Monday meanderings.
Back To Work - Returned last night from a rare (for me) three-day weekend. I spent the time in the eastern half of the state (the desert part) to visit relatives and do some shooting. The last such trip was two years ago, and I'd forgotten what it was like to relax!
Somewhere Steve Wozniak Is Crying - The Firearm Blog brings us news that an Aussie company has developed a sniper moving target system using Segways as drones. I was pretty pumped about that - shooting a Segway would be almost as satisfying as perforating a Prius - but alas the little things are armored. Still, it's a neat concept. (I like the part where the Segways run for their lives at the sound of a gunshot!)
Shooty Goodness - One of the topics of discussion amongst my cousins this weekend was their desire to go to Knob Creek for the annual machine gun shoot. Turns out it was happening literally while we were talking about it, and Tam was there.
Pest Control - The shooting part of my trip involved helping to rid my cousin's ranch of the dreaded sage rat. Sage rat hunting has become a Very Big Thing out here in the West, and despite hundreds of thousands of the things being dispatched every season the population continues to outbreed the hunters. Damage to crops from sage rat infestations is staggering, and it doesn't look like the problem is going to end any time soon.
There are a couple of schools of thought regarding the hunting of sage rats. One school likes to set up a shooting bench and snipe the things from long range with a .22-250. The other prefers to use a .22 rimfire, and just get closer. I belong to the latter group, as using a rimfire is significantly cheaper and still quite challenging. (In a good field it's not unusual to go through 500 rounds a day, and I'm just not wealthy enough to afford to do that with a centerfire rifle!)
Another benefit of using rimfires is that it's easy to get kids involved. It's important that children learn early the necessity of responsible wildlife management. The reason we shoot the sage rat is because a) the population is out of control, and b) poisons aren't an option in areas with large raptor populations. (How many of you have actually seen a bald eagle hunting prey? I saw a half-dozen just this weekend, which is the case every time I go out there. With poison, that wouldn’t be the case.)
Happiness Is A New Gun - My nephew Roman came with us on this trip, and I presented him with his first “grown-up” rifle. Up to this point he'd been using one of the little Chipmunk rifles, and it was time for him to upgrade. I gave him a Glenfield Model 25 with some special touches: I shortened the barrel to a more kid-friendly (yet legal) length, tuned the trigger just a bit to get rid of the horrendous grittiness, floated the barrel, and mounted a 3/4"-tubed scope. It turned out to be a fast handling, accurate little gun which he quickly put to good use, making some excellent shots in very challenging (windy) conditions.
Some Thoughts On Equipment - It's normal to think that a beginner doesn't need top notch gear on which to learn how to shoot. My nephew reinforced my belief in the opposite view: the novice is more in need of quality equipment than the experienced shooter. It's hard to learn all the nuances of good shooting when one is fighting with substandard gear, and good quality guns and ammo don't stand in the way of skill development. Regardless of the age of the student, If one is just starting out it's important to buy the best equipment one can afford. It is only after the basics are mastered is one able to rise above his/her equipment, but poor equipment can keep one from truly mastering even the simplest techniques.
-=[ Grant ]=-
|
Still more about testing .22 long rifle ammunition.
A recent email asked about an old article, wherein I talked about the problems with residual lube in a .22 rimfire barrel. Is it really a problem, the email asked, and if so how do I go about eliminating that variable in testing?
Yes, the effects are real. I never believed in the residual lube theory until I saw the results for myself, and to this day I can repeat them at will with that rifle and ammo.
My test protocol now is to use a standard smallbore target, the type with 6 bullseyes on a sheet. The upper left corner is used to fire 25 seasoning rounds, without regard for group size. This both burns off any residual lubricant and allows me to make any sight adjustments to bring the rounds fairly close to center. I then fire a 5-round group at each remaining bullseye, which gives a good average of the groups that ammunition will deliver. If you're counting, that's one single box of ammunition on one sheet of paper.
Rimfire purists will point out that this is not a sufficient number of rounds to really ascertain the true performance of any specific load, and I'll admit that subsequent testing will sometimes show small differences in group size (better or worse) than this. If you're a serious rimfire match shooter, you'll need to fire hundreds of rounds to truly judge what the ammunition will do. Of course, if you are that person you also won't be looking here for advice!
I've found my test procedure to be the easiest, fastest, most reliable method to obtain a decent (field-grade) indicator of relative performance of rimfire ammunition.
-=[ Grant ]=-
More on testing .22 Long Rifle ammunition.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008 Filed in:
Ammunition, Rifles
As I've mentioned from time to time, shooting .22LR "seriously" can be a frustrating experience. It is almost expected that two identical rifles will have very different ammo preferences - and, unlike centerfire cartridges, the differences are often astounding.
For instance, I have one rifle that shoots it's favorite load into an average 5-shot group of .275" at 25 yards (from prone.) However, that same rifle shooting it's least favorite load struggles to maintain 3" at that same distance! What's more, once you find that one load that shoots well in that one gun, the next batch (lot) of that same ammo may not. It will never be as bad as the best to the worst comparison, but the variance can be enough to put the next best (or sometimes the third best) in the top spot - until you change lots again, of course!
Finding the gun's favorite load is strictly a matter of trial and error. It's not usually even a matter of the type of load; for instance, a gun might shoot one particular 36 grain high velocity hollowpoint load very well, but the next maker's similar fodder won't be even close.
Those who are serious about their rimfires, therefore, tend to do a lot of ammunition testing. When I acquire a new .22, I'll run as many as 20 different kinds of ammo through it, keeping careful notes about the results. This takes time, and if not done correctly results in meaningless data!
As you probably know, .22 ammunition is externally lubricated. That is, each bullet has a coating of some kind of lube to keep it from fouling the bore. Each maker uses a different lube, and sometimes they'll use different lubes within their own product line.
The problem is that residual lube from one load can affect the next few rounds using another load. Case in point: some time back I was testing a new rifle with a couple of different loads. I had just finished with Wolf Match Target, and loaded in some much cheaper Federal stuff. The first 5-shot group with the Federal was absolutely astounding - an honest .175" group at 25 yards! I don't know which amazed me more, the rifle or the ammo, but I wanted to do it again!
I loaded another magazine, "assumed the position", and shot another group. This one was slightly larger, which I attributed to me. I repeated the procedure, and this time the group had almost doubled in size. The next one was even worse.
What accounted for that first group? After thinking about it, and reading some information from Steven Boelter
(whose rimfire
experience dwarfs mine), I came to the conclusion that perhaps
there was some residual lubricant from the Wolf ammunition which
was "contaminating" (but in a good way) the Federal load. Testing
my hypothesis was easy: I shot a few magazines of Wolf, then
switched to the Federal. The first group of Federal was, again,
under .200" for 5 shots. The following groups deteriorated rapidly,
just as they had the first time. A repetition of the sequence
duplicated the results. It seemed that the Wolf lubricant affected
the Federal rounds in a good way, but as it was rapidly depleted
from the barrel the groups suffered.From this I adopted the rimfire shooter's testing procedure: when switching loads, first clean the bore (a quick brushing will suffice.) Then, shoot 1 round of the new load for each inch of barrel length to "season" the barrel to the new ammo before firing any groups that will count. This is Boelter's recommendation, and I've found it to be sage advice. Remember: only after the seasoning rounds have been fired do you shoot any for score or analysis.
Those first few rounds may group better, or worse, than the shots following. It doesn't matter, because the groups made after the seasoning process are the ones that tell you what the load really, truly does in that gun.
-=[ Grant ]=-
In praise of the "boy's rifle"
Monday, July 21, 2008 Filed in:
General gun
stuff
When I was a kid (which was not all that long ago - at least I don't remember it being all that long ago) we had "boy's rifles." Today they're known by a more politically correct term, but as Juliet said "That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet."
The boy's rifle was chambered in .22 LR, and was most often a single-shot bolt action - though repeaters were not unheard of. Their wood stocks were sized slightly smaller to fit a teenager's frame (before the days when teenagers were routinely 6' tall and weighed in over 180 lbs), and were slim from butt to forearm. The grip area was smaller in circumference to fit shorter fingers, and the receivers and barrels were similarly proportioned.
Though not normally fitted as nicely as the adult-oriented rifles in their respective lines, they usually shot pretty well. Some, in fact, were downright amazing, especially considering the very simple sights they carried.
People used to larger guns are often astonished when they pick up an old boy's rifle; light weight, quick handling, and superb pointing characteristics are almost foreign concepts today. Unfortunately, those attributes usually lead to snide comments about feeling "like a toy." Were they to actually shoot one - or, better yet, pack one into the field - perhaps their opinions would change. I know mine did!
Like many people, I have a number of "adult" .22 rifles, none of them weighing under 7 lbs. I recently acquired an old Stevens Model 66, which is a bolt action tube fed repeater. At barely 5 lbs, it's definitely a lightweight - but this 70-year-old gun, well worn on the outside but pristine on the inside, is an absolute joy to shoot.
The best word I can use is "handy". It's the kind of gun that carries unobtrusively on the shoulder, yet springs immediately to eye level when needed. It makes my "grown up" .22 rifles seem ungainly by comparison.
Give one a try. You may just get hooked - and wasn't that the whole idea behind the boy's rifle to begin with?
-=[ Grant ]=-
On scope magnification
Wednesday, July 02, 2008 Filed in:
General gun
stuff, Rifles
Moving back to the farm as I recently did has changed my shooting habits. I'm shooting a larger amount of rimfire rifle lately, not just for fun but also predator/pest control.
For all the years I lived in suburbia (which is a Kafkaesque purgatory for a simple, ignorant country boy like me) I did all of my shooting at the gun club. When I shot rimfire there I invariably took the only scoped .22 rifle in my inventory, forsaking the other iron-sighted rimfires in the safe.
Out here, where the rimfire rifle is a constant companion, the scoped rifle is too awkward to constantly carry around. The open sighted rifles are slimmer, lighter, and less delicate, which means that I'm using them more and more often.
Shooting virtually all open sights has resulted in an interesting revelation: the less magnification I have, the better I shoot.
For years I shot long range rifles with higher magnification scopes. The last centerfire I built - a marvelous 6.5-284 screamer - got topped with a relatively low power 2.5x-10x variable scope, which I've found completely adequate all the way out to 800 yards. Friends shooting at that same range would use 16x or 20x optics, and wondered why I chose the "small" magnification. Even at that time I recognized that the 10x was enough; I just didn't need any more.
As to the rimfires, my scoped rifle carries a straight 4x optic. As I shoot more with iron sights, I find that even this modest magnification is more than I really need, especially from field positions. Even at 4x, movement is sufficiently magnified that my mind starts to play the game that is the bane of precision shooters everywhere: "hurry, the crosshairs are right on target! Pull the trigger now!"
In the field, I've proven to myself that I can shoot open sights more than accurately enough. There are times, though, when a scope would be handy - differentiating target from background in dappled sunlight, for instance. In those cases I'm dreaming of a nice fixed 2.5x scope - or maybe a 2.5x-5x variable, just in case I need a bit more magnification at some point. (In my heart I know that I won't, but the "I might need that someday!" attitude is part and parcel of being an avid shooter!)
For me, less magnification is definitely the way to go.
-=[ Grant ]=-
On rimfire ammunition and accuracy
Monday, June 16, 2008 Filed in:
Ammunition, General gun
stuff
Serendipity, that's what it is. Last week a consistent topic kept coming up in a variety of places: the necessity (or lack thereof) for "accurate" .22 long rifle ammunition.
"I don't shoot groups, I hunt {insert favorite furry tidbit here}."
"You can't shoot really accurately in the field anyway, so better ammo isn't worth the price."
"The ammo already shoots better than I can, so I just buy whatever is cheapest."
I believe such comments to be shortsighted. First, though, a bit of information for those not intimately familiar with the vast array of rimfire ammunition.
The .22lr is the most popular (by a huge margin) cartridge in the world. It is available in a bewildering number of forms, from the very cheapest to the "ohmigod, I could buy a good steak dinner for that amount of money!" In general, the more accurate the ammo, the more it will cost.
The odd thing, however, is that not every .22 gun (be it rifle or pistol) will necessarily shoot the most expensive ammo into the smallest group. Rimfires are notoriously finicky; you can, quite literally, take two different .22 rifles, of the same model and vintage (and very close to the same serial number) and each will have very different ammunition preferences. Sometimes the most expensive will in fact shoot the best; other times, a less expensive fodder will do the deed.
In terms of consistency, however, the more costly ammunition will win out - it simply won't vary as much from group to group, even if its absolute accuracy isn't as good. In other words, a cheaper ammo may produce a smaller group occasionally, but the more expensive stuff will shoot the same size group all the time. In the aggregate, the more expensive the ammunition, the more likely it will shoot better in any given gun.
There's no guarantee that you'll set records with more costly bullets, but it's a dead certainty that you won't with WallyWorld specials!
Back to the subject at hand...let's say that you have a rifle that at its absolute best is capable of shooting the magic 1 minute-of-angle (MOA) group (which is, for all intents and purposes, 1/2" at 50 yards.) What this means is that the group it shoots with its best ammunition choice will fit into a circle measuring 1/2" in diameter. Clear so far?
Assuming that the actual center of the group is at the actual point of aim, any shot fired will fall a maximum of 1/4" from the point of aim; this is known as 1/4" radial dispersion. If one shot lands at the extreme edge of that dispersion, and the next at the opposite side of that dispersion, the distance between them will be 1/2", which is the group size. See how that works?
Now, let's say that some other ammunition shoots 4 MOA in this rifle (2" at 50 yards.) Any shot that is fired will now land within 1" of the point of aim. That's still not bad; certainly not enough to even get you in the door at an Olympic training village, but enough to nail pop cans off the fence.
Or is it?
A standard 12oz pop can has a diameter of 2.6", or 1.3" on either side of the center. Aiming dead on that center point, with our 4 MOA ammo, means that the worst shot of the bunch only has .3" to spare to knock the can off the fence. In other words, with that ammo your aim and hold has to vary no more than .3" if you expect to hit the can with any given shot!
Will the better ammo give us an edge? You tell me...with 1 MOA ammunition, the expected radial dispersion is .25". That means that any given shot, holding absolutely dead center, now has a margin of error of 1.05". In other words, your aim and hold now has a bit over an inch of leeway to hit with 100% certainty. I'd say that's a significant advantage, wouldn't you?
Shooting is all about being able to trust your skills, but you can't get to trust your skills until you first can trust your equipment. If you practice by popping cans off the fence, how will you know if that miss was because of your skills, or because of your equipment - and is it the ammo, or the gun?
Someone will no doubt be yelling at his (or her) monitor that not every shot will be at the outer edges of the variables. In other words, an ammo that shoots 4 MOA will distribute shots all over that circle; not all of them will be in the center (otherwise it would shoot better than 4 MOA), but likewise not all of them will fall on the edge of that circle. This is true.
The trouble with this line of thinking is that we don't know where any given upcoming shot will fall. We know that it may hit in the center of its expected circle, or it may hit at the edge, or somewhere in between. We don't know where it will hit until it does; if we expect to hit the target with every shot, we have to assume the worst and prepare for it, looking on anything else as a wonderful happenstance.
It's all about probabilities. Let's take our 4 MOA ammo; it's possible that, say, 80% of its shots might fall within a 2 MOA circle. This means that 80% of the time, you have a bit over 1/2" of leeway on that pop can. Put differently, if you can aim and hold within 1/2" of center, you'll hit the can 80% of the time. If you're happy with 80%, great! (Yes, I'm aware that you can increase the hit probability by simply decreasing the distance to the target. If you're going to shoot everything from 20 feet away, you may feel free to use the worst ammo in the worst gun, and never have the need to improve your skills. Everyone wins - sort of.)
Personally, I'm not enamored with those numbers. Look at it from my perspective: I like to hunt small game with my .22 rifles, both for pest control and dinner. I'm an old farm boy who has a close relationship to the animals around him; if an animal is to die by my hand, I require that death to be as humane - quick and painless - as is possible. For me, that means headshots and instant incapacitation. If you eat small game, you know that head shots are necessary simply to maximize the amount of usable meat from the ammo. Squirrels aren't all that big to begin with!
Further, a missed shot is a lost animal; unlike targets and pop cans, they usually don't wait around for you to try again. I want 100% hit probability if I can supply the necessary foundation (sighting and hold.)
A small animal's head often has a kill zone of around 1-1/2" (even less if forced to take a frontal shot.) If I were to use ammunition that only shoots 4 MOA, that would require me to have absolutely zero error in both sighting and hold to make a clean kill at 50 yards. (Actually, it has negative error - meaning that even with perfect performance on my part, I cannot expect the ammo to deliver a clean hit 100% of the time.) At 25 yards, it doesn't get a lot better - my total allowable aim/hold error for a clean kill is a whopping quarter-inch! Can you do that from a field shooting position? Really? Every time?
Switching to the better ammunition gives me a big edge. At 50 yards my self-induced error allowance is now a half inch, and at 25 yards it is almost 3/4". It means that the chances of a successful clean kill are significantly improved by using the better fodder.
Higher quality .22lr ammunition isn't just for benchresters and group junkies. If one is just starting out, it means faster and surer skill development. For the hunter, it means greater yield and more humane treatment of the animal. In my mind, it's worth the price.
The only thing left is to get a whole bunch of different kinds of ammunition and test them all in your gun. You'll learn just how much you'll have to pay to get the accuracy you really need - not the accuracy someone insists you can settle for!
-=[ Grant ]=-
SHOT Show news
First off, you're unlikely
to see this on any other gun blog: I've been privy to the formation
a new organization in the last several months, and sworn to secrecy
until it was officially unveiled at SHOT. Well, my tongue is now
loosened!
The Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network is a membership organization designed to give those who are involved in a self-defense situation the legal resources to survive the inevitable legal aftermath. The Network gives exclusive access to qualified attorneys and court-recognized experts in the field of self defense, as well as up-to-date education materials in the legal use of force, free case review from nationally respected use-of-force experts, and special discounts on classes by member trainers. This is an idea whose time has come, and I'm proud to bring the news to you!
Smith & Wesson announced several new revolvers, Scandium-framed "carry guns" in .357, .44 Special, and .45ACP. I'm not all that enthused about these lightweight guns - frankly, they hurt to shoot and I'm wary of the self-engaging locks - but apparently I'm alone in my assessment, as S&W seems to sell all they can make. What's interesting about these entries to the field are the new fast acquisition sights: a tritium "Big Dot" style front paired with a new u-channel rear sight.
Courtesy of Call Me Ahab
Note the rather crude, unfinished appearance - one hopes that the production versions will be cleaner:
Courtesy of Gunblast.com
The 5mm Remington Magnum rimfire was a neat round that didn't deserve to die. Introduced back in the '80s, it was discontinued just a few years later in the wake of underwhelming sales. Aguila has decided to reintroduce the round, and Taurus is chambering their Tracker series in the "new/old" cartridge.
I've spoken about Ruger's new blood, and it is in evidence at SHOT this year. They've introduced a new polymer .380 pocket pistol (bearing more than a passing resemblance to the Kel-Tec .380), which is a radical departure for the staid maker. I'm hoping - really, REALLY hoping - that their revolver line will see some new introductions soon. (Chant with me: ".44 Special GP100....44 Special GP100....44 Special GP100..." Maybe they'll get the collective vibe!)
Finally, though not specifically my thing, USFA has introduced their replica of the large-frame Forehand & Wadsworth single-action revolver. This is an instance where the reproduction will no doubt be of higher quality than the original! USFA has been steadily expanding their range of top-quality guns, and I think they are our best hope to introduce a real, high-quality American double-action revolver. How about it, USFA - give us a Python. Or a Diamondback. Or a Registered Magnum. Cowboy shooters aren't the only people with money, you know!
-=[ Grant ]=-
The Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network is a membership organization designed to give those who are involved in a self-defense situation the legal resources to survive the inevitable legal aftermath. The Network gives exclusive access to qualified attorneys and court-recognized experts in the field of self defense, as well as up-to-date education materials in the legal use of force, free case review from nationally respected use-of-force experts, and special discounts on classes by member trainers. This is an idea whose time has come, and I'm proud to bring the news to you!
Smith & Wesson announced several new revolvers, Scandium-framed "carry guns" in .357, .44 Special, and .45ACP. I'm not all that enthused about these lightweight guns - frankly, they hurt to shoot and I'm wary of the self-engaging locks - but apparently I'm alone in my assessment, as S&W seems to sell all they can make. What's interesting about these entries to the field are the new fast acquisition sights: a tritium "Big Dot" style front paired with a new u-channel rear sight.
Courtesy of Call Me Ahab
Note the rather crude, unfinished appearance - one hopes that the production versions will be cleaner:
Courtesy of Gunblast.com
The 5mm Remington Magnum rimfire was a neat round that didn't deserve to die. Introduced back in the '80s, it was discontinued just a few years later in the wake of underwhelming sales. Aguila has decided to reintroduce the round, and Taurus is chambering their Tracker series in the "new/old" cartridge.
I've spoken about Ruger's new blood, and it is in evidence at SHOT this year. They've introduced a new polymer .380 pocket pistol (bearing more than a passing resemblance to the Kel-Tec .380), which is a radical departure for the staid maker. I'm hoping - really, REALLY hoping - that their revolver line will see some new introductions soon. (Chant with me: ".44 Special GP100....44 Special GP100....44 Special GP100..." Maybe they'll get the collective vibe!)
Finally, though not specifically my thing, USFA has introduced their replica of the large-frame Forehand & Wadsworth single-action revolver. This is an instance where the reproduction will no doubt be of higher quality than the original! USFA has been steadily expanding their range of top-quality guns, and I think they are our best hope to introduce a real, high-quality American double-action revolver. How about it, USFA - give us a Python. Or a Diamondback. Or a Registered Magnum. Cowboy shooters aren't the only people with money, you know!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Follow
me!
You're reading...
The Revolver Liberation Alliance!
The blog about revolvers, training, self-defense, and shooting in general (along with an occasional surprise!)
You're reading...
The Revolver Liberation Alliance!
The blog about revolvers, training, self-defense, and shooting in general (along with an occasional surprise!)
Accessories
Ammunition
Blog stuff
Competition
Completely irrelevant
Current Events
Friday Surprise!
General gun stuff
Gunsmithing
History
Humor
Hunting
Legal Issues
My Life
Personal opinions
Political Action
Recent work
Reloading
Revolvers
Rifles
Second Amendment
Self defense
Shooting industry
Shotguns
Techniques & Training
Technology
Things I like
What's New!
Ammunition
Blog stuff
Competition
Completely irrelevant
Current Events
Friday Surprise!
General gun stuff
Gunsmithing
History
Humor
Hunting
Legal Issues
My Life
Personal opinions
Political Action
Recent work
Reloading
Revolvers
Rifles
Second Amendment
Self defense
Shooting industry
Shotguns
Techniques & Training
Technology
Things I like
What's New!
- .38
- .357
- abandoned
- accuracy
- afgwwwtra
- apps
- ar15
- armed.citizens.network
- attacks
- autoloaders
- awareness
- bloggers
- books
- ccw
- colt
- combat.focus
- computers
- dammit
- design
- dogma
- ed.harris
- failures
- flashlights
- futility
- georges.rahbani
- good.pr
- gp100
- grips
- gun.skool
- gunshows
- gunstore.goons
- holsters
- i.told.you.so
- incredible
- jazz
- kaboom
- knives
- legal.stuff
- lever.actions
- lubrication
- magic.bullets
- maintenance
- massad.ayoob
- msm
- music
- my.bad
- mythbusting
- nasa
- nra
- old.technology
- optics
- oregon
- pdn
- personal.defense.network
- photography
- practice
- preppers
- proarms
- prohibitionists
- reliability
- rhino.revolver
- rimfire
- rob.pincus
- ruger
- s&w
- safety
- shot.show
- sights
- snake.oil
- snubby
- sources
- speedloaders
- stopping.power
- stupid.people
- tacticool
- tactics
- thats.odd
- turncoats
- ugly
- uscca
- vintage
- waiting.list
- women