“I will no more stop talking about Open Carry — including beating down the arguments of those who think it is “ass-clownery” to do it for any non-practical reason — than will gun bloggers stop talking about guns.”
by markofafreeman




"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

setting a match to your target

Regular readers will know that Better Half and I are gearing up for attending an Appleseed shoot in the somewhat near future, and one of the interesting challenges put to me by my wife was to build or buy the lightest .22 rifle I could find; after all, a person’s energies should be focused on making the shot, not fighting the rifle.  After talking about the various pros and cons of each platforms, we decided that semi-automatic was the way to go, and I happened to stumble across the Magnum Research Magnum Lite .22LR platform, and specifically the "Tactical Black Rifle" model (since it comes with the sling points already mounted and an adjustable stock).

Well, let me put it to you this way – the rifle has sufficiently impressed me that I am trying my best to talk Better Half into letting me snag one of my own (hey, the logistics of only having one platform to support if something fails makes perfect sense!), and if that is not enough of a vote of confidence, it will have to do until I can do a comprehensive review.  And as for the requirement, even with a purpose-built .22 bullet drop compensating scope (which might or might not be the same as this one), it still measures in at only 4 pounds 12 ounces, fully loaded – a bit absurd, if you ask me (it still lacks a sling and appropriate swivels, but those should not push it over 5 pounds).

Anywise, this was not a post about the rifle, but rather feeding it.  I headed to Coal Creek Armory to sight in the aforementioned new optic yesterday, but also to answer a question of my own: do I shoot well enough to warrant the difference in costs between “Target” grade ammunition and “Match” grade ammunition?

For the purposes of this experiment, I was shooting at 25 yards in an indoor range (no wind, aside from the air-exchange system which runs shooter-to-target, and should not affect things too much) with the rifle resting on the lane shelf and the scope set at 9x magnification (which is just wonderful at 25 yards, since you can call your own shots immediately).  I sighted in the scope using Winchester Super-X ammunition, and then moved on to the real test material: Federal Premium .22 Long Rifle Target ($3.79 for 50 rounds at Brownells) and Federal Premium .22 Long Rifle Match ($9.99 for a box of 50 at Brownells).


They both have 40gr projectiles, a muzzle velocity and energy of 1080fps and 104ft*lbs each, and a 100 yard velocity and energy of 930 and 880 fps and 77 and 69 ft*lbs respectively; I can only assume this somewhat radical drop-off in energy is attributable to the “Match” ammunition’s 0.093 ballistic coefficient, versus the 0.138 coefficient in the “Target” grade rounds.  I cannot say as though I know why a lower ballistic coefficient would be better (larger coefficients indicate more aerodynamic bullets that can fly farther and are less prone to wind drift and other such problems), but there it is.


Likewise, as you can see above, the two bullets are rather different – the “Target” round on the right retains the plain-lead appearance of 90% of .22 ammunition in the world, complete with the wierd little grooves around its circumference, while the “Match” round on the left is significantly smoother and darker overall.  However, the “Match” round was apparently not “smooth” enough to Federal – they actually put some kind of lubricant or oil or something on the bullets, making them quite slick and difficult to handle.  I suppose this reduces fouling in the firearms they are shot out of, but I had to wipe my hands clean every time I loaded a magazine before I could dream of actually getting a solid grip on anything – not exactly an ideal situation. (On the plus side, the lube made removing the lead deposits from my fingers quite easy – hopefully the same can be said of the rifle’s bore.)

So how did it shoot? Well, here are the side-by-side (or at least top-by-bottom) comparisons:



As the quarter shows, the red bullseyes are about an inch, to give you an idea of the groupings.  As with before, I called all those fliers an instant after I jerked the trigger rather than squeezing it; the rifle is a marvel for not wearing down your arms, but damned if you have to be a little ginger with you handle it while shooting. 

My own failings as a target shooter aside, I honestly cannot see a tremendous difference, on average, between the “Target” ammunition and “Match”, which, no doubt, are due to those particular failings.  The honest truth is that I simply do not shoot well enough to warrant the 3x cost of the latter, and I am likewise in no position to determine if there is any quantifiable difference between the performance of the two; I certainly hope there is, given the higher price.  Unless you are accustomed to creating one very small hole in your target at 25 yards (rather than the rather largish, ragged thing I tend towards), your money would be better spent on buying more ammunition with which to practice in order to get good enough to be able to determine the difference. 

Now, the interesting thing, however, is the comparison of the “Target” and “Match” ammunition against the Super-X stuff I used initially: 


I dare say the spread on the Super-X rounds was slightly larger than that created by the others; however, by the same token, it is copper-plated and “high velocity” (1255fps), the latter difference duly noted by its more-significant retort and the occasional sparks from the rifle’s ejection port.  Is the slightly wider spread enough to really matter?  Well, that depends on your application, but when I will be plugging targets at a simulated 400 yards, I dare say I am willing to eat the small difference in cost (Winchester Super-X runs about $3 a box at Brownells). 

[Update]  As was pointed out to me in comments, I neglected to mention the failure rate of the ammunition I was shooting.  In the “Target” and “Match” cases, I put 50 rounds through the rifle, and in the Super-X’s case, I fired about 60.  The Super-X had one Failure to Eject (a classic stovepipe), and the “Match” round had one Failure to Feed (though that could be due to me not inserting the round in the magazine properly due to the excessive amounts of lube).  Of course, 50 rounds is nowhere near an acceptable sample population, so we will be putting at least a few hundred (if not thousand) rounds of our chosen ammo through the Magnum Lite before Appleseed.  [/Update] 

In the end, there is one common truth in all of this – you cannot buy your way to being a better shooter, except by purchasing ammunition and practicing.  Oh, sure, the quality of rifle in extreme circumstances will make a difference; for example, a HiPoint is never going to be as accurate or as reliable as a Glock or something similar.  But unless you have invested hours and days and weeks of trigger time into improving your performance, dropping megabucks on specialty ammo or uberbarrels may not be worth it. 


But that is why we practice.  And that is why Better Half are going to attend Appleseed clinic until such time as we attain the coveted Rifleman patch.  And maybe one day my skills will make the supposed difference between the ammunitions relevant. 

For now, though, we are probably going to go with the “Target” ammunition, and use the money saved to shoot the crap out of some paper. 

(Of course, this is all assuming Better Half does not out-shoot me; I have more trigger time than her, but she has been known to shoot the pieces of the pieces of the clays she just annihilated.) 

9 comments to setting a match to your target

  • I’m not sure that the weight of the rifle will make much difference in your fatigue. A slightly heavier rifle will be more stable, but when you get the sling and the “natural point of aim” thing worked out, you’re golden.

    As for ammo, I shot bulk box Blazer .22LR and scored very high out of my 10/22. That stuff is currently selling at my local happy fun store for $175 for 5000 rounds.

    FAR more important than accuracy out of your ammo is reliability. You want a rifle/ammo combo that will go bang every single time. If you throw your shot one ring you lose 1 point (2 points for the “400 meter” targets) If you don’t get the shot off because the gun jams or the round fails to fire, you lose 5 (or 10 at 400 meters). That’s a score killer.

    My Blazer ammo has never failed me since I put in the Volquartsen firing pin and extractor. Chris from Arma Borealis borrowed my rifle to shoot his AQT and had a stovepipe, but neither of us could recreate it so I’m blaming him. I have no doubts that my rifle could pass the 2000 round challenge. If anyone wants to send me some cash, we could find out.

  • I should say that the one thing I wish my rifle had was a sharper pistol grip. The flat-ish stock forces me to twist my wrist in an odd way. It’s probably uncomfortable because I spent all those years with an M-16. As silly as the 10/22 pistol grip stocks look, I think I would prefer one.

    Maybe one with a pistol grip that looks like this


    Just not so expensive.

  • Grey Havens Nightwatch

    In a different land, in a different century, I shot .22 competitively. Our budget didn’t allow “match” ammunition. All of our ammunition had those “weird little grooves”. We still stood on top, regardless of what ammunition the competition used. A heavier weapon actually helped — it’s steadier and more easily predicted with respect to breathing and heartbeats. However, if you’re on the move, the weight can work against you. In those days, reliability wasn’t so much a factor. We had ten bulls and were allowed ten holes in the paper. Personally, I’d stay with the lower priced ammo and, if it works on your mind at all, use the expensive rounds only for matches. $0.02.

  • How did the lubed bullets handle in the semi-auto action?

    When testing various loads for my Model 60 I bought a box of the Wolf Match ammo, and found the goopy sticky bullets just gummed up the action worse of all…

  • @ Sean D Sorrentino: I knew there was something I was forgetting when I pushed the submit button, but, for the life of me, I could not remember what it was.

    The Super-X had a single stovepipe FTE, and the “Match” stuff had a single FTF – looked like the tip of the cartridge got wedged on the breech face above the actual breech.

    So if you have a misfire of some type, do they let you reload the magazine and take the shot that jammed if you have the time? Or is it just “what you have in the mag” and aside from that, you are toast? For that matter, do they let you top-off your magazines for the timed shoots and you only take your four or three shots, or do they require you to only put that number of rounds in the gun?

    @ Grey Havens Nightwatch: Really not sure what the grooves are for… some centerfire bullets have them too, but I think they are part of the whole “inserting it into the casing” part. In this case, I assume it is for positively engaging the rifling?

    Back when I shot air rifle, I definitely preferred the heavier rifles and heavier jackets – like you mentioned, it dampens everything out, and allows you more time to predict when your body’s natural movements are going to get the sights on target. But in the case of someone who literally cannot do a single pushup for fear of her shoulder dislocating, I am willing to go the other direction to see how it fairs.

    As Sean said, Appleseed is all about the use of a sling and with the appropriate tension on that strap, hopefully everything will lock in place.

    And all that aside, a <5lb rifle is a hoot and a half. Bloody thing is almost shootable one-handed if it were not for the long lever arm, and all tucked up it is almost like it is not there. ‘Course, like you say, that is not good for absorbing vibrations, but in terms of comfort, it is hard to beat.

    @ Weer’d Beard: I was alternating 20 “Match”, 20 “Target”, etc. so I am not sure how it would perform over an extended period of time, neither have I broken it apart for cleaning yet. I could totally see that kind of thing playing merry hobb with semi-autos, though.

  • @ Linoge: You start your run with the number of rounds specified.

    1. 100 yards 2 minutes. Standing 10 rounds.
    2. 200 yards 55 seconds. Transition to Seated. 2 rounds in one mag, 8 in the other.
    3. 300 yards 65 seconds. Transition to Prone. 2 rounds in one mag, 8 in the other.
    4. 400 yards 4 minutes. Prone. 10 rounds in one mag.

    During the “transition” stages, you transition with an unloaded firearm. Your mags are on the ground. For the “2 and 8” stages, with a box mag, fire ONE shot and change mags. 10-22s don’t have a bolt hold open. Even rifles that do will require you to screw around with the rifle when it’s a whole lot easier to just do a mag change with a round in the chamber.

    There’s no particular reason that you can’t add ammo to your mag if you have a failure, but you really don’t have time. You’re slung up and the times are short. If you can find a round and load it, good for you, but don’t count on it.

  • [email protected]

    They may give you an alibi, not sure on appleseed shoots.

    Have you tried CCI green tag?

    Come up after the 27th for a little intensive training.

  • Heather

    @ Sean D Sorrentino:

    Chris is remarkably good at creating malfunctions the first time he picks up a particular gun. It’s a bit weird, really!

  • @ Sean D Sorrentino: Ah, yeah, they do not let you top off the mags for the non-10 shoots, and the 10-shoot is already using a full mag… I can see how a single failure in that string would cause all manner of issues. Welp, just means I will need to spend copious quantities of time at the range doing ammunition reliability testing ;).

    @ [email protected]: Have not tried CCI yet; they are next on the list if I get around to it.