple of the cells for this bullet, and the explanation applies for all the rest. (Im' not going to explain the obvious cells, but sometimes what's obvious to me isn't to someone else, so if you have a question, ASK!)

Cells B10 through B18 are the MVs in f/s for each of the rounds fired. As I said, the first three were for sighting in, the next 6 for group. The average MV was 1241.8 f/s. At the moment, I don't know what the advertised MV is, but 1242 ain't shabby.

Cells C4-C9, and D4-D9 are the pixel-level x and y (windage and elevation) coordinates for each bullet hole.

Cells H4 and I4 are the x and y coordinates of the point of aim (POA).
I needed to calculate the pixels per inch for each image, and that's what's going on in cells H5-H8 and cells I5 & I6. Cell I8 is the dimension of a pixel in inches. In this case one pixel is equal to 1.266 thousandths of an inch. So you can see how precise I can be in getting group sizes.

Cells C13-C18 and D13-D18 are the x and y coordinates of each shot relative to the POA in INCHES. (I needed the above numbers to covert from pixel units of measure to inches.) The corresponding cells in colums E and F are the values with the average removed. The 'centers' the group on the 0,0 x,y coordinate. (This simplifies some of the math associated with the statistics.)

Row 19 has the average values for each column of data above it. (Notice that the average values for windage and elevation are "0.00" in columns E & F. That's because the average has been removed, meaning the average is now 0.00.)

Row 20 is the standard deviation of the MV and the windage and elevation. This value allows me to predict the 95% Confidence intervals (CI) around windage and elevation which in turn allows me to calculate the 95% Confidence ellipse (CE) and its area. The 95% CE is the ellipse within which one can be confident that 95 out of the next 100 shots will land. The area of the CE is a measure of the precision of the ammo/rifle/shooter 'system'.

I'll skip over rows 21 and 22, but if you want to know any details about them, just ask.

The green highlighted cell in row 23 is the area of the CE in square inches. You can also see this value in the text box in the graphic representation of the group.

For those that like to see "max spreads", row 24 has the values for the MV, windage, and elevation.

Row 25 (Euclidean Max Spread) is the "classical" maximum spread that gunwriters (ptooey) have been presenting for a hundred years.

On the far right is a picture of the actual group, and to its left is the graphic representation of the group for clarity. In the actual group, the small squares are 0.2" and the large squares are 1". In the graphic representation, the squares are 1".

SO...

What most people are interested in is the average MV and the group size. The average MV is 1242 f/s and based on this sample of 9 shots, I could expect the muzzle velocities of at least 95 of the next 100 shots to be between 1190 f/s and 1293 f/s. Seems like a big spread (103 f/s) when the observed spread is only 71 f/s. That's because the sample size is small. With a small sample size, we can't be more CONFIDENT than this +/- 51.5 f/s.

The "max spread" of the group is 0.93". But the 95% CONFIDENCE interval for windage is +/- 0.57", and +/- 0.80" (3.20" up and down). The area of a circle (ellipse) that circumscribes our CONFIDENCE of where the next 95 out of 100 bullets will hit is 1.43 square inches. (You can also see that value in the graph.) So gunwriters (ptooey) would express the "accuracy" of this bullet in this rifle (with me shooting it) as 0.93". Since I don't like to fool MYSELF, I can express with confidence that 95% of the next 100 shots will most likely fall within an ellipse that has an area of 1.43 square inches. An ellipse whose windage axis is 1.14" inches wide by 1.6 inches high. Now recall that this is at TWENTYFIVE YARDS. So at 50 yards the axes would be twice as long, but the AREA would be FOUR TIMES larger.

OK - A high level of information 'density'. I'll give you a break and just post the images from the rest of the ammo I shot today.

Vertical max spread of only 0.18". That's good. 0.76 MoA vertically; 3.44 MoA horizontally.


Two "key-holes" out of 5 shots - #s 4&5.


Great MV at 1453 f/s. Good windage at only 0.30" (1.2 MoA), but elevation jumps to 1.03" (4.12 MoA).


Nothing particularly good in this group.


I LIKE this one!. Were it not for the one flier - not operator error - this would be a very good group, but it would still be 1.6 MoA.

The CCI-CB-Short with no MV data.

More when there is more.

Paul

[gitano]

Here's a graph of the velocities for easier comparison.


And here it is with 95% confidence bars. If the Confidence intervals overlap, there is no statistical difference between the average values.
This should "make sense" because the probability of a specific MV being from a specific bullet is inside the 95% CI for all of those four. Since that could occur within the overlap, one cannot expect to tell the which cartridge produced the shot.

So for example, the 95% CI of the Mini Mag overlaps the average ("expected value") for all except the SSS and Interceptor. Therefore, if you didn't know what bullet I "just shot", but you had the MV, you couldn't tell which one it was if the choice was between all four of them. However, if the choice was between the Winchester and the Federal, you COULD "bet" on which it was based on the MV and "expect" to be right more often than not.


Paul

PS - Here's a picture of the whole target:


Looking at this picture suggests that I could have posted "group" statistics for the CB. I didn't, because I don't have MV data. I suppose I'll calculate the stats on the group and post them. Tomorrow.

Or today:

Paul

[gitano]

Looking again at the graph of MVs with their confidence interval, the bullets worth having a second look at are those with the smallest standard deviations - The Winchester 36-grain HP, and the Aguila Interceptor. The Winchester had the most promising group size and the Interceptor had the highest average velocity by 200 to 300 f/s for the Remington and Federal respectively. Percentage-wise, that's an improvement of (1453-1242)/1242=9% over the Remington, and (1453-1158)/1158=25% over the Federal. I might as well do the Mini Mag: (1453-1188)/1188=22%. You can decide for yourselves if those are 'significant' improvements. For me, the added velocity of the Interceptor PLUS the windage standard deviation of 0.13 inches makes me want to see if I can't get the elevation standard deviation down.

It will be important to shoot at 50 yd. I'm not too big on shooting .22 RFs at 100 yd at game because when I'm using a .22 RF to hunt with, I'm not sitting at a bench. In other words, I am usually shooting off-hand. In order for me to feel comfortable taking a 100+ yd shot at something like a bunny's head, I'd have to be certain that the rifle/ammo system was capable of at least 1 MoA precision. For 50 yd and shorter shots, my personal standard can expand to 2 MoA - 1" at 50
yd.

Its a beautiful day. I may get some more .22 RF shooting in.

Paul

[farmboy]

The interesting part of that to me is those 36 grain Winchester's they were the only ones available here for much of last spring and summer. Seemed to be able to hit more that usual perhaps this is why.

[gitano]

Perhaps it is. At what range do you usually shoot the gophers?

Paul

PS - I added images of the ammo boxes except the Federal Hi Power #712. They'll get here. Sooner or later.

Paul

[recoil junky]

I have better luck with the Winchesters as well. All my Remingtons like them the best. The Mossy could care less.

RJ

[gitano]

The next rifle used was the Ruger 10/22 with the 1:9 twist Volquartsen barrel so I could shoot Aguila Sniper SubSonic ammo from it.

Cutting to the chase scene:
The first ammo was the Remington Golden Bullet:


Next, the CCI, Mini Mag:


Next, the Aguila Interceptor:


Next, the Federal Hi Power #712:


Next the Winchester 36-grain:


Finally, sort of, the Aguila SSS. I shot two groups of 5 each. The MagnetoSpeed only caught 1 velocity. Here's the first group:


Here's the second:


Here is a graph of the combined groups.


I tried the Aquila CBs and the CCI CB Shorts. No joy in shooting the Aguilas. Shot the CCIs, but no MVs. Here is the CB's group:


I'm bushed now, but I also shot my 10/22 with the "normal" 1:16 twist barrel with these same bullets. I'll post that data tomorrow and discuss all of them. Some interesting things happened.

Paul

[gitano]

You may have noticed that some of the cells are now highlighted: The standard deviation of the windage and elevation, and the area of the 95% CE. Those cells are automatically formatted when the contents of the cell meet certain criteria; when the SD of the windage or elevation is less than one caliber, and when the area of the 95% CE is less than 0.44 square inches.

I wanted to know when the SD in windage or elevation was equal to or less than 1 MoA - my personal standard of precision. (Not the 'law' but rather a 'goal'.) That means that THEORETICALLY, when stretched out to 100 yd, the windage or elevation of the group would be equal to or less than ~1 inch because the caliber (0.223") is approximately 1/4 of an inch and these groups were shot at 25 yd. Since 100 divided by 25 is 4, and 4 times 1/4 = 1, I set the 'notice' to show when the SD was less than a caliber.

In the case of the area of the 95% CE I had to make some arbitrary decisions. Your choices might differ. Since a common game animal that I would use a .22 RF rifle on is a wascally wabbit, and since I prefer to head-shoot them, I thought the criteria for the area of the 95% CE should be about equal to the cross-sectional area of a rabbit's head. I figured that for a circle of about 3 inches in diameter. Since 100 yd is essentially the max range I would use a .22 RF on a rabbit, I needed to figure out how small that circle needed to be at 25 yd; the distance at which I was shooting the paper targets.

One might think that since we multiplied the group size (or SD) by 4 to get the MoA figure, that is all we need to do to the area value of the 95% CE at 25 yd. Au contriare! The SD is a "linear" value (one dimensional); the 95% CE area is a two dimensional value - it has width and breadth, and it is expressed as SQUARE inches. Therefore, the threshold for 'notice' of "minute of a rabbit's head" has to be scaled accordingly. The Reader's Digest version is that the figure at 25 yd needs to be about 0.44 square inches. If you don't want to read how the math was done to get that figure, skip the next paragraph.

Since I somewhat arbitrarily (somewhat empirically as well) chose a 3" diameter circle as the "minute of rabbit's head" value, the radius of that circle is 1.5". The formula for the area of a circle is "pi times the radius squared" or pi*r^2. Since our radius is 1.5 inches, the area of a circle 3" in diameter equals:
pi * r^2
3.14 * 1.5^2
3.14 * 2.25
7.07 square inches. In other words; a circle with a diameter of 3 inches has an area of ~7.07 square inches. Here comes the 'tricky' part. Since the ratio of 25 to 100 is four AND since we have to SQUARE two dimensional parameters to get AREA, we have to divide our 100 yd area (7.07 in^2) by 4 SQUARED, or 16. 7.07 divided by 16 equals 0.44 SQUARE inches. Therefore, any 95% CE that has an area of 0.44 square inches or less at 25 yd, will THEORETICALLY have an area of 7.07 square inches or less at 100 yd, and we can EXPECT our rifle/ammo system to hit within that area 95 times out of a hundred.

I just got a call and have to conduct some business. I'll get back to this later.

Paul

[farmboy]

Perhaps it is. At what range do you usually shoot the gophers?

Paul

PS - I added images of the ammo boxes except the Federal Hi Power #712. They'll get here. Sooner or later.

Paul

Iron sights 50 yards and under.

[farmboy]

I have better luck with the Winchesters as well. All my Remingtons like them the best. The Mossy could care less.

RJ

Have you ever shot any yellow jackets? The open up better than anything I have ever tried but might take a couple of boxes to hit one animal.

[farmboy]

You may have noticed that some of the cells are now highlighted: The standard deviation of the windage and elevation, and the area of the 95% CE. Those cells are automatically formatted when the contents of the cell meet certain criteria; when the SD of the windage or elevation is less than one caliber, and when the area of the 95% CE is less than 0.44 square inches.

I wanted to know when the SD in windage or elevation was equal to or less than 1 MoA - my personal standard of precision. (Not the 'law' but rather a 'goal'.) That means that THEORETICALLY, when stretched out to 100 yd, the windage or elevation of the group would be equal to or less than ~1 inch because the caliber (0.223") is approximately 1/4 of an inch and these groups were shot at 25 yd. Since 100 divided by 25 is 4, and 4 times 1/4 = 1, I set the 'notice' to show when the SD was less than a caliber.

In the case of the area of the 95% CE I had to make some arbitrary decisions. Your choices might differ. Since a common game animal that I would use a .22 RF rifle on is a wascally wabbit, and since I prefer to head-shoot them, I thought the criteria for the area of the 95% CE should be about equal to the cross-sectional area of a rabbit's head. I figured that for a circle of about 3 inches in diameter. Since 100 yd is essentially the max range I would use a .22 RF on a rabbit, I needed to figure out how small that circle needed to be at 25 yd; the distance at which I was shooting the paper targets.

One might think that since we multiplied the group size (or SD) by 4 to get the MoA figure, that is all we need to do to the area value of the 95% CE at 25 yd. Au contriare! The SD is a "linear" value (one dimensional); the 95% CE area is a two dimensional value - it has width and breadth, and it is expressed as SQUARE inches. Therefore, the threshold for 'notice' of "minute of a rabbit's head" has to be scaled accordingly. The Reader's Digest version is that the figure at 25 yd needs to be about 0.44 square inches. If you don't want to read how the math was done to get that figure, skip the next paragraph.

Since I somewhat arbitrarily (somewhat empirically as well) chose a 3" diameter circle as the "minute of rabbit's head" value, the radius of that circle is 1.5". The formula for the area of a circle is "pi times the radius squared" or pi*r^2. Since our radius is 1.5 inches, the area of a circle 3" in diameter equals:
pi * r^2
3.14 * 1.5^2
3.14 * 2.25
7.07 square inches. In other words; a circle with a diameter of 3 inches has an area of ~7.07 square inches. Here comes the 'tricky' part. Since the ratio of 25 to 100 is four AND since we have to SQUARE two dimensional parameters to get AREA, we have to divide our 100 yd area (7.07 in^2) by 4 SQUARED, or 16. 7.07 divided by 16 equals 0.44 SQUARE inches. Therefore, any 95% CE that has an area of 0.44 square inches or less at 25 yd, will THEORETICALLY have an area of 7.07 square inches or less at 100 yd, and we can EXPECT our rifle/ammo system to hit within that area 95 times out of a hundred.

I just got a call and have to conduct some business. I'll get back to this later.

Paul

I am going to think about this for awhile at first look I am not sure I agree with your methodology on this. But I am reshingling a roof today so I will give it some thought while I am up there. My first reaction is ifva gun groups one inch at a hundred yards and you have a three inch circle to hit you should basically hit it every time. Secondly I first thought about your area theory is when you have figured out the square inches why you would divide it by four twice if you are in the realm of square inches and wanted to take that figure down to a quarter of the distance I don't understand why it would be divide twice. I need to think my reasoning over.lol thanks for the mental challenge for the day. Lol.

[gitano]

It's not exactly "me" you are disagreeing with - it's Euclid and Pythagoras. :)

My first reaction is ifva gun groups one inch at a hundred yards and you have a three inch circle to hit you should basically hit it every time.

I understand your thinking, but what's going on here is kind of an 'apples and oranges' issue.

Let me start by putting it this way:
I'm going to let you shoot 5 shots from your rifle at a target at 25 yards away.
The "Max Spread" of those shots is 0.25", and therefore you theorize that at 100 yards, you should be able to put ALL of your shots in a 1" circle. I am willing to "take that bet", but only if I get to choose the wager; I choose that you must give your house, farm, and all your worldly possessions to me if even ONE IN A HUNDRED of the bullets goes outside that 1" circle. Now how CONFIDENT are you about the size of that 1" circle?

Instead, I take the STANDARD DEVIATION of the windage and elevation of the the group of 5 shots you took at 25 yards. I multiply those values by 2.574 (the "t" value for n=5), and add and subtract them from the average value (the mathematical center of the group). The results are the 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL in windage and elevation. If the max spread of the group is 0.25", the 95% CI WILL be larger than 0.25". The 95% CI is that interval in which one can be CONFIDENT that 95 out of 100 (or 950 out of 1000, etc.) new "samples" will fall. Now expand those values by 4 to get the windage and elevation 95% CIs at 100 yd. The CIs WILL be greater than 1".

Let's say for this discussion that based on the SDs of the sample that the 100-yd windage and elevation CIs are THREE inches. I would NOT "take that bet" if you then said "I bet my house, farm, and all my worldly possessions that I can keep 95 out of the next hundred shots in a 3" circle at 100 yards." The reason is that the statistics of the distribution of the sample make the PROBABILITY of 95% of them falling INSIDE the 3" circle "too close to bet". That - prediction WHEN THE OUTCOME MATTERS - is the point of statistics.

Now let me address the "square" issue. The simplest way is with actual numbers from the examples we have in hand. I'll use the example of the Remington Golden bullet from the 10/22 with Volquartsen barrel (1:9 twist rate).

The windage SD is 0.15" and the elevation SD is 0.24". (For arithmetic simplicity, I'm going to set the mathematical center of the group at x,y coordinates of "0,0".) If we calculate the LINEAR value of the 95% CI for each we get 0.15*2.574 = 0.39" for the windage, and 0.24*2.574 = 0.62". The formula for the area of a circle is pi * r^2, or in words, pi times the radius squared. The formula for the area of an ellipse - an ellipse is just a "special" circle - is pi * r1 * r2, or in words, pi times the long axis radius times the short axis radius. If the "long" axis radius and the "short" axis radius are equal, we have r*r (radius times radius) which equals r^2 (r squared) which is a circle.

So our ellipse has an elevation axis length (diameter) of 2*0.62" (the positive side of the center point + the negative side of the center point), or 1.24". The windage axis length is 2*0.39" or 0.78". Since we need only the radii for calculating area, we use the 0.62 and 0.39 values. (Diameter = 2*r, or r = diameter /2). So the area of our 95% CE = 3.14 * 0.62 * 0.39 = 0.76 SQUARE inches. That "makes sense" if you think about a rectangle with sides 1.24" and 0.78". The area of that rectangle would be 1.24*.78 = 0.97 square inches. Since an ellipse with those axes (1.24" and 0.78") fits INSIDE a rectangle with those sides, the ellipse must have a slightly smaller area. 0.76 square inches (area of the ellipse) is 'slightly' smaller than 0.97 square inches (the area of the rectangle).

Now let's move that out to 100 yards. To do that, we multiply each SD by 4. (Maybe it's clear now, but I'll finish the arithmetic.) So the windage SD for 100 yd become 4*.15=0.6 and for the elevation becomes 4*.24=0.96. Now we again multiply the SDs by the "t" value - 2.574 and get 1.52 and 2.47 respectively. Those are now our 100 yard radii. The area of an ellipse with radii 1.54 and 2.47 is 11.99 square inches. 11.99 divided by 0.76 = 15.77. The reason it doesn't equal 16 (4 squared) is because I rounded the numbers to two decimal places.

I'll put this in mathematical terms of the area of a ellipse:
pi * r1 * r2 (ellipse)

To expand to 100 yards (multiply by 4):
pi * (r1*4) * (r2*4) - you square the "rs" and you square their multipliers.

So to get the area of the 100-yard 95% CE when you have the area of the 25-yd CE, simply multiply the area of the 25-yd CE by 16. 0.76 * 16 = 12.16 square inches.

Paul

[gitano]

I appreciate you taking the time to read this thread, farmboy, AND taking the trouble to 'think about' what I am writing. Lotsa folks get 'glassy-eyed' PDQ on most of this stuff. But a personal "law" unto myself has long been, "Don't fool yourself". (Since my earliest days in college, over 50 years ago.) Wishful thinking and "wanting" a tool to be "good" can lead one to 'look the other way' or 'fool oneself'. All of these statistics keep 'optimism' and desire from causing me to believe that a tool of mine (a rifle) is better than it actually is.

Paul

[gitano]

So I thought maybe a picture would help understanding.

There are such things as "random number generators". Some of them generate a series of random numbers from a specific distribution. The common distributions are "Uniform" and "Gaussian". The uniform distribution looks like a rectangle. All of the numbers between the upper and lower limits you set - say between 0 and 1 - are equally likely to be generated. The Gaussian distribution is the classic "bell curve" (AKA "normal" curve), and the numbers generated are based on the average value and the standard deviation of the distribution. Unless you have information to the contrary, there is no reason to assume that a two-dimensional Gaussian distribution represents the shots  on a target at a specific point. By putting the average value in and the standard deviations, a Gaussian random number generator will generate a sample of numbers (like 100 of them) that have the same average and standard deviation that you specified.

I specified an average of 0 (meaning that the group is centered around the point of aim), and standard deviations of 0.12 for both windage and elevation. I told it to generate 100 random x,y pairs from a Gaussian distribution with a mean (average) of 0 and a standard deviation of 0.12. I then created an ellipse using the methods I presented above using standard deviations of 0.12 and 0.12. (This represents the 5-shot group from the 10/22 and the SSS bullet.) Here is a graph of that distribution of 100 "shots".



You will notice that 6 of them fall outside the 95% confidence ellipse. That's not "strange" or "special". That is what statistics predicts will happen when the data have a Gaussian distribution and those SDs. If I did it again, the result might be 4 'out of bounds'. But if I did 1000, very close to 50 would be 'out'. Maybe 48 to 52.

You will also notice that "most" of them are WELL within the 95% ellipse. This is the 'truth' to farmboy's comment: " ifva gun groups one inch at a hundred yards and you have a three inch circle to hit you should basically hit it every time."

Let me emphasize that there is no hand-waving, smoke-blowing, or 'mirrors' involved here. The random number generator is just the first one I came to on the internet. I didn't "make" this work out. I could generate 100 different random numbers 100 times and while all the little black dots would be in different places, 95% of them would fall within the lines of the CE. "It's the law."

So unless "you" can suggest (and prove) that the distribution of bullet holes around a point of aim on a target are NOT Gaussian distributed, (and "you" can't, because they are), the statistics, math, and arithmetic I have presented represents ESTIMATES of "reality". I can't tell you where all of the rest of your bullets will hit, but I CAN describe an ellipse within which I am confident that 95% of them WILL fall relative to a specific point of aim. And I'd be willing to bet BIG money on the ACCURACY of that estimate/bet.

This is REAL description of the precision of a rifle/ammo/shooter. "Max spread" and "MoA"s are quick and dirty AND OPTIMISTIC ESTIMATES of a rifle/ammo/shooter system. I prefer reality to "looking" good. The truth is, the only difference between the way I am presenting the ESTIMATES of the future bullet hits, is the rigor with which I am presenting it. A 1" group at 100 yd is a 1" group no how you 'slice' it statistically. The issue is do you want to have a realistic predictor of your rifle's precision so you can hit what you're aiming at, or do you want to impress your friends (that don't know the statistics of what they are doing), or make a rifle or ammo manufacturer that is "doing you favors" look good? I prefer the former. Gunwriters (ptooey) and other ne'er-do-wells prefer the latter.

Paul

[Alboy]

" Lotsa folks get 'glassy-eyed' PDQ on most of this stuff."

Amen, not that I do not believe but just get lost. So over the years I have used what ever I had and generally leaned to the philosophy of aim small miss small, practice at a level of difficulty considerably above your expected performance in the field.

When I carried a pistol for duty use I warmed up at 25 yards and got plenty of practiced in at 100 with the 357 and 4" or 6 1/2" barrel, expecting most need distances to be 5' to 25 yards. Rifles varied widely but 22RF expected use for me is around 30 yards, practice at 100 was a standard.

It just builds muscle memory so thinking is not real necessary all the time.

[gitano]

aim small miss small

AMEN!

Quick and dirty stuff that you can do in the field or with minimal effort has value as long as you understand their limitations. Gunwriters (ptooey) have all the resources needed to perform all of the basic math I have presented here (and elsewhere). They don't, because 1) they're too lazy to, 2) they haven't taken the 'afternoon' it would take to understand it, and most importantly, 3) REAL parameterization removes the ability to LIE about the results AND 4) MAKE the performance of a firearm look better than it is. (Another way of saying LIE.)

I'm not suggesting ANYONE "do the math" that I do. I know how to do it, I understand the theory and mechanics, and I enjoy doing it. My primary reason for going to the trouble to present this stuff here is so that 1) folks can see what gunwriters (ptooey) have hidden for decades (maybe over a century), 2) they can 'qualify' their field measurements of "max spread", 3) that some "newby" might get exposed to something other than the lies and drivel of gunwriters (ptooey), and finally, 4) that it might actually help someone make a decision on 'to shoot or not to shoot'.

It is very difficult to follow written explanations about ANYTHING, let alone math. I try to keep mine as simple and short as possible. There is a catch to "short and simple" though; it's much easier to get lost in "short an simple" than it is in "long and thorough". The problem of 'long and thorough' is 'boring'. You really gotta wanna.

What I would like folks to take away from this besides the specific MV data, are the comparisons. There is some interesting stuff here if you look. After I post the data for the 10/22 with the "standard", 1:16-twist barrel, I'll point out some of the things I have noticed in these data.

Paul

PS - The barrel on the second 10/22 was NOT 1:16 twist. It was 1:9.

Paul

[gitano]

Here is the data for the other 10/22 I have, with the standard 1:16-twist barrel.

The Remington Golden Bullet data:


The CCI Mini Mag data:


The Aguila Interceptor data:


The SSS data:


The Federal #712 data:


The Winchester 36-grain HP data:


The data from the "Unknown" manufacturer:


The group size data are interesting, but look at the actual targets from the SSS, and the Unknown ammo. Then look at the targets from the 1:9-twist barrel and specifically the targets from Mini Mag, Interceptor,  Federal, and SSS. Notice anything? In each of those groups the first bullet is significantly away from the other four. In ALL of those cases, that is the first shot of the group.

Normally, we 'blame' those shots on "cold barrel", or "clean barrel". That does not work here. The barrel was neither "cold" or "clean" for those shots. I scratched my head about that a little and then it dawned on me: Those are the shots in which the autoloading operation of the action did NOT chamber the round. I started "dropping" a SECOND time, turning it loose from as far rearward as I could. You can see that doing that reduced the "First shot" anomaly (but did not eliminate it), in the second 10/22. Some of those groups that exclude that first shot are very nice.

Another 'thing' I'm seeing, is that the variance in MV has almost ZERO to do with group size. In other words, even when the variance (SD) is high, the group can be small, and conversely, when the variance is low, the group can be large.

I would also add that I forgot to mention when I shot the CBs in the 1:9-twist gun that I could see the bullets about 5 yd before they hit the target. Here's the "wierd" thing: They were spiraling down-range. And I mean BIG spiral, like maybe 4". It looked weird to see it.

Let's compare (side by side) the values for each bullet type from the three rifles so far shot.

Remington Golden Bullet:
Krico - - - - -  1242 f/s
10/22-1:9 - - 1292 f/s
10/22-1:16 - 1292 f/s

CCI Mini Mag:
Krico - - - - -  1188 f/s
10/22-1:9 - - 1207 f/s
10/22-1:16 - 1232 f/s

Aguila SSS:
Krico - - - - -  846 f/s
10/22-1:9 - - N/A f/s
10/22-1:16 - N/A f/s

Agiula Interceptor:
Krico - - - - -  1453 f/s
10/22-1:9 - - 1443 f/s
10/22-1:16 - 1499 f/s

Federal Hi Power #712:
Krico - - - - -  1158 f/s
10/22-1:9 - - 1181 f/s
10/22-1:16 - 1249 f/s

Wincheser 36-grain HP:
Krico - - - - -  1218 f/s
10/22-1:9 - - 1235 f/s
10/22-1:16 - 1256 f/s

Unknown:
Krico - - - - -  N/A f/s
10/22-1:9 - - 1265 f/s
10/22-1:16 - 1346 f/s

Remingtons are exactly the same in the two 10/22s.
Krico seems a bit slower than the 10/22s except the Interceptor is faster in the Krico that the 1:9 10/22.
The Interceptor is clearly the fastest and in the 1:9 10/22 looks like if the "first shot" phenomenon were accounted for, might actually produce an acceptable group. Maybe.
Winchester groups look good, especially when the "First shot" is ignored.
Federal produces some good groups in the 10/22s again when "First shot" is ignored.
The "Unknown" ammo (might be Yellow Jacket, I used to have a brick of that), doesn't do too badly. Good velocity. Groups are mediocre at best.
Notice how the Mini Mag shoots "sideways" from all three rifles. I find that VERY interesting. It produces VERY small variations in elevation.

All for now. I haven't decide on what the next rifle(s) will be. Maybe the Anschutz with the competition stock.

Paul

[gitano]

Here are pictures of the whole, real targets:
Krico:


10/22 1:9 barrel:


10/22 1:16 twist barrel:


Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Loads to digest here...

I get it.

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

A little light relief from the number crunching, care to test these Paul?





A friend dropped them in my lap this morning!



Bet they are 'collectable' one of the Remington boxes is still unopened...

[farmboy]

Several conclusions, number one the rabbit is quite safe at head shots at 100 yards as I see it only one gun and load that is making one biger hole at 25. Number two no wonder why I sold the 10 22 I had years ago shoot it at paper get not bad groups take it to the field and not hit much first shot flier everytime interesting I don't carry guns loaded in the chamber so every first shot is off.number three CCI mini mags have a great reputation around here for accurate shot placement animals are most times longer than tall so if you hit the animal it was a good shot and if the groups vary by length not hieght it would seem like in the field they are better than they are. Next why I don't like head shots never thought I was good enough perhaps it just statically not very good target too small. Also tells you why I dislike 22lrs not much good on bodyshots in the way of knock down power. And lastly (and I cannot help myself with this one lol) not sure I can trust old Greeks and math look at there banking system economy today!

[farmboy]

I do understand where you got to on your further explanation. Also why I never care for statistics it is a guess not an actual. What in mean by that is where are the other five percent? It gets to be like the fly and the train. If a fly is flying south at ten miles per hour and a train is running north at forty miles per hour and the fly hits the windshield of the train. The fly stops for a very short period of time before it is traveling north at forty miles per hour. So does the train stop for a short period of time? The amount of time difference would be the percentage difference in weight.

[gitano]

In classic Clintonese; That depends on how you define "train".

The train as a whole doesn't stop. Molecules on the train's windshield stop, causing it to 'flex' or 'give' very slightly at the molecular level. It's called the law of conservation of momentum. It is not the "guideline" of conservation of momentum. :) There just ain't no magic.

The other 5% are out of the 95% CE.

I won't belabor this any more than the following: The math is a tool to use to predict the future. That's what we humans like to do. We look at the observed information (data, shots fired, etc.) and try to predict what will happen the next time(s) we perform the same task- in this case, shoot the rifle - basing our prognostication on past performance.

If the outcome of the future event is non-critical, i.e. I don't hit the gopher, then "betting" on the "max spread" has no real consequence. (Except to the gopher.) If on the other hand, a human life depends on whether or not the bullet hits a target of a given size - say the apple on top of one's child's head - at 100 yd, then knowing the characteristics (history) of it's performance, you can choose to "take the bet" and shoot - or not.

I wouldn't want to be the child with a PLUM on my head and my dad saying "This rifle ALWAYS shoots 1" groups at 100 yds so I am willing to bet my child's life that the max spread I measure is a true representation of what this rifle/ammo will shoot EVERY TIME. I am unconcerned about  variation in any component of the ammo; no variation in the charge, no variation in the bullet, no variation in the case, no variation in the primer, no variation in the wind, no variation in the humidity, no variation in the temperature, no variation in the altitude, no variation in the shooter's mental state." You and William Tell are more confident in 'max spread' than I am.

Paul

[gitano]

I wouldn't hesitate one microsecond to shoot that old ammo. Other than hesitation about preserving it for historical reasons.

Paul

[sakorick]

I would shoot that old ammo with a big grin! I have some old WWII 303 ammo that shoots great......got to clean it like right now, however.

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

gonna take some cleaning the oxide under the wax is pretty tough...

[gitano]

I like the "Lesmok" moniker. :D

How come both Remington and Winchester are using the "Lesmok"? That's odd, unless "Lesmok" is actually the name of a third-party powder!

Paul

[gitano]

...got to clean it like right now, however.

I've got some WWII 8x57 AND 7.62x54 ammo with those old corrosive primers too. I quit shooting them because of the absolute necessity of cleaning the bores RIGHT NOW. I was amazed at how quickly corrosion develops from that ammo! Like over night!

Paul

[sakorick]

I've got some WWII 8x57 AND 7.62x54 ammo with those old corrosive primers too. I quit shooting them because of the absolute necessity of cleaning the bores RIGHT NOW. I was amazed at how quickly corrosion develops from that ammo! Like over night!

Paul

Yep. I also learned it's worth more to collectors that shooting it. I've got some in original bandoliers....pretty cool...didn't mean to hijack the thread!

[gitano]

We'll get back on track when I post some more range results.

Paul

[gitano]

By the way - and back on topic - I have not been beating the "sample size" drum like I usually do. I think this may clear almost all of the 'fog' that farmboy is having with "reality" and "statistics".

Look again at the "practice target of 100 shots at 100 yd" in post #18. Look at the SCALE on the graph. ALL of those 100 'bullet holes' are WELL within a 1" square. In fact, the "max spread" on that 100 shots is 0.707". Notice the diameter of the 95% CE. It is 0.6" high by 0.6" wide. In other words STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, based on those 100 shots, the 95% CE is going to have an area of 0.28 square inches - not the 7+ square inches of circle 3" in diameter. Meaning, that statistically speaking, if someone shot those 100 shots, they could BET with 95% certainty that the next shot would fall inside a circle that was just over half an inch in diameter and had a area of just over a quarter of a square inch! I think farmboy would agree that such a prediction would reflect "reality".

What's the difference? SAMPLE SIZE. In the .22 RF examples, the sample size is FIVE. In the "theoretical target" the sample size is ONE HUNDRED. I think everyone would agree that having 100 examples (past) to use to predict the next event (future), is better (lends more CONFIDENCE) than having FIVE. This "better" due to sample size is reflected in the "t" value that is used as a MULTIPLIER of the SD. The more samples you have, the smaller the "t" value. The smaller the "t" value, the smaller the 95% CI or CE.

To reiterate, as I mentioned before, we were talking 'apples and oranges' to a certain degree. I was talking about the specifics of estimating what these 5-shot groups would look like at 100 yd BASED ON A SAMPLE SIZE OF FIVE. farmboy was thinking in terms of a long history of shooting a specific rifle at 100 yd, meaning the SAMPLE SIZE he was basing his 'intuition' on was LARGE.

So, in fact, we are not really disagreeing because we are not really talking about the same 'things'.

Small sample sizes - and 5 is a REALLY small sample size - lead to a large level of uncertainty. (The 3" CE.) I think we would all agree to that. Large sample sizes, (technically the "law of large numbers"- 121 or more), lead to more confidence in predictions. ("Small" CEs.)That reality is reflected in the mathematics of these statistics by way of the "t" value.

Paul

[farmboy]

There are about half of your photo bucket links I have not been able to open.

[gitano]

Where are you trying to open them? On a laptop, desktop, or smartphone?

If one will open, then there is no reason any of the other ones shouldn't. Depending on the platform, there may be a 'cache' issue.

Paul

[farmboy]

Winchester ammo collected in the,2015 hoarding project.

[farmboy]

[farmboy]

[farmboy]

[farmboy]

[gitano]

That's quite an assortment of Winchester .22 RF ammo. Won't see that offered in any store around here!

Two things that have emerged from this exercise so far is the "first shot" phenomenon with the 10/22s, (I'll come back to that wrt to the Krico), and the "horizontal" nature of the Mini Mag groups with all three rifles. To the Mini Mag point, here is a graph combining the three groups:

That is surprisingly consistently 'horizontal' in nature and clearly independent of the rifle from which it is shot. The 95% CE is almost exactly twice as wide as it is high - 1.196" x 0.588". (Rounding to a single decimal place - 1.2" x 0.6".) I find that very interesting! Why is that? More importantly, HOW is that? Furthermore, the vertical spread is TINY! I'm going to have to give this some thought.

With regard to the "first shot phenomenon" being a function of whether or not a round is loaded "by hand", or by the autoloading function of the action and it showing in both the 10/22s and not the Krico: That could be because every shot from the Krico was loaded like the rifle was a single shot. The magazine is boogered, and would not feed rounds. I had to load each cartridge one at a time. Therefore, while the rifle IS a semi-auto, and therefore the "first round phenomenon" should have shown up, it wasn't operating in semi-auto. I have other semi-autos to shoot, so we'll see if this is a 10/22 characteristic, or transcends all, or most, semi-autos.

Paul

[farmboy]

I read a bunch of bench rest threads on horizontal stringing the best looking answer that I found considering that it is multiple guns and different loads with only one load doing it is this. A fellow mentioned that when ever he had horizontal stringing he used hotter primers for more even ignition. Another one said that barrels vibration was elliptical and bullets tended to horizontal string on node timing but on different gun I don't think so that maybe the reason for the first man's answer as well so may not apply. Bedding,rests,gunhod,triggers none of that applies here. The only other thing that I read and I highly doubt is a fellow said he would get horizontal stringing if he tightened up his neck and shoulder muscles so the only thing there would be if you are doing that on CCI mini mags because you what them to shoot better. Don't really think that you have an emotional attachment to them.

[gitano]

All of those causes and solutions appear to me to be with respect to one firearm. That's what makes this interesting to me.

Harmonic timing can't really be the issue here as all three barrels had different length, diameter, and profile. There is simply no way that the harmonic timing nodes were identical, or even close enough to generate the similarity of these groups.

I will be keeping an eye on this. I am curious to see if: 1) It manifests in ANY other rifles, and 2) if it manifests in bolt guns.

I think this will occupy my thoughts for some time to come.

Paul

PS - Here's my train of thought about 'bolt guns and semi-autos' wrt this issue.

1) While it may not be a matter of "harmonic timing", it may very well be a function of semi-auto "movement" AND TIMING.
2) It is almost impossible for me to imagine a characteristic of the ammunition - EXCEPT VELOCITY - that could cause similar horizontal spreading of points of impacts in different firearms.
3) Given "2", what about the velocity would cause consistent "movement" in different rifles?
4) What do the rifles in question have in common?
5) They are all semi-autos.
6) Therefore, is it possible that something about the operation of a rimfire semi-auto rifle, coupled with the MV of the Mini Mag ammo, that 'coordinates' lateral 'disruption' of the aim?
7) In other words, as the bullet accelerates down the barrel, is there something about the operation of the bolt in recoil that consistently moves the rifle left or right, right as the bullet is exiting the muzzle?
8) This is of course a "timing" issue, but it is NOT a harmonic timing issue.

If this phenomena fails to manifest in the bolt gun, I think we might be on to something.

Paul

[farmboy]

Have you got more than one lot number of mini mag?

[farmboy]

Other thought are you resting on a front bag with no front handhold? Do you think that the blowback action may be in movement just before the bullet exits and perhaps wobbles the barrel or gun?

[gitano]

Other thought are you resting on a front bag with no front handhold? Yes.
Do you think that the blowback action may be in movement just before the bullet exits and perhaps wobbles the barrel or gun? Yes. However, what I have LONG "heard" is that the bullet from a .22 RF rifle exits the muzzle LONG before the bolt on a semi-auto even STARTS to move rearward.

I think I have another 100 Mini Mag box. I'll check the lot numbers.

Paul

[farmboy]

Yes it would not move when I think about it that would be dangerous

[gitano]

I have 3, 100-round boxes of Mini Mags. The two not yet opened have the same lot #. The one I have been using is different from those two. I don't THINK this a lot-to-lot issue (but I could be wrong), so I will not open the other two boxes to "test things" yet. If after shooting the bolt gun(s) the phenomenon remains, I'll break open those boxes and shoot them through the Krico and the two 10/22s to see if there is any difference.

The barrel lengths (bolt face to muzzle) of the 3 rifles so far shot are:
10/22 1:9 twist - 16 and 9/16ths inches,
10/22 1:16 twist - 18 inches,
Krico: 22 and 1/2 inches.

Maybe the Krico is a little slower because the barrel is "too long".

Paul

[farmboy]

Not easily dividable into each other either. I know it's more work but might be interesting to try the other lot number on one rifle. I would be interested also knowing how close factory velocity s are to the average of all the guns
That use one kind of ammo.

[gitano]

I would be interested also knowing how close factory velocity s are to the average of all the guns That use one kind of ammo.

That information will be available for all the guns and all the ammo when I am finished.

So far, the factory advertised MVs are within about 5% of observed if I remember correctly. I think all of the observed are lower, but I'm not certain of that. ("You" can look back through the values as easily as I can, and I think the pictures of the ammo have the advertised MVs in them.)

Paul

PS - Nope. I went and looked and the only pictures with advertised MVs are from the CCI ammo. I'll post advertised MVs IF I can find them. Not all manufacturers advertise MVs. Some just say "standard velocity".

Paul

[gitano]

Hokay...

Because of the "first shot" phenomenon, and the "horizontal" nature of the Mini Mag groups with all three semi-auto rifles so far shot, I decided the next rifle should be a bolt action rifle. I chose the Anschutz target rifle. I'm very glad I did. :D:D:D:D:D Another THL member that live's here in The Valley - "knotman" - came over to visit, and we took the Anschutz out to shoot. We shot five shots each of each bullet. As a result, there will be 10 MV values recorded for each bullet type. However, since we are looking at group size, in order to keep the comparisons to "apples to apples" (or "pauls to pauls"), I'll present our groups separately.

WRT the two issues of first shot phenomenon and horizontal grouping of Mini Mags:
Both appear to be semi-auto action related. Neither knotman nor I produced horizontal groups with the Mini Mag. Neither did the rifle exhibit the first shot phenomenon with any of the ammo types. As far as I'm concerned, the correlation with semi-auto action is ALMOST 'resolved'. I will have to look at other semis and other bolt guns, but I will be VERY surprised if we see the 'anomalies' in any of the bolt guns.

The small, lightly colored squares, in the real target, are 0.2" squares - 5 to an inch.

The Remington Golden Bullet:


The CCI Mini Mag:


The Aguila Interceptor:


The Federal #712:


Winchester 36-grain HP:


I was very pleased with these groups. :D The Interceptor shot "fastest" AND shot a VERY small group. The bottom bullet hole in the Winchester group was "operator error". That could have been an even smaller group.

I didn't think the Anschutz would shoot the Aguila SSS without keyholing, but I was hoping to get MVs. No soap on either account. Look at the target for the Federal #712. You can see the only SSS I shot. It was sideways at 25 yd, and I got no MV, so no need to waste ammo.

There was a stiff breeze from the left, and I couldn't really get 'comfortable' at the table, so I am fairly certain this rifle is capable of better groups. After this exercise, I am going to shoot it again but at 50 yd.

Normally, I use the "unknown" bullets to make sure I am "on paper", and such was the case today. OY! I didn't even bother recording the "pattern" size, but notice the MVs. I THINK these might have been YellowJackets.


I'll post knotman's groups and stats next.

Paul

[gitano]

Here's the Anschutz's real, whole target:


Paul

[gitano]

Here are knotman's data:

Remington Golden Bullet:


CCI Mini Mag:


Aguila Interceptor:


Federal #712:


Winchester 36-gr HP:


Here are composites of knotman's and my groups:
Remington Golden Bullet:


CCI Mini Mag:


Aguila Interceptor:


Federal #712:


Winchester 36-gr HP:


Paul

[gitano]

I have put a new thread in the "Reference Library" sub-site: http://thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19012

It contains just the data. I created it so that folks that just wanted the MV data for a bunch of ammo in a bunch of rifles could find it without having to wade through all the ancillary information here. I will continue to post the data both here and there, and continue with the discussions here.

Paul

[sakorick]

Great thread and a ton of info here.

[gitano]

Now is that a "ton" or a "tonne" of info?

Paul

[farmboy]

Well it definitely is not a short ton also not a long ton. It must be a long rifle ton!