Other than making my wife think I lost my mind is it worth it?

So the back story is I have aquired a lot of .22 WMR ammunition and have a fairly accurate Savage 93 FV rifle. So I was sighting in my new scope for the rifle the other day and I had some 5 shot groups go under 1" and others over 2" at 100 with the same ammunition. I've always thought of this as a max 150 yard rifle on prairie dogs, if lucky I could stretch it to 200 yards. I felt I was shooting pretty consistent so I was wondering how I could make it more accurate.

So I pulled out two bricks of Federal Premium 30 grain TNT HP and my RCBS 1500 gr pocket scale and took over the kitchen table last night. I was surprised at the wide range of variation in cartridge weights with a low of 54.6 to a high of 56.1 grains. The largest average was between 55.4-55.6 grains. Here is how it broke down.

54.6-54.9 gr = 10
55-55.2 gr = 197
55.3 gr = 86
55.4 gr = 171
55.5 gr = 166
55.6 gr = 239
55.7 gr = 60
55.8-56.1 = 71

I know the proof might be in the targets to tell me if it's worth it or not. Anyway I have several more thousands of rounds to sort, that I'm not looking forward to if this shrinks my groups. I guess if it'll give me more consistent hits beyond 150 yards on pasture poodles I'll be happy.

I HATE Salvage as a fhuqking default,mainly because they are gritty,schitty pieces of schit. Hint.

That being said,sorting by mass,will obviously shorten the spectrum,but I've found sorting rim thickness to bear more fruit in Accuracy/Precision. ES/SD is still akin to a Mad Woman going to take a schit...with no rhyme or reason. 30gr TNT HP's are Dog Schit in "consistency",so in reality you are Turd Stacking. Hint.

Turds Stack even deeper,given their Dog Schit BC,which is akin to shooting parachutes. They slip Transonic,in rock throwing distance,so that's even more ropes to piss up. You are doing yourself ZERO fhuqking "favors". In 60 degree weather at my house,they slip Transonic at the 140yd line. That GRACIOUSLY allowing the Factory contrived velocity. Hint.

If you wanna connect Long Range Rimfire dots,the 22LR has NO equal and that fhuqks with pointy heads and crossed-eyes...because there is NO Transonic Slip. Hint.

Thank me later.

Just sayin'................

Sorting by rim thickness may bear sweeter results. remember that one of the key factors in rimfire accuracy is consistent ignition, and varying rim thickness can't help but hurt consistent firing pin impact. There are rim thickness measuring devices out there, used with a dial indicator, that makes the task only about as onerous as weight sorting. The one I use is double ended for doing both .22 LR (and Short) and .22WMR. (Don't ask me the brand, I don't remember and I'm not at home to go look.)

granola,

Who'da' thunk?!? You Fhuqktards are a hoot! Hint.

RCBS. Hint.




Fhuqking LAUGHING!...............

I'm not sure how far down the rabbit hole I'm going to chase .22 WMR accuracy. I'll look into a rim thickness measuring tool. However I'm minute of prairie dog beyond 100 yds, and it still pounded the crap out of my targets at 100 yards.

The part of al this that surprises me is the small electronic scale that can repeatedly weigh to a tenth.

I'm not doubting the OP, maybe just wanting a scale like it.

RCBS Pocket Scale 1500 GN

I don't believe it's a perfect scale, but I calibrate often and have been using it for more than a year weighing bulk bullets. I get accepable results using it that way, so I thought I'd use it on the .22 WMR.

I use a Frankford Arsenal pocket scale for such chores (not that I've gone too far down the rabbit hole of weighing .22 match ammo). (Free from Graf's a couple years ago, stuck in a box containing a large order of bullets. No clue why.) It jives perfectly with my RCBS 10-10 analog scale, and with the check weights. Of course maybe they're both off and the check weights aren't correct - who knows. Now my head is spinning.

Indeed, I'm pretty convinced that rim thickness is a significant factor in accuracy based on some casual testing. Note the variance in one box between "decent" and "good" ammo

Could be an excuse for an extended range day/testing session, Pugs. Let's do it soon. (But only if shrimp and beer afterwards!)

Certainly a solid idea on a spring day if you have a gauge. Mine's in pre-move storage.

Martini's on me!

Shaken, not stirred.

It's generally conceded that "sorting" is erratic due to so many variables. Best process is to record Chrono of each LOT # you have by testing a whole box. Then look for the 'best' (lowest) ES and use the 'highest ES for plinking.

Tried sorting by rim thickness and found it to be a waste of time. My Winchester M/52 and Springfield 1922 will put 50 rounds of CCI Std. Vel. in one ragged hole @ 50yds.. That's plenty good accuracy for me.

Talk about boring..

It all depends on the level of accuracy you are reaching for. I shoot 22BR and using Lapua CenterX, Midas +, Eley Tenex, and Eley Match and yes you can see some gains in accuracy in the way of reducing the fliers or unexplained shot that happen from time to time.

I use paper to measure mine.

I would bet the rim thickness variation has a lot to do with the consistency of spinning the primer compound inside the case head.Years ago Federal did study on that when developing their match ammunition

I remember reading about that study. Federal spent about $1mil in R&D about why our Olympic shooters would not use American ammo during competition, but they would practice with it. As I recall, Federal guys said 'this is America, we put men on the moon, we should be able to make accurate rimfire ammo'.

Their conclusion was rim thickness played a very large factor in accuracy, along with consistent priming and powder drops. The consistent priming/powder drops were done better by the more experienced operators.

If I remember correctly, the Ultra Match ammunition wasn't produced for long because of the costs. Are you aware of any documentation about the UM stuff? It would be interesting to read. Federal must have picked the brains of the European makers and tore apart a bunch of their product.

They "studied" Russian Olymp ammo long and hard and finally gave up.

Remember the Federal ammo had a dimple in the middle of the base. Maybe that was a way to ensure the priming compound all went outward and into the rim. I know my 541-S sure liked it

I was teaching Basic Handgun back them for CCW permits. IIRC the Federal Match was $11/box.

Tail chasing, I've decided. Best weight tested was 55.4 grains.
First 10 shot group gave me a SD of 15, second time around had me at 29.

No for me. Life is short. Just get some Lapua Midas.

Taylor, That's pretty good ammo there, even at ES-30. See my post "Chrono Test..." earlier this week. SK-RM or SK-FN were the best I had. Not as much variety up here in Canada.
I keep records of Lot#s vs Accuracy, but don't have ES for all my ammo . . . yet.
I don't 'sort' anything except 'Accurate' and "NOT Accurate" . (unfortunately I've got lots of NOT, that keeps my plinkers happy)

When they make it in .22 WMR I might just do that.

in my opinion and experience sorting wide swings in rim thickness is a good thing in most any gun. but to get too picky for anything but a top quality bench rest top gun or at least a gun that has true bench rest accuracies is a waste of time.

Good enough for small varmints without sorting.

That whole Federal UM story was pretty cool as an example of Federal exhibiting the will to produce a medal winning product. They had to revamp their thinking about what went into consistently accurate ammo. I'm told that Olymp-R was their target which was pretty hard to come by in the US. Not long after, OK Weber was able to import quantities of Russian 22lr. By most accounts, UM1 and UM2 help up against Olymp.

I shot fair amounts of Temp and Sniper. Olymp was harder to come by.


IYKYK!

Again y'all are getting off in the weeds with this .22 lr stuff. I'm talking about wanting to find a way to more consistent .22 MAG ammunition. This post has never been about how to make my .22 lr shoot better. I really love all the suggestions for the wrong cartridge.

The WRM isn't worth all this rim thickness poop. Be happy and shoot. Try different brands.

I would not even waste my time with 22wmr ammo. Find what shoots the best in your rifle and use that ammo. Easy enough.

I replaced a scope on my .22 WMR and had it threaded for my suppressors. So I ran some different types of ammunition across my chrony, and was surprised by a 400 fps difference in velocites between high and low from the same box. I only sorted the Federal 30 grain TNT because I had 5K of the same lot.

I did thighten things up a bit in the ES and SD, but didn't see a huge improvement in group size, other than maybe vertical. It was pretty windy and had to hold 1-2 Mils for wind and I wasn't always right on my calls. The rifle shoots most ammunition around 1-1.25" at 50 yards, and over 2" at 100. From CCI, Hornady, Federal, and Fiocci 30-40 grains there isnt a clear winner. I do have a brick of 33 grain Remington Premier on the way to test, I'm just trying to keep it under $150 a brick delivered.

Lol! Welcome to the Csmpfire where tangents and ADHD are part of the norm (for me at least!)

I sorted a pile of Aguila ammo to try to get better, or at least more consistent, groups. I sorted it by weight, by rim thickness, and sub-sorted it by both weight and then rim thickness. It may have worked, but it didn't work well enough for me to spend the time/effort to do any more sorting of .22 LR ammo. I prefer to spend a little more money on medium or higher grade .22 LR ammo then the time and effort to sort lower grade .22 LR ammo.

I do sort .22 Magnum ammo by rim thickness because there isn't any match grade .22 Magnum ammo on the market. I'm happy enough with the 17 HMR and 17 HM2 ammo performance without feeling any need to sort it either by weight or rim thickness.

Other folks may have had better outcomes than I did, but my experience showed that, for me, sorting wasn't worth the time and effort when better .22 LR ammo was widely available and easy to come by.

I have done both, weighing and measuring. It paid me no dividends on Eley Club or better and on cheaper stuff wasn't all that great. maybe my guns can't take advantage of the effort or maybe it is me. Custom 10-22,_Kidd, Shaw, etc. CZ455 Varmint. Old Win 52.

Pretty sure I would give up shooting rimfire, or get a better rifle, or try different ammo if I had to sort, weigh, measure, and otherwise play with my ammo in order to get it to shoot well enough...

22 WMR is made for hunting and we've yet to see any match 22 mag. At least, I haven't. I'm surprised though. A match 22 mag rifle with high quality ammunition would be challenging. Maybe a 50/100/200 yard match.

Not too many years ago, I remember reading in the gunrags about QC differences between 22 WMR and 22LR. In a nutshell, they said that 22 WMR wasn't made to the same standard as its little brothers. No doubt this was comparing 22 WMR to better (read more expensive) 22 LR ammunition. As well, no one made rifles with decent triggers or target stocks. That was back when stockmakers were employed to work on rifles. There weren't any aftermarket stocks with aluminum bedding blocks or pillars for DIYers.

But even if it's a hunting rifle, shooters are always looking for better accuracy. I'd bet that almost immediately after the 22 WMR arrived, people started weighing for consistency and checking rim thickness.

But you cannot forget the rifle advances that have improved performance. With machining improvements, recently manufactured rimfire rifles have better barrels, adjustable triggers and more. Some are bedded and most rifles have better stock fit. Remember when every rimfire rifle trigger was heavy, with a lot of drag? Consistency wasn't so good either.

While the ammunition manufacturing process is better today, hunters will continue to demand better accuracy. As others have suggested, sorting and weighing isn't worth the bother to them. But you can still try it. There's no harm in experimenting!

A few years ago, I checked a box of 200 22 Mag cartridges to see how much difference there was between them. I never weighed them. I just measured the rim thickness like others have done. I remember thinking that rim thickness wasn't the only thing. The bullets had to be of decent quality and the powder amount and consistency had to be good. Regardless, these shot good enough to take hunting.

I recorded the results of the test, but like most of you, I didn't find the differences to be enough to make checking the rim thickness worthwhile. I don't have the targets. I only have what was done in my reloading room.

Of the 200 cartridges, I left 100 unsorted to compare against the sorted ones. Of the 100 that had their rim thickness measured, this is what I found,

.0445 - 1
.0450 to .0455 - 22
.0460 to .0465 - 72
.0470 to .0475 - 5

I shot the 72 sorted versus 72 unsorted and I couldn't see a difference. The math geeks will say that this wasn't enough of a sampling to make a determination, but I think the ammunition companies have already done the work for us. My conclusion was it is not worth the bother. It was a lot of work for little, if any gain.

...

Any ammo analysis for better shooting will apply equally to WMR. You won’t find WMR that is built to the standards of .22 so sorting WMR by weight and rim thickness may yield even better results.

Have shot a bunch of .22 Rimfire Magnum ammo through a lot of different rifles, some costing over $1000. .22 Magnums are well-known for being ammo-picky, and that's exactly what happened with all those rifles, no matter the price.

Tried measuring rim-thickness, weighing rounds, measuring bullet run-out, etc., and eventually concluded the major problem with the .22 Magnum is the ammo features all sorts of bullets--traditional plated "rimfire" bullets like those used in the original Winchester factory ammo, to plastic-tipped jacketed bullets. These also tend to vary in "hardness" and distance to the lands.

Eventually I an across a new Ruger American .22 Magnum on the rack of a local gun store--on sale for half the standard retail price back then (which I'm guessing was due to the Obama Rimfire Shortage, when .22 Magnum ammo was pretty much unobtaium.) Couldn't resist, and it turned out to be the most all-around accurate .22 Magnum I've ever owned, with a wide variety of ammo.

Did some simple chamber measurements, and it turned out to have a little shorter throat than other .22 Magnums. My bore-scope also showed it had a fine barrel, which has been typical with Ruger since they started hammer-forging their own barrels in the early 1990s. E-mailed the then head of Ruger production and asked why it might shoot so well, and he answered, "Luck?"

Dunno about that, but a local buddy and I went ground squirrel shooting one day, and after I let him use the RAR he bought one--and it shot just as well as mine.

I think that you have answered your own question. If you are minute of prairie dog, it's not likely to get much better.