Centerfire vs. Rimfire (Cost)

S

Slowshot

Member
One thing that has started to bother me is the rising cost of target quality rimfire ammunition. With 17HMR running around $15 a box and target quality 22 LR ammunition costing $7-$15 a box, a lot of the cost differential between rimfire and centerfire is disappearing, for the serious target shooter.

One advantage of centerfire is the possibility of reducing cost and tayloring the ammunition to your rifle by hand loading your own ammunition. Hand loading also becomes another project that comes in handy when the snow flies or the rain just won't quit.

At $15 a box, the ammunition for my 17hmr rifle costs 30 cents a round and I have to accept whatever the manufacturers offer. By handloading for my Ruger No. 1 .220 Swift I can create ammunition far better suited to my rifle than any commercial ammuntiion at about 35-40 cents a round.

I have been load testing with different bullets and powder for quite some time and had just about decided the rifle was not capable of better than about 1" five shot group accuracy until I achieved two rather satisfying groups yesterday. The target below was shot at 100 yards. It showed me that the rifle is capable of a five shot CTC group of around 1/3". The two groups measure center to center 0.506" and 0.374".

As I am still testing loads and improving my shooting skills, I now assume the rifle is probably capable of 0.250" or better. I am pleased to shoot that at 50 yards with any of my rimfire rifles.

While I will not give up on rimfire rifles, I sure am bummed by the lack of inexpensive 17HMR and the rising cost of .22 LR, with the need to accept whatever loads the manufacturers are willing to sell us.

 
I think you answered your own question.
The 17HMR is a purpose built short range hunting cartridge. When it appeared the cost was a factor but not so much as today.
I have an HMR as well and I haven't fired it since coming back from a prairie dog shoot about 5 years ago. The distance limitations of the cartridge coupled with the cost per shot led me to buy a Cooper in 17Mach4 and I couldn't be happier. The reach differences are astounding and the ability to reload the case speaks for itself.

If you're serious about getting a rifle to do it all so to speak, the 223 or similar cartridge will give you the best bang for your reloading buck. Brass can be had in bulk and also once fired which can save you lots of the overall cost of the price per cartridge.
 
Now that I am getting acceptable accuracy with my 220 Swift, I see no reason to let it go. I have found plenty of new brass for sale at reasonable prices and the wide range of muzzle velocities I can create with available powders and 55 grain bullets (2,000-4,000+ FPS) gives me plenty of flexibility.

Having checked out the cost of reloading .223 as opposed to 220 Swift, I don't see enough difference to give up the Swifty. If the day comes that I burn out the barrel, I will replace it with a Krieger or a Shilen or some such and just keep on shooting. I might even go for a 1 in 9 twist so I can use heavier bullets at longer ranges. I have heard of such rifles getting good results out to 1000 yards.

My friendly neighborhood gunsmith has said he would like to take me to a 600 yard range in nearby Tacoma WA to see what I can do with my rifle as it is. Sounds like fun to me.
 
I think you misunderstood me. I never suggested getting rid of the 220 Swift, I merely suggested adding another more target/cost friendly caliber to the collection.:D
 
No Offence Taken

Ken,

I didn't think you meant that I should get rid of my Swifty.

What I meant to say is that I can't afford any more rifles right now and the Ruger offers me enough flexibility to be my only centerfire until that changes.

At different times, I have looked at different cartredges including .223 and 218 Bee. When I found there is a powder (IMR 4759) that will allow me to reduce muzzle velocity on the Swift to as low as 2K fps. I decided to stay with the rifle I have. My local gunshop is ordering up a pound of that powder for me to try.
 
I had a 3/4" MOA Remington Model 591 5MM for which ammo was discontinued. (yes, I know about the centerfire conversion and that new crappy ammo) Then I had a heavy barrel stainless Marlin that could barely shoot 1" MOA with the $15 Premier Green Tip 22 Magnum. But Remington had CCI make the new tan tip ammo and the accuracy wet out the window! Then I found Winchester Supreme to shoot fine, and the friggin factory burns down and the ammo is unavailable for a year.

My point: NEVER AGAIN WILL I BUT A RIMFIRE rifle. Handload a small centerfire cartridge and the cost will be the same, but accuracy, velocity, and availbility will be better.
 
Slowshot, there's another powder you might try if you're interested in low velocity loads that give good accuracy. The April (2010) issue of HANDLOADER magazine has an article by Charles Petty on using IMR Trail Boss powder to achieve low velocity rifle loads. Since Trail Boss is very low density a low weight charge fills the case much more than most other powders that will give lower velocity loads with good accuracy.

Basically the technique is to fill a case to the bottom of the shoulder with Trail Boss, weigh that charge, then take 80% of that as a starting charge. Increase the charge until you achieve the velocity/accuracy you want. Trail Boss doesn't like being compressed so don't used a compressed load.

I've only used Trail Boss in a .45 Colt revolver at low pressures, but at the higher pressures in rifles with jacketed bullets at 30 kpsi or so it's not smoky and works quite well. If I get around to it I'm going to try Trail Boss in my .222 for a reduced velocity load for fall turkey hunting.
 
The targets you show have an x ring and a 10 ring. It looks like the 10 ring is one inch.

Using that as a basis, it appears the measurements you give for your groups are pretty optimistic.

Usually a five-shot group that measures 0.3 in. will be one ragged hole -- there will not be a paper separation as shown on both of your targets.
 
Target and Measurements

Pete,
The target is an American Target Company NRA Official Competition 50 Yard Small Bore Prone Target (50 Meter Target Reduced for 50 Yards) .

Measuring with my dial caliper, the 10 ring appears to measure .720" not 1". I have remeasured my groups and admit I am not measuring for record but just eyeballing with my calipers.


The two groups were fired consecutively and represent my best consecutive 100 yard efforts to date. All measurements are center to center, rather than edge to edge as I measured before I learned no one measures that way any more. So if center to center equals edge to edge minus unfired bullet diameter, then my figures are correct. Personally I don't see why edge to edge is not the standard. I guess it just sounds cooler to say you got a smaller number for your group size.


This time, the smaller group measures .376" (center to center with a .224 diameter 55 grain Berger bullets). The .002 difference is really beyond my skill to measure.

The second group remeasures to .520" (center to center) so you got me there. I was off by about .014". If you like, I could have the targets measured by an officer of my rifle club and ask him to post his results.

I am not skilled enough, nor do I have any interest in organized competition. I tend to get obsessed in any situation of competition and it's not good for my mental health. I posted these targets and figures only as visual aids in the thread about the flexibility of centerfire vs the restrictions of rimfire and the ability of a novice shooter to achieve better 100 yard results with self loaded centerfire ammunition than with commercial rimfire ammunition costing about the same.

It's just that the cost advantage of rimfire seems to be vanishing unless you are just knocking cans off a fence post with cheap .22 LR.
 
Last edited:
Slowshot--

Thanks for the reply. Don't get me wrong -- your rifle is doing good shooting.

I will attach a target with two groups shown which is more what a 0.3 inch group should look like at 100 yd.

Best-- Keep shooting---
 

Attachments

  • target7-21 002.jpg
    target7-21 002.jpg
    39.4 KB · Views: 377
Small and reloadable

I did some checking for the smallest reloadable centerfire. We have a group of people that shoot often a my place. We are all now using 17 hmr's and we're getting tired of expensive factory ammo. If expense were the only issue, it wouldn't be the end of the world, but inconsistency is bad. Once you figure out which brand of ammo is best, the next time you buy it, it changes. We are just shooting 100 yd target, so killing power and long range isn't a concern.
http://www.accuratepowder.com/data/...17 CCM Cooper Centre fire Magnum page 173.pdf

I weighed the powder in an hmr and got 5 grains. This CCM reloadable claims 8.5 grains.
 
The Cooper CCM's are definitely neat little cartridges for sure. Brass availability is questionable but the good thing is that it looks like you should be able to make that case from 22Hornet brass.

In the end, I would prefer a Hornet or variant of it for a cheap to shoot cartridge over the CCM family of cartridges.
 
Don't forget 218 Bee.

From data in the Lyman's Reloading Manual 49th Edition I deduce that a medium load for a 218 Bee, with a 45 grain bullet would be about 12.5 grains of IMR 4227 and would give a muzzle velocity of about 2,650 fps. That compares rather favorably with Hornady 17HMR V-Max with a 17 grain bullet and a claimed 2,550 fps.

While the commercial ammunition in 218 Bee is hard to come by and expensive, I have seen bulk brass for sale at reasonable prices. Cabelas (not the cheapest supplier) currently has it on sale for $36.99 per 100. Assuming an average of 10 reloads before you throw it away, that makes the brass cost 3.7 cents per round. Now (still shopping Cabelas current prices) you include 45 grain Sierra Varminter bullets at 16 cents per round, 12.5 grains of IMR 4227 at 4 cents per round and a CCI large rifle primer at 3.3 cents each, you get a cartridge that costs 27 cents per round or $13.50 for 50. Sound familiar? Cheaper than Hornady 17 grain 17HMR V-Max and you get to taylor your load to your rifle and the target you are aiming for.

I assume similar figures would be derived if you calculated the cost of handloading 22 Hornet. While Hornet brass is a bit more fragile than 218 Bee, it has the reputation of slightly better accuracy.
 
OK, Here's the Dime Comparison

Don't mess with me Pete. I'm a grumpy old man with a bad back, a gimpy leg, a poor excuse for a right arm and four X wives. ;)

For an end to the question of my group size: First, I never claimed a .300" group. I said the smaller is a .374"-.376" center to center group, which is closer to a .400" group.

So, I measured a dime and got .705", which means any group with a bullet .224 in diameter that will fit under a dime must be no greater than .481" CTC. After repeatedly measuring my smaller group, I keep getting the same about .375 CTC. So to give a final visual aid, I scanned the target with a dime just below the group. As you can see, the group is smaller than the dime in any direction. In fact it's a bit more than .1" smaller. Subtracting .1" from .481" gives me .381 so I stand be my .376 approximate figure. Now you see why I only compete with myself. :eek:

If there is some way I am figuring this wrong, someone let me know. Like I said, I would rather go with edge to edge measurements. That gives me a .6" group which means I am getting close to .5" which is my goal. If I can get a hunting rifle with a two piece stock and a cheap scope to regularly shoot 1/2 " edge to edge directly over the X ring at 100 yards, I will feel like I have accomplished something to brag about. I ain't done nothin' yet. :(


100YardTestTargetWithDimeMarch23-1.jpg
 
The dime definitely helps everyone get a sense of "scale."

I personally in the past have found it unusual that a group of the size you state would have two separate torn holes, with a strip of intact paper separating the impact points.

That dime is great. Now it is clear to see how SMALL your group really is.

I owe you an apology for claiming you "stretched the truth." However, I am glad to see you keep your sense of humor and are not a touchy guy.

It is not unusual that there are some amazing liars on these websites -- NOT YOU ! ! !

I was thinking of one thread recently where a man claimed his factory sporter weight rifle, with factory ammo, was shooting consistent half-inch groups. Two or three posts later, some idiot wrote in and claimed he had an ENTIRE RACK of sporter rifles, some of them factory made featherweights, that could all shoot 1/2 MOA groups all day.

At this point I posted to the effect -- give me a BREAK, guys.

Things like this are what gets me sort of defensive on the forum.

Pete
 
I should apologize!

Actually, I should apologize for not posting the dime picture in the first place. That would have avoided any issue about the group size.

I also get tired of reading about this or that rifle that shoots far better than any reasonable person could believe.

In his book, THE HUNTING RIFLE, Jack O'Connor questions many claims about the accuracy of certain rifles and claims about shooters' long distance shooting skills. In one example, he examines a guy's claim that he took aim at the spine of an antelope with iron sights at a certain extreme distance and made the perfect shot. Jack points out that at the claimed distance, the front bead of the sight would completely cover an antelope and the elevation needed would mean the beast would certainly be hidden behind the barrel of the rifle. Jack goes on to point out many other stories that were impossible, due to simple laws of ballistics. His assumption was that shooters often overestimate distances and assign skill to that one in a million lucky shot that must happen once in a while (about one in a million:D)

The one claim in his book that really impressed me was his story of how his wife did on a hunting trip to Africa. Shooting with 7X57mm ammunition (I don't remember the rifle), she made seventeen kills with ninteen bullets. As Jack said the only animal that didn't go down with one shot was a Kudu and it took three bullets to convince it that it was dead. Now that's some shooting.
 
As our friend - - -

on the American Sportsman, I think the show is, who wears the B you know the guy with the deep bass voice and "Black Rug" sez, "Shoot more and shoot more often". Those two things have a whole lot to do with how well people and rifles shoot, regardless of what they sights is.

I was recalling shooting severlal prarie dogs whilst holding the crosshairs about two feet right and 18" high and being able to hit them with regularity. If one shoots enough and often enough with the same rifle- ammo combination one can make an average rifle look awful good :)
 
As our friend - - -

on the American Sportsman, I think the show is, you know the guy with the deep bass voice and "Black Rug" sez, "Shoot more and shoot more often". Those two things have a whole lot to do with how well people and rifles shoot, regardless of what they sights is.

I was recalling shooting severlal prarie dogs whilst holding the crosshairs about two feet right and 18" high and being able to hit them with regularity. If one shoots enough and often enough with the same rifle- ammo combination one can make an average rifle look awful good :)
 
Trigger Time

I fully agree that good shooting habits and lots of trigger time will bring out the best in any firearm. I also believe that any firearm is capable of greater accuracy than any shooter can achieve with it. It's that quest to develop the skill to make the most out of any firearm I own that keeps me at the loading bench, and heading out to the range as much as I can, while still eating, sleeping and paying my bills.

I also believe a Savage 93 or a Winchester 94 22 will never stand up to an Anschutz with a 54 Match action, a McMillan benchrest stock and an Unertl Unertl 1 1/2" 16X scope shooting off a Sinclair windage rest, at 50 yards.

At the Poulsbo range yesterday, a guy named Mack showed me his 20 PPC rifle with it's BAT action, Jewell trigger, Krieger barrel and Mcmillan stock. Even though he had not gotten the Nightforce scope of his dreams and had only a Tasco 6-24X42mm scope on it, he was able to demonstrate some amazing accuracy at 200 yards.

When someone claims the same level of accuracy with "Old Betsy" the trusty thuty-thuty I don't argue but I don't believe.
 
Last edited:
Slowshot

I shoot a Savage 112 BVSS-S Swift and found a node way up the ladder using 52 gr. Bergers and a large quantity of 4064. I shot 37.3 grains for quite a while but found 43.0 grains gave the best accuracy. It is hard on brass and barrels but why own a Swift if you don't push the envelope. If you try something in that range approach cautiously and in small increments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top