best high velocity 22lr for 100 yard accuracy

T

TexasJoe

Guest
Hi,my question is what is the best high velocity 22lr ammo for 100 yard benchrest? thankks!
 
Yeah, that, and you should really consider forgetting about high velocity ammo in that quest. Match ammo is typically not 'high velocity' for many reasons. High velocity ammo behaves worse in the wind, as it is more affected by it. High velocity ammo will also pass through that 'trans-sonic' speed zone on its way out to the 100-yard line, where it goes from super-sonic speed back down to sub-sonic speed and the turbulence it experiences while doing so can and likely will upset the bullet's flight in a less than predictable manner, resulting in less accurate/repeatable points of impact. You're much more likely to get the results you're after if you use match ammo, for example, the stuff made by Eley or Lapua, than you are if you're using high velocity ammo. Match ammo stays below the speed of sound to avoid the problems associated with passing through that mach 1 barrier, and because it is less affected by the wind by staying sub-sonic. Is there a special reason you ask about high velocity stuff in particular?
 
Thanks Shorty

Well ,what happened was shooting my kimber 22" barrell,1 in 9 twist it pretty consistently shoots 1" or better at 100 yards with RWS,or Eley etc..I believe they are about 1050fps. But with my 18" barrel SVT 1 in 9 twist kimber at 100 yards it did awful with the same ammo,Wolf,eley,rws etc.. BUT when i passed some federal bulk box auto match at 1200 fps,then their even cheaper bulk stuff at 1280 fps it did better..so I thought maybe high velocity is the way to go?? Thanks for your knowledge and help,Joe.
 
I assumed .22 LR, and you said .22 LR, but I suppose a 1:9 twist indicates .17 HMR or HM2, no? A little strange to see a 1:9 twist barrel on a .22 LR gun, unless it's something like a conversion kit on a .223 centerfire gun. Although I do believe that Kimber's website incorrectly states their .22 LR guns have a 1:9 twist, which should have been text written for the same gun but in the .17 calibers. I'm pretty sure the Kimbers in question, in .22 LR, actually have a 1:16 twist.

Anyways, that aside, I think you're just running into the reason why people test different lots. They may find one particular lot shoots horrible in their gun, but another lot of the same ammo may perform much better. But in looking for good benchrest accuracy, especially out at 100 yards, you're going to have much better luck sticking with standard velocity match ammo. It just may take trying a few different lots before you find the performance you're after, and it's not a given that what performs well in one gun barrel will also perform well in another gun barrel. It's certainly possible, but all barrels are different and will tend to show preferences to different lots. If you really can't get that one gun to shoot with any lots of match ammo that you try, but the other one seems to shoot with some of them, perhaps there are issues with that one gun to be investigated and taken care of.

edit - Yeah, take a look here. The page says 1:9 right-hand twist, but if you click the Specifications link at the bottom of the page it brings up a table that shows different twist ratios for the .17 and the .22 LR barrels. The .22 LR barrel does indeed have a 1:16 twist. It would be rather strange if it did have a 1:9 twist, given the typical .22 LR ammo available. I think the 60-grain Aguila stuff is about the only stuff that shoots decently from a 1:9 barrel, such as a converted .223 as I mentioned before. Anyway, here's the page with the Specifications link at the bottom. http://www.kimberamerica.com/rifles/kimber1722/svt.php
 
Last edited:
My club has a 100yd benchrest .22lr match that I use a factory hvy barrel 40X; it has a mid-barrel and a Hoehn tuner on it. When I did my testing and tuner setting I tried several different velocity ammo at 25yds. I found a few that did pretty good, but when I went out to 100yds, the best of what I had on hand was Eley Biathlon @ 1083fps. Not sure if the Biathlon made the difference, but that was the only higher speed stuff I had at the time. I have since gotten some black box @ 1080 but haven't tried it yet. Thanks, Douglas
 
thanks.

Thanks friends,at least I know my twist rate,Kimber should fix their site! I will try biathalon too.Joe.
 
Texas Joe: I don't disagree much with the idea that match or standard velocity ammo may be better in alot of rifles concerning accuracy. But there can be exceptions, for instance my old original 30" barreled Ballard .22. At 100 yds range a good quality hi-velocity ammo always is more accurate. My take on this is it takes more velocity to overcome the barrel resistance of the 30" length, and still have enough velocity to stabilize the bullet to 100 yds. For me Lapua Speed ace seems the best, but CCI MiniMagHP also works very well..............best regards Plum
 
Wow, that's one long barrel! They say a typical standard velocity round gets the highest velocity from a barrel that's about 16" long and slows after that, so your thoughts are probably on target, as it were.
 
Plumb,
My 29.5" barreled Martini shot MUCH better with subsonic Lapua Midas L than with any high velocity. It would average just a smidge over 1"/10 shots at 100 yds with many targets considerably better than that. High velocity would not hold 2" ever, and I ran an awful lot of lead through that rifle.

I did my best to test the "slowing" hypothesis but could not verify it. I doubt it matters much if at all. Longer barrels were definitely faster with high velocity, but the same (not slower) as shorter barrels with standard velocity ammo.

The most accurate barrel I have ever had is my current 17" Lilja lined into my 28" #2 octagon Winchester barrel on a modified 85 Winchester.
Brent
 
Here's a post from a suppressor manufacturer that tested a Contender barrel by cutting it down an inch at a time and measuring muzzle velocity. He doesn't directly say that 16 inches was the highest speed, and that it was slower with the previous longer lengths. But what he does say is that once they got to 16 inches the velocity started dropping, I presume because there is still powder burning and the bullet is leaving the muzzle before it completes burning. And he also says accuracy started suffering at 12 inches. It would be interesting to find more data, for sure. I'll have to keep my eye out for a cheap gun with a long barrel to satisfy my own curiosity, if more data isn't already out there to be found.

edit - whoops, look just past halfway down the page for the post from Chessman.
 
From Shorty; where it goes from super-sonic speed back down to sub-sonic speed and the turbulence it experiences while doing so can and likely will upset the bullet's flight in a less than predictable manner, resulting in less accurate/repeatable points of impact.

Don't think there is any "turbulence" in transition from sonic to subsonic. What there is is a change in the drag coef. that causes a lesser effect of wind while the bullet is in subsonic flight. Bullet flight is NOT "upset" during the transition period.
 
This has been written and rewritten any number of times, probably best by Frank Tirrell, who supplied high speed photos. Essentially as the bullet goes back below supersonic it breifly becomes unstable for a distance, sometimes a fairly long distance. It is primarily that realization responsible for so much match ammo being sub sonic.
And Cec, please, God almighty, please, if you don't believe this , disagree quietly, all by yourself. Rumor has it that several board members have taken up a collection to get you a coach, a guy named Vito.
 
Last edited:
I like the tussle!

Wow! thanks for all the info,I am glad to be a new member.It is fun to see alittle good ole bickering! I bought alot of ammo today,I willpost the results,thanks again everyone.texas Joe.
 
_Shorty said:
About a third of the way down the page is a section titled "The transonic problem" that has some details.
Click to expand...

Shorty,

Wikipedia is a wonderful source of information and I use it often, but it is not unusual to find errors there.

This is a quote from the Wikipedia page: "Every day hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world make tens of thousands of edits and create thousands of new articles to enhance the knowledge held by the Wikipedia encyclopedia."

In other words, take the info there with "a grain of salt" and try to verify it elsewhere if possible. I remember once reading on Wikipedia that Leprechans were the cause of Global Warming. It was corrected quickly, but some of the more technical issues can gererate controversy and evolve over time.

That being said, I don't have a stance on the transonic stability issue. However, I have seen credible data from both sides of this issue.
 
I'm baaack!...

I wasn't going to post here again as I ran off with my tail between my legs but the other posters kinda "coached" me and made me reconsider.

The transonic effect is described by some as "turbulence". It's not, rather it is a "change in the center of pressure". No air turbulence is involved with this. Also the change in C of P in a 22 rimfire bullet is very slight. It's somewhat like the change experienced in a ball, which is zero. So, okay, I admit to being about 20% wrong....but I was 80% right! Wait a minute, that must mean Don and Tim were 80% wrong and only 20% right!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top