It's funny because I had no idea that Remington rimfire ammo was crap until I heard it on the internet. I've been using the stuff for at least 25yrs, heavily in the last five. I've said it before and I'll say it again, try everything. I've always had excellent results with GB's and go through a good 2000-3000rds of the stuff a month. Which is saying something because I can save $2/550rds if I buy Federal by the case. Problem is I have a couple guns that won't function with Federal and they're loaded with a very poor game bullet.
I watched a video last year where a shooter leaded the bore of his Ruger 22/45 with Thunderbolts so badly that the rifling was completely covered in it. I hadn't used it in several years so I went to the shop and bought some. Then I burned through 300rds as quickly as I could in my Ciener 1911 conversion (doesn't run with Federal bulk) without a single malfunction or leading the bore.
Here's what my CZ452FS does with GB's. Five consecutive five-shot groups, no sorting, no trickery, averaging 0.49"@50yds. Smallest is 0.30", largest 0.65". Wolf MT only cuts the average to 0.39" but is obviously much more consistent. I've got two dozen rimfires and I don't believe there is a single one that does not function and give at least acceptable accuracy with the stuff.
those golden bullets are definitely working for you. i also am not crazy about federal bulk ammo. i will occasionally buy their automatch, but not when winchester wildcat is available. its my all time fav bulk 22 ammo.
I like both brands. People like what they like. Go over to the Glock forum and start bashing Glocks
Indeed, that is my point!
That's not what I said at all but nice try at fabricating an argument.
I know Jeff, I've heard it all a million times. I've been around the block a time or two.
I would tend to disagree, though I've been on RFC for almost ten years and other forums for twelve. I find that the folks on RFC tend to be vastly more knowledgeable about rimfires than those here, on average. The problem there is the same as the problem here, some folks are WAAAAAY too defensive about cheap stuff. It's bad when you can't speak objectively about inanimate objects without drawers getting bunched up.
Once again I really don't know where you're coming from on this.
Post a link.
Perhaps therein lies the problem???
Because it doesn't say what you want it to???
It's a chronograph report, nothing more. I see no conclusions made by its author. I see it only as data provided for the sake of providing it. If this data is irrelevant to you, then ignore it. Most gunwriters go to a lot of trouble providing this very information in comprehensive writeups. If you have conflicting data, gained from "scientific" means, then provide it. Actually, you have yet to provide any useful data gained from your own testing whatsoever. Just claims of "my Marlin 60 did this once...." anecdotal nonsense. I don't expect any more from you because.......
How convenient. You have a very predictable habit of making claims, statements and accusations but when pressed to provide proof, you decide it is no longer relevant.
