I suspect a lot of newer shooters may struggle with shooting the scores they want to shoot (whether at an Appleseed shoot or elsewhere), and I put together an article that talks about some of the things you can do to eliminate some of the equipment variable from that equation.
I'd love to know what you guys think, and hope you'll take a look at the article and share your thoughts! You can find the article here Six Ways Your Rifle is Hurting Your Scores, Part 1 (http://www.rimfireessentials.com/Six-Ways-Your-Rifle-is-Hurting-Your-Scores-Part-1_b_4.html).
Please share your thoughts!
"If it comes in a bulk box, it's very unlikely to shoot very accurately. Save the bulk box ammo for plinking at tin cans or for pistol shooting, don't ever try to shoot it for score. Seriously, just don't."
I've seen shooters put up scores in the 230+ range with bulk federal. Every time I've qualified rifleman with a .22, it's been with bulk ammo (federal, remington, winchester).
"If it's supersonic, it's very unlikely to shoot very accurately. The speed of sound is around 1100 feet per second. Most every box of .22 LR ammunition lists a velocity on the box. If it's more than 1100 FPS, save that ammo for varmint hunting or smashing watermelons. It's not for shooting targets."
I watched a shooter put cloverleaf after cloverleaf on paper with remington gold bullets and a stock 10/22.
Everything you wrote about equipment fitting the shooter is spot on. I disagree with your assessment regarding ammunition.
And that is, of course, why I was hoping for feedback! I've never shot decent groups with anything that came in a bulk box, and none of my rifles have ever shot well with any supersonic ammunition, but that's just me and my rifles. It's good to know that at least some batches of bulk ammo will run well in at least some rifles.
Remember also that these are rules of thumb, not hard and fast laws of science. For exactly the reasons you specified, if you want to get the most from your rifle, ammo testing is essential. If you find that Remington Golden Bullets shoot really well, then that's awesome. The "rules of thumb" are intended to be a good starting point for newer shooters, and it's not really very expensive at all to buy CCI Standard, GECO, or Norma over bulk box ammo, and those have consistently vastly better than bulk ammo in every rifle I've tested.
On the other hand, I've been to many firing lines and seen shooters get their groups down to 4-6 MOA on Saturday afternoon and never really see much improvement for the rest of the weekend. I can't help but wonder how much of their lack of improvement is due to the Walmart bulk ammo they are shooting, which very well may not be capable of much better no matter what they do.
Thanks for your comments, though. I'll certainly have to think about revising the "Rules of Thumb" if the collective experience here suggests it makes sense. You guys and gals collectively see a whole lot more rifles on the firing line than I do, that's for sure!
These days, I can get Eley Target for the same price as CCI standard and sometimes for the same price as Remington Bulk Pack. In my target 22 rifles I shoot good subsonic ammo, period.
I have tested a variety of rimfire ammo at 50 and 100 yards and concluded that bulk ammo is an issue when you get beyond 25m and sometimes it hurts you at 25m. When you are shooting 100 and 200 yards and need groups of 1.5moa or less, bulk is a non starter. But I am willing to let the competition shoot any ammo that they want. :-)
For Appleseed and 10/22's my ammo choice was CCI blazer. It had enough impulse to be reliable and in a non match chamber fed just fine. When shot in a 10/22 race gun, it caused malf's and frustration. I think that it is over 1200, but that was fine.
I appreciate your ammo testing. I have been tempted by Norma and GECO, but never tried either. I know that my 540X bolt rifle really loves Remington White Box target for 100 yards and further. At 50 yards, Eley Target, CCI Standard, White Box, And Eley Club were all close to the same. At 100 with a 20x scope and shooting prone with a match sling the others always had a flyer and the white box didn't. The eley might but 4 in 1 moa but the 5th made the group 3 moa. The Remington kept the groups at 1.5 moa at 200.
Every .22 rifle is an enigma unto itself. Even within a model by the same manufacturer. Some bulk ammo will shoot within 1-2 MOA in a particular rifle, yet will not even shoot better than about 4.5 MOA in another rifle that is the same model.
Likewise, some ammo will shoot well in ambient temperatures below 70 degrees, but go totally erratic in 95+ degree temperatures, such as at an Infernoseed. The reason, I suspect, is that it goes transonic at the higher temperatures.
Federal Automatch, in the bulk pack, shoots better at colder temperatures. In hot conditions, it has 2 flyers out of every 10 rounds. They are about 3 MOA removed from the other 8 rounds, which are cloverleafed.
Personally, I find Norma Tac-22 to be consistently good, giving touching POI well under 1 MOA for 10 shot groups. The only issue is having to clean the 10-22 rotary mags about every 150 rounds. The soft bullet lube prevents the rotary mag from rotating starting around 175 rounds! It runs around $0.11 a round.
-gb
Well... I like the article Scott, waiting for part II...
Last weekend I shot several 5 round groups averaging 1.5 MOA @ 25yrds (slow fire prone...when doing rapid fire, groups opened to 2MOA ) ... Out of a 10/22 with a free floated target barrel using CCI Blazer 40gr...
If you have it on hand, I'd like to see a much more in-depth test of the ammo. One single 5 round group doesn't tell us a whole lot. The sample size is just too small. If you could do 10, 10 round groups or 20, 10 round groups, then we might be able to glean some more reliable information.
I applaud your efforts regardless.
An ammo testing exercise wasn't really the point of this article, but I think it's a great idea. I really only intended to post representative samples on this article, but I have tons more of that sort of data, and I think it would be a very interesting exercise.
The main thing I hope people will take away from this article is that if you want to shoot your best testing your ammo in your rifle is essential. There simply aren't any shortcuts. Just as an example, in almost every rifle I've ever tested eley club and eley target have been superb. However in the cmmg upper I tested recently, they were both quite blah. Had I assumed they would be fine without testing I would have been very disappointed. As it was I shot the SK rifle match at my last 25m appleseed and it shot very well, with a 244 and a 242 on my two Sunday AQTs. Had I been shooting Eley I would have lost points to my ammo and most likely I'd have been trying to correct shooting errors which were not really there.
The other main point of course is KNOWING what caused a shot to go off target. With tested ammo I can be absolutely certain that any points dropped were errors I made. The more certain you can be of your equipment the faster you will learn.
For Appleseed I don't think ammo matter much at all. I have shot many Rifleman scores with all different kinds of ammo, I really don't notice any one better than the other as long as it will operate the action. I have regularly picked up dud, and strays from the line over the course of the weekend and throw them in my range box. Then when I demo an AQT I reach in and get enough or have my mag prepper do it for me grabbing the rounds at random of wherever is in the box. I usually score plenty good enough for a demo. I do this for a few reasons, 1 some of the rounds do not go off so it shows how to work through a malfunction and that it really doesn't matter. 2. that the equipment and ammo you bring to the line matters little but the practices that we teach matter greatly. Now does it matter to a benchrest shooter? Probably so, but we teach foundational skills to shoot 4moa. Would it push a few over the line to score a 210? Maybe, but if they aren't shooting a 210 with surplus rifles (off the shelf .22s) and surplus (bulk) ammo then we as Appleseed instructors aren't doing our job teaching rifle marksmanship. One of my favorite wise old shoot bosses always said that "you can't buy skill in a bubble pack on isle 9, you have to earn it."
I do agree with adding to the comb of the rifle it makes a huge difference as does adding a kisser button. I have worked around LOP issues by changing the angle which a shooter indexes him or herself to the target.
Four MOA is an achievable starting point for an infantryman. But there are few rifle matches (if any), that will be won shooting 4 MOA.and while there is no doubt that you can't buy skill, there is also no doubt that attention to detail and precision brings better results than inattention or carelessness.
We have an opportunity here to take work meant for multiple audiences and use it to improve our personal skills and by extension our ability to teach people to successfully use the fundamentals of marksmanship. The aqt comes from the time when soldiers were judged not on simply hitting a target but on a score earned by shooting the target accurately. Higher is better.
Quote from: Mudcat on September 09, 2014, 08:31:38 PM
For Appleseed I don't think ammo matter much at all. I have shot many Rifleman scores with all different kinds of ammo, I really don't notice any one better than the other as long as it will operate the action. I have regularly picked up dud, and strays from the line over the course of the weekend and throw them in my range box. Then when I demo an AQT I reach in and get enough or have my mag prepper do it for me grabbing the rounds at random of wherever is in the box. I usually score plenty good enough for a demo. I do this for a few reasons, 1 some of the rounds do not go off so it shows how to work through a malfunction and that it really doesn't matter. 2. that the equipment and ammo you bring to the line matters little but the practices that we teach matter greatly. Now does it matter to a benchrest shooter? Probably so, but we teach foundational skills to shoot 4moa. Would it push a few over the line to score a 210? Maybe, but if they aren't shooting a 210 with surplus rifles (off the shelf .22s) and surplus (bulk) ammo then we as Appleseed instructors aren't doing our job teaching rifle marksmanship. One of my favorite wise old shoot bosses always said that "you can't buy skill in a bubble pack on isle 9, you have to earn it."
I do agree with adding to the comb of the rifle it makes a huge difference as does adding a kisser button. I have worked around LOP issues by changing the angle which a shooter indexes him or herself to the target.
/\ THIS /\ O0
And one of my favorite wise not-so-old shoot bosses always says that "It's ALWAYS the shooter." O0
I don't want attendees to get too caught up in rifles, ammo, scores and patches. I want them to walk away as better marksmen then when they arrived, and I want them to walk away with a greater appreciation of the value and cost of their liberty, and a new or renewed determination to hand it down intact to their posterity.
UL
The best shoot boss I have ever known was a competitive shooter. He shot high power, silhouette, air gun, international pistol, bullseye pistol and won titles in all of them. He was proud of any student that showed progress but didn't believe that shooting better was a bad thing. If you want to be a4 MOA shooter, go for it. But to paraphrase Hawkeye in "Last of the Mohicans," "don't be tellin us what to do with our own marksmanship."
Who was it that I heard " Simplicity and Precision in all things" from? Oh yea, the founder of the program. The simplicity exits to keep us from overthinking, but the precision exists to keep us from being careless and imprecise.
Determining key factors in rim fire accuracy would seem to be both simplicity and precision.
Quote from: Mudcat on September 09, 2014, 08:31:38 PM
For Appleseed I don't think ammo matter much at all. I have shot many Rifleman scores with all different kinds of ammo, I really don't notice any one better than the other as long as it will operate the action. I have regularly picked up dud, and strays from the line over the course of the weekend and throw them in my range box. Then when I demo an AQT I reach in and get enough or have my mag prepper do it for me grabbing the rounds at random of wherever is in the box.
...
I am assuming that it is all high velocity bulk pack ammo that you are scrounging. However, I have tested the difference in POI at 25 meters between subsonic and high velocity ammo. I find it is often around 6 MOA in POI. Each group is small, but the centers of the groups are 6 MOA separated. This would make it hard to hit a 4 MOA target, unless you separate by brand, and adjust zero for a particular brand. On the other hand, if it is all high velocity, the POI is usually separated by only around 2 MOA. This is plenty good enough to keep within 4 MOA. Usually, only the LRN 40 grain is subsonic. The HP 36 gr. and HP 40 gr. are usually both high velocity. It can pay to scrounge wisely, when desiring a good demo!
Doctrine is good, but it pays to know when doctrine (scrounging any old .22 bulk ammo rounds and immediately shooting score in a rack grade rifle) just won't happen. After all, we do assume that a shooter be permitted to sight in their rifle for a given type of ammo.
--gb
http://www.accurateshooter.com/guns-of-week/22lr-rimfire-ammo-comparison-test/
Here are some ammo test for you to look at.
Quote from: Stand on September 09, 2014, 10:03:47 PM
http://www.accurateshooter.com/guns-of-week/22lr-rimfire-ammo-comparison-test/
Here are some ammo test for you to look at.
fantastic resource!!
Quote from: Guntuckian on September 09, 2014, 09:50:24 PM
Quote from: Mudcat on September 09, 2014, 08:31:38 PM
For Appleseed I don't think ammo matter much at all. I have shot many Rifleman scores with all different kinds of ammo, I really don't notice any one better than the other as long as it will operate the action. I have regularly picked up dud, and strays from the line over the course of the weekend and throw them in my range box. Then when I demo an AQT I reach in and get enough or have my mag prepper do it for me grabbing the rounds at random of wherever is in the box.
...
I am assuming that it is all high velocity bulk pack ammo that you are scrounging. However, I have tested the difference in POI at 25 meters between subsonic and high velocity ammo. I find it is often around 6 MOA in POI. Each group is small, but the centers of the groups are 6 MOA separated. This would make it hard to hit a 4 MOA target, unless you separate by brand, and adjust zero for a particular brand. On the other hand, if it is all high velocity, the POI is usually separated by only around 2 MOA. This is plenty good enough to keep within 4 MOA. Usually, only the LRN 40 grain is subsonic. The HP 36 gr. and HP 40 gr. are usually both high velocity. It can pay to scrounge wisely, when desiring a good demo!
Doctrine is good, but it pays to know when doctrine (scrounging any old .22 bulk ammo rounds and immediately shooting score in a rack grade rifle) just won't happen. After all, we do assume that a shooter be permitted to sight in their rifle for a given type of ammo.
--gb
You are assuming that I care about what I pick up. In reality it doesn't matter for the point I am trying to get across. The equipment matters very little if you cannot put the very principles that we teach to good use.
I guess if it really mattered every want to be competition shooter who showed up on our lines with a hopped up 1022 and some high dollar ammo would be a Rifleman. We all know that isn't the case. However those that come out, learns the basic principles that we teach, puts them to good practice and of course persists will become a Rifleman. I will also say that they will be better Rifleman because they have taken something away from the program. They are more likely to tell others what they have learned and be an advocate for the program. Many of the others will get frustrated, refuse to try things our way and usually not be as good of an advocate for the program.
I really could care less about competition. I've shot several matches with my mediocre equipment with the guys with huge egos and high dollar equipment. They tend to quit talking to me and being so friendly after a few rounds. I try to tell them where they can get a good hold on the foundational skills. But they seldom show on the line. When they do I generally put them on a stock rifle and bulk ammo so they can learn more without a fancy rifle masking their lack of skills.
Remember what our purpose is, we all may do well by going up to read Unbridled Liberty's post above. That is what is important. :)
Good article. In fact it is pretty much the basic stuff that everybody should know. I am looking forward to Part II and will refer new shooters to Part I.
Having said that I too shoot mostly bulk ammo and have had pretty good success scoring rifleman with CCI Blazer ammo. On the other hand, the only difference between Blazer ammo and Mini Mags is that Mini Mags have closer i.e, more frequent QC checks and are individually packaged. Otherwise they come off the same line as do the Federal bulk ammo. I do however think good ammo does make a difference, not sure if the difference is significant enough for Appleseed. Certainly for past 25 meters and target shooting other than Appleseed it does.
Quote from: Mudcat on September 09, 2014, 10:55:25 PM
Quote from: Guntuckian on September 09, 2014, 09:50:24 PM
Quote from: Mudcat on September 09, 2014, 08:31:38 PM
For Appleseed I don't think ammo matter much at all. I have shot many Rifleman scores with all different kinds of ammo, I really don't notice any one better than the other as long as it will operate the action. I have regularly picked up dud, and strays from the line over the course of the weekend and throw them in my range box. Then when I demo an AQT I reach in and get enough or have my mag prepper do it for me grabbing the rounds at random of wherever is in the box.
...
I am assuming that it is all high velocity bulk pack ammo that you are scrounging. However, I have tested the difference in POI at 25 meters between subsonic and high velocity ammo. I find it is often around 6 MOA in POI. Each group is small, but the centers of the groups are 6 MOA separated. This would make it hard to hit a 4 MOA target, unless you separate by brand, and adjust zero for a particular brand. On the other hand, if it is all high velocity, the POI is usually separated by only around 2 MOA. This is plenty good enough to keep within 4 MOA. Usually, only the LRN 40 grain is subsonic. The HP 36 gr. and HP 40 gr. are usually both high velocity. It can pay to scrounge wisely, when desiring a good demo!
Doctrine is good, but it pays to know when doctrine (scrounging any old .22 bulk ammo rounds and immediately shooting score in a rack grade rifle) just won't happen. After all, we do assume that a shooter be permitted to sight in their rifle for a given type of ammo.
--gb
You are assuming that I care about what I pick up. In reality it doesn't matter for the point I am trying to get across. The equipment matters very little if you cannot put the very principles that we teach to good use.
I guess if it really mattered every want to be competition shooter who showed up on our lines with a hopped up 1022 and some high dollar ammo would be a Rifleman. We all know that isn't the case. However those that come out, learns the basic principles that we teach, puts them to good practice and of course persists will become a Rifleman. I will also say that they will be better Rifleman because they have taken something away from the program. They are more likely to tell others what they have learned and be an advocate for the program. Many of the others will get frustrated, refuse to try things our way and usually not be as good of an advocate for the program.
I really could care less about competition. I've shot several matches with my mediocre equipment with the guys with huge egos and high dollar equipment. They tend to quit talking to me and being so friendly after a few rounds. I try to tell them where they can get a good hold on the foundational skills. But they seldom show on the line. When they do I generally put them on a stock rifle and bulk ammo so they can learn more without a fancy rifle masking their lack of skills.
Remember what our purpose is, we all may do well by going up to read Unbridled Liberty's post above. That is what is important. :)
I guess I just do not understand how skill has anything to do with shrinking a group of shots that are going to be spaced over about 8 MOA (two <= 2 MOA groups spaced 6 MOA apart, for the difference in Points of Impact between subsonic and high velocity ammo) into the stage 4 targets that are only 4 MOA in size, each. The force is strong with this one ;)
As for me, my rounds just do not shrink into one centered group that is smaller than bench rest results. No matter how much I wish it were so. Within all subsonic rounds, maybe; within all high velocity rounds, maybe. But, not when they are intermingled, some subsonic and some high velocity, they shoot to different locations on the target, spaced about 1.5 inches apart at 25 meters. And, there is both a horizontal component as well as a vertical component, due to different barrel harmonics, too, that varies slightly by brand of ammo. I have tested several different brands of subsonic ammo, and they have all shot to a different location than high velocity ammo.
--gb
Quote from: jmdavis on September 09, 2014, 09:34:29 PM
The best shoot boss I have ever known was a competitive shooter. He shot high power, silhouette, air gun, international pistol, bullseye pistol and won titles in all of them. He was proud of any student that showed progress but didn't believe that shooting better was a bad thing. If you want to be a4 MOA shooter, go for it. But to paraphrase Hawkeye in "Last of the Mohicans," "don't be tellin us what to do with our own marksmanship."
Who was it that I heard " Simplicity and Precision in all things" from? Oh yea, the founder of the program. The simplicity exits to keep us from overthinking, but the precision exists to keep us from being careless and imprecise.
Determining key factors in rim fire accuracy would seem to be both simplicity and precision.
How come every time there is a discussion on the
Appleseed Forum about accuracy, all of a sudden what we teach (4 MOA) isn't good enough and you start in on High Power and all kinds of shooting competition. We are not a shooting competition, never claimed to be and hope we never go that way. We teach the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship and our heritage. 4 MOA is what we teach. If you become better than that, great.
When you start compensating for the fundamentals with fancy equipment, parallax issues and no line bifocals, special ammo and all sorts of other gadgets, you are taking away from the fundamentals. You have to build on a solid foundation or it will never withstand the test of time. If you can't do what Mudcat and UL were talking about then you need to work on your fundamentals ands stop compensating for the lack of them. 4MOA is attainable with a surplus rifle and surplus mixed ammo.
Rayne..... O0 ...spot on!
I will make every effort to improve my own marksmanship skills beyond Rifleman standards as soon as..
80% of all Americans have attended an Appleseed clinic or a Libertyseed, or both
Appleseed commercials are aired during the Superbowl
More Americans know who Isaac Davis was than who some wife-beater named Rice is
10% of Americans shoot to Rifleman standards
Informed voter turnout hits 80%
We have so many instructors competing to work the available shoots that we have to devise an "Appleseed Shingle" test to only pick the best of the best...and they all qualify anyhow
UL
4 MOA is attainable with a rack grade rifle and surplus ammo.
4 MOA is not always attainable with mixed types of surplus ammo, simultaneously, as they often will shoot to significantly different locations, depending on just how great the mix becomes.
If you sight in with one type of surplus ammo, and then shoot just that ammo, then 4 MOA is easily attainable by the methods we teach.
But, if you sight in with, say, subsonic . 22 ammo, and then shoot, say, either high velocity or super high velocity .22s, say Stingers, there is no way to shoot within 4 MOA, as the centers of the groups will be significantly spaced differently wider than 4 MOA.
Likewise, if you are shooting 55 grain M193 vs. single-loaded 80 grain 5.56 ammo. Your zeroes for the two are significantly different at, say, 500 yards! Zeroes apply to one type of ammo at a time. Not to a wide mix of different ammo loads. If we start to say otherwise, then advanced shooters will simply ignore those wacky Appleseed guys!
Now, some might say that using subsonic .22s is somehow gaming the system. I disagree. For the last 18 months, I have been able to buy subsonic .22s at around $0.10 to $0.11, each, through the Internet from established ammo dealers. $50 a brick. Yet, locally, I haven't been able to buy even one brick of high velocity .22 ammo, short of paying gun show prices of $75 to $125 a brick, which equates to $0.15 to $0.25 a round. I have refused to pay gun show prices. So, I shoot subsonic .22 ammo. It is far cheaper.
So, should one be a purist, saying they won't come to an Appleseed unless they can shoot only formerly garden variety high velocity .22 ammo, or, should they buy a brick of subsonic target ammo and come to an Appleseed, anyway? Folks, I don't care what kind of ammo a shooter comes with, provided it's safe, just that they are off the sofa and at an Appleseed!
The problem is a lack of ammo, locally, not whether the "fundamentals" are somehow being diluted. And, if someone wants to learn to shoot better than 4 MOA, I say, "Great!". I would love to have some shooters on my team that can shoot better than 4 MOA! Not, say, "no one can shoot better than 4 MOA" until some non-sequiturs are first met.
-gb
Quote from: Rayne on September 09, 2014, 11:44:07 PM
Quote from: jmdavis on September 09, 2014, 09:34:29 PM
The best shoot boss I have ever known was a competitive shooter. He shot high power, silhouette, air gun, international pistol, bullseye pistol and won titles in all of them. He was proud of any student that showed progress but didn't believe that shooting better was a bad thing. If you want to be a4 MOA shooter, go for it. But to paraphrase Hawkeye in "Last of the Mohicans," "don't be tellin us what to do with our own marksmanship."
Who was it that I heard " Simplicity and Precision in all things" from? Oh yea, the founder of the program. The simplicity exits to keep us from overthinking, but the precision exists to keep us from being careless and imprecise.
Determining key factors in rim fire accuracy would seem to be both simplicity and precision.
How come every time there is a discussion on the Appleseed Forum about accuracy, all of a sudden what we teach (4 MOA) isn't good enough and you start in on High Power and all kinds of shooting competition. We are not a shooting competition, never claimed to be and hope we never go that way. We teach the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship and our heritage. 4 MOA is what we teach. If you become better than that, great.
When you start compensating for the fundamentals with fancy equipment, parallax issues and no line bifocals, special ammo and all sorts of other gadgets, you are taking away from the fundamentals. You have to build on a solid foundation or it will never withstand the test of time. If you can't do what Mudcat and UL were talking about then you need to work on your fundamentals ands stop compensating for the lack of them. 4MOA is attainable with a surplus rifle and surplus mixed ammo.
You start with the fundamentals, that much is absolutely true. And if that is all that you want, I say great. But why would you be bothered if someone wants to shoot better and believes (as did Hathcock, Cooper, York and others) that competition is a way to help prepare one for "more serious work?" Remember Morgan's Riflemen, they competed to earn their place in the unit and their marksmanship and competition continued in their seige of Boston. The Marines at Bellieu Wood were competitors of the Division and all Marine matches, they were taught by some of the best Competitive Marksmen in the country. And they made the Germans think that they were facing an entire battalion of snipers. Or maybe we should talk about American HW Macbride of Indiana, a competitive marksman at the turn of the century who fought with the Canadians in WWI and pioneered much of the sniping doctrine still taught today.
As for the coats and shooting glasses, we do these things because they are legal and the glasses let old men shoot a rifle that was designed for scared 19 year olds with good eyes. A scope is not legal for service rifle competition. And yet those men with aperature sights and basically reading glasses still manage to shoot 90%+ on a 6moa target out to 600 yards.
No one is asking anyone to compete. You can do as you will. No one is criticizing you for not competing.
Were you to read Jim Owens books or the AMU Service rifle guide, you would see where much of Appleseeds doctrine originates. You would see it as original source, not the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation of someone who heard it from someone who learned it from Fred or Son of Martha or Dinky Dao or the Guy or Scout or VaShooter or Longshot or Boltgun71.
I've shot rifleman scores with airguns, standard ar15's, bolt rifles, M1's, M4's, 10/22's, as well as Service rifles and come close with a pistol. I've cleaned red coats and stage 4 targets with iron sights. I've travelled MO, OH, IN, WV, VA, MD, NJ, AL, GA, and NC teaching Appleseeds, KD shoots, and IBC's. Even now, I sponsor Appleseed at my range and stay onsite for the weekend as RSO so it can be held.
I've learned more about shooting from competing than I learned from all of that. And the reason is simple, I have shot with some of the best shooters in the country. They know things that the rest just don't know. I struggle to make master scores and these guys shoot 98%+ with what seems to be minimal effort. They are open, willing to help and friendly. I have trained and practiced the things that I learned. And I learn more at every match.
I take that information that I have learned and try to use it to help others shoot better. We tell people that one of the things that made the difference on April 19th 1775 was marksmanship. Well marksmanship is work and it is perishable. I will learn as much of it as I can and continue to teach it to anyone who is willing to listen.
By the way Midway has CCI standard for $39/brick plus shipping. That still makes it cheaper at $50 than the 525 pack of CCI BLAZER or Remington Golden Bullets locally.
Quote from: Guntuckian on September 10, 2014, 12:44:11 AM
4 MOA is attainable with a rack grade rifle and surplus ammo.
4 MOA is not always attainable with mixed types of surplus ammo, simultaneously, as they often will shoot to significantly different locations, depending on just how great the mix becomes.
Yeah. So don't mix ammo. ;) If you do you'll need to sight in again. Work out a baseline zero for different brands of ammo, and you're done.
There should be no great mystery about .22LR ammunition, seriously. Yes, every rifle has its own preferences, but there's only a couple of things going on, and most of them don't matter at 25 meters.
One, because .22LR headspaces on the rifling grooves -- not the rim, not the case mouth, no shoulder or taper -- different rifles may be sensitive to minor changes in COAL or ogive. Mass-produced rifles like Marlin 795s and Ruger 10/22s are cut generously and rarely care, but competition rifles with tight throats can throw real stinkers if fed bulk ammo.
Two, blowback semi-autos are all timed to some "average" load, and small changes -- more or less powder, different primer type, different weight of brass, etc. -- can cause stoppages due to incompatibility with the bolt mass, the extractor tension, or the ejector timing. Hence why some rifles like particular loads. But this has little to do with accuracy.
It is also true that .22LR HV and SV will go sonic at roughly 60 meters and 10 meters respectively. However, going sonic does not instantly destroy your group. At 100 meters, HV is often throwing patterns 8 MOA and up; SV usually only opens up a little but it depends. At 25 meters this is a non-issue.
Outside of match rifles with Bentz chambers being fed oversize, soft lead like Remington Thunderbolts, it is rare to find a rifle/ammo combination that will not hold 4 MOA. That's my experience backed up with results from dozens of shoots. If a student swaps ammo their POI may change, but they still should be holding tight groups. If not, you may check to see if the barrel is getting clogged with soft lead, but odds are they've gotten sloppy with their fundamentals.
All of this stuff is suited for an advanced class. No need to burden the students with it in a typical Appleseed.
FWIW, my CZ bolt-action shows virtually no POI shift for different brands, and holds sub-2 MOA with everything it's fed, from Armscor to mottled Blazer to Norma-Tac to Eley to SK+. It's so boringly consistent that I've settled on Remington Subsonic as a do-everything load, because it's available and cheap and reaches to 200m and beyond. ??? Try it with your rifle before blaming your ammo.
The Other Reason Ammo Doesn't Matter at Appleseed:
Simply stated, MOA doesn't stack. As long as it feeds, extracts, and goes BANG reliably, it's probably good enough.
Let's consider an example. Suppose I have a shooter who is accurate to 4 MOA. That's the inherent inaccuracy in her technique -- if I gave her an ideal laser blaster, she'd shoot 4 MOA groups.
She has two brands of ammo. One of them, Wolf SuperExtra Tenex Hero at $99 a box, will print 1 MOA from her rifle if fired from an ideal mechanical rest. The other, Remchester Tac-Catch22 at $19.99 a bucket, is only capable of 3 MOA.
We put her on the line to shoot a five-round group from each box of ammo. Then we go down to check. The two groups are almost identical.
You may be thinking that her accuracy with the match ammo is 4 MOA + 1 MOA = 5 MOA, while the cheap stuff yields 4 MOA + 3 MOA = 7 MOA. It's not true. This is because shooter and mechanical accuracy are uncorrelated errors. That is to say, sometimes the randomness stacks, and sometimes it cancels out.
To compute the real expected accuracy, we "add in quadrature." This means we add the squares of the errors and then take the square root of the result. So:
Match ammo: SQRT[ (4 MOA)^2 + (1 MOA)^2 ] = SQRT[ 17 MOA^2 ] = 4.12 MOA
Cheap ammo: SQRT[ (4 MOA)^2 + (3 MOA)^2 ] = SQRT[ 25 MOA^2 ] = 5.00 MOA
That's not enough to matter. Indeed, not enough to even measure with anything less than a 25-shot group!
If you're a hard-core competitor and you shoot much better than the ammo/rifle is capable of, then it makes a significant difference. But so long as the shooter remains the principal source of error, you can make that ammo as good as you want and all you'll have to show for it is an empty wallet.
The only exception is if you happen upon an unusual rifle/ammo combination that doesn't work at all. It does happen, but it's just not that common. I haven't seen one yet in person.
Quote from: Rocket Man on September 10, 2014, 01:55:17 AM
The Other Reason Ammo Doesn't Matter at Appleseed:
Simply stated, MOA doesn't stack. As long as it feeds, extracts, and goes BANG reliably, it's probably good enough.
Let's consider an example. Suppose I have a shooter who is accurate to 4 MOA. That's the inherent inaccuracy in her technique -- if I gave her an ideal laser blaster, she'd shoot 4 MOA groups.
She has two brands of ammo. One of them, Wolf SuperExtra Tenex Hero at $99 a box, will print 1 MOA from her rifle if fired from an ideal mechanical rest. The other, Remchester Tac-Catch22 at $19.99 a bucket, is only capable of 3 MOA.
We put her on the line to shoot a five-round group from each box of ammo. Then we go down to check. The two groups are almost identical.
You may be thinking that her accuracy with the match ammo is 4 MOA + 1 MOA = 5 MOA, while the cheap stuff yields 4 MOA + 3 MOA = 7 MOA. It's not true. This is because shooter and mechanical accuracy are uncorrelated errors. That is to say, sometimes the randomness stacks, and sometimes it cancels out.
To compute the real expected accuracy, we "add in quadrature." This means we add the squares of the errors and then take the square root of the result. So:
Match ammo: SQRT[ (4 MOA)^2 + (1 MOA)^2 ] = SQRT[ 17 MOA^2 ] = 4.12 MOA
Cheap ammo: SQRT[ (4 MOA)^2 + (3 MOA)^2 ] = SQRT[ 25 MOA^2 ] = 5.00 MOA
That's not enough to matter. Indeed, not enough to even measure with anything less than a 25-shot group!
If you're a hard-core competitor and you shoot much better than the ammo/rifle is capable of, then it makes a significant difference. But so long as the shooter remains the principal source of error, you can make that ammo as good as you want and all you'll have to show for it is an empty wallet.
The only exception is if you happen upon an unusual rifle/ammo combination that doesn't work at all. It does happen, but it's just not that common. I haven't seen one yet in person.
Totally in agreement, with only one minor exception.
MOA does stack with a bi-modal distribution, when shooting both subsonic ammo and high velocity ammo in the same loaded magazine. That was the point of my prior post. Within each of the two groups, MOA doesn't stack. All the random contributors are uncorrelated. But between the two groups, the statistics are inversely correlated. And, they do stack. Yet, Rayne had stated that "4 MOA is attainable with a surplus rifle and surplus
mixed ammo." My point was that it won't work , unless you sight in with one type of ammo, and then only shoot that one type of ammo. If you load one magazine with two distinctly different cartridge types that exhibit two distinctly different Points of Impact when fired, with the sights zeroed only for one of the two cartridge types, then, yes, there will be a bi-modal distribution of impacts. And, under this set of conditions, the MOA of the separation of the barbell distributions will add. The Generalized Pythagorean Theorem, that tacitly assumes uncorrelated contributions, breaks down. It is no longer a Root-Mean-Square relationship.
And, Mudcat's assertion that if your technique is good enough, then you can load a magazine with a random mix of .22 subsonic and high velocity cartridges dropped on the line, that print to two different points that are 6 MOA separated for the two distributions, and yet still shoot score on only 4 MOA sized Stage 4 target silhouettes at 25 meters, strains incredulity.
I have repeatedly tested my 10-22 rifle. And, subsonic ammo shoots to a different point of impact than high velocity ammo. By about 1.5 inches (~6MOA). Yet, each group is only 2 MOA in diameter (1/2 inch in diameter).
--gb
Quote from: Guntuckian on September 10, 2014, 02:33:39 AMTotally in agreement, with only one minor exception.
MOA does stack with a bi-modal distribution, when shooting both subsonic ammo and high velocity ammo in the same loaded magazine. That was the point of my prior post. Within each of the two groups, MOA doesn't stack. All the random contributors are uncorrelated. But between the two groups, the statistics are inversely correlated. And, they do stack. [...]
I have repeatedly tested my 10-22 rifle. And, subsonic ammo shoots to a different point of impact than high velocity ammo. By about 1.5 inches (~6MOA). Yet, each group is only 2 MOA in diameter (1/2 inch in diameter).
Mixing ammo is a different story, I agree. That's not random error anymore, that's systematic. But even there you may get away with it. The only 4 MOA targets on an AQT are Stage 4.
My CZ 452 Varmint, between Remington Subsonic and CCI Blazer (HV), sees only 1.5 MOA shift in point of impact (Blazer being higher) at 25 meters. If you gave me a mixed handful of HV and SV ammo with my rifle, I'd be sure to lose a couple of points, but I'd probably still make the cut.
Mudcat's rifle may behave similarly. Yours obviously cares more for some reason. That's why we try it.
Blah, blah, blah. This is Appleseed and this is the Appleseed forum. Competing is not the point. Saving the country is the point. Instead of spending your time and energy eliminating variable X so that you can add an extra freaking point to your score, how about you call your state coordinator this morning and commit to WORKING one or two dozen shoots next year? And hey, I can name drop too; Revere, Davis, Morgan, Murphy, Prescott, Warren, Adams, Parker, Harrington, Whittemore, Lamson, Diamond, Hosmer, Salem, Washington...
UL
Sounds like wisdom from an old Alarm lister.... O0
Btw, that old (young..looking) shoot boss you were mentioned told me the same thing.
Not to change the subject to a equipment issue that actually matters, but I commonly see folks come with scope base's (especially on the 10-22) than come with the rifle. These base's make it impossible to get most scopes mounted far enough from the eye to be comfortable, AND have proper eye relief. A extended scope base is a god sent for most combinations due to it allowing you to push the scope further forward, and get a good turkey neck.
Please continue with your talk about supersonic ammo effecting accuracy 50-75 yards before it transitions through the sonic barrier.
http://www.accuratereloading.com/2013/bleiker3test.html
Here is another test from the author of the first one for those that care. If you don't that is fine just don't click on it.
HAVE A GREAT DAY!!!!! ;D
I sense a philosophical dichotomy among the cadre....to be what we are in our mission or to be something else.
Therefore, I solemnly pledge that from this day forward on these forums, for purposes of organizational clarity and focused, purposeful action, I will stand only with the telling of our heritage and training in the fundamentals to the end of effective marksmanship.
As Chief Gillespie so often muttered in the old television series, Heat of the Night, "Sometimes...I get so weary."
Loren
Another one of those alarm listers.. O0 O0
Nice article. Thanks for sharing.
FWIW, that technology stuff about ammo etc is interesting. I agree with the equipment fitting you also.
I must admit I had hoped this discussion would not turn in this direction. There is much merit in the "bring what you got", "rack grade rifle with surplus ammo", "we shoot to a 4 MOA standard" school of thought. There is also much merit in the "competition", "bring the best equipment you can", "shoot to a higher standard" school of thought. What confuses me about this seemingly endless debate is that these two ideas are not incompatible with each other, nor are they incompatible with Appleseed.
I would remind those who eschew fancy equipment, that examples of "fancy equipment" abound in the very heritage Appleseed teaches. One of the first tastes every student gets at an Appleseed is shooting the redcoat target, and they learn a little bit about Morgan's Riflemen. I remind you that Morgan's Riflemen were using the very fanciest equipment that could be had at the time. We laud their achievements, but must also recognize that they did this not only through the use of their marksmanship skills, but also through the use of their new fangled rifled muskets. What Morgan's Riflemen did would not have been possible with smoothbore muskets.
We talk about Isaac Davis, and the effort he put forth to ensure his soldiers had the very best equipment that could be had. His soldiers were chosen to lead the charge at Concord in large part because they were the only ones that all had bayonets for their muskets. They also had cartridge boxes, and the best equipment they could get their hands on. The colonists clearly understood the value of having the best equipment they could have.
At the same time, those who did not have the best equipment still came out and fought. They brought what they had, and did their best against the most powerful army the world had ever seen. They didn't stay home because their equipment wasn't the best, they did their best with what they had. The colonists also clearly understood that it was far better to get off the couch (so to speak) and do the best you could, than to stay home and hope for the best.
These two points are not incompatible. They weren't incompatible in 1775, and they aren't incompatible today. For those who suggest "competing is not the point" (and I'm not picking on Unbridled Liberty, his post was simply at the top of my screen so it was easy to grab this quote), make an effort to see the point. The US Army clearly sees the point. Our military started the National Matches in 1903, and they continue to this day. Many of your fellow Appleseed instructors also see the point. I don't ask you to agree with them, but I do suggest it's worth the effort to see the point. Examples of the value of competition shooting abound. Shooting at a competition level is certainly not the goal of Appleseed, but I suggest you're doing your students a disservice if you refuse to "see the point".
Having said that, I agree totally that "saving the country is the point". It's so important that we don't get caught up in the weeds when it comes to marksmanship that we lose sight of that point. It bears repeating, and it never bothers me to be reminded of it. Those who have a tendency to get bogged down in the minutiae of shooting (and I count myself among them from time to time), make the time to remember that "saving the country is the point". Take some time to read (or re-read) Paul Revere's ride. Don't lose sight of the goal.
The fact is both of these things are important. Saving the country is clearly important - I don't think anyone would debate that. But the marksmanship is also important, as it helps teach the discipline, perseverance, and focus that's necessary to "get" the first point. I would submit that if it's worth doing, it's worth doing well. This applies, I think, to all of the Appleseed experience. Not just the heritage, and not just the marksmanship. It applies to all of it.
One of the reasons I personally tend to push the "marksmanship" side more often is it's my opinion that it's this part of an Appleseed that sometimes misses the target (no pun intended :). There are many examples of this, but I'll share one from my own experience.
At my very first Appleseed (April of last year), I shot a 233 score on my first AQT on Saturday. I did it with my "fancy" Magnum Research rifle, with a "fancy" Weaver scope, and I used "fancy" target ammo. I used a lot of higher end equipment, as I had done my research before I ever arrived and I wanted to maximize my chances for success. Having gear I was confident in increased my own confidence, and helped me learn faster, as errors on the target were clearly MY errors, and could be more easily and effectively corrected.
On the second day, I decided to shoot with an off the shelf 10/22 with Tech Sights. A very basic LTR Rifle, very much like what Appleseed generally recommends. After shooting all day Sunday, I was left feeling very frustrated. I felt like a failure. I had done well with my high end equipment, but could shoot no better than a 204 with the 10/22 LTR (as I recall), and most AQT scores were in the 190's and 180's. I think most Appleseed instructors would say I did well, but I still felt like I'd failed. Why the disconnect?
At most Appleseeds you'll hear some version of "a real Rifleman can shoot an expert score with a rack grade rifle and surplus ammunition". Whether or not you hear those exact words, that's an impression which is commonly given to students, at least at the events I've attended. It's certainly a common message on these forums. If you think about how students hear that message - whether explicit or implied - it suggests to them that if they can't do that their success is somehow tainted. They aren't a "real" Rifleman. Some, like me, may try to meet this "higher" standard of shooting an expert score with a "rack grade rifle and surplus ammunition", and feel like they have failed if they cannot.
The challenge is, some of these folks will be motivated by that failure, and decide to overcome it. Failure motivates me like nothing else, and I dedicated much effort to overcoming that failure. And I did. A couple of weeks ago I earned my KD patch shooting an AR15 with iron sights. My failure at that first Appleseed motivated me, and my marksmanship has vastly improved over the last year.
Problem is, many people, perhaps most, aren't motivated by failure. People don't like to do things that make them feel bad about themselves. How many students at an Appleseed hear this message (again, whether explicit or implicit), and get frustrated and never come back? I've seen many shooters struggle in 90+ degree heat, getting increasingly hot and increasingly frustrated over their lack of improvement. Many times when I look at their equipment (ammo, rifle, scope, etc) I know they are unlikely to see much improvement with the equipment they have. They may not have reached the absolute limit of what their equipment is capable of, but they have most certainly reached the limit of what they can learn using the equipment they have.
And that, ultimately, is the point of my article. To help shooters learn more about the simple, easy, and generally inexpensive ways they can improve their equipment and at the same time improve the pace of their learning. When a shooter hears the message "I've seen many people shoot an expert score with bulk ammo and an off the shelf rifle", they often don't hear the intended message. The message you want them to hear is something like "you can do it too!". What they may actually hear is "man, if so many other people have done it, I must really suck."
So at the end of the day, I hope both students and instructors will take something away from both this article (and there is more to come!), and from this discussion. If you find yourself feeling more in tune with the "competition is not the point" perspective, open your mind and try to see the point. If you find yourself getting bogged down in the minutiae of shooting, come up for air from time to time and check to make sure you haven't lost sight of the real goal.
-Agrivere
I started Appleseed with an old beater 10-22 that probably had had over 50,000 rounds through it. My first AQT scored in the 70's. This was with factory sights. I calculated the windage error, drifted the front post the calculated number of thousandths with a micrometer, and a brass punch, and ended on Sunday shooting in the Marksman range.
Before the next AS, I ordered Tech-Sights, installed them, and practiced. My scores for the second AS were in the Sharpshooter range. Barely.
I then found that the muzzle of the rifle had some dings, causing flyers. I re crowned the muzzle. And at my third AS I shot in the 180's.
I then found that the wood on the stock was compressed a little, and there was a shift of the receiver in the stock occurring between the different positions. I added a compressible foam rubber slack expander, homemade, to prevent the stock from shifting.
At my 4th AS, I shot in the 184 to 182 range. I borrowed a scoped rifle and was right on the bubble, without even sighting in with my ammo.
At my 5th AS, I scoped my 10-22, and dropped into the 140's. That was when I discovered parallax problems with no line bifocals.
At my 6th Appleseed, I was using a new 10-22. It wasn't a beater rifle, with the firing pin floating all over the cartridge rim, like the old rifle had done. And I shot to Rifleman standards.
I sense that there are two major schools of thought within Appleseed. One school is anti-science, anti-technology. The other is pro-science, varying from use what you brought, to building high end rifles, all while analyzing the sources of errors.
Starting on April 19, 1775, there were two schools of thought, too. There were musket shooters, and, eventually Daniel Morgan's shirt men from the backwoods of a Virginia county then known as Kentucky with their cursed twisted muskets (rifled bores) that could hit a man at 300 yards, regularly. They all worked together for Liberty. We should do the same, while dropping all the drama. The drama is anathema to the mission. To do otherwise is to side with the King's men, and goes against Liberty. There was room in 1775 for all levels of skill and technology. There should be room, today, for all levels of skill and technology.
--gb
Quote from: Stand on September 10, 2014, 09:39:03 AM
http://www.accuratereloading.com/2013/bleiker3test.html
Here is another test from the author of the first one for those that care. If you don't that is fine just don't click on it.
HAVE A GREAT DAY!!!!! ;D
That's some great stuff! I was familiar with the first link you posted to accurate shooter's test, but this one I had not run across.
Some interesting things (to me) which I saw in this test. One, neither weighing rounds nor measuring rim thickness (headspace) consistently improved performance. I've heard of shooters doing both of these things to improve accuracy, but this test suggests that neither method was consistently better than just taking them out of the box as they come.
Two, CCI Standard is a commonly underestimated ammo. It is generally my "go to" ammo and my first starting point when testing a new rifle. In this test, it performed as well in general as the expensive stuff from Lapua and Eley. That's been my experience as well, and I've shot many sub-MOA groups off of a bench with CCI Standard and a fairly standard Ruger 10/22. Oddly enough, in my article the groups I posted were examples of a test I ran on a CMMG Rimfire AR15 Upper, and CCI Standard did not perform well in that rifle.
Another important takeaway to me is that it still serves to emphasize how important it is to test YOUR ammo in YOUR rifle, so you know exactly what it will do. Even if you do no "testing" at all and all you do is shoot 20 or 30 rounds from a bench, you will still know what YOUR rifle with YOUR ammo is capable of doing. That way when you see a shot that's "off call" you'll know whether or not it's you or your rifle. If it's "off call" but still within what you know your rifle normally shoots, you can't be sure if it's you or your rifle or both. But if it's "off call" and outside of what you know your rifle normally shoots, then you know it's you.
The mission is neither "anti-science", nor "anti-technology". Nor in my opinion is anyone I have met in this organization either anti-science or anti-technology. If anyone thinks that, they underestimate them. We have men and women among us who know what they are about. I have seen their rifles.
What they are...is focused on the ORGANIZATIONAL mission.
What they understand is that regardless of whether or not any or all of us are enamored with the blue sky lexicon or deep-to-the-roots detail of either heritage or marksmanship it does absolutely no good for the purposes of the mission to become specialists beyond the mainstream, center of the bell curve customer service needs of the American people that actually do show up on our lines. Our demographic goal is numbers of people...those who are presently uninformed, uninvolved, the raw material of saving the nation.
Preaching to the choir or discussing the best colors for its robes only brings comfort to the choir or provides diversion as the church burns down.
What folks need is the simple story of our heritage and how it changed the lives of the people who lived it...told in a manner that touches their souls. What they need is basic marksmanship so they can for a brief time on a Saturday and Sunday share an AMERICAN skill set...marksmanship with all its ups and downs...that allows them to reach across generations of other Americans and find a ritual common ground.
And...yes, our worst enemy in that process is that number...210.
My observation is that (resoundingly), "YES," we should all be knowledgeable (and as knowledgeable as we each individually choose to be) about both heritage and marksmanship...as each of us will do in our own ways. That's the beauty of our differences. But in the final analysis...since we indeed must be analytical, this is not a general forum about firearms. Its purpose is to neither bite each others tails off nor to lead us astray from our fundamental ORGANIZATIONAL purpose of communicating over this medium. That purpose in every thread should be in clear support of...
the mission, the mission, the mission.
Loren
I believe AS is all about competition on the marksmanship side, but I believe its about competition with yourself. To me the numbers you get on a AQT is all about beating yourself. At my first AS I scored a 238ish. To me its about improving on that every time out. If someone shows up at their first AQT and shoots a 100, and I shot a 238. We both shoot again at our next shoot, and they score a 150, and I score a 239, the big pat on the back goes to them because they improved more than I did.
I started a program a couple years ago where I would GIVE a 900 dollar scope to any shooter who scored a 250. I caught some grief from instructors saying "its not about score". Once I explained to them I was not rewarding the score, I was rewarding the effort it took to achieve it every one I talked to understood my point.
Im the furthest thing in the world from a "anti equipment guy". I just believe equipment will only get you so far.
Quote from: greyfox on September 10, 2014, 12:25:11 PM
The mission is neither "anti-science", nor "anti-technology". Nor in my opinion is anyone I have met in this organization either anti-science or anti-technology. If anyone thinks that, they underestimate them. We have men and women among us who know what they are about. I have seen their rifles.
What they are...is focused on the ORGANIZATIONAL mission.
What they understand is that regardless of whether or not any or all of us are enamored with the blue sky lexicon or deep-to-the-roots detail of either heritage or marksmanship it does absolutely no good for the purposes of the mission to become specialists beyond the mainstream, center of the bell curve customer service needs of the American people that actually do show up on our lines. Our demographic goal is numbers of people...those who are presently uninformed, uninvolved, the raw material of saving the nation.
Preaching to the choir or discussing the best colors for its robes only brings comfort to the choir or provides diversion as the church burns down.
What folks need is the simple story of our heritage and how it changed the lives of the people who lived it...told in a manner that touches their souls. What they need is basic marksmanship so they can for a brief time on a Saturday and Sunday share an AMERICAN skill set...marksmanship with all its ups and downs...that allows them to reach across generations of other Americans and find a ritual common ground.
And...yes, our worst enemy in that process is that number...210.
My observation is that (resoundingly), "YES," we should all be knowledgeable (and as knowledgeable as we each individually choose to be) about both heritage and marksmanship...as each of us will do in our own ways. That's the beauty of our differences. But in the final analysis...since we indeed must be analytical, this is not a general forum about firearms. Its purpose is to neither bite each others tails off nor to lead us astray from our fundamental ORGANIZATIONAL purpose of communicating over this medium. That purpose in every thread should be in clear support of...
the mission, the mission, the mission.
Loren
Sir you have a very good understanding of our mission. I look forward to working with you sometime. Thank you for the breath of fresh air.
Agrivere, I like your article. As an instructor I am interested in helping our shooters in any way I can. Nothing is any more disheartening to a shooter than to be "fighting" their equipment. Articles which are intended to reduce that dynamic are absolutely appropriate and in no way conflict with the AS mission of teaching history and heritage. To the contrary, I would speculate that shooters who are less frustrated with equipment issues are more likely to be receptive to the history.
With regard to scopes, I would always recommend to shooters that they invest in centerfire rings which are the lowest height they can purchase. This will help with the cheek meld problem you outline as well as being more resistant to loosening if properly mounted. Nothing is any more frustrating to a student than to lose their zero because the scope comes loose.
With regard to ammo, I am not as interested in a brand's ability to group as I am in function. While I do not find anything wrong with the desire to find ammo which groups best with an individual rifle (rifles do have a preference) the most important ammo variable to success in an AS AQT is reliable function. In general, I have found some bulk ammo less reliable.
I look forward to Part 2.
1. All of my 22 RF rifles head space on the rim. If yours head space on the bullet hitting the groves you got something wrong with your rifle.
2. I hear lots of instructors talking fundamentals but I get the impression most of you have little understanding of them.
3. You can't shoot smaller than your rifle. Do you really know how well your rifle shoots?
4. There is nothing wrong with shooting competition. It's a good exercise and will make you a better shot.
5. There is nothing wrong with being a better shot. Try it sometime.
6. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes. I just want to herd you kitties back into the Appleseed corral.
Thanks for your time.
Quote from: Agrivere on September 10, 2014, 10:11:31 AM
...What confuses me about this seemingly endless debate is that these two ideas are not incompatible with each other, nor are they incompatible with Appleseed...
-Agrivere
Let me help unconfuse you. In this thread, the top four most vocal people on the side of competition/upping your scores/improving your marksmanship worked a whopping total of 6 shoots to date between them since 2012. Two of them worked a big fat ZERO.
On the other hand in this thread, the four most vocal supporters of the actual Appleseed mission of saving our country worked a total of 100 shoots to date between them since 2012.
See you all on the trail.
UL
QuoteLet me help unconfuse you. In this thread, the top four most vocal people on the side of competition/upping your scores/improving your marksmanship worked a whopping total of 6 shoots to date between them since 2012. Two of them worked a big fat ZERO.
On the other hand in this thread, the four most vocal supporters of the actual Appleseed mission of saving our country worked a total of 100 shoots to date between them since 2012.
See you all on the trail.
UL
+10,000
Numbers are really interesting. I like numbers. I have quite a few stored on my google drive. While you are doing stats, take a look at attendance since 2009. Tell us about it. Is it up or down? Heck you can even include Libertyseeds, just break the numbers down. Or maybe you can tell us about shoots? How about the number of instructors?
In your stats do you see the number of events done by The Guy, or Dinky. I can help you with that because I have those stats. Here are the top20 2007-2010.
'10 '09 '08 '07
Guy Master Instructor(ish) 18 29 21 13 81
Dinky Dao Senior Instructor-RBC/IBC 10/30/07 9 30 21 0 60
crak Senior Instructor-RBC/IBC 6/7/07 25 21 5 1 52
VAshooter Master Instructor 6/7/07 21 16 10 1 48
alonso1 Senior Instructor 10/25/07 19 12 14 0 45
dond Master Instructor 9/2/07 13 17 14 0 44
V Senior Instructor 6/4/08 20 19 5 0 44
colycat Senior Instructor-RBC/IBC 3/11/08 18 14 7 0 39
ben1775 Shoot Boss 10/26/08 15 22 1 0 38
Scout Master Instructor 5/31/07 4 14 17 2 37
SavageShootr Senior Instructor 3/31/08 13 14 10 0 37
LayloPro Senior Instructor-RBC/IBC 3/23/08 18 13 6 0 37
dragonfly Shoot Boss 2/15/09 22 13 0 0 35
MeanStreaker Senior Instructor-RBC/IBC 7/3/07 20 14 0 0 34
Spanner RWVA Instructor 5/17/09 20 13 0 0 33
EEL Senior Instructor 10/25/08 17 16 0 0 33
Camljr Senior Instructor 9/15/08 14 16 3 0 33
kDan Senior Instructor 12/5/07 9 14 10 0 33
jmdavis Senior Instructor-RBC/IBC 8/11/08 18 15 1 0 33
By the way, these numbers don't include KD shoots, IBC's or RBC's. And only show the shoots that instructors signed up for. I can only add 2011 numbers for myself. It was 3 RBC's, 1 IBC's, 6 KD's, and 6 AS's as shootboss. It was 3 weeks of vacation to do those RBC's. In 2010 I did 2 RBC's, 3 KD's, 1 IBC +18 Appleseeds. In 2009 it was 1 RBC, 1 KD, and 15 Appleseeds. In 2008 I worked 1 event in November then attended my IBC at the end of November to become an IIT3. So all tolled I worked 58 events from Nov. 2008-Dec 2011, Since that time, I've sponsored appleseed at CAVRPC (Montpelier) at 4 events in 2012, 4 in 2013 and what will be 3 in 2014. This means that I represent the range as RSO for these weekends. Yep, numbers are interesting aren't they. VAShooters total is around 70 from 2007-2011. Now how many is that for two people? Hmmmmmmmmmm!
I do love numbers.
Seems like all this "who's a better Apostle" arguing misses an important point: Agrivere's excellent article is not written in an AS venue nor is it only for AS participants. As such, its focus on accuracy and consistency, and equipment factors that affect them, is right on for his target audience.
Ain't thread hijacking fun?
That list is like a who's who of who used to Appleseed.
Did you call VAshooter, Mike, and tell him about this thread or was he so busy supporting the mission he stumbled upon it himself? I really admire the hero-worship of the old guard. Look where it's gotten us.
If you guys still want to Appleseed, that's awesome. Come on out and help us. We'd love to have you guys - and those on that list - back out on the trail doing Appleseed events and teaching Americans the fundamentals, and the intricacies, of rifle marksmanship. But getting on here a couple times a week to preach High Power and submoa mumbo jumbo is doing nothing more than making you guys look like a bunch of keyboard commandos.
You two know 1,000 times more about shooting than I'll even know in my whole life. Please come back out and share it with Americans. We need your help.
I'm thinking about starting a TV show called something like - WTF America...
Perhaps I should start here - WTF Appleseeders?
First of all:
4 moa is the baseline - the minimum. 4 moa is like doing 4 shoots a year.
Is it good enough, in many circumstances? Of course - Especially when the point is never having to use it.
But who in their right mind wants to just be the minimum? Once you make that, you should do one of two things.
Strive to increase your accuracy(quality) or try to increase your speed while maintaining accuracy.
If you wish to continue to improve you need to go beyond your comfort zone, seek out adversity and conquer it. It will build character.
Second:
Should we be discussing means to improve our equipment?
Hmmmm.... Well, what forum was this under? Oh, yeah, Rifle Knowledge Bank.
I don't see any subtext saying - Rifle Knowledge Bank(where you go to crucify those who are less active or wish to improve upon their ability)
A link to a reader friendly technical article on how to make your rifle work for you was posted. With the anticipation of gaining feedback on the content provided. Keep in mind this is ancillary to our program. The article is not about saving a country by teaching marksmanship and heritage.
Third:
Was any of the information false or counter-productive to the mission of Appleseed.
No. In fact, the information provided is 99% Appleseed SOP.
(I'm not sure how one can easily adjust a sling that's been zip-tied along the adjustable portion - I prefer duct-taping a makeshift hand-stop.)
It's all simple things - It's not about buying skill.
"B-but a rifleman can hit a 4 moa target with a rack grade rifle and surplus ammo... So nothing else is necessary."
Guess what - a .22lr is not a rack grade military rifle and I don't recall the last time I saw mil-surp .22lr ammunition.
So, let's take a brief moment to look into what "rack grade" and "surplus ammo" represent.
Rack grade: A functional rifle with a barrel that's not eroded to the point of significantly diminishing accuracy.
Is it match? Heck no. In fact, if it were any worse it'd be going in to be re-arsenaled. Chances are, any .22lr you've got is going to be well above this grade anyway.
Surplus ammo: I believe I've heard that the typical standard is something like 1-2 moa. If you've got time to verify, please do. I'm too busy ranting. If your ammunition/rifle is only inherently capable of 4 moa - you've got issues. You've got absolutely zero room for error, within the 4 moa standard. I'm not certain, but I don't think a human being is capable of shooting zero moa from the prone position. So, chances are if all your ammo can do is 4 moa, you're gonna have some problems. But you might still be able to score rifleman, if the fliers land in the right spots. After all, stage 4 targets are considerably larger than 4 moa and you've got that whole three-ring thing going on.
Consistency-wise I'd probably place the average bulk-pack somewhere below some rejected Indian surplus stuff.
The objective of that section was not to get everyone to go out and buy the absolute best ammo. The intent, as I read it, was find the ammo that does good enough.
Haven't any of you had a shooter that was doing everything right, but their groups just won't fit inside the square, so you hand 'em a box of mini-mags and watch 'em put them all on a nickle?
Fourth:
Implying that participants in the thread are somehow wrong, or their opinions invalid, based simply upon their activity or performance in the program - past, present or future - is wrong. Do you not seek out ways to increase your knowledge of RevWar history, outside of the program? Do you read books other than Paul Revere's Ride? Heck, I don't think David Hackett Fischer, has done a single Appleseed since 2012. If he came on here, and provided some interesting tidbits that did not pertain directly to the mission - would you treat him the same?
This is the Rifle Knowledge Bank - it's intended to be a resource to allow people to become better shooters. It's there for your information to better your own skills and/or help you better the skills of others.
It is a public forum section - what's that say about us?
It is a working forum. But I don't see how it's productive to hijack an informational thread and use it as a place to air our grievances.
We are better than this. Or at least we ought to be.
jmdavis, I'm not sure of the purpose of listing all those other instructors (more name dropping?) and it's really a shame that you have worked zero shoots the last three years. It really is. In any case, the country continues its slide into the abyss, and like I said, see you on the trail.
UL
Aftermath, is absolutely right. Unless anyone has any technical questions that I can help with about shooting, I will try to keep my mouth shut on this subject.
Thanks Aftermath. You're a good man and a good instructor. I hope to shoot with you again someday.
Mike
I think I heard a "Cease Fire." :P
Since this is the Rifle Knowledge Bank, and since the OP did solicit technical feedback on his article (which I think is quite useful, by the way) let me return to a technical issue. I promise to pick up my buckets and start bailing furiously the moment I'm done. @)
Quote from: VAshooter on September 10, 2014, 05:36:21 PM
1. All of my 22 RF rifles head space on the rim. If yours head space on the bullet hitting the groves you got something wrong with your rifle.
.22 LR (and Long and Short) are the only modern cartridges where the brass length is variable, depending on the length of the bullet, because the bullet itself comes into contact with the chamber.
These are "heeled" bullets. They don't fit into the case neck. Instead, they sit on top of it, with a smaller diameter "heel" in the case mouth. The rifling bands on the bullet perform the same indexing function as the shoulder of a more typical bottleneck case.
As noted above, if yours headspace by the bullet hitting the rifling, you do have a problem. Well, some minor engraving is probably OK, but excess is definitely not. And this is precisely what happens with too tight chambering vs. bulk ammo.
This is why .22's, more than any other firearm, show particular affinity for one type of ammunition. It's an archaic style of cartridge that affords some advantages -- like interchanging shorts and longs without too much drama, which has been taken to extremes lately with extra-long-case and short-bullet hypervelocity rounds, or the opposite, the short case and super heavy Aguila SSS rounds. But it has a disadvantage too, because you are no longer assured that any brand of bullet meets the tolerance your rifle is designed for.
There's nothing else quite like it. Sure, we have .38 Special through a .357 cylinder, or .45 Colt in a .454 Casull. There are also .45-70 loads, such as LeveRevolution, that use slightly shorter brass to accomodate a longer spitzer bullet. But in none of these instances does the bullet actually bear against the chamber wall. Only .22 has that peculiarity.
The relevance to the OP's article is that, yes indeed, particular brands of .22 LR ammunition can give you unacceptable accuracy, in rare cases bad enough to frustrate a student all by itself. This is the reason why. HOWEVER, the overwhelming majority of .22 LR firearms are also built to loose tolerances, and it's not an issue. Provided the rifle/ammo combination will hold 3 MOA or so by itself, it's good enough.
The match chamber for a .22 LR semi-automatic rifle is called a Bentz chamber. It is especially sensitive to minor differences in bullet ogive. The headspace, though, is on the rim. The standard head space for a Bentz match chamber in a semi-auto is 43.5 thousandths to 44 thousandths. On a 10-22, this is set by the depth of the milled depth where the rim goes on the end of the bolt. The headspace is easily tightened up by fly cutting the end of the bolt, after removing the extractor.
This value works well for many types of 22 LR ammo. The maximum rim thickness is supposed to be 44 thousandths for .22 LR. For quality ammo, this is true. For some of the really cheap 22 LR ammo imports, though, I have measured up to 47 thousandths! This doesn't work in a Bentz chamber.
Now, a 22 LR bolt gun match chamber is never chambered as a Bentz chamber. It is much tighter, having enough camming force to extract unfired cartridges. Yet, I have run into one rifle over the years that was reamed with a bolt gun match chamber instead of a Bentz chamber in a semi-auto. It was a jamo-matic! Lengthening the chamber fixed the problem.
Shooting in a bench rest can tell a shooter the limits of his rifle. And, what tightening headspace, as well as pinning bolts to prevent firing pins from varying ignition erratically, etc., can do. If a rifle can only shoot to 5 MOA, then no amount of technique will make it shoot better. With old, heavily used rifles, there are usually reasons that it is not always the shooter. One must do some debugging, first.
On the other hand, just because a rifle can shoot to, say, <1 MOA, doesn't mean that an unskilled shooter can shoot a 210 score with it. I have shot cheap .22 LR rifles, and I have shot .22 LR rifles that cost more than my pickup did new. When shot with a sling in prone, there was little difference with much cheaper rifles.
With gun show exemplars, though, it is often not the shooter. Yet, with a mill and a lathe, and some quality time, it is often possible to balance the limits of the shooter with the rifle. Technique cannot make a rifle shoot better than it does in Bench Rest shooting.
The key is carefully testing with different .22 LR ammo, and recording the results. Know your rifle!
--gb
Quote from: Shooter30-06 on September 10, 2014, 04:19:49 PM
Agrivere, I like your article. As an instructor I am interested in helping our shooters in any way I can. Nothing is any more disheartening to a shooter than to be "fighting" their equipment. Articles which are intended to reduce that dynamic are absolutely appropriate and in no way conflict with the AS mission of teaching history and heritage. To the contrary, I would speculate that shooters who are less frustrated with equipment issues are more likely to be receptive to the history.
With regard to scopes, I would always recommend to shooters that they invest in centerfire rings which are the lowest height they can purchase. This will help with the cheek meld problem you outline as well as being more resistant to loosening if properly mounted. Nothing is any more frustrating to a student than to lose their zero because the scope comes loose.
With regard to ammo, I am not as interested in a brand's ability to group as I am in function. While I do not find anything wrong with the desire to find ammo which groups best with an individual rifle (rifles do have a preference) the most important ammo variable to success in an AS AQT is reliable function. In general, I have found some bulk ammo less reliable.
I look forward to Part 2.
I look forward to Part 2 also. Student confidence in the equipment goes far in helping "mental game" aspect in any sport. Anything that get's the student on the range and increasing his/her marksmanship knowledge is good. Like the rest of us they will spend time, money and sweat but they will learn what works for them. Appleseed's job is to get them started with good fundamentals on the path.