Testing Ammo

L

linekin

Active member
I've got a few lots of ammo to test in the next couple days. In the past I've usually bought a couple boxes of each lot. I generally test it in my sporter & my 10.5 guns so its why I buy a couple boxes.
How I do it is try & pick a day when there is a little consistent breeze. I hate calms. I also like to go back on a different day & conditions to confirm yeah or nay.
I shoot several 3 or 5 shot groups depending on my mood & then a complete target for score.
That's how I've chose the last 3 lots anyway. It seems like when I've chosen it, it was "killer" & at times it is. Others, just mediocre decent ammo.
How do some of you choose to spend your hard earned money?
Your thought are appreciated.

Keith
 
Keith, you testing your gun or ammo?
I just went through some similar tests, I waited until I got as good as it gets this time of the year, either late in the day, gray with light drizzle, or both. I got the results I needed but generally do not rely too much on groups. I want 2-3 groups shot and then run a card or two. I've seen way too much stuff that groups OK but cannot score a card too well. I want something without fliers but that shoots flat over a whole card and I don't shoot like a match with sighters, if the condition stays close I go through most of the card, remember you are LOOKING for bad habits in the ammo, not your shooting ability.
You usually get a good idea well before a whole card.
If possible and time permits, I will come back in a less than ideal situation to see how stuff I like permorms in the wind.
 
tim said:
Keith, you testing your gun or ammo?
.
Click to expand...

Tim, I was doing both actually. I was testing ammo for the sporter & re-visiting a barrel I lost confidence in in the spring.
That sporter seems to shoot everything well. Its a hard one for me to find its "best" ammo.
The 10.5 gun just needs more time behind it although I've shot it most all year, just with a different barrel. They're like apples & oranges it seems. Two different animals.
Like you I don't put a whole lot of stock in groups but do like to shoot them anyway. I too shoot a card for score.
I guess I'm just wondering if I'm maybe missing a little something while doing it??

Keith
 
So I did a little testing late yesterday afternoon & found what may be some promising ammo for the 10.5 gun.
What I'm mainly looking for though is ammo for the sporter. I'm looking for that one great lot. Problem is it shoots everything well so its hard to gauge ammo that is better than another.
My problem with it is it was late & just about all the wind had let up. Which I feel is an apparition, as I rarely shoot in that little wind.
I'll go back this afternoon a bit earlier hoping to catch the little more wind there is before sunset & see if its as good today.
I'd heard & read that some people like to test indoors. After having shot at Piney Hill this spring I can say I'd never spend a dime on ammo I'd tested indoors! That's really weird to me as I'd thought indoors would be ideal. Tricky place that Piney Hill.

Keith
 
Last edited:
I'm confused

I'm not quite sure how ammo can shoot great groups and then not score well. It doesn't seem to make much sense, can you explain? How does a lot of ammo that consistently shoots where the rifle is pointed not score better than a lot that does not shoot as well (group)? Thanks.

Steve
 
Az_Speed said:
I'm not quite sure how ammo can shoot great groups and then not score well. It doesn't seem to make much sense, can you explain? How does a lot of ammo that consistently shoots where the rifle is pointed not score better than a lot that does not shoot as well (group)? Thanks.

Steve
Click to expand...

With some rifles the point of impact drifts as the barrel builds fouling. Unless you know this and are very alert to adjusting for this you'll drops points !!
 
One
Az_Speed said:
I'm not quite sure how ammo can shoot great groups and then not score well. It doesn't seem to make much sense, can you explain? How does a lot of ammo that consistently shoots where the rifle is pointed not score better than a lot that does not shoot as well (group)? Thanks.

Steve
Click to expand...

Simply one of those seemingly irrational factoids of the rimfire world. Some really great grouping ammo in the test tunnel never did really well shooting score in conditions.
Groups help out, but it's only a preliminary not an end all IMHO.
 
Last edited:
linekin said:
So I did a little testing late yesterday afternoon & found what may be some promising ammo for the 10.5 gun.
What I'm mainly looking for though is ammo for the sporter. I'm looking for that one great lot. Problem is it shoots everything well so its hard to gauge ammo that is better than another.
My problem with it is it was late & just about all the wind had let up. Which I feel is an apparition, as I rarely shoot in that little wind.
I'll go back this afternoon a bit earlier hoping to catch the little more wind there is before sunset & see if its as good today.
I'd heard & read that some people like to test indoors. After having shot at Piney Hill this spring I can say I'd never spend a dime on ammo I'd tested indoors! That's really weird to me as I'd thought indoors would be ideal. Tricky place that Piney Hill.

Keith
Click to expand...

You might have missed my point, everybody rarely shoots in little wind, that isn't the point, finding the best possible ammo is the point. Fighting conditions has too many variables. That surprise 9??? Was it the ammo or you? Kind of why scientific testing gets done in a lab first, under controled conditions, if that first step leads you to good stuff you can then follow up in "real world " conditions. I'm testing ammo, not a proven gun. Anyway, for what it's worth, works for me.
 
Last edited:
Az_Speed said:
I'm not quite sure how ammo can shoot great groups and then not score well. It doesn't seem to make much sense, can you explain? How does a lot of ammo that consistently shoots where the rifle is pointed not score better than a lot that does not shoot as well (group)? Thanks.

Steve
Click to expand...

Here's how I look at it. Lots of ammo will shoot several groups well. By shooting a whole card for score you're shooting a 25 shot group. That's why I'll shoot the whole card. That's when ugliness rears it head.
Early on I would buy ammo that grouped well. Bit me in the ass many many times. Oh did it bite me.
That's why Eley must shoot 40 shot groups in they're testing. To me its the same thing. Pretty hard to shoot a 40 shout group without being in a fixture,


Keith
 
Az_Speed said:
I'm not quite sure how ammo can shoot great groups and then not score well. It doesn't seem to make much sense, can you explain? How does a lot of ammo that consistently shoots where the rifle is pointed not score better than a lot that does not shoot as well (group)? Thanks.

Steve
Click to expand...

Bingo; you win the prize. Of course the best grouping ammo will always be best.
What is missing is conclusions drawn upon invalid sample size. We're all guilty of shooting 3 or 5 shot groups and rationalizing that is the best tune spot, etc.
That is why Husker shoots 25 shots and Eley uses 40 to get a more statistically valid sample size. When people say the target is the real test; what they observed is that a 25 shot sample is a lot better that a 5 shot group.
I will share my Lapua test tunnel story. We tested 12 lots of centerX, one memorable lot started with two shots about 3/8 in separation; I commented that this is a bad lot and he continued shooting and the lot filled right in to a large one hole group that ended up about average. Two other lots started out with the first five in the same hole, maybe a .1 in variance, I was writing down the magic lot numbers. Shots 8,9 and 10 were a big triangle that ruined the group. None of these lots ended up being the best.
Husker, how about your selection criteria for lot selection.

gn
 
Kieth

I don't go out to test ammo if there is much wind, I try to do it on a very calm day either early in the morning or late in the afternoon.I warm the barrel then shoot a whole card. Then I completely clean the barrel before changing lots and do the same thing. Remember you are testing how good the ammo is not how good you can shoot it in wind and in wind there will be movement that you just cant guage as to how good the ammo is. If my gun wont shoot in the dead calm it wont shoot in the wind either. Now I have had ammo that was better in the wind than the calm and vice versa but I generally don't test in any wind if I can help it.
MC
 
Az_Speed said:
I'm not quite sure how ammo can shoot great groups and then not score well. It doesn't seem to make much sense, can you explain? How does a lot of ammo that consistently shoots where the rifle is pointed not score better than a lot that does not shoot as well (group)? Thanks.

Steve
Click to expand...

As a follow up to your question since I notice you asked it over at the land of Oz, directed at the wizard hisself.
Since you seem pretty inquisitive, which is just fine, go over to RA and do a search on tunnel testing. That should lead you to a series of threads, one of which, has a lot of commentary by Kevin Nevius, pretty sharp guy, builds guns, also a multi year national champion camp Perry prone shooter, one who tests in tunnels for groups as well.
You'll find his comments informative.
 
Last edited:
This link is to a thread on RA that's 2 years old, but I do address a few of the comments made here and it may be helpful.
http://www.rimfireaccuracy.com/Forums/showthread.php/8981-Testing-a-Rifle-Part-1

As regards shooting groups vs targets for lot testing/tuning, and the comments made by many shooters over the years believing some rifles may group well but not score well and vise versa....I've never seen it and I'm certain it's not true. It's not often I state positives or am certain of anything, but in this case, it's irrefutable!
There are simply mountains of statistical and empirical data proving it can't happen and I can only theorize there may be some rather bizarre and very rare circumstances where it might occur. Even then, those variables that might cause it to happen would render the rifle unusable as a competitive firearm.

I do understand how easy it is to be led astray and come to the mistaken belief that how rifles group and how they shoot for score sometimes seem to be at odds, but it usually boils down to insufficient sample sizes when testing, the difficulties involved in getting reliable data shooting in conditions, and relying too heavily on observations rather than gathering quality data for analysis.

If anyone reading this is curious enough to prove/disprove what I've stated, I'll outline a plan where you can satisfy that curiosity and also improve the odds of successfully testing for lots or quantifying the precision of your rifle.
I suggest you purchase the TDS version of "OnTarget". You can use it to both accurately measure the groups you shoot and the scores you'd shoot on a target. There's a learning curve to use the software correctly and you'll also need to learn the proper procedure for precisely measuring groups, but nearly everyone is capable of doing so.
If you shoot a sufficient number of groups and targets, you'll never believe again the myth that how a rifle groups and how a rifle shoots for score aren't the same.

Landy
 
cobra1 said:
Bingo; you win the prize. Of course the best grouping ammo will always be best.
What is missing is conclusions drawn upon invalid sample size. We're all guilty of shooting 3 or 5 shot groups and rationalizing that is the best tune spot, etc.
That is why Husker shoots 25 shots and Eley uses 40 to get a more statistically valid sample size. When people say the target is the real test; what they observed is that a 25 shot sample is a lot better that a 5 shot group.
I will share my Lapua test tunnel story. We tested 12 lots of centerX, one memorable lot started with two shots about 3/8 in separation; I commented that this is a bad lot and he continued shooting and the lot filled right in to a large one hole group that ended up about average. Two other lots started out with the first five in the same hole, maybe a .1 in variance, I was writing down the magic lot numbers. Shots 8,9 and 10 were a big triangle that ruined the group. None of these lots ended up being the best.
Husker, how about your selection criteria for lot selection.

gn
Click to expand...

Grover,

I shoot a lot of 25-shot targets, but I'd never spend my hard earned money on a case of ammo based on a single 25-shot target or the shot distribution it produces.
In an ideal world where I had unlimited resources and no time constraints, I'd buy my test lots by the brick. But that's simply not practical nor is it economically feasible for anyone I know, including me.

Husker, how about your selection criteria for lot selection.

We all have to compromise and decide what is "practical".

In my case I'll use every single rd in a box of ammo and shoot either 2 25-shot targets or a single 50-shot target. I'll foul the bore with odd lots of the same ammo brand so not a single round is wasted and I'll base my decisions on the statistics best suited for analyses of shot distributions.

If anyone chooses to use "OnTarget TDS" you'd primarily look at ATC (Average To Center), also called MR (Mean Radius).
If anyone chooses to continue shooting groups in lieu of software, that's fine also. Using ATC on a shot distribution has a higher correlation to precision that does shooting a series of 5-shot groups and calculating the average size, but the difference isn't huge and remains a viable option. Even if shooting groups, I'd still get the free version of "OnTarget" for measuring those groups and I'd ask or learn how to properly measure groups because it's pretty damned obvious most don't know how to do so.

Landy
 
I'm Curious Enough

"If anyone reading this is curious enough to prove/disprove what I've stated, I'll outline a plan where you can satisfy that curiosity and also improve the odds of successfully testing for lots or quantifying the precision of your rifle."


I'd very much like to try the plan. I own the software, can you send me an outline of the plan? Many thanks!

Steve
 
HuskerP7M8 said:
This link is to a thread on RA that's 2 years old, but I do address a few of the comments made here and it may be helpful.
http://www.rimfireaccuracy.com/Forums/showthread.php/8981-Testing-a-Rifle-Part-1

As regards shooting groups vs targets for lot testing/tuning, and the comments made by many shooters over the years believing some rifles may group well but not score well and vise versa....I've never seen it and I'm certain it's not true. It's not often I state positives or am certain of anything, but in this case, it's irrefutable!
There are simply mountains of statistical and empirical data proving it can't happen and I can only theorize there may be some rather bizarre and very rare circumstances where it might occur. Even then, those variables that might cause it to happen would render the rifle unusable as a competitive firearm.

I do understand how easy it is to be led astray and come to the mistaken belief that how rifles group and how they shoot for score sometimes seem to be at odds, but it usually boils down to insufficient sample sizes when testing, the difficulties involved in getting reliable data shooting in conditions, and relying too heavily on observations rather than gathering quality data for analysis.

If anyone reading this is curious enough to prove/disprove what I've stated, I'll outline a plan where you can satisfy that curiosity and also improve the odds of successfully testing for lots or quantifying the precision of your rifle.
I suggest you purchase the TDS version of "OnTarget". You can use it to both accurately measure the groups you shoot and the scores you'd shoot on a target. There's a learning curve to use the software correctly and you'll also need to learn the proper procedure for precisely measuring groups, but nearly everyone is capable of doing so.
If you shoot a sufficient number of groups and targets, you'll never believe again the myth that how a rifle groups and how a rifle shoots for score aren't the same.

Landy
Click to expand...

Landy,
For what it's worth, somewhere you seemed to take this thread for a 180 deg. turn.
You are talking about established accuracy, rifle accuracy, consistancy. That is not.....was not the point being made. My statement was that in some situations not ALL ammunition that groups well will translate into the best scoring ammunition. It was an observation on occaisional lots not the merits of a rifles general performance.

While I figured, why try to lead the audience, that reference I pointed to was a thread a year ago by a multi year champion shooter with untold hours of testing, practice, and world class match shooting that states the same thing. I tend to suspect he's had discussions about same with peers with similar expertise. Technically he's not agreeing with my statement, but the other way around.
This is right up there with why it is possible to make two barrels as dimensionally similar, as is possible buy human hands and have a large disparity in performance ?
 
Last edited:
Tim,

I may have taken this thread around a shallow curve but I think I've tried to answer Keith's questions to the best of my ability and don't think I've turned the thread onto a 180 deg one-way switchback road after my comments.
Besides, it's in the nature of forum posts to swerve around multiple curves and often derail completely. LOL

Landy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top