I posted a question recently about Thunderbolt and bulk Winchester leading .22 barrels. I asked that question because these two ammunitions are not coated.
The answer was that they are waxed coated and a .22 doesn't have enough velocity for the rifling to strip any lead off of the bullet. The poster said I was 100 years behind. Yet, a couple of posters in another thread, mentioned that leading was a problem with the Thunderbolts.
I asked the following question in a thread concerning Remington Golden Bullets and I have realized that I was hijacking the thread. So here is my question in a new thread. Would anyone else care to expound on leading in .22 rifles?
If you enjoyed reading about ".22 Barrel Leading?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
December 15, 2007, 09:58 PM
I guess it just depends. with a 22lr. For me its more about what fires good and produces a good group in my firearms. Some work better than others. Same time it doesnt hurt to take a Bronze brush down the throat once in a while. I have shot probably about 10k rounds through each of my 22lr rifles. With that said i have never really cared about leading of the barrel. I just clean them when im supposed to and shoot them regualary. Last month i took out my marlin 700 and i was shooting steel at 100 yards. Almost each and every shot was a dead ringer. This is from someone who shoots regulary and sometimes shoots what ever is on sale. leading of the barrel has never been a problem.
December 15, 2007, 10:06 PM
I don't think its much of an issue as the alloys used are pretty hard.
I deer hunt with rifled slugs from a smoothbore and its a PITA to clean out the barrel. The lead alloy is made softer so it can "stick" to the barrel and spin the slug. The slug leaves a smear in the barrel as a byproduct
In the case of a .22, the barrel is rifled, so the alloy would be made harder. The bullet engages the rifling so it doesn't have to create its own spin. It would also be counter-productive as leaving a smear would also mean its actively losing mass and shape.
December 16, 2007, 12:14 AM
I disagree. .22s do lead somewhat. A few years ago I bought what I thought was a super deal on an Anshultz. Got it home and found out best it would shoot was one inch at 50yds. One day when I had the Outers Foul out running I stuck it in the rifle. Much to my surprise the "fouled" light came on in 15 minutes. Took enough lead out to make a .22 bullet. Rifle would shoot one quarter inch groups after that. Made a believer out of me.
Recently asked some 50BR shooters if they had ever had leading problems and most agreed that some barrels are worse than others but all lead to some extent. Make sense when you look at a pulled bullet. The base is not flat and you can easily see where stay pieces of lead could be blown off the base.
December 16, 2007, 01:36 AM
I don't know, but will try to follow this thread.
I firmly beleive that 'cleaning' a 22 rf barrel can cause more problems than it solves.
That said, I also firmly beleive that a clean bolt face and chamber are more important than a clean barrel especially with aftermarket 'tight' chambers.
Maybe someone markets a tool kinda/sorta like the M1 Garrand chamber brush tool, but for 22 rf.
Maybe this'd be a question that you'd want to post on a .22rf forum.
December 16, 2007, 04:56 PM
I don't know about Remington golden bullets, cause I won't buy them. I did had some trouble with leading in one of my 10/22's, has an aftermarket barrel so that may have played a part in it.
The offending ammo was Winchester Wildcats at $7.99 a brick.
It only took about 200 round before you could hear the difference in each shot, kind of a whinning noise from the deformed bullets leaving the barrel. Took quite a bit to get it all out....:cuss:
Here's a pic of some of the lead I was literally pushing out of the bore....