First, the replacement of a generic buffer tube on my M4E(economy) did not produce a noticeable change in accuracy, one way or another. This is good news, because it means I won't have to replace all the other buffer tubes on mine and my friend's. However, on the slim (yeah, right) chance I ever build another, I'll use another PWS buffer tube because I like its features, rigidity, and the fact that a special spanner is not needed.
I also used the rifle to try out the new Magpul MS3 tactical sling. There are some great $100 slings out there, while this is a great $45 sling, especially when used with the right hardware. It can switch between one-point and two-point use in seconds, and has a strong, reliable clamping system.
The big loop at the bottom of the picture is sewn in place, and is the handle for shortening or lengthening the sling. A closer view shows a few more details.
The swivel has a narrow-jaw clamp on the end that locks to a swivel or loop. In this case, the front has a Magpul fixed semicircular loop, while the back has a GG&G triangular loop, rather than a traditional oval that would be used to run the sling strap through. To convert to single-point carry, just unclamp the front clamp, and connect it to the big D-shaped loop next to the bottom of the pistol grip.
With this type of sling, the traditional oval loops really aren't needed, because you're connecting to a narrow clamp, rather than having a loop of strap material passing through the oval, so something more adaptable to a clamp should work better. Your mileage may vary.
My new project is to get the Ruger 22/45 ready to reliably function with subsonic ammo, while I'm waiting for the suppressor that might some day arrive. The first thing I've learned is that getting a .22 pistol to work reliably with subsonic ammo is hardly a trivial task. In fact, a lot of can-owners just say, "bag it", and shoot high-velocity .22s just to make sure things work right. This is far less of a problem with a suppressed rifle like the Ruger 10/22, although even it needs tweaking for subsonics. For the purist, nothing is a big deal if you stick to a bolt action .22.
In doing my research, I already picked up one handy, money-saving tip. Even if you don't have a suppressor, the subsonic .22 ammunition out there may shoot even better than the more expensive .22 match ammo on the market. It turns out that in rifles, the match ammo starts out supersonic, but then drops below sonic speeds. The bullet is buffeted by the shock wave as it slows down and the shock wave goes ahead of it. With subsonic ammo, there never was a sonic shock wave to begin with, so it may shoot better at a cheaper price. Another accuracy enhancer on a .22 target rifle is an efficient suppressor or flash hider. Both divert or delay a lot of the turbulent hot gases behind the bullet that can adversely affect its flight.
The first step in my research is to test all of the subsonic ammo I can get my hands on. Here's my test subjects so far, with four or five more bricks of other brands still on back order. What doesn't work well in a handgun will still find good use in a rifle.
I also learned that "old school" .22 plinkers make the best suppressed pistols. The Ruger is definitely "old school", even in its present incarnation. A number of people said the Beretta 87 Cheetah makes the best, and sexiest, suppressed .22. If you're going "old school", this is the absolute classic.
Just two problems with that: The model 87 is almost impossible to find (probably because it will soon be phased out as too expensive to make in today's world), and the longer target barrel is absolutely impossible to find.
Well, I bought that Beretta Cheetah last year on a whim. Maybe it was more than a whim, because I've never seen another new one in any of the stores I've been in since then. Aaaaand, I stumbled on one of those "impossible" long barrels. At the price they were asking, I could see why they're going the way of the dinosaur.
Still, with one half of the project already on hand, and money the only obstacle for the other main component, I figured a barrel in the hand was better than none in some future bush. I still have to send the barrel in to a company that does a nice job of cutting it down, and threading it for the now-standard 1/2x28 thread. Here's the Cheetah out for its first try with the "target" barrel.
I got 100% failure-to-feed from the Remington subsonic ammo in the long barrel, but 100% success in the original barrel. Back home, I noticed the feed ramps differ on the two barrels, and I'll have to make some careful adjustments to the long barrel. I'm sure there was once a caveat that went with the target barrel that said "minor gunsmith fitting may be needed".
I also learned something else. With just the short barrel in the Beretta, I had about 50% failure-to-feed with the RWS subsonic, but none with the Remington. This has convinced me that the Remington has a bit more "poke" than the RWS. So for now, my baseline test ammo will be the Remington. Until the pistol works reliably with Remington subsonic, I won't even try the other brands on it. That's one variable that has been pinned down for the duration of this project.
The other test procedure will be to slam lots of standard ammo through these handguns, just to assist in the break-in procedure. These 36-38 grain subsonic rounds exist on the ragged edge of the reliability envelope. I think the ammunition manufacturers thought they were doing us a favor by using lighter bullets with just enough propellant to get them out the barrel. While that certainly makes for less hot gases to be handled by a suppressor, handguns start getting cranky about it, as do autoloading rifles. The entire suppressed world does not, any longer, revolve around bolt action rifles, as nice as they are. So every handgun on my list of "possibles" will undergo some form of tune-up, break-in, and lighten-up regime. The first will be the Ruger 22/45, which has a bunch of exotic, and pricey, parts on the way. Ruger may consider putting a threaded barrel on the pistol all that is needed to make it "suppressor ready", but I'm betting an added 75% of the cost of another Ruger that I need a lot more effort, and money, to do the job to my satisfaction.
And for the icing on the cake this week, while I was waiting for a spot on the range, I looked down in the case, and saw the new Ruger SR22b, announced last week, just sitting there. I had read a couple of positive reviews, so I asked to look at it.
I was weighing in my mind whether to buy one some day when I remember that I had a $406 Beretta barrel in my shooting case, and it cost more than the entire new Ruger. So I told myself I wasn't kidding anybody, and laid out my freshly-recharged plastic right on the spot. Here it is, starting out its career with subsonic ammo, which is all I had on me.
The first results aren't pretty, but they are informative. The RWS ammo had 50% failure-to-feed, while the Remington was 100% reliable. More confirmation that the Remington just has more energy to work with.
The SR22b feels good, and shoots well (at least once I get better with it), but it doesn't have that "old school" charm and craftsmanship that Walther, Beretta, and some of the others had, both in "plinker" and "serious" pistol categories. Still, there are new benefits, like customizable gripping surfaces to fit it better to a particular hand.
Now all I have to do is wait for the Ruger store to start offering the threaded barrel mentioned in the manual, and I'll have a fourth candidate for my "suppressor basic training" camp. Plenty of little details to chase down, along with ammo qualification, to keep me busy this winter. If and when I actually get that suppressor, all I'll have to do is screw it on, and enjoy myself. All of the piddly detail work (although I don't consider reliability to be "piddly") will have already been done.
When all of that seems to be getting old, I'll either start out researching a can for my .45 handguns, or have my head examined, which ever is cheaper. :)