The kids at GarandThumb have some fun shooting hollowpoints through heavy clothing to see if the old saying is true: that hollowpoints are “useless” (i.e. they don’t expand) when fired through thick winter clothing, because the hollowpoint cavity gets clogged up with material before entering the body.
My thoughts are below the fold.
To whom it may concern:
re: This stuff
Contrary to what it says on the box, this “target grade performance” .22 ammo, supposedly “ideal for semi-auto” actually isn’t any of those things, as I discovered at my favorite (indoor) range yesterday.
Out of the 325 rounds contained in said box, I experienced no fewer than 28 failures to fire (FTF) — all, it should be said, did fire the second time around — and to be frank, the “target grade” accuracy wasn’t anything to write home about, either (more on that in a bit).
Now I know what comes next: “Your rifle isn’t working properly! Check the firing pin!”
Ahem. I fired 100 rounds through each of the following (same range session, btw):
By rifle (top to bottom):
Taurus Mod 63 (Winchester ’63 clone): 7 FTF
Marlin Mod 60: 8 FTF
Ruger 10/22: 9 FTF
All three were meticulously maintained and cleaned, all are either fresh out of the box or nearly so, and none has had more than 100-odd rounds fired through them. Sorry, but a 7-9% failure rate in ammo which is supposedly “target grade” sucks dick worse than Madonna on her last Saturday night drunken pub crawl. Honestly, I get better results from the awful Remington Gold 500-round bulk ammo.
And by the way, all the rounds fed flawlessly, whether through a tube mag or the 10/22 magazine — the rifles, in other words, were without fault.
Now for that accuracy thing.
I will frankly admit that my old eyes do not engender the best accuracy in the world with iron sights, but I’ll also suggest that a 2.5″ (best) grouping at 20 yards is not really acceptable off the bench — at least, not to me it isn’t.
So I fired off the last 25 rounds (4 FTF, FFS) through something a little more accurate — a rifle which usually gets sub-1″ groups at the same distance. Here’s a full picture of the rifles I took to the range:
I would humbly suggest that in my shaking old hands, that Marlin 880SQ (top) is as good as any “target” rifle for the price, and better than just about any other of that type that I’ve fired before.
The result: 1.75″ (best 5-round grouping of the five strings, the others were over 2″). So I popped off five rounds of its usual feed (CCI MiniMag 40gr), and got a 0.72″ group with a called marginal “flier” — excluding that, it was a 0.5″ single hole. Now that’s what I call “target grade” performance.
You guys need to step up your game. And fix your frigging priming compound.
…or translated, Jonny looks at one of the latest Turkish Clay Guns, in this case the Webley & Scott ProComp line made by Akdaş — and pretty it is, too:
And he tests it at one of my very favorite clay ranges, Barbury Shooting School, situated but a few miles from Free Market Towers out in Wiltshire.
Enjoy the show; I did. (And bloody hell: that lanky kid is just deadly with a shotgun.)
I was going to write a bit about this article (Is The .22 Mag Overrated?), but after just a little digging in the archives, I discovered that I’ve talked lots and lots about the thing and I wouldn’t want to get boring on the topic.
So y’all can just go and read what Will Brantley has to say. It’s all good.
I like his rifle setup, by the way, even if it does have a plastic fantastic stock:
Through ways too complicated to explain here, I came upon this beast:
…so I took said beast off to the range a couple days back because of course I would.
This Ruger Redhawk is chambered, as in the title, to shoot the manly .45 Colt/Long Colt cartridge, and .45 ACP with the use of moon clips.
Here it is, with the S&W K-frame Mod 65 .357 Mag and minuscule J-frame Mod 637 .38 Spec, by comparison:
The Redhawk, as they say, is a handful — almost more than a handful even in my paw.
“So how does it shoot, Kim?”
Well, it has the typical Ruger trigger: very stiff (but smooooth) double action (maybe 15lbs), and a slightly gritty single-action pull of about 3-4lbs, best as I can guess. I see LOTS of dry-firing ahead, or maybe a trigger job is in its future.
As for recoil: .45 Colt 250gr ammo beats the shit out of my creaking wrists, and the lighter 200gr only a tad less. Were I to press it into bedside duty (to replace the Mod 65), I’d load it with the 200gr boolets. However: using my standard Norma 175gr .45 ACP rounds (what I load in my 1911) in the moon clips, it is an absolute joy to shoot, for so big a revolver.
Accuracy is about what I can shoot, i.e. not bad for a first time: 2″ groups at 30 feet, with the occasional flyer. (I’ve shot the equivalent S&W Mod 625, but over twenty years ago and I can’t remember it well enough to make a comparison.) Also, that 4″ barrel does have its limitations; a 6″ barrel would be better, but man that would make it even bigger and heavier.
Which brings me back to the Redhawk’s size. It is seriously big, and almost too big for me; but that weight does help soak up recoil, oh yes it does.
Ordinarily, I’d be a little torn about keeping a gun that (for me) is a little marginal, what with its size, recoil and stiff trigger. Any one of those is usually cause for a swap meet; all three? Hmmmm.
And yet: there is something about holding in your hand a gun that is indestructible, and that will handle anything you can load into it with consummate ease and reliability. Because if ever I venture into wild country with big bad toothy animules that want to eat me or worse, I would load up some Buffalo Bore monster +P 300gr loads, and feel very adequately well-armed, with a gun that just will not break under the stress thereof.
That is a Ruger Redhawk, and that is why I’m going to keep it.
A quick word about the new range. Since I moved away from Plano, my old stamping ground at the Mission Creek range proved to be just too far for a weekly trip.
However: allow me to introduce y’ll to Texas Legends in Allen TX. Lovely new range, it is, staffed by silver-haired old farts who are pleasant and only too willing to sit and chew the fat awhile. And they’re not fussy about what guns and what ammo you shoot (CCI Blazer and its ilk is verboten only because the aluminum casings are non-magnetic and difficult to pick up.) No 100-yard range, but a 3-bay 50-yard rifle-only range is just fine for my needs.
And if you get there between 10am and 1pm during the week, there’s a 50% Old Fart discount. I spent less than $15 with a target. This is going to cost me a ton from now on, not in range fees but in ammo.
Starting tomorrow.
Hey, it’s a shitty life, but someone has to live it.
Evil Reader John C. sent me a link to the 1,000-round test of this lovely budget 1911:
Okay, it’s a 1911 so I’m going to like it, and it comes with all sorts of standard stuff like a titanium trigger, ambi-safety, adjustable rear sight and (yes!) a brass bead front sight. My only quibble is this unnecessary protuberance on the grip safety…
…but I’ve griped about it often enough so I won’t repeat it here.
Most of all, I like the price point (around $750 street) which, considering the effects of Bidenflation (don’t get me started) is quite acceptable.
And the tester likes it fine, but they always do, don’t they? Certainly, though, the MAC came through the 1,000-round test without any major issues, which is more than you can say about a lot of the budget guns on the market nowadays.
And it looks like a proper 1911, none of that front-of-slide serration nonsense that all the cool kids seem to demand.