Mike Venturino was one of the greatest gun writers who ever lived. Whenever I’d see his byline in a gun magazine, I would carefully read every word in the accompanying article. He was a guy who wrote about things that exactly matched my interests: Handguns, rifles, military surplus weaponry, reloading, reloading for accuracy, and more. His style was relaxed and friendly, and his writing was easy to follow and understand. I felt like I knew the guy, even though we had never met. His writing style, I’m sure, influenced mine.
Mike Venturino passed away recently, and FMG Publications assembled a collection of his articles originally published in American Handgunner magazine. As soon as I heard about Shooting Iron, I ordered a couple of copies on Amazon (one for me, and one for a good friend). If you like good writing, good storytelling, and all things firearms related, I think you should pick up a copy, too. You can order Shooting Iron here.
As I read through Shooting Iron, I came across two descriptions in which Venturino described blowing up a 9mm handgun. You may recall that I did the same, and I shared that experience with you here and here. Based on what Venturino wrote and what I experienced, I am rethinking my 9mm 1911 Springfield blow up. I previously concluded that I must have had a double charge in one of the cartridges (particularly because I was using a new turret press). Now I am thinking that wasn’t it at all, but it was instead the bullet being pushed back into the case. This is based on the following:
I was using powder coated Gardner bullets, which are very slippery. It’s would have been easy to push one of them back into the case if the crimp was not strong. I don’t know if I had a really tight crimp when I loaded the round that burst. I use a very strong crimp now. Back then, I don’t know if I did.
I checked about 1500 cartridges after that event (ones I had previously loaded but not fired) by pulling them apart and examining the charge. None were double charged. That doesn’t prove I didn’t double charge one, but it suggests it was unlikely.
In reading the articles in Shooting Iron, I found where Venturino describes the 9mm bullet pushback phenomenon in two places (when you buy your copy, take a look at Pages 32 and 63). On Page 32, he describes this having occurred with a 9mm round, and he shows a burst case that looks just like mine. He further describes this episode with “,,,the escaping gas spitting (he probably meant splitting) the two grip panels and stinging my hand.” That’s precisely what I experienced. On Page 63, Venturino shows a burst case that looks like my case. I don’t know if the two instances described in the book are the same event. They both sound like what I experienced.
The bottom line is I don’t know exactly what happened when I blew up my 9mm 1911 and I never will. But after reading Mike Venturino’s Shooting Iron experiences, I am more convinced it was a bullet being pushed back into the case. In either event (bullet pushback or a double charge), I’m guilty of careless reloading, but somehow messing up on the crimp makes me feel less dumb than double charging a case. And I especially feel less dumb knowing that one of my literary heroes (Mike Venturino) did the same thing.
Here’s a quick look at what I’ve found to be three Mosin-Nagant accuracy loads shot off the bench at 100 yards using the rifles’ standard open sights. I didn’t try to get too sophisticated for this quick comparison; I simply shot a 10-shot group with each load. All were at 100 yards. I used the NRA 25-yard handgun target because it’s what I had on hand (the bullseye on that target is slightly smaller than the 100-yard NRA rifle bullseye target, and it gave a decent aiming point). You’ll see the targets below.
My jacketed bullet Mosin. It’s one of my favorite rifles.
My first two loads were with a rifle I use strictly for jacketed bullets. It’s my Tula 1940 round-top receiver. All you purists and keyboard commandos look away; this rifle is not for you. I refinished the stock with TruOil, I glass-bedded the action, and I reworked the trigger. As I’ve explained in earlier blogs, this rifle has a very rough bore, but the rifle remains blissfully ignorant of that fact and it shoots well.
My Mosin reserved exclusively for cast bullets. It’s another favorite.
I shot the cast bullet load in a Mosin-Nagant rifle I use for cast bullets. It’s a 1928 Ivshevsk hex receiver with a relatively clean (i.e., unpitted) bore. When I first shot this rifle with jacketed bullets, I found that it shot a foot or more above the point of aim at 100 yards with the rear sight in its lowest setting. I could have compensated for that by finding a taller front sight, but I decided instead to use the rifle with cast bullets. It shoots cast bullets within the rear sight’s adjustment range.
The Ammo
I shot 7.62x54R Russian reloaded ammo for this article. Two of the loads used jacketed bullets; the third used cast bullets.
Three Mosin loads. From left to right, it’s the Hornady 150-grain polymer tipped bullet, the PPU 150-grain jacketed softpoint boat tail bullet, and the 200-grain cast bullet. The cast bullet is Lyman’s 314299 bullet sized to .313.
The jacketed loads were identical other than the bullet and cartridge length: For one load, I used Hornady’s 150-grain polymer-tipped jacketed bullet; in the other, I used Privi Partizan’s 150-grain jacketed softpoint boattail bullet. I didn’t crimp either load, and I didn’t attempt to find the best seating depth. The seating depths I used, though, worked well. Both loads used a charge of 43.7 grains of IMR 4320 propellant.
A bag of PPU 150-grain bullets. When these go on sale, I tend to stock up.
The cast load used a 200-grain cast lead bullet with a gas check. I didn’t crimp the cast bullets, either, although I did use the Lee factory crimp die to remove the case mouth flare that prevented bullet shaving when the bullet was seated. This load used 18.0 grains of SR 4759 propellant.
The astute reader and reloader will notice that several of the components I used for these loads are no longer available. The Hornady polymer-tipped 150-grain .312 bullets went out of production some time ago, as did the IMR 4320 and SR 4859 powders. It’s annoying, because when I get a load that works, I’d like to be able to load it again. I’ve got a good stash of IMR 4320 and that will probably last me the rest of my life (it’s a powder that works well for .30 06 and several other cartridges). I’ve also got a good stash of SR 4759. That’s been a favored “go to” powder for cast bullet loads and reduced .458 Win Mag loads, and I’m working through it at a pretty good clip. Trail Boss and 5744 are two powders frequently mentioned as also being good for reduced loads and cast bullets, so at some point I’ll have to start developing loads with those powders. I’m probably good for the next two or three years with my SR 4759 stash.
The Results
To cut to the chase, here are the loads and the results:
The Hornady polymer-tipped bullet was the clear winner:
Not too bad, I think. 10 shots with the Hornady bullets at 100 yards. I’ve shot tighter groups. I’ve shot worse groups, too.
The Hornady polymer-tipped bullet put all 10 shots into a 3 1/2-inch group at 100 yards, which is not too bad with iron sights and geezer eyes. That’s almost a 10-ring-sized group (the 10 ring on these targets is 3 1/4 inches in diameter). I’ll call it close enough for government work.
The PPU bullets are still available, although you don’t come across them very often. Sometimes the big online reloading shops (MidwayUSA, Midsouth, Natchez Shooting Supply, Powder Valley, etc.) have them on sale, and when that happens, I’ll stock up. Here are two PPU-bullet, 10-shot, 100-yard targets:
A 10-shot, 100-yard group with the PPU bullets.I shot another 10-shot group with the PPU bullets because I forgot to chronograph the first 10 shots. Nobody’s perfect.
Interestingly, the velocities of the two jacketed bullets (Hornady and PPU) were about the same. The Hornady bullet had a much larger velocity spread, but it turned in the tighter group.
And finally, here’s the 10-shot, 100-yard target I shot with cast bullets:
A 10-shot, 100-yard group with cast bullets. These are much easier to shoot. Less noise, less recoil, and lots of fun.
I was pleased with the cast bullet target, too. I wouldn’t ordinarily expect a cast bullet to group as well as a jacketed bullet, but these hung right in there.
So there you have it: Three loads that return acceptable accuracy in a Mosin-Nagant.
We have several articles on Mosin-Nagant rifles and on different loads for these rifles:
I’m not a Glock guy and it’s not likely I’ll ever own one, but Glock (a book by Paul M. Barrett about Gaston Glock and the pistols that carry his name) sure is an interesting read.
Gaston Glock surprised everyone when he submitted a bid with a new design for a military handgun. He surprised people even more when he won the competition, and then he (and the company that bears his name) were on their way. Glock ran a small-potatoes company in Austria that made automobile radiators. He knew nothing about firearms and military contracts. Maybe that was his advantage. Glock started with a clean sheet of paper, both for the gun’s design and his approach to market.
Barrett tells an interesting story about how Glock employed unorthodox marketing practices (practices involving a former porn princess and lots of company freebies) to become one of the most successful arms manufacturers on the planet. It really is a fascinating story. Corporate shenanigans, arms deals, palace intrigue, an attempt on Gaston Glock’s life, police shootouts, and more: Glock has it all.
I’ve shot Glocks (I have friends who own them). I get that they are inexpensive and reliable. I don’t like striker-fired (i.e., hammerless) trigger pulls and I’m not a big fan of Tupperware guns (even though my primary carry gun is a Tupperware Smith and Wesson), but I understand the reasons behind Glock’s success, and I understand those reasons even better now that I’ve read Barrett’s book. Trust me on this: If you’re interested in firearms and you want a good read, look no further than Glock. You can thank me later.
Here’s the latest accuracy rabbit hole I’ve gone down: Rim thickness as an accuracy factor for .22 Long Rifle ammo.
Kevin’s .22 Long Rifle ammo sorted by rim thickness.
My friend Kevin told me about a hypothesis that holds you can get even cheap .22 ammo to shoot well if you sort by rim thickness. I researched this online, and like most things online, opinions are all over the map (Abraham Lincoln once famously said not everything you read on the internet is true). Kevin told me about this and suggested it might make for an interesting blog. I felt it was worth investigating, and I’d never considered .22 Long Rifle rim thickness as a variable until Kevin mentioned it.
Federal Value Pack .22 Long Rifle ammo.Velocity data on the Federal Value Pack ammo. A bit optimistic, as it turns out.
Kevin had a specially fixtured dial indicator for measuring rim thickness (see the photo on top of this blog) and he lent it to me for this blog. I sorted a bunch of Federal Value Pack 36 grain .22 ammo. It’s cheap ammo. I’ll get to the results in a second.
First, take a look at the SAAMI specs for sporting .22 Long Rifle ammo:
…and for match grade .22 LR ammo:
Yeah, I couldn’t see any difference between the two, either. You’d think match grade specs would be tighter, but they’re not. But check out that tolerance on rim thickness for both grades of .22 Long Rifle ammo…it varies from 0.036 to 0.043 inches. That seems like a huge tolerance to me.
If you read the SAAMI .22 Long Rifle chamber specs, the dimensioning there is the same for the chamber’s rim cavity on a sporting versus a match chamber. The chamber rim cavity can range from 0.043 to 0.051 inches. It would seem that a max thickness rim in a minimum length chamber would have line-to-line contact between the bolt face and the back of the cartridge. Any cartridge case that is less than 0.043 inches thick, or any chamber with the rim cavity longer than 0.043 inches, would allow clearance between the bolt face and the rear of the cartridge. Thicker rimmed cartridges would have minimal room to move around in the chamber, and should be more accurate.
The rim thickness versus accuracy hypothesis sounds like it could make sense. Differing rim thicknesses will influence headspace (.22 Long Rifle ammo headspaces on the rim), and that could influence accuracy. Also, as Kevin pointed out, rim thickness will affect firing pin strike on the cartridge case, so if the thicknesses are identical, the firing pin strike should be the same (and that should result in improved accuracy). It all sounds good, anyway.
I used Kevin’s dial indicator and measured rim thickness until I got tired of doing so (it took 62 cartridges for me to get there). I found four different rim thicknesses: 0.038, 0.039, 0.040, and 0.041 inches. I could see that the rim thicknesses were normally distributed with the cartridges sorted on my desk, but I thought it would be cool to prepare a bar chart and make that finding a bit more clear.
A rim thickness histogram. The rim thicknesses are normally distributed.
All the cartridge rim thicknesses I measured were within the SAAMI specification, but the SAAMI specification is liberal.
I headed to the West End Gun Club the next day with my most accurate .22 rifle, a beautiful CZ 452 Varmint model with a 14X Mueller scope.
My CZ 452. I saw this photo on a forum and wrote to the owner asking if he’d consider selling the rifle. The answer was no. But a year later he contacted me to ask if I still wanted to buy it. With wood like that, my answer was “Hell, yeah…”
The plan was to shoot five-shot groups at 50 yards off the bench using the rim-thickness sorted Federal El Cheapo ammo. Here’s how that turned out:
50-yard groups with ammo sorted by rim thickness.
All my shots felt right when the firing pin dropped, so I’m pretty sure that I wasn’t throwing the shots around due to poor technique. This rifle normally shoots much tighter groups at 50 yards with standard velocity ammo. The intent here was to see if I could get it to shoot better with cheap ammunition sorted by rim thickness.
Here’s how it all shook out:
Results show that for Federal Value Pack ammo, sorting by rim thickness does not improve accuracy. Note the average velocity figures; they are all well below Federal’s claimed 1260 feet per second value. All group size data in inches; all velocity data in feet per second.
My take on the above data is:
All the rim thicknesses I measured were well within the liberal SAAMI specification tolerance band.
Not surprisingly, rim thickness is normally distributed (something I’ve found to be true for most manufacturing processes).
Rim thickness, at least with my inexpensive Federal Value Pack ammo, has no effect on accuracy. Well, almost no effect; that last group with 0.041-inch rims jumped in size. But it was only one group. I looked for more 0.041-inch-thick rounds to test this again and I couldn’t find any.
Rim thickness, at least with my inexpensive Federal Value Pack ammo, has no effect on average velocity.
Rim thickness, at least with my inexpensive Federal Value Pack ammo, probably has no effect on velocity variation. Although the table above shows differences, it’s likely those differences would disappear if the sample sizes were larger.
Sorting by rim thickness is an interesting hypothesis, but my limited testing to assess the hypothesis shows it’s not worth the effort (at least with Federal Value Pack ammo). I have Remington and Aquila target ammo, and I’m going to measure rim thickness on those two brands in the next day or so to see if the rim thickness variability is lower. I’ll fire that sorted ammo through the CZ to see if the rim thickness hypothesis holds up with better ammo. It’s another good excuse to get out to the range (not that I ever need an excuse).
Another one of the stops on my New Jersey Sopranos tour was Paterson Falls. Although only about 40 miles or so from where I grew up, I’d never been there.
I knew of the town, though. It’s an old industrial village with waterfalls, which meant that in the early days of our country it was perfect for industrial development. The falls provided hydraulic power, and that could be used to drive machinery. Indeed, it’s where Samuel Colt built his first run of revolvers, which are known (not surprisingly) as Paterson Colts. Paterson was established as the nation’s first planned industrial city in 1792, with its readily-available hydraulic power and close proximity to New York City and the Atlantic Ocean. Paterson manufactured silk cloth, steam locomotives, textiles, paper, firearms, and aircraft engines. It is centered on the Passaic River, which flows into Newark Bay and from there to the Atlantic Ocean.
The Passaic Falls are contained within the Paterson Great Falls National Historic Park, which is (as the name implies) part of the U.S. National Park system. All this was news to me, which is kind of amazing when you consider that I grew up a short 40 miles to the south. I’d never known any of this, and to learn about it at my age was surprising. I’ll give the credit for that to David Chase (the guy who created The Sopranos). Had that show not sparked my interest, I’d still be ignorant.
So, let’s move on to the scene in The Sopranos that caught my attention. It’s the episode in which Mikey Palmici (Uncle Junior’s driver and bodyguard) throws a drug dealer off the bridge over the Passaic Falls:
That episode you see above occurred later in The Sopranos. There was another scene in the very first Sopranos episode on the same bridge shown above in which Hesh Rabkin and Big Pussy Bompensiero (two of The Sopranos characters) threaten to throw a health insurance company executive (a guy named Alex Mahaffey, played by Michael Gaston) off the same bridge if he didn’t cooperate with a Sopranos scam to defraud the insurance company.
When threatened with a swan dive off the bridge, Mahaffey gave in to the Soprano family’s demands, but alas, his Sopranos career was over; Michael Gaston never appeared in another episode. But that didn’t mean Sue and I wouldn’t see him again. In one of our trips to New Jersey, we rode the Air Trans shuttle between the airport and the rental car facility. Just before we boarded the shuttle, Michael Gaston was leaving the car we entered. We didn’t bug him, but we made eye contact and he knew we knew who he was.
Michael Gaston, an actor we bumped into on the Newark Airport Air Trans.
There’s a lot more to Paterson, though, then simply having been a location for a couple of The Sopranos scenes. Here’s another video that describes Paterson’s history:
Today, Paterson is undergoing a renaissance, as the old factory buildings are being converted to loft apartments. Yup, Paterson is being yuppified. It looks like an interesting place to spend more time, but my schedule didn’t permit doing so on this visit. For us it was roll into town, grab a few photos, and bail.
A view of Passaic Falls. This is a beautiful area.The wood-surfaced foot bridge featured in two different Sopranos episodes.Another view of the bridge. It’s closed to the public. On the Internet, it says it’s for safety reasons. One of my police buddies told me it’s because there were too many suicides from this bridge.Another view of the Passaic River and its Falls in Paterson.While we were visiting the Paterson Great Falls National Historic Park, this rather plump groundhog was doing the same. My Dad used to hunt these in New Jersey with his .243 Model 70 Winchester and the farmers loved having him do so. These woodchucks may look cute, but they destroy a lot of crops.
One thing I know for sure: I’ll return to Paterson. I’d like to explore the city, its museums, and more in greater detail.
Want to see our other visits to The Sopranos locations? Here they are:
Many years ago, I inherited an M1922 Springfield rifle from my Dad. I’ve only ever seen one other M1922 (that’s how rare they are), and it was at the West End Gun Club range earlier this month. Good buddy Kevin owns one, and we both agreed to bring (and shoot) our rifles. Like mine, Kevin’s rifle is beautiful. It has nicer wood than mine. Just seeing any M1922 is a treat (let alone one with figured walnut), so I really enjoyed seeing Kevin’s.
Two ultra-rare M1922 Springfields. The top one is mine, the lower one is Kevin’s. These are the only two I’ve ever seen.
As the name implies, the Springfield Model 1922 was developed in 1922. It was built as a training rifle, intended to offer a lower cost, lower recoil approach to learning how to shoot the Army’s main battle rifle, the 1903 Springfield. The M1922 has the same general dimensions as the 1903, including the large bolt and the long action, but the bolt only retracts just enough to extract and eject a .22 Long Rifle cartridge. It’s really cool.
The M1922 has target grade Lyman adjustable sights, with interchangeable front sight inserts. My rifle is configured as a “peep to peep” sight set; instead of seeing a front post in the rear aperture, the front sight has another aperture ring instead of a post. The idea is that you focus on the target, and the two apertures (in the front sight and the rear sight) appear out of focus. It’s counterintuitive to all the shooting I’ve ever done with iron sights, but it seems to work. My issue is age; these days when looking through those tiny apertures it’s difficult to make sure I’m on the right bullseye on a multi-bullseye target. Ah, to be 70 again…
The adjustable rear Lyman peep sight on my M1922. Note the rifle’s jeweled bolt and long action.The M1922’s front peep sight. There are different front sight inserts available. Mine had the aperture (or “peep”) insert installed when the rifle came into my possession, and I left it that way.
The M1922 was produced in four different variants from 1922 until the advent of World War II. At that time, material shortages precluded further production, and the US Army had already moved on to the M1 Garand. Springfield Arsenal produced 2,020 M1922 rifles.
Both Kevin’s rifle and mine have jeweled bolts and the jeweling is identical. During all the years I owned my M1922, I always assumed that Dad did the jeweling on my rifle’s bolt (he did that on a lot of his shotguns and rifles). When Kevin showed me his, he told me that the jeweling on his was the only thing on the rifle that wasn’t original. I think we were both wrong. The jeweling on both bolts (Kevin’s and mine) is absolutely identical. I suspect the rifles left the Springfield Arsenal with jeweled bolts, although I did manage to find an internet M1922 photo with a non-jeweled bolt.
Kevin’s rifle had more figure in its walnut stock than mine, and that made me want it immediately (a reaction I have any time I see a rifle with fancy walnut). But I know Kevin is not selling his, and I’m not selling mine, either. These rifles are just too rare (they are irreplaceable, in my opinion), and mine came to me from my Dad (another reason I’ll never sell it). Springfield M1922 rifles don’t come up for sale very often, and when they do, they go for big bucks. I searched Gunbroker.com and found two that were listed at $2,499 and $2,099, and neither of those was in nearly as good a condition as mine or Kevin’s. I’d expect our rifles to be in the $3,000+ range if they were for sale, but like I said above, they most definitely are not. The magazines for these rifles are extremely rare, too. I’ve never seen one for sale; I imagine if one did appear on the market, the ask would be several hundred dollars.
I’d previously written about my M1922 here on ExNotes and that story is here. There’s more info about these fine rifles online. Rock Island Auction has a good M1922 video. Rock Island does a good job with their videos when they have interesting firearms for sale, and the M1922 Springfield is squarely in that category.
Never miss an ExNotes blog:
Folks, if you like what you read here, please consider helping us keep the lights on and the content flowing. We need your help!
In an earlier blog on my 458 Win Mag No. 1, I mentioned that I used a friend’s Garmin chronograph and decided I needed one. I pulled the trigger and I’ve been using my Garmin constantly since I bought it. I’ve shot rifle with jacketed and cast bullets and I’ve shot several handguns to see how it performed. The bottom line? Garmin hit a home run with their new chrono. Is it perfect? No. But it’s so good I can live with the few minor things I think could be improved.
The Garmin has a bunch of features (and I’ll get into them in a minute), but let my start by saying the most important feature is ease of use. Basically, you turn the thing on, make a few screen inputs, set it on the shooting bench, and you’re good to go. There’s no screwing around with setting up screens in front of the bench, running wires, or any of other stuff you need to do with earlier chronographs. It’s plug and play, but you don’t even have to plug it in.
Operation
Operating the Garmin is straightforward, but it’s not entirely intuitive. The On-Off button is one of four buttons on top of the device. Garmin labels it “Power.” Touch it once and the device is on; hold it down for two seconds and it turns off.
The buttons up top. They are a little confusing at first.
Getting to what you want to shoot involves scrolling through a series of screens and menu options via two of the buttons on top of the Garmin. One points up; the other points down, and that’s how you move from one choice to another on each data screen. Basically, the choices are rifle or handgun (there’s also choices for archery, but I’m not Robin Hood), and their selection is governed by projectile velocity. After navigating up or down on that screen, pressing the OK button gets the next screen up. That asks if you the Garmin to calculate power level (bullet energy). I always tell it no, but getting through that requires pressuring the down button and then the okay button again. Then another screen pops up, advising chronograph placement with regard to gun location. Then it’s necessary to press the OK button once more. That gun placement screen is unnecessary, and it just necessitates pressing more buttons and scrolling through more screens. Finally, the device is ready to use. It’s a lot of button pushing and scrolling. Granted, it is way, way easier than screwing around placing chronograph screens downrange, aligning them with your bullets’ flight path, and making electrical connections, and it’s easier than placing what used to be the most modern chrono (before the Garmin came along) out in front of the firing line. The Garmin is a major step forward in the chrono game.
Once the string has been fired (as many as the shooter wants to include in the string), the scrolling and selecting game starts anew (along with pushing the back, up and down, and OK buttons). I thought it would become intuitive for me, but I’m not the brightest bulb in the box and it seems I have to relearn it every time I go to the range (and I’m on the range at least a couple of times each week).
Charging and Battery Life
Charging is done via a laptop. The chronograph comes with a cord that connects the chrono to your laptop, and that’s how it charges. One charge is good for a couple of range sessions (or more, depending on how much you shoot). Although I didn’t time it, I’m guessing it took maybe an hour to fully recharge.
Downloading Data
I thought the cord connecting the computer to the Garmin would allow me to download the data from each range “session” (a session is a string of shots for which you wish to record data), but if there’s a way to do that, I couldn’t find it. I could the files for each range session, but they were in a format I couldn’t read. What I can do, though, is Bluetooth connect the Garmin to my cellphone. Then, once the data is in my cellphone, I can send the data (in an Excel spreadsheet) to my laptop via email. That’s more bother than I wanted to mess around with, though. I just look at the results on the Garmin screen.
Packaging and the Optional Case
The Garmin chrono doesn’t come with a carrying case. It should. I had to spring for an optional $15, cheaply constructed carrying case that probably cost about 25 cents to make in China. But I’m glad it did. It does a decent job protecting the Garmin and storing the charging cable.
The extra cost case. It ought to be included with the chronograph.
A Few Pistol Examples
I shot three handguns to assess how the Garmin would perform. I thought I could do this at my indoor pistol range (I belong to a couple of gun ranges). The indoor range is usually crowded, and that highlighted one of the Garmin’s weak spots. Even though there are barriers between shooting positions, the Garmin was consistently capturing data from the guy shooting on either side of me. As I had no interest in what they were doing, I picked up my marbles and to the West End Gun Club, an outdoor range.
1911s in .45 ACP, 9mm, and .22. The 1911 is one of the best pistol designs in the world. It’s been around for more than a century.
On the outdoor range there was more room between shooting positions, and the Garmin picking up another shooter’s bullets was not an issue. I shot and captured data for three different handguns. All were 1911s. I’ve written about them before (a .45 ACP Springfield, a 9mm Springfield, and a .22 GSG), but now I can bring you chrono data. My plan was to shoot 50 rounds from each pistol and record the data, shooting at the same silhouette target at 25 yards.
1911 .22 Long Rifle GSG
The GSG .22 Long Rifle 1911. There’s a lot of plastic in this gun, but wowee, does it ever shoot!
The first pistol up was the .22 GSG with Federal Champion ammo. It’s cheap ammo and it’s advertised as having a muzzle velocity of 1260 feet per second, but that’s probably from a much longer rifle barrel. I expected it to be slower from the 1911 and it was.
Federal .22 Long Rifle High Velocity Ammo. The GSG needs the high velocity ammo to function reliably.I ordered a bunch of ammo when a court found California’s mail order ban unconstitutional. It’s since been overturned, but I brought in a couple thousand rounds when justice prevailed.The Federal ammo is advertised at 1260 feet per second, but that’s out of a rifle. The chronograph doesn’t lie.
Here’s what the Garmin revealed for the 50 .22 Long Rifle shots fired from the 1911.
1020 versus 1260 feet per second. My lower velocities were due to shooting this ammo in a handgun rather than a rifle.
The velocity was lower than advertised, but as mentioned above, I fired from a 5-inch-barreled handgun and not a rifle.
1911 9mm Springfield
I then turned to my Springfield 9mm 1911, which is one of my all time favorite pistols.
My 9mm Springfield Armory 1911. This is a great handgun.
I fired another 50 rounds through it with my handloaded ammo (the load I used is the 124-grain roundnose plated Xtreme bullet and 5.5 grains of Accurate No. 5 powder. That ammo had about the same average velocity as the .22, but the extreme spread and the standard deviation were lower (a good thing). Accuracy at 25 yards was about the same as the .22 1911.
1035 feet per second ain’t too shabby. I could go higher by running a hotter load, but this one is hot enough and it’s accurate.
You may have noticed that the Garmin only picked up 49 of the 50 shots I fired. I don’t know why it did that.
1911 .45 ACP Springfield
For my final quick look handgun trials I used another Springfield 1911, this time chambered in .45 ACP.
One of the great ones: A .45 ACP 1911. This is also a Springfield Armory handgun.
The load was 4.6 grains of Bullseye under Gardner 185-grain cast semi-wadcutter bullets. This has always been a great target load in any of my 1911s, and it proved that to be the case again. I was not shooting for accuracy; I was simply showing 50 rounds through each of the three 1911s to wring out the Garmin. On the target, the GSG .22 and the Springfield 9mm were grouping at about 10 inches (again, I wasn’t try to put them through the same hole during this test). But that .45? Wow. It put 50 rounds through one ragged hold about 4 inches in diameter. If I had put any effort into it, that hole would have been smaller.
A .45-caliber bullet at 850 feet per second will settle most arguments. It’s accurate, too.
You can see the inherent accuracy in the .45 load I used in this portion of the test. Check out the very small standard deviation and extreme spread. Both are much smaller than the corresponding values for the 9mm and .22 handguns.
Mosin-Nagant Cast Bullets
I next wanted to try cast bullets in the Mosin-Nagant 91/30 rifle. I knew the load I was using (a 173-grain cast bullet and SR 4759 powder) to be an accurate load from previous forays.
I love the Mosin-Nagant. There are certainly more elegant milsurp rifles out there. I haven’t found any that shoot better than a Mosin-Nagant.Cast bullets loaded in 7.62x54R cases. This is a fun load.Fast enough, and no leading. This is a great load.
As I said above, I knew this to be an accurate load, and the Garmin showed why: It had a l0w standard deviation.
Mini 14 Jacketed Bullets
Finally, I wanted to see how the Garmin would do with a small bullet moving at higher speeds, so I ran a few shots through my faithful Mini 14.
You don’t see many Mini 14 rifles with wood like this one. It’s stunning, and it can be surprisingly accurate with the right load.
My accuracy loads for the Mini 14 have been a Hornady 55-grain full metal jacket boattail bullet and a max load of either IMR 4320 or ARComp. The results you see below are for the IMR load. You might be wondering why the velocity is a bit less than the expected 3000 feet per second speeds attained with a .223 cartridge. My Mini 14 has a 16-inch barrel.
The Garmin had no difficulty picking up those little 55-grain bullets flying away at 2800+ feet per second.
The results looked good to me. Those five shots went into less than 2 inches at 100 yards. Four of the five went into less than an inch.
A Mini 14? Are you kidding me? I never joke about my work, folks.
The Bottom Line
There’s the good, the bad, and the ugly. The good is the Garmin chronograph has upped the ante by bringing an easily-used chronograph to the masses. There’s no screwing around wires or screens, and you don’t have to get in front of the firing line to set it up. This is a major breakthrough, and it’s what prompted me to finally pull the trigger on a chrono (well, that and my good buddy Walt telling me that any serious shooter and reloader needed a chrono).
The bad? There’s not much. I mentioned the tendency to pick up rounds fired from an adjacent lane on an indoor handgun range. I think the screen scrolling drill could be simplified a bit. The chrono occasionally failed to pick up a round (but that could be me not positioning it correctly). I think the chrono should allow downloading data sessions directly to a computer (without having to Bluetooth the thing to a cell phone and then email it to myself). These nits wouldn’t stop me from buying one, and they shouldn’t stop you, either. I love my Garmin chronograph. The Garmin engineers did a good job.
What surprised me (but maybe didn’t surprise me too much) was that the lowest standard deviation did not necessarily result in the tightest group. Barrel harmonics, bullet issues, and the guy behind the trigger also have a huge influence. I suspect the so-called accuracy loads in the Lyman reloading manual are based mostly (perhaps exclusively) on standard deviation. There are a lot of things that go into rifle and handgun accuracy. With a Garmin chronograph, you can get a better understand them.
One thing about Ruger: Nobody can top their customer service. Ruger may not explicitly state their firearms come with a lifetime warranty, but in effect, they do.
You may remember my story on the Ruger Bisley I won in a Rock Island Auction (I wrote about it several months ago). I had wanted a .357 Magnum Bisley for its heavy construction and longer barrel and, truth be told, I was surprised that my bid prevailed. When I won the Rock Island Auction, I ponied up all the nutty fees that come with such an undertaking (they are significant), and then when I received the Bisley I was disappointed. It wasn’t particularly accurate (the group sizes were mediocre), and it shot so far to the left the rear sight had to be adjusted all the way to the right to get the shots on paper.
I figured I was kind of stuck with the Bisley and my initial thought was I’d look at the gun for a while, stick it in the safe, and then maybe sell it somewhere down the line. But it bothered me. Owning a firearm that doesn’t meet my expectations doesn’t set easy. If there’s such a thing as having an obsessive-compulsive disorder with firearms that are less than perfect, I’d make for a good clinical study.
I wrote to Ruger and told them what I wanted, which was an accurate Bisley that didn’t shoot to the left. I told them the revolver left their plant in 1986, so I was more than willing to pay whatever it took to make me happy. I also mentioned that I wanted to buy new grip frame screws and a new ejector rod shroud (cosmetically, they looked beat up). And finally, I mentioned that extraction was difficult with hotter loads. I asked the Ruger folks to hone the chamber walls so the fired cases would extract easily.
Ruger charged me $45 for a Fedex mailer (which they emailed to me), told me how to package my revolver (a plain brown box, with nothing on the outside to indicate its contents), and advised it could be 4 to 6 weeks before I saw the gun again. Four days later, it was on its way back to me, with no additional charges other than the initial $45 I paid for the Fedex mailer.
A new ejector shroud on the Bisley.New grip screws all the way around.The rear sight, approximately centered. This is way better than what it was when I returned the Ruger.Ruger honed the chamber walls to prevent sticky extraction. The gun extracts flawlessly.
Ruger mentioned in the paperwork returned with the gun that they retorqued the barrel, installed a new ejector shroud, honed the chambers, replaced all the grip screws, test fired it, and sent it home. The first thing I looked at was the rear sight. Comfortingly, it was a lot closer to being centered than it was when I sent the gun to them.
So how did it do?
Yessiree, that’s what I’m talking about!
Just fine, thanks. The day I received it, I hopped in the Subie, motored over to my indoor range, and fired three different .357 loads at 10 meters. Now, I know 10 meters is only 30 feet, but I wanted to get an idea how the revolver was working. One load was a relatively mild Bullseye-powered concoction with cast 158-grain bullets, another was a gonzo 158-grain Hornady jacketed bullet load with a max charge of Unique, and the third was an even more energetic load with the same 158-grain jacketed hollow point Hornady bullet and a max load of Winchester 296 propellant. On that indoor range, even with my Walker electronic earmuffs, the concussion of the big Bisley and its full throated .357 loads was starting to give me a headache. But the targets? Oh, boy…the Bisley and I were back in business. I ran another target out to 50 feet (the longest range available at the indoor range), and that group was just as good as the ones at 30 feet.
Winchester’s 296, Unique, a finished .357 Magnum cartridge, the 158-grain Hornady XTP bullet, and the 180-grain Hornady XTP bullet.A macro shot of the Hornady 159-grain and 180-grain XTP bullets. Viewed from outside the cartridge case, the bullets appear identical. The difference is in their length below the cannelure.A couple of loaded .357 Magnum cartridges. I’ve always liked the .357 Magnum cartridge.
The day after that, I took the Bisley to our Wednesday morning Geezer get-together at the West End Gun Club. I had three things in mind: I wanted to show off a bit to my friends, I wanted to chronograph the two balls-out .357 loads I mentioned above, and I wanted to see how the revolver would do at 100 yards. Yes, you read that right: 100 yards.
100 yards with the Bisley. The first 30 shots or so were with the Unique load. When i switched over to the 296 load, the group tightened. Next time I’m out I’ll try the 180-grain bullets with 296 and dial in a little windage.
My buddy Kevin spotted for me with his spotting scope, and he was amazed with the first load (8.0 grains of Unique and the 158-grain Hornady jacketed hollow points). Kevin gave a hearty “whoa!” and I suspected things were looking good.
Kevin said several of the shots (after I had warmed up a bit and got into my long-range groove) grouped like I was shooting a rifle. I sure didn’t mind hearing that. I checked the chronograph and the velocities were respectable, too. The bullets were hitting to the left a bit, but I had room to adjust the rear sight to bring that in. And where a gun prints on target is a function of how it is held. I wasn’t consistent with the Bisley yet (I actually haven’t shot it that much).
The 158-grain Hornady bullet with 8.0 grains of Unique. It’s a max load and velocities were respectable, but not like what I attained with Winchester 295.
Then I switched to the heavier-duty 296 load (with the same Hornady XTP bullet), and wowee, I was keeping them in the black on that same 100-yard rifle target. And those loads were smoking hot. Winchester;s 296 propellant is good stuff. Check this out.
Whoa, baby! 1500 fps plus! 296 is a dynamite powder in the .357 Magnum.
All the cartridge cases extracted easily and even with the 1500 feet per second 296 load above, there were no pressure signs (other than a hellacious muzzle blast). As mentioned above, Ruger honed the chambers for me and the prior extraction issues had evaporated.
With replacement of the grip frame screws and the ejector shroud, the Bisley looks like a new revolver. And other than me paying for the initial shipping to Ruger, it was all on the house (Ruger’s house, that is). Bear in mind what I said earlier in this blog: The Bisley, purchased used, is a 38-year-old revolver.
The Bisley went from being a regret to a gun I’m excited about owning. You probably know that Ruger also made these guns in other chamberings, to include .44 Magnum and .45 Colt, and you might be wondering why I wanted the .357 Magnum. Back in the 1970s when I was a handgun metallic silhouette shooter, I competed with a .357 Magnum and I was a rarity. While everyone else was shooting a .44 Magnum or a .45 Colt, or custom-built bolt-action handguns shooting what were essentially rifle cartridges, I was one of the very few people (in fact, the only one I knew of) who shot a .357 Magnum in that game. With the right loads, the .357 would topple the 200-meter rams (the toughest target to knock over) more reliably than either the .44 Magnum or the .45 Colt, so there was a certain coolness (and a bit of smugness) on my part associated with that. The other reason is weight. When Ruger chambers different cartridges in the same firearm, the gun’s external dimensions remain the same, so the .357 Magnum Bisley weighs more than the .44 Magnum or the .45 Colt versions. More weight means the gun holds steadier and that means greater accuracy.
What’s next for this revolver is working up a load with Hornady’s 180-grain jacketed hollow point bullet and 296 powder and getting the sights dialed in at 50, 100, 150, and 200 yards (the four stages of a handgun metallic silhouette competition). When I used to compete in metallic silhouette competition, I used a cast 200-grain bullet, but nobody makes that bullet commercially. Well, almost nobody. I previously found a guy who sold a 200-grain bullet for the .357, but his bullets leaded terribly and accuracy fell off after the first three or four rounds (and cleaning the bore was a pain). If I can get the 180-grain jacketed bullets to group well, I think the metallic silhouette rams at 200 yards won’t know the difference between a 200-grain cast bullet and a 180-grain jacketed bullet, and I may get back in the game. We’ll see.
That term: Balls out. You might think it’s a crude anatomical and testicular reference, but it’s not. Engine governors used to use lever-suspended rotating metal balls that moved further away from their axis of rotation as rpm increased. When the engine speed reached a preset maximum value allowed by the governor, the centrifugal outward movement of the balls operated a lever that prohibit engine speed from going any higher. At that point, the engine was running “balls out.”
I’ve never been one to fall for fancy newfangled gear (unless it involved fancy walnut), so for most of my life I’ve used cheap Harbor Freight earmuffs when shooting. That’s okay for most shooting, I thought, but I recently noticed that my earmuffs were interfering with getting a good cheek weld on a rifle stock when shooting from the bench. And there was another issue: Good buddy Daniel (one of the rangemasters) always has a good joke or two, and I couldn’t hear him through my earmuffs.
I noticed other guys using electronic earmuffs. You know, the kind that lets you hear normal conversation, but chops out the loud report from a handgun or rifle. They appeared in a recent ad to be slightly narrower than my el cheapo Harbor Freight muffs, too, so I thought maybe they wouldn’t interfere with the rifle’s stock. So I pulled the trigger, figuratively speaking, and ordered a pair of Razor Slim Electronic Earmuffs from Amazon.
They take two AA batteries (which are provided), and they turn on or off via a dial on back of the left earmuff. That dial also controls the volume. Turn them off, and they are like a regular set of earmuffs. Turn them on, and you can hear conversation but rifle and handgun shots are attenuated. You can control the volume, so I imagine they are pretty much like wearing hearing aids. In fact, they work almost too well in that regard. I could hear conversations a dozen benches down on the firing line, and I had to reduce the volume because I found it distracting.
I like these Razor earmuffs. I can carry on a conversation when wearing them, and that makes it nice because those with whom I’ve conversing don’t need to shout (nor do it).
The knob on the left eafmuff controls the volume and is also the on-off switch. If you forget to turn that knob off, it will run down the batteries.
There are three things I don’t like about the Razor earmuffs, but none are showstoppers and they wouldn’t prevent me from buying them. The first is that the original reason I bought them (to eliminate interference with the rifle stock), well, that isn’t what I found. The name notwithstanding (“Razors”), they interfere as much or more than a plain old set of the Harbor Freight earmuffs. The second is that it’s easy to forget to turn down the volume all the way and switch the earmuffs off, with the result being that on the next trip to the range, the batteries are dead. That one’s on me, I guess. The third reason is they are warm. The Razor earmuffs form a better seal around your ears, and on a hot day, that can be a bit of a drag. But like I said above, none of these are showstoppers for me, and they shouldn’t be for you, either.
Today’s story is on two old assault rifles. Not the AR15s and other Rambo stuff that’s in the news all the time, but two really old rifles, with designs reaching back more than a century. I’ve spent many enjoyable days on the range with these rifles, and they are two of my favorites.
The one on the top is a Mosin-Nagant 91/30, which is a Russian rifle originally designed in 1891 and then modified in 1930. These old Mosin Nagant rifles were Russia’s primary infantry weapon in World War II. They were plentiful for a while, and then they all but dried up and the prices have increased significantly.
Before I bought my Mosin, I marveled at all the excitement over what I thought was a junk rifle. I had to find out for myself what these were all about, so I bought one labeled as “excellent” (it was anything but). That old Russian rifle is about as crude as it gets, but boy oh boy, can it shoot! It is very accurate, as you can see in the photo below.
The other rifle in the photo above is an Argentine 1909 Mauser. Here’s another photo of it.
The Mauser uses a cartridge (7.65 x 53 Argentine Mauser) that is just about impossible to find today, so for that one I bought the tools that let me make cartridges from .30 06 brass. Doing so was fun. You run the 30 06 case into a special die that reforms it into the 7.65 Argentine cartridge, you trim the newly-formed case to the correct length, and then you reload the new case using the right dies for that cartridge. The photo below sort of shows the forming steps and the finished ammo…that’s a 30 06 round on top and two of my newly-minted 7.65 Argentine rounds on the bottom…
I was surprised at how well it all turned out, and I was really pleased with how well the old Mauser shot. It shoots 1-inch groups with iron sights, but with the rear sight at the lowest setting it shoots a foot too high. After researching this issue on the Internet, I found out that’s what those old German engineers intended. It’s zeroed for 300 yards at the lowest setting! The theory is that you aim at the center of your target for any distance up to 300 yards and you’ll hit it (as long as your target is about the size of an enemy soldier).
Looking at those two rifles, the Mauser has vastly finer machining, fit, and finish, and the Germans really got carried away serializing things. Even the cleaning rod has a serial number.
That got me to thinking about the Mosin Nagant and how rough it was compared to the Mauser. Even with its crude build quality, though, that old Russian rifle shot just as well as the Mauser.
You know, they say there’s nothing new under the sun, and to a great extent, that’s true. Paul Mauser invented the bolt action rifle, and it’s said he got the idea from a gate latch. The theme became the cover of my book on Unleashing Engineering Creativity, and it became the cover shot (featuring the very same rifle you see here). You can buy Unleashing Engineering Creativity by clicking on the title or the photo below.
Mike Venturino passed away recently, and FMG Publications assembled a collection of his articles originally published in American Handgunner magazine. As soon as I heard about Shooting Iron, I ordered a couple of copies on Amazon (one for me, and one for a good friend). If you like good writing, good storytelling, and all things firearms related, I think you should pick up a copy, too. You can order Shooting Iron here.
