Older .22's vs newer, more expensive,.22's
I've shot a lot of older .22's in the last 3 years or so, the ones made before serial numbers were required, and older than 1920, and I have gotten to shoot some fairly expensive, "Big Name" .22's in the last few months, and I noticed that the accuracy of the older guns was sometimes much better than some of the really pricey new supershooters.
Almost all of them had open sights, which I really can't see that well, but even the ones with peep/globe or "match" sights put 'em really close to where I was pointing them.
I was wondering if maybe I ran into a batch of $50-60 ancient Wonders, or if the new batch is just overrated?
BTW, the finest trigger in the bunch was on a rusty-barreled old Marlin with no serial # or model # that was held to the stock by a single, oversized screw under the barrel.
Almost all of them had open sights, which I really can't see that well, but even the ones with peep/globe or "match" sights put 'em really close to where I was pointing them.
I was wondering if maybe I ran into a batch of $50-60 ancient Wonders, or if the new batch is just overrated?
BTW, the finest trigger in the bunch was on a rusty-barreled old Marlin with no serial # or model # that was held to the stock by a single, oversized screw under the barrel.
0
-
I've found that old .22s, in general, are every bit as acurate as those today. One of my very favorites is the Winchester Model 57 target. A lightweight tack driver. There is a real nice one on auction right now, however, it has had its stock refinished. 0 -
I have certainly shot my shares of .22LRs. Both me and the brother in law are in pocession of a older mossberg produced around the 1930's and 1940's mine is a target model. It had a scope once upon a time but now i just use open sights. Couldnt afford the peep sight for being an old dog leg it sure does the trick. The best part is it was free. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by chrishiher
I have certainly shot my shares of .22LRs. Both me and the brother in law are in pocession of a older mossberg produced around the 1930's and 1940's mine is a target model. It had a scope once upon a time but now i just use open sights. Couldnt afford the peep sight for being an old dog leg it sure does the trick. The best part is it was free.
My model 67 is still cappin' prairie dogs at 100 yards. Nothing wrong with it's accuracy.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
quote:Originally posted by chrishiher
I have certainly shot my shares of .22LRs. Both me and the brother in law are in pocession of a older mossberg produced around the 1930's and 1940's mine is a target model. It had a scope once upon a time but now i just use open sights. Couldnt afford the peep sight for being an old dog leg it sure does the trick. The best part is it was free.
My model 67 is still cappin' prairie dogs at 100 yards. Nothing wrong with it's accuracy.
My old 67 is accurate like that as well.0 -
I've been shooting .22's for 60 years, since my first old Remington single shot. I have some old ones, and I have some new ones. As far as accuracy, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them, but the older models, old collectable Winnies and rems just feel better. They cuddle up close in your hands, snuggle up against your cheek, the beautiful wooden stocks emit warmth and comfort as they bring back happy memories. They are old buddies and love going into the woods with you.
The newer ones are mechanical tools. They do what they were designed to do, and they do it efficiently, but they are dead. They are synthetic, and for the most part uninteresting. You can't get to know them, they don't know how to become your friend, they are without personality.
Maybe someone 50 years from now will be able to say the same for the laminated stocks and fancy ported barrels that are being made today, but I won't care by then.0 -
quote:Originally posted by kimi
My model 67 is still cappin' prairie dogs at 100 yards. Nothing wrong with it's accuracy.
My old 67 is accurate like that as well.
[/quote]
I gotta say that mine's been modified. A lot. Scoped, even. But WTH, it was a beater.0 -
Ditto on the model 67 "Tackdriver"[;)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
quote:Originally posted by kimi
My model 67 is still cappin' prairie dogs at 100 yards. Nothing wrong with it's accuracy.
My old 67 is accurate like that as well.
I gotta say that mine's been modified. A lot. Scoped, even. But WTH, it was a beater.
[/quote]
Well, if the truth must be known, [:)] my old '67 (first year model) is scoped with a Lyman of the same vintage.0 -
quote:Originally posted by oldgunner
I've been shooting .22's for 60 years, since my first old Remington single shot. I have some old ones, and I have some new ones. As far as accuracy, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them, but the older models, old collectable Winnies and rems just feel better. They cuddle up close in your hands, snuggle up against your cheek, the beautiful wooden stocks emit warmth and comfort as they bring back happy memories. They are old buddies and love going into the woods with you.
The newer ones are mechanical tools. They do what they were designed to do, and they do it efficiently, but they are dead. They are synthetic, and for the most part uninteresting. You can't get to know them, they don't know how to become your friend, they are without personality.
Maybe someone 50 years from now will be able to say the same for the laminated stocks and fancy ported barrels that are being made today, but I won't care by then.
that's because they used to use people with talent to design stuff back then. nowadays it's some twit straight out of engineering school who probably downloaded a design template for autocad, gets paid 25K a year, may not even speak english and doesn't know a thing about guns.
.22's might be just as accurate now as they've always been because there aren't many variables that go into what makes accuracy for a .22LR- it's not a large cartridge with a rim (rebated or not) so what the bolt face does doesn't make a difference; there's no shoulder to expand, and even if it did, case volume is teeny; consistency of powder burn isn't that important for the same reason; and really, a barrel is a barrel. that's my guess. if all that's true, then crowning probably makes more difference than anything.0 -
I also have a 67 that shoots excellent. I bought a CZ for my son to shoot in 4-H and the accuracy just wasn't there (tried several different brands including Eley and other match ammo). Found the 67 at the local gunshop for 75.00 out the door and it will shoot into a dime at 25 yards open sights. IMHO I don't think they have improved that much, if at all....Bull[8D] 0 -
I just came from the pawn shop and they had 6 model 67's. I do not need another but almost bought a couple. I think I could have gotten them for 75 dollars each. Don 0 -
quote:Originally posted by dcon12
I just came from the pawn shop and they had 6 model 67's. I do not need another but almost bought a couple. I think I could have gotten them for 75 dollars each. Don
That's a whole lot less than the ones I've seen here on GB lately. There must be a lot of nostalgia attached to them. Understandably. I learned how to shoot on one.0 -
I'm still working on my first Marlin Bolt...I wore out the mag catch[:D] 0 -
quote: oldgunner:
The newer ones are mechanical tools. They do what they were designed to do, and they do it efficiently, but they are dead. They are synthetic, and for the most part uninteresting. You can't get to know them, they don't know how to become your friend, they are without personality.
DEAD ON![8D]
I doubt many of you have ever had the pleasure to shoot the old Winchester M90 WRF pump. My grandfather used to swear by them - and I have his now. It used to put the .22 LR to shame - shot flatter and faster. As I recall, the heavier 7gn bullet used to clock out at between 1400 & 1500fps. I'd probably still be shooting varmits with it up in the mountains ... 'cept the ammo all but dried up back in the 60's. Of course by then, the .22 Mag. sealed the deal - but it was my all time favorite .22![:D]0 -
Develope a bit of a stutter there, Mr. Zipper???[;)] 0 -
I was wowowo wondering the same ththth thing! [:)] 0 -
I LOVE the old Mossbergs- have 3 of the Mdl 152s. Never bult as a target rifle- they were hunters and plinkers- but they are cheap and FUN! The Mdl 44 can hold its head up with any 22. My old Marlin 39A (pre microgroove rifling) and Marlin 81s are as accurate as any standard new production rifle. And the best thing is that I can buy a used rifle and lifetime supply of ammo for the cost of a brand new rifle (and old guns need love too!) 0 -
quote:Originally posted by zipperzap
quote: oldgunner:
The newer ones are mechanical tools. They do what they were designed to do, and they do it efficiently, but they are dead. They are synthetic, and for the most part uninteresting. You can't get to know them, they don't know how to become your friend, they are without personality.
DEAD ON![8D]
I doubt many of you have ever had the pleasure to shoot the old Winchester M90 WRF pump. My grandfather used to swear by them - and I have his now. It used to put the .22 LR to shame - shot flatter and faster. As I recall, the heavier 7gn bullet used to clock out at between 1400 & 1500fps. I'd probably still be shooting varmits with it up in the mountains ... 'cept the ammo all but dried up back in the 60's. Of course by then, the .22 Mag. sealed the deal - but it was my all time favorite .22![:D]
Ive got a couple of old .22's with no personality. a rem 10c mowhowk and a savage 22/410, both with bakelite crap hanging on them.[:D]0 -
Got A winchester model 19 with a few million rounds thru it and is still is accurate Along with my moms Stevens BBl target 22 single shot. 0 -
I'm looking for a Marlin .22 (glenfield?) with the woodchuck on the handgrip......to replace the one I wore out as a kid:) 0 -
I got this today at a small gunshow near here. It's older and I gave too much for it, so I guess it fits both "older" and "more expensive".[:D] It's a grooved top Winchester model 72A in high 90% condition. It's basically the same rifle as the 69A, except it is tube magazine fed. Would somebody quickly explain to me the difference between "want" and "need"? Because I really didn't need another .22. 
0 -
quote:sig232:
Develope a bit of a stutter there, Mr. Zipper???
... that was a weird glitch - a first!
I killed the first one - first try![:o)]0 -
Here are a couple of pictures of my favorite it's a Springfield mod.87.I call it my .22 semi auto bolt action. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by wundudnee
I got this today at a small gunshow near here. It's older and I gave too much for it, so I guess it fits both "older" and "more expensive".[:D] It's a grooved top Winchester model 72A in high 90% condition. It's basically the same rifle as the 69A, except it is tube magazine fed. Would somebody quickly explain to me the difference between "want" and "need"? Because I really didn't need another .22.
No sweat. The difference between want and need when you come across a jewel like your newly acquired 72A is what's known as a must need item, aka as a wanted need. A wanted need is similar to the I want it now affliction. This must wanted now need feeling clearly distinguishes the difference between what is a want and what is a need. I hope this helps, so ENJOY that new treasure!0 -
This J.C. Higgins was my dad's 50 years ago. It's made by Marlin and is very, very accurate to this day. Absolute top-notch squirrel and rabbit gun: 0 -
you realy need to compair "cost of production", a $5 rifle built in 1930's should be compaired to a $200/300 rifle built today. 0 -
Some of todays junk.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=633923290 -
quote:Originally posted by MIKE WISKEY
you realy need to compair "cost of production", a $5 rifle built in 1930's should be compaired to a $200/300 rifle built today.
ain't talking about cost0 -
I like the older ones because they look better too. Don
Marlins, 81DL, 89C, 88.
Springfield 187, Winchester 670
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
29 comments