You might have at least kept us abreast of what they were...Originally Posted by Spartan1980
You might have at least kept us abreast of what they were...
There's nothing civil about this war.
Hunters don't shoot and shooters don't hunt.
Folks,
"Works until it gets dirty." "Works with X ammo, but not bulk pack."
Are just euphemisms for, "Is not 100% reliable."
I've not yet met a .22LR semi-auto that was 100% reliable. I'm talking, can make it through a 2000 rounds test with whatever you buy off the shelf at Academy ammo. A gun that works with X ammo but not Y, doesn't work properly. A gun that works until it gets really dirty and really dirty is 500-1000 rounds in, doesn't work properly.
My "finicky" "unreliable" "maintenance intensive" 1911 can go 2000 rounds without cleaning, why can't my Smith 22A not? Answer; because .22LR semi-autos are inherently marginal in their reliability. Part of that is due to the widely variable tolerances in ammunition available, part of it is due to manufacturers not really sitting down and thinking about how to get the gun to be super reliable even with shitty ammo. They go for low manufacturing costs, because very few people will spend $1000+ on a .22LR pistol. I get that. One way to radically improve reliability in .22LR pistols is to tune the recoil spring for the ammo. Another is to get the extractor right. Finally, you have to get the magazine right - Let's hope Glock does that, by sending extra recoil spring assemblies, having a robust extraction system, and a well designed magazine.
It doesn't bode well though, here is an excerpt from the TheFirearmBlog story (emphasis mine):
From my unscientific testing with thousands of rounds through two G44s in nearly three month period, GLOCK has mastered the rimfire compact pistol. It cycles subsonic, standard and high velocity rounds equally well. Yes, I had failures to feed, extract and fire – the overwhelming majority of which occurred with one specific brand, style and lot of .22LR. Due to NDA limitations, I have not addressed the issues with the ammunition manufacturer directly.
A few of my observed cycling issues were related to the way the rounds sit in the G44 magazine. You should follow the examples in your owner’s manual (I didn’t have one to go by at the time) but the short story is that the top round should lay flat on the round below it.
Hunting is not an easy proposition in many locales. The increasing urban/rural displacement answers why many don't hunt. For me, I had a friend with private land, so we could do there, stay at his place and wander to a blind in the morning. If you didn't have that opportunity in TX, it's hard to hunt.
As far as rimfire, most of my enthusiast buddies have them. Lots of 10/22s, AR style long arms - I had 4 rimfire revolvers at times and 2 semis. The latter handguns moved in and out depending on things.
I might be interested but I have a lot of Buckmark accessories, if I get back into such. I did like it for steel.
The guy who taught me how to shoot handguns was an Israeli relative stationed in the US. He carried a Beretta Model 70 in .22LR. I never saw it have a failure of any kind.
https://www.tactical-life.com/firear...mossad-22-lrs/
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
Are the 70s more reliable than the 21s? I only have anecdotal experience with the 21s and that one was a jammer. The 70s being a bigger gun - that make it more reliable? My Buckmark, being a big old steel gun, was pretty reliable.
I want to hunt deer or pigs but don’t know anyone who will go with me and show me how to do it right.
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
My problem is I run a lot of crap through mine. If I were more discerning about ammo, it would probably go much longer between cleanings. I also run a can about half the time, which I'm sure contributes to the filth.
As for the Glock, fitting in Glock holsters and handling more or less like a Glock is exactly why I would buy one. Not that I'm a fanboy (only have one Glock), but it would give me yet another avenue for training.
Chris
I'm a gun nut, shooter, and hunter. I own two rimfire guns and would own more if I had time to enjoy more guns. Most of my shooting buddies fall into the same camp.
Chris
Model 71 is among the most reliable .22s ever built.
It has a really good extractor and the slide weight is near perfect for excellent reliability with standard and high velocity ammo. Lots of high velocity will result in a need to change the recoil spring sooner. They don't cycle subsonic for shit with the standard recoil spring, a lighter recoil spring will make them function fine with subsonic, but makes it more marginal with high velocity. I always assumed the Mossad guys used standard velocity ammo all the time, of if they used subsonics with cans they used a lighter spring. IMI makes pretty decent ammo, in addition to decent guns, so I'm sure they could have their pick.
The feed-angle in a Model 70/71 presents the bullet for a near direct shot into the chamber. The feed ramp is almost superflous on the gun. The magazine is very robust, has long'ish feed lips, to not release the cartridge too soon and does not allow the rounds to be stacked in a way that results in rimlock or interference between the top round and the round below it.
All in all, an extremely good handgun design.
A good extraction system and good feed angle will make a .22 run extremely well, good magazine springs and recoil springs will solve most issues. Dual firing pins with plenty of hammer spring tend to make the gun go BANG with authority. Shit ammo may still crop up, but that and not being sprung properly for either subsonics or high velocity will be your sources of problems.
Let me put it this way; I hope Glock has it right and builds the most reliable .22LR handgun ever built. However, I doubt very much it will accomplish that task.
Reply With Quote
