Kilibreaux

Factory CA mag = 10 rounds Factory STD mag = 12 rounds Aftermarket mag = 14 rounds How? Pull the base pad. On a CA mag twist the shiny milled metal stud off the internal base piece...that brings any 10 round mag up to 12 rounds. Grab a Dremel and slice off 1/4" from the spring stud located on the follower, then grind a little less off the spring stud located on the internal base piece = 13 rounds + 1 = 14 all up. Mag functions 100%.

I've owned my P22 for awhile now and it has performed flawlessly. It never fails to feed or eject and has functioned perfectly with a suppressor attached. The sights have never flown off, the slide has never departed from the gun, and nothing has evaporated before my eyes. However, I may not be shooting mine enough to uncover these issues. Anyone else have a long-term update?

I like it! I've always been a sucker for a Colt cartridge conversion! Many years back I machined my own 1851 Navy .36 conversion to .22LR and loved it. I've got a "genuine" Colt Pocket .31 I would love to do a conversion on!

Kahr has made their "bones" producing compact...and I mean COMPACT handguns. The introduction of slimmed down versions from other makers is a direct result of Kahr's highly concealable pistols.

I ordered an M&P22 half on impulse, and half on just being plain impressed with what S&W is turning out these days. I already have the Walther P22 which has proven to be an amazing little pistol, and since Walther and S&W are in partnership I figured the M&P would probably have a familial resemblance to the P22. Well, I was right, and wrong. It IS made by Walther in Germany, which means probably produced by Umarex. It has the same over-the-top labeling on the slide as does the Walther, just in case you might forget what you're handling. Most importantly, it uses the same barrel mounting system as the Walther, which some will not like, others - myself included, will love it because it means one can order the threaded barrel bushing for the P22 and it will go right on the Smith...and personally, I think one should have a selection of readily suppressible .22 handguns. Fit and finish is top-notch...other than the smaller hole in the barrel one would not automatically think this to be a .22LR. Where the M&P differs radically from the Walther is size..it is MUCH larger, and far more hand-filling. The P22 is a 3/4 scale version of the P99, while the M&P is a full-size version of its larger caliber siblings. For those who are already converts to the S&W M&P series, the M&P22 makes a greater trainer piece. While the M&P9 and 40 are striker fired and have no external thumb safety, the M&P22 is hammer fired - SINGLE ACTION, and so makes use of an ambidextrous thumb safety in addition to the trigger safety as found on the striker models. The hammer is fully enclosed inside the pistol, and there is an internal firing pin lock safety which, combined with the trigger safety would seem to allow one to train with the piece in the same way as it's center fire siblings, with the thumb safety being that little bit extra. It has a functional slide hold open which is something NOT generally found on classic "field" .22's designed in the age before "Tacticool." So the pistol is definitely NOT a scaled down replica...it's full size. It comes with nice looking, dovetail mounted, Novak style sights. Rear sight is a blocky steel insert into the housing, and the front sight has a tiny set screw to allow windage adjustment or removal. The slide is very light...appears to be aluminum and based on how light it feels probably is. It makes use of a steel insert which covers all the impact-function aspects of operation. The polymer grip housing contains a metal (probably zinc) sub-housing which can be removed by tapping out a few roll pins. Internally it is clearly related to the Walther P22, but on a larger scale. The block housing the barrel is larger and taller, while the barrel is of the same "pattern" it is not interchangeable. It does use a retaining nut and outer, tension housing which has proven to be a reliable, durable system. Take down is fairly easy. With the slide closed simply rotate the takedown lever on the left side, then wiggle and pull to withdraw it...it's not designed to come completely out and the stop point is easy to recognize. Magazine out, retract the slide fully, lift up and forward to remove. The guide rod is metal with an integral buffer ring. Pulling the takedown lever allows the guide rod to move further back so the slide can go far enough to disengage. When reassembling, the takedown lever will require firm pressure to snap in position and thrust the guide rod forward. The focal point of recoil is backed up by the large steel base of the guide rod buttressing the steel takedown pin. Considering how well my P22 has held up while being smaller - and that includes frequent suppressor use which adds strain to the operating components, I would expect this much larger, beefier M&P to stand up to a great deal of shooting. The feel of the polymer grip is excellent...nothing "cheap" about it. The magazine release is smooth and easy to reach. I think this pistol potential. Shooting will be the bottom line of course.

Sorry I came late to this post...been in a land far away. The cocking tube must slide forward a small amount to allow the receiver halves to separate. In case you haven't already solved this...when you reassemble you can use a hot glue gun to "tack" the upper receiver insert (metal if you're doing the GSG-5 retro fit) to one receiver side and this will avoid needing that third hand.

IF you decide to do the screw upgrade bear in mind you must drill out the threads in the various affected sections. The reason: Screw will never tighten properly using a nut if the receiver screw threads are still present. The push-pin upgrade is a definite must....nothing wrong with than at all. Hammer strut modification is also a MUST....because this is what ensures the bolt stays closed as long as possible during cartridge detonation. I also suggest doing the trigger modification...this results in a very short, crisp trigger action.

You can take the spring all the way down to its fully collapsed height and it should work just fine. People tend to think that the duration of compression is what leads to spring weakness but this is not so. CYCLES is what fatigues a spring. You can leave a GSG mag FULLY loaded for 20 years and it will function just fine.

Okay....let's see if we can figure this out. In order for the hammer to depress the firing pin, the bolt MUST be virtually "closed." If you visualize the bolt retracted even a few millimeters, the hammer cannot strike the firing pin with enough force to fire a round. IF the bolt is open a greater distance, the firing pin is no longer a factor in any round that fires because it is nowhere near the firing pin. UNLESS the bolt hangs up during feeding - "just enough" to that when the trigger is pulled the falling hammer's energy drives the bolt closed and smacks the firing pin - but there is a problem, and I assure you I've tested this... The GSG has a MONSTER firing pin return spring. Even if you remove the entire trigger group and allow the hammer to ride the bolt home, the gun will not fire. What this means is the likelihood of the hammer causing a cartridge detonation is nil. However, if the firing pin opening has ingested enough carbonaceous material to cause binding, the firing pin MIGHT....MIGHT snag just enough that a suddenly driven forward bolt would result in a slam-fire. Bear in mind a slam-fire only requires about .020" of firing pin protrusion which is about half what we normally expect from a hammer-fired system. Another thing that might have caused this is retained debris...remember, .020" is TINY which means a few particles of grit...perhaps a buildup, could create, in effect, a fixed firing pin slam-fire situation. Based on the information you have supplied this scenario, or the scenario of a firing pin not properly retracted is the only explanation that is mechanically possible. Is there a way to prevent this? The only way I can imagine is to check the chamber and bolt face frequently and spray it down with a solvent to clear out any grit (bearing in mind the gun's finish). In RE-reading your last response I am more likely to conclude that regardless of what the shooter "appeared" to do, the end result was a closed breech for the following reasons: 1. The firing pin CANNOT be impacted by the hammer if the bolt is more than about .050" out of battery. 2. If the hammer falls with the bolt grossly open - say 1/4" or more, the hammer cannot strike the firing pin, but CAN contribute considerable power to drive the bolt closed. 3. That you have not stated the cartridge case ruptured in the open chamber indicates the cartridge was fully chambered when detonated...it cannot be otherwise. 4. Your position on the LEFT side was not suitable to view the ejection port...when your wife racked the operating knob the gun must have gone into battery, otherwise you'd have a blown case to show for it. 5. A .22LR that detonates outside of the walls of a supporting chamber virtually disintegrates. On most if not all modern .22's out of battery fire is prevented by hammer-to-bolt angle interface. By positioning the hammer's axis of rotation well below the bottom plane of the bolt, IF the hammer is released during the bolt's travel it will simply "ride" the bolt home without enough free energy to cause the firing pin to detonate the priming compound. A good example of gun design before this understanding was incorporated in design is the 1911 pistol. The 1911's hammer pivot is very close to the slide's underside. This results in the hammer being held fully cocked until the slide is almost closed....which is why 1911's will "go full auto" everyday of the week if the disconnector is removed, but the GSG is NOT of such design. The GSG hammer pivot is WELL below the bolt line and if released by a pull of the trigger with the bolt "half-way open" or substantially less, will dissipate its energy on the bolt's lower radius leaving insufficient energy to depress the firing pin.

Unfortunately that is the case with the FACTORY setup which I pointed out way back when I first presented the modifications. You see, in a STOCK GSG when you pull the trigger that large plate on the left side is moved forward to depress a plunger that unlocks the firing pin...problem is, as long as you hold the trigger, the firing pin block is "unlocked" throughout the bolt's cycle. in the FACTORY configuration if you retract the bolt ALL THE WAY BACK to where you just feel it touch the cocked hammer, then pull the trigger...what do you think will happen? The hammer will drop and this with the bolt approximately 2/3'd OPEN...this is how the GSG comes direct from the factory, so the mod to eliminate the relatively pointless firing pin block located in the bolt is completely valid. Whether you disconnect the block or not, as long as a FINGER is holding the trigger back - or pulls the trigger and the bolt is far enough forward so the cocked hammer is uncovered by the bolt, the hammer WILL FALL....factory or modded. Now, what keeps the cartridge from firing is the ANGLE formed between the hammer and bolt IF the bolt is out of battery....IF the breech was "half open" with a jammed cartridge and the trigger pulled, the hammer cannot reach the firing pin. This is a part of modern "safe design" and is what REALLY prevents an out of battery fire...UNLESS, as you stated the gun is "really dirty" which might have lead to a "slam fire" from a bound up firing pin that hangs up at just the right point so the cartridge rim can get in front of it, yet protrudes just enough - maybe .020" to cause a slam fire just as the breech closes. 22's have a hard time detonating the priming compound in any position other than chambered because the rim must be "crushed" and without a fixed point supporting the rim, even if the firing pin snaps forward inadvertent detonation is unlikely. You did not specify precisely what happened when the trigger was pulled and the gun when "pop." Does this mean you had an out-of-battery fire and case rupture? You did not state that the gun was damaged in any way...this means no out-of-battery fire. BTW, the whole POINT of doing the hammer strut mod is to CORRECT a major design error where the hammer has no direct spring impetus during the last 10 degrees or so of its travel which means when the gun fires the only force closing the breech is the bolt's mass and recoil springs until the bolt has moved back about 1/4"...which CAN and has led to case rupture due to the case being pushed out of the chamber during the high pressure phase. By modding the hammer and removing the "rebound" feature the bolt hits home under full spring pressure thus supplying important resistance to the breech opening. The "features" deactivated on the GSG are completely unnecessary and create no more potential for a dangererous fire condition - practically speaking. Yes, IF the bolt lock is retained and the hammer slips the sear without a finger on the trigger, the hammer will not detonate the round, but if a finger is holding or has pulled the trigger and the bolt is closed or very close to fully closed the gun will fire. It might be nice to see photos of any damage to better assess what happened.

Awhile back a friend of mine who owns a GSG and knows how the factory trigger feels, fired mine. He commented, "Wow, your trigger pull feels really crisp and precise!" The BEST way to know how improved is the trigger after being modded is to have someone who has been firing a non-modified trigger fire yours...they'll be quick to tell you.

As long as you feel comfortable with taking the GSG completely apart - splitting the receiver sides, then the installation is a breeze.

In case you haven't found this yet - Razorback firing a 1000 belt non-stop. It's not impressive just because of the capacity, but the sheer reliability! And if a round fails to fire a quick rack on the operating knob yanks the round out of the chamber, and a fresh round coming down the T-slot kicks it out the bottom and replaces it in the chamber. http://www.youtube.com/user/Krink545#p/a/u/1/7h0s_62jXuk

I posted my update before I pulled the barrel on the RB and saw how heavily leaded it was! I spent about an hour using a stiff bristle bruch and bore solvent to scrub out a rather thick deposit of leading. Those not familiar with how rapidly belt-fed .22's can go through bullets - myself included before this last session, cannot appreciate how fast the barrel heats to the point where leading occurs, but this begs the age-old question of: Does a copper plated bullet lead less when firing fast enough to REALLY get the barrel hot? I've done searches to try and find any commentary on HEAT-related barrel leading, but all I find are posts about the accuracy of lead bullets versus plated by guys firing them relatively slowly....I guess I'll have to do my own comparison to find out if a thousand round belt of copper plated leaves deposits equal to 1000 rounds of lead bullets.

I don't have my own pictures at present because I tend to shy away from posting photos of what I have, however, you can follow the links below to see the Razorback: http://208.56.123.138/Invision/index.php?showtopic=1914 http://www.lakesideguns.com/

Aguila makes some very good ammo! Over the last year I've had the opportunity to fire the hypervelocity 30 grain and SSS 60 grain and both have proven reliable yet inexpensive compared to "domestic" brands. The ONLY trouble I've had is trying to fire the 60 grain SSS in my belt fed...the rounds simply do not want to slide into the loops, don't want to slide OUT of the loops, and basically create all manor of havoc, BUT, the SSS round feeds 100% through my Walther P-22 and my GSG-5. Being subsonic one naturally wants to see how it works with a suppressor and in this area it performs quite well. With suppression the report is a very muted, low frequency "snap" and that's it. I LIKE the Aguila SSS but the fact that it pushes a bullet weighing 50% more than standard means greater bolt thrust. Add a suppressor to that and bolt thrust could be damaging in certain guns.

The Winchester "RN" 1300 fps ammo has performed flawlessly in my GSG-522, Walther P-22, Ciener Platinum Cup 1911, Ruger 10/22, and Razorback. I really LIKE this ammo...it's clean both outside and "in" speaking in terms of residue left behind. It has NEVER demonstrated a feed jam in ANY of my guns, and I'm sitting here racking my brain to remember if a round ever failed to fire. My Walther LOVES this stuff..well, it loves everything else too, and my GSG REALLY seems pleased when firing this ammo. I'd buy a LOT of this ammo if the price ever gets a little more competitive.

Just wanted to update on how Blazers have been working for me. I purchased a case of 5000 from www.targetsportsusa.com for $171 delivered...this was ammo packed in 50 round boxes, 10 boxes to a "brick." The bullets were dark and shiny with some type of wax lube, but not overly so. I really like that more pointed nose profile of the Blazer over other styles and this works well for chambering in semiautos. Also, the rim thickness on Blazer exceeds that of other brands I've measured, and this is important considering the application. Firing a 330 round belt through my Razorback, every round chambers perfectly and fires....like a sewing machine. Unlike magazine fed weapons that rely on feed ramps and angles to help guide the cartridge from magazine to chamber, the Razorback bolt extracts the round from the belt, moves it into and down a T-slot on the bolt face into alignment with the chamber, then slides it right in...the nose generally doesn't touch anything on the way in. In this regard virtually any .22 style will feed, but the more bulbous, or rounded the nose, the more likely it is to bump into the bottom edge of the chamber mouth. Anyway, so far I've run that 5,000 thousand rounds of Blazer through the Razorback VERY FAST from 50, 200 and 330 round belts without a single hitch...."very fast" means a 50 round belt in a bit over 2.5 seconds - no jams, no failures to feed, certainly no extraction failures since the Razorback uses absolute positive extraction, and no misfires! My GSG also seems quite content to fire Blazers...I had a few failures to fire until I stoned my firing pin, but since then, no failures to ignite. In this regard I used locally obtained "on sale" Blazer bulk pack and it did the job just fine.

A few years back I converted an 1851 Navy blackpowder to .22LR. As part of the conversion I had to bore and sleeve the chambers followed by using a chambering reamer. At the time I ordered a reamer only the match grade was in stock - same price so WTH I ordered it figuring how much difference could it make.... Well...it makes a LOT of difference! The match chambers are so tight the shells must be pushed in - they don't fall in by any means. While this is what a match shooter wants, the average shmoe who rechambers an 1851 Navy wants standard spec chambers. Reading your post makes me wonder if you might want to try running a standard grade chambering reamer through your gun. You see, when chambers are reamed they use the same reamer for a specified number of passes...the first chambers will the the largest, the last chambers in the life-cycle of that reamer will be tighter...the difference may be less than .0005" but that matters. A full .001" when milling close-tolerance parts means the difference between going together or not at all...

Testing has shown that high velocity ammo causes "peening" of the bolt housing when using a SINGLE spring. Consider higher performance springs if you intend to use Hyper-velocity ammo in your GSG-5/522.

A combination of things. MOST guns have a sear/hammer engagement that acts to force the two into full engagement with light spring pressure. The sear is also very light and not subject to popping out of engagement with a sudden shock. On the GSG the sear (tiny) sits in the sear "housing" which is a rather longish arm extending forward from the trigger. The Sear arm spring is required to elevate this larger than standard sear housing as well as hold it in place against shock release as can be caused by the GSG's quite strong recoil springs slamming the action shut. The sear housing also has gravity working against it, and to top it all off, the actual SEAR is installed "as cast" so to speak with no attention paid to fine-tuning it's shape for better engagement. On the Hammer side of the equation, the sear notch is really two notches on either side of a slot that allows the hammer strut to pass. As with the sear, the hammer notches are not crisply cut and fitted, but have generous tolerances. All of this explains why come GSG's never experience "doubles" or "triples" while others seem to have them quite frequently. The Sear housing tends to rise "sluggishly" causing partial engagement of sear to hammer notch, and upon bolt closure the sear is "knocked" out of engagement. The quickest way to improve the situation is to replace the sear spring with a stronger one, or add a "helper" spring to help "lift" the sear arm quickly enough as well as counter the shock effect of the bolt closing. A better (additional) solution is to remove the hammer and sear and carefully shape their engagement angle so they tend to slide deeper into engagement with little spring pressure.

A standard AK folded receiver "blank" will fit a 10/22 inside if it is made to proper spec. One could cobble together their own AK-style 10/22 building up from a receiver blank, and end up with a pretty sturdy weapon.

Though it probably doesn't sound like it, back "in my day" I did a bit of competition high powered rifle shooting, a little Trap, and even some combat pistol and silhouette shooting...and did fairly well if I must say so myself. I also used to take reloading to the highest level - especially my 7.62x51 match loads. So I KNOW components and even subtle things like positioning and handling can have an impact on accuracy. If a "match shooter" seats primers with a machine, or on a progressive press, well...he's either NOT a match shooter, or he's not in the running with those who take the business seriously. I state the above because I realize that many - reflecting on my previous verbose posts, might presume I'm more on the "run and gun" side of the equation, yet far be that from the truth. I am quite "scientifically" schooled in the world of firearms, yet in my old age I find the world seems to have gone a bit too far over toward the "technical details" of this or that, and moved away from the basics of "back in the day" when we bought a .50 box of WHATEVER brand .22LR was on sale in Otasco's, or WalMart, and we shot it out of WHATEVER .22LR we happened to be lucky enough to own. I grew up toting an old High Standard 9 shot revolver...with innumberable out-of-time firing pin indentations on the cylinder, and a Sears, single-shot, bolt action .22LR...hell, we were happy it was a .22 LONG RIFLE and not chambered for the "LONG"...my how times have changed. So, I KNOW shooting...and I know that a superior shooter...a "Shootist" if you will, firing OTC ammo will always prevail over the "average Joe" who has been "trained" and has the luxury of superior ammo and equipment. The rationale behind that statement is that the "Shootist" has an innate ability to visualize and conceptualize what the bullet is doing. Just watch the series "Top Shot" and you see shooters who are clearly "naturals" in their ability versus those who were "taught" how to shoot....a natural needs no teaching. Some may take issue with that statement, but all you "natural" shooters out there will KNOW I have spoken truth. Having said all that (and gone on yet another mini-rant to do so), I acknowledge that "high quality" .22LR ammo exists...hell, Eley priming is without doubt top drawer, and I also know a match chamber makes a difference as does a superior trigger...lapped bore, etc. Certainly HIGH quality ammo is - and SHOULD BE better than garden variety, yet there is the "middle ground." That would be the "pretender" ammo....brands and grades that are statistically not one WHIT superior to "bulk pack" yet being sold at near match grade prices. I am going to avoid my normal proclivity to "name names" and suffice it to say many domestic brands are pretty much identical across the maker's spectrum - in all regards except price. Unfortunately, with the .22LR we cannot load our own (or can we?), so we are reliant upon the manufacturers to do a decent job of it for us, YET we do not hold said manufacturers to the same standards we would hold ourselves if loading center fire ammo...interesting. WHY do we accept irregular ignition? Because we get misfires? Or because we've grown up being told that rimfire ammo is prone to misfire? When Eugene Stoner set down to design the AR-15 he approached it from a NON-traditional view....he came in as an aircraft engineer, not a "gun smith" and the result was revolutionary. Say what you want about the AR-15/M-16, but it's been around for half a century and isn't going away anytime soon...pretty good evidence of a superior design. Stoner didn't start with the 1903 bolt action, nor did he feel compelled to work "up" from the M-1/M-14 with heavy steel and wood; instead he came at the problem the way an aerospace engineer would....LIGHT materials...aluminum, plastic...plenty strong enough for the job...a much smaller cartridge...not "sporting" in terms of "deer hunting" yet quite adequate for "human hunting." Stoner's choice was VALIDATED when the Soviets introduced the 5.45x39 after they saw the 5.56x45 in action in Vietnam. Why does this matter in a .22LR forum? Because it proves an unconventional solution can solve a conventional problem QUITE elegantly. Could the .22LR ammo makers "solve" the problem of irregular ignition if they wanted? Certainly they could, but why bother. "Everybody knows" any serious .22 caliber bullet will be sitting atop a CENTER FIRE case! So why bother implementing quality improvement in the .22LR? The "answer" to that ridiculous question of course lies in the .17 caliber....a totally modern "rimfire" cartridge using "real" bullets inside of rimfire cases...and clearly capable of delivering "the goods" if properly manufactured. To say that because the priming compound is spread out around the rim, it is less reliable than the same priming compound situated in a metal "cup" with an anvil is patently ridiculous. Certainly if the ammo makers are introducing "minimal" amounts of priming compound into the case as it is "spun" to distribute the compound, THAT would result in spotty ignition, or if "spin time" were minimal, so on and so forth. Perhaps the manufacturer chooses a thicker "slurry" of priming compound than is ideal, which, combined with short spin times, and limited quantity, results in insufficient priming compound.....if you pay CENTER FIRE prices you get decently primed RIMFIRE ammo, but if you pay bulk prices you get the crappy ammo that barely ignites....is that what we are to believe? One thing is for certain: You can be SURE the manufacturers employ statisticians who calculate the failure rate of their ammo and determine the ideal "price point" based on number of failed rounds per whatever volume....this IS the way of modern corporations...if they can shave ONE CENT off the manufacturing cost by reducing priming compound...going with a less reliable formulation, reducing spin time, reducing volume, etc., then they WILL!!! Ammo USED to be made by guys who loved to make ammo. They understood what was needed to produce an ideal product. NOW ammo is made by CORPORATIONS who couldn't give one $hI! about the product, but instead focus on the COST TO MANUFACTURE said product and if they can save a penny somewhere by reducing quality they certainly will. The corporate mindset is what has destroyed manufacturing....it's all about the BOTTOM LINE and nothing about the product because they have SURVEYS out the "yinyang" that support their premise that the consumer basically doesn't care if his ammo is marginal as long as he gets it within a given "price-point." Does .22LR HAVE to cost as much as centerfire to be reliable? NO, but don't expect any corporate run entity to tell you that. IF...and I say IF .22LR must cost the same as centerfire ammo to be reliable, then by GOD make it CENTERFIRE! Otherwise spend the extra penny here and there to improve the garden variety .22LR and stop "allowing" the shooting public to think they must have lower expectations for rimfire ammo than for center fire. It's like a "shell game" in that .22LR used to be reliable AND cheap, but now, if you want cheap, well then buddy, expect misfires, and if you're willing to pay the same "vig" as for centerfire ammo, THEN you get reliable ignition....and the post-modern shooter eats it up! The advent of the "tactical .22" may or may not be beneficial to this situation. One HOPES the manufacturers of ammo and firearms will pay particular attention to improving the "bang-to-trigger pull" ratio. Why does this matter? Because ONE aspect of a survival scenario is based on the use of the .22LR for "suppression" when dealing with large numbers. IF the world suddenly collapses and we find ourselves completely dependent upon our weapons for survival, the .22LR becomes the "go too" choice for dealing with any and all situations that do not immediately indicate a need for "heavier weapons." IF for example, I have a group of 50 coming down my street - pillaging, can I better deal with the situation by setting up a "base of fire" using a belt-fed .22LR from which I can "afford" to "waste" ammo, versus pulling out my 5.56? WHY should I "waste" a single 5.56 round on a person who can just as readily be "deterred" by one .22LR? WHY would I "waste" my precious stock of 7.62 ammo on people in the open when my .22LR belt fed can far more efficiently - and cheaply, inflict demoralizing effect on a crowd coming my way? The fact is, in a "survival scenario" one is most likely to be confronted with roving bands - armed, who expect to overwhelm their "prey." They will NOT likely be wearing body armor, nor will they employ advanced tactics. A 5 round "burst" of .22LR can easily deal with such situations while preserving the .308 for those situations where it's ability to punch through steel is required. So YES, the .22LR is a valid and viable "choice" for the survival-minded.

One look at the BX-25 and I knew it would be a quality build. I've been shooting Ruger products for close to 35 years and whatEVER one might think, say, or presume about Ruger, the stuff they build is built to last, and to stand up to tremendous abuse along the way! I'm glad I held off on the TI mags...I LOVE the look of the BX-25, and have no hesitation placing an order for several. Not to say the TI brand is inferior, but Ruger simply got "the look" right.

Yes, Elmer Keith had it all figured out pretty well, and he certainly "fathered" several of the impressive rounds we have today, which of course are the foundation of many more developed from his work. However, what Elmer Keith and others have never truly visited is just how much "kinetic energy" it takes for a given bullet to deliver a lethal wound. Anecdotally we know the .22 short, fired from a 1" barrel at point blank range CAN, and HAS killed people. We also know the .25ACP, for all it's negative press, can easily deliver a "kill shot" when fired from a short barreled automatic. I must point out that the average "modern, western civilization" human male weighs in over 200 lb. which is comparable to Deer size. We routinely hunt Deer with high-powered rifles, despite the "human evidence" that even the tiny .22LR will easily cancel a Deer's ticket. Each year a whole lotta people are "sent to meet Jesus" by the .22LR, yet the myth persists that something massive and huge is needed to drop humans. The sad FACT is the .22LR has a BETTER chance of delivering a central nervous system "kill shot" than the 9mm, .40 S&W, or the .45 ACP! Whereas the larger bullets MUST rely on shattering bone to deliver injury to the spinal cord or brain stem, the .22LR seems to find a way to "slither in" and cancel out perpheral nerve impulses quite readily. Those who read my posts are probably tired of hearing (reading) this, but the fact is, I've seen countless humans come into ER or the ICU, with .22LR wounds that are lethal, or paralytic. I've seen MORE humans come in hit by the various "large bore" rounds who WALKED in, with little physical impairment. Anyway I must remember to NOT go on a rant....