What are the plus and minus between SV and HV

[roysha]

Within any given brand, assuming an equal, or very nearly equal, price, what do you perceive to be advantages or disadvantages of one versus the other?

The majority of my rifles shoot both equally well, using the specific brand I have in mind, with perhaps a wee bit of an edge in accuracy to the SV. However, I do have a couple that prefer the HV. The downside to the SV for me, is that a couple of my autoloaders don't function reliably with it.

I ask this because I can purchase a case lot at a very attractive price but it must be case lot and I only have money for one case. If I buy less than case lots the price jumps dramatically. I'm hoping to buy one case now and, hopefully, the other case later.

So which should I buy first?

[bowfin]

Standard velocity cartridges have always proven to be more accurate by and large, in my experience. I believe it is because they don't suffer from the buffeting that occurs when a bullet breaks the speed of sound or drops back below it. However, speed kills. Faster equals more foot pounds of energy for any given projectile.

I usually take the accuracy over the energy. If I want more horsepower, I use my 5mm Remington.

[NSB]

All quality target ammo is standard velocity. That being said, there isn't enough muzzle energy in a .22lr round to make a difference in killing power between standard velocity and high velocity to make any practical difference. Bullet placement is what kills with a .22lr. Pick the one that shoots the best and put the bullet on target. You can get standard velocity hollow points if you think it makes a difference. I have some Eley std.vel. hollow point and it doesn't make any difference to speak of that I've ever been able to see.

[Baltimoreed]

I’ve read that the only difference between sv non-target and sv target ammo [generic .22 not the high end stuff] is simply that it is more consistent. Components, brass stock for cases, bullet lead and powder lots can vary. Ammo pulled from the line is constantly tested. When the groups shrink and meet a specific criteria it becomes a target ammo line until the ammo fails to meet that criteria, then the line goes back to sv non-target designation. That’s why the same ammunition from the same manufacturer with different lot numbers can vary so much. Small differences I'm sure but enough to measure. And we all know what shoots well in one gun may not in another.

[pietro]

.

If high or hyper velocity ammunition if fired in a firearm not designed for it, you WILL have breakage or other issues soon enough - the reason most firearms made prior to 1926 should be shot only with SV ammo.

Some firearms were marked for one or the other (like the Colt Woodsman's), but most were not - so, caveat emptor....

.

.

[NSB]

If you're having problems with parts breakage on a semi-auto rimfire, you don't have the right recoil spring in the slide. The use of the proper spring absorbs the recoil and keeps stress being put on the other parts. I've had several handguns that were shot in excess of 100,000 rounds each that never had a problem. I had three Buckmarks that had over 300,000 rounds fired out of them (combined) and other than a couple of ejectors and buffers, and a couple of slide springs, they shot as well the day I got rid of them as the day I got them. Without the right spring for the load being used, any semi-auto will have stress problems...rimfire or centerfire.

[Bazoo]

The switch tonight velocity was at 1930 if I recall correctly although most of the gun companies didn't change their arms to handle the extra pressure until 1932.

I always use HV ammo in modern arms.

[rking22]

Standard Velocity, you will be happy. Until you get it you really won’t know which guns like it or don’t, depends on lot to lot variation. Generally more accurate, always quieter, and can be used in guns that were not designed for HV ammo like High Standard target pistols. More to it than the spring, slide mass comes into play as well. Trail sides have shown issues as well. The last HV I got was because I won it at a competition. Shoots fine in my revolvers but has no advantage I can think of. Blaser and CCI make some good HV but I will always take SV in preference.

[pashiner]

i use cci standard velocity in everything. it's subsonic, so a bit quieter, and is way more consistent than other brands through my guns.
my Ruger mk2 LOVES it.

[roadie]

.

If high or hyper velocity ammunition if fired in a firearm not designed for it, you WILL have breakage or other issues soon enough - the reason most firearms made prior to 1926 should be shot only with SV ammo.

Some firearms were marked for one or the other (like the Colt Woodsman's), but most were not - so, caveat emptor....

.

.

This is very true, I've seen two Rem mod. 12 pumps with the locking lug sheared off from using HV ammo and heard of another. My mod. 12's get only SV ammo.

[uscra112]

It's a niche category, but we collectors of old time "boys' rifles" know that with one or two exceptions they can't tolerate HV ammo at all. So my larder has CCI Standard Velocity and CCI Quiet in abundance. SV also gets fed to the Stevens and Ballard target rifles. CCI Quiet in an Iver Johnson revolver deals with small pests in the yard, (possums, squirrels on the feeder, and the occasional skunk), ranges up to 10-12 yards mostly. I'm too badly handicapped now to go hunting in the woods. If I could, I'd carry Standard Velocity.

I do have about 600 rounds of CCI MiniMags in stock for use in my Marlin 39a if/when I ever go back to using it on woodchucks. The Marlin is a tackdriver with them. MiniMags shot better in a 10/22 after I weight-sorted them and gave them the Waltz treatment, but never what I would consider well. Ditto Federal Auto Match. But that gun is gone. Semiautos no longer have a place in my gun safe.

[Mk42gunner]

For targets, plinking and close range cottontails, standard velocity is fine. For squirrels or anything larger such as raccoons high velocity is better.

There is a reason the .25 and .32 rimfires died out after the high velocity .22 LR became readily available.

Robert

[frkelly74]

And if you want to shoot the racoons out by the chickens at 0400 without alerting the neighbors, Sub sonic standard v 22 lr is your friend.

[uscra112]

I’ve read that the only difference between sv non-target and sv target ammo [generic .22 not the high end stuff] is simply that it is more consistent. Components, brass stock for cases, bullet lead and powder lots can vary. Ammo pulled from the line is constantly tested. When the groups shrink and meet a specific criteria it becomes a target ammo line until the ammo fails to meet that criteria, then the line goes back to sv non-target designation. That’s why the same ammunition from the same manufacturer with different lot numbers can vary so much. Small differences I'm sure but enough to measure. And we all know what shoots well in one gun may not in another.

Process control is what makes ammo good, better or best, not post-manufacture sorting. The idea that the best ammo is selected out of the general run is hogwash. Speaking as a retired process engineer (automotive), you either have your process in control or you don't. If it's not, you stop the line and fix what's wrong. It's possible that the bean counters might demote ammo coming from a line that wasn't up to snuff, but in fact the line should never have been run long enough in an out-of-control state to make a marketable quantity.

Now, there have been ammo companies who didn't give a hoot whether the process was in control or not. Remington's Thunderdud product is the most egregious example I've ever run across. It might be better now, but when I was evaluating it a few years ago it was uniformly awful. Bullet weights alone varied by as much as 2 grains, and a statistical plot revealed that they must have been using three different swaging machines that were not all adjusted alike. They must also have been using worn dies, because bullet diameters were .2240 to .2265!

To make really good ammo, you have to slow the process down, and do a lot more in-process gaging and correction of any problems well before the line starts making substandard product, which is why high grade target ammo costs so much.

As a side note, GM and Ford do this so well in their block and head machining processes that they never make a bad part.

[rking22]

“ As a side note, GM and Ford do this so well in their block and head machining processes that they never make a bad part.”

Actually Almost never SHIP a bad part, tools chip fixture components fail, etc. Thing is, that out of spec part is still 99.999% likely to never cause an issue due to extreamly tight process spec. Key is that every operation has a quality check ever so often( 50 to 100) parts. If that check shows an issue then all parts are on hold and ultimately sorted to find the first bad part. Lots more to it but that’s the general idea. Also the required dimensions accept window is much tighter than actually required to allow for the very infrequent “tail” part. All processes have variation, that variation has to be accounted for and kept under control or the assembly will have issues. Tolerance stack is probably what sunk Remingtons new R51. Those Peterson designs need final fit at assembly, current “gun assemblers” do not have that skill or they would not be still in that job.
Ammo process control cost money, when the final product sells for 40$ per thousand it doesn’t leave a lot of room. A 6.2L head sells for 100s of dollars, and an out of spec one costs the machine if plant money, even in house! Maintains process control is the only way to stay on business. With ammo, as long as it is safe they just throw it in a coadboard carton and send it to Wally World. An awful lot of customers are happy if it go’s bang, sadly. Market driven to the lowest requirement.

[uscra112]

I stand by my statement. I was there, for 15 years of it. The in-process gaging component was my piece of the puzzle. I can't speak about anything but blocks, heads, and cranks though. Everything else came from subcontractors.

[Baltimoreed]

uscra112, first thing, I did not say high end match .22 was necessarily made this way. I was referring to the standard velocity that regular folks purchase, Rem, Win etc. For what Eley and others charge for their premium .22 the QC is substantially more exacting which costs them and the shooter more money. And I’m sure that the accuracy still varies from lot to lot though not as much but remember that the more precise your ‘measuring’ stick is the finer difference you can measure. A Winchester M67 is not able to measure the difference in .22 ammo that a M52D can. I’ve never had a .22 rifle that was built to get the best accuracy out of true target ammo until my 1922M2 and now my preA M52. But 5 shot one hole groups shot off the bench have never really interested me. I used to get into heated discussions with a coworker who shot ‘propped’ all the time while after my sight in I always shot offhand [not as well as i used to]. Even with these two fine rifles that I now own my plan is to try them off my bench to zero. After I see what they can do I’ll shoot them offhand at my small steel targets for fun. Minute of steel chicken?

[303Guy]

Maybe I am out of date but I found standard velocity to be inferior for my purposes because the stuff was just on the sonic transition. With a suppressor, some would crack the sound barrier while some were quiet. So now I will only consider subsonic. Each time I chrony the stuff, I get 1050 fps. I could almost calibrate the chrony on the stuff. I've only used CCI and Federal so I have no idea how other brands perform. That sv could just have been a bad batch or an inferior brand. I don't remember how accurate it was - I was only concerned with suppression.

I did make the observation that with my rifle, accuracy went very south very quickly past the transition range. With subsonic, accuracy is maintained quite far out. I should try supersonic for accuracy again, now that I have removed the bad bit of barrel at the muzzle.

[JSnover]

Standard velocity has always done well for me. HV groups tend to open up a little bit, even though they were still accurate enough for small game. If I really need more than a standard .22 I have a CZ512 in 22WMR and if that won't git'r'done I have a 5.56 Tavor.

[gunther]

If you are trying to keep a semi-auto happy nowadays, CCI Blazer will do a lot better than most any standard velocity, unless you want to pay upwards of $0.10 a shot for 22 ammo.