That .22 Test

I’ve often spoken about how a specific .22 rifle or pistol will have a “preference” for a specific kind of ammo.  Last time I said that, I got an email from Reader Don K., who asked simply:  “Got the targets from that exercise?”

Well, it’s taken me nigh on three days to find it, but I have.

The test was done indoors at the DFW Gun Range in Dallas, back in 2003 or 2004.  Here’s the rifle used in the test, my Marlin 880 SQ topped with a 4x fixed scope (don’t remember the brand, sorry — I’ve since replaced it with the variable Bushnell in the pic):

…and here’s the ammo I tested:

I don’t remember the distance — I think it was 25 yards — but it’s irrelevant because the 1″ targets were all stuck on the same piece of paper.

I first checked the scope’s zero by firing a 5-shot string of my go-to .22 LR (CCI Mini-Mag High Velocity) just to set the scene, so to speak:

…and then I got serious.

The barrel was allowed to cool between each 5-shot string, and one of the range guys loaded each mag for me so that I never knew which ones I was shooting at any given time.  All shots were aimed-deliberate (i.e. not timed), and the scope was never adjusted in any way during the shoot.  For clarity, the results are listed clockwise as in the picture above, but I don’t think that’s the order in which I shot them.  When I say in comments that the shot “felt good”, it means that as far as I could tell, it should have hit the point-of aim, i.e. the bottom of the little black diamond.

CCI Mini-Mag Standard Velocity

(no flyers called;  all felt good)

Remington Target:

(the 12 o’clock miss was a called flyer)

CCI Green Tag:

(the 6 o’clock miss was a called flyer)

RWS Dynamit Nobel Target Rifle:

(no flyers called;  all felt good)

Remington Eley Club Extra:

(no flyers called;  all felt good)

Remington Eley Target Rifle:

(no flyers called;  all felt good)

So:  same gun & scope, same shooter, same distance, same session… and different results.

I have to say that my memory tells me that I was most surprised / disappointed by the Green Tag and the Dynamit Nobel results, and most impressed by the Remington Eley Target Rifle.  Here’s why.

As you become more and more accustomed to shooting .22 LR, you will find that it becomes easier within a string to call a “light” or “heavy” strike, caused by a lighter or heavier powder loading respectively.  You can pretty much overcome this variance by weighing each round before shooting it, by the way, but I didn’t do that before this range test.  Perhaps I should have, but I assumed that spendy target ammo should all be consistent within a box;  well, they weren’t.  When I later shot off some Green Tag, I could tell that at least two out of seven rounds felt “light”, which frankly is unacceptable for premium ammo. (Why seven?  That’s what the magazine holds.)

All the Eley Target Rifle rounds felt absolutely consistent when fired, so that seven o’clock “flyer” is the fault of Yours Truly.

Anyway, that’s how that ammo worked for me, in that rifle.  I have no doubt that the results might be different in another rifle, in the hands of another shooter perhaps, but that’s the fun of the thing, isn’t it?


Addendum:  here’s a consecutive set of targets I also found (from a range session at about the same time as the above test) which show the benefit of practice and concomitant familiarity.  All three 10-round strings were fired offhand from my then-new Ruger MkII Target Bull Barrel pistol, with the same ammo, distance unknown.

It was the first time I’d ever fired that gun.

Note the tightening of the group as I got more in tune with the trigger.  (I wish I could still shoot that well, but two decades or so have had their way with my eyes, damn it.)

“Dear Federal Ammunition”

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.

Covering Old Ground

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:

Range Report: Ruger Redhawk (.45 Colt/ACP)

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.