Very interesting article. My wallet hates it.

 

Nice write up! Your bully speaks well for you.
But still a lottery I’m hesitant to participate in. But I do like the videos.

 

That's what happens when you get in a rush and your wife as an editor is out and about LOL
I just added target pictures and chronograph numbers.

 

I'm not impressed with this testing. Once again, a cartridge that is supposedly designed to long range shooting and it is tested at 50 yards.

How a cartridge performs at short ranges is no indication of how it will perform at long range. To see how well a cartridge performs at long range it must be tested at long range.

 

What if the intent is to find the BEST ammo you can for your short 50 yard matches?

Does that also mean every box of ammo that has match in the name is match ammo?

Not being snarky at all legit questions in my eyes because some of your post are very detailed and mathmatical figured you could help me out.

 

I wonder if some of the marketing folks at ely are former main frame programmers. Back in the day programmers got paid by lines of code written. Is ely trying to set the price of this ammo by number of words in its name?

 

How a cartridge performs at short range is an indicator of how it may perform at long range.

The prerequisite for excellent long range performance is excellent short range performance. Ammo performance never improves with distance.

Some lots will perform better than others because not all lots of the same match ammo will have equal rates of dispersion as distance grows.

 

How a cartridge performs at short range is an indicator of how it may perform at long range.

The prerequisite for excellent long range performance is excellent short range performance. Ammo performance never improves with distance.

Some lots will perform better than others because not all lots of the same match ammo will have equal rates of dispersion as distance grows.

While I tend to think this also, I have seen results to the contrary. I have what should be a great shooting 300WM that I was about to rebarrel since I couldn’t get anything under MOA at 100yd, but took it to a long range shoot and was getting < 1 MOA on targets 500-800yds away. Nothing makes sense of this, but that’s what happened and it still has that barrel.

 

With all due respect to the OP, I do not think we are in nor even seeing the signs of a "a second golden era" for .22lr ammunition in the United States. I'd even argue we are in a lull.
My point, in short: There has been an explosion of demand for best-quality ammo, and the best-quality ammo makers are at the same time having their problems or are at their limits. In short, I'd say the U.S. demand for best-tier match ammo is far, far exceeding supply.
To wit:
(1) Eley is, by most reports, having significant QC problems. And that applies even in its flagship line, Tenex. I get the impression some people are using it as their match ammo simply because it is available.
(2) New, top-end RWS .22lr product — R50 and R100 — has been unavailable in the U.S. for about a year.
(3) That leaves us with a single maker of top-tier .22lr match ammo: Lapua.
And. if you are not a quite well-sourced competitive shooter, Lapua's "Big 3" are difficult to obtain ... especially if one wishes to lot test and then buy a significant amount. For most of us, you take what you can find in the half-day or so that online retailers say it as in-stock.
The lone bright point that I'd point to without hesitation is the introduction of Lapua Super Long Range. The small amount I've seen has been a stellar performer. But, again, when it's around at all, it's gone within 24 hours.
I'd posit that if this were a "golden age", there would be excellent choices competing for our dollars when it comes to top-end rifle match ammo available for purchase.
JMO/JME, YMMV.

 

As many of these sources are foreign.... wonder how the tariff kerfluffle will shake out as to prices we will ultimately pay.

 

Been in place for a while now and I can order today on back order with no increase in price. It seems overall producers are absorbing the costs of the tariffs for the majority of products.

 

content deleted ... double post

 

I had some time today to do some testing with my lot of Eley Gen 2. It was not a positive experience for me.

https://www.rimfirecentral.com/posts/13780443/

 

Going to a 250 yard long gong on Saturday.
zeroed my rifle for 100 yards. Norma red box TAC 22.
How much drop can I expect for the next 150 yards?

this was my group after getting the scope dialed in, have a 30MOA rail coming in.
Don’t thing the weaver has enough clicks left.

Rich

 

There are variables that will change this but for my rifle and Tac22 (red box) it would be +27 MOA from 100yd to 250yd. (Black box is +32MOA)

 

Pre testing prediction.....

Save your money.

Topstrap

 

I suppose all old things become new again.

We're in the 3rd, 4th, or 5th golden era. All those heavy barreled target rifles and long scopes of yesteryear weren't built for just the 50 yard line.

22 long rifle hasn't been restricted to backyard plinking for over a century. E.C. Crossman is laughing.

An NRA Shooting Sports Journal | Depression and War: National Smallbore Outdoor Rifle Championship History

When smallbore rifle became a serious competitive shooting discipline. The third article in a series of seven celebrating the history of the National Smallbore Outdoor Rifle Championship

www.ssusa.org

 

The thought I don’t see mentioned here is the economics of producing precision ammo. There were some pretty impressive rifles and ammo 40-60 years ago that shot really really well, about as good as the new fancy stuff. I’m thinking we’re not evolving at all.

I almost never had a failure to fire 30 plus years ago even with the cheapest ammo, now it’s common.

From an economics point, I’m betting the stuff made today is built with a profit motive more than an exact precision motive. The good stuff tends to have a more consistent velocity than the cheaper stuff thus avoiding vertical stringing at long range. How does a shot string of UM1 differ from this new stuff, or does it?

 

Not trying to hijack the ops post an yes this is very interesting post but...am the only one who is hearing Gunny narrating this from the other side 🤔?the Corps is forever so Gunny is forever 🫡🇺🇸!

 

I can't help but hear "new and improved" as part of the background noise in the advertising for all this new stuff. I am still waiting to hear from some actual customers who shot any of this stuff at actual long ranges and can produce some real-world, measured groups that demonstrate any sort of actual improvements over previous high-end ammo. But I am not holding my breath.....

 

Compared to previous decades, contemporary rimfire benchrest scores are better. Unless shooters from the past were less skillful than those of today, something else must have improved -- either the rifles or the ammo or both.

 

I think overall the rifles and ammo are getting better, and I look at the BR scores as a good example. Bad lot runs from time to time aside, overall the rifle, ammo, and even the shooter's skill are all improving.

The downside is that this is coming at a cost, and I worry about many shooters being priced out of the competitive market.

 

(...)
Bad lot runs from time to time aside, overall the rifle, ammo, and even the shooter's skill are all improving.

The downside is that this is coming at a cost, and I worry about many shooters being priced out of the competitive market.

Well, as I adapt my shooting sports to what I can afford, and have the time for... I don't care about this "competitive market" at all.

The longest shooting range at my local club is 50 meters. 100 m ranges are scarce here, and to find a 300 m range, you've got to drive at least for an hour.

Lucky me, my shooting skills perfectly fit my scheme, too!

So for me, a "Golden Era" would rather be constantly enough ammo of every performance level in stock for all who need and desperately look for it, for lower prices. Or at least no further skyrocketing of prices.

 

I was able to get my hands on some RWS R-50 yesterday. I need to get used to my new CZ before I start using the good stuff.

 

Shoots better at 200 yards than at 50?

Only when comparing small samples.
Random acts of accuracy cause incorrect conclusions

A definitive comparison would require a 200 yard,
indoor range, with trajectory sensors at 25, 50, 100, 150 and 200 yards.
Otherwise atmospheric conditions will interfere with results.
That way we don't test different boxes of cartridges
to obtain our results, so quality variations don't affect the data.
Each bullet located at 5 points of it's trajectory.
At least 50 shots, but with that setup I'd send the whole brick.

 

Compared to previous decades, contemporary rimfire benchrest scores are better. Unless shooters from the past were less skillful than those of today, something else must have improved -- either the rifles or the ammo or both.

I was able to get my hands on some RWS R-50 yesterday. I need to get used to my new CZ before I start using the good stuff.

Go play the lottery right now and use the box lot number as your numbers. Wow

 

Yes! That's how I felt. Two bricks, same lot.

 

Before Eley comes out with a new line of top tier, super accurate ammo 🤣 they need to get their Tenex and Match cracker ammo QC together.

 

This is a tough crowd for sure. I appreciate the work the OP put into his post and I agree that today we're seeing an upsurge in rimfire sports from benchrest to long range matches. The US may be the largest market for .22LR cartridges in the world but we're not the only one so top tier cartridge manufacturers are hard pressed to supply the demand for quality ammo. It's shameful that no US maker produces world class .22LR cartridges. Someone recently posted that they couldn't do it and make a profit and IMO that's pure road apples. I think they can but I also think the bean counters are content with the profits being made from garbage.

Where I disagree with the OP is the time of the first "Golden Era" of .22 rimfire shooting. The first was 100 years ago when .22 rimfire target shooting was the most popular sport in the United States bar none. The demand was such that Winchester introduced the Model 52 in 1919 at the Caldwell Matches. Their primary competitor was Savage and later Remington. Records from Winchester show the improvements in both the cartridges and the Model 52 between 1920 and 1937. 10 shot groups in 1920 averaged 3.0" at 200 yards. It had shrunk to 2.0" by 1929 and in 1937 the average 10 shot group at 200 yards measured 1.25". (Ref: The Winchester Model 52 by Herbert G. Houze, pg 112) There are still books around by E.C. Crossman, Julian Hatcher and other old time writers extolling the pleasures of precision rimfire shooting.

We are indeed living in a time when .22 rimfire shooting is massively popular. I just wish someone would step up and make cartridges that challenge the best that Europe is producing.

 

Holy 💩, 10 shot groups measuring 1.25” at 200 yards in 1937. I mean - Damnnnnnnnnn.

 

Tooling is expensive, not just in build but development and design costs as well. Not talking about just a few hundred thousand, we’re taking multiple 7 figure costs. Keep in mind the costs for training as well as marketing involved in all of this. This is also assuming they happen to have a facility sitting empty. Now go sell this to a BOD giving them only a probable time line for possible profitability.

 

Olin?, could make it if they wanted and I’m sure it would be very good quality !