Did people tell you prior to your 3 attempts at sorting that it didn"t work?

For me...my attempt was several fold...

1. My family was all asleep in the early morning hours...so in an attempt to stay quiet...I figured in between sorting laudry (like you 😉 ) i would just spend an hour sorting.

2. It would give me something a bit different to try at the range (i shoot 1-2 a week - 200 rounds)

3. If it worked..GREAT! If not...no big deal as I am still shooting those rounds on a fun day at the range.

4. I am new to Bench shooting (about 1.5 years) and i like to try things for myself. Kinda like option trading...you can read a book on it...have others tell you what works and what doesn't..but until I actually do it (and lose money 😟) the experience is less robust.

My two cents....

 

jaia, my one experiment with sorting ammo gave meaningless results, and my opinion is that it is mostly a waste of time as far as resulting in concrete improvement in accuracy... though I have sorted empty brass rifle cartridges by weight back when I reloaded centerfire for accuracy. But that's a little different...

A lot of folks post threads about doing things that may or may not help a lot and to many of us may appear to be pointless or even a bit silly, so sometimes they take some heat for doing what they are doing. I will have to admit that I have been guilty of doing things that were of questionable value as far as providing positive concrete results. But i think we sometimes overlook one thing that may prove to be beneficial in respect to what some of these people are doing. I am one of those folks that gets a great deal of satisfaction from tinkering with things and doing it myself. Sometimes the activity is more important that the results....it can be downright entertaining and therapeutic.

I spent a lot of time cobbling together a rear roller rest to see if I could improve my consistency off the bench. I could have purchased one, but the real fun was in building the thing and testing it....regardless of whether it worked or not (It definitely did). Recently, my new ZT mower started missing. Even though it only had a few hours, I suspected the coil. It has a two year warranty, but I realized that to load the thing up and make two separate trips to the shop fifty miles away (along with a month long wait due to backlogs) would cost me more than the new coil. So, I fixed it myself, saved a bit of money, and got a lot of satisfaction in the process.

I guess my point is that if anyone has nothing better to do on a "rainy day" than experiment with sorting rimfire ammo to see if it improves accuracy, then more power to them as long as they don't: 1) claim everyone needs to do it, 2) claim it works without providing substantial data to support their claim, 3) will enjoy it regardless of the results, and 4) don't get in a tizzy when other folks explain to them why it probably will not work.

Again, I agree, my call is that sorting rimfire ammo for more consistent performance is a waste of time - just too many variables, and unless you can sort for a single variable, you are spinning your wheels.

James

 

Oh yeah, Steve.

I read multiple threads of how it was a waste of time.

Also read multiple threads of how great it worked.

Like you, have to try everything for myself, hands on to determine the facts.

It's the internet....you can find any bias that makes you happy, if you look for it.



Pump, sorting is a great way to kill an evening when you don't have anything else to do.
Those cold winter nights or hot rainy mornings ya' just need something to fill the minutes.
Totally been there, done that, then spent multiple mornings shooting the sorted cartridges.

 

Oh yeah, Steve.

I read multiple threads of how it was a waste of time.

Also read multiple threads of how great it worked.

Like you, have to try everything for myself, hands on to determine the facts.

It's the internet....you can find any bias that makes you happy, if you look for it.


Pump, sorting is a great way to kill an evening when you don't have anything else to do.
Those cold winter nights or hot rainy mornings ya' just need something to fill the minutes.
Totally been there, done that, then spent multiple mornings shooting the sorted cartridges.

Absolutely true! :bthumb:

I've been in a running argument with my daughter concerning the COVID vaccination. She finds something on the internet to support her viewpoint, I counter with another source.

I tell her to forget the emotional arguments, the hearsays, and the political bias and just investigate the merits of the vaccines from valid scientific research and results. I think I'm bringing her around....

Come to think of it the arguments about sorting ammo is a lot like the arguments over the vaccination.....lot's of "I heard", unsupported internet sources, and "this is my (unsupported) opinion".

 

+1 thanks!

QUOTE=jaia;12424709]Oh yeah, Steve.

I read multiple threads of how it was a waste of time.

Also read multiple threads of how great it worked.

Like you, have to try everything for myself, hands on to determine the facts.

It's the internet....you can find any bias that makes you happy, if you look for it.

[/QUOTE]

 

I did some sorting by rim thickness several years ago. It was a way to stay under air conditioning when it was so hot I didn't want to be outside. I did see a little improvement when shooting a batch with very close to the same rim thickness. The fliers didn't seem to fly quite a far away as with unsorted ammo.

Conclusion: Total waste of time, a flyer is still a flyer. Find something worthwhile to do like sorting laundry if you want to stay inside.

 

I destroyed a lot of different 17MHR ammo brands with hopes of avoiding a kaboom in my semi in the beginning of the 'gun vs ammo blame game debacle'. No powder overloads were discovered.
Still have the kaboomless rifle and the now old remaining ammo.

https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=266657&stc=1&d=1629040191

 

But look at the fun that you had!

My son also still has one of those kaboomless rifles.

 

I'll start the popcorn.

 

Never played the sorting game... if I can hit a golf ball at 50 yards, good enough for me. I get bored sitting at a bench trying to make one ragged hole. If I can place a rimfire shot where I need to for small game, I'm happy. If I can place s centerfire shot where I need to for large game, I'm happy.

I do see why some would try sorting though... in theory, the more consistent the ammo is, then your shots should be consistent. But real world results may differ from theory, especially with the bulk pack ammo.

 

Still, how is sorting going to improve results?

Weight of the cartridge? What am I weighing?
Which component is causing the difference?
Brass? Bullet? Primer? Powder? Lubricant?

If I measure the rim thickness, will it improve ignition?
Which part of the rim do I measure? The thick side or the thin side?
Will it fix mechanical issues between bolt, firing pin and breach face?
Will the weight variations overide what improvement I might have found?

Does sorting by overall length, or to ogive, actually improve fit to the chamber enough
to overide the problems caused by visible damage caused at the factory
and problems with powder/primer amounts or chemistry?

These are the issues that have me at a quandary, when attempting sorting.

I have found that culling by visible defects does improve results.
On the negative side, culling by visible defects eliminated entire product lines.

If I inspect my 22lr ammunition for factory caused damage, then Winchester,
Armscor, Aguila, CCI, Federal, Remington are all removed from the menu
if I am attempting precision paper punching.
Removing those brands actually improves my results, unless I'm shooting offhand.
In which case nothing I do can help.

 

Sorting absolutely improves my results, and has for some time now.

I sort the cheaper stuff into my range bag when I shoot rifle offhand, as I'm not a skilled offhand shooter.

I sort the better stuff into my bag when I shoot pistol, as I'm currently a better pistol shooter and it might be worth a few points.

I sort the "above my equipment and skillset" ammo to the areas where I don't grab it until I can improve one or the other.



That's the only sorting I currently do, and it works great for me. YMMV.



I've seen people claim that sorting works. People that seem trustworthy and of a great enough skillset to test. But I have to wonder how in depth they are testing, and how much of it is random. Similar to getting a great group here and there with crap ammo.

 

What I suspect

Yeah, it's raining, doing laundry, bored, so why not?

Awful lot of folks resort to some sort of sorting in order to improve results on target.
There are those that swear it works and those that know it don't.

I've tried it...3 different occasions...500 cartridges each time...learned it wasn't worth the effort.

Yeah, three attempts, I blame my OCD and too much spare time.

Still, it's one of those things that folks feel like it should work.
My curiosity has me wondering just exactly what sorting is supposed to accomplish?

Rim thickness, cartridge weight, overall cartridge length, ogive length, how do they help results?
Inquiring minds want to know....seriously....is there a logical, fact based reason behind the process?
Not just OCD driven optimism, but verifiable facts to support the premise.

Procedures involved, correlation between data and actual results shown.
No anecdotal discussion of my buddy's cousin said it works, all day long.
Actual attempts and the resulting targets or muzzle velocities recorded.

And.....go....

After reading many threads regarding weight-sorting and rim-sorting on this august forum, I decided to weigh some ammo for myself. Here are my findings:

1) Two hundred rounds of CCI Blazer (#B04ZA08) produced a smooth standard-distribution curve, with 50% of the rounds weighing 50.8gr (peak of the curve). Please note that CCI produces no higher-grade ammo using exact Blazer components.

2) Two hundred rounds of CCI Standard Velocity (#A03Y82) also produced a smooth standard-distribution curve, but there was a deep notch in the curve at the peak (also 50.8gr). Less than 5% measured at 50.8gr, in fact. Add to the mix the fact that CCI produces "higher-quality" ammo under the Green Tag label.

3) Fifty rounds of Green Tag (#G29Y116) did not produce a bell curve at all. Instead, 32% (16 rounds) weighed in at 50.8gr, 16% (8 rounds) were at 51.0gr, and the remaining 26 rounds were random between 49.7 and 51.3, with fewer than three rounds in each group. Background noise perhaps.

LIMITATION: Fifty rounds, and even two hundred rounds, do not comprise a reliable statistical group, even on a rainy winter evening. But who can afford more than 50 rounds of Green Tag anyway?

CONCLUSION: I now harbor a suspicion that Green Tag ammo is derived by sorting SV ammo to obtain rounds weighing 50.8gr. I welcome discussion, with or without popcorn.

P.S. Now that I have sorted supplies, I will soon fire 50 rounds of SV and GT across my Chrony, starting with the slowest @ 50 yards and ending with faster rounds @ 100 yards. Stay tuned...

 

Yeah, it's raining, doing laundry, bored, so why not?

Awful lot of folks resort to some sort of sorting in order to improve results on target.
There are those that swear it works and those that know it don't.

I've tried it...3 different occasions...500 cartridges each time...learned it wasn't worth the effort.

Yeah, three attempts, I blame my OCD and too much spare time.

Still, it's one of those things that folks feel like it should work.
My curiosity has me wondering just exactly what sorting is supposed to accomplish?

Rim thickness, cartridge weight, overall cartridge length, ogive length, how do they help results?
Inquiring minds want to know....seriously....is there a logical, fact based reason behind the process?
Not just OCD driven optimism, but verifiable facts to support the premise.

Procedures involved, correlation between data and actual results shown.
No anecdotal discussion of my buddy's cousin said it works, all day long.
Actual attempts and the resulting targets or muzzle velocities recorded.

And.....go....

After reading many threads regarding weight-sorting and rim-sorting on this august forum, I decided to weigh some ammo for myself. Here are my findings:

1) Two hundred rounds of CCI Blazer (#B04ZA08) produced a smooth standard-distribution curve, with 50% of the rounds weighing 50.8gr (peak of the curve). Please note that CCI produces no higher-grade ammo using exact Blazer components.

2) Two hundred rounds of CCI Standard Velocity (#A03Y82) also produced a smooth standard-distribution curve, but there was a deep notch in the curve at the peak (also 50.8gr). Less than 5% measured at 50.8gr, in fact. Add to the mix the fact that CCI produces "higher-quality" ammo under the Green Tag label.

3) Fifty rounds of Green Tag (#G29Y116) did not produce a bell curve at all. Instead, 32% (16 rounds) weighed in at 50.8gr, 16% (8 rounds) were at 51.0gr, and the remaining 26 rounds were random between 49.7 and 51.3, with fewer than three rounds in each group. Background noise perhaps.

LIMITATION: Fifty rounds, and even two hundred rounds, do not comprise a reliable statistical group, even on a rainy winter evening. But who can afford more than 50 rounds of Green Tag anyway?

CONCLUSION: I now harbor a suspicion that Green Tag ammo is derived by sorting SV ammo to obtain rounds weighing 50.8gr. I welcome discussion, with or without popcorn.

P.S. Now that I have sorted supplies, I will soon fire 50 rounds of SV and GT across my Chrony, starting with the slowest @ 50 yards and ending with faster rounds @ 100 yards. Stay tuned...

Wow! This is great. Thanks for puting in the effort and I look forward to your findings. I weighed out 500 rounds of CCI SV in grams...I am not sure but think lot (40006 RevG MRP8200003). I did not graph them but:
205 Rounds weighed between 3.30-3.31
96 rounds between 3.29-3.30
74 Rounds between 3.31-3.32
58 rounds between 3.28-3.29
28 rounds between 3.32-3.33
24 rounds between 3.27-3.28
15 rounds below 3.27 (mostly..1 or 2 of these were above 3.33 and a few below 3.25). I planned on using these rounds a foulers.

You also got me thinking about CCI green tags....so I checked the website..and found this decription (See attached photo)..

Now we all know "marketing" does NOT have to be honest..and maybe it is just a way to charge more...but if your data shows no bell curve for GT...wouldn't that mean CCI sorts by weight to produce more accurate offering?

 

I think CCI GT is just re-labeled CCI SV. Whether that's true or not I haven't had any better results with GT than I gave with SV.

 

Green Tag is factory selected from batches of Standard Velocity that shot superior groupings in test firing of batches before packaging. I have shot Green Tag, Standard Velocity, and Pistol Match over chronos and at various ranges from several different rifles and I could never see any difference though.

 

I have also heard Eley Tenex and Match are the same machine...it is just sorted and the rounds that fall outside preferred standard are just labelled Match (lower quality than tenex)

 

Steve, not sorted, but samples tested by firing in a tunnel from multiple fixtured barrel/receivers.
Results are compared and the batches labeled according to results on target.

 

Thank you for the clarification...I love it when i am wrong....because it means I have learned something!

 

It is an advantage to cull the bad looking ones.
Then I started noticing the variations in the 'bullet pull';ie, some are tight in the neck some loose but tighten up with 1/4-1/2 a twist, some spin.
Having made and shot CF cartridges I had experience in changing my crimps; consistency is important, should be in RF too.
It was. On my 50yd anyway.
Culling the visually defective is always a good thing.
I tested the tight ones against the loose that tightened up with a twist. No diff.
Against the untightened; tight was better.
The free spinners became warm-up or plinkers.
By weight, total waste of time.
By rim thickness, ditto.
YMMV

 

Thank you MK.

Only part I don't see is primer amount.
That one has always bothered me.
How much variation is there in primer?
Is it an amount that is a substantial percentage of powder weight?
I've pulled apart CCI cartridges and the visible amount seems to vary, a bunch.
In some cartridges it's only on the bottom of the case and in the rim.
In others it fills the bottom and coats a ways up the sides.
If so, then with primer contributing to the chamber pressure and therefore mv
then those percentages may be of major relevance to my query regarding mv spread.

I don't know...that's why I accepted the job of doing the measuring.
Doesn't matter if anyone else gains anything from the process,
I'll have put a dent in my own ignorance. Worth the effort.

 

Thank you MK.

Only part I don't see is primer amount.
That one has always bothered me.
How much variation is there in primer?
Is it an amount that is a substantial percentage of powder weight?
I've pulled apart CCI cartridges and the visible amount seems to vary, a bunch.
In some cartridges it's only on the bottom of the case and in the rim.
In others it fills the bottom and coats a ways up the sides.
If so, then with primer contributing to the chamber pressure and therefore mv
then those percentages may be of major relevance to my query regarding mv spread.

I don't know...that's why I accepted the job of doing the measuring.
Doesn't matter if anyone else gains anything from the process,
I'll have put a dent in my own ignorance. Worth the effort.

Enough to make a good deal of difference.

This last part is critical because it has long been known that case-to-case variation in the amount of priming material is the most important factor regarding variations in .22 LR rimfire performance. This is due to the fact that in small rimfire cartridges the primer is a significant portion of the actual propelling charge (much more so than in larger centerfire cartridges) and because conventional priming compound is too sensitive to be aggressively metered and applied.

Before Eleyprime, there was an average 31 to 39 milligram spread in the amount of priming material round-to-round in TenEx ammunition. With the Eleyprime System (EPS), the spread was reduced to only plus/minus 1.0 milligram.

https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/ammunition_eley_101405/99277

Many of the North American manufactures and Germany's RWS wet "spin" prime and there can be a good deal of variance. RWS however, does do a good job at maintaining respectable accuracy.

U.K.'s Eley along with Germany's Lapua/SK use the relatively "dry" inert (until water activated) compressed prime method. Eley's primer patent varies from the "Shooting Times" article in that two slightly different tip shape rods are used to compress the primer in two separate compression steps of varied intensity . Mexico's Aguila is also supposed to dry prime. Their Colibre and Super Colibre look almost identical to Eley/Lapua but their other offerings not so much...very clumpy looking.

Any rimfire ammunition manufacture who wishes to could switch over to the dry prime method as the Patent has long since run out.

 

I had a brick of Win Dynapoints that was all over the target. I weighed the individual rounds and separated them according to their weight. Surprising amount of variation. The groups did tighten up quite a bit but not spectacular. From 6" to 2" at 50 yards. I had to adjust zero for each batch. Decided it was not worth the effort at least with crap ammo. Never tried it again and never bought anymore Dynapoints.

 

Bout 1986 a friend of mine bought two rimfire thickness gauges from Mr. Sinclair. He gave me one as a gift and then asked me to sort a couple bricks of Eley squirrels while he sorted a couple bricks, all the same lot number and we also attempted to sort into piles of same thickness and weight. I had a lot of different piles.
Anyhow, the results were not what either of us expected at the time. He reported that he could shoot a few groups with the best sorted ones and then shoot a few groups with the ones that were farthest away in weight and thickness from each other and get pretty much the same results.
If one wants to shoot into the 1's and 2's then one has to pay for that! While $5 a box ammo is the best deal on the planet it will always be $5 a box ammo you will not change it into anything else! It's kind of the silk purse, sow's ear thing! But let's just say that you did show some improvement such as your CCi hollow points that normally shoot into the 7's are now shooting into the 6's. I don't see how that could give you one more squirrel or how a .650 group would be anymore satisfying than a .750 group! But here is the thing, if one feels that something will work or that they can do this or that, I feel that he/she should generally do it!

 

And there's the likely truth Lerrab. Placebo effect is a proven element of human psychology.

What's an Eley squirrel?

Frank

 

Hope the rain doesn't last long Jala.

 

From photos that I have observed there is quite a bit of variation in primer coverage in 22 long rifle cases. Some covered all the way around some 2/3 some one quarter.

 

Why would you sort dead squirrels Staff Sgt Infidel???

Head shot

Head shot

Neck shot

Head shot

....ewww!! Texas heart shot...nasty!

 

Why would you sort dead squirrels Staff Sgt Infidel???

For body count foto shoots of course. Whack em n stack em!

 

Frank, in the 70's thru about the mid 80's ( I think my timeline is close) Eley made a very nice high velocity round called squirrels . Later on they changed the name to rabbits. They shot very well for me and my friends that used them.

Al, Nick is making the popcorn . He has the kernel size all wrong for a discussion of this type!

 

Frank, in the 70's thru about the mid 80's ( I think my timeline is close) Eley made a very nice high velocity round called squirrels . Later on they changed the name to rabbits. They shot very well for me and my friends that used them.

Now Barrel, I love your writing but you do have a tendency towards artistic embellishment. Might you have a picture of some of those Eley Squirrel rounds? The box would do

Frank the Dubious

 

in case you haven't see this thread, have a look.
How to prime rimfire

Again if you haven't see this thread, look for post #58 for lousy priming.
https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=334449&page=4

Interesting. Thanks for pointing out that thread. :bthumb:

 

Frank, I am strongly against any type of embellishment and want to go on record about that. Funny thing about that barrel thing. I was a member of another forum a few years back and my user name was a combination of my mom's maiden name and my Dad's last name ( not having much of an imagination I couldn't think of anything else) Anyhow, a friend of mine was at my house reading my posts and said that he liked my user name which was elerrab. He said it is barrel spelled backwards with an e on the end. I didn't realize that and it wasn't planned that way but sounded about right for a firearm forum so I dropped the e and became barrel spelled backwards!

 

My apologies for doubting you Lerrab! NIB put me on the right track and I found this image which I'm guessing is what you're calling "Eley Squirrel" as in ground squirrel. Around here we call them prairie rats but that's just a local colloquialism.

"Lerrab Dna Kcots Kcol" ...almost sound Afrikan

Frank