I use the 'right' firearm?

I ask that question based on a couple of 'things':
1) I WANT the factory claimed MV of 950 f/s reported on the box for this ammo,
2) "Long ago and far away" I got that MV out of a rifle I have BUT...
3) I recently got this from someone that used to work for Aguila:

QuoteHello Paul. Yes, it has been a couple of days since we spoke last! I see you are still hard at it and that is good.

To your question, I know that when I was consulting to Aguila USA, the published stats were 950 fps. There was a hostile take over at Tecnos, Aguila's parent company, and everyone I worked with left -including the Engineer that designed that cartridge and all of the others they now sell. During the interim, there was an explosion at the plant that took out their rimfire production for a while. Following that, I know that Eley terminated their agreement with Tecnos so that current ammo does not have Eley prime. I don't know what vintage of ammunition you are using but the lack of this priming system will effect velocities if they left all else the same. I'm thinking that what you have may be what they are currently producing.

So maybe the "new" stuff doesn't in fact go that fast.
4) "Everyone" I know that has chrono'd the SSS ammo has reported about 850 f/s for the MV, which is what I get with just about everything I shoot it in.
5) Aquila says that the "recommended" barrel length is 21". So maybe it takes a longer barrel to get that 950 f/s. Problem is, there are NO barrels 'out there' that are 21" long AND with the 1:9 twist rates required for stabilizing the 60-grain SSS, EXCEPT some nasty "fluted" ones. I DON'T WANT A FLUTED BARREL.

Therefore, before I 'spend some money' ONCE AGAIN having to MAKE what I want because no one produces what I want,:Banghead: I thought I would see if the new ammo could do 950 f/s. This is particularly galling, because Aguila STATES that 21" is the "recommended barrel length", yet NO barrel makers make barrels for 10/22s OR even any BLANKS that are longer than 16.5 inches except Green Mountain's nasty fluted one that is 20" long. That's just plain stupid because the barrel makers even SAY of their 1:9 twist barrels: "Made for use with the Aguila SSS ammo". And yet they don't make a barrel the length that Aguila says to!

That preamble is to explain my range session today. (And rant a little bit.) Since the only rifle I have ever shot the SSS ammo from that produced MVs in the vicinity of 950 f/s was a US Gov't Model 416 Stevens, (using the "old" ammo), I decided to shoot some "new" ammo through that rifle again. But, in the off chance that it is "just" barrel length, I chose some other rifles to test too.

1) The Anschutz "Olympic" target rifle,
2) The Krico (I forget the model),
3) The "Teutonic" .22, and
4) The newly milled 10/22 with 1:9 twist bull barrel.

All except the 10/22 have barrels at least 24" long and none but the 10/22 have twist rates other than 1:16.

Because the "long-barreled" rifles didn't have twist rates suitable to gyroscopically stabilize the SSS, I wasn't shooting for precision, only MV. I also wanted to test some other new subsonic ammo I recently got; CCI "CB Short", with a reported MV of 720 f/s. I wanted to see if it would cycle the 10/22 AND if the claimed MV could be achieved with the 'long-barreled' rifles.

Since finding out if the 'new' Aguila ammo would produce 950 f/s out of the model 416 like it did with the 'old' ammo was my raison d'etre, I started with that rifle. Here's the target (at my usual 35 yd). Note the key-holing.



And - drumroll please - the MagnetoSpeed chrono numbers:

You'll note that the lowest value is 949 f/s and the average is 961 f/s. Even better than the advertized 950. Cool!

Here is the target with the 416 using the CB Shorts with claimed MV of 720 f/s:


And the MV values:

Interestingly, these values average 73 f/s LESS than advertized. Hmmm...

Now the Anschutz because it is also a "match" rifle. Here's it's target with the SSSs:

Again note the key-holing. Shots are low because rifle was sighted in for faster ammo.

Here's the chrono for the Anschutz and SSSs:

Note the spread - 120 f/s! Average is anemic 765 f/s. Anschutz clearly doesn't "like" the SSS.

Here's the Anschutz with the CB Shorts:


And talk about anemic...

Almost 200 f/s lower than advertized.

Next up was the Krico. It did NOT like feeding either the SSSs OR the CB Shorts from the magazine. Had to load by hand. Here's the SSS 'group'.


Chrono:

Typical (850) at 832 f/s.

Krico with CB Shorts:


No chrono data. MagnetoSpeed didn't catch the smaller bullet.

Next the Teutonic .22. Grim. Don't know where the other two shots went. And no Chrono.


And with the CB Short. Again, no idea where the other two went.


And finally, the 10/22. With SSSs:


And chrono right at where it always is:

Average 834, but look at that low 772! 107 f/s spread. Not good. Maybe this is the outcome of not having the Eley priming method available any more.

Here's the 10/22 with the CB Short:

No chrono data for the CB Short with this rifle.

SO....

The truth is, the ammo WILL do 950 with the right rifle. However, so far its only with one rifle in the world - the US Gov't model 416 Stevens. Which, does NOT stabilize the 60-grain bullet. :cry: Since the Anschutz, that is essentially identical in terms of barrel shape and length, DOESN'T get the 950 MV, the $64,000 question is; "What is it about the 416 that allows it to get the full potential out of the SSS ammo?"

I wonder if the 416 has a 'tight' bore? Or a 'loose' bore? Or what?

The good news is that the "new" SSS IS capable of 950 f/s. The question remains as to how to get a 'new' barrel with 1:9 twist rate to get that speed.

Paul

Might just have to 'slug' the barrels to measure up.

I was thinking that, but also 'think' that such slugging will reveal nothing. Of course, you never know until you try, and there's darn little cost to slugging a bore.

By the way, the cup-washers were a disaster! Couldn't hit a target that was 11 x 17 at 35 yards! :eek:A new one is ABSOLUTELY in the works!

Paul

ooooops!

Is it possible that the CBs are getting lower speed from the longer barrel because they burn all of the powder relatively quickly but you still have the bullet making contact, and getting drag, the rest of the way down the barrel?

Quote from: Hunterbug;148181Is it possible that the CBs are getting lower speed from the longer barrel because they burn all of the powder relatively quickly but you still have the bullet making contact, and getting drag, the rest of the way down the barrel?

Sounds reasonable, HB. I'd have to set up my light-based chrono to get speeds on those 29-grain bullets from the "short"  (16.5") 10/22 bull barrel. Since the MagnetoSpeed is triggered by a change in conductance as the bullet passes two magnets, the bayonet doesn't get close enough on bull barrels to catch those small, LEAD, bullets. Copper-jacketed bullets provide a better 'conductor' than pure lead and can pass farther from the magnets in the bayonet and still trigger the clock. In the case of .22s RFs, they are SMALL, AND pure lead, AND "far" (when coming out of a bull barrel). Consequently, the magnetic field just isn't disrupted enough to trigger the clock.

Regardless... MV is what it is. If I am going to shoot a small (29-grain) bullet at a relatively slow speed (claimed 720 f/s), I am going to want all the precision I can get. As a rule, semi-autos like the 10/22 don't have great triggers and therefore aren't particularly "accurate" rifles. As a rule, the "accurate" rifles are the bolt action ones, and most have relatively "long" barrels of at least 20" and most are 24" or over. So if the CB Shorts were made for short barrels, they were made kind of at odds with 'reality'. That said, plinking around at cans and such would be fun with the CB Shorts in a 10/22.

The "slow but precise" issue is what I'm dealing with in the SSS. I've got it as precise as I need it, so I want some more speed (at least close to advertised) from that 60-grain bullet.

Paul

A thought that j0e_bl0ggs and I have discussed is 'downloading' the .22 Hornet to subsonic speeds with bullets that weigh at least 60 grains. Sounds good 'on paper', but when I paper-whip it in QuickLOAD, I have LOW pressure issues. Tough to keep the pressure up over 20kPSI (needed for sealing the chamber with the case), AND at the same time keep velocity DOWN below speed of sound - ~1050 f/s.

The Hornet is a great idea primarily because it's reloadable. Also, there are heavier bullets in .22 caliber for center-fires. However, we're back to gyroscopic stability issues with the heavy (80 and 90 grain) .22 CF bullets. I have two .22 Hornets. One is 1:9 twist and I haven't measured the other, but I suspect no faster than 1:10. For a 90-grain bullet, theory suggests a twist rate of no slower than 1:7.5. And I'm right back at getting a 'custom' barrel.

I was disappointed that the Hornet didn't pencil out. It has a lot going for it: It's reloadable, could use heavy-for-caliber bullets, and the MV could be fine-tuned because it's reloadable. I'm looking at some 70-grain bullets in the context of gyroscopic stability. Low pressure remains an issue. I haven't absolutely given up, but I'm not optimistic.

Paul

NO!!! A heavy (like 55 grain) CAST bullet can be  driven from a 22 Hornet at under 950 FPS using a sniff of Bullseye or Titegroup. I will call the Olde Phart and see what his secret is if you want. He shoots a Low Wall I think?

RJ

QuoteI will call the Olde Phart and see what his secret is if you want.

I want!

Paul

Trouble with the light loads - 1050fps ish - of bullseye (1.5gr), TinStar (2.0gr) etc is that they burn really filthy (accuracy was nowt to write home about). Blue dot may be the powder to try with subsonic jacketed bullets. I did mess around with some lead stuff in my 1:8 hornet...did not bother to pursue got tired of cleaning it, pretty much all I use is a stiff load of lilgun and a sierra blitzking 40grain bullet now!

So I loaded 11 rounds of .22 Hornet with 1.7 grains of Bullseye behind a Lyman 225438 that, with gas check weighs in at and average 46.5 grains. I shot 5 of those rounds today just for MV, no target up. The 5 velocities were, in order of firing:
1) 1185
2) 1196
3) 1201
4) 1202
5) 1204
for an average of 1197.6 f/s. QuickLOAD, using "standard" .22 Hornet data (not specific data from my rifle), predicted the velocity to be 1206 f/s. Of course, I have no idea whether I can hit the broad side of a barn. My success with  cast bullets has been DISMAL to put it mildly. I have NO confidence that this will shoot straight enough for me.

I saved the other 6 for 'the target'. When I shoot that, I'll post it here.

Paul

So the youngest daughter's wedding is past and my wife is out biking ('relaxing') and I decided to 'relax' by shooting the low velocity hornet loads "for group".

Since the bullets are cast, and my experience with cast bullets is very poor, it was good that I set my expectations low.

Below is the first shot. The Point of Aim (PoA) was the lower bullseye, (#1) but as you can see the bullet is in the 4-ring of the target above it (#4).


I couldn't see that hole because it was in the blackened 4-ring and didn't know where the hole was so I chose another target to shoot at. Here's that second target. The PoA is the center of #7.


In the below target, I have 'added' that first shot.


As you can see, this is nothing to write home about. 3.1 MoA at 35 yd. :angry: I shot without ear protection, and the muzzle blast was not unpleasant. :) In other words, I didn't feel like "I wish I had put ear protection on", but... it was not "quiet".

As mentioned above, these were gas-checked bullets, crimped in the case mouths in an effort to make ignition and burn as uniform as possible. I don't believe that there is something I can do reloading-wise to improve the precision. ("Upping" the charge would probably help, but I'm already above 'sonic', which defeats one of the goals I have.) I'd call that ~3 MoA precision 'marginal', but it really isn't. 1" at 35 yd, it is not really acceptable considering the precision that I can get from the 10/22 and Aguila SSS ammo.

I'm going to 'fiddle' some more, but given the combination of "cast" and that I need them to remain 'slow', I don't hold out much hope for improvement in accuracy.

Paulss

Herters half jacket swage die, possible lead bullet swage die project...











Measurements of the die as is:

Body overall length 3.5"
2.275" 7/8x14 thread
Die chamber (for top punch) 1.9" deep threaded 9/16 unf.
Bullet swage 'chamber' finished at .225"

9/16 hollow punch stop bored .312, 2" long 1.5" thread.
Extract punch .305 Ø  3.750" long with 7/16 long 5/16 unf thread for plastic top cap.

Internal punch 0.2235"Ø Overall length 1.750" long. Pad 0.5"x0.130".

My nose punch fits directly in reloading press ram 0.2235"Ø. The Herters fitted a .223 shellholder.


Gonna chop some cores tomorrow....

I think that is the way I am going to go next. Back to what is now SOP for me - If you want it done right, you gotta do it yourself.

Thanks for the idea and dimensions!

Paul

I had a little mess around this morning

0.156"Ø wire cut to 1.125 to give ~63 grains slug.
In top box slugs sized to 0.189" @ 60grain (core for seating in 223 jacket).





Core squirt die, sprue is the oversize - 3 grains.





Decided to use my .224 point form die to shape and size the bullet.




All swaged.





Time to chuck on a cannelure...





or two!




Haven't decided how to lube yet, might just roll 'em around in some alox.
Will check nose punch for lubrisizer and see if I have something compatible.

Alox it was, no nose punch!


...