Spindrift
Well-Known Member
Time to wrap this thread up. I’ve experimented a fair bit with this bullet now, in the CZ .222 rem. I’ve tinkered with many variables. In desperation, I even went to the extreme measure of cleaning the barrel.
I’ve not been able to consistently get better 5- shot groups than about 1,5- 2 MOA at 100m. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’ll put five in an inch at 50 yards. But I admit, I was hoping for better.
The mould is very productive. Bullet sorting is much quicker than with multiband bullets, and cull rate very low. For the high- volume plinker who finds 2 MOA sufficient, it would be a good choice. I’ve not detected any problematic bore deposits.
My inability to get really fine accuracy with this bullet, is not necessarily attributable to the grooveless design. As I mentioned in the opening post, I think there are shortcomings in nose design, with respect to alignment/engravement issues.
I’ve not been able to consistently get better 5- shot groups than about 1,5- 2 MOA at 100m. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’ll put five in an inch at 50 yards. But I admit, I was hoping for better.
The mould is very productive. Bullet sorting is much quicker than with multiband bullets, and cull rate very low. For the high- volume plinker who finds 2 MOA sufficient, it would be a good choice. I’ve not detected any problematic bore deposits.
My inability to get really fine accuracy with this bullet, is not necessarily attributable to the grooveless design. As I mentioned in the opening post, I think there are shortcomings in nose design, with respect to alignment/engravement issues.
