Last year I had tested the CCI CB Long Vs. Rem. CBee 22 to determine a few differences in this type of specialty ammo. http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f33/cci-cb-long-vs-rem-cbee-22-quiet-ammo-showdown-76359/ IMO opinion, the Rem. CBee 22 won hands down between the two. I had the oppurtunity to pick up a few boxes of the CCI Quiet ammo and but it up against the Rem. CBee 22 to see how they stack up. These 2 specialty ammos are generally used for backyard pest removal among other applications where "stealth" is required - low noise / less detection. So having both of the subject ammos readily available at the store, I purchased both and figured to do a little test while in hand. Yes, there is also Aguila SSS ammo out there that fits into the same classification / use as the subject ammos, unfortunately not availble at the store I was at. The Rem. CBee came in a 100 round platic slide top container, The CCI Quiet in a 50 round cardboard box. Price on the Remington equalled .03 more a round. I started analyzing the ammos the usual way, weighing and rim sorting, however did not chronograph the CCI Quiet as with the previous test mentioned. Chrony info is available in the previous post on the Remington CBee. The rifle used was a Savage MKII F 17" sporter barrel. The magazines were loaded 1 round each of the different weight lots / rim thickness of each ammo to ensure an objective "mix" of what can be encountered, or if taking the rounds straight out to the box. Temp was 70 deg F, sunny, cross wind of 3 to 7 mph 7:00. 10 round groups were measured outside to outside spread. Remington CBee 22 ammo First, a breakdown of the Remington CBee 22 ammo. I never was a fan of Remington ammo of any caliber, so I must admit I was biased from the start. The previous test using this ammo changed my mind at least with the CBEE22. The advertised data on the back of the package read that it had a 33gr truncated cone bullet and velocity was 740 fps at muzzle, 687 at 50yards with a 25 yard zero, a 2.7" drop at 50 yards. I found this to be somewhat true. In the original testing of the CBees, I chronied an average of 736 fps 10 feet away from the muzzle. With a 25 yard zero and not making any adjustments, a 2.5" drop. A deviation between the lowest and highest FPS reading was only 36 FPS. The rapport of the ammo was substaintially lower than that of High velocity, and also noticably lower than standard / match / subsonic velocitied ammos. The bullet itself looked quite wicked - a true truncated coned head with a large cavity hollowpoint. In addition, there were slots cut into the tip at 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock, no doubt to assist with fragmentation / expansion. The lead bullet was copper washed, a few looked as if there was some sort of scaling around the driving band. A hint of lubrication was present, however very minimal. The ammo weight lot seperation produced 8 weight lots, and ranged from 44.4 (1 round) to 46.0 grains (3 rounds), favoring 45.1 grains with 12 rounds out of 50. Rim Thickness produced 6 lots and ranged between .0365 and .040, favoring .0380. (.0365 - 3, .037 - 8, .0375 - 9, .0380 - 16, .0385 - 13, .040 - 1) I found the group size to be actually impressive, albeit only 25 yards through a MKII F and especially a super low velocity in a cross wind. Horizontally and vertically less than .75" and only .75" in general, with many groups in the .5" range. At 50 yards, I actually had better groups than in the first test, just a hair above an inch, with many below an inch. At 50 yards, drop from was 2.5" from the 25 yard zero. Through 150+ rounds being shot through the 2 different tests, there were 6 failures to fire. 11 out of the 150+ rounds had an "off sound" which were obviously of lower velocity and charge. One of those off sounders printed 2" below the group, and 2 1" below the group. CCI Quiet Now on to the CCI Quiet. On the package, an advertised 40 grain Round Nose bullet and a 710 FPS, same advertised FPS as the CCI CB Longs, but the Quiet has a 7 grain heavier bullet. The CCI CB Longs chronied 593 FPS with a lowest to highest deviation of 96 FPS., but as i didn't chrony the Quiets, I speculated from the similiar POI and sound that the FPS is similiar, but that the deviation was MUCH less than the CCI CB Longs (much better groups). The bullet of the Quiet also has about the same amount of lubrication as the CCI standard velocity, and much more than the Remington. The bullet is also designed / shaped differently than all other CCI ammo. The drop of the Quiet at 50 yards from a 25 yard zero was 3.5", a full inch more that the Remington, considering the slower FPS, that's understandable. The ammo weight lot seperation ranged with 7 lots from 49.4 (1 round) to 50.2 grains (2 rounds), favoring 50.0 & 49.9 grains with 15 rounds each, out of 50. There was also 1 round 49.5 gr. Both the 49.4 and 49.5 had that undercharged sound and was definitely impacting low on the target. Rim Thickness produced 4 lots and ranged between .0375 and .0.039, favoring .0380. (.0375 - 10, .0380 - 22, .0385 - 12, .0390 - 6) So from a measurements stand point, the CCI Quiet seemed to be more consistant than the Rem CBees ands the CCI CB Longs, when just taking them out of the box. COMPARISONS OVERVIEW - To be fair, after 150+ rounds of the Rem CBee 22s between this test and the previous one, 11 had a similiar "off sound or undercharged sound" but were nowhere near the extreme off sound of the CCI CB Longs. After 100 rounds of the CCI Quiet, there were only 2 rounds that appeared to be in this "off sound or undercharged sound", and was confirmed after weight lotting and rim thickness measuring that the CCI Quiets are manufactured more consistantly than the Rem CBEE22 and CCI CB Longs. The Remington CBEE22 left alot dirtier residue in the chamber, barrel, and around the casing than the CCI Quiet - the Quiet is definately a cleaner shooting round. I felt confident in either enough that hitting the mark (center mass or head shot on pests) can be more achieved in an urban setting, where safety of a stray bullet should be the first concern. I had a bit more confidense in the CCI Quiet to perform better groups straight out of the box, but much more confident in the bullet design of the Remington CBee 22 to produce quicker kills on game. Both ammos generate considerably low noise, with the CCI Quiet much more quiet than the Rem CBee. Remington has "Do not use in semi autos" on the packaging, CCI Quiet does not. The truncated cone shape of the CBEE 22 reminded me of .45ACP self defence ammo with stop right there characteristics and cut well defined holes in paper, and the CCI Quiet had more of a pass through "Round Nose find your quarry somewhere else" kind of feel, and produced a more jagged less defined hole in paper. Retrieved rounds showed a much more controlled expansion and shape retention with the Rem. CBee than the CCI Quiet, with the expasion stopping right around the beginning of the driving bands. The Remington ammo traditional HP design combined with the controlled expansion should produce better penetration (if that's the goal). COST - Rem. CBee averages about $.03 a round more than CCI Quiet. SOUND - The Rem CBee 22s were noticably louder than the CCI Quiets, but both acceptable in a pest reducing scenario in an urban environment. BULLET DESIGN - Remington CBee 22 had the more specific design for fragmentation / expansion when a hit is achieved on game. Again when used for pest control in an urban environment, the Remingtons has a more "stop right there" design and fragmentation if there is a miss. The CCI Quiet ammo bullet does have a waxy lube on it, seemingly as much as CCI Standard Velocity and although they are both 40 gr rounds from the same manufacturer, the shape / design of the bullet is very different than the Standard Velocity line. With these differences, I believe there was some actual engineering put into the ammo rather than just sticking their Standard Velodcity bullet into an undercharged casing. ACCURACY - The Remingtons semed that they may be of better use on critters at any 25 through 50 yards than the CCI Quiet, but in my opinion, the CCI Quiet prints better or at least will be more consitant with less chance of a very undercharged round than the Remington CBee 22. Without having chrony data on the CCI Quiet and just by going with sound compared to CCI CB Longs (similiar rapport), I think I can speculate enough to believe that the CCI is far superior to the CCI CB longs with greater detail given to manufacturing of it, and producing better groups than it's sister ammo. 25 YARDS and 50 YARDS (retrieved bullets below) As a side note, from my usual ammo of CCI Standard Velocity zero at 25 yards, the Rem. CBee 22 and CCI Quiet's POI was 1" lower and .25" to the left. Usefull information to make an on the fly or adjusting the optic for a "double duty / pest remover" dope in an urban environment. In my opinion, between these 2 ammos coming straight out of the box, the CCI quiet is definately quietier and will produce more consistant reliable groups / POI. The Remington CBee 22 would be in a dead heat if weighed and the obvious undercharged / under weighted rounds were removed, even in comparison to the CCI being weighed. On pests / critters, the Remingtons would be my choice as the bullet design and terminal results appear to be better, for paper the CCI Quiet.