Thread: Why do .22s have such different accuracy with different ammunition?

Why is it that both my .22 rifles only like a particular type of ammunition? (I only use subsonic).

The Lithgow loves Fiocchi 40g and CCI 40g subsonic but throws Winchester 42gr and 40gr subsonic and Remington all over the place.
The Norinco loves CCI subsonic but seems to hate the Winchester, Fiocchi and the Remington subs.

What causes this huge variation in accuracy between .22 ammunition?

Is it the ammo: manufacturing tolerances, quality control, consistent/similar SD?
Or is it the rifle: chamber, throat, rifling, crown, and/or barrel dynamics?

Or are there so many variables that one can't really say what causes one brand of ammo to be accurate and another not?

Maybe it's your inherent distrust of Leupold scopes

Even different batches of the same ammo will produce the "splatter" you mention. There us a saying in the 22 benchrest and PRS circles "your 22 is only as good as the batch of ammo that you have at hand".

As a for example I have a batch of S&B HP subs that shoots lights out in most rifles, but it seems to be unique to this batch, most times its pretty ordinary. Generally the top of the line ammo shoots pretty consistently but even that can have indifferent lots - one of the bricks of Fiochi 320 I have is very disappointing.

In my opinion the "my 22 only likes xxx" thing is a bit overstated, I have a Lithgow LA101 and a Vickers martini that both shoot just about everything well, and most match ammo amazingly well. My friends big Annie match rifle does the same. Most people don't shoot enough groups and/or cherry pick their results, so most of the claims made on the interweb of "my 22 shoots consistent 0.5" groups at 50Y or 50M dont stand up to scrutiny and for some reason the shooter can't show a 5x5 of 0.5 groups.

Originally Posted by Tentman

Even different batches of the same ammo will produce the "splatter" you mention. There us a saying in the 22 benchrest and PRS circles "your 22 is only as good as the batch of ammo that you have at hand".

As a for example I have a batch of S&B HP subs that shoots lights out in most rifles, but it seems to be unique to this batch, most times its pretty ordinary. Generally the top of the line ammo shoots pretty consistently but even that can have indifferent lots - one of the bricks of Fiochi 320 I have is very disappointing.

So going off the USA benchrest saying, it's the ammo that is the key to accuracy. But that saying is probably only correct once you have a very accurate rifle...then the good ammo is the 'fine tuning' of accurate results?

I find it incredible that in this day and age it can come down to batch numbers/production runs for accuracy. The .22 ammo machinery is the same...the amount of powder and bullet is the same...what gives with that?

My theory is that this phenomenon may have a lot to do with barrel harmonics. Different ammo have different amount of powder shoots at different speed and generate different harmonics. For different barrels, they would each have a particular frequency of harmonics that gives the best result.

Another possible cause is the variation in different ammos dimensions. Barrels are of different throat and muzzle thicknesses, So do ammos thickness. I remember out of all the ammos I have shot the cci subsonic hollow point is the fattest. SK magazine is possibly the thinnest. You could imagine a loose barrel with a thin bullet would not work out well. Vice versa if the barrel is too tight and the ammo is too fat it may cause too much and uneven velocity loss.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

My theory is that this phenomenon may have a lot to do with barrel harmonics. Different animal have different amount of powder shoots at different speed and generate different harmonics. For different barrels, they may each have a particular frequency of harmonics that gives the best result.

Another possible cause is the variation in different ammos dimensions. Barrels are of different throat and muzzle thicknesses, So do ammos thickness. I remember out of all the ammos I have shot the cci subsonic hollow point is the fattest. SK magazine is possibly the thinnest. You could imagine a loose barrel with a thin bullet would not work out well. Vice versa if the barrel is too tight and the ammo is too fat it may cause too much and uneven velocity loss.

Hmmm but if it's barrel harmonics why don't I see more barrel weight tuners on .22 rifles?
If you are correct and barrel harmonics play a large part, then I'm going to play around with weights on my Lithgow barrel because Fiocchi subsonic are bloody hard to find at the moment.

As for ammo dimensions....can't do much about that...

I guess another way of thinking about it is that many 22 accuracy claims are overstated, therefore ones expectations can be out of whack with what is "achievable". Yes it does take access to a 22 of known performance to sort 22 ammo batches. It took me 8 years and probably more than 8 different 22's to get a bolt gun and a semi that would pass the 5x5 under 0.5 @50 test -and about 50% of it is shooter, sporter weight 22's are about the most "sensitive to hold" rifles you'll ever come across.

A huge variable in 22 ammo that most people "miss" is the lubricant, an ammo might perform well at a certain temperature and humidity, vary either environmental factor and accuracy can change. Lots of 22's (even very good ones) through "cold bore" shots, and there is no commonly held explanation as to "why" or how to mitigate it (apart from firing a fouler). I had an otherwise very accurate Annie here that did this, worse with some ammo's

I'm guessing it's a pur number thing with manufacturing tolerance.
1 or 2 grains powder difference makes feck all difference to a .308 or larger cartridge but it's a proportionaliy a big error in .22LR
Similar with projectiles. A small difference is significant proportion of a small round.

Originally Posted by Tentman

I guess another way of thinking about it is that many 22 accuracy claims are overstated, therefore ones expectations can be out of whack with what is "achievable". Yes it does take access to a 22 of known performance to sort 22 ammo batches. It took me 8 years and probably more than 8 different 22's to get a bolt gun and a semi that would pass the 5x5 under 0.5 @50 test -and about 50% of it is shooter, sporter weight 22's are about the most "sensitive to hold" rifles you'll ever come across.

Yes...expectations.
I've been to the range many times frustratingly trying to get these .22s of mine to shoot 0.5 MOA. Then a new guy comes along with a rifle that he has just purchased. Sights it in and then shoots a 2 MOA group and is over the moon happy with the results.... Sometimes ignorance (better to say 'low expectations') is bliss....

I'm going to try a weight tuner on the Lithgow now after reading what @Ultimitsu said....my expectations are still rather high

I was watching a vid last night kinda on this topic . This guy shoots a custom vuuduu (not sure on spelling) in competition and pointed out the variation even within the same batch and said pretty much the same thing as uk exile mentioned above . His also put it down to the primer ring being inconsistent in thickness and measures every bullets primer thickness and only uses the ones all with the same measurement as that can be enough for surprisingly large performance/accuracy changes. (His words not mine)

Originally Posted by muzza

Maybe your expectation from the ammo you use is unreasonable? Try a whole range of brands and find that which your rifle prefers.

I am a plinker - I use bulk , cheap ammo and just like pulling the trigger. Life is too short to stress over trivia like why your rifle doesnt like your ammo.

Shoot more , and smile more

Yes you are no doubt correct @muzza, but I've fallen into the 'chasing accuracy' game....the fools game that never ends....

its a .22lr.......unless you are punching paper and trying to shoot tiny wee groups how accurate do you need?? I know some fellas on here shoot bunnies out to hundy yards with .22lr but 50yards is about it for me,75 yards is a long shot...most of what I shoot with 22lr I could take with .12ga eg under 50 yards....the .22lr gets used as its cheaper ,quieter and does less damage to carcass .....If want to shoot further will use 223 or the 22-250 so if I look at it realistically I only need somewhere around an inch at 25 yards to be able to do what I ask of the pee shooter.
no possum up tree will be further than 35meters/40 yards away...not even the top of a lombardi poplar will put it out of shotgun range....yes thats correct....top of lombardi is IN RANGE ....top of willow will be no more than 15 yards....
so again,how accurate do you need???

a bucket of bullets that were subsonic hollow points,would just about last me a lifetime....

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

its a .22lr.......unless you are punching paper and trying to shoot tiny wee groups how accurate do you need?? I know some fellas on here shoot bunnies out to hundy yards with .22lr but 50yards is about it for me,75 yards is a long shot...most of what I shoot with 22lr I could take with .12ga eg under 50 yards.
so again,how accurate do you need???

Last evening I head shot a hare at 137yds (but there was no wind). I use a range finder and dial the scope. I don't shoot anything under 100 yards and set the limit at 160 yds.

so a .223 would do it with ease and no need to dial.... as would the 17s
see thats why my .22lr gets little use,the .223 is just so good and fun to use....and for walk around with the dog,the .12ga does great job.
I actually went without .22lr for a time,then saw sense and bought another .
the .22magnum is worse still...ammunition similar price to 223 and noise similar too...so why not just use .223 ???

if you are enjoying the challenge of dialing and headshooting...good on you for doing so....for me ,if bunny is there to be shot I want to do it as quickly as I can. maybe having spent time shooting them for living has changed my perspective somewhat... Im not adverse to shooting them with .270 either,plurry good practise and if you happily shoot rabbits n hares at 200 yards...a deer looks HUGE .