Rimfire comparison tests?

[Varminterror]

My wife and I are planning to do a bit of rimfiring after deer season, and after a recent visit from a non-gun buddy of ours, we're thinking about doing some "testing" with our 4 different Rimfire Cartridges. I'm a technology development engineer, so I have a scientist heart and love doing comparative experiments.

We're figuring on doing some small game bunny and squirrel hunting to compare "field results" and doing some shooting at different distances for "range results," likely out to 200-250yrds, depending on how ugly the groups get. We have a permagel kit, so we could potentially do some penetration testing, although I've never done it with rimfires yet, and we have a boatload of empty half-sized water bottles we could fill that should blow up nicely even with little rimfires.

So if you were going to "test" rimfire cartridges side by side, what would you do? What would you want to see them do to compare?

Cartridges in question are 22LR, 17HMR, 22WMR, and 17WSM, all in heavy barreled glassed rifles. Of course not in the same models, but we could use a few rifles in each (except the B-mag) to standardize a baseline.

 

[contender]

Well, as a scientist, surely you must know to have a true test, all other variables must be the same to see if you get different results by only changing one thing.
Example; use the exact same gun, at the exact same distance, at the exact same type of target, under the same conditions to see what differences in each ammo would be.
By using live game as a test medium, your results will be skewed due to the inability to meet that criteria.
Water bottles will not stop a 22, so you will need to have several in line to catch different bullets at different ranges.

All in all, I think many real world knowledge exists as to bullet performance. So, to me, accuracy would be a thing to find out. But again, it will only work in that one test gun. But, if you do identical tests, using different guns, you may find out which ammo may be a bit better overall in many different firearms for a base line of potential quality ammo.

Of course, it all comes down to what YOU want to learn & how YOU want to try things. I always try to remember one thing when I'm testing such stuff; It has to be fun or I must stop.

 

[Shooter III]

I've been shooting "rimfire" since I was 9-years-old and will be turning 55 very soon, to satisfy your own needs have a blast doing your testing, IMO .... from just playing around over the years, if you're looking for accuracy out to 250 yards the .17 WSM will win and leave the .22 LR and .22 MAG for plinking.

 

[Varminterror]

But, if you do identical tests, using different guns, you may find out which ammo may be a bit better overall in many different firearms for a base line of potential quality ammo.

That's is the general idea. I'm not looking to recreate a research facility experiment, but rather look at multiple specimen from each class and make general observations. The water bottle test, for example, isn't meant to be a penetration test, but rather a temporary cavity test. How bottles respond to each round gives an idea of temporary cavity by comparing the size of the spray. Similarly, while I've killed a lot of game with each of these (not the b-mag yet, brand new), I've never taken the time to try to control the circumstances and compare wound characteristics side by side before. Making subjective observations that a 22lr puts a hole in a bunnies head at 50yrds, and a 17WSM removed it gives a pretty objective comparison for in field results. As far as accuracy goes, my personal experience in re-barreling rifles has been that it does not necessarily give any more consistency than simply shooting another rifle of the same quality, so any "singular variable change" attempt is futile. BUT... It's pretty easy to do replicant testing with multiple rifles and see trends in performance. Plus, there's no single model chambered for all of these rounds, so without building a test rifle, that degree of consistency is moot. Accuracy is rifle specific, but penetration, temporary cavity, and trajectory only care about the bullet and the speed it's flying.

And I suppose it's critical that I explain - I have no interest in research data from test rifles. When my buddy asks me to teach him about different rimfires so he and his son can shoot squirrels together, he's not going to buy a test rifle and fire it in a lab. He's going to buy a production model, available in the cartridge he decides he likes, and shoot it in the real world. So with that in mind, I'll be clear that I'm not looking to do research, nor trying to determine which is "best". I've spent over a decade designing experiments and conducting product development trials, so I know exactly what that entails, and exactly how skewed those results can be as opposed to real world effectiveness. This is more like a beta test phase experiment. We all know what the lab results say these 4 cartridges should do, but do they deliver in the field compared to their relative field data. Simply having a good time doing some plinking and small game hunting, and putting a little more structure to it such that we can gather a little bit about objective differences between the 4.

 

[Varminterror]

I've been shooting "rimfire" since I was 9-years-old and will be turning 55 very soon, to satisfy your own needs have a blast doing your testing, IMO .... from just playing around over the years, if you're looking for accuracy out to 250 yards the .17 WSM will win and leave the .22 LR and .22 MAG for plinking.

Ya know, I'm HOPING this proves to be true. That's one of the ideas. Accuracy is one thing, trajectory another, and the B-mag has earned a reputation so far of being less than accurate. I don't want to say that I got "burned" by the .17HMR, because it's a great round, but I sure didn't get the down range performance from it that I expected based on the marketing data. The 22wmr might have more drop, but I haven't found the 17hmr to be significantly more accurate, and definitely not as hard hitting down range. I love the 17, but I'd attest that the marketing data doesn't reflect what really happens in the field. The 17wsm is a lot more cartridge than the others, just like the hmr and wmr are above the 22lr. I wish I still had a 17hm2 to throw in the mix!

What my buddy is trying to decide, which I think most folks can relate to, is whether he should spend the money on a 17hmr or 22wmr, or even on a 17wsm, or whether the incremental gains actually mean something to him. For example, I'm building a 7mm mag for my wife right now, fully recognizing that it' nothing but more powder over her 45-70, for the 250yrd or less hunting she does.

And at the very least, it's something different to do at the range for me and my wife.

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

Well, as a scientist, surely you must know to have a true test, all other variables must be the same to see if you get different results by only changing one thing.
Example; use the exact same gun, at the exact same distance, at the exact same type of target, under the same conditions to see what differences in each ammo would be.
By using live game as a test medium, your results will be skewed due to the inability to meet that criteria.
Water bottles will not stop a 22, so you will need to have several in line to catch different bullets at different ranges.

All in all, I think many real world knowledge exists as to bullet performance. So, to me, accuracy would be a thing to find out. But again, it will only work in that one test gun. But, if you do identical tests, using different guns, you may find out which ammo may be a bit better overall in many different firearms for a base line of potential quality ammo.

Of course, it all comes down to what YOU want to learn & how YOU want to try things. I always try to remember one thing when I'm testing such stuff; It has to be fun or I must stop.

I agree, if it ain't any fun, why bother. Eliminating variables is always one of the prime concerns in any testing, especially in a hunting environment. Angles of bullet entry, along with all the examples as mentioned above. When I test .22 rimfire ammunition that hasn't yet been through the bore of one of my Ruger Mark pistols, I use this contraption to eliminate as much operator error as possible. Once that's been accomplished, I then have a benchmark as to what accuracy can be achieved, if I am able to do my part and replicate the results the Ransom Rest has shown the pistol being capable of, with the specific ammunition I'm testing at the time.



Testing .22 rimfire ammunition in actual hunting conditions opens many more windows and doors than I think I'd want to go through.

 

[Shooter III]

Well, as a scientist, surely you must know to have a true test, all other variables must be the same to see if you get different results by only changing one thing.
Example; use the exact same gun, at the exact same distance, at the exact same type of target, under the same conditions to see what differences in each ammo would be.
By using live game as a test medium, your results will be skewed due to the inability to meet that criteria.
Water bottles will not stop a 22, so you will need to have several in line to catch different bullets at different ranges.

All in all, I think many real world knowledge exists as to bullet performance. So, to me, accuracy would be a thing to find out. But again, it will only work in that one test gun. But, if you do identical tests, using different guns, you may find out which ammo may be a bit better overall in many different firearms for a base line of potential quality ammo.

Of course, it all comes down to what YOU want to learn & how YOU want to try things. I always try to remember one thing when I'm testing such stuff; It has to be fun or I must stop.

I agree, if it ain't any fun, why bother. Eliminating variables is always one of the prime concerns in any testing, especially in a hunting environment. Angles of bullet entry, along with all the examples as mentioned above. When I test .22 rimfire ammunition that hasn't yet been through the bore of one of my Ruger Mark pistols, I use this contraption to eliminate as much operator error as possible. Once that's been accomplished, I then have a benchmark as to what accuracy can be achieved, if I am able to do my part and replicate the results the Ransom Rest has shown the pistol being capable of, with the specific ammunition I'm testing at the time.



Testing .22 rimfire ammunition in actual hunting conditions opens many more windows and doors than I think I'd want to go through.

That Ransom Rest is cool, what a great way to find out how well a pistol shoots with different ammo !
When I first got my Beretta 96A1 it always shot 3 or 4 inches high and left, after a couple of hours at the local range and resting it in a couple of sand bags I figured out it wasn't the pistol that was shooting high and left ! ! ! ((( Laughing out Loud ))).

 

[Taterman]

Great looking gun vice. That would be invaluable to have.

 

[Varminterror]

Great looking gun vice. That would be invaluable to have.

I'm not sure about "invaluable," since Ransom sure knows what price to put on them!! The rest itself wouldn't be so bad, price wise, but buying the individual grip adapters does get pricey. I started routing my own grip adapters out of wood to alleviate that expense. I seldom ever use my ransom rest anymore. I got mine through work 'roundabouts 2005 doing experimental ammunition development projects for the Army. Admittedly, we patterned a rifle rest (on a sliding double linkage system instead of the single pivot like the Ransom) on the Ransom to use for long arms. It was only AR compatible, and unfortunately, it was one of the few things that didn't make it to my shop after the end of the project.

Gun fixtures are great for accuracy testing, but that's only a minor component to what I'd like to 'experiment with' for this ammo dump. Accuracy can vary from rifle to rifle, and that's a song that's been sung many times. But I've not seen many comparisons for real world trajectory, penetration, temporary cavity, or other "killing effectiveness" in the field.

Maybe one component that has always made me itch is this: "flat shooting" does not equal "accurate," but we often get fed a line of marketing BS that velocity is king for long range shooting. And of course, being able to connect at long ranges (relative term, considering that we're talking about rimfires, of course) doesn't really mean you can do anything when you get there (as in the case of the 17HMR vs. the 22WMR). I've shot a few rabbits with either of those mentioned at 200yrds, but I've never flopped them on a chopping block to subjectively and objectively compare side by side. And have never shot ballistics gel with the rimfires, let alone at 200yrds+.

I'd fully expect the results to come out in a certain order - the 22LR at the bottom, the 17WSM at the top. REALLY wish I still had a 17HM2, or at least a barrel and bolt handle for a 10/22 to put it through its paces as well. But I think it'll be fun to play with questions of "does less drop at 200yrds mean anything?" or "does the extra power actually make a difference?" "If a 22lr kills bunnies at 200yrds, and the average joe never shoots one over 50yrds, is there any benefit to the mags?"

 

[Shooter III]

I'd fully expect the results to come out in a certain order - the 22LR at the bottom, the 17WSM at the top. REALLY wish I still had a 17HM2, or at least a barrel and bolt handle for a 10/22 to put it through its paces as well. But I think it'll be fun to play with questions of "does less drop at 200yrds mean anything?" or "does the extra power actually make a difference?" "If a 22lr kills bunnies at 200yrds, and the average joe never shoots one over 50yrds, is there any benefit to the mags?"

Seems to me you could find all this info on the internet and save lots of $$$ on ammo, but hey .... it's your dollar, not mine !

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

I'd fully expect the results to come out in a certain order - the 22LR at the bottom, the 17WSM at the top. REALLY wish I still had a 17HM2, or at least a barrel and bolt handle for a 10/22 to put it through its paces as well. But I think it'll be fun to play with questions of "does less drop at 200yrds mean anything?" or "does the extra power actually make a difference?" "If a 22lr kills bunnies at 200yrds, and the average joe never shoots one over 50yrds, is there any benefit to the mags?"

Seems to me you could find all this info on the internet and save lots of $$$ on ammo, but hey .... it's your dollar, not mine !

Well yah, you're pretty much right, a lot of this stuff can be found on the internet, but I wonder how much of the stuff on the internet is actually true. The "grip frame blocks" for the Ransom can get quite pricey, when bought NEW and depending on how many you need, but they don't normally wear-out and I've gotten some cast-off inserts off Ebay for some really reasonable prices, so when I see a set of inserts I think I can use, I'll get those. Like I already posted, I test various brands of .22 rimfire ammunition for grouping using the above rest for pistols and revolvers. The Ruger Mark specific grip inserts I have for the Ransom will accommodate every Ruger Mark I, II, III or any of the Standards that come along. I, personally feel, that for me, it's the way to go. Another investment I made long ago involves an Oehler 35P chronograph.



This chronograph has three "sky-screens" that record the actual velocities I'm getting from .22 rimfire pistol barrels ( Ruger Mark pistols) with barrel lengths of 4-inches up to 10-inches in length. I'm not satisfied with somebodies "calculated" velocities, I just want to know what the velocity actually measures, for my sake, so I can then do the calculations for energy. That knowledge suits me, maybe others, not so much. Personally, I don't think a .22 rimfire cartridge, or the 5mm Remington, or even the .17 rimfires have any business being used to humanely kill anything at 250 yards. The initial poster asked a simple question, concerning some testing he and his wife are interested in doing. GREAT!!! Hope they follow through and then report their findings here for those interested, or maybe somewhere else where that information is appreciated.

 

[Mobuck]

Just my opinion but shooting(or more specifically hitting what you're shooting at) with 22lr(or 17M2) at 200-250 yards is more a test of "judging the wind" than test of equipment.

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

Just my opinion but shooting(or more specifically hitting what you're shooting at) with 22lr(or 17M2) at 200-250 yards is more a test of "judging the wind" than test of equipment.

Agree. It'd be silly to argue otherwise. What a chronograph is good for though, is determining the actual velocity recorded from a specific firearm. Then, you can determine/calculate what bullet energy will be close to, at the terminal end distance. Wind, versus a .22 rimfire bullet, and a .17 caliber, at 250 yards will make a definite challenge for a humane kill shot.

 

[Varminterror]

Just my opinion but shooting(or more specifically hitting what you're shooting at) with 22lr(or 17M2) at 200-250 yards is more a test of "judging the wind" than test of equipment.

Without question, the wind is a factor.

But, also without question, there are folks that do it every day.

 

[Mobuck]

But, also without question, there are folks that do it every day.

Sure they do BUT since wind is a variable, any results taken from such testing is imprecise and flawed. You can't compare different ammo at this range unless using a closed tunnel range.

 

[jadek44]

I hope that's Soda pop in the glass.

 

[Varminterror]

I hope that's Soda pop in the glass.

Sure looks like iced tea... :roll:

 

[Varminterror]

But, also without question, there are folks that do it every day.

Sure they do BUT since wind is a variable, any results taken from such testing is imprecise and flawed. You can't compare different ammo at this range unless using a closed tunnel range.

That's news to me - as it sure seems like there are an awful lot of long range competitions in one flavor or another that compare accuracy that are NOT fired in a tunnel...

 

[mohavesam]

Weighing your rounds and separating the heaviest/lightest rounds in a given lot. I've found accuracy extremes in the weight variables in most ammo, even the best Eley stuff. Just a couple of grams in overall weight of loaded rounds can make a difference.

Some with time on their hands also measure rim thickness and heel diameter...

It gets complicated!

 

[Mobuck]

long range competitions in one flavor or another that compare accuracy that are NOT fired in a tunnel...

ANY shooting competition fired out side is a test of shooters' ability to adjust for or anticipate the wind's effect. Accuracy is a factor BUT the most accurate rifle/ammo combination will suffer from variable wind effect. The 22 due to it's low velocity and bullet shape is far more likely to suffer from even the slightest cross wind variability.