.22 LR Ballistic Coefficient

[NickB65]

I have this amazing piece of software that measures your aim point v reticule and looks good but I am confused about the BC of rounds. Very few makers state the BC and a search on the internet gives me a huge variance on just one round.

 

For example the humble but excellent WINCHESTER sub-HP (X22LRSUBA) with an MZ of 1065..... varies from 0.118 to 0.149. I have managed to find the BC for most CCI's and Aguila as they seem to be popular in the USA where most data comes from.

 

Anyone know the BC for the winny? Or am I just being too OCD?

[wymberley]

According to Winchester's own ballistic figures - MV of 1065 and at 100yards of 922, a BC of 0.138 is suggested.

 

Edit: see Post #4. Sorry

Edited March 16, 2014 by wymberley

[kent]

A degree of OCD is involved as BC of .22 ammo is a bit hit and miss (like airgun pellets are also). If you want it nearer to spot on you need to work it back from two choreographed velocities, the barrel it is fired from can even have a marked effect.

For calculating wind drift and long range drop I tend to stick to known (general) numbers and refine it in testing rather than take great note of what "computer says"

[wymberley]

According to Winchester's own ballistic figures - MV of 1065 and at 100yards of 922, a BC of 0.157 is suggested. I always thought that about 0.138 was the norm for all of them (sub hollow).

My apologies, while calculating, my programme reverted to my default MV which is lower than Winchester's so it gave a higher BC. Now corrected and precisely as thought, it is 0.138.

[Guest cookoff013]

I once had a discussion with a farmer, and his rifle that's capable of 50p grouping at 400yards.

Then he brought it out for rabbit shooting.

Turned out to be a 10/22

[kent]

I once had a discussion with a farmer, and his rifle that's capable of 50p grouping at 400yards.

Then he brought it out for rabbit shooting.

Turned out to be a 10/22

if you ever get great conditions its surprising what the .22 can do, that's pushing the truth a wee bit though LOL. You do need a lot more elevation than you can get with scope alone to try though

[turbo33]

I have this amazing piece of software that measures your aim point v reticule and looks good but I am confused about the BC of rounds. Very few makers state the BC and a search on the internet gives me a huge variance on just one round.

 

For example the humble but excellent WINCHESTER sub-HP (X22LRSUBA) with an MZ of 1065..... varies from 0.118 to 0.149. I have managed to find the BC for most CCI's and Aguila as they seem to be popular in the USA where most data comes from.

 

Anyone know the BC for the winny? Or am I just being too OCD?

 

I don't think your being OCD, I find it fun to dial in the ranges when sniping at a distance and not use holdover.

I spent a couple of hours messing about with the CZ 452 HMR and the CZ452 .22 on Friday. The .22 was using winnie subs. The information on the mv seems a little variable, from 1065 to 1150.

With Strelok, I used the average consensus for the BC of a winnie at 0.20. It was pretty much bang on. When I got back, entered the info on chairgun. If using Chairgun, for example, enter the known info on the page. From a zero of 50yds, I pushed out to 100yds. I then measured the poi drop. If you then right click on the BC box, click on "calculate BC from poi difference" enter the drop in inches as a minus figure, click accept. It will calculate the BC for you. Interestingly, the BC calculation on Chairgun for the winnie subs through my rifle is 0.0889. However, they are both pretty much identical in the POI, MOA adjustments etc on those figures. If you put the internet feedback for the BC of winnies of circa 0.20 into chairgun, the figures are way out.

The software is fun to use and accurate, but its probably more efficient to make your own trajectory chart as all rifles behave slightly differently.

 

Zero at 50, pop 5 targets up in a row, then a few shots at each one backing up ten yards at a time (saves all the walking ) and you can measure the drop. Make a graph/snipe sheet. You can then verify the adjustments needed in moa/clicks or just use holdover

Edited March 16, 2014 by turbo33

[wymberley]

if you ever get great conditions its surprising what the .22 can do,

Even the Texas two step by the look of it!

 

Sorry, I'll get me coat.

[Redgum]

There are many phone aps, computer programmes etc around to give you ballistic data and knowing what your bullets do downrange and its fun to play around online on a wet day. At the end of the day experience and skill acquired from shooting the rifle will count for a lot more clean kills than worrying about a few decimal points of data. I have been down the road of all this data but at the end of the day each rifle is as individual as the wife and putting holes in paper at various ranges will give you experience and the info you need.

[wymberley]

 

I don't think your being OCD, I find it fun to dial in the ranges when sniping at a distance and not use holdover.

I spent a couple of hours messing about with the CZ 452 HMR and the CZ452 .22 on Friday. The .22 was using winnie subs. The information on the mv seems a little variable, from 1065 to 1150.

With Strelok, I used the average consensus for the BC of a winnie at 0.20. It was pretty much bang on. When I got back, entered the info on chairgun. If using Chairgun, for example, enter the known info on the page. From a zero of 50yds, I pushed out to 100yds. I then measured the poi drop. If you then right click on the BC box, click on "calculate BC from poi difference" enter the drop in inches as a minus figure, click accept. It will calculate the BC for you. Interestingly, the BC calculation on Chairgun for the winnie subs through my rifle is 0.0889. However, they are both pretty much identical in the POI, MOA adjustments etc on those figures. If you put the internet feedback for the BC of winnies of circa 0.20 into chairgun, the figures are way out.

The software is fun to use and accurate, but its probably more efficient to make your own trajectory chart as all rifles behave slightly differently.

 

Zero at 50, pop 5 targets up in a row, then a few shots at each one backing up ten yards at a time (saves all the walking ) and you can measure the drop. Make a graph/snipe sheet. You can then verify the adjustments needed in moa/clicks or just use holdover

As you rightly say, it's better to do your own chart using a chrono'. Just ran the figures though and all things being equal, at 100 yards the 0.2 BC that you gave is just c0.25" out at 100 yards and the 0.0889 is c0.5" out compared to the 0.138 BC figure. Such a small difference in PoI for such a relatively wide change in BC at 100 yards is in reality totally meaningless in real terms.

 

Up/down/left/right a bit works superbly well at all normal 22 Sub's ranges.

Edited March 16, 2014 by wymberley

[turbo33]

As you rightly say, it's better to do your own chart using a chrono'. Just ran the figures though and all things being equal, at 100 yards the 0.2 BC that you gave is just c0.25" out at 100 yards and the 0.0889 is c0.5" out compared to the 0.138 BC figure. Such a small difference in PoI for such a relatively wide change in BC at 100 yards is in reality totally meaningless in real terms.

 

Up/down/left/right a bit works superbly well at all normal 22 Sub's ranges.

[kent]

Ballistic programs are a bit of fun and give you a basic idea with a .22, I don't personally think its worth getting to advanced with this particular round on computer predictions but it can help get you somewhere near enough with your first shot once you get a couple of hundred or so further out there. At 100- 150 yards its easy enough to get on the paper and far quicker to dial what is already known to most shooters in and correct to your needs (recording the result and weather, pressure, Height above sea level whatever) from 50yds zero 6-8 MOA at 100 on drop and about 1/4 MOA per 1mph full value wind and work from there. Getting the first shots on target at 300 say is so much harder and then I see why use the computer as a starting idea

[Redgum]

Ballistic programs are a bit of fun and give you a basic idea with a .22, I don't personally think its worth getting to advanced with this particular round on computer predictions but it can help get you somewhere near enough with your first shot once you get a couple of hundred or so further out there. At 100- 150 yards its easy enough to get on the paper and far quicker to dial what is already known to most shooters in and correct to your needs (recording the result and weather, pressure, Height above sea level whatever) from 50yds zero 6-8 MOA at 100 on drop and about 1/4 MOA per 1mph full value wind and work from there. Getting the first shots on target at 300 say is so much harder and then I see why use the computer as a starting idea

I've stopped shooting rabbits at 300yds with my .22LR as I was finding everytime my phone dropped off the net I couldn't achieve clean head shots.

[kent]

I've stopped shooting rabbits at 300yds with my .22LR as I was finding everytime my phone dropped off the net I couldn't achieve clean head shots.

Yeah, the first round shot is a bit tricky LOL! Non the less its fun in its own special way about as hard as 1000 yards with a .308. Give it a go just on paper and the like mind you. Try getting the first round on target with the .308 no matter how good your app might be

[wymberley]

Ballistic programs are a bit of fun and give you a basic idea with a .22, I don't personally think its worth getting to advanced with this particular round on computer predictions but it can help get you somewhere near enough with your first shot once you get a couple of hundred or so further out there. At 100- 150 yards its easy enough to get on the paper and far quicker to dial what is already known to most shooters in and correct to your needs (recording the result and weather, pressure, Height above sea level whatever) from 50yds zero 6-8 MOA at 100 on drop and about 1/4 MOA per 1mph full value wind and work from there. Getting the first shots on target at 300 say is so much harder and then I see why use the computer as a starting idea

Never mind the Texas two step, we're now 'tripping the light fantastic'.

 

Sorry, hat as well.

[turbo33]

Ballistic programs are a bit of fun and give you a basic idea with a .22, I don't personally think its worth getting to advanced with this particular round on computer predictions but it can help get you somewhere near enough with your first shot once you get a couple of hundred or so further out there. At 100- 150 yards its easy enough to get on the paper and far quicker to dial what is already known to most shooters in and correct to your needs (recording the result and weather, pressure, Height above sea level whatever) from 50yds zero 6-8 MOA at 100 on drop and about 1/4 MOA per 1mph full value wind and work from there. Getting the first shots on target at 300 say is so much harder and then I see why use the computer as a starting idea

 

50 yard zero, 5.5 MOA elevation at 100yds......CZ 452, 16" barrel, sak mod, Viper scope, winnie subs

[jam1e]

I once had a discussion with a farmer, and his rifle that's capable of 50p grouping at 400yards.

Then he brought it out for rabbit shooting.

Turned out to be a 10/22

I've only ever owned, (very briefly!) a deluxe 10/22, and what a sack of **** it was.....

It would have been a real accuracy demon, if I'd paid hundreds of pounds on after market parts!

Which would have left me with only the o/e barrel and stock! so there's really no point in the basic model....

Never again, very over rated!! I'll now put my tin hat on as no doubt some people think they are the dogs, which they are clearly not, out of the box anyhow!

[kent]

Never mind the Texas two step, we're now 'tripping the light fantastic'.

 

Sorry, hat as well.

I totally don't get your point, perhaps I just lack any experience of square dancing?

[kent]

50 yard zero, 5.5 MOA elevation at 100yds......CZ 452, 16" barrel, sak mod, Viper scope, winnie subs

There you go, is that computer says or shooting? These bullets get effected by so many variables it amazes me some how accurate they can be though. As long as you don't get silly on quarry they can be real fun at longer than the Accepted ranges, its more popular in the USA but some guys have like for like .22 lr guns made to their LR comp rifles and shoot them at a couple of hundred yards for economy and range availability.

[turbo33]

There you go, is that computer says or shooting? These bullets get effected by so many variables it amazes me some how accurate they can be though. As long as you don't get silly on quarry they can be real fun at longer than the Accepted ranges, its more popular in the USA but some guys have like for like .22 lr guns made to their LR comp rifles and shoot them at a couple of hundred yards for economy and range availability.

Both Kent. Having zero'd at 50, Strelok gave 5.49 MOA, poi -5.75" at 100 yards. I dialled in the info, and the elevation was bang on. The horizontal needed fine tuning at that range but after that it was incredibly consistant When I get another opportunity, I will punch paper at further distances just for the hell of it.

[wymberley]

I totally don't get your point, perhaps I just lack any experience of square dancing?

Sorry, Kent, it's just my silly sense of humour I'm afraid. I understand what you're saying. See also my Post #8. I keep seeing a chorus line of rabbits dancing to a well rehearsed routine - gives an all new meaning to a 'whitetail classic'.

 

Please read your Post #3 carefully.

 

Cheers.

[kent]

A degree of OCD is involved as BC of .22 ammo is a bit hit and miss (like airgun pellets are also). If you want it nearer to spot on you need to work it back from two choreographed velocities, the barrel it is fired from can even have a marked effect.

For calculating wind drift and long range drop I tend to stick to known (general) numbers and refine it in testing rather than take great note of what "computer says"

Got it! flaming spell check