Looking into 22 Hornet

In post #74, I see two posts were run together. The bulk of that post is not mine.

Anyhow, using the cleaning rod method, my NEF Handi Rifle twist seems to be 1:14". Sound about right?

I love the Hornet. First center-fire rifle I loaded for. Savage 23D, 6X 7/8" scope. Lyman 310 dies, steel sizing die...hammer it in, drift it out. Now, here are the component prices (since I have an almost eidetic memory,). Powder, Hodgden H240 @ $1.25 per #. Sisk 36 grain Hornet bullets @ $3 per hundred. Primers, $.56/100. Killed piles of ground squirrels and a few chucks. I sent a K22 off and had it chambered in 22 K Chuck. Hutson Handgunner scope. What a pair! Dad had a M70 Swift, I had my Hornet. Over 150, his shot. Under, mine.

post deleted. ignore the pic

tark said:

post deleted. ignore the pic

Click to expand...

Can’t ignore it, now you have to tell us about them.

I was always liked the old Japan Tasco’s for something inexpensive, I have beat them up even putting one on a 50 BMG to finish a day when it turned a much more expensive scope into a kaleidoscope.

Lucky to get two out of a dozen that track right with the China ones these days.

Post # 39 explains them fairly well, but a bit of extra "explanation" won't hurt, I suppose. Both rifles are tack drivers, either one will hit a quarter at 100 yards if I do my part. That Weaver Model 344 scope is junk compared to what we have today, but it was state of the art back in its day. Both guns have the "faster lock time" that Savage introduced at some point in the rifles evolution. The 23Ds I have seen all seem to have this feature. The earlier guns in both 25-20 and 32-20 seem not to have this feature. They can be identified with a glance, the earlier guns all have a Schnable (?) fore end. The 23D was made in .22 and those three calibers. The 32-20s are the hardest to find. I've never seen one. Both guns are full "man sized rifles" A feature that Frank DeHaas crowed about. They both have 25" barrels with an unknown twist rate. The root of the bolt handle forms a substantial locking lug which is assisted by a smaller locking on the lower left rear of the bolt. I haven't tried any heavier bullets, yet. I have a thousand rounds of factory PPU factory ammo so I haven't been doing much reloading. I have found the PPU ammo to be excellent. I doubt I could handload any better.

I really REALLY love these guns. Along with a 23C in 25-20 that I have. All are accurate, reliable with savage magazines, have good triggers and a unique safety design that I really like. It consists of a tab on the right rear of the receiver that sticks up when the gun is on safe. It is handy and convenient and can easily be reached . The third pic shows the gun "on safe"

As you may know, these guns had a one piece receiver and barrel. No re-barreling on these puppies. I'm sure that was a cost saving measure on Savages part, but it may have contributed to the excellent accuracy these guns seem to possess. Probably one of their biggest selling points was the ability to have a low mounted scope with out interference from the bolt handle. The bolt has a short throw of about 65 degrees. They were built as a medium priced alternative to more expensive Winchesters and Remington's, but they often out performed their higher priced competitors.

jmorris said:

Can’t ignore it, now you have to tell us about them.

I was always liked the old Japan Tasco’s for something inexpensive, I have beat them up even putting one on a 50 BMG to finish a day when it turned a much more expensive scope into a kaleidoscope.

Lucky to get two out of a dozen that track right with the China ones these days.

Click to expand...

Tasco on a 50BMG??? How did that hold up?!

About half my grandpas scopes were tasco and i never understood why other than he was cheap haha. Did have some nice ones like a Weaver K4, Pecar-Berlin, and Leupolds too.

BigBlue 94 said:

Tasco on a 50BMG??? How did that hold up?!

Click to expand...

It held up, I put it back on the old bolt action .22 when we were done, still in use today. Believe it or not but if you want to test scope durability a “springer” air rifle is about as hard on them as anything else.

I always thought the Bushnells were good, but cheap scopes.

DMW1116 said:

I was looking through my reloading manual and the 22 Hornet caught my eye for once. I thought it might be worth checking into for a target round. Is there any benefit to this round in a bolt action rifle compared to a standard 223/5.56 for 99.9% target shooting use?

Click to expand...

I have a 22 K Hornet. The two biggest advantages to me are that I can load 600 rounds per pound of powder and I don't need hearing protection to shoot it.

My 22 K Hornet. It weighs in at 9.18 lbs. The barrel is a Shilen Select Match.
View attachment 1051826

Pistol primers apparently work in some guns. They give erratic velocity swings out of mine. I use small rifle primers, or as a substitute, small magnum pistol primers.

My brass life is just fine, which is expected with the 22 KH out of a match barrel with good headspace.

Small Rifle is all I have. There's a couple of places that get primers in once in a while, but they sell out fast. For my light loads I'd like to try the small pistol primers.

DMW1116 said:

I was looking through my reloading manual and the 22 Hornet caught my eye for once. I thought it might be worth checking into for a target round. Is there any benefit to this round in a bolt action rifle compared to a standard 223/5.56 for 99.9% target shooting use?

Click to expand...

Short answer, no. It wasn't the best when it was popular. 218 Bee had it beat. But then people started to wildcat the cartridges. 22 K Hornet and 218 Mashburn were the go to varmint cartridges. I don't know why the Hornet came back to life but it did. Maybe the fact that it doesn't create a loud muzzle blast like a .223, IDK.

As a target/varmint cartridge the ,223 is a far better choice. I've shot both .218 mashburn and .223. .223 is way better for almost all applications except muzzle blast but a suppressor will take care of that. Much easier for load development and finding components like brass and powder.

Another thing I forgot. Once you get the components you need for your 22 Hornet you might actually find it fits the bill for a nice small game survival rifle. You could pot a small deer with one and I'm sure more than a few people have done that. 25-20 (not a barn burner) was known as a poachers and farmers cartridge. That might be the direction we're going.

If you just want another .224 caliber round, the .222. IIRC it was the 2nd commercially available rimless cartridge and was the king of benchrest up to the ‘70’s.

We would probably still be talking about it but the .gov wanted a new cartridge for the U.S. Army, the .222 case was the platform (lengthened and shoulder moved forward) used to obtain the ballistics goal: a .22 caliber bullet, maintaining supersonic flight out to 500 yards, capable of penetrating a 0.135-inch steel plate at that same distance, with accuracy and ballistics equal to that of the M2 Ball ammo for the Garand rifle.

Being already setup for .223, I’d just build a rifle for the specific task at hand using it.

CoalTrain49 said:

Another thing I forgot. Once you get the components you need for your 22 Hornet you might actually find it fits the bill for a nice small game survival rifle. You could pot a small deer with one and I'm sure more than a few people have done that. 25-20 (not a barn burner) was known as a poachers and farmers cartridge. That might be the direction we're going.

Click to expand...

I think that's it. The cartridge was very very popular with Eskimos, and other native people that were "expert" at survival, and were able to make good use of it where your average person would find it lacking on bigger game. For them it had the advantage of quiet report, and light weight cartridges. (you can carry more per pound) And the rifles themselves were lighter than most bigger caliber guns.

Also it's true, it's easier on the neighbors in semi-rural areas where you might need to control pests, but you need a bit more pow than a .22LR. That's exactly the original reason I was excited to pick up my NEF for $200.00.

I have a Ruger M77/22H, never shot that great for me. Friends were recommending a CZ 527. I played with the Ruger for a few months and it went to the back of the safe. I have a CZ 453v, 455A, 457 Synthetic. Wondering if I should have bought a 527.

I'll be retired soon and will have time to play with the m77/22H, the suppressor I bought is rated for .22H so maybe I'll thread it and do some crown work and see if it gets better.

RCBS competition seating die or something similar is a must to avoid crushing the neck.

Uncle bought an old Savage in .22H that the guy said was a real tack driver. Only if you hit the tack with the butt. He tried to reline it with a rimfire liner, not enough wall for the chamber. It sits against the wall collecting dust as he figured giving it to me was better than tossing it into the trash. One of these days I may revive it.

clutch said:

I have a Ruger M77/22H, never shot that great for me. Friends were recommending a CZ 527. I played with the Ruger for a few months and it went to the back of the safe. I have a CZ 453v, 455A, 457 Synthetic. Wondering if I should have bought a 527.

I'll be retired soon and will have time to play with the m77/22H, the suppressor I bought is rated for .22H so maybe I'll thread it and do some crown work and see if it gets better.

RCBS competition seating die or something similar is a must to avoid crushing the neck.

Uncle bought an old Savage in .22H that the guy said was a real tack driver. Only if you hit the tack with the butt. He tried to reline it with a rimfire liner, not enough wall for the chamber. It sits against the wall collecting dust as he figured giving it to me was better than tossing it into the trash. One of these days I may revive it.

Click to expand...

I've never had much luck with Ruger rifles. CZ has the rep for quality barrels. I have a 455 that leaves nothing to be desired in 22 LR accuracy. I have a Ruger Mini and it's adequate for a SA carbine but precision compared to a bolt rifle or $750 AR just isn't there. YMMV

My Hornet, a Ruger with stainless gray target barrel and Swift 12X scope.



3C

clutch said:

I have a Ruger M77/22H, never shot that great for me. Friends were recommending a CZ 527. I played with the Ruger for a few months and it went to the back of the safe. I have a CZ 453v, 455A, 457 Synthetic. Wondering if I should have bought a 527.

I'll be retired soon and will have time to play with the m77/22H, the suppressor I bought is rated for .22H so maybe I'll thread it and do some crown work and see if it gets better.

RCBS competition seating die or something similar is a must to avoid crushing the neck.

Uncle bought an old Savage in .22H that the guy said was a real tack driver. Only if you hit the tack with the butt. He tried to reline it with a rimfire liner, not enough wall for the chamber. It sits against the wall collecting dust as he figured giving it to me was better than tossing it into the trash. One of these days I may revive it.

Click to expand...

My Ruger was a stock target grey 22H when I bought it. I found out right away that the barrel wasn't that good and the headspace wasn't very tight. That affected brass life and the accuracy wasn't that impressive. That is when I had the Shilen barrel screwed on and chambered for 22KH, and installed a new trigger from Spec Tech. It certainly shoots now. I personally wouldn't recommend threading that factory barrel and playing with a suppressor if you aren't happy to begin with. The 22H is one cartridge that certainly doesn't need suppressed. That Ruger action is just fine. Rebarrel it and be done.

jmorris said:

It held up, I put it back on the old bolt action .22 when we were done, still in use today. Believe it or not but if you want to test scope durability a “springer” air rifle is about as hard on them as anything else.

Click to expand...

And a 10-22 with the steel buffer rod.

jmorris said:

It held up, I put it back on the old bolt action .22 when we were done, still in use today. Believe it or not but if you want to test scope durability a “springer” air rifle is about as hard on them as anything else.

Click to expand...

It's because the recoil is backwards. Regular scopes should not be submitted to that, specific scopes are made exactly for springers, so I was told. I never tried to damage a perfectly functioning $$$ scope just to confirm if it is true!

Frostbite said:

It's because the recoil is backwards. Regular scopes should not be submitted to that, specific scopes are made exactly for springers, so I was told. I never tried to damage a perfectly functioning $$$ scope just to confirm if it is true!

Click to expand...

Yep! It's easy enough to procure air gun scopes. No need to stress test your Leupold.

I have been intrigued by the hornet for a long time, but I already have a 22 magnum I don't really have a use for, and I really don't need another caliber in the inventory.

FL-NC said:

I have been intrigued by the hornet for a long time, but I already have a 22 magnum I don't really have a use for, and I really don't need another caliber in the inventory.

Click to expand...

What the Hornet has over the 22 RFM is a little more power and the ability to reload it.