Paco's Acu'Rzr

I and 7 other shooting buddies spent 7 months testing 20 weapons, using 5 bulk ammo brands of .22lr and firing in excess of 8,000 rounds testing Paco's, DRock and Waltz dies. All experience shooters with years of competition in a number of disciplines. All retired now.

Bunch of posts back in either early 2009 or maybe 2010, can't remember for sure cause your short term memory goes second when you get old and anytime that I defrag my hard drive it resets all the dates to the date of the defrag.

Way more data that I want to repost here but I will try and summarize:

Over the 20 weapons:

74% had measurable accuracy increases from .5 to 1.0 MOA. with an average of .89 MOA.
16% had no measurable accuracy increases.
10% had decreases in accuracy and in general when they did it really was enormous. Not like MOA but in a couple of cases like 14 MOA.

Best accuracy was achieved with a flat metplat nose punch which creates a semi wadcutter round. Best accuracy was achieved and immediately noticable with the bearing bands sized slightly over bore.

If you are gonna buy any of em, and you are only gonna mess with a single gun, it is a crap shoot. You can drop 80-100 bucks and get lousy results, or you can drop 80-100 bucks and get bulk ammo that will be close, but not as good as target ammo in many cases, or you can drop 80-100 bucks and see no difference at all. The hollow pointing features do work very well though.

Did not do squat with the high priced target ammo but if you want good practice ammo for stuff like silhouettes, which we all shot, resizing bulk stuff for practice and saving the expensive stuff for matches makes resizing extremely attractive.

Out of the 8 of us who participated in the test, 6 of us resize as a policy and that includes me. Can do a bunch in a hurry once you get the hang of em and I do bricks at a time or a couple of bricks on a rainy day.

noremf(George)

 

O.K....now I gotta ask...which one (mfg.) if any was a clear winner...I have heard Waltz...what say you

 

Jeez, I just knew you were gonna ask that.



The Paco "kit" comes with at least 4 different sizers, .222, .223, .224 and .225, and you can get another in .226 for what Paco calls his oversized Ruger Single Six die.

The other dies are single dimensional ones BUT Drock will make you one to specs, I believe. Both the DRock and the Waltz don't "push" accuracy increases in their advertising, but rather concentrate on increased hunting results. And they work great for that. Paco pushes accuracy more and with different sizing diameters it is a legit claim.

The Paco was better because since we are all experienced bullet casters and handloaders and we knew the value of bore/throat matched driving bands and after all the .22 is simply a swaged lead bullet and the Paco gave us the sizing ranges and in a couple of cases the best accuracy was at .222 and the oversized Ruger was .226 and or .225. I can absolutely guarantee you that if you got a well seasoned gun with a throat/chamber larger or even a new one like that, then .2245, sizing from any of em ain't gonna do you squat from an accuracy standpoint. Just a waste of money.

Now:

If the gun you have "likes" a .224 derivative, which at the time we did the testing was the size of both the Waltz and DRock then I personally would have chosen the DRock. Stuff reminds me of Ruger Single Sixes, gotta work at busten em. Paco is not as near robust. Waltz was slow to use, followed speed wise by Drock and the fastest was Paco's. The need for a "same" setting depth on the punches is way overrated based on our testing and you can make an adjustable depth control for Paco's for around $3 if you really want to. We made 6 of em and since we already had some plastic 3"x3" pieces all we had to pay for was 3/8 thread bolts and some locknut's. Not fancy but works. In addition, when you change ammo you gotta test out the depth and finger out some way to return to that setting when you go away from that ammo and then back to it. Different lots also.

The seating depth is critical when you handload but you are inserting a bullet and then locking it in place. HUGE DIFFERENCE then when you are messing with a bullet that is already seated and crimped. Accepted seating handloading protocols simply go out the window in that case. When you handload you can choose a depth where the ogive of the bullet is very very close or even touching the rifling just beyond the throat. Again, can't do that with a .22 rimfire.

Most folks and probably Derek aren't gonna wanna hear this but all three dies worked better for us with the sizer depth collar set back and a tap, tap, tap sizing protocol. You gotta a lot of "feel" with that technique and you can tell right away if you are whacking the nose punch too much cause it will lift the die off the base plate you are using. Once you get it fingered out you can zoom right along.

IMO most bulk .22 bullets are not that precise length wise anyway, not like cast bullets cause the .22's also got lube on the bullet nose and cast bullets only have lube on either the driving bands or in a hollow base or both and with even a small amount of lube on the nose of the .22 it was easy to squash to far with a loading press or arbor press. Not very "feel" sensitive.

Two of the shooters went with the DRock. One kept the one we had and acquired another at a gun show. Each only had 2 weapons and both of responded very well to the .2245 size the DRock we had turned out. Sold the Waltz. 5 went with Paco. The last one of the 8 did not get better results on his rifle no matter what we did so he just sticks with his favorite ammo.

I and my grandkids have around 30,000 bulk rounds resized since the testing, we shoot alot, Don't mess with that though for the ISSC SCAR .22 I have. They treat that thing like a machine gun and accuracy at like 100 yards ain't hardly MOA anyway. Also if they are shooting fairly large stuff like balloons offhand bouncing around on a string in the wind or stuff like that you don't need the extra accuracy in most cases. I and they mark the bricks we resize. Other guys have a couple or a few thousand each resized.

One other thing for sure is that testing is a fairly long process if you do it right and you gotta be careful so that it does not get to be a job instead of fun in which case you are better off baggin it. Anyone thinks checking those things out on a Saturday is smoking funny cigarettes IME.

noremf(George)

 

Tried one ages ago and found it to be a waste of time. Less accuracy and some of the modded bullet types wouldn't feed reliably.

 

How much are these things?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Great info, noremf

Hey George!
Would you suggest the 225/226 Paco die for use in a S&W 22MRF? I have a Model 650 with a 22LR auxiliary cylinder. Would that also be considered an oversize bore as with the Ruger SS? I have one that I bought from Paco years ago, but never got around to do any serious testing.

 

How much are these things?(Mr. Brink)

We paid right around 80 American dollars for each one but that was awhile back. Always figured 4 bricks of bulk ammo.

Hey George!
Would you suggest the 225/226 Paco die for use in a S&W 22MRF? I have a Model 650 with a 22LR auxiliary cylinder. Would that also be considered an oversize bore as with the Ruger SS? I have one that I bought from Paco years ago, but never got around to do any serious testing. (Mr. noshow)

No clue. Don't have a 650 and only saw one that I got to shoot. The "Ruger" oversized bore generally ID's something even larger then the .22 mag specs. To spec SS's are generally not considered oversize but rather sized to the .22 mag specs which will be larger then the standard .22 lr specs. Can also apply to the cylinder chambers which sometimes are really oversized. I never thought Ruger did the oversizing on purpose but if you get a tad fat on the mag you are gonna be really fat on the lr.

The initial protocol we did was to shoot a minimum of 30 rounds for each unsized bulk ammo brand, pistols at 50 yards, iron sights, creedmore position, to get an idea of which brand the weapon "liked".

We then took that brand and did 30 rounds sized at .222, 30 at .223, 30 at .224, 30 at .225 and 30 at .226. Actually that is really not true as we first sized a brick of each bulk ammo for each of those sizes so we had a pool of 2500 rounds of each size for each brand of bulk ammo so all we had to do was pull 30 each from the pool. Then started to check em out. Tried the .226 and checked to see if it even went into the chambers in the cylinders. No go then to .225 etc. What went in got shot for "score" against the unsized brand results although on the .223's and .222's you could tell pretty quick they were gonna do much on "normal" chambers, throats, cylinders etc. so those pools stayed pretty filled.

I would start with something like that although not so much ammo. On a revolver, often times a tight fit in the cylinder will be the defining thing, assuming the time is good. On the Rugers we tested the cylinders were the same size wise from the .22lr and 22mag albeit machined to different lengths inside to match up to each round.

Biggest debate, BY FAR, for us well seasoned and retired shooters have lots of debates, was on how to mark the target. We ended up with this after almost 2 months of arguing and it worked out well.



Can't find the Ruger ones right now. I am not very neat but should give you a decent idea.

Did one for unsized and one for sized. Some of us don't like bullseyes and don't shoot em much anymore. Made up stuff like rat target, squirrel but for iron sights a target that was longer on the vertical than horizontal helped a lot. Cut down on horizontal dispersion. The grid helped a lot also. Got PDF's and pics that will print to scale if you need some. PM me.

Got some 1/4" sticky dots from Walley World, cheap and can get all kinds of colors. Shot like left target first for like the Winchester, after the 5 rounds, went down and pulled the target off the backboard, only tapeed on, stuck masking tape over the holes on the back of the target then stuck of the sticky dots, in the Win case Green over the hole on the front. Between the sticky part of the masking tape on the back and the glue on the back of the sticky dots it anchored em right there.

Could photgraph the results or scan em to scale and keep the scans. Pretty colors too.

Generally shot 6 sets of targets of 5 rounds each ammo, before and after, and then averaged the results as well as best.

Other protocols for like lube seasoning etc. but way more then I want to post here. Do have a PDF file on them though.

noremf(George)

 

In Steven Boelter's book, "The Rifleman's Guide to Rimfire Ammunition" he tests sorting ammo by weight and by rim thickness. His test concluded that sorting does result in measurable and significant improvement in accuracy but he tested good ammo in excellent rifles. The idea was to see if low end match ammo could behave more like high end so one could practice with less expense. He did not test cheap ammo.

Sorting by weight yielded better results than sorting by rim thickness. He did not test doing both at once. I'm in the process of doing this with 400 rds of Remington Subsonic and the result is numerous piles of ammo...five different weights with five different rim thicknesses plus a pile of outliers. If one wanted to reduce the number of piles by mixing some together which is better, mixing two close weights at the same rim thickness or two different rim thicknesses at the same weight?

It seems that it would require a lot of group shooting to get statistically significant results especially when human error, weather changes, changes in the angle of the sun, etc are in the mix. This is mind boggling, and this is before trying to use an Accurizer.

 

Paco's/testing etc.

In Steven Boelter's book, "The Rifleman's Guide to Rimfire Ammunition" he tests sorting ammo by weight and by rim thickness. His test concluded that sorting does result in measurable and significant improvement in accuracy but he tested good ammo in excellent rifles. The idea was to see if low end match ammo could behave more like high end so one could practice with less expense. He did not test cheap ammo.

Sorting by weight yielded better results than sorting by rim thickness. He did not test doing both at once. I'm in the process of doing this with 400 rds of Remington Subsonic and the result is numerous piles of ammo...five different weights with five different rim thicknesses plus a pile of outliers. If one wanted to reduce the number of piles by mixing some together which is better, mixing two close weights at the same rim thickness or two different rim thicknesses at the same weight?

It seems that it would require a lot of group shooting to get statistically significant results especially when human error, weather changes, changes in the angle of the sun, etc are in the mix. This is mind boggling, and this is before trying to use an Accurizer.

Well "Hondo",

You are right.

If you are gonna do it so that it means something it does take a lot of ammo, a lot of time, and a really firm set of shooting protocols. One of ours was that for "score" you had to shoot all the test groups on the same day, under the same conditions. I have my own ranges. Really shielded so get long periods of shade and wind is muted but. . . .

+- 10F temperature changes, measurable wind changes either directional or speed, some of the "palsy" you get when you become mature, getting tired, latrine breaks longer than 20 minutes etc. were just a few, and we junked all the testing for that brand/ammo/sizing, even if we were on the last string, and started all over again from scratch for that combo on a another day.

The last 3 guns were work instead of fun and we were all relieved the test was done. I figure we averaged about 2 bricks per gun or something right on 20,000 toal rounds with right on 8,000 that were "scored".

noremf(George)

 

That is amazing work. It would be great to see a summary of your results as well as a "how to" guide about how to apply this knowledge to improving an individual gun.

Thank you very much.

 

Anybody know the ID of a Ruger MKII pistol chamber!??

I was wondering why I could not make my own sizing die out of a barrel take off.

All I got to do is find a rod that fits the barrel.

I do not see why I can not use this.

I am trying to make tighter fitting bullets for a revolver, so a slight tap should blunt the end, making them semi wad cutters, and enlarging the bullet diameter.

And very little cost. :bthumb:

I understand the safety issues, I will only be using a couple slight bumps.

What is your thoughts??

 

Make your own

Fundamentally you want the bullet diameter to be slightly larger than the groove diameter of the bore so that the rifling is engraved in the non ogive area (sides not the nose) for jacketed bullets, or the driving bands for cast bullets, so making it equal to the bore is not in the interest of best accuracy. How much larger is the trick as like with most, if not all firearms, they respond differently to different component variations.

On say a .41 mag which is a true .410, you can get the best accuracy with a bullet sized to .411 or maybe .412 or even maybe .413 depending a a number of factors other than the bore itself. You can take another .41 mag, from the same manufacturer and it is very possible that the sizing for pistola A won't work as well in pistola B. Actual experience here. Nominal groove diamater for a .41 mag is .4107.

As for using an actual barrel you will size to that barrel but also will engrave the grooves in the bullet (sides or driving bands, not the nose) which means it will not be engraved when fired, assuming you even line up the grooves to the barrel when you load the round. I believe that the nominal groove diamater for .22lr barrels is .223.

I have never heard of anyone using a barrel as a sizer to increase accuracy. Slugging one is great to give you the exact dimensions of YOUR barrel though.

noremf(George)

 

I read somewhere that Paco or his wife were having some pretty bad health issues . Has anyone corresponded with him recently? I think i want one of his setups ( i am more interested in forming hp bullets than the sizing part , and his looks to be the quickest way ) , but I sure dont want to jump in with an order if it will be a burden for him at this time , or get lost in the healthcare shuffle .

 

Paco

Does have health problems but has had em since a shootout when he was a policeman. I don't think it would be a burden albeit he is not that computer literate so patiience on your part will be needed.

If you are primarily interested in creating a better hunting bullet, as you indicated, then I would go with the DRock. Could probably get faster. When we tested, one guy's gun worked exceptionally well with Derek's tool and he kept it. For what it is worth, he does not use a press to operate and neither did we once we got into the testing. Tapping worked just as well and was a lot faster.

noremf(George)

 

Thanks for the info , Ill read up on the drock , but Paco seems to have a nifty little unit that also comes in 3 or 4 round versions , this to me looks to be the " fast " way to walk through a bulk pack .

 

Paco's tool(s)

If you are gonna get the Paco then I would recommend two things. First is to get the extra "oversized" die which is for oversized Ruger SS convertibles. Might not need but works good if you have some throat erosion, even if not a SS.

Second, I would have him give you a flat nose rod, which he generally gives out for nothing. What that does is give you a really nice semi wadcutter shape. From an accuracy standpoint semi wadcutters are generally considered better that rounded or hollow point bullets. Bullet casters, including me, cast those far more often than any other shape.

In the guns we tested that bullet shape proved to be the most accurate round in round out.

Bulk pack, once you finger out how to use, wooden meat tenderizer hammer seems to be the best, takes about 45 minutes. I do mine on rainy days or in the evenings. Grandkids do their hunting rounds whenever they get ready to go a hunting and do like 100.

noremf(George)

 

I made one of those tools myself and it works just fine. Plugfged the chamber and lead into the barrel of both my Woodsman and 10/22, took the measurement from them and made it just .002 over size for each one by making D bit reamers out of a couple of old drills.
The rod for the point I made out of a bit of stainless steel that I had floating around the boat.

ATB

Michael

First post on here :bthumb:

 

Nice!!! Any intention of making any more up?? I have Paco's tool, one from DRock a couple of SGB tools from a dude on here and am always looking for new things to try out...

blake

 

accurizing 22lr

Just emailed Paco about the three bullet setup. Is that all I'll need for my 10/22TD's? So what do you do with this setup -- tap each individually or all at once? In need of direction, Rick

 

Paco's

Just emailed Paco about the three bullet setup. Is that all I'll need for my 10/22TD's? So what do you do with this setup -- tap each individually or all at once? In need of direction, Rick

Can't tell from your description.

If the die is a single dimension and the "3 bullet" sizing/nose altering set then you only will have a single dimensional setup with 3 different nose types. Called a phase 3.

Not so good because your weapon may not respond to the dimension of a bullet resized to those. Whole idea for the accuracy increase is to match the bullet driving bands to your weapon.

The die(s) themselves come in a single dimension. 4 dimensions in a single die, Phase 4, and a special "oversized" chamber single dimension die.

Never saw a 3 dimension diameter die. Either 1 or 4, but he might be making a "2" or whatever. Have had mine for a number of years and still use it on 95% of the rounds I and my grandkids shoot.

You can go here for a concise description of the die and nose punches. Got pictures and everything.

http://www.303british.com/id61.html

noremf(George)

 

Rear Echelon George

Thanks for the site. What I was looking at was Paco's three or four round tools which are for those wishing to modify more 22's quickly. Thanks, Rick (former remf or I probably wouldn't be writing this)

 

Just read some of these posts. I've done my own with a drill bit between my fingers.

I can't believe someone would buy one of these devices for more than $20, let alone more than $70!

I might try this again some time, and maybe make it a little more consistent than a drill bit. I'm sure something can be made which will do this same function for less than 10 bucks.

 

Your missing a big piece of the info on the Paco die. It comes in multiple diameters so you can bump and try them. Somewhat like casting boolits to fit the bore better. This can come in very handy with older firearms with a worn bore. Your not going to make target rifle with them but maybe a very good shooter for hunting and plinking.

 

Bought Paco's set many years ago and still need to use it.

 

So, who is using this, and if so, what are your findings? I find it hard to digest something like this costs more than $20, let alone more than $70! I've done experiments myself using a knife, or a file, and a drill bit in my fingers. Nothing formal, scientific, or consistent, but fun just the same. You could probably just use a file to flatten the point, if nothing else. I bet someone could make a little tool for under 20 bucks, using some existing machine tool part. The long and short of it is the thing will make a more consistent bullet tip and/or hollow or flat point.

Not very scientific nor consistent. Was just having fun making "wad-cutters". Just wish they would make more consistent .22 bullets. How much more could it cost? It would be worth a little extra to get a little extra out of them from the factory. This is even more true in the hunting ones like Velocitors.

I was thinking there must be an easier/cheaper "gizmo" for reshaping the .22 bullets. Instead of something you mount on your reloading die, I was thinking something you just twist in a little thing like a pencil sharpener that does some minor reshaping/shaving. Not looking for competition, just minor improvements.

The main problem here is there is 1) hunting ammo (expansion, penetration, whatever), and 2) target ammo (accurate); but no .22 ammo with both qualities.

 

There was a link to the test results data but I don't see it. But the Paco die actually did make a difference in accuracy with average bulk ammo. It made the bullet diameter more consistent so it reduced flyers. If I find it I'll post it. Unfortunately George( NOREMF) passed away so we can't ask him. Great guy that gave a TON of great info.
As far as cost Paco makes these things from solid stock. So figure what a machinists charges. It aint cheap. You don't get much for 20.00 bucks these days. Well you can get a crappy bulk box of .22 ammo.

Ahh. Here you go. https://www.rimfirecentral.com/rfcftp/pdfs/resizing-project.pdf

 

And you also missed the whole purpuse of the Paco die. It's not made to make target ammo better. It's for basic bulk ammo.

Did not do squat with the high priced target ammo but if you want good practice ammo for stuff like silhouettes, which we all shot, resizing bulk stuff for practice and saving the expensive stuff for matches makes resizing extremely attractive.

Paco Acu'Rzr.83% showed measurable increases in accuracy with many being .6" at 100 yards.6% showed no change in accuracy.11% showed measurable decreases in accuracy with a few being in the 1-1.5" range at 100 yards and one being almost 9" at that range. Most of the decreases in accuracy were with driving bands being smaller then the throats etc.. Here

 

You guys can read the info in the test and decide for yourselves. Another thing you can get is a simple hardened bushing you find at a hardware store that will let a .22LR slip in. Then grind it down to let the tip of the bullet to show. Use this as a trim die to make a flat point. Works great. Check it out on a water bottle compared to some HP that don't open. I wrapped mine with cloth tape to make it easy to hold. Just don't trim too much or they may hang up in a semi auto. A good pair of flat face nippers helps a lot. Good shooting.

 

I use a Waltz die to make hollow points out of CCI Standard and Aguila Standard Velocity. I tried several target grade ammo types and found these two brands that shoot tiny ragged holes at 50 yards. They increase in accuracy after being hollow pointed. I use them for hunting squirrels in Iowa and for shooting ground squirrels and prairie dogs in WY. The hollow point really does a number on them. There are less crawl offs and I can shoot them way out there since they are very accurate. I know they make hollow point ammo that is standard velocity but to attain this level of accuracy one would have to buy a higher priced ammo like Eley Standard Hollow Point. In my rifle Eiey Standard HP isn't as accurate as my altered CCI Standard but its 3 times the cost.
Over the winter I try to alter 100 rounds every weekend so I have a stockpile for shooting 600 ground squirrels a day in WY.

Here is a link to a thread with more info about the Waltz die.
https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=750457

 

I use a Waltz die to make hollow points out of CCI Standard and Aguila Standard Velocity. I tried several target grade ammo types and found these two brands that shoot tiny ragged holes at 50 yards. They increase in accuracy after being hollow pointed. I use them for hunting squirrels in Iowa and for shooting ground squirrels and prairie dogs in WY. The hollow point really does a number on them. There are less crawl offs and I can shoot them way out there since they are very accurate. I know they make hollow point ammo that is standard velocity but to attain this level of accuracy one would have to buy a higher priced ammo like Eley Standard Hollow Point. In my rifle Eiey Standard HP isn't as accurate as my altered CCI Standard but its 3 times the cost.
Over the winter I try to alter 100 rounds every weekend so I have a stockpile for shooting 600 ground squirrels a day in WY.

Here is a link to a thread with more info about the Waltz die.
https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=750457

WOW. Do you count them or weigh the pile and average it out??