Skip to comments.The Hobbit Hole XXXVIII - There and Back Again!
Posted on 09/23/2009 6:19:16 AM PDT by HairOfTheDog
Welcome to The Hobbit Hole!
Coincidentally, Andrew's f-i-l is Orson Bean, who voiced Bilbo Baggins in that delightful animated version of "The Hobbit", that we all love so well! ;o)
Loved the dwarf sitting on the mountain saying "There's a helicopter back there, in'it", then his hair getting blown back as it passes him. LOL!
No funkle for you.
You’re right, of course. In the book, Bilbo closed the barrels so the wood-elves would throw them into the river.
I want to know who’s playing Thranduil (Legolas’ dad), and whether he’ll sound at all like Otto Preminger.
According to TheOneRing.net it’s Lee Pace.
This week, i fired 25 rounds each of Remington, Winchester, and CCI subsonic ammo. Here are the results, with the Winchester and CCI being fired for the first time.
From left to right, Remington, Winchester, and CCI. I apologize for the sloppy shooting, but I had taken off the Docter sight, and did not reinstall it carefully enough. That has been rectified.
The Remington again functioned perfectly, as did the CCI. The Winchester appears to have a problem with bullet shape that produces a lot of failure-to-feed in this Ruger. Afterwards (of course) I read the box, and the Winchester ammo is listed as "truncated cone", which is also why it wouldn't work properly in the McFadden mag loader. Accuracy is good, but I had to manually feed every round.
I'm having a hard time deciding which shoots better, the Remington or the CCI, so far. Of course, it is likely both brands are already exceeding my modest ability. Meanwhile, the Winchester seems to be too pooped to pop, but I said that about other brands that now run themselves through the weapon without a hitch.
This week, I'll be trying Fiocchi, RWS (again), Aquila, and more Remington, as a control. Also, while this CCI subsonic was a bit of a problem in the loader (I tweaked the adjustments, the loader is also sensitive to bullet shape), I also have a brick of "CCI subsonic hunting" ammo that has a more normal bullet shape, and is copper plated rather than lubed. I expect no problems with it.
And, more boxes of generic .22s for the Ruger SR22 to continue working it in. And I must confess that I'm starting to think of some version of the myriad Ruger 10/22s out that that can provide a good base for later suppression, with a barrel that's already threaded. I just couldn't bring myself to have the barrel on my CZ453 threaded, despite it's exquisite accuracy. Not when so many pros and citizens make the 10/22 the start for suppressed .22 rifles.
I have turned crap cheap .22 plinking ammo into very reliable fodder using a paco kelly set of tools. A must have. You would benefit by having such in your toolbox buddy....
I think brownells an midway carry these....
Good work. I have a old mk one ruger that was finicky about ammo an cured it without expensive ely or such for popping pot meat an paper. Paco Kelly is a smart sort an his product reflects such.
Well made an simple.
Stay Safe !
Thank you very much for the heads up and the link.
Evening Win-Mag; shooting testing, cool. Looks to me like the CCI is a smidge better, based on your groups. The remington shot better than I expected. Haven’t shot enough recent Winchester to comment. Every gun seems to be a prefer one brand over another according to ‘range-experts’ I’ve talked with, a lot of variables to consider. You’ve done a great job with your testing and documentation. Kudos.
Sixteen-inch .925 bull barrel, with target chamber and bore specs, beech sporter-type stock, and a clone of a Harris bipod. I temporarily liberated a scope from another rifle. Street price of $400 (less scope) was $100 less than deluxe models with 18" stainless barrels, and a more "target-type" laminated stock.
The stock will be the first thing to go, replaced by a Bell & Carlson Kevlar target/tactical stock optimized for firing from a rest. I also ordered a bunch of minor parts (extended bolt handle, oversized safety, plastic bolt buffer, etc.) that would be classified as a "comfort and convenience package" on a new car.
This will let me work out baseline accuracy without grinding my teeth a lot. The most important changes will come towards the end of the program, when I pick the scope that's most appropriate, and the proper bull barrel threaded for a suppressor, and with a 1-in-9 twist to handle the really heavy Aquila 60gr bullets. People who have already reached that destination say the Ruger is then capable of popping small varmints out to 300 yards, a worthy objective.
After applying a break-in treatment of Nanolube on the trigger mechanism, I found their "special target trigger" produced a remarkably consistent 5lb, 10oz pull. While a pull that weight is good for a plinker, I will feel better if I can cut it down at least by half along the way.
If you're a Ruger lawyer, I was just kidding about all that stuff. I read and follow every work in the manual, 90% of it outlined in red, warning of all the dire consequences of violating the other 10% of the manual devoted to operating the weapon.
With luck, tomorrow I'll be able to try out some standard, target, and subsonic brands as the break-in process starts.
Excellent ... Doing same thing with regards to 4 more with the kenyan socialist whore .
Going to build up a 300AAC with intergal suppressor. Texas just passed a new rule to allow use of suppressors for hunting . They allowed such for varmint for a long time now it will be ok for deer etc...
Looking to build a .308 rem 700. The dalibama or mitt the twit will ban ebrs .... Investments an buying from gun runners is key project for 2012.
Here's 50 rounds of CCI subsonic. I really need to rezero that sight. Anyway, all eight brands of subsonic ammo I have now function flawlessly, except for the ones with "weird" bullet noses. Even the RWS that gave 100% failure-to-feed the first time out.
I simply cannot see why Ruger owners whine about making subsonic ammo work. It's a no-brainer. Buy $300 worth of aftermarket parts, spend 40 hours hand-fitting each part to each other with a diamond-bearing lubricant as a hone, and you're done. Just add a little bit of skill, and a lot of patience, and you have a really nice, accurate, reliable handgun capable of working well with a suppressor.
It's either a labor of love, or you have to be completely crazy, since you'd have to value your time at $50/hour, minimum.
And, it looks like Ruger is requesting another labor of love out of me. At top is 50 rounds of ordinary Winchester .22. No big deal, except I didn't consider this exceptional from a scoped "target rifle" at 25 yards.
I know it's that "target trigger" designed by their lawyers. But with no feedback that the trigger is working, that 5lb, 10oz pull doesn't surprise you when it goes off, it just about scares you. Squeeze, squeeze, squeeze, .... (is there a round in the chamber? did something break internally?), BANG! just doesn't cut it for me, even for a plinker.
My M-faux with the GI trigger was tuned for the standard length of first-stage takeup, but with all the grit and stiffness gone. You know the mechanism is working, and the takeup is slick and effortless. Then you feel the trigger resist, and know that you are three pounds away from a crisp, clean, drama-free break. A great system for an amateur, perfectly acceptable for an expert, however.
A lot of Ruger 10/22 owners must have much the same kind of opinions, because there are tons of replacement internal parts including springs and shims. For me, shims are a red light warning me away from that approach.
Fortunately, 100% factory-tuned complete target replacement trigger modules are available, and, surprisingly, cost less than buying every single blasted individual part and doing it yourself. The Volquartsen trigger is on order, and that should be the only accuracy item I still need. Then just a good varmint scope (sales come by all the time), and the type of target barrel I really want, which will probably cost more than the original rifle. That last step can wait until I get a real can in my hands.
Oh, and that stick-on orange target was ten rounds of Remington subsonic. I was so aggravated by then, I didn't feel like sticking around at the range. The good news, it handled every round without trouble, even if not as accurately as I would have liked for one of Ruger's "premium plinkers".
Next project includes finishing the rest of the accuracy (trigger) work on the 10/22, and then using it to test subsonic ammo, again. Also, testing accuracy with the "Paco tools" that Squantos mentioned. Having a rifle that has gone through my wringer gives me confidence that I have eliminated a lot of hidden variables, and the test results will be more conclusive.
Damn fine project 300.....:o)
Afternoon Win Mag - excellent tuning and testing. The 10-22 is a great platform for you to work your magic with. Most of us continue to labor with stock-as-a-rock weaponry. The 10-22 bull barrel with suitable optics and a carton of .22s makes for one fun afternoon. I’ve heard good things about the 25 round ruger magazine but haven’t tried it myself. Others swear by butler creek. I stick with 10 rounder’s myownself. Good tuning and shooting.
I've come to realize this is not "magic" for me, it's a survival mechanism I've developed after 40+ years of working with computer hardware and software, most of it "bleeding edge". If you don't "sweat the small stuff", you sometimes wake up with the cold sweats at night. The great volume of Murphy's Law(s) says, "nature sides with the hidden flaw".
The B&C stock arrived, and looks great, but they loaded up the inner surfaces with the same textured paint they used on the exterior. For my own peace of mind, I'll remove that interior paint so I know things are bottoming out on the bare gelcoat. Then a careful check on bedding. Common to all 10/22s, everything depends on the single action screw, and two bedding pads in the barrel channel.
Still, the new stock does create a new image for the Ruger, one that seems a bit more "businesslike".
The final scope can be mounted even lower than what's slapped on there now. The high, straight comb, and "hook" for the non-firing hand makes it even easier to handle with a beanbag or bipod in front. Shooting ergonomics just took a giant step forward, at least for my tastes.
Other than that, I spent about two hours removing that speckle coating from the inside of the stock. Everything seems to "bottom out" more solidly, and now the magazine again drops free when the mag release is pushed. This really is a "drop-in" product, as long as you don't mind spending a couple of pleasant hours looking things over, and making sure everything feels right. Honestly, for what these stocks cost, you'd think they would stick a molded dummy barreled action into the stock before spraying that paint. Well, at least it beats the factory beech stock, which has lots of raw wood surfaces inside, and can warp or compress.
As of now, the complete unloaded rifle, minus bipod, weighs 8lb, 3oz. With the original stock, the rifle was distinctly muzzle heavy, even without the bipod. Now the balance point is at the middle of the magazine well, which is a good place for starters.
New stock, new trigger, and it feels like a new weapon. Now for another trip to the range, where I expect to shoot it much better than the first time out. I have enough confidence, even though there are several minor parts still en route, that I'll try out a new brand of subsonic ammo, some Ely match, and standard Federal ammo.
Evening Win Mag - your project rifle is really coming along nicely - Volquartsen trigger mmm, nice addition. I think you’ll really enjoy that rifle. .22 rimfires are fun guns.
I think everyone should own at least one .22 rifle. The Ruger 10/22 seems to be "America's rimfire", at least as far as customizing and flexibility goes. My 10/22 will be my "go to" EBR (Evil Black Rimfire) while my others will be promoted to "safe queens" and "princesses". Lately, my attitude towards any of my guns with good walnut on them seems to have changed to "look, but don't use". I always am amazed at the quality of walnut used has gone downhill for decades, and is slowly dying out except for the super-high end. Beech is just too sorry to even comment about. For a "using" weapon, give me quality synthetics over cheap wood any day.
And I noticed another "precision" item about the Ruger 10/22 Target-Varmint. The manual says it has a chamber that is closer to accepted match specs. Running a well-worn Hoppe's bore snake through it, I can feel more resistance going through the barrel than on other of my .22s. I'm just grateful for the invention of the bore snake, because I can easily clean from the breech, rather than risk cleaning from the muzzle.
Of course, some 10/22 target purists have a hole drilled in the back of the receiver (not seen when in the stock) so a cleaning rod can be run through when the bolt is removed.
And I have to admit that I've cast covetous eyes on the 10/22 model in stainless steel with the full-length walnut stock. I know it couldn't compete with my current EBR, but it sure is pretty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.