Six types of sub-sonic ammunition compared.

[1066]

This is a quick comparison test of six different types of sub-sonic ammunition, three solids and three HP's. The range was 65 yards, my typical rabbit shooting range and "real world" conditions (Windy).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqRw_xDtrFc&gl=US

[John MH]

Interesting, I've read recently of people shooting 1/2" at 100 yards with a .22LR, not something that happens regularly in the real world.

[1066]

Interesting, I've read recently of people shooting 1/2" at 100 yards with a .22LR, not something that happens regularly in the real world.

It's not actually as hard as you think John - You only have to shoot three shot groups and discount the flyers :) and of course, not actually measure the groups/distance. - Bullet on bullet or cloverleaves seem to be keyboard speak.

I've shot tight sub moa 100yd groups with a .22 but not often and never two or three consecutively.

I feel that with tip-top kit, perfect conditions and a good shooter, .22LR groups should be comparable with centrefire benchrest groups, after all they have had well over a hundred years to tweek the round. This is clearly not the case though.

Centrefire groups have continued to shrink over the last 30 years and air rifle benchrest shooting is showing dramatic improvements, Isn't it time the rimfire R&D guys took a step forward and found a way round the obsolete heeled bullet design (Maybe a sabot .17 bullet in a .22LR case.)

[meles meles]

Interesting comments, ooman, but perhaps a factor counting against further development of the .22 LR round is that it widely seen as a low cost cartridge for shooting small game and vermin and thus there would be no market for a higher quality / higher cost round in that quarter, whilst the target shooters have the various brands of Match grade ammo to choose from.

[JonC]

Good video and interesting reading. I suppose the question is, do competition rules limit the further development of .22 LR ammunition. It would be difficult for an ammunition maker to justify a lot of R&D if the end product could not be used in competition.

[1066]

I agree, the .22 LR is traditionally seen as a low cost round but good match grade ammunition is no longer cheap with something like Eley tennex at over £20 per hundred, it's clearly not price that top shooters are concerned with - If the manufacturers could come up with an improved round, top competitors would pay it.

I really don't think I've seen any significant improvement in .22 LR accuracy since I started shooting in the 1960's - A well set up BSA International/Anschutz/Walther shooting the best ammunition from that era would not be far behind the equivalent now.

I think the driving factor for the continuing improvement in centrefire ammunition is the ability to reload the cases. All the major improvements have come from keen individuals (.275 Roberts, 6PPc, 6BR etc.) The manufacturer needs to keep up or go under, if it wasn't for reloading we would all be shooting a variation of a service round - take it or leave it.

There's no such pressure with the .22 LR, you get what you're given, all the manufactures keeping all about the same, churning out the least quality/highest price they can get away with.

[1066]

Good video and interesting reading. I suppose the question is, do competition rules limit the further development of .22 LR ammunition. It would be difficult for an ammunition maker to justify a lot of R&D if the end product could not be used in competition.

Then why shouldn't there be new competitions or change the rules - It has continually happened, we no longer think of smokeless powder as cutting edge - we changed the target sizes and the rules. When I first shot at Bisley it was with .303 ammunition issued on the day. Then it changed to 7.62mm, again issued ammunition. Would that be good enough in open competition today?

What I'm saying - Has the .22LR reached it's full potential or are the manufacturers happy to sit on their backsides and take the profit without re-investing in development because we have no option?

So- How about a .22 LR round shooting a 15/17 grain .17 round with a plastic sabot at around 2000fps for about 150ftlbs.

Not a hummer, but no variation needed, there are millions of .22lr shooters out there - surely a possibility?

[JonC]

New competition sounds good to me. Maybe an open category for .22WMR and .17HMR as well.

[AHPP]

I'm all for innovation (.17 (or maybe even .14) in sabots sounds great - do sabots go through moderators alright?) but the .22 in its base form is just so ubiquitous I don't think it should be fvcked with much. It's just such a well known quantity.

[1066]

I'm all for innovation (.17 (or maybe even .14) in sabots sounds great - do sabots go through moderators alright?) but the .22 in its base form is just so ubiquitous I don't think it should be fvcked with much. It's just such a well known quantity.

Wouldn't need to change anything - the basic .22 lr would still be there in it's several forms, solid, HP, HV, subsonic, frangible etc.
Offering .22LR sabot round or a super accurate round (although more expensive) would just another choice to shoot through an existing rifle.

There are millions of .22's in every part of the world - They make .22 shot shells and .22 tracers so small production runs of a million or so shouldn't be a problem.