Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters .22 RF alternatives

Ed, short version: 15" square on the face, and 5' long. It is made from luan scrap and 3/4x1.5" pine scrap for the frame. 5 interior baffles spaced 6"X6"X12/12/12", beginning at the shooter's end. Couple of cross pads on each end. The interior was lined with 1" sheet foam w/ foil surface, but there might be other products that work better. Other than noise reduction, cleaning up the scrap was a consideration with the project. It weighs about 20 pounds, maybe a little bit more. Glue and a brad nailer to assemble except the top is secured with screws for purposes of maintenance.

It works. So would Mr. V's.

Thanks to all who have made this a very interesting and informative thread. I have no contributions to make but truly enjoy learning from y'all.

thanks GRF

Thanks, Dan.
IIRC, Mr. V's was also built to be able to shoot from the warmth of his "shooting house" during those chilly Montana winters and cut down on the muzzle blast from such small bores as .45-70, .45-110, .50-70, etc.

Ed

Don't feel alone! I learn something everyday on here.

If you're not learning, you're dying!

Ed

If one was needing some lino or babbit to make some tougher projo's,it could be sent.

Gather 'round lads, the show goes on!

Loaded up the next batch and will be shooting tomorrow. There have been some new developments....good ones!

Ran out of the last of my WW SRP stash and moving into the realm of CCI. Don't know what influence that will have, but if it doesn't show promise the Federal supply will get tapped, maybe even some match primers. Gut feeling is I'll like the response, if for no other reason than groups shrank a lot for the Sneezer when that change was made. Reason for the drill is to gather some more data, 5 shots per gives a better set in my opinion. Will be on the 20 yard line for this round.

So here they are. The oddball is the odd man out and guinea pig for a 1.0 grain charge of Bullseye.:



I have a friend who recently acquired a lathe and mill. He is a rookie, but quite enthused with the equipment and the .22 GTC project. He wanted to make a size die. His third attempt works quite well as a taper crimp die and may Zeus bless him for his energy! It may work as a size die for all I know, but I've not needed to pursue that at present. Just a kiss is all it takes, no contact on the bullet and they are one with the brass. Zounds!

Such things provided an avenue to explore something else considered from the beginning........



And........



The round fed normally from the magazine and the picture above was taken during extraction. No hiccups, burps or other complaints. Well, maybe one, the damn ol' 10/22 does not have a CF bolt.

I'm doomed.

Yet.

And yes, you're doomed. Doomed to fame and fortune!

Ed

Not to pick nits, I would prefer that Gramp's 513S had a CF bolt instead of the 10/22.

Well, Round 5 went down today and here is the report.

I am better informed today than yesterday.

Sunny and clear this morning, mid 70's and light variable wind.

I set about affairs in the normal fashion with hopes of gathering a better data set using 5 shots for each load, and in part I was rewarded.

Data is served before the target picture and please note that all shots were at 20 yards.

Two black crosses at the top of the target used to verify zero, done today with both Norma TAC and Wolf MT, 5 shots each left to right in order.

Norma grouped .445" with the single flyer. The flyer is the first shot from a clean barrel.
Avg. 1060 fps, ES 33, SD 13

Wolf apparently not to be outdone, grouped .091" for the string. My Contender is infatuated with that stuff.
Avg. 1069 fps, ES 21, SD 8

.9 Bullseye: .701" Avg. 965, ES 18, SD 7 The flyer was the third shot.
.9 Red Dot: .742" Avg. 1048, ES 75, SD 27. The flyer was the last shot which registered 1004 fps. It was one of three cartridges which I was unable to crimp sufficiently to preclude the bullet turning in the case with minor effort. Due to the taper crimp installed on all cartridges most would not turn.
.8 700X: .457" Avg 919 fps, ES 76, SD 28. Two cases in this string had bullets that could be turned with minor effort and had velocities of 914 and 876 respectively. With that said, wild ES but the best group of the lot. I'm scratching my noodle a bit over that. But wait, it gets even more curious!

Upper X in the middle of the target was a string of 15 rounds of Norma TAC, nobly sacrificed due to old age for the purpose of verifying the bore was not leaded.
.300" on the group; Avg. 1060, ES 65, SD 14.



I realize fully that velocity variation will not normally manifest on the target at close range, but with this project it does....and doesn't. Have to laff at myself now and then.
Otherwise, I see consistency between the demonstrated groups of 3 and 5 for these loads, and to some degree in the numbers. The last CF shot was 1.0 grains of Bullseye at the bottom, velocity of 1044 fps and I'll be revisiting that load next time. Why just 1 you ask? Because at present I have only 16 cases.

Now if I can just figure out what I need to work on with the bullets/powders so I can shoot the CF as precisely as the Wolf........

With Great Expectations,

DD

Having toyed with loads and crimping a bit I got around to slugging the barrel and pondering trivia. .222"/.216" on the groove/bore thing and a review of dims revealed I apparently got off track with the bullet diameter. Thought it was in the .224" range for some reason, but discovered it was a nominal .2225"

Looking at my process for knurling and lube with one eye and the flyers with the other, I made a second effort to do better and this is what I came up with.

Old style of knurl on the left, new improved version on the right and it is easily repeated. Interesting aspect is that it increases drive band diameter to .2245" with great uniformity. Smilin' here.



Thinking I will explore a new lube with Johnson's paste wax and graphite just for giggles. Also received a suggestion that I pull a few RF bullets and use the powder within for the trials. Maybe........

DD

Hmmm. Let's see. Dissecting .22 ammo to get powder to avoid .22RF shortage woes. Makes sense to me! (Kidding of course. Any experimentation is good for the furtherance of general esoteric knowledge.)

As for grease grooves on the bullet- when you finish being the guinea pig I'll order a mold sized to fit my throat with multiple shallow lube grooves a là Lee bullets intended for liquid alox-ing. I was a little skeptical of the roll engraving with a file routine- too easy to inflict slight anomalies, I would think. (That, or buy some extra lube grooves from you if you have some to spare. I looked on ebay and they're fetching too much on the open market.)

Things that make you go; "HMMMMM".

Bringing up the diameter could mean some really good things!

Have you tried any of the NASA lube by Bullshop? It's for BPCR shooting. I was given a couple of pounds of it. It works pretty good.

Ed

Gut reflection here, but when I dissected the factory stuff to check dims I saved the powder from 5 Wolf rounds without a clue why. Now I know? 5.0 grains of greenish yellow flakes I'll call Brand X. Wild guess on my part it was likely made by Norma.

The lube grooveless drive band was for prototype expedience and my mimic with the file leaves a knurl similar to some production ammo albeit more pronounced. My jewel was done with a file also, but not with the heavy handed approach. My sense of affairs is that if the dims are compatible there is precious little need for lube. A little for sure, but not enough for as many grooves represented by the new method. Hand tools and ingenuity are amusing to say the least.

No Bullshop lube...yet.

Will be after round 6 soon, cases are cleaned and primed.

Would add that the different methods of lube on production RF ammo is quite varied. Copper wash, wax seem most common for US ammo, while graphite/grease seems to dominate Yurp production. I know which shoots better. Same source bullets are .224" diameter w/o variation, the case walls are .007" and the primer is surgically neat. Bullet heels on the Wolf are .210" with less than .1 grain of weight variation. Too, the cup on the bullet base is quite shallow whereas some US stuff you could use as a shot glass.

I'd be happy to throw some of my NASA lube in the mail to you. I'll never use the amount that I have.

It melts at about the same temp as historic beeswax/lard.

Maybe nose dip the loaded cartridge into the melted lube? You could use a CCI ammo box to hang the lubed cartridges in while allowing the lube to solidify.

Ed

Might take you up on that a little down the road.

You think the same way as me. Congratulations?

Dan

I better get off my azz and get some brass done huh !

Today is trivia day!

My somewhat cynical view of US manufactured ammo priming methodology is illustrated below.

Wolf priming on the left, WW on the right. To be fair, I found the sloppy style of priming on all US ammo examined which includes CCI, W-W, Federal. The thing that was disappointing was the wild variation witnessed within each brand/style. This is countered by the remarkably uniform priming found in Wolf/SK ammo.



A second image is self explanatory for the most part and gives a thousand word view of the differences in powder that I have been using (Bullseye/700X) in comparison with the sample salvaged from the Wolf ammo. I see little difference in appearance of the powder in US manufactured ammo, and that from Europe, though they are fairly different from each other. I did see some US stuff with similar color tone as the other, but the flake size was different.



Because I have altered the style of lube grooves, the next round will repeat previous loads to compare performance resulting from that single factor. When that is evaluated I will burn some of the Wolf powder for comparison.

Gather 'round all you mothers, brothers and others, Round 6 is on deck!

Loaded up today and shot this afternoon. Primary purpose was to test the new lube groove style and they passed the test just fine, no leading was inflicted. I'm also toying with the crimp theory and it is an exercise in uncertainty. Crimp it does and without any obvious abuse of the case but I'm still in need of sorting out the fine points to install uniformity. Evidence otherwise is indicated on the target to some degree in the form of significant velocity variations.

Ducks in a row?



So it was 5 rounds of 700X, 3 each of Bullseye and WW231, then a finale with Red Dot. Numbers are on the targets and the velocity deviants are where the fliers came from. Group size is underlined in red. Not shown is the boring 5 shot group of Norma TAC on the front end to foul the bore. About .3" with an ES of 36.



This thing is a tease, but the problem probably rests on my shoulders. FYI, load density for the 700X and Red Dot is in the 80% range, while Bullseye and WW231 are about 50%.

I have a couple of thoughts. One is that the errant fliers are a result of inconsistent velocity, each and every one. I see the numbers, the POI and there is a direct correlation. That said, not all extreme spreads beget large groups. I'm fairly certain this is, in part, an issue of inconsistent crimps. I'm working on it, RELAX!

Next round will be working the crimp issue and a bit more WW231. It seems to show promise?

So that was mostly it for the project today, but my rifle asked to play, said it wanted to show me something.

I don't remember what primers you are using, but I have a theory. It may be crap, but here it is. When I was reloading 22 Hornet, I read a lot about using very light primers, because the primer ignition could unseat the bullet and cause accuracy issues. Remington 6 1/2 primers were recommended. Some people used small pistol primers. Others would add a bit of a crimp. Since these cases are even smaller than 22 Hornet cases, my question/theory is what are the lightest ignition small pistol primers and would those light primers help?