Sporting rifle/shooting show .22 ammo test

Shaner82

Any one read or see the above

Tested .22 ammo in a viced anschutz 64 action
Eley won by a mile, very surprised at the CCI performance
I know every rifle is different etc but still very interesting

rsole1

Shaner82 wrote: »

Any one read or see the above

Tested .22 ammo in a viced anschutz 64 action
Eley won by a mile, very surprised at the CCI performance
I know every rifle is different etc but still very interesting

Did you forget the link?

Shaner82

Oops

http://www.theshootingshow.tv/the-shooting-show/the-shooting-show-ultimate-22-subsonics-test-plus-the-clay-shooting-classic/

rsole1

Shaner82 wrote: »

Any one read or see the above

Tested .22 ammo in a viced anschutz 64 action
Eley won by a mile, very surprised at the CCI performance
I know every rifle is different etc but still very interesting

I usually use CCI subs, have tried most of the other subs and to be honest my cz455 shoots them good enough. 1/2 " groups at 50 yards is good enough for what I use them for.

tac foley

Thanks for that, Shaner, prolly the best and most useful review ever put on Youtube. A very apposite POV, as well, given that most yUK bunny hunters have only three different brands of bunny-hunting rifle- Anschutz, CZ or SAKO.

If I took part in this element of shooting sports, I'be be using either an older BSA, Walther or Browning, like my dad did back in the day...

tac

Deaf git

They used a 54 action for the vice test and a 64 action for the ballistics gel test.
I take these tests with a large grain of salt but my 54 series definitely works best with Eley and RWS a close second.

tac foley

That's a strange thing to say, given that the person carrying out the tests, and the location and conditions are all subject to close scrutiny by their peers. So the clamped-up action was a Model 54, and the BG shoot was carried out with a Model 64. Is there a clearly discernible difference in the velocity of the ammunition shot from these near-identical rifles, both of which, I recall, have the same length barrel, that would arouse your suspicion that the test was somehow 'rigged', as you are suggesting?

Sure, the Model 64 has a moderator fitted, but ALL the shots into the BG were shot with this rifle, or did you see something there that eluded me?

tac

Shaner82

I have a 64 action and at 50 yards I found little difference in cci,Winchester and eley. It's when you push it out to 100 I find the eley come into there own
I can get 3 shot groups at 3/4-1 inch of I do my part on a calm day
I also noticed that the Winchester and cci can have hyper sonic rounds fairly often
Doesn't make much difference but there is obviously inconsistency in the powder

Deaf git

tac foley wrote: »

That's a strange thing to say, given that the person carrying out the tests, and the location and conditions are all subject to close scrutiny by their peers. So the clamped-up action was a Model 54, and the BG shoot was carried out with a Model 64. Is there a clearly discernible difference in the velocity of the ammunition shot from these near-identical rifles, both of which, I recall, have the same length barrel, that would arouse your suspicion that the test was somehow 'rigged', as you are suggesting?

Sure, the Model 64 has a moderator fitted, but ALL the shots into the BG were shot with this rifle, or did you see something there that eluded me?

tac

The vice gun had the firing pin protrude from the back of the bolt- a hallmark of 54 actions- it also had front and rere sights. It didn't have a 'wing' safety - it could be a 1712 or 54.18- but it was definitely a 54 action.
The thumbhole gun in the gel test had no open sights and is a recent 14 or 15 series with the 64 action.

The test isn't rigged, the methodology is poor though. A target chambered rifle will definitely favour eley in an accuracy test over cci or whatever. The accuracy or consistency of a particular ammo will largley depend on the particular rifle firing it. So the accurate eley in the vice test might be wildly inaccurate in the gel test.
Any test procedure should remove as many variables as possible so if you want to test an anschutz, test an anschutz - 1 anschutz. Be it a 1712 or a 15 series or whatever. Be in no doubt though, the 54 action beats the 64 in 99% of cases.

tac foley

Thank you. Perhaps you'll take a minute or two to make that observation on the Youtube movie, and share your thoughts with the many thousands of folks who don't read boards.ie.

The first test was for accuracy, and the second test was for penetration/performance. The appropriate firearms were employed for each of the tests. Both were Anschutz rifles.

tac
Owner of an Anschutz Model 1409 since 1967.

Deaf git

I simply asked Why two guns were used? Why not use 1 Anschutz, 1 Sako, 1 CZ?

tac foley

Why not ask the guy who carried out the tests? Me, I would have prolly carried it out your way, but IMO the results were still valid. However, the Model 54 action used in the accuracy tests was a lightweight sporter barrel version, and not a full-blown heavy-barrelled target rifle like mine or any other Anschutz target rifle. As Anschutz would tell you, ALL their barrels are made to the same high standard. The hole down the middle and the chamber at the end, are all the same - the outside diameter differs depending on the application.

In the end, both were Anschutz sporting rifles.

tac

Deaf git

Tac,
If you look at my original post I simply stated the test was carried out with two different rifles and also pointed out my particular gun also likes eley and rws. I also stated I take product reviews with a grain of salt.
You seem to have taken from this that I believe the test to be 'rigged' - your expression. If I believed it rigged I would have said so.

Sparks

Deaf git wrote: »

So the accurate eley in the vice test might be wildly inaccurate in the gel test.

Honestly, if you see that kind of result with eley ammo, I'd check the rifle first.

When you see the top-level folks testing eley against lapua or other brands of ammo, they're testing at a much higher level than .5" groups at 50 yards, they're talking about differences of a millimeter or less in edge-to-edge diameters of 10-20 shot groups at 50 metres.

Deaf git

Sparks wrote: »

Honestly, if you see that kind of result with eley ammo, I'd check the rifle first.

When you see the top-level folks testing eley against lapua or other brands of ammo, they're testing at a much higher level than .5" groups at 50 yards, they're talking about differences of a millimeter or less in edge-to-edge diameters of 10-20 shot groups at 50 metres.

But you would test accuracy with a brand of ammo or particular batch using the rifle you intend using in competition? No?
I've owned and used a 64 action Anschutz- it was good, a little better than a cz452. Then I got a 54 action 1710- it was a good deal better and worth the extra dosh.

Sparks

Deaf git wrote: »

But you would test accuracy with a brand of ammo or particular batch using the rifle you intend using in competition? No?

Depends - people competing at a high level like IRLConor would be testing with a particular batch, but there are less than a dozen in the country who aren't kidding themselves when they test that way. Most others, really, would get better results by just testing for a brand/line of ammo like Eley Match or Lapua Master or whatever, and sticking with that and using the saved time to put lead downrange (and the saved money to get coaching); and beginners should literally just pick one of the two or three well-known, high quality brands and buy that and forget about the testing for a while (because if you haven't yet figured out trigger control or position or breathing or shot plan or wind doping or any of the dozen other things involved, then you're never going to see the percent or so difference the batch/brand testing gives you). It's a case of getting the low-hanging fruit first before going for the stuff thirty feet up in the air.

And in the case of hunting ammo at short range, this is all seriously academic anyway. If your accuracy criteria is measured in Minute of Bunny instead of Minute of Arc, then just buy whichever of the top brands (Eley, Lapua, SK) your local dealer has in stock. Frankly, so long as it's not named Pobjeda, it'll do the job.

Seriously, take a peek here - even the worst of those groups at 50 yards is within one Minute of Bunny.

Deaf git

Pobjeda Target. Was the Bleiker ok afterwards?

IRLConor

My concerns with that test would be more centred around the fact that they only used one batch from each brand. The variation between a lightweight 54 vs a 64 will be smaller than the variation between batches even of the same ammunition. Looking back through some of the test data I have handy for my own rifle shows the following (all 10 shot groups).

Brand|Year|Smallest Group|Biggest Group|% difference
Eley Tenex|2014|12.5mm|19.0mm|52%
Lapua Midas+|2013|13.5mm|16.6mm|23%
Lapua Center-X|2013|13.1mm|22.6mm|73%


Bear in mind that those are all expensive target rounds shot from a dedicated target gun on the same rig as in the video. If you shoot cheaper hunting rounds from a sporting weight barrel you'll see much bigger variations even between batches of the same ammunition.

In the test done in the video above the CCI (2nd worst performing) group was 70% bigger than the size of the Eley group. That's a variation that's within the bounds for the difference between two batches of the same target grade ammunition. I wouldn't be surprised to see their test re-run with the same gun but have very different results with the same brands of ammunition.

The video was a good demonstration of the differences between ammunition but there isn't nearly enough data to actually make a proper conclusion about the accuracy of different brands.

EDIT: Anyone who'd like to do this testing with their own rifle should book in to test Eley with Intershoot: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057478116. I'm not sure if I'll make it this year since it's the same weekend as the 50m National Championships but if you compete in any .22 target shooting event and shoot more than about 2-3,000 rounds a year it might be worth your while.

tac foley

All the shots were 'minute of bunny', which is all that the test was set up to establish. With the greatest of respect, shooting at a rabbit at 50m or thereabouts in the cold of a rainy day, knowing that you can reasonably expect to hit within a one-inch circle and effect a clean kill, is a world away from the fractions of a millimeter demanded by shooters of your standard.

We all like to think that the ammunition that we are shooting is the best that we can get over the counter of our local town gunstore, in fairness to the quarry, and to that end, I am of the opinion that the test was a valid one.

I encounter shooters every weekend here at our club who expect half an MOA from their lightweight sporting rifle, in full knowledge that the target can be 5 MOA at 100m - and they are shooting at ranges hereabouts that seldom exceed 70m.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that any shooter who fires more than 2 -3,000 target rounds a year owes it to themselves to take advantage of the Eley Intershoot facility. We have three shooters in our club who do so.

tac

IRLConor

tac foley wrote: »

All the shots were 'minute of bunny', which is all that the test was set up to establish. With the greatest of respect, shooting at a rabbit at 50m or thereabouts in the cold of a rainy day, knowing that you can reasonably expect to hit within a one-inch circle and effect a clean kill, is a world away from the fractions of a millimeter demanded by shooters of your standard.

Oh, I agree that it's very different. Chalk and cheese. So different that if you handed me a rifle suitable for shooting rabbits and expected me to make a clean kill I probably wouldn't succeed on first go!

tac foley wrote: »

We all like to think that the ammunition that we are shooting is the best that we can get over the counter of our local town gunstore, in fairness to the quarry, and to that end, I am of the opinion that the test was a valid one.

I would personally have preferred a clearer conclusion of "most of these rounds are probably good enough". Perhaps even changing the way the data were published from mm to "% of shots landing inside a rabbit killzone" or similar. The way the data were presented could give an unreasonable impression that there were statistically significant differences between the brands.