The .22 is a heeled round, meaning that it actually tapers as it enters the cartridge case. I assume that this means that the gas seal is not accomplished by the base of the bullet as in most calibers, but rather by the sides of the bullet outside of the case. If this is so (and I know it's dangerous to assume), then dings, scrapes and dents to that exposed bullet surface could be detrimental to accuracy, allowing gas to escape along the side of the bullet as it exits the muzzle and throw it off course.
Is this correct? Now, I ask not for myself, but because of other shooters at my club who: buy cheap ammunition that is just jumbled together loose in a box, up to 500 rounds together; and/or dump their rounds out loose while shooting beside them where they can pick up all kinds of crud from the bench in the lube and so on. This has always kind of bugged me, although I don't say anything.
How sensitive to this type of damage is the .22 bullet? Would a dent or scratch have to be fairly deep to affect its accuracy? Will dirt on the sides of the bullet affect accuracy?
.22LR - Sensitivity to Damage
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
Cheap ammo is not necessarily bad ammo.
I wouldnt put dirty or gritty ammo of any caliber in any gun.
My Smallbore Silhouette ammo is Winchester Dynapoint. It can shoot 1" groups at 100m out of my Kimber, CZ 452, and NS522 silhouette rifles off the bench on most days.
Within 100m, which is about max for accuracy and energy of a .22, it is a very forgiving and sturdy ammo.
Of course, as always, if you want exceptional accuracy, you need an exceptional gun and exceptional ammo. It need not necessarily be expensive, but it will be!
I wouldnt put dirty or gritty ammo of any caliber in any gun.
My Smallbore Silhouette ammo is Winchester Dynapoint. It can shoot 1" groups at 100m out of my Kimber, CZ 452, and NS522 silhouette rifles off the bench on most days.
Within 100m, which is about max for accuracy and energy of a .22, it is a very forgiving and sturdy ammo.
Of course, as always, if you want exceptional accuracy, you need an exceptional gun and exceptional ammo. It need not necessarily be expensive, but it will be!
I'm not arguing against the use of cheap ammo per se: certain guns like certain ammunition, and it doesn't have to be the expensive stuff to shoot well. The only factor that being cheap plays in this case is the packaging, or the lack of it. How sensitive is the .22 to damage to that exposed area of the bullet? Are the rifling grooves deep enough that minor damage is absorbed as the bullet is deformed into the grooves, for instance?
.22 bullets are very soft. I think that it is very unlikely that you would get a poor gas seal from a slightly damaged bullet, because the lead "upsets" and expands a bit to fill the bore from the pressure of the gas on the base. Even small dent's to the nose may not have that much effect. I shoot Sierra Match King bulelts in highpower, and they have a hole in the tip that is quite irregular from round to round.
I have also had .22 bullets that were sometimes badly dented from misfeeding in my semi-auto target pistols. In practice, I will straighten them out, and shoot them. I've never had an impression that they were signficantly less accurate than normal rounds.
All that said, if you really want precision, you shouldn't be shooting damaged bullets. At 50 feet, most people would never see the difference, but the secret to shooting really tight groups is consistency. Every variable (like your ammo) you can control or eliminate will help to some degree.
As for dirt, I would NEVER fire a round in any of my very expensive target guns that had fallen on the floor. Grit embedded in the lead WILL damage your bore. Maybe not a lot, but it's just not a good thing to do. Rimfire Benchrest shooters have discovered bore damage just from unburned powder getting hammered into the bore by subsequent bullets, and I'd hate to think what a big chunk of sand would do. Some ammo has a thick waxy lube that you could wipe off to clean up a round, but the stuff just isn't that expensive that it's worth the risk of damaging your rifling.
Gwhite
I have also had .22 bullets that were sometimes badly dented from misfeeding in my semi-auto target pistols. In practice, I will straighten them out, and shoot them. I've never had an impression that they were signficantly less accurate than normal rounds.
All that said, if you really want precision, you shouldn't be shooting damaged bullets. At 50 feet, most people would never see the difference, but the secret to shooting really tight groups is consistency. Every variable (like your ammo) you can control or eliminate will help to some degree.
As for dirt, I would NEVER fire a round in any of my very expensive target guns that had fallen on the floor. Grit embedded in the lead WILL damage your bore. Maybe not a lot, but it's just not a good thing to do. Rimfire Benchrest shooters have discovered bore damage just from unburned powder getting hammered into the bore by subsequent bullets, and I'd hate to think what a big chunk of sand would do. Some ammo has a thick waxy lube that you could wipe off to clean up a round, but the stuff just isn't that expensive that it's worth the risk of damaging your rifling.
Gwhite
-
Mark Briggs
- Posts: 583
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:35 am
- Location: The Frigid North - Ottawa, Canada
Ed,
I'll never be considered an expert on this subject, but I've conducted a few tests which have led me to form some opinions based on observation.
Firstly, let's look at the testing. I tested a wide array of ammunition in a Morini CM84E free pistol. The test rig consisted of a Ransom Rest fastened firmly to the structure of a house. The barrel of the free pistol was then clamped in the Ransom Rest. Yes, this may not be the optimal set of test conditions, but the conditions were good enough to allow me to make a comparitive evaluation of ammunition.
My findings indicate that most .22LR ammuntion is capable of producing groups 50mm or smaller at a range of 50m. The cheap stuff (Remington Target, Sellier & Ballot Standard, CCI Standard Velocity, PMC Scoremaster) all produced flyers, but surprisingly, some of them produced a more dense grouping in the core of the target than did the most expensive ammo.
As you move up in price, the group sizes do not necessarily shrink, although my best groups were achieved with old Eley Tenex (I can't afford to buy the new stuff...). What I found interesting was that some "less expensive" ammo like Lapua Standard Club, packed 500 rounds to a tin can, actually grouped very well. In fact, in my pistol it grouped better than any other Lapua ammo, including Midas.
If I were to attempt to answer your question about bullet deformity and its impact on accuracy, my hunch would be to say that such small deformities would have little to no effect on accuracy. As something of a case in point, I also have experimented with black powder muzzleloading rifles and have found that, when shooting patched round balls, the presence and location of the sprue makes not one whit of difference in accuracy, nor does the accuracy change even when using a ball that's previously been pulled from the barrel using a threaded puller. Balls which have been pulled from the bore have a huge deformation where the puller threaded into the lead ball, and it literally makes no difference in point of impact. I simply couldn't believe these findings myself until I repeated the test several times.
To address your question about the sealing of .22LR bullets in the barrel, I have a little theory... When shooting a Morini free pistol with "bloop tube" attached there are dirt trails left inside the bloop tube. On my pistol I can clearly see in the dirt trails the location of lands and grooves in the barrel. Where the lands engage the bullet there is very little dirt deposited on the bloop tube. Where the grooves are located I find much greater deposits of dirt in the bloop tube. As a result of these observations I have to agree with your theory that gas sealing in the grooves is not complete, and certainly not as good as the sealing that takes place at the lands. Nor is it likely as good as it would be with hollow-base bullets which obturate to fill the bore. I'm not sure that at .22 pressures obturation would occur anyhow, so it likely doesn't make any difference.
By the way, if you want to test your theory, take a rifle and shoot it from the bench. Shoot 25 rounds of a given brand of premium ammo. Then take a sharp object like a nail and make a uniform deformation on 25 bullets from the same box of premium ammo. After shooting both the "virgin" and the "dented" ammo I'd like to hear what your results are.
I'll never be considered an expert on this subject, but I've conducted a few tests which have led me to form some opinions based on observation.
Firstly, let's look at the testing. I tested a wide array of ammunition in a Morini CM84E free pistol. The test rig consisted of a Ransom Rest fastened firmly to the structure of a house. The barrel of the free pistol was then clamped in the Ransom Rest. Yes, this may not be the optimal set of test conditions, but the conditions were good enough to allow me to make a comparitive evaluation of ammunition.
My findings indicate that most .22LR ammuntion is capable of producing groups 50mm or smaller at a range of 50m. The cheap stuff (Remington Target, Sellier & Ballot Standard, CCI Standard Velocity, PMC Scoremaster) all produced flyers, but surprisingly, some of them produced a more dense grouping in the core of the target than did the most expensive ammo.
As you move up in price, the group sizes do not necessarily shrink, although my best groups were achieved with old Eley Tenex (I can't afford to buy the new stuff...). What I found interesting was that some "less expensive" ammo like Lapua Standard Club, packed 500 rounds to a tin can, actually grouped very well. In fact, in my pistol it grouped better than any other Lapua ammo, including Midas.
If I were to attempt to answer your question about bullet deformity and its impact on accuracy, my hunch would be to say that such small deformities would have little to no effect on accuracy. As something of a case in point, I also have experimented with black powder muzzleloading rifles and have found that, when shooting patched round balls, the presence and location of the sprue makes not one whit of difference in accuracy, nor does the accuracy change even when using a ball that's previously been pulled from the barrel using a threaded puller. Balls which have been pulled from the bore have a huge deformation where the puller threaded into the lead ball, and it literally makes no difference in point of impact. I simply couldn't believe these findings myself until I repeated the test several times.
To address your question about the sealing of .22LR bullets in the barrel, I have a little theory... When shooting a Morini free pistol with "bloop tube" attached there are dirt trails left inside the bloop tube. On my pistol I can clearly see in the dirt trails the location of lands and grooves in the barrel. Where the lands engage the bullet there is very little dirt deposited on the bloop tube. Where the grooves are located I find much greater deposits of dirt in the bloop tube. As a result of these observations I have to agree with your theory that gas sealing in the grooves is not complete, and certainly not as good as the sealing that takes place at the lands. Nor is it likely as good as it would be with hollow-base bullets which obturate to fill the bore. I'm not sure that at .22 pressures obturation would occur anyhow, so it likely doesn't make any difference.
By the way, if you want to test your theory, take a rifle and shoot it from the bench. Shoot 25 rounds of a given brand of premium ammo. Then take a sharp object like a nail and make a uniform deformation on 25 bullets from the same box of premium ammo. After shooting both the "virgin" and the "dented" ammo I'd like to hear what your results are.
That's a good idea, Mark. I don't shoot or even own a rifle, nor do I have a Ransom rest, so I'll have to give some thought on how to lock down my Hammerli or other .22 pistol to make a reliable test rig. Given that, it just makes sense to test with the same ammunition and deliberately damage the sides of a series of bullets to see how much it affects accuracy. Science.
If you have the opportunity to do so yourself before I can figure this out, please share the results!
Thanks!
If you have the opportunity to do so yourself before I can figure this out, please share the results!
Thanks!
You dont need a machine rest.
Just shoot off a steady rest like sandbags or a stack of 2x4's.
If you have to go to all that trouble just to see what everyone else takes for granted, you only need to see if they shoot significantly outside of the norm.
And unless you purposely beat them up outside of normal dents and scratches, they will shoot just as well as the "good" ones. Dont expect any bullet smashed flat or deply scratched to shoot well from any gun. Just common sense.
Now have at it and let us know what you found.
Carry on!
Just shoot off a steady rest like sandbags or a stack of 2x4's.
If you have to go to all that trouble just to see what everyone else takes for granted, you only need to see if they shoot significantly outside of the norm.
And unless you purposely beat them up outside of normal dents and scratches, they will shoot just as well as the "good" ones. Dont expect any bullet smashed flat or deply scratched to shoot well from any gun. Just common sense.
Now have at it and let us know what you found.
Carry on!
-
marka
bullet deformation
Guys
Check out the post in the rifle fourm and read the recent article in the NRA American rifleman magazine.
Any deformation in the bullet that will affect the aerodynamics will affect the accuracy.
Check out the post in the rifle fourm and read the recent article in the NRA American rifleman magazine.
Any deformation in the bullet that will affect the aerodynamics will affect the accuracy.
-
Mark Briggs
- Posts: 583
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:35 am
- Location: The Frigid North - Ottawa, Canada
marka,
Although the article in the NRA magazine speaks of accuracy degradation as a result of bullet deformation, one needs to understand that on the pistol side of things we're not looking at guns which will produce 10mm or smaller groups at 50 m. We're looking at guns which, at best, will produce 20-30mm groups (free pistols) and more likely 50+mm groups for standard pistols. The effects of minor bullet deformation on handgun accuracy is, from my observation, negligable.
Although the article in the NRA magazine speaks of accuracy degradation as a result of bullet deformation, one needs to understand that on the pistol side of things we're not looking at guns which will produce 10mm or smaller groups at 50 m. We're looking at guns which, at best, will produce 20-30mm groups (free pistols) and more likely 50+mm groups for standard pistols. The effects of minor bullet deformation on handgun accuracy is, from my observation, negligable.
Your findings are very similar to my own. My Ransom rest was bolted to a steel plate atop a 12 inch concrete post that has been sunk into the ground. I have a side cocking Toz, so I constructed a set of grip adapters for my pistol.Mark Briggs wrote:Ed,
I'll never be considered an expert on this subject, but I've conducted a few tests which have led me to form some opinions based on observation.
Firstly, let's look at the testing. I tested a wide array of ammunition in a Morini CM84E free pistol. The test rig consisted of a Ransom Rest fastened firmly to the structure of a house. The barrel of the free pistol was then clamped in the Ransom Rest. Yes, this may not be the optimal set of test conditions, but the conditions were good enough to allow me to make a comparitive evaluation of ammunition.
My findings indicate ....
Several brands of inexpensive ammunition produced primary groups as good as the best expensive ones. Even some bulk packed high velocity ammunition did better than some of the better products. The big difference was in the number of fliers and how many per group. The problem with batch testing and buying ammunition is that you eventually run out and have to repeat the process again. I find myself in that situation now. I will add a damaged bullet test to my day. It will make trudging through the rain a bit more interesting.
Larry
-
Mark Briggs
- Posts: 583
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:35 am
- Location: The Frigid North - Ottawa, Canada
Larry - I look forward to hearing your test results!
As for your testing, may I suggest that you try the following ammunition as I've had promising results with it?
In order of cost...
Aguila Match Pistol (produced excellent groups in my Morini!)
Lapua Standard Club (very good value, very consistant)
Lapua Super Club
Lapua Pistol King (I havent tested it extensively, but have been provided info from another poster who highly recommends this as ammo for the FP, and is consistant from batch to batch)
Haven't yet tested this stuff, but would be interested in seeing test results from a free pistol:
Eley SemiAuto
Cheers,
Mark.
As for your testing, may I suggest that you try the following ammunition as I've had promising results with it?
In order of cost...
Aguila Match Pistol (produced excellent groups in my Morini!)
Lapua Standard Club (very good value, very consistant)
Lapua Super Club
Lapua Pistol King (I havent tested it extensively, but have been provided info from another poster who highly recommends this as ammo for the FP, and is consistant from batch to batch)
Haven't yet tested this stuff, but would be interested in seeing test results from a free pistol:
Eley SemiAuto
Cheers,
Mark.
Just to reiterate my theory behind this thread in case it's getting lost. I don't want it to seem like we're talking just about the effects of bullet damage overall; spinning the bullet is supposed to compensate for this to a large degree. My concern is specific to .22 ammunition, and the unusual characteristic of a heeled round in that the gas seal is (presumably) not the base of the bullet, but rather the sides of the bullet outside the case, where it is exposed to potential damage. Damage to the edge of the base of a conventional bullet is supposed to allow gas to escape irregularly as the bullet exits the muzzle (much like damage to the crown of the muzzle itself), and cause flyers. Since the base of a conventional bullet is inside the case, it is protected. The .22 may be more susceptible to flyers if mistreated or perhaps even if poorly package because the important part of the bullet is outside the case.
Honestly, my guess is that it is, but that it will take a considerable amount of damage to have an effect.
Honestly, my guess is that it is, but that it will take a considerable amount of damage to have an effect.
I dont think we lost your point. And I think that the .22 has stood up to every test there could possibly be. More .22 lr ammo is shot than any other and it has been around for a very long time.
The .22 has proven its ability to withstand abuses of all kinds and still maintain its accuracy.
Several people have given you their opinion and yet you persist. So go out and test for yourself.
Scratch it, dent it, do whatever. But we do understand the question. And the answer is that it really does not make much difference.
And as has been mentioned, any bullet fired from any gun that has been damaged will not be as accurate as one that has not. But the .22 will take a lot of punishment before it goes way off course.
Now go buy a bulk pack and look at the side of the bullet where it meets the grooves. And see if you can find any that you think would be a flyer. Make a separate pile and test fire them. I bet they dont shoot any worse than the rest of the box.
Carry on!
The .22 has proven its ability to withstand abuses of all kinds and still maintain its accuracy.
Several people have given you their opinion and yet you persist. So go out and test for yourself.
Scratch it, dent it, do whatever. But we do understand the question. And the answer is that it really does not make much difference.
And as has been mentioned, any bullet fired from any gun that has been damaged will not be as accurate as one that has not. But the .22 will take a lot of punishment before it goes way off course.
Now go buy a bulk pack and look at the side of the bullet where it meets the grooves. And see if you can find any that you think would be a flyer. Make a separate pile and test fire them. I bet they dont shoot any worse than the rest of the box.
Carry on!
Okay, don't want to loose the thread. The groove diameter for the 22 long rifle is a nominal .2235". The bullet loaded into the cartridge case is a nominal .2255". It gets swaged to groove diameter by the throat. This is not unusual for a lead bullet. The 45 ACP has a groove diameter of .451" and a usual bullet diameter of .452". The base has little to do with obturation. Damage to the base can make a marked difference in accuracy though. Damage to a 22 LR bullet's driving bands could conceivably create an obturation problem, but no more so than damage to the side of any lead bullet. Damage to the driving band next to the case would have more of an effect on accuracy than damage to the nose or leading bands.EdStevens wrote:Just to reiterate my theory behind this thread in case it's getting lost...
Damage that materially affects the radial balance of the bullet should cause a reduction in accuracy. That is why those who load their own pistol and rifle ammunition weigh their lead bullets. On the other hand, most lead pistol bullets are shipped in boxes of 500 to 1000. The minor dings to the sides of the bullets from shipping has little to do with ultimate accuracy. Spinning the bullet does not negate the effect unbalance has on a bullets true path. Bullets do not fly in a straight line like you see on TV. They travel a modulated corkscrew path. Round balls may form a special case.
Throwing your cartridges on a filthy floor probably isn't a good practice, but that is a barrel wear issue, not an accuracy one.
Larry
Sorry, guys. I did sound downright "preachy" in my last post, where the reality is that I am making a lot of guesses and am unsure of the facts here. Not enough sleep the past couple of days. I plan to do some testing this weekend and as long as I can get a stable enough platform to get consistent baseline groups will see what I can find.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Here's another data point: I shoot Federal 711 in my free pistols, and it is quite accurate. I had an older lot where there was lead shaved off the bullet built up around the top edge of some cases. It looked as if the lead wasn't seated all the way before the case was crimped, or something. Whatever the cause, the result was a mix of good clean rounds, and ones where there was varying amounts of lead around the mouth of the case. Sometimes there would be a ring of lead embedded between the base of the bullet and the rolled in crimp on the case mouth. Other rounds would have a partial ring, or sometimes a thin piece of lead smeared down the side of the case. For matches, I would select clean rounds, or at least remove any excess lead. In practice, I generally didn't bother. I never had any indication that the "bad" rounds were any less accurate than the "good" rounds.
Gwhite
Gwhite
Well, I did some admittedly rather unscientific testing this morning with my Hammerli and Eley Practice, scoring a diagonal line with a sharp screwdriver deeply into the band of bullets (much deeper than any accidental damage could cause). I then fired sets of five normal and damaged at 25 yards and could not see any significant difference between the performance of the rounds.
With iron sights and without a proper way to lock the gun down, the test was not as "tight" as I would have liked, and there may have been differences that I couldn't detect. However, there was no dramatic difference in performance that I could see.
With iron sights and without a proper way to lock the gun down, the test was not as "tight" as I would have liked, and there may have been differences that I couldn't detect. However, there was no dramatic difference in performance that I could see.