[steinie]

Interesting. Perhaps I expect too much with my quest for wanting about .25 to .3 inch group accuracy for my hunting guns. I use a target with 20 black half-inch circles on it, that gives me a .276 inch group (.5-.224=.276) if I can keep 'em all inside the circle.

They shot dozens of brands, 9 different guns, and look how many .5's, .6's, and even bigger groups they got.

"One thing I have learnt from running this test, and that is the incredible inconsistency with all of the ammo tested, except the ELEY TENEX."

That quote is disheartening too. I've felt for a while now that ammo is nowhere near as nice and consistent as it used to be when I was younger, makers don't seem to care anymore, just wanna pump out the rounds to Wallymart to sell.

 

[MarlinBullseye]

I feel too that rimfire manufacters are pretty much making crap, there are some exceptions, but, I feel anything that is cheaper than wolf Match extra is pretty much crap. Anything really less than 4.00 box is pretty cheap.

 

[steinie]

I feel too that rimfire manufacters are pretty much making crap, there are some exceptions, but, I feel anything that is cheaper than wolf Match extra is pretty much crap. Anything really less than 4.00 box is pretty cheap.

Unfortunately true it seems.

One of my huntin' buddies still has some old T-22 from the 70's that shoots better than some really expensive stuff I've tried lately. Sheesh. Current T-22 stuff is crap and not even close to his lot in accuracy or consistency.

I tend to stick to Wolf now too, have 2 cases of Wolf ME in the other room. Gettng tired of trying new ammo all the time and finding out it's not up to snuff. I bought a case of Eley HV figgering Eley should be good. Sigh. OK for hunting I guess, but flyers all over the place. Not even as good as some old bricks of plain ole Winchester SuperX I have from 20 years ago.

I have luckily found that PMC Zappers shoot good enuff in 3 of my guns to be my current hunting round of choice, so I bought 2 cases of them as well.

I think I will just stick with what works for now and quit trying to find something better all the time.

 

[Dan S]

I think that web site...

has been around for quite a while. While the information is great and the work gathering the information and posting it took time, it is based on a limited number of rifles. If 10 Anschutzes, 10 Rugers, 10 CZs, etc. were tested, with ammo from different lots, using machine rests in tunnels, the results could be considered conclusive.

The way it stands, its very good information and some reasonable assumptions can be made.

 

[esldude]

Dan S,

I agree with you on this. When they first started doing the tests, the average groups were very large. I questioned why they weren't better. They looked more believable once some of the better rifles were used later on. Not that I didn't believe them, just wondered why some ammo shot so poorly versus other people's results. There are other questions, like if you have a tuner and don't tune it, how do you know it isn't adversely effecting the results.

I posted some basic statistical analysis of the group sizes on the earlier tests there. Started doing this because they didn't fire 10 or so rounds after switching ammo for things to settle down as suggested by Eley. They did clean them as I recall, but no re-seasoning of the bore. It appeared there was no statistical difference between the first two and last two groups of each rifle. Contrary to what some have reported is the case with rimfires shooting immediately after cleaning.

Still even to do what they did was a huge task. To do so with ten of everything would really up the sweat equity in doing such a test.

 

[Dan S]

Lilja should be embarrassed by...

the results of the rifles with their barrels. I think the CZ could have shot better with the stock barrel.

A couple groups to note were the Lapua and Eley with the Anschutz. Both very good averages with premium ammo.

Some of the rifles shot ridiculously large groups considering the aftermarket add ons.

 

[18269]

Daus gone by VS current technology

Say what you will. It's easy to say ammo used to be better when it isn't around anymore.

Fact: the scores shot in competition ten years ago that were record setting back then are common place today. The record setting scores of today were thought unobtainable back then.

The above statement is a matter of record. Anyone that chooses to disagree, feel free to dive in.

The reason much of the ammo, [and guns too for that matter] is crap today is that the american public buys it. Let that junk sit on the shelves and see how fast the manufacturers clean up their act.

Many present day rimfire shooters want to pay $100.00 for a rifle, a dollar a box for ammo, and go out and win a benchrest match.

It amazes me that many just don't believe that different lots among the same manufacturer shoot so different. A lot of people expect Eley to shoot one hole groups regardless of lot# because it has Eley written on the box. Eley, and Lapua have the POTENTIAL for top accuracy. It takes a lot of work to find just the right lot number though.

The chance to become twice the marksman your grandaddy was awaits everyone. It's not a given though, ya gotta work at it.

Good shootin, Ron

 

[esldude]

You make a good point RonG about the lot numbers. You see people asking what ammo will shoot best in their new X-brand rifle. You can't answer such things. Each rifle likes what it likes. If they had included 10 of each like DanS mentioned you likely would have seen one ammo shoot great in some and terrible in some of the same brand. Then switch ammo and the results shift around again.

As for old vs. new quality I don't know. Have shot rifles for quite a few years, but only the last five years did anything other than plink wildly with rimfires. Top quality rimfire ammo seems better, don't know about your $8 a brick stuff though.

 

[steinie]

The reason much of the ammo, [and guns too for that matter] is crap today is that the american public buys it. Let that junk sit on the shelves and see how fast the manufacturers clean up their act.

I would like to see this happen. Stop buying the garbage stuff and you are right, they would clean up their act pretty quickly. I guess as long as they can continue to sell the cheap, inconsistent stuff, they will.

All I do know for sure is that in my guns, the 25-30 year old normal everyday huntin' and plinkin' SuperX, T22's, and Powerpoints we still have left will outshoot the newer plinkin' stuff I've tried any day.

Of course it can be beat, but I have to spend way up the price ladder to beat it's accuracy and consistency, and it was just considered run of the mill stuff back when we bought it, not match-grade stuff.

I guess that's all I was trying to say. The run of the mill stuff seemed to be better and more consistent back then. Or at least my memory and the ammo I have left from back then seems to point that way.

 

[JohnBT]

I'm not surprised that cheap ammo is...well...cheap.

In 1967 I was making $1.15 an hour at McDonalds turning 100# bags of spuds into french fries. The hard part was getting them up the greasy steps from the basement.

According to the 1967 Shooters Bible, a box of...

Western Super-X LR was 85 cents.
Peters LR Match was $1.30.
Western Super Match Mark III was $1.30.
Winchester Super Speed was 85 cents, the HP was 95 cents.
Remington Hi-Speed was 85 cents.

Even if they actually sold for 10 or 20 cents less a box, the cheapest of the bunch was still more than half of my $1.15 an hour before taxes.

A buck a box was the good stuff 40 years ago.

John

P.S. - FWIW, a box of Winchester Magnum Super-X was $2.75 and a box of 50 .45 ACP was $6.90.

 

[22586]

Thanks for the comments, as an Anschutz owner and relative beginner to bench rest shooting it was interesting to see some data on what was possible. My take from this is that I still have a long way to go before I achieve a 0.213 group. :Blasting_

 

[jimmy123x]

You make a good point RonG about the lot numbers. You see people asking what ammo will shoot best in their new X-brand rifle. You can't answer such things. Each rifle likes what it likes. If they had included 10 of each like DanS mentioned you likely would have seen one ammo shoot great in some and terrible in some of the same brand. Then switch ammo and the results shift around again.

As for old vs. new quality I don't know. Have shot rifles for quite a few years, but only the last five years did anything other than plink wildly with rimfires. Top quality rimfire ammo seems better, don't know about your $8 a brick stuff though.

That's what makes going to the target range and trying different ammo so much fun. Another excuse to go to the target range!