Last year I was able to get a couple lots of the new ELEY Edge to test. I tested these 2 lots along side my TENEX I use in smallbore prone competition and a lot of Match I found to be above standard that I use for training. Attached is the target cut-outs and info. These were all fired in my Anschutz 2013 with a Weaver T-36. I also fired the Edge at 100yds resulting in all 10's on NRA 100yd smallbore target but a very open group with low X count. I would say for the price, not a bad choice, but would like to test some more just out of curiosity. If your looking for a cheaper ELEY option I would recommend Club, I have found some really good lots in the past. I have been told by other smallbore competitors that the Edge has worked well in the older Anschutz rifles and Winchester 52's with larger chambers.

22match wrote:Last year I was able to get a couple lots of the new ELEY Edge to test. I tested these 2 lots along side my TENEX I use in smallbore prone competition and a lot of Match I found to be above standard that I use for training. Attached is the target cut-outs and info. These were all fired in my Anschutz 2013 with a Weaver T-36. I also fired the Edge at 100yds resulting in all 10's on NRA 100yd smallbore target but a very open group with low X count. I would say for the price, not a bad choice, but would like to test some more just out of curiosity. If your looking for a cheaper ELEY option I would recommend Club, I have found some really good lots in the past. I have been told by other smallbore competitors that the Edge has worked well in the older Anschutz rifles and Winchester 52's with larger chambers.

You get out here, close to the Lapua test facility, and run some Center X or the higher grade through that 2013 and you'll find that you'll be shooting Lapua

I've shot next to Kevin Nevius a few times, he's a die hard Lapua guy with National Championships to prove it. I used Lapua Midas M back in the early 90's and always had good results. I still have a few boxes of that Midas. After I exhaust my Tenex supply I'll give the new Lapua a try.

Don't even bother testing at 50 meters. Most ammo doe just fine at that range. Test at 100 M.

I have gone to the test facility and it was well worth the trip.... but I am still shooting Eley.

Jerry G wrote:...........I have gone to the test facility and it was well worth the trip.... but I am still shooting Eley.

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry what are we going to do with you

That is a problem Bob. I have a case of blue box Eley pistol (dimple point)and it shoots great. When that runs out we'll see.

Jerry G wrote:Don't even bother testing at 50 meters. Most ammo doe just fine at that range. Test at 100 M.

I've tried to convince some of the local rimfire BR shooters of that, and I might as well talk to the wall. Same with other aspects of my testing protocol, which is just very basic science. My results (usually) speak for themselves, but most are stuck in their ways and just don't get it. Old dogs and new tricks, I guess.

Paul

For benchrest there is no advantage in testing at a distance farther than the distance shot for competition unless the ammo is agging groups unmeasurably small at the shorter distance. Assuming the site is up to date, so far the best 40 shot group at 50 meters at the US Eley range measured 14.8mm which is far from unmeasurably small. If the ammo and our equipment together exceed that threshold then sure extend the distance, but until then if there is a measurable difference in group size at the sanctioned distance, to what gain is changing the testing distance other than introducing an unnecessary variable (distance)?

For silhouette, absolutely. Shoot the farthest distance and if it's up to snuff, the shorter distances should follow suit. Rimfire benchrest isn't a game that has multiple distances (other than IR50/50 will shoot both 50 yards and meters) like silhouette so knowing how it shoots at different distances isn't all that valuable.

But to your point the test ranges (both Eley and Lapua to the best of knowledge) both test at 50 meters and the vast majority of rimfire benchrest is done at 50 yards (ARA, PSL, and half of IR50) so the ammo testing is tested at a distance usually greater than competition is shot.

Edit: this is also assuming that the benchrest shooter is testing with their barrel naked (no tuner, tubes, etc etc). If the attachments are present, depending on which side of belief they stand on how a tuner works, you couldn't pay them to change distance regardless of how measurable the group variances are. Some believe in testing with the barrel naked to establish a point of reference before attempting to tune. Some believe in testing how the shoot in competition leaving all attachments present.

The Lapua facility has a screen set up at 50m and 100m. The same bullet electronically marks at both distances. The thing that was amazing to me was the 2 groups didn't look the same.

Jerry G wrote:The Lapua facility has a screen set up at 50m and 100m. The same bullet electronically marks at both distances. The thing that was amazing to me was the 2 groups didn't look the same.

That was something that blew my mind as well. Some time ago I was ammo testing at the home indoor range learned that group size in relation to distance is not linear. One would think that doubling the distance would double the group size (or vice versa), but often times that's not the case with groups being much smaller than expected or even exponentially worse. I feel like it could be related to uniformity of lead density impacting flight path, but I have no way of knowing. Just a feeling.

Jerry G wrote:The Lapua facility has a screen set up at 50m and 100m. The same bullet electronically marks at both distances. The thing that was amazing to me was the 2 groups didn't look the same.

I'm sure it's so negligible that it doesn't matter at all, but I've always been curious about the margin of error from the electronically plotted groups.

I guess that could be verified by placing a paper target behind the electronic screen at 100m. I would like to see the results of that. I am thinking that it wouldn't matter much but I have a curious mind.

Jerry G wrote:I guess that could be verified by placing a paper target behind the electronic screen at 100m. I would like to see the results of that. I am thinking that it wouldn't matter much but I have a curious mind.

You and me both. If I were to guess, the electronic plotting is far more accurate than our ability to measure a paper target (electronically or physically). I just can't help but want to know.

The biggest World Cup and Olympic position rifle matches are fully electronic now, so I wouldn't worry about electronic plotting being less accurate than paper if quality equipment is used and configured correctly.

Jason wrote:The biggest World Cup and Olympic position rifle matches are fully electronic now, so I wouldn't worry about electronic plotting being less accurate than paper if quality equipment is used and configured correctly.

I'm not worried about it being less accurate. I just can't help but be curious. That's all!