Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 134

Thread: .22LR Range Fun

  1. #1
    Grandmaster doddg's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    .22LR Range Fun

    As per my "trimming plan," I've sold off most of my semi-auto .22LR pistols and revolvers at this point.
    I was down to only 1 revolver, the Dan Wesson 8" barrel, 54 oz. that I bought off a member here.
    I "accidentally" picked up a 1962 Hi-Standard revolver that I really enjoy b/c it was so different from the DW.
    Next I was "forced" by another member to buy a Ruger SP101 unexpectedly a couple of weeks ago, and it reminds me of the Hi-Standard, but with rear adjustable sights, so I will sell the Hi-Standard when I get around to it.

    The top two contenders for winning my "accuracy award" was the two semi-autos that I bought off a member here: S/W 41 & a Ruger Mark 3 with a Volquartsen barrel & trigger work, of which I'd like to add some grips to it sometime. In fact, I need to refurbish or replace the ones on the Smith 41 to suit me.
    I intend to sell one of them eventually, but they are different enough that I enjoy each, so no hurry there.
    I think the Mark 3 with the Volquartsen barrel might have the edge in accuracy but I could be the X-factor there. It will be fun finding out
    Opportunity knocked and again I was prodded into picking up a little Beretta Bobcat , since I enjoy the challenge of shooting a micro accurately.

    Range pic below, all rounds were shot w/o a rest.
    The Hi-Standard (top at 21' & 30') has a mean D/A trigger pull which makes staying on target a challenge (must a 30# pull, really!).
    S/A is great, but the sights are fixed, so it isn't going to be too accurate in with my eyes: it's days are numbered.
    At 30" the DW does great in S/A (left of middle target where I drew the green "X" & the D/A (middle target) is sweet, but I'll have to learn to shoot it in D/A.
    I just love pinking with the diminutive Bobcat, no matter what the distance (21' on left bottom & 15' on right), it seems like a bonus to get any rounds actually in the red.
    I painted the sights but still can't hardly see.
    I'll take it out to 30' next time to see if I can hit the circle at all.
    Last edited by doddg; 11-25-2019 at 18:02.

  2. #2
    Marksman

    User Info Menu

    The top two contenders for winning my "accuracy award" was the two semi-autos that I bought off a member here: S/W 41 & a Ruger Mark 3 with a Volquartsen barrel & trigger work, of which I'd like to add some grips to it sometime. In fact, I need to refurbish or replace the ones on the Smith 41 to suit me.
    I intend to sell one of them eventually, but they are different enough that I enjoy each, so no hurry there.
    I think the Mark 3 with the Volquartsen barrel might have the edge in accuracy but I could be the X-factor there. It will be fun finding out
    The Volquartsen would probably be tough to beat although it might take a Ransom Rest or very solid rest with scope to find out for sure. Don't give up on the 41 too soon. I finally scoped my 41 for the first time in many years for some accuracy testing at 25 and 50 yards. At 50 yards the 2X even with the fine plex is really not the best scope for fine accuracy but still a lot better than open sights. I may take the Burris 2X-7X off the Charger for a while and see what the 41 can do at 7X.
    Attachment 81807

  3. #3
    Grandmaster doddg's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 700 LTR 223 View Post
    The Volquartsen would probably be tough to beat although it might take a Ransom Rest or very solid rest with scope to find out for sure. Don't give up on the 41 too soon. I finally scoped my 41 for the first time in many years for some accuracy testing at 25 and 50 yards. At 50 yards the 2X even with the fine plex is really not the best scope for fine accuracy but still a lot better than open sights. I may take the Burris 2X-7X off the Charger for a while and see what the 41 can do at 7X.
    Attachment 81807

    I hear you!
    The heavier fit-in-the-hand is great with the 41: love it.
    Hope to keep it along with the Ruger Mark Volquartsen that a member "created."
    If I would have had it first I wouldn't have bought the Smith, but the 41 was on my "bucket" list.
    Thanks for sharing the range pics, I love it when people do that (especially when they mention the ammo they used).
    I've never shot either of mine at those distances:
    Since I've put optics on my two, I haven't really shot them too much b/c I got involved with some rifles w/scopes.
    I am always amazed and appreciate seeing what others can do with their setups.
    Last edited by doddg; 11-26-2019 at 22:39.

  4. #4
    Grandmaster doddg's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    A sandbag rest was used on all targets today.
    I love this Dan Wesson 8" barrel, 54 oz. monster.
    The D/A is just divinely smooth.
    The right bottom target is supposed to be labelled "D/A," like the top right, not S/A, like the top left, bottom left and the middle targets.
    I'm pleased with the middle 30', which is the last target I shot.
    I can't see well with the green fiber optic front site, and ordered a red fiber optic front site which I received but haven't installed yet.


    Upper left target is supposed to be labelled S/A, like the bottom left target, not D/A which is on the right upper & lower targets.
    I am stunned that the 1952 Hi-Standard with its unbelievable tough D/A trigger pull shoots more accurately than the S/A: it has done it before and I assumed it was a fluke.
    Just testing these two guns out to see which one to keep. The SP100 has rear adjustable sights and has that in its favor.
    But, after shooting the Dan Wesson, I think I'll sell both of them b/c the only thing I don't like about the DW is that it is only a 6 round cylinder.
    The Dan Wesson .22LR to me is like the CZ Shadow is to me. I sold all of my other 9mm range guns for the Shadow 2, and had done the same with my revolvers as well, ending up with only the DW, till my eye strayed.
    I'm sure I'll buy the occasional .22LR & 9mm to play with, but after 2.5 yrs. and having dozens of each, I like what I have now.
    Last edited by doddg; 11-27-2019 at 20:52.

  5. #5
    Marksman

    User Info Menu

    I'm pleased with the middle 30', which is the last target I shot.
    I can't see well with the green fiber optic front site, and ordered a red fiber optic front site which I received but haven't installed yet.
    That center target is a good group. Hopefully that red fiber optic will help you to see better - at 57 I know how that goes! Yeah that Dan Wesson would be a keeper to me. Very rare and very accurate. The "last gun" I am looking for to complete my .22 collection is a earlier model Smith 617. I have a Taurus 96 .22lr but have run into difficulties trying to install a scope base. Smith started to factory drill and tap the 617 frames for optics sometime in the 1990s.

  6. #6
    Grandmaster doddg's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 700 LTR 223 View Post
    That center target is a good group. Hopefully that red fiber optic will help you to see better - at 57 I know how that goes! Yeah that Dan Wesson would be a keeper to me. Very rare and very accurate. The "last gun" I am looking for to complete my .22 collection is a earlier model Smith 617. I have a Taurus 96 .22lr but have run into difficulties trying to install a scope base. Smith started to factory drill and tap the 617 frames for optics sometime in the 1990s.

    Me too! If red doesn't work I'll paint it white to see if that works better.
    The Smith 617 was on my list 2+ yrs. ago to buy new but I would have had to order it for $670 (at the time), so I bought the Ruger GP100 I was holding in my hand.
    I did shoot the 617 at the range rental and was not impressed over my other heavy .22LR revolvers.
    I had a Taurus 990 that was even a better shooter than the Ruger GP100, but it was only a 4" barrel.
    I wanted to buy a 6" from a member here but he lived 3 hrs. away.
    The Dan Wesson shoots better than any of them.
    I hear good things about the M17.

  7. #7
    Marksman

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by doddg View Post
    I did shoot the 617 at the range rental and was not impressed over my other heavy .22LR revolvers
    I have fired some very early 1990s production 617s that shot very accurately and still have a article where a 4" and 6" were fired from a Ransom Rest and the 6" in particular turned in a very impressive target.
    Attachment 81838
    I did briefly own a late 1990s 617 and will have to agree with your comment about the one you shot - was not very impressed.

  8. #8
    Proud Millennial Ggreen's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    I picked up a fun new 22 that I'm betting you would love. Stock full forward and naturally upright shooting position would be easy on your neck. And they are made locally, up in Fort Wayne.


  9. #9
    Grandmaster gregkl's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 700 LTR 223 View Post
    I have fired some very early 1990s production 617s that shot very accurately and still have a article where a 4" and 6" were fired from a Ransom Rest and the 6" in particular turned in a very impressive target.
    Attachment 81838
    I did briefly own a late 1990s 617 and will have to agree with your comment about the one you shot - was not very impressed.
    I have a -1 model 4" and I'd put it up against most any other .22 pistol or revolver. I have sat in tree stands and picked off squirrels at some pretty good distances. Shot birds with it too. We ate the squirrels, not the birds.
    Anything is possible

  10. #10
    Grandmaster doddg's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ggreen View Post
    I picked up a fun new 22 that I'm betting you would love. Stock full forward and naturally upright shooting position would be easy on your neck. And they are made locally, up in Fort Wayne.


    I appreciate you thinking of me!
    Always on the lookout for a .22LR rifle that would have a scope high enough above the stock that my head/eye would line up with the scope more naturally w/o bending my neck down and to the right, and forward.
    The stock is lined up straight along the barrel height, so it seems it would be even more difficult to lower my eye down to the scope since the butt of the stock is so high, relative to the line of the barrel.
    On the other rifles I've had I get high cantilever rings set on a high rail to lift the scope up to my eye level without neck contortions and then bring the scope back toward me on the rails with the cantilever rings.
    You do h ave me curious though, What is it and how much was it?
    Pm me if you don't want everyone to know what you paid.
    Tippman? Tippmann Arms M4-22



    I turned the cantilever rings around to bring the scope back toward my eye/head more than shows in this pic.


    On this rifle the stock was angled down which really helped, but I discovered I didn't like using a lever action.


    My first rifle, where I learned to buy a higher rail and use cantilever rings turned around so I could bring the scope back toward my eye/head.
    Last edited by doddg; 12-02-2019 at 23:57.

Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •