Eley Subsonic Hp .22Lr Ammunition

[redlion 1]

Recently purchased a new Anschutz 1417G in .22LR calibre and have been testing different ammo to find one that worked best with the rifle. I eventually settled on Eley subsonic HP which I found to be one of the most accurate and best performing hollow point rounds for my rifle. I use ballistic software to generate a range card for use with my mildot scope and was pretty happy with the accuracy until I started to experiment with longer range shots of 75m and more which gave considerably more drop than predicted by the ballistics program. When I range tested the drop at 80m with a 50m zero I found it was averaging 20mm more than predicted, so I went back to the software and adjusted the muzzle velocity to match the actual drop and found that the Eley rated MV of 1065fps had to be reduced to 985fps to match actual drop. I will chronograph the ammunition when I get my chronograph back from my friend to confirm this.

I contacted Eley to ask about the apparent significant difference in MV and they were very helpful, looking up the batch number and giving me their test data on that batch, which turned out to be 1038fps average with a maximumum of 1054fps and a minimum of 1034fps. Of course this is from a match barrel which will probably be 20" plus long so you would expect the MV to be less with a shorter barrel (mine is 14"). In fact to get from 1038fps to 985fps is a 7.7% reduction which seems to be in the right ballpark from what I have found on the internet with repect to MV vs barrel length.

The reason I am posting this is NOT to criticise Eley in any way (in fact they were very helpful when I approached them) and I will continue to use this ammunition, but to high light to other shooters who may use ballistic software that taking manufactures specification data at face value can lead to some misleading results - garbage in garbage out.

 

[charlie caller 3,654]

Ballistic software is a guide, thats all, nothing beats practice at various ranges, that said, I have a Nikon scope with bullet drop compensating reticule on my .243 the Nikon spot on calculator is brilliant, giving very accurate ranges for my ammunition, in fact it is just that spot on.

[Cedric 132]

I suppose you have probably done it but I'm careful to check the magnification values I enter. A small change in magnification would account for the drop . Always providing the mag. settings on your scope are spot-on.

[redlion 1]

Of course any output from a ballistics program should be treated with caution until proven in the field but it is a very good starting point when using new and different ammunition. As stated in my original post the purpose was to high light the considerable difference that there can be between manufactures specs and what you get in the real world, and also how this translates to errors in the field. Cedric makes a very good point about making sure scope magnification is correctly set when using these programs as that will throw everything out dramatically, been there and done that plenty of times before - but not in this case. I have been using certain ballistics programs for several years now, originally with respect to air rifles, both FAC and non-FAC, where MV variation can be extremely low when compared to rimfire and have learned that of all the variants MV is by far the most important in determining trajectory.

[Alsone 789]

I suppose you have probably done it but I'm careful to check the magnification values I enter. A small change in magnification would account for the drop . Always providing the mag. settings on your scope are spot-on.

 

Best to forget reticules and learn to make MOA adjustments as they should never change if your turrets track accurately.

 

The problem with reticules is in most scopes they're in the 2nd focal plane and so the BDC compensation marks effectively move upwards as the maginification increases and downwards as you decrease it.

 

It's far better in my opinion to have a table of MOA adjustments vs range, and the same for windage.

 

That way you can dial in your compensation and provided the range / tables are accurate, the compensation holds true for all magnifications.

 

Reticules are a quick and dirty way of estimating drop but as you've found out they do have their limitations on cheaper scopes.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Alsone

[Brickhill 28]

I also shoot an Anschutz 1417 14ins. Eley subs shoot very well although they are tighter to chamber.

Try RWS subs these are smoother and in my tests proved they shoot flatter. I was told that when Anschutz do their accuracy test on each gun before they go on to the market and use RWS ammunition. Well is it German afterall !

Edited August 7, 2014 by Brickhill

[kenj 131]

I can't get .22 Eley subs in my area and after a few trials, including a nightmare batch of Winchesters, I've settled on RWS in my Magtech 7022 semi auto. I've only had one mis-fire in over 250 rounds so far. They shoot straighter than the Eley, but don't seem to have the same rabbit knockdown power. Maybe the HP is too small?

[Elliott 436]

Eley perform well in my CZ452 right out to 135 yardsbwhich is the furthest I've tested them

 

Edited August 9, 2014 by Elliott

[redlion 1]

I also find that the Eley Subs are tight to chamber. If I extract a chambered round it can clearly be seen how the chamber has sized the bullet in the region of the lube rings. Not sure if this could be significant for accuracy or perhaps wear and tear on the rifle itself. Also chambering a round causes a small deformation to the rim of the hole that forms the hollow point, not sure at this stage if this is being caused by the round catching the top of the chamber, ramp or bottom of the chamber. Again I am not sure if this is significant for accuracy.

The point made about using click values to adjust for range as opposed to aiming points on a reticle is a good one but my feeling is that it is horses for courses, for a .17HMR which has a very flat trajectory then using click values makes sense as only 11 clicks or 1.2 mildots (at 16x mag) are required to adjust from a 100m zero to 200m so there are few if any reticle aiming points that can be used to cover a large amount of bullet drop, however for a subsonic .22LR which has a dramatically more loopy trajectory requires 37 clicks or 4.08 mildots (at 16x mag) to adjust from a 50m zero to 100m which means plenty more reticle aiming points are available. Also the point regarding the accuracy of mildot spacing could be equally made for the accuracy of click values, there is of course no substitute for quality optics, unfortunately for many this is simply an unaffordable luxury. So for me I prefer a mildot scope for my FAC air rifle and .22LR but a tactical scope for my .17HMR.

Following on from my OP I have ammended my range chart to reflect the suspected lower muzzle velocity and last week I had a chance to test it out in the field. After successfully despatching a couple of rabbits at 55m and 67m I went on to shoot 3 more at 109m - 122m (all distances were laser ranged), the last one at 122m took 2 shots as I missed with the 1st, all three were humane kills.

I have to say that I am more than a little surprised at the accurate reach of this rifle and ammunition combination, however having proved a point to myself I think I will regard 100m plus shots to be the preserve of my .17HMR. Whilst I have some minor concerns regarding the tight chambering of the Eley Subs they do seem to deliver the goods in terms of accuracy, consistency and stopping power so will for stick to them for now although at some stage I will give the RWS subs a try.

Thanks for all of your input.

PS. Was going to post a couple of pics but will need to figure out how to - dont know why they make it so difficult.

[Deker 3,455]

Recently purchased a new Anschutz 1417G in .22LR calibre and have been testing different ammo to find one that worked best with the rifle. I eventually settled on Eley subsonic HP which I found to be one of the most accurate and best performing hollow point rounds for my rifle. I use ballistic software to generate a range card for use with my mildot scope and was pretty happy with the accuracy until I started to experiment with longer range shots of 75m and more which gave considerably more drop than predicted by the ballistics program. When I range tested the drop at 80m with a 50m zero I found it was averaging 20mm more than predicted, so I went back to the software and adjusted the muzzle velocity to match the actual drop and found that the Eley rated MV of 1065fps had to be reduced to 985fps to match actual drop. I will chronograph the ammunition when I get my chronograph back from my friend to confirm this.

I contacted Eley to ask about the apparent significant difference in MV and they were very helpful, looking up the batch number and giving me their test data on that batch, which turned out to be 1038fps average with a maximumum of 1054fps and a minimum of 1034fps. Of course this is from a match barrel which will probably be 20" plus long so you would expect the MV to be less with a shorter barrel (mine is 14"). In fact to get from 1038fps to 985fps is a 7.7% reduction which seems to be in the right ballpark from what I have found on the internet with repect to MV vs barrel length.

The reason I am posting this is NOT to criticise Eley in any way (in fact they were very helpful when I approached them) and I will continue to use this ammunition, but to high light to other shooters who may use ballistic software that taking manufactures specification data at face value can lead to some misleading results - garbage in garbage out.

There are loads of reasons why ballistic programs are, at best a guide, as several have mentioned, they are perhaps even less accurate than your maths above...have another look or use a different calculator!

 

ATB!

[Rimfireboy! 1,463]

The last couple of times I've used eley sub hollow they've been down on velocity, in the 900's, quiet and accurate though, but I noticed more drop. It's not the barrel length, 14 inches is more than enough barrel length for .22 subs to perform well. I'd recommend that you try SK's. I tried them in my 1417 and they're right up there at around 1060 fps and very accurate.

[celticrusader 78]

I was under the impression thats the way they always run,that and theyre the lower velocity of almost all subsonics.

[Rimfireboy! 1,463]

I was under the impression thats the way they always run,that and theyre the lower velocity of almost all subsonics.

Yes, the subsonic hollow in the green box. The older subsonic xtra plus subs were faster than the ones I've had more recently.

[celticrusader 78]

Yeah I was talking about the green box, was unsure myself if they ran at a higher velocity previously but then have been informed that they were never that high nor consistent to that either....strange but never the less there slower velocity gives time for more expansion and have to admit I do love the eley sub's in my semi auto.

[Rimfireboy! 1,463]

I chrono'd the older ones at around 1025 ish fps. I've always found them accurate, I just prefer the SK's at the moment.