Kilibreaux

Techmike, You are absolutely right! Your example explains why domestic 9x19 is underloaded by U.S. factories as opposed to the original spec. Thousands of guns brought back after WWI and WWII created a demand for the 9mm, yet, U.S. companies, not knowing how strong these guns were, set the "spec" low. As a result, toggle-action Lugers circa 1918 cannot reliably function with "modern" domestic ammo quite because it is too WEAK to cycle the action. Doesn't matter that the 9mm "Luger" has been in country for many decades now, the loads are and always will be WEAK from the major manufacturers. An ORGINAL 1873 Colt cannot handle the added stress of "modern" loads and so ALL major manufacturer's loads are "SAAMI spec'd" so if one slides a modern, solid-head .45 colt round into an original BP frame 1873, the gun won't blow up. Doesn't matter that "balloon head" cases haven't been in circulation for DECADES, nor that anyone with two brain cells firing already KNOWS the original guns and ammo wasn't up to modern standards, the ammo makers insist on producing low-power loads because it's SAFE and profitable. Can an 1873 BP take more? Hell YES it can, but how many people are going to "chance it" when the overwhelming bulk of information tells them the gun isn't up to the challenge. Those SAME people will turn around, grab their .357 Magnum and stuff if full with cylinder-full after cylinder-full of high-powered loads without a thought that said loads are decreasing the gun's life span. I have a couple of BP frame 1873's that handle top, smokeless powder handloads without a problem, because even those are quite anemic compared to the mighty blast a "modern" .45 Colt such as the Ruger Blackhawk can handle. Anyway, not to digress too much on a rant, but you are right....why "cut the edge" so to speak when some duffus in bum-f$%^#$ Yodel-ville is likely to cram super-duper, hyper-velocity, warp-speed .22LR into the cheapest, crappiest, most rusted out piece of $h1t on planet Earth and WHEN it blows up, attempt to sue the manufacturer. It doesn't matter that laws are in place to limit the liability of gun and ammo makers for how their products are used, some jerk-wad, small-town, wanna-be Jose Baez attorney can and WILL jump all over any case they think will result in "The Big Strike."

The numbers on this ammo look good on the front end. The bullet weight - velocity is better than all other subsonic loads except for the Aguila SSS 60 grain, yet this ammo looks like it will feed in situations where the SSS ammo will not. The suggested retail price of $45/500 isn't bad either - quite comparable to other brands. That said, this ammo seems worth buying a test brick or two to see how it functions through a suppressor.

I agree they need to bring back the .22 Mag version, but alas it suffers from the combined deficiency of being more expensive, the ammo being MUCH more expensive, and improvements in .22LR ballistics that tend to make the consumer choose the .22LR - for all the above reasons.

I need to add that people should be aware that when it comes to reciprocating, blow-back, recoil operated systems, "faster" is generally not "better" for the system. The faster a bolt cycles, the higher are its decelerative forces, thus an increase in parts wear or damage. When trying to "magnumize" various calibers people usually think in terms of "opening forces" without regard to the overall system forces. For example: If I install an 18 lb recoil spring in my 1911 to handle heavier than stock slide opening forces, I am also subjecting the frame to more stress by the harder CLOSING forces. The GSG is the same. Standard velocity loads generate around 250 "G" of decelerative slide force - not inclusive of recoil spring damping. High velocity loads are looking at around 375 "G" and HYPER velocity loads are well in excess of 500 "G" of slide decelerative force - at least twice the force exerted by standard velocity ammo. Slide cycling speed with hypervel ammo can be less than 1/1000th of a second. This means the slide CLOSES with considerable speed and force! This explains WHY it matters that certain guns are "rated" to handle certain loads. A gun certified to digest high velocity loads MIGHT be able to cycle standard vel loads, but maybe not, and if not, this is not an indictment of the gun....it's actually a credit. A gun designed and "sprung" to handle standard velocity ammo - firing high speed ammo, will be subjected to much higher recoiling AND chambering forces, limiting parts life. The point of this is to say that recoil springs should be selected/installed based on the premise of fully cycling the action with the rated ammo, and as long as a GSG feeds reliably with the "spec" ammo the springs should probably be left alone. IF one desires to shoot a steady diet of LIGHTER loads, then reducing spring force by either removing one, or replacing two with lesser powered springs would be indicated. MILITARY weapons can, and usually are "under sprung," meaning they tend to cycle fast and hard, but this enhances short-term field reliability and the Military can afford to replace guns as they go out of spec. Civilian guns tend to start out with stiffer springs and higher potential for short-cycling because the average person buys gun, shoots a few boxes of ammo after which the "new" has worn off.

Well...AFTER the hammer strut has been modified to keep the hammer in contact with the bolt rather than a 1/4" of "free-flop" one could experiment with removing one recoil spring and running just a single spring. Of course the offset single spring will work just fine (just like it does on the 10/22), and in fact I've already tested this in my own GSG. This would slow down the bolt's reciprocation time and would certainly give the magazine spring more "time" to lift the rounds stack before the bolt comes slamming forward. Since my GSG no longer has any components that induce drag on the bolt other than the hammer, it will operate quite well with just one spring, HOWEVER, the GSG was designed to work with high velocity ammo, whereas the 10/22 was designed with most .22LR ammo was "standard velocity" or about 1000 fps. For the GSG this means that if the gun works with both springs - meaning it fully cycles, kicks the empty out, and chambers consistently, there would be no reason to run one spring. By comparison, the introduction of buffer components for the 10/22 is an aftermarket "solution" to deal with the fact that most 10/22's these days are living on a steady diet of high velocity ammo which causes excessive battering of the receiver by the bolt, via the rear cross pin, BECAUSE this is an easier, less expensive, and less involved approach than fitting a stronger recoil spring. My point is that the GSG was genuinely built to handle the "heavy stuff" and contrary to a lot of non-engineer nay-sayers, the GSG's internal design is pretty darn sturdy and will hold up to a lot of high velocity ammo, and even a generous diet of hypervelocity stuff, though I recommend hypervel stuff be used sparingly in the interest of parts longevity. While some might presume pulling a recoil spring would be dangerous...and it COULD BE under the wrong conditions, if the hammer strut has been modded, the gun will NOT "blow up" from early breech face-to-chamber separation. You see, it's the HAMMER, by virtue of it's mass, spring force, and leverage, that actually provides the most important initial resistance to chamber opening. At full - or nearly so, extension, the recoil springs provide LITTLE bolt closing force which is why OEM GSG's have a "reputation" for rim/case failures due to the breech face separating from the chamber "too early" in the pressure phase. Where the recoil springs REALLY come into play is after the first third of reward bolt stroke, but mostly AFTER the hammer has been successfully cocked. At near full compression the recoil springs provide that valuable "deceleration" on the bolt before catapulting it forward again...and here, the twin springs are both good - and bad. If they provide too much power, then that power will be most evident during the last third of the compressive phase, meaning "short-stroking." It will also mean the bolt will be kicked forward much faster, possibly faster than the magazine spring can lift the next round into place. Also, the bolt will slam home faster - harder, with more wear and tear on the system, AND will be more likely to induce a "slam-fire" due to jarring when the bolt hits home, the trigger is still held to the rear, and the sear arm is unblocked and potentially capable of being "knocked lose" if the factory sear arm spring and factory sear-to-hammer interface is extant. So pulling a spring MIGHT be something some people are interested in....and if so, here's how to approach it. First, DO the hammer strut mod!!!!! Second, buy some "shok-buffs" like those sold for the 1911...doesn't have to be a perfect fit on the recoil spring guide rod. Disassemble and remove the outside (right side) spring and replace with a couple of shok-buffs on that rod...yes you CAN "stack them" as needed until you feel the bolt making contact with the shok-buff during cycling. NOW you have a single spring, but you also have the shok-buff to deal with late decelerative forces which is pretty much the way the 10/22 works when equipped in the same manner. Grab a box of STANDARD velocity ammo and test your set-up...if it cycles 100%, meaning EJECTS 100% you've got a good setup, and you can then experiment with high-vel ammo. Now, having shot EVERYTHING from my Ruger 10/22 for many years with no shok-buff, and the factory OEM spring I doubt you need spend a lot of time worrying about high-vel, or hyper-vel ammo use, but the above guidelines are just one way to proceed to build confidence that the gun will "run" with one spring and not blow up. For my part I already KNOW the gun will run on one spring 'cause mine does it, but the CRUCIAL point is the hammer strut MUST BE MODIFIED FIRST! Another reason for possibly running a single spring would be if one desires to use standard weight subsonic ammo (really standard vel ammo). Even with the added breech thrust provided by a suppressor, the gun may not cycle unless it's running a single spring. If one chooses to use Aguila 60 grain subsonic WITH a suppressor then I HIGHLY recommend keeping BOTH recoil springs!

Well, when I CAN post the photos you will see the P22 mag stoked with 13 for a total of 14 "all up." I've cycled it every which-a-way and it chambers flawlessly so I expect the same when shooting. I hate to give up the slide hold open, but the added capacity is positively more important in "the field than any hold open.

I agree...IF the .22LR consumer BELIEVED the ammunition should be as close to 100% reliable as is center fire ammo, the ammo manufacturers would produce a better round. Let NO ONE believe the .22LR is more "complicated" to produce than the modern internal combustion engine, yet, thanks to consumer demand, combined with government mandate (EPA), the modern internal combustion engine, and the automobiles around it, have become amazingly reliable with a "failure rate" that is probably best calculated in fractions of a percent. Having said THAT, there is still a large number of people who actually believe they "built 'em better" back in 1968....with absolutely no regard for facts. I too have shot a bit of Trap in my time, and like your experience, most "serious" trap shooters believe they simply MUST have an over/under, and anything "less" is....well, LESS. Some years back I could consistently hit 23/25 on the Trap range with a Ducks Unlimited Remington 870 with long barrel and double bead. My friend (who's gun I was using), himself used a Browning Citori with special barrels and sights for TRAP shooting. He shot about the same as I. Simply put, the Remington is considered inferior to ANYTHING with an exotic label being used on the trap field. The Browning is considered inferior to high-dollar Perazzi's and such...and THIS drives consumer demand far more so than any ACTUAL numbers.

After I ordered a couple of 13 round magazine followers for my P22 I decided to mod the factory OEM mag. I ground away a substantial portion, filed and fitted, and ended up with a 13 round follower that allows 14 rounds total to be carried in the P22. I call that a worthwhile improvement. I've actually SEEN a P22 mag that holds 15 for a total of 16 in the gun and I may end up there at some point as I experiment with enhancing capacity. I can already tell that if one cares not for the slide lock feature, it would be VERY easy to cobble up a magazine extension that could easily bring capacity up to 20 rounds with little extension beyond the grip. For sport shooting having a last round hold-open is nice, but many ultra concealable pocket .22's and .25's do not have a slide lock, so trading off the slide hold open for another 3 rounds is worth it from a true tactical standpoint. I DID take photos but the file size is too large for them to post so I'll have to figure out how to reduce them so everyone can see 13 rounds in the mag.

I should mention the need to lube the magazines. A "dry" lubricant, or graphite will go a long way to helping the magazine spring "lift" the rounds stack in a timely manner. The GSG cycles FAST and the angle of the presented round is such that a bit of hesitation in the magazine "lift" can mean the difference between high reliability and constant jams. Also, authentic GSG magazine springs are higher power than ProMag springs and this will certainly make a difference as the springs work in. A "feed" problem is almost certain to be traced to the magazine timing relative to the bolt's stroke. An ejection problem is far more complicated because the GSG is working against a lot of "issues." Weak ammo will generate an empty case lodged in the chamber - reluctant or downright refusing to be withdrawn by the "extractor." This is because the bolt actually "blows back" without any need, nor regard for the extractor and a weak round will cause a "short stroke" where the case doesn't move back far enough to hit the ejector and is thus shoved back in....the problem is the case exited the chamber still under high pressure, expanded, and when shoved back in became "stuck" to the point where the only way to remove it is a thin blade. Also, the rounds in the magazine create an interference with the extracting case....as the bolt comes back and the empty case rides over the rounds stack, the case can become dislodged from the breech face and fail to exit the gun. Once stripped from the bolt the case loses any directional "inertia" and tends to flop around in the chamber causing various jams. THIS is reduced by a fast-cycling bolt that snatches the empty case over the rounds stack faster than the upward pressure can influence it. The GSG - as delivered, has frictional drag between the firing pin release and release plate that saps system energy during recoil and chambering. Anytime the bolt rides OVER a cartridge the problem lies in the magazine. Then add hammer cocking resistance and hammer drag as the bolt closes. THEN add twin recoil springs that EACH provide more closing force than the single spring of a 10/22, except at full closure where springs are weakest and the hammer is "rebounded" a half inch behind the bolt. The heavier springs are a "fix" to compensate for lack of the hammer mass and spring resting against the bolt, but the end result is even more added cyclic resistance. Add in the frictional resistance of the rounds being fed, a sluggish magazine spring lift, and there are a lot of ways the GSG can malfunction.

The .22LR situation reminds me of how the auto industry works. The auto makers introduce a new model. The next year they introduce a more powerful engine....more "features" as well. And so it goes during the entire product life-cycle of that particular model. This is the incentive for people to trade up or "buy new." The .22LR is in the same fix....does anyone REALLY believe the industry cannot figure out how to improve ignition reliability and cleanliness? Of course they can, but why bother? The consumer "expects" the round to be dirty and unreliable, so why would the maker worry about product improvement? Also, what REAL validity exists as to the nature of current .22LR ammo reliability? I see a lot of "comments" and "reviews," but at the same time I have my own assortment of firearms that seem completely unaffected by all the negatives posted by other "reviewers." The real problem with the .22LR is that centerfire ammo exists and is perceived as the "serious business" ammo, while the .22LR is perceived as "play ammo." Otherwise we'd have .22LR ammo AND guns that manage to go "bang" with the same reliability as do centerfire.

The double strike firing pin has (unfortunately for you) been around for awhile. Many .22LR SMG's over the years have incorporated a version by having twin fixed firing pins precisely for the reasons you described, enhanced reliability of ignition. And you are correct in assuming that if one area of a .22 rim lacks enough priming compound to detonate, the other side is probably fine...something I suspect most .22 shooters have discovered over the years by taking misfired rounds out and reinserting them to the pin strikes a different location on the rim - BANG, so clearly a double pin system would indeed double the probability of ignition and the incidence of misfire with the .22LR would cease to be a topic of such hot debate. The simplest reason .22's don't normally have twin pins is...well, simplicity - and manufacturing cost. Since the average consumer (and unfortunately the average manufacturer) views the .22LR as a recreational cartridge, little interest has been displayed in addressing those aspects of the cartridge design, or "system" design that would lead to .22LR ammunition on par with modern center-fire ammo for ignition reliability. There is also consumer resistance and rejection...for example: one major way to improve the .22LR would be to make it like the .22 Magnum with the case larger in diameter than the bullet, and have the bullet properly seated IN the case rather than "crimped on" - a design that goes all the way back to the very first .41, .38, and .44 rimfire conversions in post-Civil War cap-and ball revolvers. Placing the bullet inside the case would result in greater cartridge integrity and less propensity to be damaged by mechanical handling in feed systems. Such a change in case-to-bullet would mean the classic .22LR as it has existed since 1857 would be at an end, which would of course impact the cost of all "modern" ammo just as it has with newer designs such as the .22 Magnum and .17 caliber series. Double firing pins would improve reliable ignition, but this would add to the cost of ever-more-expensive firearms, yet I suspect better QC during manufacturing would effectively eliminate misfires. Bear in mind that if the average consumer "expects" his ammo to fail, there is little incentive for the maker to work diligently to improve the product. Also, what proper, double-blind studies have been done to validate the current state of .22LR reliability? In the modern age of anyone with a computer and a gun becoming an "expert" and making sweeping - if erroneous proclamations based on a minimal experience with a limited sample size, and this of course does nothing to help matters. For every HONEST review there are many dishonest versions put up by individuals with a particular agenda and personal bias. Say some goob doesn't think we should buy imported ammo....he will consistently blast Aguila ammo, while heaping sweeping praises on say, CCI. If ONE reviewer claims a particular round failed excessively (his perception) in a certain brand gun, yet another shoots the same ammo in the same brand gun with 100% reliablity, CLEARY there is a problem with authenticity. I see a great many "reviewers" who see themselves as upholding some "standard" by blasting one brand while supporting another, and whether they actually USED the blasted brand is irrelevant - to them. We see this in the modern world of auto reviews...people will deliver a "review" of a brand new model they have NEVER driven simply to get in their kicks so to speak! Then comes "reviewer bias expectation," or the tendency for people to support the claims of those they perceive as having greater knowledge or standing as part of the normal human desire to "belong" to a unique group. These people, upon seeing a negative - or positive review by "an expert" will be drawn to tailor their own experience in accordance so as to be seen as "in the know" just like the presumed expert. The problem is, when it comes to firearms and ballistics, most arm-chair experts, aren't, and TREMENDOUS bias exists due to the entirely unscientific manner of reporting going on in the world today...and I didn't even mention PROFESSIONAL bias such as that exhibited by so-called "icons" of firearms lore who glom on to an idea, however archaic, and use their perceived standing in the shooting world to push and push the notion to the point where it becomes "reality." I am reminded of one such iconic "expert" who, a few decades back proposed the notion of some ridiculously outdated, bolt-action short rifle, chambered for what HE considered the only VALID cartridge, to be a "Scout Sniper" rifle....damned if it didn't start showing up in the real world...didn't matter that for the intended performance envelope a modern semi-auto, utilizing a much smaller (but less manly) cartridge could hit as well at ANY range, and do so faster, longer, with less shooter fatigue....by God the GURU had spoken. Same notion goes for the .45 ACP....40 years ago MOST of the world realized the .45 ACP was pretty lame....big, slow, round bullet traveling SLOW. Back then Magnum revolvers were the heady, elixir of the "in-the-know" self-identified "shootist." Then came the "first explosion" in firearms information technology...the proliferation of magazines and other publications devoted to the subject. That also began the careers of the "icons," who of course brought their BIAS to the subject which was taken as "gospel" by most. Regardless of facts - regardless of actual shootings, many factors induced the shift from the revolver to the semi-auto for police use and self-defense....not the least being a perfectly valid engineering, and ballistic reason to toss the double-action revolver, however THIS was not the reason put forward, nor is it the reason in common knowledge today...it was all about the "mythology of stopping power" which is just that - mythology. A hit to the central nervous system with a .22LR, or even a pellet will drop a 300 pound, drug-crazed man just as fast as will a hit from a .460 Weatherby Magnum. A hit NEAR the central nervous system has the same chance of absolutely meaninglessness to the person shot, regardless of whether it be from a .30'06 or .22LR, yet shooting mythology simply cannot accept this level of uncertainty. The FBI, probably one of the most highly recognized police agencies when it comes to SCIENTIFIC approach, doffed the 9mm for the "10mm" after a shootout in which the FBI guys, employing ZERO tactics, but fully in belief of their own superiority, attempted to apprehend two bank robbers...the problem was, one of the bank robbers had a Mini-14 rifle. In the resulting shoot-out, all the FBI guys were severely wounded and two killed. The single bank robber with the Mini-14 took no less than 14 hits without going down, during which time he delivered withering rifle fire...mind you the FBI guys were employing exotic tactics like trying to "charge him" while holding a ballistic vest in front....a vest meant to be worn, but not, yet then foolishly thought to be used as an on-the-fly shield. A vest NEVER made to be "proof against rifle fire," yet the person holding clearly lacked any grasp of that fact. AFTER the shootout, the FBI saved the 10mm from the scrap-bin of history by adopting it as their new standard...but not the REAL 10mm, the "attenuated" 10mm which was really the ballistic equivalent of the....45 ACP! So they dumped the "ballistically inferior" 9mm which, by the way has virtually equal kinetic energy to the ..45 ACP and replaced it with the 10mm "light" which became the basis of the immediately introduced .40 S&W with .45 ACP ballistics. So today we end up with three primary auto pistol cartridges that in terms of actual WOUND ballistics are indistinquishable, and in terms of actual field shooting - identical, YET let that not be the end of it because too many people are making money from promoting one or the other. I'd be interested to know just how many "gun experts" have actually seen handgun wounds in both an ER and surgery. I'd be interested to know how many "gun experts" have SEEN people hit by .45's WALK into the hospital little worse for the experience, versus the number hit by .22LR's fired from home-made "zip guns" carried in by Ambulance. Unfortunately there is a great deal of "lore" surrounding particular calibers with little....LITTLE scientific support. All this tangential filler serves to explain why the .22LR will never be "improved" from the standpoint of science, nor would such an improvement guarantee commercial success from the stand point of consumers - ESPECIALLY "gun people?" My OWN experience working in trauma for 30 years caused me to realize I could carry a flipping .22 mini-revolver and be just as well-prepared for a street encounter as if I were packing my 1911....and, like MOST I at some level of thought within my "reptilian brain" I simply cannot escape the notion that the bigger caliber is better despite career experience that so clearly indicates otherwise. During the Reagan attempted assassination, four people were hit by .22 rounds fired from a SHORT barrel....all four went down and not ONE jumped back up and "laughed it off" with a lot of stupid posturing about how anemic the .22LR is, yet THAT video "evidence" of the efficacy of the .22LR fired from a snub-nose revolver is patently ignored by crowd that simply cannot "believe." It's kind of like the "faked" moon landings....the LRO specifically photographed the landing sites complete with highly visible HUMAN tracks, yet the "conspiracy" that we never landed on the moon still abounds and NOBODY can interdict it because to those who ascribe to it, any EVIDENCE to support the landing is fake, and any notion to discredit it is taken as fact. The same people believe there is a "face on mars" looking our way, but PHOTOGRAPHS of the lunar lander sitting there on the moon are FAKE...same mentality in the "gun world." The .22LR is an ideal "social cartridge" quite because it is cheap, low recoil, and will solve just as many of life's problems as will a 9mm or .45 ACP - but where is the FUN in that reality? My hope is that with the recent proliferation of .22LR "tactical" weapons, the ammo makers AND the weapons designers will end up in a defacto competition to force the improvement of both the cartridge and the guns that fire it from a profit motive aspect. The emergence of the "goober consumer" who can jump online and post ANY sort of outrageous claim on ANY forum can in fact serve to enhance product improvement as gun and ammo makers scramble to not see their name posted "in the negative" too often....we shall see.

Now THAT is good news! A $100 dedicated .22 barrel is worth knowing about for those of us who like to build our own!

They cost enough...I guess they ought to bring something useful to the table. For me the Razorback at $700 complete makes more sense....it is a true, dedicated .22LR, comes ready to set up for full auto if desired, runs like a sewing machine without any concerns over what "magazine" is being used, and will put out almost 10 shots in a quick trigger squeeze without even upsetting the sight picture.... I have 200, and 500 round belts on hand, each fed from a mini ammo box attached to the left side, and from a bipod rest this thing creates amazing devastation....oh, and Lakeside Machine's customer service is not just top notch, it's absolutely spot on to each individual who purchases a Razorback and is supported by a dedicated forum in which the OWNERS of the company participate....

That's a great price on Stingers, but even at that the cost of running a thousand rounds through the Razorback is prohibitive. I'm also looking at limiting my use of hypervelocity ammo to preserve durability though a properly modified GSG SHOULD be able to handle a whole lot of Stingers before any problems crop up. Bear in mind that Stingers have a thicker case in the web and rim section which means they demand a hard firing pin strike....IF you have any issues with misfires, don't blame the ammo, pull the bolt and check the firing pin nose width. A bit of stoning reduced the width of my firing pin's nose by half and suddenly misfires of ANY ammo magically went away. I ordered a spare firing pin to keep on hand and discovered it was the same width as my factory pin AFTER I had stoned the factory pin down....clearly GSG is fine-tuning their product as they go and that's a good thing.

Bear in mind the GSG has all sorts of "drag" on the bolt during operation. The recoil spring - two of them, have twice the force of the single 10/22 spring. The hammer spring...drag between the firing pin release lever and bolt, AND if the ejector is not solidly locked down, drag created between it and the bolt. No wonder the manufacturer "recommends" high velocity ammo and this is doubly true when the gun is new and the springs aren't broken in. The "classic" indication of underpowered ammo is an empty (fired) case in the chamber with the hammer being cocked and dropped. Probably the GSG needs a slightly longer ejector just as the Commander version of the 1911 gets a shorter ejector than the Government model because the heavier reciprocating components of the Government model don't have the cyclic energy and thus need an ejector to come into play sooner in the cycle. The GSG is ONE gun that really benefits from a thousand round "break-in" because all the internals loosen up and "weaken." On the other hand, a properly modified GSG has about half the normal system "drag" and will be more reliable.

You know, I hate to point this out, but considering the "vig" applied to the latest .22LR semi-auto handguns, one is forced periodically to "step back and re-evaluate." While perusing the California DOJ list of "approved handguns" for sale I discovered the Phoenix Arms model HP-22A which is a zinc alloy with steel insert (just like all the HIGH dollar .22's these days) 20 oz., 3" barrel, 10 shot .22LR auto with an online price as low as $111. So then I went to "the reviews" on YouTube and discovered these "cheap" guns have an amazing reliability rate out of the box...for just over a hundred bucks! Of course here in the PRK we won't find it for that, but it can still be had for under $200 "out the door" which ain't bad for a pocket pistol .22LR than has more positive reviews on YouTube than all the "name brands"!!!

Well, any .22LR can accept a PVC based suppressor perfectly fine. Aluminum is more "trick" and like the "big boys" but considering the "expansion ratio" between the tiny .22 bore at rimfire pressure to the relatively enormous volume of almost any suppressor design (especially the home-brew variety), total "flat plate" pressure is quite low. As you posted, the GSG faux suppressor does provide an important and needed function...it stabilizes and centers the relatively thin, "whippy" barrel. in fact - and I have not tried this, if one were to shoot for accuracy without the faux suppressor installed I would expect a noticable degradation of accuracy because the barrel is completely UNsupported from the receiver forward. You will note that when installing an aftermarket barrel extension/muzzle attachment, the "spec" calls for the barrel to be trimmed and angled so the attachment acts to "center" it. What I did with the 16" carbine barrel was to fabricate a 16mm x 1 mm "zero tolerance" bushing that when screwed down snug in the front sight base, aligns the barrel with ZERO axial play. By leaving the threaded section "long" any style "faux" suppressor could be created. I realize it's not "pc" these days to discuss how to build a suppressor, but the fact is, ANY device that attaches to the muzzle that lowers the sound-report is considered by the BATF to be a suppressor. Even a completely open tube, if it resulted in a lower decibel rating would constitute a suppressor by definition. I've played with "pop bottle" suppressors in the (distant) past and found them to be FAR more hype than practical reality. In fact, depending on variables, adding a 2 liter bottle to the muzzle can actually INCREASE low frequency sound generated by the .22LR due to the "drum effect" of the large volume container, and low frequency sounds travel farther than high frequency. So the "ear" hearing the sound may not intuitively know it is hearing a gun shot, but it WILL hear "abnormal sound" and take notice.

The extractor is fine. The marks are the result of it being "punch formed" from a thick sheet of steel. Believe me, of all the problems you're likely to encounter with the GSG, the extractor ain't one of 'em. Just remember, the GSG demands highvel ammo to cycle those massive, twin recoil springs. The GSG LOVES highvel ammo after the hammer strut mod which correctly delays bolt opening with the combined pressure of the hammer spring and twin recoil springs. I would however, like to mention that your firing pin appears of the "thick" variety, and this can absolutely negatively impact reliable cartridge detonation. AFTER I stoned mine down to about half that thickness (matched my P-22 firing pin thickness), I ordered one from ATI that arrived with the same "thinner" thickness! Imagine that! Another aspect of the firing pin worth looking at is the thickness of material extending beyond the impact point. The idea is to limit firing pin force because this portion will contact the breech block. To improve cartridge ignition one can carefully stone the flat portion of the firing pin which results in the firing pin creating a deeper impression in the case. If you read enough GSG related posts you'll quickly discover a great many people describe total ignition reliability for the first 500 or so rounds, then start to have failures to fire with "light strikes"...this is the result of the normal process of the gun "shooting in" and the firing pin becoming a bit shorter (we're talking thousandths of an inch). The initial "cure" is to stone that upper, flat portion of the firing pin, and the next area is to carefully enlarge/elongate the firing pin retaining pin hole so the pin can physically move further forward, which of course compliments the purpose of honing down the "flat" portion. I'm not sure how fully hardened the OEM firing pin is, but I noted that a replacement arrived with obvious "bluing" indicating tip hardening which may be part of an ongoing product improvement process. Since the firing pin is impacted on the back, and said impact is transmitted to the "nose" a certain amount of "shortening" is bound to occur and that's okay as long as one knows that the "cure" to the sudden onset of light strikes and ignition problems is to lengthen the firing pin retaining pin hole....don't worry about enlarging it too much because the only downside would be the firing pin "head" would protrude more than usual, but as long as the firing pin return spring is in place, ignition should remain viable.

Experience with the Umarex built Walther P-22 tells me they know how to make well fitted pistols. While I might know the "Colt" branded model is built by Umarex, the Colt markings lend a certain degree of authenticity - legitimacy that would not be there if another, "lesser" name were on the slide. For example, I have a "genuine Colt" 1849 Pocket revolver complete with all authentic reproduction markings....sure, I "know" it was built by Uberti and shipped over to Colt for that final, special touch, but still, it has the correct markings and that adds something that makes it more valuable than one without. For the price, the "Colt" 1911-22 has to be a "must have" for anyone who appreciates the species.

When you say the "mount broke" what precisely does that include? I have the CA retractable stock with the metal mount, polymer end cap, and steel locking/unlocking disc and it works quite well. Not that I think it would hold up to "butt-stroking" someone in the head, but for the relatively light duty of stabilizing the GSG during shoulder fire it is adequate. I do NOT like that the sliding stock rubs the receiver, nor that it tends to be quite "lose" when extended, but I DO like that it collapses without "doubling" the width of the GSG "package" as is the case with folding designs. I have looked at ways to reduce or eliminate lateral flexing when the stock is extended, and the simplest is to add spacer material to the inside of the stock "collar" or mount. This would also improve locking stud engagement, but at the "cost" of increasing inward friction on the receiver finish. Another idea that comes to mind is to fabricate an oversized stock locking disc....the idea being that when the stock is locked open the rails are maximally spread against the mount collar, yet when released the stock goes completely "lose" without placing excessive inward force on the receiver slots...hmmmm, might have to try that one.

Yeah, it's hard to describe to those who have not shortened the trigger travel just how much better - "cleaner" the trigger let-off is. On the other hand I have a friend who SWEARS he LIKES the half-mile trigger pull, so each to his own....but I think he really doesn't want to bring me his rifle - again for more internal work. While the trigger travel mod is more for individual preference, just like some rifle shooters want the lightest, crispest trigger release possible, while others are perfectly satisfied with what the factory delivered, the "Hammer Strut Mod" is the one that I'd be issuing a "recall notice" on if I ran ATI/GSG. A blow-back action that allows the bolt to "jack back" half a case length before encountering full resistance...it boggles the mind that companies have gone so far overboard trying to include all manner of built-in "safeties" that they patently ignore the laws of physics and end up creating a less safe design...but as long as it's "safe" from the operator's finger that's all that counts. The chamber can be blown out by a cartridge, but hey, that's what warranties are for! Won't be too many warranties being honored after the SHTF...just my "opinion" of course.

From a cost-value standpoint Blazers are pretty much impossible to beat unless other similar brands are on sale. I seem to be blessed - or cursed, with .22's that shoot pretty much everything equally so I am hard pressed to justify paying substantially more for equal performance. Sure, I like to buy and try different brands and I tend to prefer to carry the hypervel stuff in my P-22, but when it comes to laying in a LARGE supply of .22LR for any SHTF scenario, $170/5000 is a bit hard to ignore. Also to be considered is that the hypervelocity stuff really does place heavier stress on the guns and this could become a factor in any long-term "survival" situation. Pistols that might shoot tens of thousands of rounds of highvel ammo might last only a few hundred rounds or less with some of this late-issue hypervel ammo. One reason specifically to choose Stingers or 30 gr. Supermax over Velocitors or Interceptor 40 grain ammo is to lower slide impulse in compact handguns and thus derive higher close-range "punch" while avoiding extreme slide-shock loads...maybe this is where one justifies picking up an 8 or 9 shot .22LR revolver(?)!

About $23.49/375 (>.06/round) for the CCI Tactical from MidwayUSA, versus $48.49/1000 (<.05/round) for the Winchester M-22 not counting shipping, etc., but certainly a comparison point. The Winchester advertises higher velocity with a "black" copper plated bullet (very "tactical" for sure!). CCI Tactical - 128 lb-ft KE muzzle M-22 - 140 lb-ft KE muzzle or about 8.5% more KE with the same weight bullet. Assuming each delivers approximately equal reliability, cleanliness, and accuracy, the M-22 would be the favorite....but they should have added "Tactical" to the name! Lacking that I'm not sure the "cool factor" of M-22 alone will overshadow CCI's "Tactical" moniker.

I guess this is a bit off-topic but I too remember looking at the Sears catalog with my brother and oogling over surplus Mausers on sale for $19. Like you I seem to remember the Carcano being for sale as well for about half that price - MAIL ORDER no less. This was just before the GCA '68 came along and put an end to the true "golden era" of gun buying. Then again, I guess the NFA of 1935 is what really ended the "great old days" of being able to pick up a Thompson SMG down at the local hardware store.

Anybody else notice that most .22LR ammo is within spittin' distance of identical between brands and styles - regardless of hype? I mean...go to a site like www.midwayusa.com which lists the performance specs of ammo and compare. It doesn't much matter WHAT the label says, if it's "standard velocity" expect approximately 1050fps/40gr. bullet - give or take. If it's listed as "high velocity" expect roughly 1250 fps/36-40 gr. bullets, and 40 grain hypervel loads are pretty close at 1400-1450/40-ish, and 1640-1750/30-32 grain (nominal). It's like comparing gasoline prices...there isn't much variation between stations because they all look at what the other is doing. Same with .22LR ammo. So what's the difference? Of COURSE each maker will claim this one or that one is loaded with "superior" components...blah, blah, blah, yet if one actually READS the reviews others post it soon becomes clear that even the $15/box (50 round) .22LR ammo is every bit as suctuous as bargain basement brands. I've got expensive ammo that goes bang every time and shoots clean...even though OTHER'S experience might vary. I have also noted that my least expensive ammo goes "bang" with the same frequency as my expensive ammo...so other than a genuine PERFORMANCE difference what is the reason to pay double, triple, quadruple, or MORE for "high-end" .22LR ammo? Sure, if one's "game" is punching paper where thousandths of an inch matter....then IT MATTERS, but 99.9% of planet Earth is just out busting incidental targets and such so why would anyone pay, say, $50/500 of a certain brand, versus $16/500 for another brand with equal ballistic numbers? Certainly I know marketing hype affects the individual's perception of "quality" to the point where the person who paid double for "perceived quality" will absolutely deny the lower-priced ammo can possibly be the equal, but such has simply not PROVED OUT over the years in terms of practical shooting. Like most I've shot some amount of almost everything sold over the last 35 years and it all shot "about the same"...same amount of misfires whether "cheap WalMart" ammo or expensive Gun Store ammo. I've got a safe FULL of .22's rifles and pistols and I've fired everything out of each without regard for "what it likes" only to find that for some inexplicable reason I am unique in having the only assortment of .22's that "digest" EVERYTHING equally. Like most I presume copper plated to be cleaner than lead...yet both seem to create "about the same" amount of residue. I read where others state that this brand or that is "very dirty" yet the same ammo in MY guns seems to run with amazing cleanliness. There is a YouTube video showing a guy firing a belt-fed LM7...a 1,000 round belt non-stop using "cheap ass" Blazer ammo. The guns fires without a hitch, yet to "hear others tell it," the cheap Blazer ammo barely lights the fire and usually fails altogether. (I am taking editorial license with that last statement) Just LOOK at the variety of "styles" within brands....does anyone REALLY believe the factories are deliberately resetting their production parameters based on retail price? I mean, if I TELL everyone this particular brand is superior, and THAT brand is "economy" then of course the consumer's "experience" will be reflective of what he has been influenced to experience. I am reminded of a survey some decades back where consumers were sent surveys for two different cars...the Mitsubishi Eclipse and the Plymouth Laser. The Eclipse owners - perceiving they had purchased "superior" Japanese cars returned STELLAR reviews, noting minimal problems. The Laser owners - perceiving they had purchased "inferior" American cars, returned average to below average reviews, claiming all sorts of mechanical issues, fit and finish defects, etc. The TRUTH is that both brands of cars came off the exact SAME assembly line with the ONLY difference being fascia parts, and trim items! Perception alone drove consumer's to believe one brand superior - I HIGHLY doubt the factory assembly line deliberately "de-tuned" itself to build crappy cars, then shifted back to higher quality to build superior cars. When Toyota wanted to move firmly into the luxury market they created the Lexus brand...SAME CAR beneath the badging, with a higher end "trim" but considering Toyota was already at the TOP in terms of build quality exactly WHAT did anyone think they might improve in order to produce Lexus? Well, the truth of course is they "improved" nothing, they simply created a "high end luxury" brand. When Toyota got slammed with massive recalls guess what brand was included right in there with it? Yep...Lexus. The consumer will WILLINGLY pay double for a car that is not one WHIT better simply because they've been told it IS better. Same with Honda...Accura, and on to Inifinity... Even Hyundai is now considering a new "label" for a luxury brand because they are all too aware of consumer perception. It matters not that Hyundai has the most advanced, robotic assembly plant in the world down in Alabama that produces "qualty" light years beyond Mercedes, BMW and the like, until they slap an "identifier of luxury" on the product the consumer will assume it's not as good. Statistically speaking if a car is touted as four times "better" then part of that definition should include that the car last four times LONGER....so if a "cheap car" make it ten years with average maintenance, then the 4x better car should last 40 years with no greater level of maintenance! This is simply NOT reality, but the consumer has been "educated" to believe the "unbelievable." I believe the same sort of marketing gimmickry is afoot in the .22LR world today. I'll go buy whatever is on sale and shoot it through whatever .22 I choose to shoot that day with "statistically identical" results to every other brand in terms of reliability, accuracy, and cleanliness. Therefore the ONLY reason to pay more for .22LR ammo is if one is GETTING MORE....meaning higher performance not simply higher price. I pose this topic to see what others think...and I expect not a small amount of controversy and opinion.