After reading lovemywoods' results in his thread on .22 conversions and accuracy, I wanted to go back out with my .22's and see how they did with various ammo and see how they did.
Please Read Lovemywoods' Range Report Here
The plan was to use two rifles to test 7 different types of ammo. Each type would be shot on a 6 square target with an LTR sighter square, then three shots being done LTR supported (like lovemywoods' test), one square done LTR with a sling, and lastly one square done with the cricket rifle.
Today was a foggy, nippy day and the pics were taken with my cell phone (sorry, could not find the camera). The day was this grey in reality:
The 7 ammo types were:
1. CCI Standard Velocity (40 grain at 1070 ft/sec)
2. CCI Mini-Mag (40 grain at 1235 ft/sec)
3. CCI Mini-Mag HP (36 grain at 1260 ft/sec)
4. Wolf Standard (40 grain at 1033 ft/sec)
5. Remington Yellow Jacket (33 grain at 1500 ft/sec)
6. Remington Cyclone (36 grain at 1280 ft/sec)
7. Remington Subsonic (38 grain at 1000 ft/sec)
And the rifles were my trusty Loner 10/22 LTR with Tech Sights (iron sights) and my kids' Cricket rifle:
These targets were printed from a computer and slightly undersized (the boxes are closer to 3/4" than the 1" standard). The targets were at 25 yards (1/2 distance of Lovemywoods' testing).
In any event, the LTR zeroed in and then produced a good group (.75" with 4 touching and a stray). The next two groups were also good .75 and .5"). Switching over to a sling the LTR held just at .8". And the cricket shot a .6" group.
There were no malfunctions.
The mini-mags have more recoil and a louder "crak" than the standard velocity. The first two rounds fired high and I under adjusted bringing them down. This carried into the first group which was .75" but high. The next two groups were also excellent with a .75" and a .5". The sling group was a nice .5" and lower than the others without any adjustment made. The Cricket produced a .75" group but 1.5" low which surprised me.
The Mini-Mag HP cracked like the Mini-Mags and held similar groups. The commonly had 4 great shots (.5") and then a fifth flyer. In the end, with all shots counted, each of the 3 supported shots was 1" as was the slung shot. The Criket had to be sight adjusted to bring the shots up and then a .75" grouping.
Let me say two things to begin. These rounds were completely covered in wax to an extreme that left me with wax all over my fingers. Second, they were completely unreliable. Out of the first 10 shots, I had 5 failures to eject due to rounds that were so underpowered that they I had to check if they were squib rounds!
That being said, when they did work, the rounds were accurate. The first supported group was .5" and the following 3 were .75". Part of this may be due to the ball & dummy game the malfunctions were creating! The Cricket was unadjusted and the rounds were a .75" group but 1.5" high and left.
I will never buy this ammo again.
This was some fun stuff. Very energetic! Sadly, the groupings were not all that great. The first supported had 4 tight shot and then a flyer for a 1.5" group. The second had 4 more tight with another flyer for 1.25" group and the last was a round 1" group. The sling created a 1" group better centered on the square. The cricket group was also 1" and left & high by .5" or so.
You could really feel this ammo wail on the receiver.
This ammo was hard to zero and gave some FTE's with the same underpowered issues as the Wolf (3x FTE's). The consistency was not good with round to round variance high in charge. The supported groups were unimpressive (1.5", 1", 1") as was the slung group (1.5"). However, the cricket really liked the ammo and produced a .5" group.
I will also not buy this ammo again.
This ammo was consistent and light, but never failed to cycle the rifle. The lightness of recoil and sound were significant (for a 22lr). I really enjoyed this ammo.
The supported groups were good and only got better (1", .75", and .5"). The slung group was the best of the day with a .4" group that was a hole for 4 rounds and a flyer next to it. without the flyer, this would have been .25" wide.
And then the cricket did not like it very much, only getting a 1.25" group. Go figure.
At this point I had spare ammo to burn up and was interested in how the changing of ammo created great changes in point of impact between shots. So I decided to dump some spare ammo through the Cricket in a supported position.
Using 5 brands, I zeroed in with the subsonic and then fired a few rounds with each of 4 other brands to see where the point of impact shifted to:
The subsonic, once zeroed, was able to create a .75" group dead center.
The Cyclone created a 1" group .5" high.
The CCI Standard Velocity created a .75" group .5" high.
The Mini-Max created a 1" group 1.5" off of center.
The Yellow Jacket created a .75" group 1.75" off of center.
So the velocity of the ammo caused more shift in ammo POI than did weight. This is useful to know when swapping a different brand in when a re-zeroing is not possible. This sometimes happens at a match and knowing a rule to swap by is very helpful.
And then my time was done. So I rounded up the brass and gear and ran home.
Results:
1. The Wolf ammo was completely unreliable.
2. The Cyclone ammo was mostly unreliable.
3. The Yellow Jacket is top of my list to tear up melons next year.
4. The CCI standard is my #1 match ammo still, and I feel good about using subsonics as a backup ammo for the CCI.
5. I can't wait for the Outback to arrive.
6. That Cricket would make a nice tear down, backpack gun. it is accurate enough for it.
Oh, and to make this near as official as a LMW Review, I will add some graphs as soon as I have them.
It's always fun to get some shooting in.
Please Read Lovemywoods' Range Report Here
The plan was to use two rifles to test 7 different types of ammo. Each type would be shot on a 6 square target with an LTR sighter square, then three shots being done LTR supported (like lovemywoods' test), one square done LTR with a sling, and lastly one square done with the cricket rifle.
Today was a foggy, nippy day and the pics were taken with my cell phone (sorry, could not find the camera). The day was this grey in reality:
The 7 ammo types were:
1. CCI Standard Velocity (40 grain at 1070 ft/sec)
2. CCI Mini-Mag (40 grain at 1235 ft/sec)
3. CCI Mini-Mag HP (36 grain at 1260 ft/sec)
4. Wolf Standard (40 grain at 1033 ft/sec)
5. Remington Yellow Jacket (33 grain at 1500 ft/sec)
6. Remington Cyclone (36 grain at 1280 ft/sec)
7. Remington Subsonic (38 grain at 1000 ft/sec)
And the rifles were my trusty Loner 10/22 LTR with Tech Sights (iron sights) and my kids' Cricket rifle:
1. CCI Standard Velocity
These targets were printed from a computer and slightly undersized (the boxes are closer to 3/4" than the 1" standard). The targets were at 25 yards (1/2 distance of Lovemywoods' testing).
In any event, the LTR zeroed in and then produced a good group (.75" with 4 touching and a stray). The next two groups were also good .75 and .5"). Switching over to a sling the LTR held just at .8". And the cricket shot a .6" group.
There were no malfunctions.
2. CCI Mini-Mag
The mini-mags have more recoil and a louder "crak" than the standard velocity. The first two rounds fired high and I under adjusted bringing them down. This carried into the first group which was .75" but high. The next two groups were also excellent with a .75" and a .5". The sling group was a nice .5" and lower than the others without any adjustment made. The Cricket produced a .75" group but 1.5" low which surprised me.
3. CCI Mini-Mag HP
The Mini-Mag HP cracked like the Mini-Mags and held similar groups. The commonly had 4 great shots (.5") and then a fifth flyer. In the end, with all shots counted, each of the 3 supported shots was 1" as was the slung shot. The Criket had to be sight adjusted to bring the shots up and then a .75" grouping.
4. Wolf 40 Grain
Let me say two things to begin. These rounds were completely covered in wax to an extreme that left me with wax all over my fingers. Second, they were completely unreliable. Out of the first 10 shots, I had 5 failures to eject due to rounds that were so underpowered that they I had to check if they were squib rounds!
That being said, when they did work, the rounds were accurate. The first supported group was .5" and the following 3 were .75". Part of this may be due to the ball & dummy game the malfunctions were creating! The Cricket was unadjusted and the rounds were a .75" group but 1.5" high and left.
I will never buy this ammo again.
5. Remington Yellow Jacket
This was some fun stuff. Very energetic! Sadly, the groupings were not all that great. The first supported had 4 tight shot and then a flyer for a 1.5" group. The second had 4 more tight with another flyer for 1.25" group and the last was a round 1" group. The sling created a 1" group better centered on the square. The cricket group was also 1" and left & high by .5" or so.
You could really feel this ammo wail on the receiver.
6. Remington Cyclone
This ammo was hard to zero and gave some FTE's with the same underpowered issues as the Wolf (3x FTE's). The consistency was not good with round to round variance high in charge. The supported groups were unimpressive (1.5", 1", 1") as was the slung group (1.5"). However, the cricket really liked the ammo and produced a .5" group.
I will also not buy this ammo again.
7. Remington Subsonic
This ammo was consistent and light, but never failed to cycle the rifle. The lightness of recoil and sound were significant (for a 22lr). I really enjoyed this ammo.
The supported groups were good and only got better (1", .75", and .5"). The slung group was the best of the day with a .4" group that was a hole for 4 rounds and a flyer next to it. without the flyer, this would have been .25" wide.
And then the cricket did not like it very much, only getting a 1.25" group. Go figure.
Cricket Test Results
At this point I had spare ammo to burn up and was interested in how the changing of ammo created great changes in point of impact between shots. So I decided to dump some spare ammo through the Cricket in a supported position.
Using 5 brands, I zeroed in with the subsonic and then fired a few rounds with each of 4 other brands to see where the point of impact shifted to:
The subsonic, once zeroed, was able to create a .75" group dead center.
The Cyclone created a 1" group .5" high.
The CCI Standard Velocity created a .75" group .5" high.
The Mini-Max created a 1" group 1.5" off of center.
The Yellow Jacket created a .75" group 1.75" off of center.
So the velocity of the ammo caused more shift in ammo POI than did weight. This is useful to know when swapping a different brand in when a re-zeroing is not possible. This sometimes happens at a match and knowing a rule to swap by is very helpful.
And then my time was done. So I rounded up the brass and gear and ran home.
Results:
1. The Wolf ammo was completely unreliable.
2. The Cyclone ammo was mostly unreliable.
3. The Yellow Jacket is top of my list to tear up melons next year.
4. The CCI standard is my #1 match ammo still, and I feel good about using subsonics as a backup ammo for the CCI.
5. I can't wait for the Outback to arrive.
6. That Cricket would make a nice tear down, backpack gun. it is accurate enough for it.
Oh, and to make this near as official as a LMW Review, I will add some graphs as soon as I have them.
It's always fun to get some shooting in.
