TargetTalk

For several years, I have tested each new lot of ammo and I suspected either I was physically declining or that my pistol's accuracy was declining.

When I first got my Pardini my ammo tests produced edge to edge groups of .400 to .550 from 50 ft bench rested. And this was with reasonably priced ammo. I was surprised that the Pardini seemed to shoot everything well.

The last couple of years it seems like no matter which: cci plastic, aguila, eley sport, I have to struggle to get a .750 group. CCI paper box is noticeably worse. Even Wolf MT lots only groups out at .500 to .600.....my best ever lot of Wolf MT was .300


So, this year some one sold me the remainder of an old lot of CCI that we had bought on a group buy years ago. This lot was the best CCI I had ever had when I tested it back then; it was .400 So I retested this old lot and son of a gun it tested at .400!

So, I am thinking that every mfr's moderately priced ammo has gotten noticeably crappier in the last couple of years.

Anyone else notice this?

Based on my one trip to the Eley Customer Range, the variable results from a product as consistent as Tenex from gun to gun and lot to lot are sufficient to conclude that, unless you're lot testing ammo, it's luck of the draw.

A good pistol and ammo combination will yield 50 yard groups under 1 inch. 50 foot testing is, I think, irrelevant.

GOVTMODEL wrote:Based on my one trip to the Eley Customer Range, the variable results from a product as consistent as Tenex from gun to gun and lot to lot are sufficient to conclude that, unless you're lot testing ammo, it's luck of the draw.

A good pistol and ammo combination will yield 50 yard groups under 1 inch. 50 foot testing is, I think, irrelevant.

I am not understanding why you think repeatable results are irrelevant. Especially from different lots of the same manufacturer...comparing apples to apples.

How do you explain that older lots of the same product ID from 5 or 6 years ago consistently outperform the new production?

If a mfr could produce multiple lots that grouped at .500 consistently 6 years ago and now various lots might group at 1.00, is the quality control that loose that this is a normal variation?

As for 50 ft....are you saying the challenge is too low to separate the good from the bad?

xeye wrote:

I am not understanding why you think repeatable results are irrelevant. Especially from different lots of the same manufacturer...comparing apples to apples.

How do you explain that older lots of the same product ID from 5 or 6 years ago consistently outperform the new production?

If a mfr could produce multiple lots that grouped at .500 consistently 6 years ago and now various lots might group at 1.00, is the quality control that loose that this is a normal variation?

As for 50 ft....are you saying the challenge is too low to separate the good from the bad?

I tested seventeen (17) lots of TENEX in three (3) Hammerli pistols. The best performing lots yielded groups half the size of the worst performing lots, but there was zero pistol to pistol correlation; the lot that performed best in one pistol didn't do well in the other two.

As for 50 foot testing- it's too short a range to have a meaningful result. Most of the lots I tested gave X-ring groups from all three pistols, and I was able to find a lot for each pistol that grouped under inch at 50 meters.

While I don't usually test at 50 feet, I do think the quality of ammo has deteriorated to some degree. Most of the issues I have seen on the firing line and in my shop have been related to dimensional differences. For example when Aguila first hit the market maybe ten years ago at $98 a case I bought some SV which I tested by hand first in a Pardini SP. Wow an 8X clean at fifty yards. I shot the stuff for a whole indoor season, set two records and had my highest average ever, and not an alibi all season. OK fine. I shot it for another season- fine again. Then I switched to Sub Sonic( magenta box) now at $126 a case. OK still a good deal compared to CCI std or Eley Brown Box. Then the ammo and primer rush started in about 2008 or maybe 07. I saw a lot more function issues with fellow competitors using Aguila. I had old case lots and did not have an issue. So looking at the new rounds and drop testing them in barrels showed excessive waxing of the bullets which increased the diameter. At the SHOT show I spoke with Aguila Pres. Carlos Romero and R/D head Efrain Peralta about the issue. It kind of fell on deaf ears, but another in the company said there was pressure to meet demand and the machines were running overtime. At the same time Eley Target was making some headway, but it came off the same line in Mexico. CCI was also working to keep up with demand. They also wax coat bullets using a similar set up to Eley/Aguila. Many shooters were complaining about not only the skyrocketing cost Now in the $230 a case range, but the function issues. Some folks went elsewhere to SK, Wolf or maybe Lapua but the entry level market ammo is still lacking. I've done some testing with the suspected ammo, removing the wax seems to solve much of the problem for Aguila. CCI has bigger issues with the range in velocity causing function issues during recoil. CCI has always been dimensionally "long" as seen in the Pardini magazine issue. Most of the ammo's will shoot a decent group, but will not function reliably enough to get through a 900. Well sorry I was long winded but to the OP your issues are not in your head, others have noticed. I just hope the manufacturers will take note.

Greg:

Based on your experience and observations, what ammo are you using now for indoors and outdoors????

Inquiring minds want to know...

Dan

I am using the SK (special) Pistol Match for indoors and outdoors. I like it.

Greg Derr wrote:I am using the SK (special) Pistol Match for indoors and outdoors. I like it.

Is that the stuff that has over 1100 fps? I just tried some of the remington target in my aw93 that states 1150 fps and even though remington of the past was usually a few duds a box this stuff shot better than tenx eley but i did have 1 dud out of 3 boxes. The faster speed works good in the aw, so im looking to find other brands in the 1100-1150 range.

Fed 711b was my favorite for a long time in my Pardini. It was always very clean and shoot good groups. The last batch I picked up was too long to fit in one of my magazines and this is very frustrating since I never seem to have many issues. Now I shot SK for the short line and eley for when I shoot 50 yds.

xeye wrote: CCI paper box is noticeably worse.

Now as a habitual user of CCI paper ammo, who has always presumed (hoped) that paper and plastic packaging contained the same ammo, I am deeply interested in hearing more about the comparison. Has anyone's experience been the same as xeye's?

Chris wrote:Fed 711b was my favorite for a long time in my Pardini. It was always very clean and shoot good groups. The last batch I picked up was too long to fit in one of my magazines and this is very frustrating since I never seem to have many issues. Now I shot SK for the short line and eley for when I shoot 50 yds.

The first generation Pardini mags had a flat spine, then they made a modification for better feeding, a detent in the spine near the top of the magazine. I have both and the function flawlessly with CCI or European ammo. I shot CCI Green Tag a lot in BE matches and was happy with the function. If you want you can modify the "new" mag by flattening the hump in the spine a dad. I use a set of flat nose pliers without serrations to make the mags more CCI friendly.

I don't know if its the hot weather and vagaries of storage, but I can't find ammo which doesn't have noticeably variable recoil.

I don't remember ever being able to detect it in the past.

Greg,

I might have to tweak my mag's a little so I can account for the slightly longer ammo.

Thanks

shaky hands wrote:

xeye wrote: CCI paper box is noticeably worse.

Now as a habitual user of CCI paper ammo, who has always presumed (hoped) that paper and plastic packaging contained the same ammo, I am deeply interested in hearing more about the comparison. Has anyone's experience been the same as xeye's?

Sorry but the difference between paper and plastic is the powder, and product testing. This is direct from a top CCi tech after the lady that handles the customer service gave me a BS story that the two were the same. Once i told her I had broken open several rounds from both and it was very apparent the powders were totally different, she transferred me to the tech who confirmed that the paper box was loaded with what he called "bulk" powder and that it was just there low end plinking grade mostly designed for discount stores. He said the case and bullet were the same but it was not tested for accuracy like the plastic box which is part of their 3 tested grades, when a batch is run they test it, if it meets a certain test it is boxed, best goes in as pistol match, second is green tag and the rest gets plastic box. Now if you dont buy the story, prove it to yourself by breaking some rounds down yourself.

Some photos of the two styles or Pardini mags



You can see that CCI would bind in the magazine body. It's an easy fix with a flat nose plier( non serrated) just a tad more room is needed.

I have had no problems with CCI paper box, but I prefer the packaging of the plastic box ammo. It is easier to count, and easier to load. I have used the paper box in league with zero alabis.
I will continue to pick up a brick of it for practice, and league every time I see it for a decent price.
For outdoor matches, I like either Eley Target or SK standard plus.

I modified one of my Mags last night to open it up a few thousands which is all I needed to get some CCI to fall easy down into the mag. This could be the end to my frustrations with slightly tool long ammo.