Purpose
Last January I posted a thread comparing accuracy in three .22 platforms:
An AR with a .22 conversion system
A dedicated .22 upper
A Ruger 10/22
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/long_guns/69228-range_test_--_accuracy_in_22_conversions_and_dedicated_22_rifles.html
During the testing, I had some issues with the Ruger so I discounted the data I got from that rifle.
Since then, I decided to modify the Ruger and shoot the test again. I took the recent Ruger data and combined it with the information from the other two rifles in the previous test to form this range report.
The modifications made to the factory rifle were a Tactical Solutions 16.5” barrel, Hogue stock, and Vortex ‘Crossfire’ scope with new rings and scope base.
Left side of rifle
Left side of rifle – close
The testing should also show me what kinds of accuracy variations there are between different brands of ammunition. I was surprised to see significant differences between brands of .22LR ammunition shot from different rifles.
Equipment
-- Colt 6920 carbine with a Ciener conversion, 1:7 twist
-- Spikes dedicated .22 Upper in a RRA lower, 1:16 twist
-- Ruger 10/22 rifle, Tactical Solutions barrel, 1:16 twist
Optics
-- Colt 6920: Millett DMS-1 set at 4X
-- Spikes Upper: Millett DMS-1 set at 4X
-- Ruger 10/22: Vortex ‘Crossfire’ set at 4X
Ammo Used
I tested nine brands of ammo during the first part of the test and added the last two brands during the recent test of the modified Ruger.
Aguila ‘Interceptor’, 40 grain copper plated round nose, 1470 fps
Centurion (Aguila mfg.), 38 grain lead HP, 1280 fps
Winchester ‘333’ bulk, 36 grain, copper plated HP, 1280 fps
Winchester ‘Xpert HV’, 36 grain, lead HP, 1220 fps
Winchester ‘Super-X’, 37 grain copper plated HP, 1330 fps
CCI ‘Mini-Mag’, 40 grain copper plated round nose, 1235 fps
CCI ‘Mini-Mag HP’, 36 grain copper plated HP, 1260 fps
American Eagle, 40 grain lead round nose, 1260 fps
Federal Value Pack, 36 grain copper plated HP, 1260 fps
Aguila ‘Supermaximum’, 30 grain copper plated round nose, 1750 fps
Wolf Target, 40 grain, lead round nose, 1050 fps
Ammo used in the testing
Weather
I did the initial testing on January 6, 2010. It was 18-20 degrees F and overcast most of the afternoon. The air was still.
The second part of the test was done on March 5, 2010. It was sunny and 40 degrees F with a light wind from left to right.
Range Arrangement
All shooting was at a distance of 50 yards, level (along a dam) using a bench, rifle rest, and sand bag (or bipod on the Ruger).
Range Setup
Targets
I used cheap 9 inch diameter paper plates with a 1.5” orange target dot. After zeroing the rifle, each target received 15 rounds of each brand of ammunition. After shooting, I circled the hits with a marker and took pictures.
Once inside, I measured the approximate area (in square inches) of each grouping using graph paper. The smaller the area, the better for the rifle/ammo combo.
Shooters
Here is an aspect of the testing that is a problem….
I did the shooting in January. My son, esrice, did the recent shooting of the Ruger. To be truly ‘scientific’ about it, I should have shot all the rounds. I believe he’s a better shot than me, so there may be a bias between the scores of the AR and Spikes upper and the recent Ruger scores. When comparing between rifle platforms, keep that in mind. When comparing how different ammo brands perform in any given rifle, there is no problem.
Esrice shooting
Ammo failures:
Winchester HV – 2 failures to feed in 15 rounds
American Eagle – 1 stovepipe in 15 rounds
Results
Tabular accuracy data
Photo Comparisons:
Aguila Interceptor
Centurion
Winchester ‘333’
Winchester ‘Xpert HV’
Winchester ‘Super-X’
CCI ‘Mini-Mag’
CCI ‘Mini-Mag HP’
American Eagle
Federal Value Pack
Aquila ‘Supermaximum’
Wolf Target
Observations:
Winchester ‘333’ – Liked the clean, direct recoil. Was able to quickly get back on target.
Wolf target ammo – has a lower velocity than most of the other brands. It certainly had lower recoil. Noticed black rings around every bullet hole on the Wolf target. I’m assuming this is from the heavy amount of wax on the rounds. Surprisingly poor accuracy (in the Ruger rifle) for a ‘premium’ target round (about $.10/round!).
Conclusions:
-- Dedicated .22 platforms shoot better than the conversion systems. Duh! Not a surprise.
-- Conversion systems shoot well enough to provide fun and practice at a fraction of the cost of full-power ammunition.
-- There is no one ‘best’ .22 ammunition brand. Different rifles work better with certain brands of ammunition. Take some time and test various brands until you find the 2-3 types that your firearm likes.
-- Ammunition brand affects the zero of the rifle. If you’re going to a tournament or competition, be certain you’ve zeroed the rifle with the ammunition you’re shooting.
-- Shooting is fun!
Last January I posted a thread comparing accuracy in three .22 platforms:
An AR with a .22 conversion system
A dedicated .22 upper
A Ruger 10/22
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/long_guns/69228-range_test_--_accuracy_in_22_conversions_and_dedicated_22_rifles.html
During the testing, I had some issues with the Ruger so I discounted the data I got from that rifle.
Since then, I decided to modify the Ruger and shoot the test again. I took the recent Ruger data and combined it with the information from the other two rifles in the previous test to form this range report.
The modifications made to the factory rifle were a Tactical Solutions 16.5” barrel, Hogue stock, and Vortex ‘Crossfire’ scope with new rings and scope base.
Left side of rifle
Left side of rifle – close
The testing should also show me what kinds of accuracy variations there are between different brands of ammunition. I was surprised to see significant differences between brands of .22LR ammunition shot from different rifles.
Equipment
-- Colt 6920 carbine with a Ciener conversion, 1:7 twist
-- Spikes dedicated .22 Upper in a RRA lower, 1:16 twist
-- Ruger 10/22 rifle, Tactical Solutions barrel, 1:16 twist
Optics
-- Colt 6920: Millett DMS-1 set at 4X
-- Spikes Upper: Millett DMS-1 set at 4X
-- Ruger 10/22: Vortex ‘Crossfire’ set at 4X
Ammo Used
I tested nine brands of ammo during the first part of the test and added the last two brands during the recent test of the modified Ruger.
Aguila ‘Interceptor’, 40 grain copper plated round nose, 1470 fps
Centurion (Aguila mfg.), 38 grain lead HP, 1280 fps
Winchester ‘333’ bulk, 36 grain, copper plated HP, 1280 fps
Winchester ‘Xpert HV’, 36 grain, lead HP, 1220 fps
Winchester ‘Super-X’, 37 grain copper plated HP, 1330 fps
CCI ‘Mini-Mag’, 40 grain copper plated round nose, 1235 fps
CCI ‘Mini-Mag HP’, 36 grain copper plated HP, 1260 fps
American Eagle, 40 grain lead round nose, 1260 fps
Federal Value Pack, 36 grain copper plated HP, 1260 fps
Aguila ‘Supermaximum’, 30 grain copper plated round nose, 1750 fps
Wolf Target, 40 grain, lead round nose, 1050 fps
Ammo used in the testing
Weather
I did the initial testing on January 6, 2010. It was 18-20 degrees F and overcast most of the afternoon. The air was still.
The second part of the test was done on March 5, 2010. It was sunny and 40 degrees F with a light wind from left to right.
Range Arrangement
All shooting was at a distance of 50 yards, level (along a dam) using a bench, rifle rest, and sand bag (or bipod on the Ruger).
Range Setup
Targets
I used cheap 9 inch diameter paper plates with a 1.5” orange target dot. After zeroing the rifle, each target received 15 rounds of each brand of ammunition. After shooting, I circled the hits with a marker and took pictures.
Once inside, I measured the approximate area (in square inches) of each grouping using graph paper. The smaller the area, the better for the rifle/ammo combo.
Shooters
Here is an aspect of the testing that is a problem….
I did the shooting in January. My son, esrice, did the recent shooting of the Ruger. To be truly ‘scientific’ about it, I should have shot all the rounds. I believe he’s a better shot than me, so there may be a bias between the scores of the AR and Spikes upper and the recent Ruger scores. When comparing between rifle platforms, keep that in mind. When comparing how different ammo brands perform in any given rifle, there is no problem.
Esrice shooting
Ammo failures:
Winchester HV – 2 failures to feed in 15 rounds
American Eagle – 1 stovepipe in 15 rounds
Results
Tabular accuracy data
Photo Comparisons:
Aguila Interceptor
Centurion
Winchester ‘333’
Winchester ‘Xpert HV’
Winchester ‘Super-X’
CCI ‘Mini-Mag’
CCI ‘Mini-Mag HP’
American Eagle
Federal Value Pack
Aquila ‘Supermaximum’
Wolf Target
Observations:
Winchester ‘333’ – Liked the clean, direct recoil. Was able to quickly get back on target.
Wolf target ammo – has a lower velocity than most of the other brands. It certainly had lower recoil. Noticed black rings around every bullet hole on the Wolf target. I’m assuming this is from the heavy amount of wax on the rounds. Surprisingly poor accuracy (in the Ruger rifle) for a ‘premium’ target round (about $.10/round!).
Conclusions:
-- Dedicated .22 platforms shoot better than the conversion systems. Duh! Not a surprise.
-- Conversion systems shoot well enough to provide fun and practice at a fraction of the cost of full-power ammunition.
-- There is no one ‘best’ .22 ammunition brand. Different rifles work better with certain brands of ammunition. Take some time and test various brands until you find the 2-3 types that your firearm likes.
-- Ammunition brand affects the zero of the rifle. If you’re going to a tournament or competition, be certain you’ve zeroed the rifle with the ammunition you’re shooting.
-- Shooting is fun!
