Six Ways Your Rifle is Hurting Your Scores

[Uncle Davey]

Btw, that old (young..looking) shoot boss you were mentioned told me the same thing.

[AAOptics]

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.

[Charles McKinley]

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!!!!!

[greyfox]

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   

[Uncle Davey]

Another one of those alarm listers..

[Laredo]

Nice article.  Thanks for sharing.

[Uncle Davey]

FWIW, that technology stuff about ammo etc is interesting. I agree with the equipment fitting you also.

[Agrivere]

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

[Guntuckian]

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

[Agrivere]

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!!!!!

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.

[greyfox]

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         

[AAOptics]

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.

[Mudcat]

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.

[Shooter30-06]

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.

[VAshooter]

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.

[Unbridled Liberty]

...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

[SureShotSpartan]

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

+10,000

[jmdavis]

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.

[FiremanBob]

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?

[slim]

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.

[AFTERMATH]

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.

[Unbridled Liberty]

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

[jmdavis]

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

[Rocket Man]

I think I heard a "Cease Fire."   

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.   

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.

[Guntuckian]

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

[stoneknives]

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.