Accurizing 22 Rimfire Ammunition - Do the bullet modification kits really work?

[Steve Cover]

I've been involved in several discussions about the 22 long rifle on a couple of the discussion group sites that I visit.
There is some interest in bullet modification.

Having just updated to a match target grade barrel on my 10-22, I decided that I was in a position to do a series of tests using both my 10-22 and my old Remington 211 that I got for my 6th birthday 60 years ago.

Do these devices make any significant difference in accuracy?

Is there any difference in the amount of improvement (if any) between an older well used sporter chamber and bore and a new target grade barrel?

Seeing an opportunity to do a lot of shooting, I've decided to do a modest field test this summer.

A Poco Kelly'Accurizer die set has been on my bench for several years, but never did much with it. 
I did some investigating and found two other gunsmiths that make 22 bullet resizing sets. 
A full set from each of them was purchased and enough ammunition to do a reasonable test using the same lots of ammunition for all of the different sizing dies and bullet tip forming rods.

I've divided the test into two factions, Standard Speed Target and High Speed Hunting ammunition.

My current plan is to shoot four, five shot groups off a solid bench rest at 25 yards to determine average accuracy for each variation tested, and five rounds tested each for penetration and expansion.
All will be chronographed.




Pre-production photo showing material to be used.




This is a better view of the die sets.

Due to the volume of rounds to be tested I haven't finalized on an expansion medium.
Any suggestions will be appreciated.
Also, of course, any other observations, comments etc., are welcome.

Steve

[les snyder]

just a comment about practical accuracy in a 10/22...mine is pretty standard...Clark fluted barrel, cantilivered scope mount attached to barrel... barrel bedded with second mounting screw forward (recommended by Ken Tapp)...recut sear engagement notch angle on hammer... trigger about 22oz.

had an opportunity to talk to Mr David Tubb for a period of time about modifications to the bolt, especially head space...mine is pretty minimum... real difference I found out over a couple of years later is the need to limit the vertical movement of the firing pin...my rifle would throw fliers, but once the movement was removed shot very consistent groups

the biggest improvement was to build a harmonic barrel node dampener (tuner)... piece of 1 1/4" aluminum round stock, bore a .930 hole, and slit it lengthwise, drill and tap for a cross pinch bolt... slide it on barrel, shoot a group, loosen the dampener, move the tuner a very short distance...shoot another... you can watch the groups open and close...it allows you to tune your rifle to a specific brand of .22, rather than searching a bunch of ammo to find the one it likes....at 100yards, using Winchester Super X .22 high velocity (HV to knock down the 90y targets and my M41 Smith likes it)) it will hold 10 shot groups under 1"

for consistent ammo, without going to expensive match ammo like dimpled base Federal Gold Match, 900a/b, built a rim thickness gauge to be used with a digital caliper, and tried to hold the rim thickness to +/- .001" for the actual match

repeat after me....  the damn star at 90 yards is your friend... the damn star at 90 yards is your friend... the damn star....

[Magoo541]

When I first saw the title I began to wonder what 22LR was doing in the Reloading forum, but I should have known 

I look forward to your testing and findings as I am looking at either accurizing my 10-22 or building one from the ground up to shoot at my new range (thanks to my wife  ) along with a soon to be purchased 22 pistol.

There are some sharp individuals here and like Les before me they will have a ton of valuable information to add.

[Steve Cover]

<<< SNIP >>>
had an opportunity to talk to Mr David Tubb for a period of time about modifications to the bolt, especially head space...mine is pretty minimum... real difference I found out over a couple of years later is the need to limit the vertical movement of the firing pin...my rifle would throw fliers, but once the movement was removed shot very consistent groups

the biggest improvement was to build a harmonic barrel node dampener (tuner)... piece of 1 1/4" aluminum round stock, bore a .930 hole, and slit it lengthwise, drill and tap for a cross pinch bolt... slide it on barrel, shoot a group, loosen the dampener, move the tuner a very short distance...shoot another... you can watch the groups open and close...it allows you to tune your rifle to a specific brand of .22, rather than searching a bunch of ammo to find the one it likes....at 100yards, using Winchester Super X .22 high velocity (HV to knock down the 90y targets and my M41 Smith likes it)) it will hold 10 shot groups under 1"

for consistent ammo, without going to expensive match ammo like dimpled base Federal Gold Match, 900a/b, built a rim thickness gauge to be used with a digital caliper, and tried to hold the rim thickness to +/- .001" for the actual match

<<< SNIP >>>

Good information, thanks.

Upgrading the accuracy potential of my 10-22 is an on going process.  The harmonic dampener is definately in my future.
I use a modified 223 case and calipers for a rim thickness gage.
Grouping the cartridges also by cartridge weight has occured to me, but don't know if that would be worth while.
Your opinion please.

However, the intent of this planned test is to evaluate the effect if, any, of the bullet modification kits available.

Appreciate your response.

Steve

[Steve Cover]

When I first saw the title I began to wonder what 22LR was doing in the Reloading forum, but I should have known  

I look forward to your testing and findings as I am looking at either accurizing my 10-22 or building one from the ground up to shoot at my new range (thanks to my wife  ) along with a soon to be purchased 22 pistol.

There are some sharp individuals here and like Les before me they will have a ton of valuable information to add.

I chose the reloading thread because I'm modifying the bullets... This seemed like the obvious choice.

I also own a shooting range that allows me to preform shooting tests that would not be allowed on a public range.

Unfortunately, it is located on our retirement property over 300 miles from our present home, I only get to use it a couple months a year.

I'm also doing an extensive test of handgun shot load effectiveness.  
I'll also post that when finished if anyone is interested.

Thanks for your interest

Steve

[Sponsor]

[les snyder]

Steve...tried to learn a little each year we shot the STC...1995, 96, 97 and 98....in talking to Lones Wigger, David Tubb, and Ken Tapp, and what I could read, concluded that accuracy with an autoloader .22lr was dependent primarily on how evenly the priming compound was distributed around the case rim when it was a slurry... and how consistent the headspace was held... one of my team mates worked for Smith and Wesson at the time and got us some quality question time with pretty good names in the shooting sport...I came to the conclusion that the tuner was a better option, and used a bedded locked down barrel and relied on rim thickness for consistency....since I was shooting standing offhand, and the targets were 4", trigger time was more valuable than intrinsic accuracy, so never tried to weigh individual cartridges.....I had the 90 yard targets, so opted for the high velocity cartridge, knowing it would be less accurate than standard velocity....as a school teacher, $.10 a shot for .22lr was out of the question....my other team mate and I bought the Clark barrels at the same time... his would not fire a cartridge as installed, and when we faced .015" off the chamber, and rechambered with a Bentz reamer shot better than my barrel did (until I built the tuner)

am interested with your tests...good luck

[alfsauve]

I look forward to this experiment.

Might I suggest you shoot for groups AT LEAST at 50yds if not 75 or 100?   Take a look at the top two targets in the picture below.  They were shot with an out the box 10/22 with CCI standard ammo.  At 50 yards, I don't think you'd be able to tell if the modified .22 ammo was better, only if it were worse.   

Some groups I've shot with this gun at 50 yards were even tighter.   I'd be concerned that if a gun can't shoot 1" or less groups at 50 yards with at least one brand of ammo, before I started tuning the ammo.    I'd first do a base line with at least 5 different types of ammo or more with the gun. 

Just my 1.5cents work.

[tombogan03884]

On a practical level I don't care since I will never apply any of this.
But on an intellectual level it will be interesting to see what "precision fanatics" are capable of achieving.
Looking forward to future results.

[Steve Cover]

Might I suggest you shoot for groups AT LEAST at 50yds if not 75 or 100?   Take a look at the top two targets in the picture below.  They were shot with an out the box 10/22 with CCI standard ammo.  At 50 yards, I don't think you'd be able to tell if the modified .22 ammo was better, only if it were worse.   

Some groups I've shot with this gun at 50 yards were even tighter.   I'd be concerned that if a gun can't shoot 1" or less groups at 50 yards with at least one brand of ammo, before I started tuning the ammo.    I'd first do a base line with at least 5 different types of ammo or more with the gun. 

Just my 1.5cents work.

<<< SNIP >>>]

Thanks,

Based on the advice I'm getting that 50 yards would be much better, that is the range that I'll be shooting.

I'll have to move my bench back some.
Being a disabled vet, the move will be a major task, but will be worth it.

Good thought on the baseline testing.

My goal is to use two different types of high speed and two different brands of standard speed ammunition.

I have about a dozen different brands of ammunition on hand. Naturally, I'll gravitate to the best performers for the test.

However, I'm not searching for super accuracy with this test, just trying to determine if bullet modification is worth the cost and effort.

Thanks for your help.

[Steve Cover]

The tools

Poco Kelly Acurizer

My first tool was the Poco Kelly Acu'rizr bought back in 2007.
I casually played with it for a while, but always put a serious test on the back burner (until now)

Poco Kelly
PO Box 1170
Cortaro, AZ 85652

http://www.leverguns.com/store/acurizer.htm




Poco's kit is the simplest and least expensive.

Bullet expansion is accomplished by striking the nose form rod with a hammer.
My expander has two sizes; .223 and .224 that can be set by choosing which end of the tool to use.




When I bought the kit, three forming rods were available.




1. Scorpion - An exaggerated hollow point with a central post (much like Federal Hydra-Shock pistol bullets)



Winchester Wildcat Dynapoint with exaggerated modification (pounded too hard)




CCI Mini-Mag with proper Scorpion HP


2. Hollow Point - A wide gaping cone shape.



Note the off center HP. 
When modifying existing hollow point ammunition, the forming punch works well.
However, some of the holes made into standard round nose bullets are off center as seen above.


3. Nasty Nose -  A dished out flat point



Again, this is an exaggerated modification cause by striking the forming rod too hard. 
One of the problems that I encountered with the Kelly kit, was my ability to strike the forming rod consistently.

 


Note different sizes of HP size.


This can (and will be) easily addressed, by cutting a short length of metal tubing to stop the forming rod at the same place each time.
I have a small arbor press that will take the place of the hammer.

A reloading press could also be used by fabricating a pair of stout metal disks to place above and below the tool.

To be fair to Poco, I have not contacted him about the Hollow Point pin, and have no reason to believe that he would not make things right.

According to his latest advertisement, he has made a lot of new modifications to his tools, and is well worth a look.

Steve