.22 LR rim thickness

I was at a site https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIIEEonRSqY that was giving accuracy results based on the rim thickness of a .22 LR. Guy didn't know what he was doing! First he was using a dial caliper, I tried to see the brand but couldn't determine what it was. The best Dial type caliper are graduated in .001 of an inch and have accuracy rating of +/- .002. Digital is +/-.001. Guy measured various rim thickness from boxes of .22 LR of some good ammo. He obviously don't know measurements very well because he claimed variation not to be greater than .0002", that is far beyond the scale graduations! so I assume he measured .002", add the +/- .002 and that changes quite a bit! Then in testing some of the greater deviation rounds preformed better than the others, he wasn't sure but may have reversed the size variation! However some boxes only had a few so he tested less than 5 rounds! Should have realized that to low count rounds were those that were different! Later he changed the order but hew was trying to cover the fact that the different thickness shot better. He was wrong I watched again and counted the shots per group!   
 Putting that gauge on a dial caliper is stupid, plus testing the way he did was wrong! If I were to do it I would have fired all the same thickness rims then the over size few to see if they increased group size!
 .0002" was definitely wrong, he did say point 0002 probably meant 0 point 002 and .002" is about the thickness human hair!  (.002" to .003"). That mistake tells me that guy didn't know very much about measurement!!! In addition he stated rim thickness as 0043 but a few times said point 0043, at no time did he say 0 point 0043!!! Measuring that rim thickness does not take in the thickness of the brass that is double at the rim.
 Only use I see for that gauge is to check required head space. More internet BS!

Frank, I think that you missed a decimal also.  Don't you mean .043", as in point 043"? Otherwise, both are real thin rim thicknesses

No I didn't miss a Decimal, I was repeating what the guy said, I guess I should have put them in quote marks. He always stated the difference between rim thickness was "point zero, zero, zero, two" or "one" Same with rim thickness most of the time he said "zero, zero, four, three", but also stated "point zero, zero, four, three" Yes I know rim thickness is about .043" My point was the guy was not familiar with thousands and tenths of thousandths. I can understand he could have made a mistake one or 2 times but it was every time. Added to the fact that he at the end stated he did mix-up the lots and that the larger group was the "divergent" rounds, but during the test I counted the "divergent" rounds fired and they were all 3 rounds except Eley! He was trying to prove rim thickness was the result of larger groups and when it resulted in testing that some "divergent" groups were better than the remaning rounds in the box that had all the same rim thickness.. He also mentioned he had no more than 3 or 4 different rim thicknesses Eley being the best with only 2. However every "divergent" group he fired was 3 rounds except Eley that only had 2? He did claim that no more than 4 or 5 "divergent" rounds were found being 94% of the box were the same size. So when testing why did he only fire 3 "divergent" Eley being 2. In testing he shot only those that were "divergent" and also explained why the number of shots were less. I also found it odd that the rifle he used did Not move the slightest amount when fired. Must have been very heavy! But was a stock out of the box rifle. Not sure if in some other place he has that rim thickness tester available or is getting paid to use it. His test would have been better if shot at 100 yards being he was using a rifle!
 As I mention that site was totally BS!!!

The consensus in rimfire match rifle shooters is that rim thickness sorting does help if you’re shooting inexpensive ammunition.  However, you can eliminate the issue by shooting better grades of ammunition.  No matter how you slice and dice the rim thickness distribution you have, you can’t make poor rimfire ammunition beat the higher grade of unsorted ammunition.  So the answer is to shoot better ammunition.  

Now in Bullseye, how much improvement can you get by spending a week sorting a case of 5000 cartridges, or the improvement by shooting those same 5000 cartridges?

I would tend to think reason has to due with head space and Match target rifles being bolt action the head space will make a difference. That guy measured 5 different brands and claimed all were within .0002", I'm sure he was wrong on the decimal point and it was .002. That is less than the thickness of standard paper. His testing was kinda stupid as was evident when while shooting the "deviated" rounds grouped better than the others in 2 cases. He stated he might have reversed the order, later he confirmed he reversed the lots but the "deviated" rounds were only 3 in a box except Eley that only had 2. I checked and in those 2 cases where the "deviated" rounds grouped better he only shot 3 so they were the "deviated" rounds! Simply put he tried to hide the actual results, he claimed he went back and checked the boxes, for what? he shot all the "deviated" rounds! Probably to sell the gauge or not piss-off the gauge maker. Also look at the targets he has the rim thickness listed, decimal is all wrong!". So not only his voice statements are wrong his written size is wrong too! Being he is so wrong that would make me think all of his other videos are flawed too! More Internet BS!!!