Aguila interceptor vs Norma Tac 22 in the wind

[stagpanther]

Front came through today with winds blowing 18-25 mph and very gusty. I was itching to get some 22lr satisfaction and despite the windy conditions was determined to have some fun. So I came up with the idea "Since aguila interceptor is so much faster than the Tac 22 and spends less time in the air, maybe that will give it the advantage in windy conditions."

So I shot 3 x 10 shot groups of each which are pictured below in the order they were taken left to right. I started out intending to switch back and forth between the two ammos (which meant a 10" drop adjustment when switching back to Tac 22) but when I started on the second group of Aguila interceptor the winds temporarily backed off to a fairly smooth 12 to 15 mph. I decided to right from the second to third interceptor group to see if that made any difference. By the time I got to the end of the 3rd aguila group winds started strengthening to 20 + again.

Distance was 96 yds and the winds were coming from about my 4 o'clock.

 

[FrankenMauser]

How big are the black dots? About 5/8"?

I am surprised by those TAC-22 groups.
TAC-22 shoots pretty average for me, for bulk pack, in everything in which I have tested. (Which is everything that I own, which is worth of testing.)

That means roughly 2-4 MoA, even out of rifles that have proven to be capable of 1/4 MoA or better.

No, TAC-22 is not bulk pack. But that is how it shoots in my rifles. (Also my brother's.)
Just doesn't work for us. And if we run it in some instance of, "I just want to give it another chance," we end up with, "I just need to scrub all of that disgusting yellow grease out of everything before [the gun] will work again."

 

[stagpanther]

I didn't draw any conclusions because the winds were strong and the target itself occassionally moved some, though I will say that the best lull in conditions were during the 2nd and third group of the interceptor and I tried to take advantage of that. The target dot is I believe 1/2"--could be 5/8ths--I'll double-check. That 3rd group of the interceptor has 4 shots in one hole just to the left of the target dot.

 

[stagpanther]

You're correct Franken--the target dots are 5/8".

 

[L. Boscoe]

there is a very long and windy article, part I of two, in Guns and Ammo about subsonic and supersonic 22lrs you might find interesting. My conclusion was that supersonic is not as accurate
as subsonic.

 

[stagpanther]

there is a very long and windy article, part I of two, in Guns and Ammo about subsonic and supersonic 22lrs you might find interesting. My conclusion was that supersonic is not as accurate
as subsonic.

That's been my experience so far--actually I hope one day someone will finally succeed in getting better performance out of supersonics; but given the design constraints I don't see that happening with "traditional" 22lr chambers/rifling.

 

[stagpanther]

Superbonus Ultra 22lr showdown!!

Today conditions were even worse than yesterday with winds gusting to 30 mph--BUT the prevailing direction was coming almost directly from my six--so why not try shooting a few groups and push the distance a bit out to 250 yds?

One ten shot group each of Aguila's supermaximum vs CCI's Stinger vs the pokey Norma Tac 22.

First up was the aguila supermaximum. I was surprised/disappointed because it didn't even get all 10 shots on the 20" x 30" target, and what did hit was dispersed at around 2 feet--so I didn't even take a picture of the group. I have no idea why it did so poorly, maybe it just won't stabilize in a standard 16" twist, or my CZ just doesn't like it.

Next up was CCI's stinger--and it came to play. It is very similar to the suermaximum in both velocity and projectile--but clearly it works in my CZ. It's worth noting that without the flyer at the left the group would have been around 2.65 MOA

Lastly came the slow Tac 22 which I figured would be soundly beaten by the stinger. Even after dialing in an extra 20" of MOA, the impacts barely made it to the bottom edge of the target, still about 15" below the POA. Nonetheless it still won the day--without its outlier at the bottom right it would have been around 2 MOA.

Again, I don't think this proves anything definitively--but was fun even so.

 

[stagpanther]

I really was excited about Cutting Edge's solid copper bullets--but I personally think that you need what amounts to a wildcat barrel and bore to get them to work consistently and well. I've blown the case heads off a lot of cases--they simply were not designed to handle ramping up pressures in existing 22lr chamber designs IMO. Powder loads in 22lr are developed in hundredths of a grain; minute variations in charge weights and bullet seatings can result in wide fluctuations in pressures.

 

[stagpanther]

In today's installment of totally bogus dude, that doesn't prove a thing I went out and shot 3 ten shot groups at 123 yards in moderate 12 to 15 winds that were coming from about my 10:00, a bad direction for rimfire where I shoot. Tac 22 vs stinger vs RWS R-100.

I was confounded by the results, I pretty much figured the results would be the opposite of what they turned out to be.

First up was the Tac 22 and it did OK considering the winds--I was shooting in a gravel pit so the cross winds tended to drop in from the left and swirl swirl about.

Next up was my precious R-100 which generally I never shoot in any kind of wind--but decided to compare them to the others anyway.

Last was the super-fast CCI stinger which I fully expected would beat the other 2 given the conditions. It turned in the worst performance--clearly it was easily carried sideways by the wind despite being much faster (though less weight). The R-100 has always beaten the tac 22 when I've shot them at the same time--even in winds--but this time the Tac 22 came out slightly ahead. My preconceived results had stinger winning with R-100 second and Tac 22 dead last.

 

[stagpanther]

correction

A protest was filed with the officiating committee and upon review it was determined that I made an error in measuring the R-100 group--so it turns out it won the day.

 

[FrankenMauser]

Thank goodness.
We can't be letting that TAC-22 get away with a free "win".

Related to wind, but there's a preface:
I had the boy out today, testing the latest configuration of his Precision Rimfire rig and getting some time with the new scope (I wouldn't let him dial anything last time he shot it - because there were already too many new variables).

I could tell that he was getting his eyebox wrong a lot, and kept reminding him to focus on it.

After he was doing well and I was letting him make his own calls for windage and elevation adjustments, I started hearing things like, "Oh, man, that went way left. Probably 7 clicks." [dials 7 clicks]
And then, "Now it's a bit right! Let's go back 5 clicks."

Finally, I had him reset the turrets to zero, reminded him to watch the eyebox, and told him to give me one perfect 5-shot group. But I suggested he wait for the wind to be calm for each trigger break, because we were getting some 10-15 mph gusts.
He fired a perfectly decent group, right where it was supposed to impact.
So, I let him go back to picking off shotshells and ruining my groups on our targets.

Then he went back to it. "Hey! That's way off!"
"Dad, do you think the wind is doing this?"
-No, I don't. There isn't enough wind.
Fires a few more rounds on paper.
"See, it's way left again! The wind is pushing them."
-The wind is barely coming from the left, you're shooting at only 50 yards, and [pull out my phone and refresh the page] the weather station over there [pointing ~90 yards away] says the current wind speed is only 4 mph and directly on our backs. The wind is not a factor here. Watch your eyebox and make sure the parallax is adjusted correctly.

"Man, I really hoped it was the wind!"

Also, TAC-22 was tested in a new 10/22 and did abysmally. And it is so greasy. I won't buy any more.
(But still easier to load than the SK and Eley stuff that seems to be coated with calf birthing lubricant.)

 

[stagpanther]

Thank goodness.
We can't be letting that TAC-22 get away with a free "win".

Related to wind, but there's a preface:
I had the boy out today, testing the latest configuration of his Precision Rimfire rig and getting some time with the new scope (I wouldn't let him dial anything last time he shot it - because there were already too many new variables).

I could tell that he was getting his eyebox wrong a lot, and kept reminding him to focus on it.

After he was doing well and I was letting him make his own calls for windage and elevation adjustments, I started hearing things like, "Oh, man, that went way left. Probably 7 clicks." [dials 7 clicks]
And then, "Now it's a bit right! Let's go back 5 clicks."

Finally, I had him reset the turrets to zero, reminded him to watch the eyebox, and told him to give me one perfect 5-shot group. But I suggested he wait for the wind to be calm for each trigger break, because we were getting some 10-15 mph gusts.
He fired a perfectly decent group, right where it was supposed to impact.
So, I let him go back to picking off shotshells and ruining my groups on our targets.

Then he went back to it. "Hey! That's way off!"
"Dad, do you think the wind is doing this?"
-No, I don't. There isn't enough wind.
Fires a few more rounds on paper.
"See, it's way left again! The wind is pushing them."
-The wind is barely coming from the left, you're shooting at only 50 yards, and [pull out my phone and refresh the page] the weather station over there [pointing ~90 yards away] says the current wind speed is only 4 mph and directly on our backs. The wind is not a factor here. Watch your eyebox and make sure the parallax is adjusted correctly.

"Man, I really hoped it was the wind!"

Also, TAC-22 was tested in a new 10/22 and did abysmally. And it is so greasy. I won't buy any more.
(But still easier to load than the SK and Eley stuff that seems to be coated with calf birthing lubricant.)

Point well taken on maintaining a consistent eye box for accuracy of groups--I admit my quick set-up on the hood of my truck caused me to "drift" in that respect. On the other hand, we have genuinely had winds of 20 to 40 mph for almost 3 weeks--but it looks like we may have a break today (finally). That's just the way it is when you live on an island in the North Atlantic. Where I shoot the gust turbulence is very "messy" and guessing the windage compensation is very difficult for me.

I'm not saying Tac 22 is comparable with top shelf ammo--but it is the best of the bulk grade economy stuff in my particular CZ's--and it seems to pretty much consistently prove that in a variety of conditions and distances. They do slather their bullets with "lubra--goo" and I'm wondering if the type of chamber used makes a difference--I've noticed over time that there is a very big difference in cartridge performance and suitability depending upon whether or not the chamber is a sporter chamber or a bentz/match chamber.

 

[L. Boscoe]

I shoot Bullseye pistol, and the various guns for that are very finicky about feeding-the recommendations from High Masters on the BE site is to put a drop of oil on the first round in the mag.
I think that is why the Norma is greasy. The problem it addresses is failure to eject, i.e. leaving a spent round stuck in chamber. I
am guessing rifles don't have that problem?

 

[stagpanther]

I shoot Bullseye pistol, and the various guns for that are very finicky about feeding-the recommendations from High Masters on the BE site is to put a drop of oil on the first round in the mag.
I think that is why the Norma is greasy. The problem it addresses is failure to eject, i.e. leaving a spent round stuck in chamber. I
am guessing rifles don't have that problem?

Could be--I note that all the ammo manufacturers have different application-specific cartridges--i.e. pistol, AR, rifle etc. for their 22lr ammo. I don't think it has anything to do with pressures or bullet types--probably more to do with functional reliability. most all lead round nose bullets of better rifle ammo have some kind of lubricant slathered on them AFAIK.

 

[zukiphile]

Could be--I note that all the ammo manufacturers have different application-specific cartridges--i.e. pistol, AR, rifle etc. for their 22lr ammo. I don't think it has anything to do with pressures or bullet types--probably more to do with functional reliability. most all lead round nose bullets of better rifle ammo have some kind of lubricant slathered on them AFAIK.

The way I understand this, different rimfire speeds can call for different lubricants, so a thin greasy lubricant on Tac22 might not hold up well on CCI Mini-mags. I'm not too bad at picking up five rounds at a time to load into a magazine, unless it's the thin greasy stuff that might as well be oil on hot days. Tac22 and RWS defeat my bullet grabbing prowess.

I suspect that a lot of packaging and configuration is related to what consumers want and expect. Copper wash for faster ones and "plain" lead that isn't really plain at all on slower ones.

When I was testing ammunition on a barrel a few years ago, I bought Aguila Pistol Match, Rifle Match, Match, Subsonic and Standard Velocity. They were all 40gr and shot to the same point at 100 yards. The Subsonic was most accurate, and SV came in second. I had a vision of an assembly line running continuously as it filled the various boxes. I'm a fan of Aguila rimfire, but that wouldn't put them above marketing shenanigans.

 

[FrankenMauser]

The TAC-22 lube doesn't give me any problems other than lube build up around the chamber face in autos. And it is soft enough to not cause malfunctions.
I just dislike it because of the quantity of lube (well, and because it doesn't shoot well in anything where I've tested).
I can't load even 3 rounds into a magazine without having my fingers covered in yellow goo, and then needing to wipe my hand(s) with a rag. And there's no way I'm putting that much goo inside a tube magazine.

I've noticed over time that there is a very big difference in cartridge performance and suitability depending upon whether or not the chamber is a sporter chamber or a bentz/match chamber.

I've been contemplating gauging the chamber of my Marlin 880 lately. It should be a sporter chamber, but it sure does hang on to cases on the larger side of SAAMI spec, like a Bentz chamber.
I should probably also try a different extractor. If I can find one.

Could be--I note that all the ammo manufacturers have different application-specific cartridges--i.e. pistol, AR, rifle etc. for their 22lr ammo. I don't think it has anything to do with pressures or bullet types--probably more to do with functional reliability. most all lead round nose bullets of better rifle ammo have some kind of lubricant slathered on them AFAIK.

I was doing some reading a few months ago and came across a claim, with supporting evidence, that priming compound and bullet alloy are the primary changes for various classes of .22 LR, and then the obvious that close observers have seen: a more feeding-friendly bullet profile for some Auto Match type loads.

Among other things, the guy had disassembled every load that he could get his hands on from CCI and SK; and was eventually able to get the manufacturers to at least acknowledge that he was not wrong in his assumptions, even if not truly verifying them.

Each brand had the same powder and powder charge in nearly every load ('verified' by swapping powder between loads). But priming compounds differed, bullet profiles differed, and bullet hardness was different for nearly all of the 'specialty' loads.

I am still not ready to believe that such is industry-wide, but the data that he shared was interesting. What is going on with the different priming compounds, I have no idea - I am not a chemist. But bullet alloy differences seem to be a big factor and common change.

In one instance, he even tested a lot of ammo that wouldn't shoot well for him, even though all other, previous and later, lots of that ammo shot well in his rifle.
He found the bullet hardness to be an average of about 1.4 BHN higher, with no other detectable differences in the loads.

 

[stagpanther]

Franken--you could have a tight chamber that leans towards a bentz/match--BUT it could also be that you're getting case expansion right ahead of the rim--that's usually where pressure issues show up as well as where cases blow based on the many 22lr case failures I've had.

Tolerances are very tight in 22lr--much tighter than the best of centerfire production ammo I'm willing to bet. a mere hundredth of a grain of powder can have a dramatic effect on pressure/velocity. I have my doubts the average joe without labratory-grade equipment in a controlled environment is going to be able make substantive component comparisons--but that's just my personal conjecture.

 

[zukiphile]

But bullet alloy differences seem to be a big factor and common change.

That's one I hadn't read before. I have some zinc alloy rounds that are very clean and very inaccurate in all my guns.

What is going on with the different priming compounds, I have no idea - I am not a chemist.

Me neither.

A fellow with the pseudonym Test Engineer at RFC set out to test the proposition that rimfire failures to light can be caused by rough handling that displace the compound from the rim. He set up a system to tumble the rounds and confirmed that the process broke priming compound off the back of the rounds poorly treated.

His results did not prove the proposition he tested -- duds were rare in both the control and abused rounds. However the abused rounds had wildly varying velocities. His conclusion was that the broken primer was burning more quickly when liberated from the back of the brass and amongst the powder than when it was intact.

That suggests that rimfire primer does a lot more than act as a primer and is a significant propellant.

 

[FrankenMauser]

Interesting. I hadn't seen anything along those lines.
Having recently gotten into NRL22 and hoping to start shooting ARA benchrest, I am spending a ridiculous amount of time consuming or participating in .22 LR related articles, videos, conversations, and testing.
I'll keep my eyes out for hints of anything else suggesting 'brittle primer' syndrome, like CCI suffered with centerfire primers in the '80s and '90s.

I have my doubts the average joe without labratory-grade equipment in a controlled environment is going to be able make substantive component comparisons--but that's just my personal conjecture.

Fair and reasonable.

 

[stagpanther]

Here is a superb video that delves into many of the "mysteries" discussed here. Primer composition and bullet hardness do come during the discussion--but I think the whole video has lots of good "food for thought."