.22LR Range Fun

[doddg]

Had to dial in the scope on the Wood Ruger Charger again after Zachcz took off the old mount b/c of a stripped nut/bolt anchoring it to the rail & putting on 2 new rings.

Just used some leftover Remington Golden Bullets & Federal AutoMatch at 45' & 75' to dial the scope in & had other ammo, but I had 2 other guns I wanted to shoot.
2/35 stovepipes with Remington Golden Bullets.
0/35 issues with the Federal AutoMatch.
First time I used Fed. AutoMatch with this Wood Charger, I had multiple stovepipes.
Must have been something amiss with that lot of AutoMatch ammo, since this lot was seamless.

I dialed it in at 45' so POI was a little high at 75' as the rounds were still climbing at that distance.
I could have dialed it in at 75', but I couldn't even see the red bullseye with the 1x4 power scope I was using.


Pic with old mount that was replaced with 2 separate high mount rings.

 

[700 LTR 223]

Wow some of the best groups I have seen you post on here! Yeah AutoMatch is not the most consistent lot to lot ammo I have used. Several years ago had a lot that shot great in a 22/45 , including one of the best targets I had ever fired. The next lot fired like some kind of different ammo entirely with marginal accuracy. I'll have to break out my Charger again sometime!

 

[doddg]

Wow some of the best groups I have seen you post on here! Yeah AutoMatch is not the most consistent lot to lot ammo I have used. Several years ago had a lot that shot great in a 22/45 , including one of the best targets I had ever fired. The next lot fired like some kind of different ammo entirely with marginal accuracy. I'll have to break out my Charger again sometime!

The Ruger Chargers with a scope does make me look good with a handgun, haha!
I'll break out some "good" ammo eventually I've been saving to get some consistency & a bit smaller groups.
This am (after getting home from a Prayer Breakfast I get up at 4:45 am) I took off my red dot from the black polymer Charger that I'd picked up from Zackcz.
I put on an older Nikon 2x20, my first handgun scope.
Now I can do an apples-to-apple comparison with the wood Charger I picked up from Amishman44 recently.
It seems like I always end up with 2 guns the same, I can compare.
I do love my paperwork.
I don't expect any real difference, but just love the "competition."
I plan to do 30', the usual distance using a red dot, just so I'll feel like a sharpshooter.
45' is distance I can do with a scope & these Chargers have good groups there.
75' just for the fun of it, even though with the low magnification (x4 & x2), not sure what I'll be able to see with the x2 Nikon.

This Nikon x2 cost me $90 a few years back; the original box was marked $180.
I thought it was a little much for an older optic, but I had never even seen one before at that point & wanted one for my SW 41.

 

[700 LTR 223]

The Ruger Chargers with a scope does make me look good with a handgun, haha!


This Nikon x2 cost me $90 a few years back; the original box was marked $180.
I thought it was a little much for an older optic, but I had never even seen one before at that point & wanted one for my SW 41.

I have never regretted buying any quality optic. The Nikon at half the original price seems well worth it to me. Yes the Charger and the TC Contenders are the best handguns at making us look good on the range! My TC Super 14 223 out shoots some rifles at 100 yards. I have contemplated getting a Super 14 in 22lr but the 10" bull barrels shoot so well.

 

[doddg]

I have never regretted buying any quality optic. The Nikon at half the original price seems well worth it to me. Yes the Charger and the TC Contenders are the best handguns at making us look good on the range! My TC Super 14 223 out shoots some rifles at 100 yards. I have contemplated getting a Super 14 in 22lr but the 10" bull barrels shoot so well.

In the context of barrel size, I was recently tempted to buy a $260 14" barrel for my Thompson Contender that I bought here in July with a 10" barrel & very happy with it.
They make a 21" which would be a hoot, at $320-ish, that I'd rather have, though.
If the 14" barrel would have been $200, I would have done for comparison.
Totally pleased with the 10" barrel & have been told the 14" would not be that big of an improvement, especially at my stage of life, with eyes & hands having a little wear.

 

[700 LTR 223]

I kind of thought the same of the 14" in regards to the 22lr as the 10" shoots so good. Now with the 223 the Super 14 helps achieve more of the ballistic potential and the accuracy is very good. Fired this at 100 yards in relatively calm conditions using a 7X Burris the day after shooting in a 65 yard match in the wind.

 

[doddg]

Great range day for the black Polymer & wood Ruger Chargers.
x2 scope on the black polymer & x4 scope on the wood Charger.
Did 30' & 45' on 1.75" circles & 1/2" circles, and also 75' on the 1.75" circles, as well.
I used Armscor 36 grain, HP, HV, but with CCI Mini-Mags on the last row of the 75' target.

The 75' was the last target I did today.
Don't know what happened 2nd row, 2nd circle with the Wood CHRGR??
On the black polymer CHRGR, I noticed a nut had come off the front ring where it attaches on the rail, which could explain row 1, circle 3 & row 3, circle 1, being "off."


Used these 1/2" circles since with the 1.75" circles I couldn't discern any real delineation.
Mistake: 2nd row wasn't 29/35 pts but 34/35 rds = 97% (not 83%)
At 45', the Wood Charger had less "flyers."

30':
- Polymer = 26/35 = 74%
- Wood = 34/35 = 97%
45':
- Polymer = 14/25 = 56%
- Wood = 21/25 = 84%


Both CHRGRS had similar groups at 30' & 45'.

 

[Zexrain]

Can't wait to get a 22 to plink around with. Looks fun

 

[doddg]

I splurged when I saw this SW 41 in the Classifieds bought new 2 yrs. ago with only 2 mags put through it, then put in the safe.
I have an older 80s model 41 with a red dot on it & I want to see which one does the best with my eyes & hands
I have to get a rail for the "new" one for a head-to-head, or take off the rail with the red dot on the older one in order to access the iron sights.

1.75" circles at 21' & 30' (most I can do with my eyes) with iron sights.
Used CCI SV.
I'd like to get a rail to put red dot on this "new" one to see if it does the same or better as the older 41 (pic below this).


Older 80s SW 41 with red dot at 30'.


4 pics of 2021 model.


pics of older '80s model, with & w/o optic.

 

[doddg]

Browning Buckmarks are a favorite manufacturer of mine, having proved to be a little more accurate for me than most comparable brands.

Picked up a UMX model with Rosewood grips this past weekend.
Didn't need another Buckmark, I just couldn't help myself.
A real looker with the wood grips & green front fiber, with not a mark on it.
It sat in the safe after a few boxes put through it by original owner a few yrs back.
Unfortunately, after moving, the box with the 2nd mag are both missing.

It will be fun putting a red dot on it & see how it fares against my Brwng Bckmrk Pro Target 5.5" w/red dot & Tandemkross "Gearbox," lighter trigger (?) spring with "case" for easy fitment & Volquartsen extractor.
I really like the Pro Target model & look forward to seeing which is the most accurate between the two.
Or, both could be the same.

Today was just iron sights & adjusting them to suit my eyes.
Shot a sheet of my favorite 1.75" circles at 21'.
Used CCI Blazer & Armscor ammo. (last row, 1st circle was actually CCI SV)
80 rds = 0 issues

 

[doddg]

Took the Brwng Bckmrk UMX with the nice wood grips back to the range adding a red dot this time to compare it to the Brwng Bckmark Pro Target with a red dot I've got.
Short version:
Pro Target = 5/5 rds on 1/75" circles 3 out of 5 circles.
UMX 5/5 on circles only once.

Ironically, Monday using iron sights on the 1.75" circles the UMX got 100% x2 & 90% x2.
Since I can't keep both of these presently, I sold the UMX already to a member friend who wanted it.

Beige circles are 1 5/16" (a hair over 1.25").
Used CCI SV.
Pro Target edges out the UMX today.
21/25 vs 17/25
84% vs 68%


UMX w/wood grips


Pro Target w/red dot


Pro Target w/red dot
7/16 circles with 5/5 rds inside 1.75" circles


Pro Target red dot
8/16 circles with 5/5 rds inside 1.75" circles


Pro Target w/red dot
7/16 circles with 5/5 rds inside 1.75" circles

 

[Colt357Trooper]

It has been perfect for me. Kinda keeps the Ar bug away since I don’t like shooting them as much or buying the ammo. Same look and is an absolute tac driver. You’re more than welcome to check it out. I know we’re not too far apart

I love 22 I have a browning, with trigger job. Tac sol barrel 6/8 inches, a ruger 10/22 Hog edition , a 10/22 Tac sol with barrel with Integrated suppressor. From silencer co. It is amazing. A 22 revolver,
A high standard 1976 by dad gave me with bull barrel. And a fn 22 in fde a lot of fun and never jams. And a straight pull back with custom trigger. Threaded barrel. Harrris bi-bod, a switchback suppressor. And I have a cheap rebel 22 suppressor that at one time you were given free with the purchase of a Surefire can and break. It still works and it’s been almost 8 years. I believe they sold for 99$
I had a baffle strike on a few which a machine shop FFl dealer who repairs suppressors charged me 75$ to fix and sent me a end cap with a different style opening, it is flat instead of this deep v style it came with. It’s a cheap can so it’s my test can. And it’s fun because it’s modular. But the silencer co built suppressor is what I call movie quiet with gemtech sub ammo

 

[zachcz]

Well this pretty much put nail in coffin for all non Cz kadet 22s for me. Will probably keep one that’s threaded for can unless AllenM can thread a kadet kit for me. 7 yds free hand .52” group

 

[doddg]

Great time today with 3 of my "expensive" .22LR & 2 are recent acquisitions.
Also, a new style of targets.

I used only Norma Tac-22 SV, 1083 FPS, lead solid nose x180 rds.
It was alleged to be a better ammo than CCI SV.
Not impressed: I used it last week through my CZ rifles & today.
No cloverleafs even at 21' & even with the red dot.

New targets had 3 separate sized circles so you can use 3 different distances.
Convenient.
Circle size is labelled.
Note: I can't wait to use these targets on other .22LR pistols to see if any can keep up with today's "expensive" guns:
- Browning Buckmarks
- Smith & Wessons
- & more.
- no contest with the Ruger Chargers
I call them my cloverleaf guns!
If today's more expensive pistols have no better accuracy, my journey of paying more to get a more accurate gun will end.
It will mean spending more is wasted on me with my hands & eyes.

Iron sights only:
Row 1 & 2 = High Standard Victor Military = 87% & 93% (90% avg)
Row 3 & 4 = "New" (Febr. 2022) SW 41 = 80% & 93% (87% avg)
2 of 2 target sheets


Iron sights only:
Row 1 & 2 = High Standard Victor Military = 93% & 80% (90% avg)
Row 3 & 4 = "New" (Febr. 2022) SW 41 = 67 & 87% (77% avg)
1 of 2 target sheets (still adjusting sights)
I made a mistake on Row 1 & 2 by shooting the wrong distances on the 2 smaller circles, which screwed up the comparing apples-to-apples accuracy %. (That's why I did a 2nd sheet).


All rows with 1980s SW 41 with cheap red dot.
Row 1 = 80%
Row 2 = 93%
Row 3 = 93%
Row 4 = 93%
(Avg = 90%)
Was still adjusting red dot on all 1 3/8" circles & row 3 & 4 of 2.75" circles.

 

[zachcz]

Great time today with 3 of my "expensive" .22LR & 2 are recent acquisitions.
Also, a new style of targets.

I used only Norma Tac-22 SV, 1083 FPS, lead solid nose x180 rds.
It was alleged to be a better ammo than CCI SV.
Not impressed: I used it last week through my CZ rifles & today.
No cloverleafs even at 21' & even with the red dot.

New targets had 3 separate sized circles so you can use 3 different distances.
Convenient.
Circle size is labelled.
Note: I can't wait to use these targets on other .22LR pistols to see if any can keep up with today's "expensive" guns:
- Browning Buckmarks
- Smith & Wessons
- & more.
- no contest with the Ruger Chargers
I call them my cloverleaf guns!
If today's more expensive pistols have no better accuracy, my journey of paying more to get a more accurate gun will end.
It will mean spending more is wasted on me with my hands & eyes.

Iron sights only:
Row 1 & 2 = High Standard Victor Military = 87% & 93% (90% avg)
Row 3 & 4 = "New" (Febr. 2022) SW 41 = 80% & 93% (87% avg)
2 of 2 target sheets
View attachment 300368

Iron sights only:
Row 1 & 2 = High Standard Victor Military = 93% & 80% (90% avg)
Row 3 & 4 = "New" (Febr. 2022) SW 41 = 67 & 87% (77% avg)
1 of 2 target sheets (still adjusting sights)
I made a mistake on Row 1 & 2 by shooting the wrong distances on the 2 smaller circles, which screwed up the comparing apples-to-apples accuracy %. (That's why I did a 2nd sheet).
View attachment 300369

All rows with 1980s SW 41 with cheap red dot.
Row 1 = 80%
Row 2 = 93%
Row 3 = 93%
Row 4 = 93%
(Avg = 90%)
Was still adjusting red dot on all 1 3/8" circles & row 3 & 4 of 2.75" circles.
View attachment 300370

Spending more is never the answer

Haven’t you learned anything from the years of me laughing at my brother for buying every expensive Cz to try to outshoot me and my old trusty 75b

 

[doddg]

Spending more is never the answer

Haven’t you learned anything from the years of me laughing at my brother for buying every expensive Cz to try to outshoot me and my old trusty 75b

I've heard your tired old record before.
However, it has not been my experience that $200 guns shoot as well as $400 guns
or $400 guns shoot as well as
$800 guns.
that doesn't mean you can't take your $200 gun and outshoot someone that has an
$800 gun because you have such superior eye/hand coordination.
But, for us mere mortals, we need help.
Machining on more expensive guns is more precise, and therefore, the accuracy follows.
People spend money to upgrade their guns with barrels, triggers, bushings, springs & etc which all cost money to improve the stock condition of a gun.

And yet you still repeat your nonsense that, "spending more is never the answer."
If I wasn't so "thrifty" I would put better triggers in all my guns
because that would translate into better accuracy.
Same experience with Rifles.
I went through half a dozen models of rifles.
When I spent more money and got
CZ rifles and also spent money getting better scopes:
better accuracy!

I was thinking just today of asking if you know how to adjust and lighten the triggers of any of my .22LR pistols (if I gave you a list).
I know my CZ 455 trigger has had some mild modification & I can tell the difference between it & my CZ 512.

I realize there is a point of diminishing returns, in which a person will not improve their accuracy despite what gun, scope, bags, wind flags & etc they buy because they have deficient minor motor skills to take advantage of such.

 

[Hookeye]

Spending more is no guarantee.
But working to shoot to the gear's capability is a thing.
If winning could be done on the cheap, they wouldnt charge for that other stuff

 

[doddg]

Spending more is no guarantee.
But working to shoot to the gear's capability is a thing.

Unfortunately some folks spend a bunch and dont have the ability.

Yes, I get what Zackcz in inferring, as he always does.
He can shoot better free hand than I can on a rest, so he is entitled to through stones.
I have told him to enjoy his youth!

 

[zachcz]

I've heard your tired old record before.
However, it has not been my experience that $200 guns shoot as well as $400 guns
or $400 guns shoot as well as
$800 guns.
that doesn't mean you can't take your $200 gun and outshoot someone that has an &
$800 gun because you have such superior eye/hand coordination.
But, for us mere mortals, we need help.
Machining on more expensive guns is more precise, and therefore, the accuracy follows.
People spend money to upgrade their guns with barrels, triggers, bushings, springs & etc which all cost money to improve the stock condition of a gun.
And yet you still repeat your nonsense that, "spending more is never the answer."
If I wasn't so "thrifty" I would put better triggers in all my guns
because that would translate into better accuracy.
Same experience with Rifles.
I went through half a dozen models of rifles.
When I spent more money and got
CZ rifles and also spent money getting better scopes:
better accuracy!

I was thinking just today of asking if you know how to adjust and lighten the triggers of any of my .22LR pistols (if I gave you a list.
I know my CZ 455 trigger has had some mild modification & I can tell the difference between it & my CZ 512.

I realize there is a point of diminishing returns, in which a person will not improve their accuracy despite what gun, scope, bags, wind flags & etc they buy because they have deficient minor motor skills to take advantage of such.

In theory you are correct but it’s not real world. More expensive doesn’t almost automatically mean better quality. Most spend money on upgrades that are not needed or are solutions to a problem that didn’t exist.

Many of the performance upgrades are negligible in results especially
On the distances that we shoot.

 

[zachcz]

Yes, I get what Zackcz in inferring, as he always does.
He can shoot better free hand than I can on a rest, so he is entitled to through stones.
I have told him to enjoy his youth!

On the bright side you shoot way better from a rest than me. It is so unnatural and totally screws me up