Seeing is believing - .22 ammo

Most if not everyone who enjoys practice shooting with a .22 rifle knows how accuracy can differ significantly between different brands of ammo. Today I learned that's also true for different loads made by the same manufacturer.

All the shots taken at the target below were from the same Remington 597 rifle at distance of 50 yards. The hits that appear inside the hand-drawn circle were made with CCI Mini-Mag Ammo, while all those outside the circle were made with CCI Stinger ammo.

Not being an expert shooter, I can only speculate the lighter Stinger ammo is simply too fast for my 597 barrel.

Also, it came as no surprise that Remington brick ammo, which is very comparable to the CCI mini-mag in weight and velocity, performed almost as good as the Mini-Mags.

Dan, Do you know the difference in match loads and cheap promotional loads with some manufactures?

test selection for accuracy. As they are making a run of ammo some along the way will be more accurate than others in the production run. They pull samples and when accuracy it within X parameters it goes in the Match ammo boxes and they stop putting that run in those when accuracy dropps off during their testing.

In the 3 most accurate 22s I have owned the most accurate ammo I fired in them was all from one brick of PMC Zapper ammo. Of course I could not find any more of that lot number and it might not have lived up to that one brick.

Stinger ammo is a unique one in the 22 world and most of the time one of the least accurate but sometimes that doesn't hold up either. The Stinger is a stretched 22LR rifle case that cn hold more powder with a 29gr hollowpoint bullet (Think 22 Short) so velocity can be higher with more powder and less bullet weight. THe bullet does not have nearly as long a bearing surface to contact the barrel as a standard 40gr LR bullet or 38gr LR Hollow point bullet.

The bullet is simply too fast to catch the rifling and performs somewhat like a mini-ball in a smooth bore musket.

WOW!

That part about the Stinger not having enough bearing surface is a theory on my part though. Same basic bullet shoots quite well in the CCI Short Hollow point loads but not so well in the Remington 552 and Winchester 9422 and Winchester 62A that I had all of which are listed on the barrel for Short, Long or Long Rifle on the barrel. It has been years since I played with those and the Shorts and Stingers but IIRC the Stinger groups were about twice the size of the shorts or Long Rifle standard ammo. the Stinger ammo is sending the same basic bullet out at about 500 to 700fps faster than the short loads

The part about test selecting ammo for accuracy is from several sources including a Federal ammo rep and a guy that shot for Winchester years ago.

someone doesn't understand how rifling works and how barrels are spec'd

It's impossible for the "bullet to not catch the rifling" assuming you're sending a correct bullet it down the bore.

I'll attempt to put this in layman's terms...if you buy a 6mm (I'm using this because I know the exact numbers off the top of my head, I don't on a .22 bore) barrel, the barrel is .243 which means the "loosest part of the barrel" (aka grooves) are .243 then the "tightest part of the barrel" (aka lands) are either .236 or .237 depending on which barrel you buy. Bullets have a pressure ring on the back of them that are normally about .2432-.2434.

There is no way a properly sized bullet can pass down a bore and not "catch" the rifling no matter how fast or slow it's going.

Obviously any bullet of the proper caliber that travels down a rifled barrel is going to develop a given amount of spin. I'm sure there were those who recognized my description was not meant to be taken literally but as an exaggeration to describe how cartridges of different bullet weights, powder charge, and construction perform differently in the same barrel. Of course, those who reload their own bullets are fully aware of the challenges in finding the right velocities to get optimum accuracy from a given bullet when sent down a given barrel .

I've found the same performance difference with my Winchester Model 70. It performs noticeably better with 100 grain (25-06) bullets than with 120 grain rounds.

I suspect you're spot on. As you described, Stingers do have the appearance of being the smaller .22 Short bullet pressed onto .22 LR casing.

Your 25-06 shoots 100 gr better than 120 due to twist rate in relation to bearing surface length.

But at no point is a bullet not engaging the rifling.

Agreed. I should have included the words "as if" in my earlier description for those who couldn't recognize the point being made, that the two bullets achieve a much different spin when traveling down the same barrel.

Nope, that still doesn't fix it.

The two rounds achieve a much different spin, with the Mini-Mag achieving a more consistent and accurate spin than the Stinger.

Now personally, I find the much more scattered pattern of the Stinger to be about what you might expect from an unrifled barrel.

That's called bullet stability and normally bullet speed actually helps with bullet stability rather than hurts it...especially if your "under twisted". If you're over twisted bullets come apart and if you're under twisted you get some real weird stuff going on like key holing and the like.



For the record...you can add "as if" anywhere in that statement and it just simply isn't true.....ever.

^^Right Judd.

Don't spin one enough, and it is unstable. Spin one too much, and it is over-spun, and will shoot like crap. Even if it is not spun enough to come apart in flight. More than once have I seen a bullet too light (too short) for a twist rate made agressive enough for a longer bullet. The light (short ones) scatter all over paper.

Again, NEVER do they not catch rifling, and skip down a barrel, NEVER.

Shoot me for my loose choice of words. But please do so with an unrifled barrel so I'll have a better chance of getting away.

Is it the length of the bearing surface? or the length of the projectile?

I’ve shot CCI Stinger ammo out of a lot of guns, both rifle and pistol. Haven’t found one yet that shoots it good. Have heard rumors of guns that shoot it well, just haven’t seen it personally.

I could see where a lighter bullet with too much charge behind it and less surface area (as well as softer metal) might actually result in less spin as it contacts the rifling for a much shorter duration due to the increased velocity.

Please see my other post and thread in the Rifles, Shotguns, and Handguns section for a more focused discussion on twist rates.

My example of short and Stinger, the bullet is a 29 grain soft lead that you can indent it with finger nail. With a bearing surface of .07 to .08 which is less than 1/3 of total length with smaller diameter sections of the ogive and heel on either side of the bearing surface sure shoots better in my rifles so chambered and a TC Contender when going at 900 to 1080fps than it does at 1650fps.

The rifle and pistol I remember shooting Stingers very well had what looked like deeper land to groove depth. One thing about stingers with the soft hollow point bullet at that speed they do not hold together well. Some day I might try milk jug with water at a distance and try to get a hit at say 200 yards to see if there is some smearing of the rifling viable on the bullet.

Handguns I have had that shoot Stingers pretty good are an old RG single action but it has a fairly large barrel cylinder gap so it might be slow enough with that and an 8 inch TC Contender barrel. The other one I no longer have was an old Winchester from i think the 30s that the lands looked taller than most other 22 barrels I have owned. The Winchester 39A I currently have you need to look hard at the barrel to even see the rifling and it shoots standard velocity well but stingers are more of a pattern from it.

Both, mostly bearing surface.

It is not time in the barrel. Any bullet will rotate exactly the same number of rotations from chamber to muzzle, in the same barrel.

Judd, have you ever run one fast enough with enough spin that the bullet came apart in the air before reaching the target. First time I did was with Speer TNT bullets and I mixed up a few loading for a 24 inch barreled 22-250, nice little blue trail. the other time I did it was with a 15gr Berger 17 bullet from a 17 Remington cooking along at about 4500fps oops the blue vaporized lead vapor trail was no longer visible to us but the time it was about 50 yards down range. I have read that early Berger target bullets had that problem occasionally in competition not reaching the target or would off the mark a bit with some splatter.

My main load for the 17 Remington is a 25gr Hornady at 4250fps. Nice to have one that you can have 1.25 hich at 100 yards and aim on fur out to 300 yards shooting coyotes.

I spotted for a guy on my range early last year. 1:7 twist 6mm running 105's fast!

Shots 1-3, maybe to 4 would hold. Get a little heat in the barrel, and abut 70 yards down range, puff! Jacket spun off, mid-air.

Yep, that's why it's a *twist* *rate*. So simple to understand yet so misunderstood.

There's no denying the fact that barrel length impacts accuracy, with longer barrels being more accurate than shorter ones. The longer barreled handgun is considered more accurate than one with a shorter barrel, even though both have the same twist rate. So then, wouldn't common sense dictate that bullets fired through a longer barrel are given a more consistent spin because they are in contact with rifling for a longer period of time.

It's definitely a topic where the need to try different load and bullet combinations is a must if you want to find that sweet spot in rifle performance. And while it points to another topic for another day, that will never happen when someone fires just a few shots before the season opener just to check their zero. Based on what I learned first-hand about Stingers, I would never want to take them to hunt bushy tails.

Of course those with more money than time can always go to one of the experts and ask them to build them a tack driver and let them know what bullets to push through it.

You are wrong once again.

Barrel length has zero to do with accuracy, it pertains to velocity. Your long barrel more accurate only applies of using irons. Some of the most consistent shooting rifles in existence have 16" barrels. And some 28" barrels aren't running the right load, heat up early, and start to string shots.

No on the spin. 1:7, 1:8, 1:9, ect doesn't even mean the bullet has to travel 7, 8, or 9" it is just a ratio, nothing more. By your statement you would assume a 2" long pistol barrel wouldn't stabilize a bullet, but they do.

I think your seeing my comments as being all inclusive. It's not that a 2" barrel is unable to create at least some level of bullet stabilization, but that a longer barrel produces more consistent stabilization. More consistent stabilization equates to greater accuracy. If it were not so, soldiers would never have a need to carry a rifle.

I understand some shooting experts refer to the time it takes a bullet to travel down a rifle barrel as "touch time", and that specific calibers have a specific barrel length and twist rate in which bullets achieve optimum stabilization. Of course bullet construction would seem critical as well. The earlier comments concerning bullets that break apart at optimum stabilization was new to me and I'm sure others.

"Each rifle caliber has an optimal barrel length for performance, sniper rifles tend to be a little longer to build up maximum speed and touch time with the rifling of the barrel to ensure accuracy. For example, a 308win generates near maximum speed and bullet spin at 20in, with any additional barrel length only increasing the a few hundred feet per second. So, many shooters today choose the shorter barrels because they are easier to handle and weighs less."

Granted, it's hard to find a rifle that can't perform well enough to harvest wild game. However, our discussion that started with my observations on the poor performance of Stingers has made clear the need to determine what your rifle shoots best.

I think I'll take my AR to the range the next time and try to find out what loads it shoots best.

I still disagree the longer barrel produces more stabilization. Use the .308 you mentioned as an example. Many of them have a 1:10 twist. So 10" from the chamber, the bullet has made a full revolution, and if the barrel quit right there, the bullet is still stable, just as it would be from a barrel twice as long. But then you get into powder burn rates. My usual go-to for bolt action .308 is H-Varget. But on the SBR, I would use a powder with a faster burn rate, to create more velocity. Same as the 7" barreled .223 AR I have. Chad and i did some research and chose a pistol powder, for technically a rifle cartridge. That was virgin ground to plow. And I got it to work beautifully, shooting a 68 gr bullet at 2100 fps, and it is plenty stable, having hit steel to 300 yards, sure enough 300 yard pistol. A change in optics, and I could go even farther.

What kind of Sniper rifle are you referring to? PD Snipers need a 1 MOA at 100 yard capable rifle. The longest hit made by a PD Sniper in America was 440 yards, to date. That could easily be done with a barrel less than 16", much less 20". The 20" .308, is going to make a higher muzzle velocity, as was stated before, which would help at the end of the range the .308 was designed to achieve, which was 800 yards. In 1952, less than 800 yards was "Danger Close" for artillery, so they needed to fill the gap with a rifle round.

Again, the speed can be increased with a change in powder. You are probably getting your information from a source that is having to use M-118 7.62mm ammo, and the powder that it has. Hand loaders can make the ammo do, much better, even in a shorter barrel. Let's say there is long barrel powder for .308, and short barrel powder for .308. The same holds true for most any cartridge. Put s long barrel powder, in a short barrel, and you'll see the major muzzle flash. Whereas had you loaded a more appropriate powder for the short barrel, the powder will have been burned prior to reaching the muzzle, therefore creating more velocity. Again, via burn rates.

A short barrel is a stiff barrel, therefore there is a higher probability of having a wider powder range that shoots well. Ok, the speed is lower, but often that does not matter, because the rifle and ammo shoot very consistently.

Holy crap. So now anchor points, gun weight, sight radius, etc. are irrelevant factors of accuracy?

Dan can’t seem to get one right.

Longer barrels on pistols are more accurate because the shooter has a longer sighting plane, making the shooter more accurate. Generally, shorter barrels, are more accurate, to a point, because they’re stiffer. This may not include extremes, like a 2” barrel, but generally holds true in rifle length barrels.

Dan, I would recommend picking up some books about ammo and shooting. Then read them. I'm not talking about getting your information off the internet in a forum. There's about 5 comments you've made I could go off on about why it's incorrect. Not only are the statements incorrect, the reasoning leading to other statements is incorrect.

And the 120 grain bullets in your 25-06 can easily be made to shoot just as good as the lighter 100 grain bullets with the right load. If you want to shoot the heavier 120 grain bullets, bring the rifle to me and I'll dial it in for you.

Well articulated.

Boy you do like to argue.

I can only speculate based on my limited knowledge of Physics (and having seen several of the formulas for calculating twist rates) that a longer "touch time" provides greater and more consistent rotational energy or inertia, which in turn produces a more consistent trajectory. The comment quoted appears to indicate this inertia, combined with optimum velocity, is best achieved with barrels of a given length and twist rate. Too short a barrel and velocity and inertia are not reached, while longer barrels provide little additional performance.

The simplest analogy that I can think of is that of a kid's top. Spin it with the fingers just once and it will easily fall over. Apply several spins to it, or better yet, wrap a string around it several times to apply force to it longer and it stands and spins like a top. Also, given the mass of the top, there is a point where spinning it longer doesn't make it stand and spin any longer.

San I had to skip a lot because I’m at work so this may have been covered. Pistols and rifles are not related. Longer barrel pistols are more accurate because of sight radius. A 2” and an 8” barrel with both scoped can be equally accurate. It’s an iron sights vs scope issue.

The longer the barrel on a rifle the more harmonics. Consequently identical rifles with different barrel lengths will shoot different from each other. Typically the shorter barrel will be more accurate or at the least have a larger window for accurate loads. Longer barrels require more tuning and typically have a greater temperature spread from one end to the other causing a different type of accuracy issue than harmonics alone.

As with everything I say I’m speaking my views but they are well studied and practiced.

The top is not a good comparison in my opinion.

It's a perfect comparison because Physics applies to all objects equally.

"Energy is defined as the ability to do work on an object; for example, the work required to lift a one-pound weight, one foot against the pull of gravity defines a foot-pound of energy (One joule is equal to the energy needed to move a body over a distance of one meter using one newton of force). If we were to modify the graph to reflect force (the pressure exerted on the base of the bullet multiplied by the area of the base of the bullet) as a function of distance, the area under that curve would be the total energy imparted to the bullet. Increasing the energy of the bullet requires increasing the area under that curve, either by raising the average pressure, or increasing the distance the bullet travels under pressure. Pressure is limited by the strength of the firearm, and duration is limited by barrel length."

Source

I don't think so. But I might be wrong. I think it spins longer when you spin it longer because your are applying a greater force/spinning it faster. Given the same linear velocity of the bullet it is always turning the same rotation, not true with the top in your example at least in my opinion.

^^Same here.

And yes Dan, I will argue. I have a pet peeve of mis-information being spread, and that is what you are doing. It only confuses those that are on-lookers, trying to learn.

All I'm touting is that a rifle is more accurate for taking wild game than using a handgun. Also, it's best to try several different loads of ammo in your rifle to determine what it shoots best. Anything else is just an argument as to why this is so.

That is, unless to goal is to sell more scoped handguns.

Yes, you applied a greater force but also over a much longer period of time resulting in greater rotational energy/enertia. Like the top, a bullet achieves greater rotational energy the longer pressure is applied to it. However, based on the mass of the bullet, there is a point where additional rotational energy no longer provides benefits. And as others have stated, spin it too hard and it can begin to fall apart.

"Increasing the energy of the bullet requires increasing the area under that curve, either by raising the average pressure, or increasing the distance the bullet travels under pressure. Pressure is limited by the strength of the firearm, and duration is limited by barrel length."


Now after everything that has been shared and debated, I suspect someone else was spot on with the reason my Remington doesn't like Stingers. They are simply are too short in length (projectile only), and have too much pressure behind them to be a good match with the rifling in my Remington barrel. It seems to shoot any standard length LR cartridge just fine.

Or maybe I should just blame CCI for putting a .22 Short bullet on a LR casing.

Dan I hate to over simplify (I love to) but if a tire spinning 100 mph comes off a car it doesn’t matter how long it’s been on the car. The results will be exactly the same for the tire. Same energy, same inertia, etc

x2

I can even wrap my simple mind around that example....doesn't matter the size of the tire....length of the car....100 mph is still mph.....the size and weight of the tire will effect how long it travels and what damage is done to what it hits....bicycle tire vs. 18-wheeler tire for example......

Agreed.

The Wikipedia article really does a good job of describing the math and physics that determine ballistic performance, starting with the following parameters, which are all interrelated once you add in bullet construction, barrel length, twist rate, and barrel construction.

I would suggest more focus on the sections entitled The Role of Inertia and Peak vs Area.

There are five general equations used in interior ballistics:

1.The equation of state of the propellant
2.The equation of energy
3.The equation of motion
4.The burning rate equation
5.The equation of the form function

So that is what all the fuss is really about, how dare someone challenge your knowledge.

Or do you really believe accuracy is not impacted by the length of a barrel?

It is not a challenge of knowledge matter. You appear to lack understanding in how all this works, and are regurgitated things you've read elsewhere. Now, if you've had the hands-on experience with it, things would be different. However, with that experience you would not be saying what you are saying.

Yes, accuracy can be impacted by barrel length. As has been explained to you by more than one person, the long (especially thin) barrel can, and often is more difficut to tune a load for. It is called barrel harmonics, look it up. It is a sine wave, and they all do it.

I hand you a ten foot long pice of 1/2" rebar, and say bend it with your hands, and you can do it. I hand you a ten inch long piece of 1/2" rebar and say bend it with your hands, well it is a tiny percentage of the population that could do it.

arguing with a fireman is like wrestling a pig in mud, eventually you realize the pig likes it
Judd, I noticed you bowed out early, you like to stay clean don't you?

Great googley moogley...

You are exactly right.

And Judd couldn't take anymore...

Stingers are trash in all my stuff.

$0.02

What was this thread about?

Anyway, my 220 Swift has a 20” barrel with a 14 twist. Unfortunately, it won’t quite stabilize a 60 gr Nosler Partition. I’m thinking that if I had a longer barrel, like the 26 inch one this 77V came with, I could up the velocity and maybe get that stumpy little bullet to stabilize in all conditions. I wouldn’t get any more accuracy just because the barrel was longer, but I would get more speed and therefore more rpm. But I love the short barrel, so no Partitions for that gun.

Next 22LR ammo for me to try is CCI SV and Winchester 40 gr copper plated hyper velocity HP.

Well, congratulations on the derailment of a simple 22lr comparison thread y’all. You long range high precision shooters are very knowledgeable and everyone here knows that.

We’re having a little low tech low skill discussion on popping off rimfires. Y’all can just enjoy how ignorant we are in here and yuk it up amongst yourselves.

Now back to topic. I built this rifle. -



It did not have the Sparrow until long after I proved this rifle up after building. It was astonishingly accurate with my premium ammo brands but broke up when I worked my way down to AutoMatch. It went from single hole at 50 to dinner plate sized spread. So I shot Wolf MT, my favorite and was very happy with my build. FF a year and I have my Sparrow. Installed it and went back to the range. Well, Wolf MT seemed to shoot even a little tighter, so I tried AutoMatch. It shot it through a single hole at 50!

Now, without starting another lecture series, I SPECULATE that the barrel length was effectively lengthened a bit by the Sparrow. BUT I DON’T CARE. I’m just happy with my results and would expect y’all to see the same results in the same circumstances.

And, it still won’t shoot any other bulk ammo so sometimes there is just really bad ammo.

So now I’ve got all this data and I’m really secure in my theory so I pull out the Win 52 and it starts to get grey again. That gun is happy to shoot most ammo but does shoot better with the good stuff. It will group well at 100.

So I’m back to it's all about the ammo in a rimfire. Except when it’s about the rifle.

Lately, because I have a lot of it and my normal shooting distances are short, I’m using up my HP Rem Thunderbolts. They were my worst tested ammo for accuracy at 50 and 100 yards, but at 25 yards they do quite well and do a fine job on renegade coons and squirrels eating the bird seed. But, to try something else, I bought a couple hundred rounds of Winchester Hyper Velocity copper plated (indicated mv of 1435 FPS). More testing will follow, but at 25 yards they didn’t shoot quite as well as the Thunderbolts. That was a surprise. I expected that they’d shoot well in the Tikka. I’ll try them at 50 yards soon. Maybe they aren’t catching the rifling (kidding, I swear).

I still haven’t tried the CCI SV. The CCI Blazers are the best so far.

Last year I purchased an old Remington .22 made in 1939. I test fired it into my .22 trap at about 10 feet away and noticed the projectile key-holed through the target. I looked down the barrel and found no rifling was visible. The barrel was so leaded up all the grooves were flush with the lands. I had to plug the barrel and fill it with the dip to get all the lead out. It shoots fine now.

Model 241? I have one and it's the longest barreled .22 I own. .22 short only.

Targetmaster 510.

There is another factor that comes into effect when testing .22 ammo for accuracy. Bullet lube. Look at the different lube schemes mfg's use with there ammo. Some are copper washed with a bit of wax. some are bare lead with wax or a grease type. Check out the lube on quality match ammo. Usually it is a very slick oil type.
Now this lube all works well for the intended use the ammo was made for. When you shoot a .22's you season the barrel with the lube on the bullet. When you change to a different ammo. Bulk, match, brand or bullet type, the first 15 to 40 shots or so will be influence by the lube from the previous bullet type. Lets say your particular rifle will shoot your favorite bulk ammo consistently at 3/4" groups. So you get some match ammo, and shoot a couple of boxes and find this ammo groups 3/8". You think, man that's great, this little rifle really shoots. So, as the match ammo was really expensive, you only bought 2 boxes, so you go back to your favorite bulk. You notice, that your groups are way better than before, 1/2" or better. But as you shoot a bit, they open back up to where they have always been. The first bullets shooting the tighter than normal groups were benefitting from the match bullets lube still in your barrel. Shooting this lube out will take different numbers of shots, it won't be a fixed number, mine here are estimates from my personal experience. The reason I wrote this is to help alleviate the confusion one may have when testing .22 ammo accuracy. My procedure has been to thoroughly clean the barrel between ammo types, and fire about 25 rounds to re-season the barrel, then shoot for record.

The other issue is shooting at 100 yds. None of the high velocity ammo I have used does very well at 100 yds. due to the bullet that starts out around 1240 fps will slow down below the speed of sound around 75 yds or so. Passing through the transonic speed, the bullet destabilizes a bit, causing your groups at 100 to open up a bit. My 1/2" rifle at 50yds, turns into 3" to 4" rifle at 100. Still plenty good enough for a sillouette, but not good enough for bullseye. The bullet drops 5 1/2" between 50 and 100 also.

If you want bullseye at 100 yds, use subsonic ammo, and don't shoot with the wind blowing. Slow .22 bullets get blown all over the place.


The information above is a mixture of personal experience, and shooting science I have gotten off the internet (ha ha) so if your experience is different, that's more reason to get to the range and shoot some more.