Mine worked great with Aguila Super Extra, which is a little less expensive, but not massively so. Of the two you listed, I'd get the mini-mags over the Federal.Originally Posted by RJ
Mine worked great with Aguila Super Extra, which is a little less expensive, but not massively so. Of the two you listed, I'd get the mini-mags over the Federal.
N=1, but I had some feeding and misfiring problems with the Federal Champion. The CCI Mini Mags have pretty much performed very well. Actually, I was trying various CCI super and sub offerings in my .22 target rifle, then tried them in my 22/45, and they all ran OK, even the subsonic puff loads.
I've also had good luck in the Ruger .22 with Aguila Super Extra in bulk packs (500 rounds dumped in a box). Works fine, and is plenty accurate at 25 yds (longest distance of nearby indoor range I frequent).
[And I see psalms 144.1 beat me to the same conclusion . . . great minds)
You guys rock. Thank you.
I hope so!
Well, may be so, but it doesn't need to stay that way....
Seriously, that is a concern, but I have considered getting the 5.5' and seeing what it might be like at about 4". Or 3.5". Or...
Wonder how well those Brownells crowning tools work...
IMO start with Mini Mags, if all is well get more, then experiment with cheaper alternatives.
For ammo, start with CCI Standard Velocity. Any decent .22 rimfire should run that ammo just fine. I have broken in two Ruger Standard pistols refinished with Cerakote with CCI SV with no issues.
I usually buy .22LR by the brick, or sometimes bulk box.
Both of those should run your new Ruger. If you want max accuracy, you will probably end up with somehing else that costs more, but those will work great and be accurate.
My first gun of any description was a Ruger MKII Standard, 4.75” tapered barrel with fixed sights. We still have it after 30 years, and it has taught many how to shoot. It has fired truckloads of ammo, with very rare malfunctions (usually ammo related). I wore out a recoil spring assembly, and it probably could stand a new extractor, but it still runs and is very, very accurate. So much so that while I have and enjoy a G44, I would never choose it over the Ruger (or S&W M18 revolver) if I actually needed to hit a small target (like braining a rabbit or squirrel, or a 1” dot). I’ll have a pic of it tomorrow with a new MKII sibling I’m picking up.
That sure doesnt match my sample. 5 shot groups under 1" at 25 yards and 7" at 100. Prone with makeshift sandbags. That is as good as I can shoot any handgun, mechanically it might be capable of even more.
Super reliable with almost any 22lr ammo, except some SV stuff that is loaded too light.
By contrast my 92 conversion needs an 18# hammer spring to run reliably, which really reduces its training usefulness. It also cant mount a dot, whereas the 22/45 is very easy to mount a dot.
I use the Maddmacs center RDS mount, its very good. The stock rail sucks, too high. ive seen at least one other option that looks nicer than the Maddmacs.
The biggest downside to this gun as a trainer is the balance is very different from any of my "real" guns. Very top heavy. The safety is also crap compared to a 1911 safety, but its fine for training. The trigger is not a 1911 trigger, but I think its just fine. I did get an aftermarket flat trigger shoe and some minor internal upgrades.
Haven;t read the entire thread, just tried to buy one and they said it must ship to an FFL. What's up with that?
Adding nothing to the conversation since 2015....
The upper is serialized, not the frame.
Reply With Quote
